 That concludes the debate on trade Australia in New Zealand Bill, UK legislation. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 8209. In the name of Edward Mountain on behalf of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee on the role of local government and its cross-sectoral partners in financing and delivering a Net Zero Scotland. I'd be grateful if those members who wished to speak in the debate were to press their request to speak buttons. I call on Edward Mountain to speak to and move the motion. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open this debate on the committee's inquiry. I want to thank the many people who contributed to it, especially the councils and their local partners from business and the voluntary sector, who hosted the committee on its four visits to Stirling, Dundee, Aberdeen and Ortony. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their marathon efforts in this inquiry, which lasted over a year. Not only did the committee take a lot of evidence, it covered a lot of bases. Everything from the intricacies of a multi-million pound Green finance deals to whether tree preservation orders are fit and worth fit for purpose. It was truly ychydig ar y clyw ymyrch diwrnod yn buned i'r drwng i'r ffordd virusau iawn. Byddwn ni'n debyg y clywed am ein cyf gerfnydd yn spynnyddiaeth, mae'r gweithio ar y ddechrau i gael gennymau a beth mae'r gweithio. Mae'r gweithio yn fy lle iddy, rwy'n credu cael ei gynhyrch Cymru ar y tu, a wedi'i gael a'u ei gael'r ddau, sy'n ddillun yn ddiefloed i gael'r cymryd, ac yw gyffredinol. Bei ddweud y pethauu feddynol ar y ddathau I hope that we succeeded. I think that it is a truly excellent report with a small number of clear general messages interspersed with some more granular recommendations. I know too that it's been welcomed by local government who I expect will be keen to hear what the cabinet secretary says in response to us today. Now on that note it is perhaps a little disappointing that the Scottish Government was not able to reply to our report before today's debate. If it had done so we might have been able to push the discussion on a little further today, but I do look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say and his contribution. The committee embarked on this report recognising the importance of local government as a layer of democracy closest to and most rooted in our communities and the heft that this gives when it comes to preparing for net zero. For instance, in taking place-based planning decisions that are truly reflective of local needs. Another strength of councils is their unique convening power, the power to get different interests around a table and to be a catalyst for positive change in climate change and indeed in all other areas. On that note it is important to stress that our report is much about those partnerships as it is about local government itself. The committee agreed our report unanimously in a spirit of consensus and that is important and I hope that this constructive spirit can be sustained in today's debate with a pragmatic focus on the question where do we go from here? I posed this against the backdrop of our headline finding and that was that we are unlikely to make Scotland net zero by 2045 unless we have more empowered local government sectors. A sector with better access to the skills and capital it will need to play a full role in this energy revolution. A sector with clearer understanding on the specific role the Scottish Government wants it to play in some of the key delivery areas. However, this is not a council of woe. Good progress has indeed been made in many areas. The committee was inspired by the work that many councils are carrying out with their local partners in the business and voluntary sectors in areas such as EV charging, reuse and recycling and renewable energies. There are case studies in the report. Overall, councils feel underpowered and are struggling to deal with the pace of change required by the net zero transition. To paraphrase the evidence of one specific council leader, it is hard to work to think strategically about your carbon footprint when you are wondering how you are going to fill potholes and keep schools open. It is a real problem. That is not simply the debate that we are all used to having about council funding. It is hugely important. In the report, we call on the Scottish Government to provide additional support to councils in future budget cycles to help them to contribute to the national net zero targets. However, there is also knowledge and a skills gap as the councils themselves recognise. The net zero transition means unprecedented and often highly technical demands are being made on local government resources and skillsets. Where do we go from here? I will set the scene, I believe, by mentioning four key recommendations, knowing that others in the committee may want to expand on those or other ideas that they have in their contributions this afternoon. Firstly, the Scottish Government needs to provide a comprehensive roadmap for delivery of net zero in key areas, one that gives councils more certainty than they have right now about the roles that they are going to have to play and the leadership that they are going to have to provide. That applies in several areas, but I will single out heat in buildings as one area where progress most needs to be made yet councils are at least sure of their role and at least certain that they have the right tools and resources for that role, whatever it turns out to be. Secondly, and complementary to that first recommendation, for the Government to create a local government-facing climate intelligent unit to provide help to councils in areas where in-depth specialist knowledge is lacking. One of those areas where this assistance is most needed is in securing help with green finance deals from institutional investors. Just about everyone agrees with this and the fact that it's going to be necessary if we are to have any hope of meeting the 2045 target, but this is specialised and very high-valued work. The rewards are potentially great, but the level of financial risk is equally high. We also want to see the Scottish National Investment Bank more active at the interface between local government and private finance. Thirdly, we call for a view of the Scottish Government challenge funding streams for net zero related projects. We want to see larger, fewer and more flexible funds to avoid the needless bureaucracy and perverse incentives that we heard can bedevil the current system. Fourthly, we call on the Scottish Government to address the churn and delay in the planning system, which has a chilling effect on the investment in all areas, including renewables. We also need a strategy to address long-term decline in the number of people employed in council planning departments, but there are some areas where councils could do more to help themselves. A council commission report last September found inconsistency in the level and depth of strategic planning for net zero by councils. It also found that councils were not generally thinking enough about mitigating measures and addressing residual carbon. That was largely corroborated on our inquiry. We think that many councils need to do more to show their working and demonstrate how they propose to reach their targets. Councils will find that work easier if they can tap into the enthusiasm of their own residents. That was underlined by the evidence from the Freiburg council in Germany, a global leader in municipal level net zero planning. The witness was very clear that the city's success was largely due to the engaged and the politically literate local population, who constantly kept the council on their toes. To put it differently, net zero should not be a centralised project, but it should be something that people and groups can help to shape, lead and deliver on. That has been well understood by Patrick Gettys, the father of modern town planning, much of whose work was done not far from this building. Long before the modern environment movement was born, he understood intuitively that the best and most sustainable solutions are usually low-impact ones that are decided locally and not imposed from far away. Think globally, act locally is a mantra of the modern environmental movement, but it was a message at the core of his velocity and it is at the core of this report. Presiding Officer, I move the motion in my name and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate. Thank you and I now call on Michael Matheson up to nine minutes, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by taking this opportunity to thank the committee for their time and effort in undertaking their inquiry and into producing this very detailed report. I also want to put on record my thanks to those who, organisations and individuals who presented, written and oral evidence to the committee over the course of the inquiry. The report itself, as the convener rightly says, is wide-ranging and I believe that speaks to the very vast complexities and challenges in delivering net zero. It is also unquestionably timely. Our national climate change targets as passed almost unanimously by this Parliament are our collective responsibility. Both national and local government have vital roles to play and have a shared responsibility in leadership and delivery on them. That shared role is evident across the range of climate change policies that have been highlighted in this particular report. Despite positive progress today, I fully accept that we need to do more, not least in light of the recent analysis on Scotland's progress from the Committee on Climate Change. For that reason, we welcome the inquiry and the report. The recommendations articulated make, I believe, what are much for us to agree upon in moving forward. Key to that will be exploring scope for greater partnership between all levels of government, not least in terms of how we can use our funding together more powerfully. An example of where we are looking to pull our efforts is the proposal for a climate intelligence service, which was also one of the key recommendations from the inquiry. That service would provide all 32 local authorities with the data-informed evidence, insights and intelligence that they need for continuous improvement of their climate change plans. It would also help with the development of the skills and knowledge to equip local authorities to take more climate-informed decisions. I am pleased to inform the chamber that we are currently in advanced discussions with COSLA in setting up the service, and I very much hope that the service will be in place soon. I also agree with the committee about the vital role for communities in our just transition to net zero, and I accept the need to promote models of community engagement and to take a place-based approach to that. That is already happening through participatory budgeting, where local communities decide democratically where funding should be invested. For example, Dundee City Council has launched a £750,000 fund to support climate action, with local people determining which projects to fund. In the north-east, as part of our just transition fund, we have allocated at least £1 million funding every year over the life of the fund to support participatory budgeting projects aimed at addressing a just transition to net zero. The report rightly focuses on how local action can be co-ordinated and galvanised to support our shared net zero agenda, and what Scottish and local government can do to support that. Climate action pubs have been at the heart of our approach on that. I am happy to give way to Fiona Hyslop. I was listening carefully to what the cabinet secretary was saying, and he described the place-based approach as participatory budgeting on a localised geographic area. However, the report recommends that place-based is not just about the pursuit of public funding, it is about co-ordination of all partners in a place-based approach. I very much agree with that. One of the actions that we have been taking forward, as I mentioned, is through climate action hubs, which is about helping to lever in public and private finance, but also helping to co-ordinate and bring together communities in order to help to direct support and assistance within their local area. In two days, we have supported two pathfinder hubs to do exactly that. Both hubs are community-led organisations, which were launched back in September 2021, one covering Aberdeen in Aberdeenshire and the second covering Highland, Orkney and Shetland. The hubs have provided that strategic approach to enabling community-led climate action. They have focused on building awareness of the climate emergency and community capacity through training and events. They have been able to widen participation with an impressive 40 per cent of the groups engaging in the Highlands being new to climate action. The hubs have directly supported community organisations in developing projects, including on community energy retrofitting, reducing flooding risk and green skills, while helping to secure funding from public and private investments. The hubs have also offered an opportunity to build on existing support and ensure co-ordinated action. I have been encouraged by the positive feedback from a number of local authority colleagues who are looking to support the programme. I want to build on the progress and the interest that local authorities have stated to date in building on that. That is why I am delighted to announce that we will now expand the programme to provide a national network of hubs. The Scottish Government will commit £4.3 million in the 2023-24 budget to support the expansion, and we will anticipate in the region of 20 hubs being developed based on conversations with communities to date. A national network will drive a place-based approach, putting communities very much at the heart of the transition to net zero. The inquiry also specifically highlighted the need to promote community engagement on local heat and energy efficiency strategies. I appreciate what he is saying about community engagement. That is a vital subject that we can all agree on. The report clearly states, which resonates with me. I asked the First Minister a question about that last year or sometime. The fact that the Scottish Government needs to give clear guidance to local authorities. There is a very important sentence in the executive summary of the report, in the report's conclusions, in fact, about the importance of councils receiving additional resources in the run-up to 2045. Otherwise, the net zero objective will not be attainable. Would the cabinet secretary comment, please, on those two principal aspects of the report, the need for clear guidance from the Scottish Government and the need for additional resources? The first of the points in terms of guidance, yes, but that guidance needs to be developed in partnership with local government, not top down from the Government that was the impression that the member gave. That is very much the approach that we want to take. Of course, the intelligence unit is one of the routes in which we can actually help to achieve that type of intelligence and guidance that is needed for local authority colleagues. Of course, with additional funding, I would like to be able to give local government more funding to support them in this area of work, but we work within a limited budget. We have to recognise that if we are to put more money into local government, then it has to come from somewhere else