 Welcome to the 16th meeting of 2015 in the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Before we move to the item, remember to switch off your mobile phones if they're noisy. We can interfere with the thought processes of the members here. There are, of course, tablets being used for the business of the committee. We have apologies from Alec Ferguson and Dave Thomson. The agenda item 1 is the decision on taking items in private. The first agenda item is the decision on whether to consider the draft letter through the Scottish Government on mandatory public sector climate reporting in private future meetings of the committee. Is there anybody who has any comments to make? Mr Russell. I have no comment to make on that item but I'd like to raise another item on the agenda, which is my request that the committee recall a representative of first milk. I would suggest that the invitation be given to the chairman and to the new chief executive to give evidence to the committee about milk pricing. Members will be aware that, on Friday, First Milk communicated with its Scottish suppliers reducing the price by 0.2 pence a litre, which is very serious indeed, but even more seriously, for the 13 butte producers, the price is reduced by 1.2 pence a litre, which makes the price something just over 16 pence a litre. That is utterly uneconomic and disastrous, but it also breaches what the co-operative has done up until now, which is to pay the same price to everybody for their milk. The reason being given to the butte farmers is because of cost of transportation, but the figure suggests that the cost of transportation is something between £350,000 and £400,000 a year. That is nearly double what the actual cost of transportation is. That is deeply resented in butte. There is huge anger. A director of First Milk attended a meeting on Sunday, and I think that he realised that it is very important that the committee understands what First Milk is doing, particularly as it appears to be a threat to the viability of dairy farming in butte. Thanks for that. We have agreed previously to take the work programme in private, and I suggest to members that we discuss that matter in private during that work programme period, because we will have to review items that we have dealt with before. Thank you for that, Mike. We can accept then that we will take the item on the mandatory public sector climate reporting issue in private. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. Agenda item 2, subledge. This is the committee consideration of the draft climate change additional greenhouse gas Scotland order instrument to be laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that Parliament must approve it before provisions may come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider the motion to approve the instrument under agenda item 3. I welcome the minister, Dr Irene McLeod, and her official George Burgess, the Deputy Director of Environmental Quality Division. I ask the minister to speak to the instrument. Thank you, convener, and good morning. Thanks for inviting me to discuss the draft climate change additional greenhouse gas Scotland order 2015. The order adds nitrogen trifluoride to the list of greenhouse gases covered by the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009 and designates 1995 as the baseline year against which progress to reduce emissions will be measured. This addition means that emissions of nitrogen trifluoride will be accounted for in determining progress towards emission reduction targets set under the act. Nitrogen trifluoride is a potent greenhouse gas that is highly effective at trapping atmospheric heat. Every ton of nitrogen trifluoride emitted into the atmosphere has an equivalent warming potential to 17,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Globally, emissions of nitrogen trifluoride are small but rising. In recognition of the impact on climate change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has added nitrogen trifluoride to the list of kaiote greenhouse gases for the second kaiote commitment period, which runs from 2013 to 2020, and that should be reported in national inventories. In light of international agreement, Scottish ministers sought advice from the UK Committee on climate change, who advised that it is appropriate that Scotland's contribution to meeting the global climate objective should include domestic nitrogen trifluoride emissions. In the UK, nitrogen trifluoride is emitted in extremely small quantities and its only source is in the semiconductor manufacture industry. The Committee on climate change has advised that at the UK level, emissions of nitrogen trifluoride are currently less than 1,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, with no significant rises expected to 2050. Inclusion of nitrogen trifluoride in Scotland's accounting will not require any changes to legislated emissions reduction targets. Scottish greenhouse gas emissions data for 2013 will be published in June, and it will include nitrogen trifluoride for the first time, so that order will require those emissions to be included in determining progress towards the targets that are under the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009. Adding nitrogen trifluoride to the list of targeted gases under the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009 will ensure consistency with international agreements, and it is consistent with advice from the UK Committee on climate change, so I commend the Climate Change additional greenhouse gas Scotland order 2015 to the committee, and I'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you, minister. Members have any questions? Yes, I think that the minister has kind of answered this, but I just want to be clear. Changes to the baseline, the important baseline, have contributed to our failure to reach the reduction targets that we'd set. Is there any potential or any significant potential in that move, having the same effect, or adding to the problem? No. The emissions of nitrogen trifluoride are estimated using a UK-wide model, and we won't know the level of nitrogen trifluoride emissions in Scotland until the 2013 greenhouse gas emissions data is published in June. However, as I've said in opening remarks, the Committee on Climate Change advises that, at the UK level, emissions of