Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary is prepared to provide an update, but we must make sure that we get the change that we need. We in Labour have the ambition, with a deliverable plan, to establish GB energy, which will be headquartered in Scotland and backed up by £28 billion a year by the mid-term of a UK Labour Government. That will reduce people’s bills and create the green jobs that we so urgently need.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that there is an urgent need to act now. Does she accept that the Scottish Government will need to redouble its efforts to tackle the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis by investing to support small businesses across Scotland, and give people in our communities the opportunity to get the low-carbon jobs and training that we need? Does she accept that the Scottish Government needs to ramp up the retrofitting of people’s homes across the country, given that 38 per cent of our households now live in fuel poverty, and that it should not let people down and fail to deliver by underspending by £133 million, as happened last year?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The Labour commitment is for £28 billion by the mid-term of a Labour Government, should we get elected.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that yesterday’s announcement by the Prime Minister is a complete abdication of leadership and it sends the wrong message to world leaders, businesses and our constituents.

However, even before this retrograde step by the Tories, the Scottish Government was failing to meet its climate targets for homes and buildings, transport and land, and the output from the green finance task force has now been delayed from this autumn to next year. Will the Scottish Government give certainty to business? Will it accelerate its green industrial strategy and not leave businesses waiting for months so that we get the certainty in crucial supply chains and investment that will deliver a just transition for workers and businesses across Scotland?

In opening the debate, Rhoda Grant referred to the revealing social research report, “Mobilising private investment in natural capital”, which was recently published by the Scottish Government. It confirms everything that she has said about private finance, with its focus on investment in carbon markets and peatland restoration and potentially links in forestry, too. The theory is that, if we plant more trees and restore our peatlands, they will generate large amounts of carbon credits to sell on the open market, paying for green investment and providing a good profit margin.

However, the report makes it clear that the carbon price is nowhere near enough for private investors and that that position is unlikely to change any time soon. The report suggests that public finance should underwrite the risk of the carbon price continuing to fall short, with a minimum of 30 years of public underwriting probably needed but a 50-year commitment perhaps being better. That is a massive commitment.

The report recommends that the grants currently offered to restore peatland be stopped in order to underwrite the future costs of private investment. However, that would result in an increase in the amount of money that would need to be spent from the Scottish Government’s budget. There would have to be, say, a £25 million contingent liability or budget requirement for cash guarantees of well over £1 billion over the suggested 50-year period. There is no free lunch here.

The social research report helpfully goes on to provide instructions on how we could release private finance with a contracts for difference approach. Let us not go there—as we have seen in the past week, that could fail spectacularly. We get dependent on private finance, and then it simply stops delivering until more taxpayer-funded guarantees are offered. What has happened is a timely warning to the Scottish Government.

Let us look at the alternatives for tackling our nature and biodiversity challenges. Rhoda Grant talked about the regulatory changes that we could make—I will add to those ideas. What about refocusing the work of the devolved Crown Estate Scotland? If it had a much clearer climate change challenge focus, it would benefit our communities now, through land purchases, future land holdings and the use of the proceeds from the sales of sea bed leases. Likewise, what more could Forestry and Land Scotland do? Unlike the SNP and Green Government, we would explore all the options for action, not just private green finance.

I want to finish on what needs to happen now. Liam McArthur made the point that we should not underspend our existing budget and that we should make that money work for our communities now. How will the Scottish Government support our rural communities now—our crofters, our farmers and our landowners—in playing a part in the just transition that we urgently need to create jobs and address our climate and biodiversity crisis? Critically, how will it spend the money that is budgeted to create benefits and tackle our climate emergency? On today of all days, the Scottish Government needs not just to talk a good game, but to deliver in practice for all our communities.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member refer to the regulatory points that were made by Rhoda Grant, and also to my comments about Crown Estate Scotland? There are changes that could be made as well as spending the budget.

The Scottish Government has consistently failed to live up to our climate targets, which is bad news for the 38 per cent of households living in fuel poverty whose energy bills have increased. What does the First Minister say to the millions of people across the world, and here in Edinburgh, who will be campaigning on the streets this weekend to demand a just transition, given that his Government has flip-flopped on oil and gas—[Interruption.]

What does he say, given that the Government has failed to deliver the retrofitting of the homes of people who are living in fuel poverty?