within a fixed budget settlement. However, where we can, for example, through the community hubs that I mentioned, we are putting in additional investment in order to help to support the expansion of community-based approaches. I was mentioning local heat and energy efficiency strategies. Those are strategies again, which are at the heart of what I believe is a place-based approach, which are locally led and also tailored to approach our need to meet our heat transition. The strategies are aimed at setting out the long-term plan for decarbonising heat in buildings and improving energy efficiency across the entire local authority area. They will support local planning, co-ordination and delivery of heat transition across communities, helping to target investment where it can make its greatest impact. We also have to continue to work closely with local government through our recently established heat network support unit, which is designed to address what is a key issue that some of our local authority colleagues have in developing what our local heat networks are. That is being able to carry out some of the pre-capital stage development work, which is absolutely critical to supporting them in taking this work forward. In responding to a couple of the points that I have made in the course of my opening comments, members can be assured of my firm commitment that we build on the existing partnership. We have the local government to support the development of what is a new deal to achieve better outcomes for people and communities, especially on national priorities such as climate change. I very much look forward to hearing and engaging with the debate this afternoon and to making sure that we deliver on our shared objective of creating a new deal for climate change with local government. I thank the clerks for the committee and my fellow committee members for what I agree with the convener on a very good report. It is also a considerable piece of work. We took all of 12 months over it, we had written evidence from 63 stakeholders and went on for council visits. What we heard was that local government and its cross-sectoral partners will play a fundamental role in Scotland's transition to net zero. Indeed, they already are. For example, on our visits, we saw the Aberdeen hydrogen hub, a partnership between Aberdeen council and BP. We saw Aberdeen community energy in which residents of a local housing development pioneered an urban hydro power scheme, and I declare my interest as a shareholder. Dundee councils' partnering was business to provide EV charging points, sustainably powered by solar panels and batteries. Orkney councils' fabric first approach in affordable new-build housing. Just yesterday, Jackie Dunbar and I visited the Ness energy from waste plant, funded and progressed innovatively by Aberdeen, The Shire and Murray councils. However, this innovation on further development requires the Scottish Government to step up, to which end the committee made various recommendations. Perhaps the key overarching one is offering strategic plans and clarity of direction of travel that councils have been crying out for. Indeed, Aberdeen Shire council told us in its response that a major barrier is understanding what various paths to net zero would look like in practice. That is why the committee was absolutely right to call, a call echoed today in a submission by COSLA, on the Scottish Government to produce a comprehensive and detailed roadmap for delivery of net zero. One that gives councils certainty about their roles and the additional resources and powers that are required to deliver what the Government asks them to. One that allows them to assess the cost and operational implications of options and assess what ultimately represents the most sustainable, optimal strategy or course of action. With that, councils will then be able to assess the expertise and experience that are required to carry out strategic planning and data gathering and source the leadership that is needed to promote and embed best practice, to mainstream net zero planning into council decision making that the committee also recommended. That strategic planning is not easy. Stirling council said that we need help with strategic planning so that we can understand our priorities. Then we need help to develop the resource and skills to be able to deliver programmes. That roadmap would allow strategic hires and planning but also merits the Scottish Government carrying out another committee recommendation, the creation of a local government-facing climate intelligence unit to provide specialist help where a local authority might not retain it or be able to afford it itself. In which regard, of course, I am very pleased to hear the cabinet secretary's remarks on this and that discussions are advanced with COSLA. That roadmap would have positive impacts upon skills because with that clarity on the work available and the timescales involved, businesses will have the confidence to invest in the new skills and training required to meet Scotland's targets. Presumably, the colleges will know which courses to scale and be better able to work with business to put on apprenticeships or assist in a transition. Of course, all of that needs to be financed and a much more informed and strategic approach to financing needs to be taken. For example, the Scottish Government's heat and building strategy was said to cost £33 billion to deliver, but when I asked the Minister Patrick Harvie what that figure is about 18 months later, adjusted for things like inflation, he is unable to tell me and he will not have a revised estimate until after the planned heat and buildings bill consultation, which is ridiculous given the tight timescales that we are working to. It is trite that, although the full extent of that £33 billion cannot come from public funds, an element does need to come from the Scottish Government. WWF Scotland suggests that capital investment by the Scottish Government would need to increase between £2 billion and £3 billion per year from 2025 to 2030, which is worrying, as we know that this Government promised £1.8 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament, yet by January this year had only spent £155 million, less than 10 per cent of what was promised. The committee also asked that the Scottish Government be smarter with funding, so COSLA's Gail MacGregor told us to empower local government. COSLA's need not just increased funding but also larger, fewer and more flexible funding streams, in which regard it is notable that the UK Energy Research Centre found that a £1 million investment in each of the 32 local authorities in Scotland to provide technical assistance for energy efficiency and renewable energy investments could produce investment finance on affordable terms of around £1.2 billion. The Scottish Government needs to get better at leveraging private finance. Indeed, the University of Strathclyde told us that there is a reluctance to engage private funding bodies on leveraging the appropriate scale of private sector finance to supplement available public funds, which, worryingly, looked set to continue with the Scottish National Investment Bank saying all the right things about working with local councils to support the transition to net zero, yet telling the committee that the bank has been established to invest on commercial terms, and it is unlikely to be suitable for the needs and requirements of local authorities funding. That is why the comments of the likes of the ABI are so interesting, as they told us that the insurance and pension sector want to invest in net zero initiatives and have the capital to do so, but they need consistency in how those opportunities are structured. A long-term business case, for example, in short, the very road map and proper expert resourcing that gives investors confidence that the committee called for as its key recommendation and that I highlighted at the start of my remarks. The committee found that there is an awful lot of good work going on at local authority level, despite serious challenges that we will no doubt hear about as the debate develops. Through extensive evidence-taking, the committee has set out some really practical solutions that the Scottish Government could take now to help local authorities, to help communities to deliver on our net zero ambitions. That is why it is disappointing that there has been a failure to respond to the report, despite the urgency of the subject matter, despite the report being laid on 23 January and despite all the representations that have been made to us all since then. Presiding Officer, the committee has done its job looking at the role of local government and its cross-sectoral partners in financing and delivering a net zero Scotland. I hope that, in response to this report, we will see that the Scottish Government will do the same. Thank you, Mr Kerr. I now call on Colin Smyth around seven minutes please, Mr Smyth. Thank you Presiding Officer and thank you to the members of the net zero energy and transport committee for carrying out this inquiry. The many organisations and individuals who gave evidence and the committee collapsed on researchers for their work distilling that evidence into the committee's excellent report, which makes an important contribution to the debate on how we get Scotland on track to meet our climate commitments. As the report stresses, our local authorities are crucial to that journey to net zero. As the biggest employer and service provider in Scotland as a major owner of land and buildings, councils will have to lead by example in cutting their own carbon footprint. Many of the services that our councils provide from transport to housing, from recycling to care of our open spaces will also be key in supporting communities to play their part in tackling the climate and nature crisis. However, our councils are more than the sum of the services that they provide. They are who we look to for leadership in their communities to build the local partnerships that will help enable us all households and businesses to cut our carbon emissions and meet our common goal of a transition to net zero and, crucially, make sure that that is a just transition. However, they can only do that if we properly empower and properly resource our councils. Presiding Officer, we are failing to do that. In budget after budget, the SNP and Greens have hauled out local government, stripping £6 billion from council budgets in the past decade. As the STEC said in its evidence to the committee, the most recent Scottish budget has further entrenched cuts to local government. That needs to be reversed. The net zero committee were clear in their report. Our councils need additional financial support in their core funding and a more strategic approach to dedicated net zero funding, ending the fragmented short-term time-consuming bidding wars that we see from challenge funding. Although the Government has not yet bothered to respond to the committee's report and response, COSLA has made the point that the local government does not have the core flexible resources that it needs to develop local net zero programmes and climate resilience. We need to urgently simplify funding of national programmes so that there are fewer challenge funds and more larger, multi-annual funds. I will get extra time for putting his card in, is that okay? There is some time in hand, Mrs Smith. Do not worry, Mr Kerr. Are we there? We will all do that at some point. I have just done it. Does the member agree with the report, which says that the clear message of the inquiry is that no amount of additional government funding is realistically likely to bridge the gap between the current reality and our national net zero ambitions? Then it calls for things to be done to access private investment. Does he in short agree with what Liam Kerr said earlier in his speech about the need for a clear route map that unlocks private investment? The point was well worth waiting for. I have to say that it is a point that COSLA made in their recent response to the committee's report that the Government does have no overall costed coherent road map to net zero by 2040, or arguably the more demanding target of a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. That was also the conclusion, I have to say, of the climate change committee in their recent report card on the Government's performance. The chairman of the committee, Lord Debum, said, One year ago I called for more clarity and transparency on Scottish climate policy and delivery. That plea remains unanswered. The climate change committee report was damning. Seven out of eleven of our increasingly at-risk legal targets missed. Targets, they say, are in danger of becoming meaningless. Progress in cutting emissions has largely stalled. On the three big emitters, transport, heating buildings, land use, the report card was a clear fail, fail, fail. A view, I think, largely echoed by the net zero committee's report. Take transport, a larger source of greenhouse gases, responsible for a third of our emissions with levels barely below those of 1990. Yet the Government's response has been to act 90,000 train services a year, proposed just 2,000 more public electric vehicle charging points when we need 30,000 by 2030 and to cut 120 million bus passenger journeys since 2007. Is the dismantle our bus network route by route, with more cuts likely when the end of network support grant plus at the end of the month? I've got time, I'll have a big review. Very grateful for Colin Smith giving way. Would he agree with me that this disproportionately hits rural areas much harder than the urban areas? Colin Smith. There's no question that the cuts in support for bus companies will hit rural areas more. They are the more heavily subsidised part of our network scheme. What really frustrates me is that nearly four years after this Parliament passed the transport bill, the Government is still dragging their heels on giving councils the powers that are secured in that bill and more importantly the resources that our councils need to deliver publicly owned local buses to start to put passengers, not profits, first. If we also want to see the lack of commitment by this Government to adjust transition, we need to look at the way that they and Glasgow City Council have treated Glasgow's taxi drivers when introducing the low emission zone, failing to adequately support them to make that transition, which will force many a lot of business or into unmanageable debt. If we want to adjust transition, when it comes to the second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases are buildings that account for a quarter of emissions, we won't get that by cutting the energy efficiency budget by £133 million instead of tackling why the poorly designed schemes are not being utilised, including the area-based schemes administered by local authorities, given the shocking levels of fuel poverty in Scotland and knowing that properly insulating our homes not only cuts fuel bills but cuts fuel use and therefore emissions. We need to see more clarity and certainty for our councils, homeowners, landowners and crucially supply chains through early publication of future regulations for heating and energy efficiency. That regulatory framework needs to sit alongside an effective enabling framework learning from effective retrofit examples across Europe, where for example one-stop shops are emerging, providing the end-to-end management of the retrofit and installation process for the homeowner from accessing