nitrogen trifluoride are currently less than one kiloton of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, with no significant rises expected until 2050. Thank you. Mike Russell. I think that this comes into the category of an unknown, unknown in the Donald Runtsfields categorisation, but I want to ask it anyway. Adding additional gases to the package seems to be unusual. Are there a range of other gases that are being considered, or are there unknown issues that are constantly being thought about? It's a curious thing, but I think that people will be slightly surprised that, at this stage, we will be adding gases to the gases that we're concerned about. I'll just say a bit of background. In its second phase, the Kyoto Protocol limits developed countries' emissions of seven greenhouse gases released by human activities such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and the four types of fluorated gases that have been developed specifically for industrial applications. However, there are certain other industrial gases such as chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which contribute to global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer. However, they are not covered by the Kyoto Protocol as they are being phased out under the Montreal Protocol in protecting the ozone layer. In other words, that might be the end of the matter. You can't imagine that there will be other ones added. Are there other gases that are developed for manufacturing purposes? I think that your comment about it being an unknown is very accurate. If we look back at the history of that, when the Kyoto Protocol was first introduced, there was virtually no use of nitrogen trifluoride at all in the semiconductor industry. What happened was that other gases such as the hexafluorethane, which were used, were identified as being potent ozone-depleting substances, and therefore the industry moved towards this other category, nitrogen trifluoride, which did not have that effect on ozone. Now the industry is moving to a different set of gases, elemental fluorine in particular, which has neither of the harmful effects, but yes, at an international level. These are manufactured gases that are then considered to be damaging. In manufacturing new gases, it is not only ozone depletion, but other considerations have taken into account. Anybody else wish to comment? I would ask the minister about the fact that there is clearly being a reassessment made from this discussion just now about the impacts of particular gases, but a recognition of the strengthening in our targeting of methane, an increase in parts per 1,000. I can see from the UK climate change and the UK and the Scottish Government's target lists, would you say therefore that this toughening of the targets opens up the big questions for the creators of those gases and for the industries that use them to be playing a major part in making sure that we do reduce the use of these harmful gases at this time and that that is part of the ways in which the Government will meet the targets that the Parliament set back in 2009? I think that the answer to that simply is yes. You mentioned methane in particular, the global warming potential of that has been uprated from 21 to 25. It is now considered to be 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Therefore, we need to look ever more closely at those areas, particularly agriculture and waste management, which are the main methane emitters that contribute to our Scottish inventory. Both of those are areas in which there is already a considerable amount of work being done on. We will look at that ever more closely. There was a debate yesterday on peatlands. One of the issues that we need to look at very closely is that, in the long term, peatland is a very good carbon dioxide emitter, but in the very initial stages of restoration, there is actually a small methane spike, so we need to balance those effects as we consider how we go forward and count the benefits of peatland rewetting. I think that this exchange has been very useful in flagging up that when we come to the RPP, this is a new issue that needs to be on the agenda, partly for business, partly for agriculture. We can really explore that when we get to that point later in the year. It is clearly something that we need to pass. There is more scientific information now and the challenges for us as people scrutinising what the Government does to see how it fits in the Government's challenge, but also more widely for business, industry and agriculture to pick up the fact that we are I think going to pass this today and it becomes another challenge for people in tackling climate change. Indeed, thank you. I do not know if you want to respond or not, but if not, thank you very much. I think that we will move on to agenda item 3 on the debate just now, which would be the consideration of motion S4M 13047 and asking the committee to recommend approval of the affirmative instrument climate change additional greenhouse gas Scotland order draft. We have a lot of time to discuss that if required. However, I hope that probably we may not. I invite the minister to speak and move the motion. I move the motion to recommend that the dry fraud will be approved. I wonder if there are any members who wish to comment. If there are none and the minister does not wish to wind up, no wish to wind up. The question is that motion S4M 13047 in the name of Aileen McLeod be approved. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed, so we will record the result that the committee's report confirms the outcome of the debate. I thank Aileen McLeod and her official. We now move on to future meeting details. At the next meeting of the committee on 13 May, we will consider two negative instruments, the welfare of animals at the time of killing, Scotland amendment regulation 2015, SSI 2015-161, Haud me back, has been said. The common agriculture policy non-IAX support schemes appeals Scotland amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015-167. The committee will also consider a draft letter to the Scottish Government on mandatory public sector climate reporting. As agreed at the previous meeting, the committee will now move into private session to consider its work programme. I now close the public part of the meeting and ask the public gallery to be cleared.