 Welcome to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee's 35th meeting of 2018. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, remind everyone to switch mobile phones off as they may affect the broadcasting system. We also have a change to the agenda as originally published. We will suspend the meeting after agenda item 5 and will reconvene at 2.30pm to hear evidence from the Scottish Government officials in relation to a consent notification sent to us by the Scottish Government under the terms of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. I would also like to mention that Richard Lyle and Rhoda Grant have resigned their membership of the committee. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank them both for their contribution to the work. Richard Lyle in particular was here for longer, Rhoda, not so long, but I thank them both very much. The first item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether to take item 7 in private. Are we agreed? Great. Thank you. The second item on the agenda is for the committee to take evidence on the climate change and mission reduction target Scotland bill. This is the final evidence session on the bill at stage 1. This morning, I am delighted to welcome the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform to the committee and accompanying the Cabinet Secretary, our officials, Claire Hamilton, Deputy Director of Decarbonisation Division, Sarah Grainger, the team leader of the delivery unit for decarbonisation division, and Simon Fuller, the Deputy Director of Economic Analysis, the Office of the Chief Economic Advisor. Welcome to you all. We will move on to questions. I will ask the first series of questions around the Paris agreement and the recent IPCC report. Current Secretary, we have obviously put to many of our panels the question of whether the bill as it stands complies with the Paris agreement. I want to ask you what specific temperature target the bill is aiming for and whether you think the bill is adequate to comply with the Paris agreement. When we originally requested advice from the committee for climate change, and I need to remind colleagues that that was in June 2016, what we specifically asked them to do was to request advice on bringing the new legislation into accord with the Paris agreement in general terms. The advice would represent an appropriate response to Paris, as we understood at that time, and given the best available evidence. That, of course, was an aim to limit global warming to well below 2 and to pursue further efforts to limit it to below 1.5. That was the backdrop against which we asked for advice. We were asking in general terms for advice that would bring us within that particular set of parameters. The more recent request that has been made asks for more specific advice. It is, of course, some 18 months down the line, so we are in a different place. The specific advice is for one, the range that emissions would need to be within to be an appropriate contribution to limiting warming to well below 2, and second, the range that emissions would need to be within to be an appropriate contribution to limiting warming to 1.5. The response to our original request to advice gave us, and those few members that are left that were still on the committee back at that point will understand, that the committee gave us advice in March 2017, which gave us two target ranges. One was for below 2 degrees, and that one was a target range between 78 and 87 per cent. We were already committed to 80 per cent, so arguably we were already committed to a target range that was below 2. The committee for climate change, and I understand its common parlance now, is our return to 1.5 degrees, which is an expectation that we may overshoot and then have to come back, not just us but globally. That target range was 89 to 97 per cent, and that was the one that 90 per cent fell into. That is how we have got to where we are at the moment. Last week, we spoke to a number of stakeholders, and we asked them the question of whether they thought that it complied with the Paris agreement. Stock climate chaos, WWF, and they all said, no, but from what you have just said, it is on target for as close to 1.5 as is practical. That is the advice that is coming from the Committee for Climate Change. That advice is dated March 2017, which is now 18 months ago, which is why we are needing to get the updated advice for us to be in a better position now to whether or not that 89 to 97 per cent that they were flagging up to us then is something that they would think that they need to look at again. That is the basis in which we understood it. I hear the criticism, but that is criticism of the statutory advisers that are the Government's statutory advisers, not just our statutory advisers, but the statutory advisers to all the Governments within the UK. I am not quite sure where we would be if we simply set aside that advice and then launched ourselves on some other way of gathering evidence. There is a tremendous difference in terms of what the impact is between 1.5 per cent and 2 per cent of warming for Scotland. Has there been any work done on what the impact would be if it was 2 per cent rather than 1.5 per cent here in Scotland? I suppose that that is quite difficult to do, because apart from anything else, we do not have control over everything here in Scotland. We chose the tougher of the two targets. We chose a target within the range that would return to 1.5 degrees. We went there because, although the Committee for Climate Change said that that was at the limit of feasibility, they were saying that it was feasible and that it was possible to construct a pathway to that. What will happen once we set those targets is that we will set about constructing that pathway. Some of the work is already beginning, but we have not done that in advance of this. As I indicated, that return to 1.5 degrees indicates a target range of between 89 and 97 per cent. The 90 per cent is at the bottom end of that target range, but that is what they are saying is at the limits of feasibility. There may, I suppose, be some discussion in and around that range unless the Committee for Climate Change comes back with much more specific future prognoses in terms of net zero. Since then, we have had the IPCC report. Can I ask what your initial reaction was to that report and how you anticipate that the bill may be amended to reflect some of the recommendations in there or the information in there? At one level, the reaction that we had was the same as everybody else would have, but at another level, we could all have anticipated that the IPCC was going to come forward with something like that. At the moment, I do not think that we require to amend the bill in terms of the IPCC report because we are already on track with that bill to make the achievements that they are looking for, including being carbon neutral in our case by a set date by 2050. What we are proposing is within the parameters of what the IPCC is asking for. I think that the IPCC is clearly looking at the global scenario and is anxious about those countries where they are not tackling it seriously enough or in some countries almost at this stage not tackling it at all. From my point of view, as comfortable as one can be given the nature of what we are discussing here, what we are proposing in Scotland is at the very top level of what is achievable. You have mentioned that the Committee for Climate Change is waiting on updated advice from them. We hear that they will be responding to you by April, given the ambition to complete the passage of this bill by summer recess. Will that give you sufficient time to incorporate their updated advice between stage 2 and stage 3? I think that all Governments in the UK had hoped that the advice would be by the end of March. There are various different reasons for that from each Government, but our desire was because of the passage of the climate change bill, which was introduced in June of the last session. However, I know from the Government's perspective that I do not want to tie the bill too tightly to a timetable if it ends up meaning that we are proceeding without what I think is necessary advice. I think that it would be an absurd position to be in. At the end of the day, it will be for the Committee to negotiate in terms of parliamentary business how that happens. If we get the advice in April, I think that it is still doable by June, but I do not want to make the deadline so hard and fast that it does not allow for that advice coming a bit later than fits in our timetable. I think that we would all probably like to see it done and dusted in this parliamentary year, but I think that it is more important that it reflects the advice that we get than that we stick to a deadline in terms of timetable. You talked about the return scenario, or the overshoot scenario, where we go beyond the target temperature and then hopefully drop back down again. Does that worry you in terms of the impacts that might occur on the back of that, in terms of environmental refugees, habitat species loss? I think that there are global issues here and global worries, absolutely. That was the advice that the Committee for climate change is giving us, and I expect that to be something that they might come back to in their upcoming advice. I think that we are already seeing some impacts. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. There will be some global effort required on the adaptation side and the response side while over the next decades we struggle to get that temperature back down again. Those will really need to be global responses, particularly when it comes to issues such as refugees, which at the moment globally do not look like a great picture. I am much heartened by the cabinet secretary's view that we need time to accommodate the next report from the UK climate change committee. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary will be minded as a Government to ensure that, if the committee were to decide that it wanted to take evidence on that before stage 3. That committee would be consistent with any timetable that the Government pursued and, potentially, other options might be to have a chamber debate on the report before proceeding to stage 3. As I suspect, others are anxious to make sure that we give full consideration to that report before completing the legislative process. I am not asking for a commitment at the moment, cabinet secretary, because I guess that you are not in a position to make that, and it is down to Parliament at some extent. I am merely asking whether the Government will be prepared to collaborate and co-operate on that kind of basis. It will not be on my gift, and it is a discussion that will be had between the committee, parliamentary business and, depending on chamber business, the bureau and Presiding Officer. The fundamental thing here is that we get this right, not that we do this fast, so I think that that is the most important underpinning thing. If that requires the committee to think that they may need a little bit extra time, then personally I do not see a problem with that. Of course, it is not my decision at the end of the day. It will be a committee's decision in discussion with the relevant authorities. Some of that, many years later, is still a bit of a mystery as to how some of that comes out of the sausage machine. We might have to go back to the stage 1 position, even though we had left the stage 1 position. It would be my understanding to take evidence again. I think that that is what Stuart Stevenson is suggesting, in light of the evidence. That is a discussion that needs to be had. I do not know the answer to that, depending on what the Committee for Climate Change advice is. The commitment that is in the bill, as it is currently drafted in reaching net zero as soon as is practicable, is such that it would be relatively easily amended from our perspective, if the Committee for Climate Change advice is not done. That amendment at stage 2, which would be how we saw it happening, would be a fairly straightforward amendment. At that point, it is in the committee's decision as to whether or not they want to stop at that point and then go back and take more evidence. I would not be able to be in a position to decide that for you. I would like to focus our discussion into some questions about the scope and implementation of the bill as we proceed. We have heard in evidence about the need for it to be transformational. I think that the committee and many are agreed on that. Given the number of tangible policies that we have heard of in oral evidence, has the Government considered including in the bill what I would call policy pointers, which would support target delivery? I was recalling earlier today that, in the 2009 bill, there were a significant number of policy mechanisms that would help drive towards the targets such as the single-use bags. Just to give a couple of examples of possibilities that have come up, or which I would like to highlight, and there may be others that others would want to highlight, for this bill, a nitrogen budget, and possibly, although this hasn't come up in evidence yet, a stance on fracking in this bill