information on options to getting quotes to engaging contracts. Even in those areas where we have made good progress in cutting emissions, such as energy production, we have not seen a just transition with many of the supply chain opportunities going overseas, but that progress is now under threat because of the long-term decline in the number of council-employed planners. In my own region of Dumfries and Galloway, eight out of the last eleven windfarn projects taken to the Scottish Government's planning and environmental appeals division were due to a failure to decide the application locally within the required four-month timescale, primarily due to a lack of planning staff. The clock is ticking towards net zero targets, but the Government lacks a clear plan—the urgent actions that are needed to meet those targets to ensure that we play our part in stopping this climate crisis and becoming a climate catastrophe. Councils are key to meeting those targets, but we need to start to give them the powers, the support, the resources and the respect that they need to help us to deliver that greener, fairer Scotland that we all want to see. I want to thank Edward Mountain and his committee for producing a very substantial report. I think that that will help in the longer term and it will hopefully bring some clarity to a very difficult situation. Change is hard. We would not be here discussing it years after the world-leading climate change targets were set in 2009 if it was not hard, so except those are challenging circumstances. That is probably the biggest change since the industrial revolution. If we are going to get it right and get that just transition, we will have to make sure that there is a proper plan that works effectively. The climate change committee was very severe in its criticism, and I am sure that the minister would accept that. Climate change targets that have been set by the Government are in danger of being meaningless. Those targets have gone from world-leading climate change targets to potentially meaningless. That should really worry us all, and that is why I think that the report is really helpful. It will hopefully bring some clarity to the situation so that we can have that road map that has been frequently talked about today. There are a number of very strong competing priorities that have been set by the Government, and some of those are very difficult to resolve. Take, for instance, homes. We all know that there are people in our constituencies who are desperate for a house. They are absolutely desperate. They are either overcrowded or they are stainless relatives or they are just in a house that is just too small for their needs, or it is very hard to heat. Those people are desperate for a home, and I am desperate to get houses built, but the challenge is how efficient do you make it? The more efficient sometimes you make it, the more costly it is to produce the upfront cost. Of course, it is going to be a longer-term benefit, and it will keep the fuel wells lower for the longer term, but the upfront cost is higher, so it will cost us more to do that. Those are the kind of challenges that council officials and councillors are facing every single day. They are also in danger that, if they put two greater requirements on developers, those developers might put their money somewhere else. They might build houses somewhere else in another council that is perhaps not as strict. If they are going to meet their housing requirements at the same time as meeting their climate change objectives of having energy-efficient homes in the right place, with the 20-minute neighbourhoods in the right time, finding the right land, all of that is really quite challenging. However, if you look at the same with energy schemes, we have big challenges on biodiversity and where do we get the stock from, but also low cost and dealing with the climate as well. Transport has the same challenges. On finance, on the immediate needs, on long-term climate and biodiversity needs and also through-life costs. All of those are massive challenges that we have to try to resolve. I will take an intervention. I agree that, as a Parliament, we need to start looking outside of the parliamentary term and start making long-term strategies that we will be more likely to deliver next year. I wish that we could do that, but the nature of politics is that we want answers now, don't we? We want to get results immediately. Of course, people are desperate for urgent action, but too often it is too short action. I will give you an example. It is a slightly old example from about four or five years ago. There is a proposal to build 1,400 homes in the north side of Cooper. 1,400 homes has been debated for a long time. Housing development in North East Fife, I think, is stalled in part as a result of this scheme being caught in a quagmire. There is a local sustainable Cooper development group who were desperate to have a district heating system attached to those 1,400 homes. We spoke to the developers and they said that it is experimental, it is too expensive, it has long-term obligations, we want to build the houses and be out and we are not required to do it. We do not have to do it, so we are not going to do it. We went to the council and said that they have the power to make them do it. They said that we do not really know much about district heating systems, it is a bit risky, perhaps a bit expensive and we want the houses to be built so that we do not want to scare the developers away. We went to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government said that we have schemes, funding schemes and pilots, but it is really up to councils to resolve that. I hope that the situation has improved since then because that buck passing means that we do not have a district heating system for Cooper. In fact, we do not even have really the answer as to whether a district heating system would be the right scheme for Cooper North. That leads to the point of having the right advice, the right laws in place, the right compulsion and empowering local councils to be able to bring all of that together to make it work so that we can progress. I thank them for giving way. I am aware of the discussions in Cooper around the heat network, but that was largely happening before the heat network's legislation was brought in place. Will he accept that there is now greater legislative certainty around the frameworks around heat and that it is a better, more investable proposition now for developers to introduce those networks? I have not planned as fine, but how do you deal with that risk? Who takes the risk? Do they have the money? Do they have the incentive? Do they have the competing priorities that they are addressing? Of course, they want to get those houses built. They want to get them built as quickly as possible. If developers say that there is not too much of a responsibility, we are not going to do it. We are going to build somewhere else. We might not even build houses anymore. We might go somewhere else. That is a challenge that I am not quite sure we have resolved. I hope that that has changed, because the kind of quagmire that Cooper has got stuck in is astonishing. Just down the road, as Mark Ruskell will know because it is in his region, there was a proposal for connecting up the district heating system, the biomass plant for St Andrews, built by St Andrews University. 100 yards away is a new person in development. The university and the developer had a discussion about connecting it up, but they said, we do not have to do it. There is no requirement, so we are not going to connect up. They put in gas boilers instead in those houses. We are supposed to be moving away from gas, but we have gas boilers in those brand new houses right next door to our district heating system. We could have connected up, but there was no requirement. That was post the new framework that the member talks about. If you look at solar panels, businesses were required to pay extra business rates for solar schemes on their roofs for above 50 kilowatts. They were also required to get planning permission. In England, that was not the case. The minister responsible has just changed that, but why has it taken so long to get some of the really simple things in place so that we can provide the right incentives? We need the people, the expertise, the road map, and councils to be able to do more than their statutory duties to make those big changes in order to make sure that we meet our climate change obligations. Before we move to the open debate, I advise members that at this point we have some time in hand, so if members wish to make and or take interventions. I call Jackie Dunbar to be followed by Alexander Stewart. As a member of the NZZ committee, I am pleased to speak in my first committee debate today. This is the first time since I have joined the committee that we have had a debate to chamber. I want to begin by thanking the clerks, my committee colleagues and all those who participated in the committee inquiry. Without their input, this inquiry and our recommendations would not have been possible. All the challenges that have been highlighted during the NZZ committee's inquiry are made even more acute during the present cost crisis. For example, the evidence that we took shows that there is no doubt—I know that this is a former local councillor—that the increase in inflationary pressures that are being experienced by local authorities will have an impact on their ability to deliver on the important net zero ambitions. Indeed, successive Scottish budgets have demonstrated this Government's commitment to the centrality of a just transition to a net zero in climate resilient Scotland. The 2023-24 budget prioritises a just transition to a net zero climate resilient and biodiverse Scotland, with more than £2.2 billion of investment in 2023-24. The Scottish Government has allocated £194 million this year to help to reduce energy bills in climate emissions through the warmer home Scotland area-based schemes and home energy Scotland. Scotland's ambitious climate change legislation sets a target date for net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases by 2045. Progress has been made and Scotland is more than halfway to net zero, but it still has much to do. Our inquiry heard how we are now entering the most challenging part of the journey to date, with a need to halve our emissions again by 2030. It is not going to be easy. The next full climate change plan will show the emissions reductions of the economy-wide policies in the plan, as well as detailing other benefits such as job creation and the costs of the policies. The transition to net zero will require a truly national effort from all sectors of the economy, including significant private sector investment in net zero and climate resilience, to ensure the long-term strength and competitiveness of our economy. Central to this, and you are not going to be surprised to hear me say it, is a just transition for the north-east of Scotland, including in my Aberdeen-Donside constituency. In order to fully make this transition work, our evidence shows that the UK Government must also take action to secure a just transition. The UK Government's own green jobs task force recommended that they set out how they will match support available through the EU's just transition fund. Unfortunately, that has still not been acted upon. The UK Government has still to match the Scottish Government's £50 million just transition fund. I am very grateful to the member for taking an intervention. When the member calls for the UK Government to match the just transition fund, does she think that the £16 billion North Sea transition deal goes anyway since it is 32 times the size of the Scottish Government's funds to meeting that criteria? The UK Government has taken £300 billion from the north-east of Scotland through the Treasury since the 1970s, so if you are going to start matching funds, Mr Kerr, today I am going to call on the UK Government to ensure that it plays its role in ensuring that we achieve a just transition and match the support available through the EU scheme. It is vital that we all take responsibility and all do our bit. One of the areas that I have an interest in and that our inquiry covered is green skills in getting young folk into green jobs. Tackling climate change is not just about Government policies or investment and there is a significant role for the whole of Scottish society in supporting transformational change. We heard how Scotland's skills response to climate change needs to be a national endeavour. An agile, aligned and responsive skills system will be vital to the delivery of a green recovery. The scale and pace of change needed across all sectors will demand a significant realignment of our investment in education, training and work-based learning towards green jobs. Scotland already has many of the skills required to facilitate the transition to a low-core carbon economy. Those skills exist across many of our established sectors such as energy, engineering, construction and chemical science. However, the Scottish Government must take a range of actions to support the development of green skills. The climate emergency skills action plan is central to creating a future workforce that can support our transition to a net zero economy and ensure that workers are equipped with the skills that employers will need in that green economy. Our inquiry shows that the Green Jobs Workforce Academy is an important step in achieving that and will help folk of all ages assess their skills, identify skill gaps and access upskilling or retraining courses. Alongside the just transition plans, the Scottish Government is developing a pilot of skills guarantee, offering folk in high-carbon jobs support in moving into good green jobs. One example of the role local government and its cross sector partners are playing in financing and delivering a net zero Scotland is the joint working of Aberdeen City, Aberdeen Shire and Murray councils, who are working collectively together to finance and deliver a new energy and waste plant. Just yesterday, as Liam Kerr already mentioned, we visited the energy from waste plant in Aberdeen, a plant for unrecyclable waste so that there is no longer a reliance on landfill. I was involved in the project from the beginning when I was a councillor, so it was great to see the project coming along and nearing completion. Once completed, it will hook up with the local district heating network and help to reduce fuel poverty in the local community. I again welcome the steps that the Scottish Government has taken to tackle the climate emergency while being aware that there is still a way to go, and I look forward to hearing other contributions today. I am delighted to be able to contribute to the debate that highlights the vital role local government can and must play in the journey to net zero. As the level of government that is closest to our communities, councils are best placed to deliver the local flexibility that will be required in order to achieve the Scottish Government's net zero targets. We know that many councils are aware of the challenges that are facing them in this area, and COSLA has set out very clear that local government is committed to delivering both for 2030 and 2045 climate targets. However, COSLA is also clear that, despite that commitment, local government's ability to contribute towards those targets will be seriously limited without the increased investments that councils require. As we have already heard today, the issue of funding is one that comes up time and time again when it comes to local government's climate responsibilities. