Seòmar agus comataidhean

In terms of strand 2, the taxonomy feels a bit rough and ready at the moment and it is very much restricted to capital rather than looking at resource spend and what that does. The future taxonomy will be the next big addition to the budget process—the next tool that committees such as this one will have—and it is going to have a greater breadth, covering both capital and resource spend, but what kind of depth can it get into? Will it be possible for us to look at individual capital infrastructure projects and say, “Oh, we can see now not just what the climate impacts will be in terms of construction but what that contributes in terms of net zero”? Will there be a clarity at the appropriate level of budget spend so that we can get our heads around the direction of travel of spending and what the choices have been within that?

I appreciate that the work with strand 2 will be taken forward in strand 3 to give much more granularity. You mentioned the climate change plan and the recommendation from the Climate Change Committee that the next climate change plan, which we will develop this year, should set out explicitly the carbon impact of certain policies. Does that give an earlier opportunity to take things that will go into the draft climate change plan, in particular, and assess those through the budget process?

If the plan has to be very clear about what the carbon impacts of policies will be, surely it would be relatively simple to extrapolate from that and say, “If we are spending on this particular policy in a given year, this is what the climate impact will be.” Does that give us a starting point with the climate change plan this year, whereby we can start to build some of that work into the budget, so that we can see a follow-through from the plan right the way through to spend?

You mentioned earlier the importance of increasing the scale of the roll-out of area-based schemes. How important is the national energy agency in helping to deliver that? Is it possible to accelerate the development of the national energy agency? It feels as though we could be waiting some time before it is up and running to full capacity and it can marshal some of the opportunities that are there for energy companies, councils and the private sector to come in and do things at the scale that we need.

Thank you for the evidence this morning—it has been pretty sobering.

I want to ask you collectively about the policy that your organisations have on reserves. I know that the impact on Creative Scotland’s reserves will be quite big this year, but I am thinking of the policy on reserves more widely. Does the budget, and the headwinds that the cultural sector are encountering, mean that there needs to be a rethink of the reserves policy? Are there particular demands on reserves beyond the budget that organisations will face in the future?

Perhaps Iain Munro can start, and then we will go round the table.

That is useful.

Just to refocus on delivery programmes, the second strategic transport projects review has just been launched in Scotland. I would be interested in your views on that. The next stage of that process is the prioritisation of a delivery plan. There are some big ideas in there, such as mass transit schemes in the cities. Are there things in STPR2 that you would question, or is it all in line with the 75 per cent target and the 2040 target? I am not sure who would like to take that.

I will move beyond that to look at wider industrial decarbonisation that may or may not feed into the Acorn project. What progress could the Scottish Government make by working with industry between now and 2030? Which options are most deliverable within that timescale?

Yesterday, I released a report that I commissioned on decarbonisation options for Mossmorran. I think that it is the first report on what a site-specific transition might look like for that plant. What are your thoughts on wider industrial decarbonisation, and what big step changes can we make?

What do you think about the French Government’s approach to banning certain domestic flights within 2.5 hours’ travel where there is a rail alternative? That came out of the French citizens assembly and the Government has now taken it on and is delivering. It is a different context, however.

It is just a brief question on the back of Liam Kerr’s point about diet change. Practically, what should Governments be delivering in that regard? Is it about changing the way in which public canteens and kitchens offer choice? Is it about food labelling? What are the tools? Is it all about market demand, given your comment that people are generally moving towards eating less meat anyway?

Good morning; it is good to see you all again. I want to ask about how Governments make decisions that are in line with net zero and targets and lead to the delivery programmes that are needed on the ground. You will be aware of the work of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Fraser of Allander Institute in producing a report on budget reforms. The report focuses on the practice of how Government makes decisions as well as on a critical net zero test. The three steps that were agreed within that are the introduction of a climate narrative into this year’s budget, a revision to the taxonomy in next year’s budget and the full implementation of a net zero test across Government the year after that.

I want to get your views on that. Is that the right approach, or is something missing? What is your analysis of how Government intends to make decisions going forward?