to reinforce that, and also energy efficiency. Those are just some thoughts that I've got and others may have other ones. I wonder if you could respond to that. I understand, at least I appreciate what the thinking is there, but we had to make a decision when we were doing this bill, whether we were going to make this about targets, or if we're going to start including what are effectively delivery options, that would mean that the bill could potentially become so enough. That would be enormous, as to bring in things from every single portfolio, and it just becomes, I think, in those terms unmanageable, because the committee would then have to be taking specific evidence on very specific policy delivery options across who knows what range. I would caution people from the temptation to start doing this, because the committee has had a very recent example of what happens if you bring something in like that specifically, and then the processes are such that understanding the implications and being in a position to make an absolutely informed decision on it are vastly limited. I appreciate where people are coming from, but is that really how we think the best way to handle it? No. I don't, because there could be any number of those things from across a whole range of policies. Claudia Beamish has mentioned, for example, energy efficiency, but there's a whole section of government already progressing issues on energy efficiency. There's already a huge amount of spend being committed to that. There's fuel poverty being dealt with in another part of government. It's not that these things are not happening or cannot be taken forward, but I'm not sure in a bill such as this that would be the right thing to do. We decided at the start that it wasn't particularly appropriate to do that, because effectively this is about resetting targets. At the end of the day, all of the policies that will be required to deliver on those targets will be dealt with in each of the portfolios. I agree that what I've termed policy pointers, rather than the detail, as with the 2009 bill, would give some clarity to where we're going. Some of the things that you've highlighted in energy efficiency, there's been a recent statement and strategy being developed, but on other areas that are very important, for instance, with the Good Food Nation bill, that appears to have been kicked into long grass and is just going to be a strategy. I understand what you're saying, that we can't have everything in there, but not everything was in there in 2009. Indeed, some of the pointers haven't yet been implemented and may never be, but does it not give a confidence? Was that not the purpose then? That's an argument in favour of doing it then? Well, some have and some haven't, but does it not give a confidence that there are policies that it's important to consider? Maybe some of them might be quite controversial, such as some of the agriculture ones, which there's a lot of uncertainty around. I would need to take very detailed evidence on some of these things. I just don't know whether or not at that point you would really be in the best position to do so over a range of potential policies. That's happened there, hasn't it, with the things that have been taken for, like with the single-use bags. That has happened at the point where— I don't know that it was triggered by what went into the bill, though. I think that that was happening anyway. I mean, this is a kind of discussion about the nature of legislation, really, and you'll forgive me for reverting to my previous profession as a lawyer. When you legislate for vagueness, you get vague legislation, and I don't know that that's particularly helpful in the long run. I don't think that this piece of legislation is the right place to start dealing with very specific—now you're calling them policy pointers—but that's very vague. There are plenty of other legislative opportunities as well as other policy opportunities to progress some of that. Believe me, every single one of my colleagues is going to be tasked on the basis of these targets to do precisely that in their own portfolio areas. I've already begun to have bilaterals with colleagues about that and about the implications of what we're proposing here. Just to back up what Claudia Beamish said, throughout the evidence that we've had in the committee, we've heard various policies that would help reach the targets more urgently. Are you ruling out the need for targets and ability to be underpinned by supportive policies? No, I don't think that's what I've said. There's a difference between setting things in legislation and understanding what is required to achieve the legislative targets, which is what this bill is about. If you set things in legislation, you're putting them on the face of legislation and that has implications. It's really a guess, a slightly high-level discussion about what the nature of legislation is and how government should proceed. I do caution everybody. We've just had a very recent example of what happens when things are brought in on a specific policy basis in a more generalised bill that people may feel, and I think most of the committee probably did feel, that not enough evidence had been brought forward for them to make the properly informed decision on. I just caution everybody about that. I understand the temptation, believe you me, and I'm not saying that if I was sitting on the other side of this table I wouldn't also be tempted, but the reality is that legislation is locking something down for the future. Right at the moment we are in a stage at this point where we don't know what some of that might take because we're setting out on a course that would mean that we wouldn't want to have our hands tied in certain directions. If you aren't going to do that with legislative change, then what you put in the legislation becomes meaningless and ends up being a point of dispute, which I don't think anybody wants. Angus MacDonald If I could turn to the proposed Just Transition Commission, the Government stated that it considers not legislating to be the most effective route considering that, and I quote, providing a statutory basis for the commission would delay the work that we want it to undertake. Why will placing the Just Transition Commission on a statutory footing delay work? What will be happening between now and June next year with regard to the JTC? First of all, there's obviously a debate over June next year, so that's one issue. We're into a potentially fairly long legislative process. Secondly, we've appointed a chair of the Just Transition Commission already, and I will soon be appointing members of that commission. My expectation is that that commission will meet in January at its first meeting with a remit to deliver advice within two years. We are able to do that because not having it legislated for gives us the fleetness of food that enables that. If we put that in legislation, first of all, I have no idea when this bill will get through stage 3 and when it will get the royal assent. Let's just presume for purposes of generalisation that it gets through in June. It's got the royal assent maybe by autumn at which point it can then come into being, but if you put the Just Transition Commission into legislation, at that point, effectively, I have to pause the existing Just Transition Commission. We have to then go through an entire public appointments process to appoint members of that commission, and that takes about four or five months. I know that people may find that difficult to understand, but that is a procedure, which is that if anybody has gone through it and understands it, it takes a very long time. You've then got to set up an independent secretariat. You've got all of the costs associated with that, and the likelihood is that you wouldn't have that set up until, at the very minimum, about a year later. Meantime, we've got a Just Transition Commission doing all of that work that we've had to stop because we now have this legislated for commission, which I don't think is going to aid us if we have to stop the work that is being done now. You can't have an appointed Just Transition Commission continuing when there is legislation requiring it to be on a legislative footing. If you put it on a legislative footing, you would have to have an argument about how long it sat for. I know that there's a huge, different set of views about how long it should sit for. Therefore, the costs of it change depending on what that decision is. Meanwhile, there is a Just Transition Commission about to start work right now. Give us advice in two years, and then at that point we can then consider how best to progress. That will be the first one of its kind in the world. What we are doing right now with the Just Transition Commission is the first of its kind in the world. I think that it's far better that we crack on now and deal with some of the really important issues that the Just Transition Commission needs to deal with rather than having the awkwardness of having to set up a statutory one with all of that that entails in terms of cost and time. To Mark Ruskell, before I come back to Claudia Beamish to finish this, I'll end the question. If it's okay, convener, I just wanted to go back to that previous point about what goes in the bill, whether policies go in the bill or not. I suppose some of this comes down to confidence, how much confidence would the committee have in the other parts of legislation, the other parts of government that they'll be able to pick up on whatever target is in the bill, whether that's net zero by 2050 or 2040 or whatever, and put in place the right policy provisions to drive that forward. So how much reassurance can you give the committee that there is actually a plan B for the other parts of government, that if we end up with a higher target in the bill than what's currently here, then the legislative frameworks needed to deliver that will be put in place? Well, I would have expected that the confidence would have come from Scotland having already reduced its emissions by 49 per cent since 1990, so we are well on the way, well on track and everything we are doing is at the very top level of ambition of anything else in the world. I would have thought that in itself would give you confidence, but in a sense what you're asking me betrays one of the difficulties here because you're going to try and second guess across all those portfolios what particular policy things that they should be doing and then lever them into this bill? I really think that that is not the best way to progress and while I understand the temptation I don't think it's an appropriate thing for us to be doing. So there is a fundamental difference, I guess. I didn't necessarily say that I was. I was just putting it back to you to reassure me so that I don't have to. I mean, I can only reassure you about this government's intentions. I can't reassure you about a future government of any future colour, but then that's the same as with everything because this legislation will bind us to targets and the policies that are used to achieve those targets may vary. I don't know. There may be lots of different alternative options. I don't know. That's one of the things I hope the Committee for Climate Change does give us good advice on. Of course, Kezia, this is the climate change plan. Yes. When can we expect a new updated climate change plan to be published? Well, in a sense, that is a follow-on discussion because that is the way in which we are doing things. It's why we've taken the approach that we've taken just now and our ideas about the next plan are, under the 2009 act, the next plan would have been due in late 2021-22. I go back to when we might expect this bill to go through and we've only just come through a climate change plan process. Do we get to the end of 2019 with an expectation that somehow we can from scratch do an entire new climate change plan in the space of a year? Will it just take two years to do this one? Or secondly, do we consider effectively updating or redoing the existing climate change plan to take account of whatever might end up being the targets in this bill? That's a discussion that we need to have. We need to have it as well because there's an issue about scrutiny period for anything that we do as well. That is something that I will look at as soon as the bill has passed through Parliament. There is a difference if the bill gets through in June as opposed to if it ends up slipping into the following year. I'll think about whether or not it's more appropriate to update the current plan in the short term or bring forward a very new plan quickly. I need to say that bringing forward a new plan is effectively a 12- to 18-month minimum exercise. If we're not starting that until the end of 2019, and that's effectively starting a new plan almost as soon as the ink has dried on the royal ascent, you wouldn't get it in before the next Scottish parliamentary election. We're stuck with the parliamentary timetable, whether we like it or not. I need to think about that. Obviously, we'll discuss this further with the committee as well. I'll go back briefly to the Just Transition Commission. It's surely a question of balance. You used the phrase