On a more joined-up approach, you mentioned data centres, but we could be talking about heat. In fact, there are all sorts of opportunities.

I could go on for hours, convener, but I suspect that I should hand back to you to let us move on to the next question.

Those points are really well made.

I have another point that I want to ask about. There are four actions that the Scottish Government has committed to. We have talked about the UK Government reducing electricity costs, and there is talk of tackling the barriers to decarbonisation faced by energy-intensive industries—there has been discussion on that. However, one of the issues is about developing a resource delivery plan, which will identify a target and enable new clean energy-intensive industries to locate in Scotland. What more would you like to see in the climate change plan in relation to the green industrial strategy?

You have mentioned the supply chain. When we talk to the renewables sector, people always tell us that they need certainty and confidence. What more could be in the climate change plan to incentivise people to invest? We have seen some of the national wealth fund impact. Is there more that could be done through the CCP to give that certainty, perhaps through investors in different key sectors, to get the money going and get those industries—whether it is green hydrogen or CCS—developed in Scotland? Do you have thoughts about how the plan could be more helpful?

It is about that joined-up thinking. Earlier somebody mentioned that we produce lots of electricity, but we are not using it when we produce it, and the constraint cost of is about £1.5 billion at the moment, so—

This debate is crucial, so I thank Craig Hoy for securing it. The issue of flooding is not a distant concern but an immediate and escalating threat to communities across Scotland. A survey carried out in 2018, to which I have been referring for the past few years, estimated that 284,000 properties in Scotland are at risk of flooding, with projections showing the number rising to almost 400,000 by 2080.

However, last month, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency published the “National Flood Risk Assessment 2025” report, which makes it clear that the risks have escalated. The report states:

“Communities from the Borders to the Highlands and Islands have lived with the impact of flooding for decades”,

as colleagues have commented. It also notes that

“as our climate changes, those impacts are accelerating. The National Flood Risk Assessment ... 2025 gives us the clearest picture yet of what lies ahead for Scottish homes and businesses—and why action to improve Scotland’s flood resilience matters.”

The report goes on to state that

“around 400,000 properties—homes, businesses, and vital services—are in areas at medium risk of flooding”,

and notes:

“That’s 1 in 8 properties across Scotland, a sharp rise from”

the 2018 estimate. Those figures are not abstract. We need to find ways to deliver for our communities, because the safety and livelihoods of families, businesses and entire communities depend on the decisions that are made.

The insurance sector is also raising the issue with us, and representatives of the sector came to lobby members before Christmas. However, we have not seen the sort of strategy that is needed to match the urgency of the situation being put in place. Funding is not keeping pace with rising costs and, as projects get delayed, increasing numbers of homes and parts of critical infrastructure are now exposed to flood risk.

What is in the current strategy is not sharp enough—it lacks clear timescales and the implementation plans that communities deserve now. Without defined timescales, there is delay, and, with every delay, the cost rises and communities are impacted.

I do not think that the draft climate change plan prioritised flooding resilience sufficiently.

My point is that the issue needs to be much higher up the agenda. That is crucial in the climate change plan, because, when roads are shut and rail lines are disrupted, communities become isolated. Essential, reliable transport is vital to keep people safe and enable businesses to function.

As colleagues across the chamber have commented, the intensity of climate change is impacting on flooding, and it is going to get worse. That is why we need a comprehensive approach to flood defence. Hard engineering alone will not be enough; we also need investment in nature-based solutions that slow the flow of water before it reaches our towns and villages. That means restoring wetlands, protecting and expanding peatlands and supporting natural flood management projects that work with the landscape rather than against it.

We also need to accelerate the roll-out of sustainable urban drainage systems, both in existing communities and in new developments. Our communities have to be involved in the design of flood investment—from the start of the process, not towards the end—because it matters to everybody. I have followed with huge interest the work that is being done in East Lothian. There is a real risk to people’s homes and businesses, and they need confidence that the Scottish Government will deliver the scale of protection investment that is required to deal with the changing climate that people are now experiencing.

