Will the member give way?

I am sorry—I tried to catch Mr Swinney just before he came to his last point.

The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee was very keen to find out the carbon cost of all the decisions that we are making. Is the Deputy First Minister prepared to reiterate the agreement that the Government will work to, in getting to net zero, regarding the actual cost of the carbon in terms of the money that we are spending.

I am pleased to give an overview of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s scrutiny of the 2023-24 budget. The main backdrop to our work has been the committee’s inquiry into the role of local government and its cross-sectoral partners in financing and delivering a net zero Scotland. That was the inquiry’s title, which is almost as long as the inquiry was. It started in November 2021 and touched on almost every aspect of net zero delivery at local level. It provided a really useful primer for our budget scrutiny this year.

The inquiry report came out on Monday, and I urge all members to have a read of it—or, at least, its executive summary, which is just two pages long and gets straight to the point. In it, we say:

“Scotland will not meet its ambitious target of being net zero by 2045 without a more empowered local government sector, with better access to the skills and capital it will need to play a full role in this energy revolution”.

To be clear, that means that councils will need additional core resource to help to meet the costs of transition.

There will be a chance to debate that report, so I will move on from it to touch on three issues that we highlighted in our pre-budget scrutiny. The first is public transport. A fair fares review is being undertaken, covering pricing for all main modes of public transport. Our budget letter expressed concerns that the review had a low profile and that its timetabling and outcomes were unclear.

We asked for more clarity on all that and on what resources the Scottish Government anticipated setting aside at the end of the review to achieve the significant modal shift away from car use that we all want. The Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport’s response was perhaps clearer on the first point than on the second. Last week, we sought to tease out the discussion further in a public evidence session with the cabinet secretary, and it was helpful to have clarification that the pilot scheme to be run under the review to remove peak fares on trains will apply only to some services and not nationally.

The cabinet secretary reminded us that buses—not trains—are by far the most widely used form of public transport, but the bus sector has been struggling, especially since the Covid pandemic. The committee acknowledges the resource that the Scottish Government has put behind the sector to help it to see out these difficult times. However, we want to be assured that there are policies in place to ensure that the sector not only survives but thrives in the longer term, not least because we will need a strong bus sector to help us to decarbonise transport. Whether we are there yet is not clear. For instance, councils are clearly still some way from making use of their new power to run local bus services. I am sure that the committee will want to keep an eye on that over the rest of the parliamentary session.

Besides the local government inquiry, the other main evidential source for our pre-budget scrutiny was the committee’s snapshot inquiry in late spring last year on energy price rises. At the time, the outlook looked very bleak indeed, with truly frightening forecasts being made of the bills that householders would have to pay by the end of the year. If matters seem just a little less bleak now, I hope that that is due in part to the call that the committee and others made last year for a clear, decisive and confidence-restoring intervention by Government—principally by the UK Government, although the Scottish Government has had an important role to play, too.

Home insulation is an important and largely devolved area. In our pre-budget correspondence, we set out our disappointment at the apparent lack of urgency in escalating retrofitting and insulation programmes in response to the fuel crisis. The underlying issue is the overall heat in buildings strategy and how to pay for it, which is another issue that our local government inquiry touched on. I suggest that the Parliament will need to return to the issue in greater depth during this parliamentary session.

Finally, and very briefly, I draw the Parliament’s attention to the committee’s work in seeking to commit the Scottish Government to greater transparency on the carbon footprint of the national budget, so that we, as parliamentarians, can make a more informed decision at this time each year. There is no doubt that this is tricky and technical work, but, to paraphrase John F Kennedy when he announced the Apollo missions, we do this not because it is easy but because it is hard—or, rather, we ask the Scottish Government to do it. To its credit, it has undertaken to do so, albeit rather guardedly. I give an undertaking on behalf of the committee to hold the Government to that commitment over the course of this parliamentary session and to ensure that progress is made in that really important area.

Does the cabinet secretary agree and what will she do about it?

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests as a wild salmon fisher.

In 2018, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee published its salmon farming report, which had 65 recommendations. It is clear that the industry is not improving. Fish farm mortalities increased to a high of 29,000 tonnes last year. If we were to put them all in lorries, we would have a nose-to-tail queue of rotting fish from here to Edinburgh airport and beyond. Mortalities are unacceptably high—

Might it therefore be more important to have the ability to offset that across the whole of the United Kingdom rather than just in Scottish waters, or is that not the case?

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the third meeting in 2023 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.?I am sorry for the slight delay—there were problems with transport this morning.

Agenda item 1 is to decide whether to take items 3 and 4 in private. Under item 3, the committee will consider the evidence that we will hear today on the legislative consent memorandum on the Energy Bill. Under item 4, the committee will consider its work programme. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum on the Energy Bill. I refer members to the papers for the item.

The Energy Bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords on 6 July 2022, aims to strengthen the resilience of the United Kingdom’s energy systems. A legislative consent memorandum was lodged by the Scottish Government on 28 September. It recommends that Parliament consents only to some clauses that make provisions in the devolved areas and that it withholds consent for others.

Today, we will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, Michael Matheson, and discuss in more detail the Scottish Government’s position on the bill. I welcome you to the committee, cabinet secretary—you have been here two weeks running. I also welcome from the Scottish Government Ragne Low, deputy director, onshore electricity policy and strategic co-ordination, and Dawn Sungu, strategic co-ordination team leader.

We have about an hour for the item, but there is some flexibility. Cabinet secretary, I think that you want to make a brief opening statement. I am happy for you to go ahead with that.

You could consult them to see whether that would work.

Your point about the fact that you got the bill the day before it was introduced is interesting to me, cabinet secretary. It would help me to understand, and it might help the committee, if you could share with us the letter of 9 August that you sent to the UK Government. I cannot see it online. Perhaps I have missed it, but perhaps you could send it to us so that we have an idea of the substantive questions that you raised at that stage that have not been answered.

I thank you and your officials for your time and for coming to the committee.

That concludes the public part of our meeting, so we will move into private session.