awkwardness in your remarks just then about the fact that there is a present. I don't want to summarise what you've said because we've heard it and the official report hears it. I just really do ask you again for a view about the fact that whenever we are going to set the targets for net zero, whether it's whenever it is, that the whole thrust must have the fair way forward for communities and for affected workers. Surely that awkwardness of the complexity of having an interim one, which I'm delighted is in existence, must be weighed up against the importance of whatever Government we have, just like with the targets, that this would drive forward a fair way. I have real concerns about the Just Transition Commission not being on a statutory basis. I don't think that it follows. I think that you're falling into the trap of assuming that the Just Transition Commission is the only place where these conversations are actually happening and being taken forward. We have a number of other things. The climate change plans and all Scottish Government policies are subject to impact assessment duties, and that's an equality impact assessment and a fairer Scotland duty assessment, where it's appropriate. That purpose of the fairer Scotland duty is to ensure that those living on low incomes, and that's not just about employment, of course, but those living on low incomes, are not disproportionately disadvantaged as a result of policy decisions. In some of the targets of the bill, we have to consider various criteria, including social circumstances. There was an equality impact assessment, children's rights and wellbeing impact assessment and a fairer Scotland assessment, all done for the bill proposals. That's one of the reasons why we haven't thus far set the net zero target date at this time, because until we have a credible pathway, there may be some negative social consequences that we don't want to see. It isn't the case that those things aren't being looked at. They're not all going to be simply in the Just Transition Commission. There's going to be a lot of other areas in Government policy that are also taking these things on board. I don't know an argument that the Just Transition Commission has to be on a statutory basis, necessarily follows, but in any case I go back to the fact that once you legislate for it, for a Just Transition Commission, effectively you're stopping, as I understand it, the current Just Transition Commission from continuing. It would take some considerable time, effort and cost to set up a statutory Just Transition Commission. We would be losing a year, at least, of really important work that I don't think we have time to lose. It's a case of, do we press ahead now, which is why we've done what we've done, rather than wait for it to be on a statutory basis, or not? We're pressing ahead. I'm sorry if going too fast is a problem, but we're doing it. Cabinet Secretary, I've never said we're going too fast, and I've never criticised just for the record the Just Transition Commission. I'm simply saying that there's a lot of robust argument, including from unions and NGOs and businesses, for why we should put it on a statutory footing, and I would have thought that there could be a way that we could move forward towards that, so that whatever Government we have, we have that inclusive partnership of dialogue, but that's just a different view, so we'll perhaps agree to differ. I guess McDonald would like to have some questions on this theme. Okay, thanks. I mean, we have basically covered the Just Transition Commission, however it probably is fair to put on record that, and I think it's fair to say that, the majority of the stakeholders that we have asked would be keen to see it on a statutory footing, but if I could follow on from all of that and look at the transformational change, evidence to date has shown that clearly we all see that there's a need for transformational change and that this should be systemic rather than just at an individual level. It's also been noted that there's no all-voluntary future and that climate change cannot be solved without statutory backstops. I'd be keen to hear, Cabinet Secretary, how transformational change can be achieved whilst retaining sectoral and societal buy-in? For example, are there limits to public acceptability, and to what extent can transformational change be voluntary? I guess I have to preface everything in respect of this with a reminder that we live in a democracy, and in a democracy everything that you do has to have, if not the explicit, at least the implicit support of the majority. It is possible for Governments to take forward fairly ambitious things. We've seen a smoking ban introduced in Scotland. We've got minimum pricing for alcohol. I think that it's probably fair to say, and that's two different Governments, so I think that it's probably fair to say that there was a degree of muttering in certain quarters about both of those proposals. Members of the public who weren't particularly on board, but nevertheless I think that there was an implicit understanding that those were tackling problems that needed to be tackled, and therefore, maybe in some cases a bit reluctantly, in some cases more enthusiastically, people were willing to accept that that was, if not their preferred, nevertheless a reasonable option for taking things forward. I think that that's really important to make a statement at the outset about the need for that implicit support, if not absolutely explicit. I think that climate change is on the verge of becoming part of that scenario. There was a recent household survey that shows that the concern about climate change is beginning to penetrate into a majority of households, a majority of people's minds. That's an important indicator to us that there is the possibility of being able to push forward in respect of policies that relate to climate change, that may also accrue that implicit buy-in. That buy-in is really, really, really important and you have to know that you're going to get it. There are some areas where I think it will be easier than others and some areas where it will be harder in terms of policies, but also there may be some sections of the community for which it is easier and harder. It isn't a straightforward across-the-board game here. It's something that we really, really do have to engage in at every level and the behaviour change has to be at every level. One of the things that frustrates me very slightly is that we jump this debate from what government is doing to what individuals are doing. Without looking at the range of other groups within that and institutions within that, and it's not just public institutions but it's private institutions as well. The behaviour change can be driven by exemplars and people, for example, if you work for a big private company that begins to make some of those statements and make some of those changes themselves, that also helps to build that implicit buy-in that we want across the board. I don't want the conversation to just be about here's government, what's it doing and here's the individual, what are they doing, but there's a whole range of behaviour changes in between that which I think are necessary as well. I think that it's really, really important. We need to make sure that people know what technological changes are coming along that will help in this regard. We need to make sure that we change our approach to behaviour change as a government. In fact, last week we announced that we'd finished a review of the current public engagement strategy that came under the 2009 act. Our conclusion is that we need to revise that strategy to ensure what we do is to commensurate with the targets within this bill. We know that that's a constantly changing scenario and one that we have to make sure we're abroad. I don't know whether colleagues were aware of that issue about the review of climate change behaviour issues. Clearly, we all welcome the behaviour change that is happening, but are there any plans for statutory backstops? I don't know what you mean by statutory backstops. To ensure and encourage further behavioural change. Will there be... I think that you can legislate for behaviour change. I think that what you're doing is constantly engaging and encouraging. We have ten key behaviours that we identified previously and we still do now, but we have an existing public engagement strategy, which I've just referred to. We're going to publish a refreshed strategy as soon as possible. I'm not quite sure. Referring back to Cabinet Secretary's previous point about many of the policies needed to be taken forward in different portfolios, one example that possibly touches on your question if I'm understanding it right is the work that's happening in the Energy Efficiency Scotland programme, which involves quite a lot of behaviour change, the way people use their heating systems and the way home owners, what decisions they make to insulate their homes, for example. There is consideration being given to how to encourage home owners to put in place better insulation and when to stop encouraging and to absolutely require home owners to insulate their properties better. It's obviously huge costs to home owners, so it's been very, very carefully considered. But if that's the kind of behaviour change that you're talking about, those conversations and considerations happen in the particular portfolios. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Moving on. Very quick question. Thank you. I'm declaring on interest, Cabinet Secretary. My family and society have to change in your view to achieve a 90 per cent target and a net zero target. What change would you foresee? Well, it's difficult to foresee change on the net zero because that's precisely what the Climate Change Committee said they couldn't see in terms of a pathway. If you go to net zero without there being a pathway, you're effectively into a high-level guesswork. In terms of what we consider to be stretching, what the UK Committee for Climate Change thought was feasible, but at the outside of feasibility, the 90 per cent will require every sector of society to be thinking about this and to be making changes. I think that it's challenging for us in terms of transport and it's challenging for us in terms of, well, the obvious ones that people have already flagged up because the energy transformation is already in place and will, I think, proceed as quickly as it has already been. The challenges are in buildings, but we're dealing with that through the fuel poverty and the energy efficiency side of things. Agriculture, which I know this committee will often come back to, and transport, which again is something that I've already had conversations with my colleague Michael Matheson about. If I can go back to the comment that I made about behaviour change and the need for us not to jump from the Government level automatically to the individual level, there are a whole range of bodies out there that I think need to be challenged about some of their, for example, policies around their car fleets and at what point will they be making the transition to low-emission vehicles? At what point, so when we're being called on to increase targets, I think it's fair to ask them when does your institution expect to do these things? What are your plans? I think that there's a variety of different things that might be taken on board. Adding all of them up is something that we will have to do and that will be part of our consideration around the climate change plan issue that we discussed earlier. So would it be fair to say then that you're prepared to see that type of change, that societal change, not brought about by what's on the face of the bill necessarily, but in the different portfolios that other Cabinet secretaries are in charge of in terms of delivering it, you having charged them to deliver? That is how we progress and that's how we've got to where we are just now. As I indicated, I've started to have direct conversations with colleagues in the most likely to be affected areas that flag up the need for them to go back, notwithstanding that they've just come through the climate change plan process, they need to go back and start to think more ambitiously in each of their portfolios about what can be delivered. As I said, however, I think that this is a task for everybody. It can't just be government that does this, it will also have to be at every level of society. If we are going to say that we want the need for fossil fuel vehicles to be phased out by 2032, I'd like to hear about what companies and other institutions are doing in respect of their own activities and their own provisions. I'm a bit naughty sometimes when I have these conversations, but when I get the calls that I want to say, for example, to the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church, when are you going to tell your priests and ministers that they are not going to be permitted to buy a fossil fuel car? Those are the decisions that will have to be made. I want to hear back from some of the organisations what their decisions are going to be as well. It's not just good enough to call for the targets, it's also that everybody has to buy in. I'm not asking everybody around this