We have known about these challenges for decades. When I was a town planner, literally decades ago, the issue started to be on our agenda for places such as Grangemouth, but we have still not seen the investment that is needed. We can disagree with each other on all sorts of issues, but on this issue we must have political commitment in place across our parties, because not acting is going to risk people’s homes, businesses and livelihoods. Decisions that are made now will determine whether our communities are protected or exposed in the decades ahead. We owe it to our communities to act with urgency and ambition and to involve them in the process, because we need to deliver action across Scotland.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken since the publication of the independent review into Creative Scotland to implement its recommendations. (S6O-05327)

The review recommended that Creative Scotland should reassess its internal structure to ensure that its four statutory roles are effectively delivered. Does the cabinet secretary intend to carry out such reviews on a regular basis, to prevent a repeat of the issues that were identified in the review of Historic Environment Scotland’s internal structure?

SEPA estimates that the cost of flooding in Scotland is £500 million every year. What more can the Scottish Government do to support local authorities to make sure that lessons are learned and that we have the skills and expertise in every community across Scotland, so that the action that our constituents need can be taken?

I will not, because I am hosting an event that is supposed to start in about three minutes, and I would like to dash off after my speech. I apologise for that, Presiding Officer, and acknowledge that, of course, the event will not start until we have finished this debate.

We need to do more to champion this tech. Looking ahead, I note that biogas and upgraded biomethane could play a growing role in transport, particularly for heavy vehicles and agricultural machinery. If we were to produce sustainable aviation fuel at Grangemouth, captured bio CO₂ could support SAF production in Scotland. That would be a big step forward.

As Emma Harper mentioned, AD offers tangible benefits for farmers. At a time when fertiliser prices have been volatile and environmental standards are rightly rising, digestate gives farmers a stable home-grown alternative. In relation to energy security and rural resilience, biomethane can be used for heat, transport, industry and dispatchable power.

As we focus on tackling our climate emissions, we need to focus more on anaerobic digestion. That means that we need to think about separating and collecting different types of waste, so that food waste, for example, can be utilised effectively.

The United Kingdom methane action plan stresses that methane reduction must go hand in hand with profitable farming and strong rural economies, and AD is one of the few technologies that can deliver on all fronts at once. That is why the creation of a champion in the Scottish Government, as Emma Harper’s motion calls for, would provide a really good way forward. The UK Government is a global methane pledge champion. In Scotland, a dedicated biogas champion would help to align agriculture, waste, heat, energy and environmental policies and to tackle the challenges that Maurice Golden raised.

We need to unlock the sector’s full potential. We have the natural resources, the rural expertise and the climate ambition to lead the way on anaerobic digestion and biogas. That is exactly the kind of practical and scalable solution that we should be championing in Scotland.

I apologise to colleagues who will be speaking after me, but I look forward to reading the Official Report after the debate. I thank everyone for taking part in this key debate.

I will not, because I am hosting an event that is supposed to start in about three minutes, and I would like to dash off after my speech. I apologise for that, Presiding Officer, and acknowledge that, of course, the event will not start until we have finished this debate.

We need to do more to champion this tech. Looking ahead, I note that biogas and upgraded biomethane could play a growing role in transport, particularly for heavy vehicles and agricultural machinery. If we were to produce sustainable aviation fuel at Grangemouth, captured bio CO₂ could support SAF production in Scotland. That would be a big step forward.

As Emma Harper mentioned, AD offers tangible benefits for farmers. At a time when fertiliser prices have been volatile and environmental standards are rightly rising, digestate gives farmers a stable home-grown alternative. In relation to energy security and rural resilience, biomethane can be used for heat, transport, industry and dispatchable power.

As we focus on tackling our climate emissions, we need to focus more on anaerobic digestion. That means that we need to think about separating and collecting different types of waste, so that food waste, for example, can be utilised effectively.

The United Kingdom methane action plan stresses that methane reduction must go hand in hand with profitable farming and strong rural economies, and AD is one of the few technologies that can deliver on all fronts at once. That is why the creation of a champion in the Scottish Government, as Emma Harper’s motion calls for, would provide a really good way forward. The UK Government is a global methane pledge champion. In Scotland, a dedicated biogas champion would help to align agriculture, waste, heat, energy and environmental policies and to tackle the challenges that Maurice Golden raised.

We need to unlock the sector’s full potential. We have the natural resources, the rural expertise and the climate ambition to lead the way on anaerobic digestion and biogas. That is exactly the kind of practical and scalable solution that we should be championing in Scotland.

I apologise to colleagues who will be speaking after me, but I look forward to reading the Official Report after the debate. I thank everyone for taking part in this key debate.