Seòmar agus comataidhean

As Monica Lennon suggested, the spending proposals in each year’s finance budget are not the only factor, but they are a very major factor in whether the Scottish Government’s intended policy priorities, which are designed to deliver on a carbon budget, will be met. If we set out those policies and then fail to fund them, we can have no confidence at all that we are giving ourselves even a reasonable chance of meeting what is set out in the carbon budget.

The principle is to give Parliament the greatest level of independently informed analysis of what the Government is asking us to approve every year when we pass a finance budget. Will it be able to adequately fund the climate change policies that have been set out? Will it give us a chance of meeting the carbon budget?

That form of words was suggested by parliamentary draftspeople. My understanding and intention, as I expressed it to them, was that the phrase would apply to a body such as the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I understand that that would be captured by the proposed form of words.

Given that Ben Wilson has raised the issue, perhaps I could ask him to confirm one point before I ask Bridget Burns to speak.

Professor Jafry said that we need a clear plan. The energy strategy and just transition plan is currently with the Government and waiting to be published. If the Scottish Government was able to publish the plan before it went to COP29, with it supporting a presumption against new fossil fuel capacity, that would be a symbolic position and an example of soft power, because decisions on such licences are not taken here. That would be within the scope of the Scottish Government’s role at COP29, and it would be an important step in rebuilding and restoring Scotland’s credibility in that area.

That is helpful.

Does Bridget Burns want to add anything?

That is a very important point that was well put.

Thank you very much.

You are anticipating my supplementary question.

Okay—where do I begin? I would happily offer a list of the reasons why I think that Scotland has got it wrong, but I will perhaps save that for the debate this afternoon on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, which is, finally, an acknowledgement that we are years behind where we are supposed to be on reducing domestic emissions.

I was going to start on this theme, but it has been covered to a certain extent, so I will not go into it in much detail. Bridget Burns said that nothing about the transition is easy. To go back to when Scotland first bought credibility, domestically and internationally, at COP15 in 2009, that was done easily—it was done simply by setting targets. Agreeing the destination, without agreeing the steps that were needed to get there, was the easy bit.

Mr Wilson is probably right to say that it is a little too early to ask for honest self-reflection from the Government, because if it were to offer that now, I think that it would just say, “Parliament set too high a target and we didn’t get anything wrong.” Next year’s COP is probably the time when the Government will have to show that it has a new climate plan, after the bill that is currently before Parliament is passed, and try to demonstrate some credibility.

I want to link that to the issue of climate finance more broadly, specifically in relation to Scotland’s track record in financing the energy sector. Scotland has been a fossil fuel producer for a long time, and it hosts not only the companies that continue to extract fossil fuels but the companies that finance that activity. Despite a very clear signal from the United Nations and other agencies that new investment in fossil fuels cannot be justified, that is still happening.

What role and responsibilities can a country such as Scotland, with both the energy and the finance parts of that industry still operating, undertake in a soft-power sense? I am thinking of something a little bit like those early actions of setting targets and showing that we can earn credibility as a non-state party by doing so, or the early work on both the language and money behind the idea of climate justice and loss and damage. What can we do in that space to say that the fossil fuel finance industry is what needs to be challenged and changed if we are to have a global economy that finances climate action and does it justly?

There is a great deal in the picture that you are painting that the committee and the sector would welcome—increased resource, long-term certainty and a review of the remit and operations of Creative Scotland. I think that that is welcome. I hope that I am right in hearing from you that you understand that it will take time for the sector to rebuild trust, given the turbulence and the stop-start nature of funding, particularly very recently. It will take time and the delivery of those commitments for that trust and confidence to build, if the Government does commit to that.

There has been some discussion in our evidence taking about the short-term, immediate step—in the coming financial year—towards that £100 million commitment. One witness said to us, if the figure for the coming financial year

“is £20 million, it will not touch the sides”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 19 September 2024; c 12.]

I appreciate that you will not be in a position to give us a figure right now, but do you hear and recognise the evidence that has been given to the committee that clearly indicates that it will have to be significantly more than that, just to be taken seriously?

Thank you.