table when they plan on doing this, but it's an individual decision, it's an institutional decision and it's a government decision, all wrapped together. You don't have a particular biblical reference to back up that statement. On ultra-low-emission vehicles, sadly not. I'll try to seek one, but I'm sure there is one somewhere that will suffice. There usually is, there may even be a Shakespearean reference that does the job as well. I think I'm trying to make the point here that the effort required is an effort at every level of society. I am concerned about jumping from the high-level government right down to the individual behaviour and putting it on the individual shoulders when actually there's a range of things in between there that we can reasonably expect to see movement on as well. Stuart Stevenson. Thank you very much. I think the cabinet secretary was maybe struggling to go for the tower of Babel, the biblical reference. We could have a theological discussion if you want. Indeed, on another occasion, cabinet secretary. I just wanted to explore a wee bit about the targets and, in particular, the substantial pressure that's come from many of the stakeholders who have appeared in front of the committee for setting an S0 target sooner rather than later. But just before I go to that, I wanted to just develop a little bit of what's come before and ask whether, in considering particular policies that clearly might advance the climate change agenda like electrifying the car fleet, whether, of course, that might not have adverse effects if improperly implemented. For example, given the substantial sunk costs in carbon terms and new vehicles, it would be unhelpful if you doubled the size of the car fleet, which you might do if you thought it was carbon, zero carbon to use it because of the sunk costs. I was thinking of the renewable heat initiative in Northern Ireland, which was a good idea if you replaced a boiler with a better boiler. But what actually happened was you had an awful lot more boilers installed, so the effect was negative, not positive. That's an important issue to raise because, effectively, when you're looking at a policy option, you have to think about the whole life of either the item or the whole consequences of the introduction, and that will apply to virtually any one of the delivery decisions that you try to make. Also, a lot of the delivery decisions may very well be predicated on a technology that we're not certain is the right way to go, which is another issue that has to be considered. A lot of things at the moment are at the VHS versus Betamax level of the debate, so who would have been able to predict, necessarily, which one was going to be the technology that everybody went for? I'm not sure we're in that space with some of those technologies, and that is a complication. It's a complication that has to be looked at for all of the proposals that I see being mooted, not just in evidence to the committee but out there, and we all read them and see them as well. There are some real consequences if you go down that road, and the consequences might not be immediately evident when you make a superficial call or introduce a policy without proper evidence. That's in very general terms. I don't want to get drawn too far into a discussion about cars. I've never owned one in my life, so I don't really have much of a feeling for that, but I am conscious that, yes, proliferation of cars in and of itself may not be the best thing to happen for a lot of different reasons, and the speed with which one can do the change-over is another issue, but it is obviously where we have to go, and that would have to be managed. I think that there are people who have questioned the increasing electricity use that would be required if you're actually going down that road, too. Those are all things that have to be factored into, a decision about cars, and then, of course, there will be the argument that, of course, the idea should not be increasing use of cars, but increasing use of public transport instead, and all that has to be taken into consideration. What of the areas where perhaps the speed of change-over is probably today capable of being seen as particularly difficult would be the agricultural sector? Is the Government thinking about the balance that it could have if, for example, we were to move ahead with something that we probably know we can do, which is to up our exports of zero-emission electricity? We are a huge potential for renewable energy, which would take you towards net zero potentially without doing anything to agriculture. Is that part of the thinking, or are there particular things in relation to the feasibility what can be done in agriculture that are engaging the Government at the moment? I'm having conversations with my colleague, Fergus Ewing, about some of this. I've had meetings with a range of agricultural associations on these things, so there is no doubt that, effectively, there's a bit of tough love needs to go on. They do need to make changes. I think that they're aware of that, but there are some real issues about making changes as well. We can't produce food without emissions. There isn't a way anywhere in the world to produce food without emissions, so there will always be agricultural emissions. Therefore, to a certain extent, there will always be the need to be balancing off. Whether you balance off in a calculation that is about exporting renewable electricity or you balance off in a different way is a matter for the way things progress. The issue with agriculture, with food production, is to reduce emissions as far as is reasonable, manageable and doable, given the current understanding and the current tools that we have available. However, you will never get that within that sector to zero. You're never going to get that down to zero because producing food, which is a fairly fundamental thing that we all have to do, is, in and of itself, going to produce emissions. Those emissions to other countries? As well by making it too onerous for people to produce to you. There is an issue and that is a big question mark over some of the ideas that float about in respects of people's diets and all the rest of it that would simply, in my view, shift emissions. In a global sense, that's not particularly helpful. If we offshore emissions because of decisions we make, that's the other side of the coin that Stuart Stevenson is raising. He's talking about us being able to balance by other mechanisms within our economy, but equally, you may end up off-shoring emissions and that's not a particularly helpful thing either. I'm going to come to Mark Ruskell and then Finlay Carson. I'm just wondering where the evidence is, for that off-shoring argument. The World Bank produced a report a couple of years ago on environmental policies being found to induce innovation that offset part of the cost of compliance with environmental policy. I suspect that they both encourage innovation, but they also run the risk of that off-shoring. I need to remind everybody that we are making decisions within Scotland, which is a devolved part of the whole UK. If our climate change targets encourage businesses to move south of the border, it's an easy thing for them to do, but it doesn't help us. From our perspective, given that we've got domestic targets here in Scotland, off-shoring means even the rest of the UK much less going elsewhere completely. I think that both are obviously things that can happen. Innovation absolutely in Scotland has a great history of it and continues to do so, particularly in these areas, but I do think that there is also a risk. It is why, for example, Norway has set a net zero, it hasn't set a target because it hasn't legislated, but it has said that it will go to net zero by 2030 if other countries do the same. That's what's driving their ambition, ensuring that they don't get themselves so out of kilter with neighbouring countries, that they don't end up effectively causing themselves a problem by simply having parts of their economy disappearing over the borders. You've spoken very negatively about net zero targets. I don't think that I've heard a positive argument from Cabinet Secretary or any of your officials in the last year or so. Can you see any advantages to the economy, for example, of setting a net zero carbon target? If we didn't, we wouldn't be asking the Committee for Climate Change for advice. The point about the net zero target is, right at the moment, we don't know how to get there. Now, if we can get advice about how to get there, we've said right from the outset, from the very moment this bill was introduced, that it's introduced in such a way as to allow us to amend it, immediately there is a pathway to it. So it's not about being negative, it's about needing to be credible, needing to be realistic, and needing to see what would actually be a way to get to it. We're already amongst the most ambitious countries in the world for achieving emissions reductions, and that isn't going to change. Do you see any advantages to the economy of setting a net zero target and driving that innovation? Do you see any advantages in being a first mover on technologies rather than waiting to see what Norway does and then adopting it somewhere down the line? No, I don't think that's what I was saying. The point that I was making is that if we set out on a target without knowing how to get there, then we do run a real risk of making some serious mistakes, and I want to get the advice from the Committee for Climate Change before we embark on that. When that advice comes, the minute they say, yes, here is the pathway, then this Government will adopt that. Back to agriculture, in particular the red meat sector, and on the basis that we've got to remember, we're only 75 per cent self-sufficient when it comes to beef, but throughout the evidence sessions we've heard, it may not be enthusiasm but certainly an acceptance and open-mindedness when it comes from both the academic or the college sector and farmers themselves that there are more that the sector can do. But between 90 per cent and net zero, we would suggest that most of that is down to noxies and a lot of that will then be down to agriculture and transport. About six months ago there was lots of rumours going around or a bit of scaremongering to suggest that, if the Government were to go for net zero, it would decimate the red meat industry in Scotland. Is that your belief? I think at the moment one of the challenges would be because the residual gases that we're talking about other than CO2, it's not just nitrogen but it's also methane and I think methane is a particular issue for meat production. But there is a bigger and it goes back to some of what Stuart Stevenson was generally asking about. There is a bigger issue about meat production as it's seen globally as opposed to how it's managed in Scotland. I think there's a tendency to generalise globally because something is done one way in many countries in the world. Is that what's happening here? There's a lot of work being done on that and I'm very conscious of that. I know that the farmers, particularly those who are running beef cattle and sheep, are very aware of that. We need to remember that something like 86 per cent of agricultural land in Scotland is what's called less favoured areas. It wouldn't take a lot particularly on the hill farms who are already on very marginal incomes. It wouldn't take much to tip them over the edge and then end their businesses and I'm really conscious of that. We've had a long discussion about just transition but just transition isn't just about workers. It's also about consumers, it's also about individuals but it would also be about some of the farming sectors because I know that some of the farmers that we're talking about are living off incomes that range between 14,000 and 18,000 which frankly for most people would be astonishing. We have to be incredibly careful what decisions we make here and what that actually means. 