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, the report by the net zero energy and transport committee states that the issue of local government finances is one that means and one of the main issues raised within the inquiry. Numerous individual councils that responded to the committee's inquiry also made it clear that insufficient funding is one of the biggest challenges that they are facing in this area. This should not be a debate entirely focused on local government funding. However, it is clear that yet another area of local government performance is being compromised by under-investment. The committee's report reveals that councils planning departments have shrunk by over a third of staff have been cut since 2009. The Town Planning Institute has also highlighted that planning authorities are now struggling to recruit staff at the same rate that individuals are retiring. To this end, the committee report is right to support the creation of apprenticeship scheme for planners. The Scottish Government should continue to work with the Royal Town Planning Institute at such a scheme should be endorsed. However, the skills challenges that are facing our councils go far beyond the planning departments. Indeed, the issue of skills is one of the biggest hurdles that we face in retrofitting buildings' net zero inclusion to switch to low emissions or zero emissions heating systems such as heat pumps. One of the biggest issues that we see is that that has to be maintained. For example, there are areas within Scotland that are trying to achieve this. Stirling Council has worked with the Scottish Water Horizon to create a district heat network that powers most of the fourth side of the Stirling area. That is an example of exactly the type of co-operation and collaboration between local government and external partners that we need to see if we are to achieve those targets. It is still clear, however, that the retrofitting journey is one of faces significant skill challenges as it goes forward. So much so that numerous stakeholders, including Homes for Scotland, have suggested that both 2030 and 2045 targets are not realistic. The clean heat energy and efficiency workforce assessment that is produced by climate exchange has set out the scale of the challenges that we face. The report estimates that in order to meet the 2030 target, Scotland will require at least 4,500 thermal insulation stallers, up to 12,700 heat pump installers and up to 4,000 heat network installers. Those are massive numbers. The construction industry training board has highlighted that the Scottish Government's heat in building strategy has not provided a clear pipeline of the work for the construction industry. That means that the industry still lacks the confidence that it requires to ensure that the workforce is ready and willing to take forward. Given that a housing stock that local government is responsible for and being able to access contractors is vitally important, those skills challenges must ensure and must be met and ensure that jobs are tied back. I hope that in the summing up, the minister will at least acknowledge that that is one of the big issues that requires to be challenged. It is also true that there are real ambitions about what we want to do in this sector, but those ambitions can only be managed if there is the possibility and responsibility of local government and government itself working together. Together we must challenge and we must ensure that there are real areas for development and skills delivery review has come forward with many strategies about where we go. As we know Scotland's Government must do more to achieve a net zero target. We also know that it is unable to achieve those targets unless the Government is able to play a massive part in the journey. Councils must be empowered to fully invest in their own climate initiatives. That means giving councils investment and also ensuring that they require the skills and the workforce that is there to move forward. All that means supporting councils to deliver local strategies towards net zero as much as is humanly possible. In conclusion, unless there is a step change on how local government participates in the journey to net zero by 2045, targets will not and will not be achieved. The onus now is on the Government to act and to empower local government before it is too late. I hope that the minister and Government take heed of the warnings that we put out today. I am delighted to speak in this debate this afternoon. I thank the committee for its support. I think that it is an excellent summary of what we need to do and I commend the committee on the report. Scotland will not meet its ambitious target of being net zero by 2045 without a strong partnership with local authorities that can lead on skills. We also need access to capital to play a full role, and we will touch on that later on. It is clear that both Scottish Government and local authorities need to understand their roles in key delivery areas. The committee launched the report recognising the crucial role that councils will have to play if we are to become a net zero nation. I am saying that with 15 years' experience as a councillor also. With local knowledge of workplace, supply side and skills base, councils are in a good position to engage with local and national stakeholders as part of what must be a collective national effort to reach net zero. The support is as much about those partnerships as about local government itself. Just yesterday, I spoke in the subject with my chief executive, the local authority. As I said, I was talking about this quite extensively. One of the first key tasks is to establish pipeline. What exactly does each local authority need to do? In East Lothian, I started an energy forum, which has now met four times, looking at the planning, financing, skills and supply side issues. That has an extensive stakeholder engagement and looking at skills agencies, supply side agencies, developers and the council itself. Local heat and energy efficient strategies and area-based approaches need to be published by the end of December 2023. That implementation plan should address how LHEs will be used to help to implement the area-based approach that will be necessary if there is to be real progress on the issue. Councils' role in relation to district heating systems are also a key and need to be clarified. The local government committee of which I remember took evidence on retrofitting and previously held a debate on that issue last year. Clear evidence from the supply sector sector was that it needed to see a clear pipeline prior to substantial investment. The quicker local authorities arrive at that point, the better. To do so, councils need to set out strategic planning and targets around that area. The committee calls on the Scottish Government to work with Closet to audit the effectiveness of councils' net zero-related planning, strategic planning and data gathering, which again is really important and of where a lot of local authorities are going through at the moment. To promote and embed best practice in mainstreaming net zero planning into council decision making, I do not think that we are quite at that point. The local government committee spoke to the council commission on that particular issue, and it has a role in ensuring that council strategic planning and major budget decisions are consistent with net zero goals in promoting climate change budgeting. I am sure that the council commission will come out with more detail on that later on this year. There are key areas in that strategic planning, such as funding, skills, powers and direction. The committee itself called on the Scottish Government to heed the climate change committee's call for a comprehensive and detailed roadmap for delivery of net zero in key areas, such as heating buildings and in transport. The Scottish Government is in discussions with Closet at the moment regarding a new deal. Any such deal in associated reforms must comprehensively address how councils are to be supported in delivering on net zero. We also need to develop investment stream. The challenges of attracting private investment need to be approached by adopting area-based approaches, offering the potential to scale up opportunities. We heard the figure that Liam Kerr mentioned of £33 billion on that now. The Scottish Government is looking to be put aside £2 billion, but the rest of that gap needs to be filled by institutional funding. There are billions of pounds out there. I spoke to some professor from the London School of Economics who highlighted that there are billions of pounds out there, but the real challenge is to develop investable scale-up projects. That is the challenge to local government and to the Scottish Government to work on that regard. Scaling up and risk management as being touched on in co-ordination are key in that regard. However, the cabinet secretary also mentioned the flexibility in funding. We need to grow up discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to allow targeted additional borrowing powers to allow the Scottish Government to help local government in that particular matter. On skills, the inquiry has identified planning, procurement, building standards and environmental assessments as being amongst the areas in which such assistance is likely to be most needed. In East Lowden, it is one of the smallest local authorities. To try and scale up to that scheme will need to help in that regard, so the cause land Scottish Government need to work on securing specialist advice and assistance to local government and its engagement with institutional investors on major capital funding. The role of the Scottish National Investment Bank and the Scottish Feudure Trust in relation to area-based schemes need to be discussed and was in the report and needs to be explored further. On procurement, local supply chains need to be developed. That ties in around a bit establishing pipeline that I mentioned earlier on at anela stage at a local level. We are already engaging through our energy forum with local supply side developers at the moment, seeing what they need to do to try and grow the businesses in East Lowden. Local authorities need to lead on developing that supply-side growth that is required. They can do that now. On planning, the committee was concerned about delays in applications for renewables, and that is a valid point at this stage. On NPA 4, the committee asked the Scottish Government to consider setting up a short-life working group on renewable energy within the planning system, including representation of local government, the planning profession and industry to speed up the process. The local government committee, of which I said before, will be undertaking this period of work. We will be measuring that. One of the key things that has not been mentioned before is the discussions that we have been having with the RTPI. The RTPI has been discussing with the minister about an additional need for 7,800 planners across the planning authorities. That needs to be monitored and the local government committee will be carrying that out. If we are to achieve net zero, we need a fully-resourced planning system to meet the demand in growth. The committee also raised a great capacity to come in and touch with planning applications for renewable projects at risk. Of course, discussions about that need to be advanced much quicker with the UK Government. Transport and active travel are all other policies that we could talk about at length. In summary, the sport sets out what we need to do. Strong partnership principles between local and Scottish Government establish pipeline at anellist opportunity, local energy skills partnerships, resource planning system and creating vegetable streams matching up projects of scale. We need to achieve net zero by 2045 of that. There is no doubt. In doing so, we can empower our local communities to deliver that, not only for their local climate but for their local economy. As a member of the net zero energy and transport committee, I am pleased to be taking part in the debate this afternoon. As the convener set out in his remarks, this has been a significant and substantial inquiry spanning 17 evidence sessions where we heard from more than 50 organisations and it is right that we got out of Parliament and visited a number of communities who were at the heart of delivering on Scotland net zero targets and ambitions. I was pleased to get out of central Scotland for a couple of days and I was part of the delegations, both to Aberdeen and to Orkney. It was really worthwhile and grateful to everyone who made those visits possible. I was pleased to hear Willie Rennie and other colleagues today acknowledge the importance of the report. We would not have been able to produce the report and the key recommendations without Peter McDade and the committee clerking team, Spice and everyone who played a part. It has been good to follow my committee colleagues today. Planning has been mentioned already, but if he will indulge me as a former planner, I want to focus on that. In terms of the place-based approach, which our deputy convener, Fyra Hyslop, has been so passionate about and in terms of that place-making agenda, planning is absolutely key to that. I am pleased that colleagues have been reading the briefing received from the Royal Town Planning Institute of Scotland because we have seen a real significant decline in not just the number of planners—you have heard some of those statistics today—but that capacity to deliver at a time when demand is increasing as a Parliament, we have all bought into the national planning framework. We have had planning reform, so the demands are really high, but we need to create that opportunity, retain really good planners and create that pipeline for new talent. While we are taking evidence in the inquiry, we are quite a dynamic committee, and I am looking at the deputy convener because we did not just wait to get to the end and do the report. We use parliamentary questions and other devices to ask Government as things are progressing. I am pleased that the planning minister, Tom Arthur, was very optimistic and very positive about the opportunity that a planning apprenticeship model could bring. We have that in England, so we can look at that to see how it is going. Given that we have been losing a number of planning schools over the years, planning schools have become an endangered species in Scotland, so we have to create new routes and the planning apprenticeship would be a really exciting way to do that. I am glad that other colleagues have championed that today. It looks like something really good is going to come from that. As well as planning, another key area for local government was procurement. Procurement is not yet fully aligned with sustainability. Net zero is not fully or firmly embedded across all council directorates and budgets. The Sustainable Scotland Network acknowledged that more work is needed to align council procurement with net zero, but they said that the problem might lie upstream of procurement, including at the specification stage. The network was keen to do more, to provide training and build capacity. That is another key area for government to look at. I want to jump across to transport. As we heard from the convener, we are trying to find local and national solutions to a global crisis. We are living through a