Chamber and committees

:That is helpful. Those are the regulatory authorities, but there might be an issue with the businesses that supply services. To pick up on Murdo Fraser’s comments, there is also an issue with SMEs. We got a briefing from the Association of British Insurers about the costs and benefits of tackling that. How do you communicate with a vast range of organisations to ensure that they are up to speed? There is a reference in our papers to a round table, and the cabinet secretary also mentioned a workforce partnership, a resilience body and a co-ordinating centre. How does information and knowledge get communicated from the centre to the raft of organisations that will have to change how they operate?

Thank you, convener. My question follows on perfectly from the point that the cabinet secretary has just made about the costs. Our briefing says that cyberattacks cost the UK £15 billion every year. I presume that there is also a significant cost for Scotland, so it would be useful if she could put that on the record.

We have spoken briefly about the NHS. To make this all real, can the cabinet secretary give us some examples of the designated competent authorities and the regulatory authorities that will be covered by the legislation in Scotland?

It was good to get clarification that there will not be a reduction in the number of other board members. However, as part of the evidence that we have taken, trade unions got in touch to say that this is a good opportunity to have trade union representatives on the board of Scottish Water. Is that part of your consideration at the moment?

There are three trade unions that represent workers in Scottish Water and, as in many other cases, they have shared concerns. They think that, in line with the Scottish Government’s fair work and fair work first principles, having a worker’s voice involved in the forum that has oversight of Scottish Water would be a big step forward. They give the example of the recent industrial disputes that seem to have gone on forever without resolution and say that having union people on the board would lead to a more constructive and accountable framework. In recent days, they have expressed concerns about Scottish Water being privatised by stealth and the fact that it is now almost indistinguishable from the private sector companies down south.

There is therefore quite a lot of concern and, if we agreed to the approach today, there would be a real opportunity for Unite the Union, Unison Scotland and GMB to get properly involved in the oversight, and it would bring many benefits. What is your thinking on that? The unions are looking for three representatives but another option is to have at least a trade union representative on the board to deliver more accountability and constructive working relationships.

08:45

:No, I was just being nice in handing over. Sorry—

:I have a question about the implementation and purpose of the regulations. Do they link to incentives to deliver joined-up road works and better-quality outcomes? Minor road works can lead to poor standards and to potholes forming not long after they have been done.

Could we ask a question about the joined-up approach being taken and about what outcome the regulations are expected to have, given the range of organisations that often change our road surfaces, which can lead to problems X years down the line?

:In previous evidence, we heard that the issue is not just about new capital investment; there are concerns among Scottish Water workers that there are fewer workers because contracts are being outsourced. To what extent can a longer-term approach be taken? The cabinet secretary is absolutely right—there will be a lot more investment in our water infrastructure to make it resilient, modern and up to date. Would that not be an opportunity to expand staffing, so that the staff get decent terms and conditions and everything is not outsourced to private companies?

:I will ask a couple of questions that follow on from quite a lot of what you have just been talking about. Our committee and the Climate Change Committee welcomed the move to quantify abatement in the draft CCP, and each committee identified gaps and uncertainties in the modelling, so I want to focus on that a bit.

The Climate Change Committee said relatively little about the costs and benefits analyses of the plan. What is your assessment of whether the costs and benefits estimates are sufficiently robust and of whether the draft climate change plan gives a clear enough signal to households, businesses and investors about where the costs, savings and incentives are likely to fall?

We recommended that more of the underlying data and assumptions that were used in the Scottish Government’s modelling of costs and benefits should be published to improve scrutiny. Is further transparency required in that area? If so, what specific information does the Climate Change Committee think would be most valuable to have in the final climate change plan? I do not know which of you would like to lead off on my question.

:Thanks—that is useful. The challenge is going from very detailed information to actually communicating this stuff. You have talked about the invest-to-save model, and I am thinking about homes and buildings and how we can invest to save in our electricity—for example, using solar energy for heat. It is about trying to get those trade-offs. It would be useful to get feedback on that.

My second question is about annual accountability, which you both talked about in your opening remarks and in your answers to the convener’s early questions. We talked about the concept of the dashboard. We will no longer have annual emissions targets, because we have moved to five-yearly carbon budgets. You have recommended having annual sectoral indicator pathways. How do you think that that could be strengthened in the climate change plan? Would progress be lost if it is not in the climate change plan, which would mean that it would all get a bit vague? One of you said that the 18-month delay could mean that it would be 2029 before we start to get clear progress. How would you make a dashboard work so that we would get the information to the public and so that Parliament in its next session could focus on accountability?

:Effectively, you would like there to be a dashboard in the final plan or a commitment to it, as well as a sectoral breakdown, so that we could monitor progress. The progress would not be based on an annual target, per se, but having a dashboard would enable you to monitor the rate of progress and flag challenges. What really stood out was that you thought that it would be broadly okay for the first few years, but that the carbon budgets for the next two programmes are quite concerning.

You both mentioned low-carbon heating quite a few times. I will focus on that, before my colleague Mark Ruskell asks about other topics. Low-carbon heating, such as heat pumps and solar panels can be implemented in the short term and it would be quite straightforward. I presume that heat networks would take a bit more planning. If we were to get a sectoral breakdown, would there be a dashboard with a mix of information on heat pumps and solar panels, as well as a progress report on the development of heat networks? You cannot just say, “Tick the box; we will do that tomorrow.” How would a dashboard break down the different approaches so that you could flag progress or the lack of it, which would require the Scottish Government to prepare a catch-up model? Is that how you would make it work?

I am thinking about the benefits and risks for households, as well as businesses. One of you mentioned supply chains, which is a key issue for the business sector. Supply chains need to build up so that the kit is available and installations can be done.

:Thanks. I was just thinking that it would be straightforward where there are heat networks, but although all of our councils have a heat networks plan, implementing them will be much more of a challenge. I will stop there, convener. I think that my colleague Mark Ruskell is going to go into some of the other—