86 per cent of agricultural land in Scotland is less favoured area. It's not land that is suddenly going to grow carrots and potatoes, it's land that really isn't suitable for any other form of food production. Those are all things that we need to take into account when we're thinking about it and the impacts of some of the decisions that might be made. I'm as conscious of that as anybody is and should be because there are real impacts for real people. There was a document published just around the Highland Showtime that suggested that the meat production in Scotland would be decimated. That was the suggestion if the decision was taken to go to net zero. I think what you will find is that we certainly produced an analysis that said without having a specific way forward as a pathway then that would be an enormous pressure. That difference between 90 and net zero would be an enormous pressure for food production and particularly for meat production. I can't imagine anybody here who is not aware of the widespread discussion about rapid dietary change being required that would end up by 2050 with nobody eating meat at all. If nobody is eating meat at all, then the implications are pretty enormous for anybody who is currently making a living, however marginal, from the production of meat. There is a real concern about that and about managing that but that's why you have to work with farmers to try to get them to a place where we understand what they are doing and how they can get their emissions down as far as possible and use some of the balancing off from other areas because at the end of the day we all need food. Food has to be produced and even when you're not eating meat the plants still have to be raised. Whatever you eat is going to have been produced with emissions so I think that we just have to be careful about the impact here of what the changes might mean for particular sectors. Right now with evidence we know if you were to suggest to go to net zero your belief at the moment with the information you know is that it would decimate meat production. I don't use words like decimate but what I understand to be the case is that that would be one of the areas where you would need to pretty much be quite draconian in the decision making and the point I'm making here is that here is also a just transition issue because we have people producing food on land which will not produce any other food if they are no longer going to farm and if we're going to stick to meat we already import a significant amount of meat and the danger is if we increase the imports of meat all we do is increase emissions somewhere else. That's back to this complicated equation going on between a decision we make here and the potential on emissions reductions. It could positively affect our emissions reductions but negatively affect other countries emissions reductions and that's why it's complicated. I don't have an easy answer to that but everything I read that suggests we all have to be vegetarian if not vegan by 2050 presupposes nobody in Scotland is there for producing meat. I don't see how the consequences of that are anything other than pretty drastic and in those circumstances have to be thought through very carefully indeed. I'm trying not to be alarmist about this I am aware that there was some discussion around the RHS that perhaps got a bit alarmist but nevertheless I think it is an important issue that you make a decision in one place that has consequences in another. Other places, I want to bring back you'll have seen the evidence that we got from our Swedish colleagues in particular there's Andrew Spijkman politician over in Sweden talked about Scotland's ambition very positively yet over here Sweden is also pointed to as being the epitome of the net zero target but they have quite a different system to have quite different policies and targets compared to what we have here. I mean I just think that one of the things which I guess has surprised me most about doing this job is the extent to which I took it as read that when I saw international comparisons everybody was comparing like to like and that simply isn't the case. The more I understand it the more I realise that actually what one country says and does compared to another country can vary quite considerably and makes it almost impossible then to do a straight read across. I think it's one of the weaknesses of the system internationally that that is the case and I don't have it within my gift to fix that but it is one of the things I think ought to be fixed because it's very hard when you look at what another country says it's doing it's very hard to know how that actually compares to what you're choosing to do. Sweden is and we still refer to it as in the forefront of this and that we are second only to Sweden but they don't include they said that about us so maybe there's an interesting debate going on in Sweden that says Scotland is way ahead of us and all the rest of it. No, because I'm only involved in this domestic debate but the issue of the Llu Llu CF the land use land use change forestry sector there are countries that simply don't include it at all and why? If I ask the ministers oh of course it would be too difficult and you know it wouldn't be very good and it wouldn't be you know so Ireland doesn't include Llu Llu CF the reason it doesn't include Llu Llu CF is because Ireland is running for peat fire power stations so they just don't include Llu Llu CF in their announcements so there are other countries and we're including a share of international shipping and aviation other countries don't I don't think Sweden does there's a whole issue of carbon credits which is another question entirely and our approach has been very different in terms of that so I find it a bit frustrating because I always want to look behind now what the announcements are and it's the reason I raised Norway because Norway made an announcement about net zero by 2030 but when you looked behind it A it's not statutory and B is predicated on sets of things which mean arguably that it is a challengeable policy target compared to the way we do things which is very constrained by legislation and with annual targets we are the only country in the world that does annual targets we're the only country in the world where the government has to come to Parliament every single year and explain why that set of greenhouse gas emissions stats is what it is there isn't another country in the world where a climate change minister has to do that why would we not be saying that we are amongst the most ambitious in the world in those circumstances that's a good point to turn into the interim targets with John Scott and the other members I'll try and bring you in after I'm moving the agenda along so that we get through everyone's questions thank you before I do a question on the last subject I'm not really setting out to be awkward please accept that at the outset cabinet secretary but you will be aware of the revolutionary work in terms of methane reduction in cattle in terms of seaweed in Queensland in northern Australia where in the laboratory conditions this work gives a 90 per cent reduction in methane output from cattle some of our research institutes are already aware of that and looking at that were it to be discovered that seaweed around Scotland shared the same properties that seaweed apparently on the Great Barrier Reef has that could facilitate this methane reduction in cattle in Scotland how would we harvest such a seaweed I think in these circumstances this conversation could end up simply reiterating one that we've already had the easy answer to that might be that obviously there's a real potential for farming seaweed farming which I think all of us can agree would be a good way forward I don't know the details of the research I am aware that there's a lot of work being done around the world on the issue of methane and we need to just be absolutely clear that the scientific research will work in terms of its practical implications in Scotland but I'm sure that both officials in the Scottish Government and the farmers themselves will be watching this very carefully because yes, it could well become a very advantageous way to proceed if the research is borne out in practice I'll now address the questions that convener knows about which is the adequacy of interim targets and given the 2020 target is on course to be achieved is it challenging enough? Okay, so there's a slightly existential question there which is is a target only a good target if it can't be achieved in which case you will come and beat us around the head because it hasn't been achieved so in that sense we can't win we can't win if we set a target however stretching that is achievable because if we don't achieve the target then we're seen to have failed as well I don't know what the easy answer to that is all we can do is set targets that seem to be realistic and credible on the basis of the evidence we have at the time we're setting the targets and at the time in 2009 we set targets which have turned out to be more achievable but you couldn't have foreseen in 2009 some of the things that actually happened subsequent to that I agree with you it should be a matter of celebration that we've achieved the targets rather than beating us also ahead for naught having achieved a target why has the Scottish Government decided to take a linear emissions reduction pathway to 2050 when we are told I think in evidence that the risk is exponential although I would take some discussion with Stuart Stevenson about the risk being exponential if that's the right scale but it's being used there but why have you decided to take a linear emissions reductions pathway to 2050 because we are first of all we are constrained within the way we do things here in terms of the climate change plan et cetera that has to set out progress towards the final target of 2050 and show at each stage how we are going to get there so to a certain extent that kind of binds us into a kind of linear linear way of thinking it is always easier to look in the short to medium term because you have greater degree of confidence about what might or might not be required and available it's harder into the longer term to know I mean if I think about the difference we are what not quite at 2020 so if I try to think about 2040 for example well that's the equivalent of the year 2000 I mean some of the things that we're doing now would have been unthinkable unforeseeable just 20 years ago so there is a constraint around that so I think the way we try to do things at the moment is the best way possible I'm not sure what the alternative would be to not having linear targets Sarah well the other way to answer the question is not why do we have linear targets but why do we not have any of the other things that we could have so we could for example have steps sort of when we expect technology to sort of come on stream but that really becomes a guessing game and betting on which year things are going to come in another possibility to have a curve one way or the other either with greater effort in the near term but we already have the most ambitious targets in the world for 2020 and 2030 and as the cabinet secretary has made clear we think credibility is very important so we don't think we can do anything more in the nearer term and I'm inventing it whereas doing less in the near more later I think we took the assumption that that wouldn't be acceptable to stakeholders or the parliament so that kind of leaves us with a linear pathway I see but notwithstanding and there are reasonable questions to be asked why should we wait until after 2030 for more rapid decarbonisation when certainly in evidence we've been told that there already exists in many sectors they just need to be applied much of the technology is already there it may be just the cost of doing it sooner rather than later I see Mr Fuller nodding his head sagely there from the finance department of government cabinet secretary I suppose you could have this conversation ad nauseam really trying to progress make changes but keep in mind all of the other issues that we have to think about in terms of consequences in terms of just transition social justice and all the rest of it and that's why if I go back to everything has to be both credible and realistic because we have to be in a position to actually make these changes in a way that isn't going to damage sections of society now I know there is a bigger argument about if you don't make the changes coming anyway from climate change but that's why we're trying to set out the long-term targets that we are and trying to ensure that all of the things that we do work through that balance I mean this is a challenge for every single country I think Scotland is meeting that challenge far better than virtually any other country are we doing it perfectly perhaps not and maybe there is a point in the future with hindsight everybody will be able to sit in this room and it won't presumably be us and look back and say they should have said X and Y and Z but we can only make these decisions on the basis of the information that we have right now and that's what we're doing whether it be in terms of energy and we have made rapid changes in decarbonising energy and that will continue apace or whether it will cut right across all the other portfolios so just for the record cabinet secretary you will understand do the interim targets as set out in the bill fulfil the IPCC's requirement for rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society as far as you're concerned they do yes absolutely they do yes the IPCC report said that the world needs to reach peak emissions very soon Scotland has passed peak emissions we've halved emissions since 1990 and we've got the most ambitious targets for 2020 and 2030 so I think that very much delivers what the IPCC said thanks very much Raskol if there are assumptions here which could still be challenged for example in the UKCCC advice that in 2050 will still be producing electricity by burning North Sea gas is that feels like a very early 20th century debate surely technology will have moved on by then it may have I know that oil and gas production is changing rapidly and I can't foresee at that point what might be the case and I suppose the Committee for Climate Change in that sense in any better position than being able to anticipate 32 years from now what technologies would be available and applicable either to that industry