Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that welcome update. Organisations across the energy, manufacturing and housing sectors are expected to deliver the clean heat ambitions that are set out in the draft climate change plan, but many are saying that they cannot plan properly for the scale of the challenge, especially now that the heat in buildings bill has been kicked down the road until after the election.

I recognise the wider engagement that the cabinet secretary has carried out, and I welcome her offer today. What can she say to stakeholders who think that there is a lack of certainty and who want that effective engagement to continue?

To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in discussing Scotland’s draft climate change plan 2026 to 2040 with stakeholders and MSPs. (S6O-05186)

I suppose that funding is key. I will hand back to the convener.

I will build on Mark Ruskell’s questions. Will you give further examples of the more significant impacts of climate change that we expect to see in Scotland over the next 10, 20 and 50 years, particularly in the context of infrastructure and infrastructure planning?

That is really helpful, and I am thinking about some of the skills challenges around that. Are there international examples of climate adaptation targets that the committee could look at?

I wanted to ask questions about the different impacts at the different levels of temperature increases, but Mark Ruskell has covered that.

On the modelling, the evidence and the climate science, you have given a fairly favourable answer in relation to some of the work that is taking place across the UK, including in Scotland. That is reassuring on the one hand. However, on the other hand, anyone who follows the news will see examples of local authorities no longer having flood risk committees. Clearly, at a policy level, there is a push for more development to happen, particularly for house building, because we know that we need sufficient homes for everyone in the country.

How can we ensure that decisions remain robust, evidence based and are transparent, while meeting community needs and delivering the right development in the right places? If we are going to build in an area where there is a higher risk of flooding, for example, proper mitigation must be built into that.

I do not want you to provide a particular example or authority, but people talk about such issues, because they see these events happen and they worry about how they will insure their home or their business in future. On a technical level, how can we ensure that front-line decision makers have access to the best possible data?

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. We know that there is a risk of increased flooding, wildfires and droughts because of climate change, and you have described the way in which the weather is changing. Through national planning framework 4, the current and future impacts of climate change must be taken into account in local development plans, so that is a job for our planning authorities.

In your earlier response to Mark Ruskell, you described the need for a place-based approach. Which areas are least prepared? That might be certain sectors or geographical parts of Scotland. We also know that we need to review agricultural practices and infrastructure planning. Are there any comments that you want to make on that?

Thank you—that was helpful.

I have a question on enforcement. Another issue that has been raised is whether SEPA currently has enough resources and expertise to deal with complaints and cases that come to it at the moment, because a lot of its work is intelligence led. If the bill was passed, would it raise any issues about enforcement for SEPA or any other body?

As there are no more comments on that issue, I will move on to a final point. The notion of a deterrent has come up a couple of times. The witnesses have recognised that, when policy makers talk about ecocide, they are talking about the most severe instances—events that might happen only extremely rarely. In the bill, we talk about the likelihood of a sentence of between 10 and 20 years. Do you want to say anything about the sufficiency of the current deterrents?

Another issue that has been raised is that of how we can better inform and educate the public, given that science and knowledge of environmental harm issues change all the time. Could anything be done to raise awareness of the legal framework that we currently have in Scotland? How could we create more of a deterrent effect?

Thank you, convener. Good morning.

I was interested in the analysis that there is nothing lacking in the existing legislation with regard to being able to prosecute for an ecocide-level crime. We have heard from other witnesses who take the view that it could be argued that we are seeing some policy divergence between the situation that is emerging in the European Union in relation to how the environmental crime directive has been adopted by member states and the situation in Scotland.

I want to get some clarity on that. Is Scotland keeping pace with the European Union, or is there anything that could or should be done to make sure that everything is in alignment?