climate and nature emergency. The cabinet secretary and his ministerial colleagues heard me talk about that before, but the X1 bus used to serve communities in Hamilton to get to Glasgow city centre quickly and efficiently. That is a service that we have lost in the pandemic, and I want our young people, who have now got their free bus pass, to have a service like that once again. We know from not just our report from the climate change committee's strong words that we need to do more to decarbonise transport, we need to properly invest in active travel, but where we know that there is a demand for community bus services, let us bring that back. It was worrying when we took evidence on the transport side of things that, despite having legislation and powers that councils can use, there was no evidence that councils are going to hit that button and start to run council bus services because they do not have the resource. Now, I know that work is happening in government, but that is an area where we need to see real significant improvement. We know that decarbonising transport and buildings are the key areas. We heard evidence from Stephen Smiley, the vice-community of unison, on what we need to do around retrofitting buildings. He gave this striking example in South Lanarkshire. The cost of retrofitting all non-domestic buildings in South Lanarkshire would amount to £0.5 billion. We know that the council does not have that money, and we know that we need a partnership approach. We need to have answers to those big questions. Just briefly to give a shout-out to community wealth building. Again, the Government is committed to that approach, but North Ayrshire Council has been pioneering community wealth building, which we need, if we are going to spearhead a community and work or led just transition. There were really good examples there around solar energy and a lot more. I know that there has been time in hand, but I am quickly running out of seconds here. I think that it is really important that this report is not given warm words today and is filed away, and then we do not talk about it again. We are going to have a new First Minister, a new Cabinet and a new approaching Government. That is going to help the Government. It is going to help Scotland. Please, we have to keep looking back at this report and the work of other committees in this Parliament, because it is the people of Scotland, the experts in Scotland, the communities in Scotland who have informed this work. We have those fantastic recommendations, as Willie Rennie said. Of course, it is hard, but we have to do it. I would say to colleagues when we talk about net zero, because there is a lot to be critical of and a lot to get gloomy about, but we need to give our communities hope that this is possible. What keeps me motivated is that, when I visit schools, as often as I can on my eco tour at the moment, they know what is possible. They know what needs to be done. They want to be part of the solution. They want us to invest in them so that they can be the planners, the engineers and the architects of the future. I hope that that is a positive note to end on. I thank everyone who has taken the time to read the report, but do not file it away and forget about it. I now call Natalie Don to be followed by Mark Ruskell. I would like to start by welcoming the report from the committee. As many of us in this chamber agree, climate change is by far the biggest threat to our future. It is crucial that, when it comes to this issue, we work constructively together across the chamber to identify ways that we can deliver net zero in Scotland. As a previous member of the net zero committee, I really enjoyed my time spent in this inquiry listening to such a wide variety of witnesses giving evidence and reading feedback from a wide range of stakeholders. I was sad to miss the final stages and was keenly looking out for the report being released, and I am now delighted to be taking part in this debate today. For me, local authorities are and will continue to be absolutely crucial in the delivery of net zero, not only because they are at the forefront of delivering many of these policies, but also because they are the ones who know their areas and their communities best. Within the report, recommendation 22 states that the Scottish Government and COSLA promote models of community engagement on climate change and net zero. Building on the good work that some councils are doing, the effective engagement of communities and community groups drawing on their local knowledge is vital to embed a place-based approach to climate change and net zero at local level. I know that some of my colleagues have touched on that already today. I believe, and the evidence taken during this inquiry reaffirms that collaboration between local authorities and local communities is key, and I want to focus on the potential that this joint working can have. There were some really great examples of that that were highlighted during the evidence sessions, but I want to use an example from my own constituency to emphasise that. I believe that Renfrewshire Council are leading the way in working with the community and getting that community by in. The team up to clean up campaign, which launched in 2018, has been massively successful and involved the community and the council taking a joint approach to the scourge of litter. That campaign kicked off asking people to take a pride in their area and in an attempt to change behaviours and to change attitudes towards littering. The idea being that, if you see people in your community actively picking up litter, it might make you think twice about dropping it in the first place. The campaign began with just a handful of people in each community who took time out their day every day to pick up some litter. However, it has grown into so much more than that and has taken on a whole life of its own. There is now not a day that goes by in Renfrewshire where someone is not litter picking or cleaning something out, and we have seen people really taking it to the limits with, for example, riverside clear outs that I can tell you are not for the faint hearted. In mind with that idea of changing attitudes, Renfrewshire Council worked with Renfrew author Ross Mackenzie to create the story The Clumps Big Mess, a lovely wee story about a dad who dropped litter much to his children's dismay who then had to deal with some tricky consequences until he changed his behaviour. This is the kind of initiative we need to really change attitudes. I know that the climate crisis is not going to be solved by dealing with litter alone. However, the campaign was about so much more than just litter picking. With over 4,000 people interacting and communicating with the online group, it has become a hub that is not only opening people's eyes to so many more environmental issues but allowing discussions to take place about how to solve them, allowing different ideas to be shared, promoted and discussed, ranging from varying issues from biodiversity to upcycling to reducing plastic. What is even more exciting is that this is allowing people to share best practice and equally enabling people from within different communities to explore ways that would work for their own locality, because we cannot forget that what works for one town might not work for the town or the village next door. Every community is unique. This campaign could not have worked without the buy-in from the community and they deserve such great recognition for their hard work, but also the council for investing in this and enabling all this to happen. Going forward, we need to ensure that we are aware of best practice going on in local authorities, ensuring that they are supported and promoting it when we are applicable. Moving on to transport, I was pleased with the recommendations in the reports surrounding transport and active travel. It is clear that changes in transport patterns and behaviours will be absolutely pivotal in achieving net zero goals. The recommendations to create a more joined up and strategic approach to public transport and active travel at a regional level that is reflective of actual travel and commuting patterns are welcome. Again, I am thinking of the decline in bus services in my constituency, which also has limited real travel, but that is happening in local authorities across Scotland. The public has fell out with the public transport in many areas due to both the unreliability and the decline in services and, in general, the unreliability of local services. Councils are best placed to understand the needs of their communities and we need to work to both incentivise and encourage people back on to public transport. I am therefore genuinely excited to see the aims of the Scottish Government's national transport strategy, which includes supporting local authorities to look at different ways of delivering those more localised services. Another issue that was raised during the committee evidence sessions was 20-minute neighbourhoods, which aligns with transport well. They aim to ensure that people in a community can gain access to the services and facilities that they need within 20 minutes. That will also be absolutely key in transforming our travel habits, but those will only be achieved with a joined-up approach to public transport and active travel, and, importantly, we need to ensure that those are built around the needs of the whole community. I am running out of time, so I will move to my closing comments. To conclude, I believe that this mammoth inquiry has been extremely useful and will give real scope and real food for thought in terms of our delivery of net zero goals and the creation of the greener Scotland that we all want to see. I warmly welcome the report by the NSET committee, and I enjoyed taking part in it. It was certainly the longest inquiry that I have ever been part of, but I hope that it will provide food for thought across Government about how we change adaptive threats and realise opportunities as we tackle the climate and the nature emergencies. I agree with Monica Lennon that there is a report that has a lot of hope in it. There is a hope in that we can tackle climate change by working hard in our communities and realising the opportunities and the energy that is in our communities for change. We heard some really inspiring examples of climate ambition and leadership from around Scotland, but at the same time we also heard about the inconsistency between councils, especially when it comes to both setting and planning for climate targets. The latest UK Climate Change Committee report on Scotland's progress emphasised three words—delivery, delivery and delivery. That means that we need to see action on the ground in communities everywhere—not just good examples, but everywhere across Scotland. It is simply not enough for councils to focus solely on their own buildings, their land and their vehicles fleets. They must be the bodies that are responsible for overseeing the delivery of area-wide climate targets, not just corporate plans for internal carbon reduction. Through the inquiry, we found that only 53 per cent of councils in Scotland have set area-wide emissions targets. We heard from Freiburg Council in Germany, which has shown exactly the type of climate leadership that we need to see adopted by councils across Scotland. From active citizen and cross-sexual participation and decision making to a dedicated climate neutrality unit that is embedded in the council, it has led the way internationally. We need to support councils in Scotland to get into that same space that Freiburg managed to get into well over a decade ago. I introduce a formal duty for local authorities to report progress in planning action on the ground. That is going to be critical if we are to see that step change. With that additional responsibility on councils, there must come the tools to deliver. That should include a wholesale reform of local taxation powers to raise income and drive behaviour change through, for example, road user charging or even carbon land taxes. I also recognise that there does need to be a rebalancing of the conversation between national local government. That is exactly what I will be seeking to get the European Charter Bill reconsidered at the earliest opportunity in this Parliament. A number of members have talked about the visits that we had. It was inspiring, in particular, to visit Dundee as part of the inquiry and to see the progress that has been made there over many years of climate initiatives. I think that councils should be applauded for recognising that long-term funding for the voluntary sector is absolutely needed. However, I am delighted that the Scottish Government has recognised that need for long-term investment in the third sector, particularly the announcement from the cabinet secretary earlier that there will be another 20 climate hubs that will be funded in Scotland. I want to give you an example of one of those hubs that I hope will be funded. That is Greener Cacody, because it is an amazing example of how we can put justice at the heart of climate action. The Cozy Kingdom project is tackling poverty and disadvantage by getting energy advice to people who need it the most. Fife, as a result, now has the highest number of referrals to Home Energy Scotland of any other council area in Scotland. It is quite remarkable what they have achieved. That investment through climate hubs will need to continue to drive change and expand and scale up the work of Greener Cacody and a range of other organisations across Scotland. I really look forward to seeing the results of that. Councils working in collaboration with communities are well placed to drive real change when it comes to transport as well. With transport, of course, remaining one of the biggest carbon emitters in Scotland. The national strategies and record investment in active travel are charting an ambitious course towards that 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres. We saw also throughout this inquiry some brilliant examples of how councils were shaping national policies to fit the communities that they serve. Again, Dundee, Sterling, investing in on-street EV charging. Too often, we are also seeing quite antiquated local transport strategies no longer reflecting what communities want or need and no longer reflecting the new priorities that we have in the national transport strategy. However, there is a real opportunity for councils to change that through, for example, making use of the transport act franchising powers and the newly launched community bus fund to transform local bus networks in ways that really start to serve local communities. Of course, the climate emergency cannot be separated from the nature emergency. We have seen record investment through the nature restoration fund. I would like to highlight some investment that has been taken place again in Fife here. We have seen £3.3 million of additional funding being granted to nature restoration projects in Fife from community co-design work for new active travel routes along the River Leven, which benefits both active travel and biodiversity to restoring urban meadows across the kingdom. We can invest in both the nature and climate emergencies together, working with communities. However, the scale of the challenge to 2045 is going to require a step change in that relationship from local government and private investors to deliver more of that co-financed decarbonisation projects. Throughout the inquiry, we have heard inspiration from Aberdeen City