or to any other industry and that is the difficulty for all of this that we could be unbeknownst to us on the brink of some major technological changes in some areas or we may not and we have to proceed on the basis of what we know now as opposed to what we think might be the case in another 20 or 30 years Cabinet Secretary some people would argue and can you not see that it is a credible argument you've talked about credible and realistic to say that the climate change plans as we continue on the back of innovation and technology that develops over the next 30 or 40 years that is the way in which we can be even more ambitious than the net zero than 90% that you think we should be on now Surely that is there, there is a pathway The climate change plans we don't legislate the plan the plan is an official document that is a constantly changing discussion that Government has to have with stakeholders and with the committee to develop and I've already indicated that the minute this piece of legislation is through we will be looking at the current climate change plan and I need to remind you it's not long signed off on that the current climate change plan we will have to look at it again because it will have to be updated and I would expect that as much as they may feel that that is just a constantly constant cycle of thinking but in truth that's what it is and yes precisely and that is where these discussions and detailed conversations need to be had To questions from Finlay Carson I had section 5 sets out the target setting criteria and generally people have welcomed the addition and update from the 2009 act however some of the evidence we heard suggested that one of the target setting criteria which is not exceeding the fair and safe Scottish emissions budget the terms fair and safe should be defined and calculated could I have your thoughts on that yeah I think sorry where is it sorry I just going back and forth in the folder well basically the term fair and safe pretty much means the total amount of emissions over the period which the Committee for Climate Change think would be a consistent with an appropriate Scottish contribution to global efforts so basically that's all fair and safe means now I think that probably to a lot of people sounds just a little bit circular and doesn't really kind of say very much but so I think that there is an issue around the potential tweaking of that definition if people are particularly interested in that to make fair and safe expand beyond simply that or be a bit more specific than that and I think that's a conversation that could be had reasonably with everybody and the Committee was a desire that it was defined and calculated there was also a suggestion that public health should be one of the target setting criteria do you believe that public health should be added given that it could relate to preventative health spend and fuel poverty I mean I think that's a discussion we can have if we're going to add that into fair and safe but there is a danger then we start to expand that out to cover so many things that it becomes meaningless as well because if you recall the earlier part of the evidence that I was giving there's quite a lot of work being done in other parts of government that are already dealing with some of those aspects and to a certain extent the Just Transition Commission is about the fair part if you like which we are taking forward as well so I think there are I mean there is a discussion to be had about it and I'm happy to have that conversation Mark Ruskell Do you find achievable in relation to a net zero target? Well achievable effectively means being able to show how we get from here to there in that way that is both credible and realistic and that means avoiding rhetorical flourishes but actually looking at what can be done and over what timescale it can be done so achievability has to be quite specific in that sense that it isn't simply about it isn't simply about setting a target without actually thinking about how you get there so achievability if we set a target that isn't credible if people are going to respond by saying what's the point in even trying then frankly that means it's not achievable and what will happen then is in the future governments will simply shrug their shoulders and say they can't be blamed for not meeting them because they weren't achievable I think Lord Debbon indicated to the committee that in his view there was a degree of judgment around this if it's financially possible if there's a technological pointer if they can put together a way of getting there that doesn't require effectively a leap in the dark then that's an achievable pathway that's all we're looking for we're looking for you can't get absolute certainty on this but we're looking for something that we can actually in practical terms go to people and say this is how we get from here to there this is what we need to do this is where we need to be thinking and present that to them there's a very ambitious target far north of what's currently in the bill we came very close to achieving it but we didn't achieve it would there be any advantages to society as a result of that of that pathway to trying to meet a target would we have sent out any positive signals to business, to innovators I would still need to know what you were talking about in terms of getting there because it is at the present time we don't have a pathway I mean I remind everybody that the Committee for Climate Change's advice was that 90% was at the very limits of feasibility now I would hope very much hope that nobody here thought that our government should act in a way that was not feasible so we are asking the climate change committee to update its advice two years down the line to consider whether they think there is now a feasible way of doing it and if there is a feasible way of doing it we will do it that way but do you see any feedback in terms of innovation so by setting a net zero target you then set out a signal for those that want to but innovation is happening right now and happening across the board right now and we're sitting at the moment at 80% target so the innovation is happening I'm not sure that an argument about this particular target is necessarily going to drive innovation any faster than it's already been driven so why was the chief ability not a major factor in the 2009 bill then but it is in this bill pretty sure it was in the discussions at the time I think that the reality is in the 2009 bill there was a lot of discussion about targets as well and I seem to remember that I may be wrong because I wasn't doing the 2009 bill but I seem to remember there being a choice of two targets at the time as well I'm not sure and that we did go for the higher target the term Achievability is in the 2009 act it is okay there you go so Achievability has been at the end of the day Achievability ought not to have to be in legislation because are we seriously arguing that the Parliament should actually be legislating on things that it currently doesn't think are achievable I think that would be an astonishing kind of position to be in so Achievability ought to underpin just about everything we do without having to be legislated for Achievability was a discussion in terms of the 2009 legislation is a discussion now but it's a discussion driven by the advice that we've had that effectively we've got says that it's not because they can't see a pathway to it and that's why we're having this discussion in the terms we are but effectively every piece of government legislation every government policy has to be predicated on Achievability otherwise I mean it's not a game so it's physically impossible to meet net zero target no I'm sorry you can go on twisting my words if you want you know perfectly well that is not what I'm saying because a couple of the people that we've heard from Lord Devon as well and I believe Andy Kerr from climate exchange warned against or were critical of other governments who have been virtue signalling what is the negative impact if you do that if you do put something out there that is saying we're going to do X but as you say you're not looking behind it about what's actually achievable there what's the impact that could have well I mean I can't speak for everybody's targets and policy statements and things all I can keep saying is that a lot of governments make these high level calls but they're not legislating for them they're not being held to account for them and in many cases they're certainly not being held to account in the next 10 15 and 20 years and a lot of the expectation is loaded into a presumption that somewhere around about 2035 2040 we're going to have this amazing technological changes that will make all of this doable well the difficulty is I think in those circumstances if that doesn't come through then the danger is people ordinary people and businesses et cetera will default to the well what is the point of this if it's not actually achievable and I would rather set out on the way we're doing it to talk in terms of achievability and realistic expectations and to only push further when we know that all of those things are locked into place and you know the UK Committee for Climate Change comes back with advice in whatever March, April, May whenever they come back with advice and they tell us yes it is now feasible then we will do it so it's really you know we might be talking about the difference between you know where we currently are in terms of the legislation at the moment and where the government might choose to amend it in just a few months time I mean you know we are in danger of angels dancing on the head of a pin here Stewart Stevenson Is achievability also about avoiding things that won't contribute to achievability and I go back to the Northern Ireland renewable heat initiative which has actually made things worse in climate change and has cost half a billion pounds so that in looking at things and concluding whether they are achievable or not we also have to look at the risks if they are serious that they are not achievable both in wasting money but also in taking us in the wrong direction Well indeed and we've had conversations already this morning around that I think to a certain extent what you have to be able to do is to make the best decision that you can make with the evidence that you have you know we can foresee the unforeseeable I don't know whether or not the renewable heat initiative in Northern Ireland was something that they were specifically targeting towards climate change emissions reductions I guess they thought that would be a good benefit from it but it is precisely the example of what can happen if something goes very badly wrong and we have to avoid paralysis as well so there will continually be a balance of advantage and disadvantage that we have to be making a decision about but we have to go forward on that there is absolutely no doubt about that we have to go forward so we have to avoid the danger of paralysis in some areas which we could end up in constantly doing is balancing looking at risks there will be risks in almost everything we do everything we do in life carries a risk it's about best evidence it's about realism, it's about credibility it's about making decisions which can be absolutely justified and if there are disadvantages that they can be worked off against the advantages and balanced in that way I have a question from Angus MacDonald Thanks, convener if I can go back to the issue of the use of carbon credits which we touched on earlier under what circumstances might carbon credits be used for example to achieve net zero and given that their availability and cost is likely to be prohibitive from the 2040s onwards why is the ability to use them being retained well, I mean I can't imagine that credits will ever be used the current bill effectively establishes a new default position so that we can't use credits to help meet a target but if in the future there is a thought that it that it should be allowed then we would effectively have to go back to Parliament it would have to go through an entire process in order for that to happen so we're not really expecting that to be the case I mean effectively credits can't be used to meet but in this bill credits cannot be used to meet targets at all unless we bring forward an affirmative SI in order to do so even in a non-zero limit then it can never represent more than 20% of the year-on-year change in emissions but the cost of it just effectively from Scotland's perspective rules this out I mean I don't we have a we if we were using credits to make up the gap particularly with the net zero target that we're not currently got a pathway to making about around 15 billion over the period of 2050 and I don't think our budget our Scottish budget could possibly support that because it would have to be found from right across the Scottish Government and I don't see what the point is because effectively that is back to the decision about off-shoring because you're effectively just letting somebody else do the emissions on your behalf and you're banking the good feeling that you've achieved your targets on anything for global emissions reductions at all so I think that carbon credits are a bit of