Seòmar agus comataidhean

That would be welcome. Previous committees have looked at the climate change plan and found it absolutely impossible to work out where the cuts in emissions were coming from. At the time, we were told that, because the TIMES—the integrated MARKAL-EFOM system—model that is used is extremely complicated, there are so many interdependencies that it is impossible to work that out. It would be good to have transparency in future.

This area is recognised as being one of international interest. The Fraser of Allander Institute’s report highlighted a number of international examples. Is your department continuing to make connections with other Governments, including the New Zealand Government, about their approach and how we can learn from one another? In some ways, it feels as though we are groundbreaking, yet we are also learning from Governments that have already broken some turf in this area.

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.

I do not think that that is the case on every journey. Operators on the east coast have been very smart in how they structure their fare prices and in the offerings that they create. I think that more could be done with the sleeper service, particularly on integrated ticketing, which I want to return to.

It is not just France and Ireland that are planning to ditch air travel. A new European sleeper train from Belgium to Berlin will be launched in May, with plans to expand the route to Prague. New direct rail services between Paris, Madrid and Italy are also getting ready to be launched next year, and our German Green Party colleagues have already been promoting a plan at the European Parliament for a fully integrated European sleeper service, which would include our Caley sleeper as a vital part of Europe’s rail network.

Scotland should not be left out of the rail renaissance that is happening across Europe. Brexit has left us isolated and, at times, locked up in a 10-mile tailback outside Dover. We need to be better connected. Of course, most European rail services are run by nationalised rail companies that have the vision and backing of their Governments at their heart. We need a Caley sleeper that is run in the public interest and integrated with the rest of Europe’s national rail services. I welcome that vision and look forward to that day coming soon.

I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the future of the Caledonian sleeper service. I thank Richard Leonard for securing the slot.

Fundamentally, I do not think that we can deliver a people’s ScotRail without a sleeper service that is fully integrated, operated in the national interest and run by a public company. Like many members, I am uncomfortable that a company that is better known for running detention centres and evicting people who are seeking asylum is currently the operator of a national rail service. I am pretty sure that that on its own is not a valid reason to pull Serco out of the running of the franchise, but I would certainly get a better night’s sleep on the train knowing that it was being run by an operator that reinvested its profits back into the national interest.

A nationalised sleeper service should not just be at the heart of the Government’s vision for rail; it should also be at the heart of its vision for aviation, because there is no credible way to meet our climate targets without a reduction in unnecessary air miles. The number of short-haul flights within the UK and to continental Europe can and should be reduced, and the sleeper service should play its full part in that.

We have already seen rail overtake flying as the most popular mode of transport between Edinburgh and London. Rail’s share of that market rose from 35 per cent before Covid to 57 per cent last year. Rail operators have been smart; they have understood the market well on the east coast and have geared their marketing and pricing to what people now need and can afford following Covid.

There is the opportunity to replicate that success with the sleeper service, but better integration is needed, and that must start with better ticketing and fair fares. With single ticket prices in the hundreds, the sleeper is simply not an affordable service at the moment, so we need to do all that we can to ensure that the sleeper—nationalised or not—is a low-cost option that is competitive with aviation.

Since the Eurostar terminal shifted to St Pancras, there has been the opportunity for seamless connections with Europe for rail passengers coming to and from Scotland. For example, a passenger getting on a sleeper at Inverness has only one platform change to get to Paris, Brussels or now Amsterdam by the morning of the next day, but the lack of an integrated and affordable ticket remains the biggest stumbling block. Therefore, we need to think big. The Irish Taoiseach and the French President have already announced that, starting this year, there will be a combined ferry and train ticket to link the two countries. A big discount for young people should also be a feature.

That is a good point. I think that the member will be aware that the local heat and energy efficiency strategies that councils have been tasked to complete will be looking at that mix of installation of embedded renewables in buildings alongside district heating. It is an important thing that councils need to plan for at that level.

Development proposals for all forms of renewables, including solar and wind, will obviously be supported in the planning system. There will also be protection against inappropriate development in national parks and national scenic areas. All developments must minimise the negative impact on natural places, local landscape and wild land through improved mitigation measures. We are seeing an NPF that has been strengthened by a biodiversity policy that ensures that it pays attention to the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy and learns from a lot of the good practice that is out there. Developers must also minimise negative impacts on local communities and consider issues such as public access through the implementation of walking and cycling routes.

Those changes in planning have been recognised, in the words of the renewables industry, as “a remarkable ... step forward”. It is clear that acceptable renewable developments, in the right places, must be accelerated instead of being let to languish in the planning system for years on end. There is simply no time to waste.

NPF4’s success will be measured by what it delivers, not by what it says on paper. The review of the delivery plan after six months will be a critical checkpoint. To turn the vision into reality, we must support everyone who is involved in that delivery, as much in council planning departments as in our local communities. People must feel empowered to shape the spaces around them. We must also ensure that NPF4 facilitates the action that is needed to tackle the climate and biodiversity challenges. Those things do not need to be in conflict.

A number of members have mentioned the resourcing of planning authorities. That is an incredibly important point. Westminster also needs to understand the importance of renewable energy and to ensure that, in its planning systems, it is not approving developments such as new coal mines but is looking progressively at renewable energy sources such as onshore wind, which can make a lasting contribution to the UK’s ambitions to cut climate emissions and deliver energy security.

The Greens welcome this national planning framework. We welcome the scrutiny that Parliament has given it, and we welcome the progress and the action that are to come on the back of it.

Will the member give way?