Council, for example, issuing municipal bonds and a number of other initiatives. There is much to read and reflect on in this report. We do not have enough time to do that this afternoon, but we will continue to come back to this report in the months to come. We have to keep building on those achievements and commitments. I look forward to continuing that work as a member of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee. I also start by thanking the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee for undertaking the comprehensive range of work that informed their excellent report, the role of local government and cross-sectoral partners in financing and delivering a Net Zero Scotland. The contributions and debate today have been helpful in analysing many of the key areas that the committee feels need to be addressed, so that the Scottish Government is supporting greater empowerment of and meaningful support for councils as they play a pivotal role in delivering Net Zero. Of course, that is against the backdrop of, as the committee puts it, unprecedented demands made on resources and skill sets against an extremely challenging financial backdrop. The committee's recommendations focus on a wide range of issues and themes, however I will focus my contribution on three areas, funding, private investment and planning. Firstly, improving the way local funding is configured so that larger, fewer and more flexible funding streams offer a more holistic and place-based approach response to climate change. Secondly, the need for private investment at scale and the development of an investment strategy that will increase investor appetite and lead to deals being agreed. I note the call for an expanded role of the Scottish National Investment Bank. I am attracted to the proposal that it acts as an interface between local government and investors, but it is essentially supporting contemporary models of co-financing. I note in its briefing that it submitted ahead of today's debate that COSLA calls for the simplification of national funding for net zero programmes and more core funding for local government to help deliver local and regional net zero projects and programmes. As a northeast constituency MSP, I have spoken to a number of businesses that are ready and waiting to invest in renewables projects, in many cases bringing their vast experience in oil and gas into the renewable sector, but for whom current funding arrangements, in particular yearly funding distribution, is challenging and potentially a disincentive. I therefore ask the Scottish Government to consider how funding can be better accessed through more effective co-funding models and that the proposition that the Scottish National Investment Bank acts as a more effective interface between local government and investors be explored further. Thirdly, planning. I note the committee's recommendation on the churn repetition and delay in the planning process that is impacting major renewables and other projects. The committee highlights the urgent need to reverse the decline in local authority planners. The complex nature of planning law and associated lengthy timescales is a pressing issue and one that is further compounded by consenting timescales for new projects. While consenting is a separate process and not one directly considered within the report, nonetheless I consider it is important to acknowledge the unintended but significant challenge that both processes create for businesses. Indeed, I have raised the issue of consenting to the Scottish Government on behalf of businesses in the north-east that are eager to invest in projects, but for whom planning and consenting timescales are a major challenge, particularly for offshore wind projects. I note the comments made by COSLA and Scottish renewables around the need to disentangle aspects of planning law so that we can increase our onshore wind capacity from 8 to 20 gigawatts to meet our 2030 target, turning to the reduction over the years of staffing within planning departments. I am aware that the committee raised this with the Scottish Government in its letter on the draft MPF4, commenting that unless the trend is reversed, there is a risk of MPF4 being more of a wish list than a blueprint for truly transformational change that is urgently needed. In addressing the issue, I am drawn to the specific proposal that planning could be placed within the tertiary education landscape as a STEM subject. In that regard, I highlight Aberdeen City Council and the work that it is undertaking to develop its senior phase curriculum to align the curriculum to the anticipated demand for skills created by offshore energy production, broaden the pathways available to young people to maximise the use of vocational courses and alternative routes into further and higher education and, importantly, develop digital and computing skills and a broader range of computer technology pathways. I commend the passion and commitment of Eleanor Shepherd, director of education at Aberdeen City Council, who has been pivotal in driving this piece of work forward. To conclude, many examples of the work that already under way in the north-east, involving council business partnerships, have already been highlighted by members this afternoon, some in my constituency, including the energy from waste facility and the Aberdeen hydrogen hub. I hope that the report that is debated today will offer an important opportunity to ensure that future work is indeed secure, deliverable and successful. The sentiment of the report is summed up in the opening paragraph. Scotland will not meet its ambitious target of being net zero by 2045 without a more empowered local government sector, with better access to the skills and capital that it would need to play a full role in this energy revolution. The message that comes through this entire report is that local government is key to all of us being able to meet our ambition and targets when it comes to our environmental responsibility, but this devolved government has abjectly failed in those targets to date. My colleagues Maurice Golden and Brian Whittle shine a light on those failures on a weekly basis. Targets missed, funding lost and local government excluded from the process on schemes such as the deposit return scheme, schemes that will have a detrimental effect on our council's budgets. In fact, Falkirk Council announced in December last year that it would cease its curbside glass collection as it would cost £234,000 in lost revenue once the DRS scheme started. That has huge implications for those who are not able to get to a deposit return location. However, it is not just the DRS scheme that is causing council's concern. The committee reports highlights the concerns of rural communities such as those in the north-east and calls for the Scottish Government to set out what specific assistance will be available to councils with a large component of rural housing and our island communities where there are additional challenges. With much more demands on transport and car travel in our rural communities, we need answers from this Government on how it will support our local authorities to achieve the targets that have been set. I am proud of the fact that, when I was leader of Aberdeen City Council, we signed a partnership agreement with BP. It has become planning and technical advisers, helping to shape solutions for the city's net zero path. Working in partnership with BP and Aberdeen City Council explored opportunities such as accelerating the adoption of electric and hydrogen-powered city vehicles, energy efficiency programmes for buildings and the circular economy. The task of the partnership is to connect the dots between experts both within the council and across BP to create the very best and most sustainable decarbonisation solutions for the city. The partnership was strengthened when both organisations signed a joint venture agreement to develop the city's hydrogen hub. Those are exactly the type of agreements that we require if we are to succeed to meet our targets. Private and public organisations working together, sharing knowledge and expertise and, of course, attracting investment. It is that attracting investment piece that is so vital. We all know that council funding and resources are being stretched ever further, and this will make it even more difficult for local authorities to play their part in becoming net zero. Capital spending for local authorities is an issue where there is often a conflict between cost and becoming net zero. Willie Rennie highlighted that earlier. In the borders, the new school in Jedbra was the first plastic-free school built with all its furniture and fittings from sustainable sources, but that comes at a price and it will be harder for local authorities to make the right choice. With inflationary costs on building, it is now almost impossible for local authorities to make the initial capital outlay required to ensure the highest environmental standards for new buildings. Councils have many responsibilities that link in with the net zero agenda. Transport, housing, economic planning and support, spatial planning and placemaking, the build environment and waste management and recycling. They are vital, but without additional support going to local councils, the Scottish Government will not achieve its net zero targets. They are central to ensuring that those targets are met. 12 per cent of Scotland's housing stock is in the hands of local authorities, and the retrofitting of those buildings to meet those targets is a mammoth task. There is no way that our local authorities' partners can hope to achieve those ambitious targets without additional support from the Scottish Government. I have already touched on waste and recycling in terms of the deposit return scheme, but we know that that is one of the biggest responsibilities of our colleagues in local government. Many of our councils are now moving to longer and longer periods between refuse collection due to funding cuts. Those cannot be good for our environmental ambitions and we have seen an increase in fly tipping right across Scotland, a topic that my colleague Murdo Fraser is seeking to address in his proposed private member's bill. More support has to be forthcoming to our councils to ensure that they and therefore all of us are meeting those important targets towards net zero. In conclusion, we are all aware that resources are finite, but not only are financial resources but the resources of our planet. We have to invest now to protect our future. Government are good at planning for the short term, but often fall short when it comes to planning for the long term. That came through strongly in the evidence to the committee from COSLA. We need to be much better at providing long-term funding solutions to our partners to enable them to take long-term policy decisions in relation to our environment. Councils need our support. They need a fair funding settlement that allows them to take the innovative and forward thinking approach to net zero that we need. We need action rather than just warm words from this devolved Government, and I would encourage the cabinet secretary to accept the recommendations of this committee and move urgently to implement them. We will now move to closing speeches, and I call on Mark Griffin to wind up on behalf of Scottish Labour around six minutes, please. As colleagues across the chamber have said, this is a hugely welcome report that acknowledges local government to be at the heart of meeting our climate goals, but it also sets out a series of warnings. I welcome the headline response quoted by a number of speakers in the debate this afternoon that councils need more help, that targets will not be met without a more empowered local government, with better access to the skills and capital and an understanding of its role. Fundamentally, the report accepts decisions by this Government, including relentless cuts to council budgets and a failure to tackle our wider skills shortages, our very rule blockers to success. It emphasises that a partnership approach that exists in name only just now between local and national government is vital for success. Those warnings are absolutely nothing new, so it is then telling that the Government has failed to respond to the committee report already. When it comes to the decarbonisation of heat in our building, it was the committee's acknowledgement that local government is still waiting clarity on its role in relation to private and business properties. That sentiment is felt right across supply chains, and the existing homes' aligns have said that that needs to be addressed urgently. Householders, alongside builders and trades are crying out for certainty about what they should do, how and when they should invest, or just simply assurances that they are installing the right technology that that is not going to be overtaken by events and that the Government is not going to come in and say, no, you need to rip that out and install something else. That needs to be done properly, because decisions made in government without a lack of adequate planning and support for local communities are contributing to failure right now. I recently visited Stornoway and I learnt how badly wrong this Government's approach can be, affecting vital work to tackle fuel poverty in that island community. It was a huge knock-on effect for the skills and work pipeline, decimating investment in local communities that should be contributing progress towards net zero. Many across the chamber will know that fuel poverty in the western isles was due to hit 80 per cent this winter, and yet it was the short-sighted actions of government that contributed to the collapse of the area-based scheme on the islands when, in March last year, the council's delivery partner announced the closure of its installation department with the loss of 14 jobs. It cited an onslaught of changes to regulations brought in by UK and Scottish Governments. It said that it was the Scottish Government's wholesale adoption of the Westminster standards, which was the key point in that organisation's failure. It said that the lack of rural proofing within the past 2035-2030 retrofit standards and a failure by the Scottish Government to flex those standards to make sure that they work for homes here, for Scottish housing stock, as it certainly will. The member is making particular allegations there that the Scottish Government adopted the whole sale of the UK Government's approach to this particular scheme. Is the member aware that the Scottish Government made repeated representations to the UK Government to amend the scheme so that we could operate it on a Scottish-specific basis to allow us to take into account these aspects, but the UK Government rejected that and we had no option otherwise then to operate the scheme. Despite repeated attempts to try and resolve the issue, the UK Government refused to move on the particular issue. I appreciate the cabinet secretary's intervention that this is a Westminster design and devised scheme, but the information and advice that I have received that the Government was under no obligations to replicate to simply lift it and use it in Scotland. In fact, the experts who are involved and have been involved in installing insulation services in the Western Isles for many years have stated that this is exactly the reason why they have had to end their service. It has absolutely devastated that community's capacity to deliver on the islands. Since it is meant, I will take the member in a