a red herring in all of this okay well just continuing on the red herring seem the you mentioned the 20% you mentioned the 20% limit so we're just curious how that was decided upon and what analysis was done to arrive at that figure you would need to ask the Labour party it was their amendment in 2009 legislation so I'm not sure what the thinking at the time was and in fairness I don't think Claudia was here either I don't know what the thinking was I suspect it will have been we will have accepted the amendment in a spirit of of trying to give something to okay but there wasn't detailed government there was a determination not to be using them so I suppose we felt but accepting the amendment at the time was not something that was an issue with regard to inventory revisions we've heard that a responsible team a fundamental change in the scope of future inventories is expected due to the incorporation of new emissions factors and categories of peatland condition which is likely to substantially increase emissions from Llu Llu CF in Scotland so just on that point will inventory revisions make targets easier or harder to meet then for example by how much will the inclusion of peatland emissions increase emissions from the Llu Llu CF sector and what works been done to mitigate these the thing with inventory revisions is that they are completely out of our control because they are driven by changes in science effectively so they can help in one year and hinder in another year and they are quite volatile which is one of the reasons why quite a lot of countries don't include Llu Llu CF in their emissions stats because of that volatility so the decision was made in Scotland to include them but that does mean that then we are subject to that volatility in one year now we know that there are some very major revisions coming down the track we haven't seen them in detail yet I understand the UK Government has a report but it's not sharing it with us so we haven't seen the detail yet but we know it's going to be pretty significant and as I understand it then there's very much a particular issue for us because we have the annual targets so here we are again this can have an impact and we're not proposing to change annual targets for that reason but we do have to have a way of managing these inventory revisions there was a period about 18 months ago when we thought this bill would end up being subsumed by this argument about inventory revisions but the work that we've done with stakeholders and everybody behind the scenes to bottom out the impacts on this means that we've come to what we consider to be a reasonable conclusion in terms of the amount that we're talking of as I said there is a lot of uncertainty and we haven't seen the detail of the report but Scotland has about two thirds of the UK peatland but only accounts for about a third of emissions from peatland so we think the impact in Scotland could be around six megatons of CO2 about 10% of the inventory but that would increase emissions by four to five percentage points so you can see that the impact is quite significant if we don't technically manage it in a better way and it needs to be remembered that this is nothing to do with domestic effort the inventory revisions are changes in measurements changes in science, changes in understanding and will continue to be the case particularly in this sector there was a year where we benefited from inventory revisions in terms of forestry because they found a way of counting smaller parts of woodland cover than had originally been taken into the stats so that was a measurement change as opposed to a science change although I suppose measurement is science as well and that all happens at a level way above us Mark Further to that I'm just wondering if there's work happening to look at the way that we measure the emissions coming from agriculture because there's obviously the emissions that come from agricultural production but there's also all the other things that agricultural holdings do including renewable energy production and agroforestry does that perhaps start to address some of the issues that we were talking about earlier in terms of the difficulties agriculture has in terms of meeting zero emissions I think it's fair to say that's a bit of a grumble amongst the agricultural sector that they don't get the credit for a lot of the things that they are doing because those achievements are assigned to different sectors so in a sense we need to recognise that farmers particularly are doing a lot more than it looks like they are doing in this regard I think there is work on going where we are looking at the potential for reducing emissions in agriculture with both the industry and the scientific community and we are talking to them about how we might better reflect their achievements I don't know if there's a particular if there's particular things that you want to I mean there's a conversation around what we can better do in terms of if we go back to the food production side to be had but there is a question over how do you assign emissions reductions sector by sector Exactly, it's very difficult to look at the inventory and sort of allocate who is responsible for which emission reduction in which sector I think one of the an error that people quite commonly and very understandably make is thinking that the agriculture sector in the statistics reflects everything that farmers do but there's a big difference between everything that farmers do and agriculture and they do an awful lot to reduce emissions that gets captured in the other sectors such as power generation and that is all captured in the inventory, it's just not under the agriculture heading so I think there's maybe something that we need to do when we're talking about the statistics to make very clear that agriculture doesn't equal everything that farmers and landowners are doing I mean remember that when we the greenhouse gas emissions come I mean this is a kind of national set standard so what we count for agriculture is part of that I think there is perhaps an opportunity for us to, even though it's not part of the greenhouse gas stats every year to nevertheless try and do a calculation that shows what agriculture is delivering on the understanding that that means that you can't use that as a replacement for what appears to be the greenhouse gas emissions stats because that's measuring a very specific thing as opposed to the wider but it's not just agriculture that's affected like that as well the issue about buildings is also affected in a similar way in that some of the work that's done will be assigned to the energy sector as opposed to the building so it's not just as straightforward in any of the sectors Person We just touched on how peaked in agriculture I've got an important part to play but I would like to just get on record we know that climate change is not it doesn't have any national boundaries or whatever so on a UK scale can you put on record how you're engaging with the UK Government to take forward the UK making advancements what's discussions are you having currently I try to engage as much as is possible but sometimes it's a little one sided Great, we're going to move on to questions from John Scott Thank you, convener and cabinet secretary seizes the questions around times and the financial memorandum 13 billion cost estimate That's crucial Well, this is the actuality bit Emission pathways and non-energy sectors including land use change waste and parts of agriculture were not updated in moving from 80% to 90% in the times modelling why were these not updated I think the short answer would be that we considered them to already be pretty much at the point where we couldn't see a pathway beyond that now that doesn't mean to say that isn't going to change in the future but that we feel at present to actually update them further would be us basically out in a canoe without paddles and in those circumstances when it comes to doing these times runs doesn't make sense I don't know if Simon wants to expand on that Absolutely, yes I think what we're trying to do in the times framework and the associated model that goes on alongside that is look at the least cost option for moving from 80% to 90% So when we're doing that what that very much identified was the cost of our options in all sectors for increasing emission reductions the most cost effective way cost effective way that we could identify would be focusing primarily on surface transport and to an extent on buildings and property as well and so that's why modelling and what fed into the national memorandum was on that basis I see So in terms of the confidence in the estimated figure of £13 billion we have a variety of figures in front of us which to be frank I don't fully understand where the cost for moving 90% is said to be £13 billion unadjusted for inflation however the cost goes up to £25 billion and then adjusting for inflation but removing the impact of discounting the estimated cost of moving to a 90% target is £59 billion Now which figure do we use I appreciate what the cabinet secretary is saying that we're trying to or Mr Fuller is saying that we're trying to achieve the least cost way of getting to where we want to be a position I would utterly subscribe to but there's a huge range there of figures and I just would welcome an explanation of how these figures actually work what they mean given that they're out there and they got to them please Simon Absolutely, starting with the highest figure and working back might be the easiest way to do this so the £59 billion figure in effect would be the cash outlay it's around money which would have to go out the door the reason then we have figures which are adjusted for inflation and discounting is because these cash outlays will occur over a 32 year period and clearly when you spend £1 billion in 2050 the real cost of that is less than £1 billion in today's prices because you have inflation, you have economic growth over that period and more generally spending money in the future is easier than it is spending money today so then what we have is the £25 billion number which takes into account the discounting which should be in effect taking factor in future economic growth and affordability of policies the idea of doing discounting is very much standard practice we're looking at costs over a longer time frame and the discount rates and assumptions we use are taken from treasuries green brook appraisal guidance which basically sets out standard assumptions which should be used when discounting over future years so that gets you to your £25 billion number and then the final adjustment we make is inflation over a 32 year period is quite substantial so we want to strip out the effect of inflation so then what we get is a figure which provides the most realistic expression of what the cost could be when thinking about it in today's prices I wouldn't go so far as to call that sophistry but it does sound a wonderful way of dressing up the fact that this is actually going to cost £59 billion but at today's prices it's only £13 billion can I just say that sophistry is a little unfair when we're actually applying what is a standard practice that all governments will use in the UK we're not departing from what is considered to be the appropriate way of trying to calculate this and yes to a degree there's got to be a built-in uncertainty because we can't know for certain but what we're trying to do is use all of the tools that we have and that are understood to be as robust and these are treasury ways of calculating it so if you're going to call it sophistry then effectively you're calling your own I submit I give in All we're doing is what is considered to be established practice but I agree that there's a degree of I mean it's a sophisticated guesswork okay I'll go back to the questions well I mean we should have absolute confidence well or as much as we can with all the caveats the cabinet secretary just said in this 13 billion pound figure I mean the variability in the times model from what I have read about there being 2000 variables and in each of those variables there's four different variables to about 8000 variables in terms of probability theory I don't know how all of that holds together in terms of very sophisticated mathematics it must be to have absolute confidence in those predictions there's so many variables in there but do you want to further I don't think anybody can have absolute confidence absolute isn't a word I would use here I think we can have reasonable confidence on the basis of of what we're doing and saying now that these figures to the best of our knowledge are appropriate now in 20, 30, 40 years time might people be here sitting laughing about that I can't say that for sure but all of this has to be done on the basis of our best understanding right now and using the appropriate methods that are mandated for use across the whole of the UK in order to achieve the results we've achieved and that is really folks the very best I can say okay I think that oh gosh there's more does the 13 billion pound include consideration of the potential social economic and environmental benefits of climate mitigation policies for example health benefits or benefits to