Seòmar agus comataidhean

The ETS is in place in order to avoid carbon leakage and offshoring.

I saw the comments that Jim Ratcliffe made yesterday on the UK’s regulatory regime. There must be things in place to encourage the decarbonisation of high-emitting sectors. Surely, that is what the committee scrutinises; certainly, part of the drive for my Government portfolio is ensuring that we will not have the same level of industrial emissions in 20 years’ time.

The ETS has been set up to ensure that, too. Those who disagree with it have every right to do so. However, we are trying to get to net zero, to decarbonise our industry as much as possible, and to halt climate change.

I am sorry—I misread it. It is this financial year.

We are taking up that recommendation as a result of our discussion with the committee. Obviously, we want to work with the Scottish Fiscal Commission as much as possible, because it provides an analysis of what we are doing. I am not sure whether there has already been engagement as we put the climate change plan together. [Interruption.] I am now told that there has been engagement.

Mr Doris has given me the opportunity to point to our budget line on energy efficiency and decarbonisation in the heat in buildings part of the portfolio. That line has £349.1 million, in case the committee does not have that information. We are continuing to invest more than £300 million in heat in buildings programmes. That will achieve the aims of a budget line that is very important for the eradication of child poverty, as it will result in not just decarbonisation but a reduction in fuel poverty. That is a very important consideration. I am keen to hear what the Scottish Fiscal Commission thinks about that, because I do not want to do anything in this space that increases fuel poverty or exacerbates child poverty. There have to be the twin goals of a reduction in emissions and a reduction in poverty. That is where discussion with the Scottish Fiscal Commission will be absolutely critical.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission has not made a representation that it has to increase its capacity at all. That is a question that you might want to put to it.

The argument was made very well during the passage of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 that the costs and benefits of policies and proposals must align with the budget. I pointed to some of the work that the Government is doing to look at the impact of climate change-related policies in two ways. On one hand, we need to ensure that, as much as possible, what we are doing across the Government has carbon and emissions reduction associated with it. That work was part of the pilot that I was talking about, and a lot of that work has been used in this budget. On the other hand, the other side of things is that the policies, legislation and regulations that we bring forward to put emissions reduction into action must not have unintended and unjust transition consequences, particularly for vulnerable groups but generally for the people of Scotland, who should absolutely not become more fuel poor as a result of what we do. If there is a message going through me like a stick of rock it is to eradicate fuel poverty, so I do not want to do anything that will have unintended consequences of the nature that Mr Doris referred to.

There is already a great deal of demand. As I have said, a lot of the schemes are already struggling to meet the demand that is out there.

Individual allocations to the schemes are still to be decided. My budget asks were based not only on their operation to date, but on the increasing demand for all of them. I might not be able to provide you with that level of detail until ministers have agreed all this, but when we do, I will get that information to the committee.

I am committed to having all these—

That was about the just transition fund.

We do have a just transition plan. It is in draft form at the moment. I will be rolling out the plan. We also have a number of associated just transition plans, including the Grangemouth just transition plan, which is well under way. A lot of work is being done in that area. I hope that I, Dr Allan and Ms McAllan have proven that we have many just transition policies that are already under way that will be in that plan. I am confident about it. It is a critical area of work for the Government to be involved in and I echo Mr Stewart’s calls for the UK Government to provide match funding. With that, we could do so much more.

There is other funding that has gone to the Grangemouth complex, such as the funding for skills that has gone to Forth Valley College. None of that has come from the just transition fund—that is a separate line. Half of the funding for the project willow initiative comes from the Scottish Government and the other half comes from the UK Government. We are not taking money from the just transition fund for the support that we are giving to the Grangemouth cluster and the wider community. It is a separate fund. Similarly, the money for the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal has not come from the just transition fund; it has a separate budget line—I am struggling to read the numbers before me, but I see that it is worth £7.5 million. I think that it comes from the economy budget.

We have been able to find money for Grangemouth outwith the just transition fund. I acknowledge that the issue of just transition does not concern only the north-east and Moray, but there are other allocations of money, and decisions can also be made in-year as issues develop. Project willow is due to report—I am getting a briefing on the detail of the project this week from Ernst & Young. There will be work, potentially across the Scottish Government and, indeed, the enterprise agencies, to respond to what is in project willow. The Scottish and UK Governments are working together, and tranches of funding could come from the UK Government. As it stands, the just transition fund is for the north-east and Moray.

Of course it is feasible.