second, because it obviously affects the member's constituency directly, but it is meant that, in the member's constituency, since July 2021, there has not been a single installation of insulation, and that has seriously undermined the local supply tune that I have taken. I agree with the member that he quotes the lack of insulation under the area-based scheme, but will he acknowledge that the council that did not run the previous scheme incidentally and the national government are working together to try to recreate a scheme just now? Clearly, and I have said this many times, it is a bad situation that has been created by the UK Government regulations, but everyone now needs to work together to recreate a scheme that will work in the Western Isles. I absolutely accept that, but the contention from the experts that I visited in the member's constituency is that the Scottish Government did not need to lift that scheme and replicate it in Scotland. It could have adapted that to respond to the environmental situation that we have here, but what it has also said is that there has been an absolute failure in Government to provide any adequate training so that its staff could train in what the new scheme would look like. When I have asked questions to ministers, they have simply passed the buck to colleges and said that it is for further education institutions to set up training schemes rather than take direct responsibility to support the organisation and the member's constituency, who, like I said, have not been able to deliver a single insulation installation since July 2021, which I think is absolutely shocking. It has choked off work for local suppliers, and I think that that is something that should be addressed absolutely urgently. Presiding Officer, I come back to my original point that this report emphasises that local government must be a key partner, but in making its recent budget bid, because, as I said, it needed £1 billion to stand still just to maintain current services. It emphasised how vital it is to do in the prevention work to keep people away from a strained NHS, to continue investment in local authorities, just as it will be in the journey to net zero. That will be even harder when budgets are cut and the consequences for reaching those tablets are then absolutely in a worry and stare for fears. I now call on Brian Whittle to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I am delighted to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Can I add my gratitude to the NHS Zero Energy and Transport Committee for the comprehensive and really balanced report, which is not often said sometimes with committee reports, and also for giving us the opportunity to discuss such an important topic as delivering a net zero Scotland. It has been a significant debate because it has given this Parliament that opportunity to review how the Scottish Government is doing against the net zero targets, targets that will have to be met if we are going to do our bit on keeping 1.5 alive. What we have heard today in evidence from the committee and from the recently published review from the Committee on Climate Change is that the Scottish Government is big on targets without the planning and the route map to achieving those targets. The very opening paragraph in the NHS Committee's report says it all and I am going to repeat it. Scotland will not meet its ambitious targets of being net zero by 2045 without a more empowered local government sector, with better access to skills and capitalably need to play a full role in this energy revolution. A clearer understanding of the specific role the Scottish Government wants it to play in delivering in some key areas. That, of course, has been backed up by the Climate Change Committee's recent report, where it says that there are still important gaps at local authority level, which might cause detrimental delays in rolling out the significant policy across the nation. There is a lack of co-ordination from the Scottish Government, as well as barriers to properly implementing climate policy that are ingrained in the policy cycle. It has left local authorities to their own devices to do the best that they can. The resulting risk is net zero policy being rolled out at different speeds depending on the local area. It says that there is a combination of an absence of direction from the Scottish Government and a dearth of strategic design and financial support on a local level means that when there is action it is often uncoordinated across geographic and political areas. Local authorities are taking the initiative to drive action where possible, but that should be accompanied by strong direction from the national government, along with the necessary powers at local level. If I move on to the contributions from Liam Kerr, he highlighted that lack of direction from the Scottish Government. That setting of major deadlines and targets by the unacceptably slow delivery of guidance and supports to achieve those targets. He talked about lack of resource about the cuts today. I think that Colin Smith also highlighted that. The cuts to councils with no insight into provision of resources in the longer term. I have to say that it is not often that I am disappointed by Willie Rennie, but when I asked him the question around that need for longer term strategy, longer than a parliamentary term, he did not think that this Parliament would be able to do that. We need to change because that needs to happen. Liam Kerr talked about a lack of skill. Of course I will give way to Willie Rennie. Willie Rennie? I did not mean to disappoint, Mr Wishart. I was just trying to be realistic about what politics is like, I am afraid. I would love it to be longer term. I would strive for longer term, but I think that we just need to understand that we have a cycle that is quite short. I agree with Willie Rennie that we do have that cycle. However, if we are going to hit next-year targets, and we have to hit those next-year targets, the Parliament will have to work in a different way, and we will have to start looking longer term. The lack of skills planning is something that was highlighted by Liam Kerr and Alexander Stewart. We need suitably qualified staff to carry out everything from home rest reflect to developing energy-efficient strategies. There is already a shortage of staff in key areas such as planning, such as delaying application for wind farms and other renewable projects that are key to net zero. Alexander Stewart highlighted the skill shortage. It has now been cited by Homes for Scotland and Scottish Renewables as a major threat to 2030 and 2045 targets. I am glad that my colleague is sitting down, but I have to agree with Jackie Dunbar. It does not happen all that often, but the green economy has to be woven into our education at the earliest age to ensure that we have a workforce that can deliver on net zero. There is no evidence of that being even thought of, let alone being planned by the Scottish Government. Douglas Lumsden used his extensive knowledge in local government to talk about the impact that the Scottish Government policies have already had on the councils. DRS scheme, which continually gets raised in here, folk are abandoning that kerbside glass collection. He highlighted the particular challenges that councils face with a substantial rural area where the wider geographical spread of housing and the more limited infrastructure can create its own additional challenges and added cost. According to the Climate Change Committee, Scotland has failed to achieve 7 out of 11 of its targets to date. The trend of failure will continue without urgent and strong action to deliver emissions reductions, and it has to start now. The Scottish Government urgently needs to provide a quantified plan for how its policies will combine to achieve the emissions reductions that are required to meet the challenging 2030 targets. The plan must detail how each of Scotland's ambitious milestones will be achieved. This is the crux of the matter. I am totally supportive of stretched targets. Ambitions should be applauded and supported, but without a route map, without working with the targets back to a plan, starting from now, those targets are worthless. We know why we have to hit those targets, but the Scottish Government must now produce the how. As the NZ Committee's report details, one of the main deliveries of net zero policy will be our councils, but they are working in a Scottish Government fog of uncertainty. We need our councils to be driving the net zero agenda. The Scottish Government needs more than targets and high-level objectives, and we need to ensure that there is adequate funding for those policies. Time is running increasingly short and it is time for the Scottish Government to get serious on the targets. I have listened with interest to contributions across the chamber this afternoon. What I said in my open remarks is a very helpful report and a very timely report, highlighting a number of the key actions and measures that need to be taken forward in order to help to support our colleagues and local government to tackle climate change. However, as the report recognises that some of the contributors this afternoon have also recognised, particularly in the intervention that was made by Fiona Hyslop, my contribution is the nature of how you empower local authorities so that you take a place-based approach to finding the solutions that are right for those individual communities. One of the things that I would challenge some of the contributors to this particular debate on is the idea that the Scottish Government just needs to do X, Y and Z, and it will magically improve things for local authorities in tackling those issues and will ensure a consistency of approach across the country. In fact, that would be the wrong thing to do. What we need to do is to empower local authorities to be able to make the decisions that are right for their local communities and to empower local communities within local authority areas in order to influence that process as well. Collectively together, let me make some progress first of all, Mr Whittle, when I will come to you. Let me make sure that we are about empowering communities and allowing them to make decisions that are right for their needs in how they meet the challenges that go with tackling climate change. A couple of key themes have come up during the course of the debate. The issue of planning and the resources around aspects of planning that were raised by Colin Smith, Willie Rennie, Alexander Stewart, Audrey Nicol and Monica Lennon, and a number of others. Members will recognise the significant progress that is now being made with MPF4 in making sure that climate and nature are front and centre within our planning decision making process. Those who are within the renewable energy sector, those who are within very many of the areas that are committed to tackling the nature crisis that we are facing as well, have warmly welcomed the way in which MPF4 fundamentally turns the dial towards tackling climate change and biodiversity loss, which is why, in putting that in place, we have also given that commitment to take forward work, as we are at the present moment, with Heads of Planning, with RTPI and the Planning School for Implementation of the Future Planners report, which includes the provision of an apprenticeship scheme to address that very issue specifically. However, that is not just about helping to support the need to tackle local planning issues. It is also to help to support what will be some of the big strategic infrastructure investments that will be necessary in order to unlock our renewable potential, which will require significant planning aspects to go alongside that particular issue. Colin Smyth, do you want to give way? Does the cabinet secretary accept that we have seen the reduction of 38 per cent in budgets for planning departments and a quarter of planning department staff since 2009? The big fear is that, if we cannot get it right for, for example, on-shore wind projects, and I gave the example of those that are delayed in Dumfries and Galloway, we will have an even bigger challenge when it comes to the scale of those offshore wind projects, because we do not have the staff. I recognise the particular challenge that the cabinet secretary is making. It is important that we make sure that there are resources and that local authority are also providing the resources that are necessary in order to meet those needs. I was interested by the stats that were published today just last year. The headcount within local authorities has increased in terms of the number of people that they employ, even within the present financial environment. We need to make sure that the resources that are necessary in local authorities are also going to the areas that are a priority for them. Planning is clearly one of those specific areas. I have mentioned the work that we are undertaking just now, but the work that we are taking forward from a national level between heads of planning with the energy sector and the Scottish Government in making sure that we are looking at how we can help to ensure the efficiency of the planning process when these big strategic planning aspects for infrastructure investments are coming forward. A number of members raised the issues around here-in-buildings, which is a key issue. I need to take issue with the member around the issue in western ills. The area-based scheme is a UK government-based scheme. We repeatedly for over a year asked them to allow us to bring for regulations that would adapt the scheme specifically to address Scotland's needs. I was involved in some of the correspondence as well, and despite repeated attempts to try and achieve that, we were unable to get that. The UK government left it right to the very last minute, which left us with no space or option to do anything other than to adopt the scheme. The consequence was felt in the western ills as a result of that intransigence by the UK government, that failure to respond to us for what at times felt like almost a year to this particular issue that led to the crisis that we have had in the western ills, which is why we are working with the local authority to try and help to recover that situation. To simply suggest that this was something that we did not really bother ourselves to deal with effectively, is simply wrong. The correspondence and the repeated attempts to try and do so will demonstrate that. The issue of heat and buildings, I think that Willie Rennie raised an important issue here, in highlighting the type of challenges that can be experienced at a local authority level. It feeds into an issue that I want to come back to when that is on skills. In terms of, for example, the experience that the member I think was in Cooper in Fife, he mentioned the possibility of developing a district heating system, a heat network that could have been alongside a new development in the local authority, to some degree being quite indifferent about it. I do not know which year that was, but we are now in a position where we have the district heating legislation in place that creates the legislative framework to give clarity to that. The need for local authorities to have strategic heat decarbonisation plans in place by 31 December this year, which is a five-year programme that is to help to support the very issue that Alexander Stewart was raising. That was the issue of skills and to give that clear pathway so that the industry knows where the work is coming from in order to help to support