Chamber and committees

I am not sure. I want to bring us back to another point that has been made about the climate narrative that is associated with carbon reduction. It is important that we have things in place to inform our decisions. The planning system is another area in which people make decisions on what gets built, what materials are used and whatever else. When the public want a new health centre to be built, anything that we put in place cannot slow down that process, which takes a long time as it is. It absolutely exercises the public when they do not have the right facilities. We will not bring many people with us if such facilities get delayed because we had to do an additional review at the Government level.

I am just bluntly putting that point out there, because delivery of the things that people need must be borne in mind in all of this, and that includes the resources that such delivery requires. During the passage of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, I resisted many amendments that were associated with reviews and reports for that reason; it takes away from action. That must always be in the back of our minds, particularly in the context of PSR and delivery, where people see that the things that they need are taking too long.

I do not think that I can give a definitive answer to that question. We have just talked about the cumulative aspect. We put the net zero assessment in place following the pilot, and stage 1 determines whether a policy exceeds the threshold, which we brought down because we thought that it was too high. Could we bring down the threshold any further? That is another question that we will constantly be asking ourselves. Then there is the screening that is associated with all policies.

It is a legitimate question, but I come back to the point about balancing outcomes with the resource that is associated with doing things in the way that you suggest.

The analysis on the roll-out of the £2 bus fare cap will be really interesting, because that policy will have many outcomes associated with it. It is mainly a cost of living policy, but, as it is rolled out throughout the country, it will be really interesting to assess its impact on modal shift—people leaving their cars at home and taking the bus instead—and on emissions. The pilot has taken place, and the policy has now been rolled out in the Strathclyde transport area. It will take time to carry out an analysis of the outcomes, but those outcomes will be able to be assessed over time. From the point of view of net zero assessments, that analysis will be really interesting, and I hope that it will put a smile on my face when it comes to meeting our carbon budgets.

I will bring in Phil Raines at this point.

Providing information post-decision seems more sensible. It is absolutely right to be transparent about how and why we have made decisions. Obviously, we are looking at the report that you will get in March, and we can take away your point about that. However, pre-decision, we do not have time to waste. We all have to make decisions relatively quickly, and, with the greatest respect, we could not take the approach that you have asked about with every decision. We do a lot of consultations on our policies. Forgive me, but I think that scrutiny involves you being able to ask questions about why I made a decision and what I took into account with regard to the net zero assessment. We will take away the question of whether there is more information that we can give you.

However, it would be difficult to do that before I made the decision, and it might slow down Government somewhat, if you see what I mean. It would be difficult for me to manage that, because the assessments are done to give us the right kind of information before we make a decision. If we reached a situation in which Parliament had to agree on the decision or tried to prompt what the decision should be outwith the normal way in which it does that, it would—to go back to what Ariane Burgess alluded to in relation to public sector reform—slow the process down to the point where I would be running to stand still, and we have a carbon budget to meet in five years’ time.

I will bring Phil Raines in, but my instinctive response is that we learn more from analysing policies for which we have some results. However, the net zero assessment is now being rolled out to apply to all policies, so we are not picking and choosing the policies that make us look good.

Phil was instrumental in putting the pilot in place.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to discuss the Government’s spending plans for climate action ahead of the publication of the budget.

The programme for government sets out our ambitions for Scotland and demonstrates a continuing commitment to ensuring that climate and nature remain core priorities across the Government. A clear direction has already been established for how we intend to reach net zero and make Scotland more climate resilient through the climate change plan—“Scotland’s Climate Change Plan: 2026-2040”—the publication of which was one of my final acts in the previous session of Parliament, and the “Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029”.

We now have a firm focus on delivering across every sector of the economy and society, which will require cross-Government action that goes beyond the spending in my portfolio. For example, action to increase our investment in electric vehicle infrastructure will be driven through Mr Flynn’s transport portfolio, while our support for heat pump conversion will be overseen by Mr Gethins, as the minister who is responsible for the energy portfolio.

We will continue to ensure that the Government’s decisions support net zero through environmental impact assessments. Strengthened budget scrutiny, including through our climate change taxonomy and net zero assessments, will continue to improve transparency on public spending and its climate impact. I am pleased to say that the 2026-27 budget taxonomy demonstrated our commitment to the provision of more than £5 billion for climate-positive action across the Government.

Sustained action delivers results. As our latest emissions statistics show, Scotland has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than half since 1990. Although the challenge of achieving net zero by 2045 is significant, it offers a great number of opportunities. Climate action is not only about reducing emissions, important as that clearly is; it is also about supporting long-term prosperity, strengthening energy security, improving public health and creating resilient communities. The transition to net zero offers long-term benefits, including lower energy costs, economic growth and new employment opportunities. Rewards have already flowed from our world-leading energy transition, including the creation of more than 35,000 jobs in Scotland’s low-carbon and renewable energy sector.

The United Kingdom Government needs to take more action in this space, particularly in reducing the cost of electricity, as that will be one of the key drivers for decarbonisation of our systems, our households and our businesses, not only in Scotland but in the whole of the UK.

We must also ensure that we adapt to the impacts of climate change that we are seeing. Adaptation is about protecting people, public services and the economy. As our third national adaptation plan sets out, adaptation is embedded across the Government through investment in resilient infrastructure, flood protection, coastal resilience, nature systems and public services.

Flooding alone is estimated to cost Scotland around £500 million each year. Investing in resilience at an early stage represents far better value for money than repeatedly paying for recovery and repair. Of course, often, we cannot quantify some of the other impacts, especially the trauma that flooding causes for householders and communities. Every £1 that is invested can generate between £2 and £10 in benefits and avoided costs, while flood resilience measures can save many times the up-front cost in avoided damage. That is why we will deliver an extra £15 million for flood resilience and £14 million for coastal adaptation over the course of the parliamentary session.

Given that our climate, biodiversity and nature are all intrinsically linked, protecting and restoring nature is also essential. Our strategic framework for biodiversity sets out our ambitions for nature recovery, and we will continue to develop statutory biodiversity targets under the Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2026.

By prioritising climate and nature together, we can support economic growth, enhance energy security, create new jobs and build a more resilient Scotland for future generations. That is action that we will need to take for many years to come.

I look forward to answering questions.

I will take that, as I convene the LAND group. We had our first meeting just last week, and we agreed the terms of reference. It was a very good first meeting.

It is a multidisciplinary group. It is not a replacement for ARIOB; it is a separate group with stakeholders that will enable holistic and strategic discussions on the overarching approach to land use in Scotland. The group will offer advice on interaction between sectoral policies that relate to land. It will also look at how we can meet our outcomes in the various strategies that we have in Government, as well as providing economic stability, sustainability and growth.

The membership reflects a range of stakeholders from across land policies and sectors. I have a list here, although I think that I have written to the committee—

I would like to add to that—

Please give me suggestions.