my diversity no as I understand it no we haven't tried to do that side of the equation but we do make the point and I have made the point that there will be other benefits and and you know they might not all be easily quantifiable but they do exist and there is also an economic benefit I mean you know Mark Ruskell was asking questions earlier about this there clearly is an economic benefit in terms of the technological change and innovation that is happening right now and will continue to happen in respect of this I think the last time we looked at it it was something like 29 trillion dollars is available globally is available globally yeah but I I mean not yes available in Scotland but globally but of course that isn't any more quantifiable I mean I don't know what the calculation is that has produced that figure but there is a figure and there are people thinking about the potential benefits that there are as well you know what we have to produce here is the potential costs and we have done it in the best possible way we can have you done any analysis on the risks and cost benefits of actions to mitigate climate change at different rates from the ones that you are proposing well we in arriving at the proposal for a 90 per cent target we conducted a range of impact assessments on the difference between the current target 80 per cent and 90 per cent I won't list them they were a good handful and that set out various cost benefits and risks and the difference between a 90 per cent target and a net zero target we set out as best we could what we thought the risks and different ways we might achieve that could be in the analysis paper that was published alongside the bill and the main just very very briefly summarise the primary benefits of tackling climate change as quickly as we feasibly can around being at the forefront of the global shift to carbon neutrality and getting a good share of the figure that the cabinet secretary mentioned as all countries move to carbon neutrality there's going to be good markets for those technologies and skills so Scotland being at the forefront can capitalise on that very successfully there's also all the co-benefits of clean air and more active travel and those kind of health benefits and the risks are around the interactions with other policies and the social risks so there are risks to fuel poverty if we try and go too far too fast the interaction between reducing emissions and reducing fuel poverty is very very finely balanced there's a very finely tuned equation there if we try and do one sort of too fast so that's one of the major risks that we looked at could you explain that just a little bit more because this was said by minister Paul Wheelhouse in his statement last week and I didn't fully understand what the risks were of moving forward more quickly on those targets of reducing heat losses sure so in terms of increasing energy efficiency of the building that's not an issue in terms of impact on greenhouse gas emissions there are different kind of risks there relating to whether or not Scotland can get the economic benefits from the supply chain which are much less familiar with in terms of moving to lower carbon fuels heat homes quite currently and I'm going to oversimplify this currently fossil fuel heating is cheaper than low carbon heating so if we push really fast to reduce emissions then we will push people to use more expensive fuels which will increase fuel poverty and vice versa is also true if we push quite hard to reduce fuel poverty more people will use more fuel fossil fuel heating and will increase emissions so there is a very fine balance there and we have to try and achieve both through a carefully calibrated steady approach so if I've understood you it's because you're expecting the cost of fuel that's produced with less carbon emissions the cost of that type of energy to come down then that's why we are prepared to wait a little longer to get to that point before pushing for these improvements I'm afraid we've run out of time I just want to thank the cabinet secretary and our officials for all their evidence this morning I'm going to suspend this meeting for a short period to allow us to change over and allow the cabinet secretary and officials to leave thank you The third item in our agenda today is to consider a number of requests from the Scottish Government to the committee Government legislation using the powers under the European Union withdrawal act 2018 in relation to a number of UK statutory instruments the first of these is the health and safety amendment EU exit regulations 2018 members will note the deadline for consent from the Scottish Parliament it's 28th of November that's tomorrow have we any comments on this? I'm sorry nope the committee content for the Scottish Government to give its consent to UK ministers to lay the health and safety amendment EU exit regulations 2018 in the UK Parliament yes and we will write to the government to let them know that the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off that letter thank you the second instrument is the environment miscellaneous amendments EU exit regulations 2018 members will note the deadline for consent from the Scottish Parliament it's 2nd of December do we have any comments on this? thanks Gavine I've got a brief comment perhaps more about how the Scottish Government keeps pace with European legislation post Brexit in the event of Brexit I know that it's mentioned in here about the provisions of the European environment action plan that covers a number of areas of biodiversity, air quality climate change, circular economy and clearly there's an issue in relation to this SI around how the government uses the provisions that are in the withdrawal bill or the continuity bill whichever one we're operating under in terms of how we keep pace with that action plan so it's slightly separate from the detailed nature of the regulations that are before us but it is an issue that is related to it so getting some clarity of the Scottish Government about how they're working intend to work with the European environment action plan post Brexit it's an issue that arises from this regulation in relation to how we keep pace going forward on what the Scottish Government's action plans might be to ensure that regulatory alignment which is something that the Government has committed to Obviously, given that the deadline is 2 December, we won't have time to get that response back but we can include your points in the letter if you're content for that letter If that's the most appropriate way to do that if that's a letter back to the Scottish Government then I would appreciate that convener but we obviously won't be able to get a response before this deadline Any other comments? Is the committee consent content for the Scottish Government to give its consent for UK ministers to lay the environment miscellaneous amendments EU exit regulations 2018 in the UK Parliament and we'll write to the Scottish Government obviously taking Mark Ruskell's points into consideration Are you content to delegate authority to me to sign off this letter? The third instrument is the floods and water amendments etc EU exit regulations 2018 Members will note the deadline for consent from the Scottish Parliament is 2 December again Do we have any comments? Nope Is the committee content for the Scottish Government to give its consent for UK ministers to lay the floods and water amendments etc EU, thank you and we'll write to the Scottish Government Are you content to delegate authority to me to sign off that letter? Thank you The fourth instrument is the justification of practices for ionising radiation radioactive contaminated land England, Northern Ireland and nuclear reactors environmental impact assessment for decommissioning miscellaneous amendments EU exit regulations 2018 Members will note the deadline for consent from the Scottish Parliament is 6 December Do you have any of that? Yes It was in relation to post Brexit post withdrawal environmental governance around this area so obviously there is testing there are standards but the question is around who polices the Government in that case and I believe in some of the briefing material that we've had that there is still some uncertainty on how the post Brexit environmental governance arrangements will relate to this particular area I know it's something that we've raised before in committee and I'm just wondering again if there's an opportunity to seek clarification if there's any more certainty coming from discussions between Scottish Government and Westminster around what that overall governance of this area will look like post 29 March I'm going to give my advice of course that we do have cabinet secretary in front of us that we can ask that question of them to them in public session however we can also include that in the letter as well that's an issue that we have raised before and I think that we're about to get an update on how the two Governments are coordinating things and working together so we can add that question to what we ask them next week the briefing question convening that was around again the briefing material we've had around this regulation talks about the nuclear co-operation agreements that exist between different states and again it would be useful to get some clarity over what co-operation agreements that we have in particular if we have any co-operation agreements with Australia in relation to the disposal and treatment of civil nuclear waste okay, happy for everyone happy for that to go in a letter as well okay thank you any other comments okay so is the committee content for the Scottish Government to give its consent for UK ministers to lay the justification of practices for ionising radiation, radioactive contaminity land England or Northern Ireland nuclear reactors environmental impact assessment for decommissioning EU exit regulations 2018 in the UK Parliament we're content and we'll write to the Scottish Government and are you happy to delegate authority to me to sign off that letter thank you the final instrument is the leg hold traps amendment EU exit regulations 2018 members will note the deadline for consent from the Scottish Parliament it's the 10th of December do we have any comments on this excuse me bless you okay is the committee consent for the Scottish Government to give its consent to UK ministers to lay the leg hold traps amendment EU exit regulations 2018 in the UK Parliament content we'll write to the Scottish Government is everyone content for me to have the authority to sign off that letter thank you okay agenda item 3 subordinate legislation on the environmental noise Scotland amendment regulations so that this is the forth item agenda this morning to consider the environmental noise Scotland amendment regulations 2018 SSI 2018 oblique 342 do we have any comments on this no yes convenient it was I was wanting to seek clarity about how this relates to the assessment of aviation flight path changes and the consultative and regulatory approach to dealing with that I mean obviously we don't have officials with us so I'm not sure the best way to seek a clarification on that particular matter although Stuart Stevenson probably has the answer he's got his pen up I mean we will have to send a letter with those concerns in it Stuart it is laid out in an XA under policy objectives where it says where it discusses the maps is to make people's exposure to noise from road, rail and specifically aviation so it clearly does address that issue and of course it does merely replace the existing secondary legislation that came in in 2006 which did the same this covers aviation as the previous one did Clarify my point then so accept that it does cover aviation my question then is about how this then relates to the processes established by the civil aviation authority in terms of assessing changes in flight paths and whether this SI then influences that directly whether that makes any substantive changes those current processes are undertaken it's particularly live issue at the moment in relation to Edinburgh airport and the standards of assessment and consultation that Edinburgh airport is having to go through under the auspices of the CAA in order to provide information about noise and to consult on that with communities so my question is about whether this has a consequence of that in terms of influencing that in some way is dealt with under that current regime we will write to the Government on that and we will put the letter so that you are clear that the content of letter reflects the comments that you've made today right so are we agreed that we don't want to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument and just put Mark Ruskell's comments on the letter to the Government to get clarity there the committee will now move into private session and I request that the public gallery will now be vacated following agenda item 5 the committee will suspend and reconvene at 2.30pm in public to hear evidence from the Scottish Government officials on a proposal by the Scottish Government to consent to UK Government legislating using the powers under the European Union withdrawal act 2018 in relation to the storage regulations 2018 now suspend this meeting