where they can invest in skills and where they know that opportunities will be as well. That is to address the type of issue that Willie Rennie raised, which was unacceptable, to make sure that we have that. To add to that, we are also taking forward specific work now with the Scottish Futures Trust in order to try to prevent the circumstances, because we believe that heat networks will play an important part in the decarbonisation of domestic premises, but so that we are void getting into trying to reinvent the wheel 32 different times, that we can have a framework approach to how we do this so that local authorities can turn directly to the Scottish Futures Trust for some expertise and support in rolling forward programmes around areas such as district heating systems and heat networks, which, again, will help to support them in that way as well. I am not sure how much time I have had. A brief intervention and a brief response would probably be in order. I am grateful that you gave way. I realise that you are coming to the end of your speech. My question was a very simple one. Could you give the committee some indication when you are going to respond to the report? I hope to be able to respond to it in the next couple of weeks once we have finalised our approach to it. The reason that it has taken longer than I would have wanted it to is because we are taking a cross-governmental approach to it because of the wide-ranging nature of it, which has meant that we have had to draw in information and a response from a whole range of different directorates on it. That is the principal reason for that, and I can assure the member that we will provide a full response to the committee's report, as I would always seek to do, given the nature of the important work that they undertake. I also enjoy my remarks to a close. I recognise the challenge within the report and other reports from the CCC on the actions that the Scottish Government has to take forward and tackle on climate change. I recognise the role that local authorities and communities have to play in helping to support that. We collectively, almost unanimously, supported our climate change targets of 75 per cent net zero by 2030 net zero by 2045, but we also have a responsibility to have a mature and considered debate on how we go about changing that transition. It is very easy just to say that the Government should do X, Y and Z whenever they think that they should do it, but it is much more difficult to put policy into action. I hear colleagues across this chamber saying that we need to give more powers to local authorities and assistance to be able to do those things with me. Given the simple power of being able to introduce a workplace parking charge, we actually got opposition from a whole range of parties in here saying that they should not have that power. They should not have been powered to make that decision if that is the right thing for them to do in tackling climate change within their area. In welcoming and acknowledging the importance of this particular report and the well-considered recommendations within it, there is also a need for everyone in this chamber to recognise the need to make sure that we take collective action, that we also show collective responsibility and that we recognise that difficult decisions will have to be made in meeting our climate change targets, but that requires a maturity of debate and a recognition that we all have to play our part in achieving that target rather than simply descending into political opposition when it counts. I believe that if we can get that level of maturity, we can support our cause in local government and our local communities and we can achieve our net zero targets by 2030 and 2045. I now call on Fiona Hyslop to wind up the debate on behalf of the net zero energy and transport committee up to nine minutes. Climate change in our collective role of delivering net zero and elimination of carbon emissions is a global imperative, but to deliver it we need action at every level of government. This has been a good debate, it raises so many issues, it has challenged us, but also given us some hope and confidence. I too would like to thank all those who have sent in submissions and gave evidence from financiers such as the Association of British Insurers to community groups from city councils to environmental groups from planners to transport and housing private companies. I thank you to our clerks and spice who provided excellent assistance to stairs through almost a year of evidence and inquiry and despite joining our committee at the end of the inquiry our convener Edward Mountain steered as well to conclusion. The power of the report is its breadth of approach, but compact output and brief sharp focus of recommendations are there to help government. Targets matter, but its delivery which will make the difference and the climate change committee's last report was crystal clear about Scotland's need for a step change in setting up delivery plans as Mark Ruskell emphasised. It is worth repeating the top line of the net zero committee's report. Scotland will not meet its ambitious target of being net zero by 2045 without a more empowered local government sector, with better access to the skills and capital it will need to play a full role in its energy revolution and a clearer understanding of the specific role the Scottish Government wants it to play in some key delivery areas. So some lazy thinking and reporting and indeed the initial response from the Government and some indeed in this debate assumed that the access to capital meant it all had to be public capital which is far from the mark. We make clear in our report that access to private capital will be key but the financial skills, the product development for market investment is far from mature and needs coordination and sharing of financial skillsets to access the billions of pounds of institutional finance available. Very great for the member giving way. Is the Government's responsibility to set the targets, to set that framework and set a strategy going forward that gives confidence for that investment to come into net zero targets? That is the very point of the recommendation of a road map which I think we are all agreed on. The response from COSLA was that our report was a watershed moment in understanding and appreciating local government's role and potential in delivering net zero. There is no shortage of willingness and good examples of best practice and drive and understanding of what needs done, as I saw in visiting Stirling, but it is far from comprehensive all over Scotland. To get where we need to be we need the examples of the best being delivered at scale all over Scotland. Councils are major employers with significant ownership of buildings and land themselves and, as such, any other public or voluntary organisation need to in-house realise net zero with their own assets. That cannot and must not be the limitation of their role as Colin Smyth set out. Councils are uniquely placed to lead, co-ordinate and deliver all the different players and services in their geographical locality in a deep and comprehensive way. They have unique convening power. It is that that we strongly advise that the Government needs to be harnessed and co-ordinated with co-production in a way that, to date, the Government just has not done. We also call for the Scottish Government to ensure that all councils set area-based targets, rather than targets only for their own direct emissions. Only 53 per cent of councils currently do that. Yes, local government is independent but they are strongly of the view and ask that the Scottish Government take on that far more of a role in a Team Scotland delivery model. We need to shift from piecemeal projects to a strategic delivery model with changes in incentive style and time frame of funding and decision making to make this happen. Paul MacLennan spoke well on that in relation to heat and buildings and what that will mean for a proposed new deal for local government. Audrey Nicholl spoke of the style and form of funding in co-financing. Our main recommendations are for the Scottish Government to provide a comprehensive roadmap for delivery of net zero and key areas, one that also gives councils far more certainty than they have at present about the roles that they are to play. For the Scottish Government to create a local government-facing climate intelligence unit to provide specialist help—I am pleased that Michael Matheson has accepted that—to have far fewer and more flexible, challenging funding streams for net zero projects, larger in form but perhaps more strategic to help that place-based response. For the Scottish Government to address the churn, repetition and delay in the planning process that is holding up major renewables and other projects to help meet net zero goals and has a chilling effect on investment. I agree with the cabinet secretary that MPF4 will make a big change in that direction. For the long-time decline in the numbers of council-employed planners, we reverse to meet the ambitions of the new national planning framework. For the Scottish Government to clarify the role that councils will play in that area-based approach to heat decarbonisation and to set out the additional support that will be offered in preparation and delivery of those local heat and energy efficiency strategies. There are plenty of other recommendations, but if the Scottish Government were only to deliver those ones, we would make a big difference to how and therefore when we deliver net zero. I want to touch on a few years in particular mentioned by others in this debate and respond to them. On finance, the green finance task works needs to provide practical deliverable assistance on skills. People are a premium here, and we face a perverse situation where private businesses need council planners to deliver approvals at a pace to make a difference, but councils often lose planners to better playing private practice. That 38 per cent reduction in town planners since 2010 is of concern. It was mentioned by Alexander Stewart and Monica Lennon and brought her professional expertise in that. The Government and the SES need to accept the RTPI's detailed case for a charter town planner apprenticeship scheme. Advice is available from local government improvement service, the Scottish Futures Trust and the Scottish National Investment Bank, but they can do more here. It is not just advice but also the commitment of access to experienced staff to deliver projects that are needed. Liam Kerr talked about the need for plans and certainty, so private businesses have confidence to deliver on private skills investment. Regional Transport partnerships need to do more across council boundaries for public transport and particularly buses for commuters. That was raised by Natalie Dawn. On community, I welcome the Scottish Government's announcement today of £4.3 million for 20 new climate change hubs for community-led work. On housing, Willie Rennie set out the very real decisions and choices of upfront costs for energy-efficient houses versus volume of new housing. Who bears the risk? He said that change is hard, and he is right. Monica Lennon spoke of aligning procurement and that zero and Douglas Lumson addressed procurement and the real choices and dilemmas faced by councils. On recycling and waste, Jackie Dabar referenced the council-led Aberdeen and Shire energy and waste plan. We are all MSPs sent here to serve our constituents and our country. I add that we are here also to serve our planet and the people of this nation and others so that we can have a sustainable future. The window on that world that we know is closing, and the world that we don't fully know or understand of constant adverse weather, of flooding, rising sea levels on ours and other shores, of millions of climate migrants from drought is fast in coming. That world is not abstract, it is of now, so the imperative for climate change mitigation, adaptation and carbon reduction is also of now. Delivery needs to be now, and we need to mobilise all of our talents across this land to do this. Change, as Willie Rennie said, is hard, and that demands that we work together. It is in that spirit that I commend this report and this debate to Parliament. If it is the challenge across this chamber, we work not just for the next four years or the four years after that, we work for the long term. I think that that challenge may be hard, but I think that this Parliament can rise to that and work with our partners in local government in delivering it. Thank you, Mrs Slock. That concludes the debate on the role of local government and its cross-sectoral partners in financing and delivering a net zero Scotland. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8228, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on changes to this week's business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request of speak button now. I call on George Adam, minister, to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore the question is that motion 8228 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. The motion is there for agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8229, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam, minister, to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. No member has asked to speak on the motion, and therefore I put the question that motion 8229 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is there for agreed and the motion is there for agreed. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 8230, on suspension of standing orders. I ask George Adam, minister, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move the motion. I call Neil Bibby. I rise to oppose the suspension of standing order 15.2.1, that will close the public gallery tomorrow, Wednesday 15 March 2023. This is the second time a similar motion has been put to this chamber in a matter of weeks, as a result of our parliamentary staff lawfully withdrawing their labour. It was wrong previously to shut the public gallery and it is wrong now. As I have said before, in excluding the public from this Parliament's meetings, we are in direct contradiction of not just the founding principles of this Parliament, but also of the Scotland Act 2. Therefore, we should reject this motion. We should not be casually casting aside these principles of openness and accountability whenever they are inconvenient, especially when they are viable alternatives, just as our colleagues in the Welsh Senate have shown. Regardless of your views on the industrial action, surely we should all agree, as parliamentarians and Democrats accountable to the people of Scotland, that this measure to close the public gallery is wrong. We are now further down a slippery slope where it is deemed convenient to shut the people out of their Parliament and, therefore, I move against this motion. The Scottish Parliament is sitting tomorrow and the corporate body has recommended that the public gallery closes due to staffing levels, and I accept that recommendation from the corporate body. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. In fact, there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 8205.1, in the name of Daniel Johnson, which seeks to amend motion 8205, in the name of Ivan McKee on trade, Austria and New Zealand Bill, UK legislation, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed and there will be a division, and we will now move to vote. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.