 Welcome to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee's 17th meeting of 2019. Before we move to the first item in the agenda, I remind everyone to put their phones on silent or switch them off as they may affect the broadcasting system. The first item in our agenda is for the committee to take further evidence on the climate change emissions reductions target bill at stage 2. This morning, I am delighted to welcome Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, and the Cabinet Secretary is accompanied by Dr Tom Russon, the legislation team leader of the decarbonisation division, Sarah Grainger, team leader of the delivery unit of the decarbonisation division and Norman Monroe, the solicitor for the Scottish Government legal directorate. Good morning to you all. Cabinet secretary, there have been obviously some quite key developments since we last spoke to you. The First Minister has declared a climate emergency, and of course we have had the Committee for Climate Change's report and recommendations. There is going to be, as we expected, transformational change needed. Do you think that the Scottish Government is currently structured to deliver that transformational change that is required by this climate emergency that we are facing? Obviously, we are committed to doing what is needed in respect of limiting global temperature rises, and that will have to be done responsibly in collaboration with Parliament and with people. I set out in the statement that I gave to Parliament on 14 May that climate change is intended to be at the heart of the next programme for government and spending review, but ultimately decisions on whole-government action are taken by Cabinet, and that is going to continue with Cabinet and the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change having key roles in deciding our approach. I have to say that, in respect of overall structures of government, matters such as that are for the First Minister to make a decision on, and members will be aware when there are new cabinets appointed, sometimes portfolio responsibilities are changed around, different issues are put in different portfolios. That is entirely a matter for the First Minister, and I am not venturing into that area because it is not for me to make that decision. Can I ask what actions the Government has taken immediately to address this climate emergency, as announced? At the risk of just rehearsing the statement that I made on 14 May to the chamber, obviously, we are in very early weeks. The very first step, effectively, was to lodge the amendments to our bill targets, which we lodged on the day we received the advice, and that is in keeping with the committee's recommendations. We have accepted the committee's recommendations to update the climate change plan within six months of the bill receiving royal assent. We have already announced actions on deposit return, agriculture renewables and a change in the policy on air departure tax. We are now looking across the whole of government to make sure that we continue with the policies that are already in place, to ensure that they are working, to increase action where necessary and where possible and to identify whether or not there are areas that we can now move much faster on. Over the summer there will be a programme for engagement with the public, which has got to be a central part of all of this because we have got to ensure that the public is on board when we begin to talk about specific policies that may or may not be required. One of the first things that you did in receipt of the CCC advice is contact with the UK Government, Claire Perry, I believe. Has there been a response to that letter for a meeting with Claire Perry? There has been a response from the Clean Air and Energy Minister. It wasn't a response that answered any of the questions in any meaningful way. I think that this morning the letter has gone back, requesting that the points made in the original letter are addressed, which is to seek an urgent meeting and to discuss ways in which Westminster and Holyrood could work together on this. Indeed, that will include Cardiff as well, since all of the targets in the UK are linked. We were given a proposed target of net zero by 2045, but it was quite explicitly stated in the Committee for Climate Change advice that that would necessitate there being changes taking place at the Westminster level. Our ability to achieve the target is dependent on Westminster doing what is necessary, and that is what I need to speak to them urgently about. Stewart Stevenson. Thank you very much, convener. The bill that is before us is essentially about changing the numbers in the 2009 act. The 2009 act has quite a lot of policy initiatives and requirements in it. In making, as the cabinet secretary said, climate change at the heart of the next spending review and programme for government is part of that, which would be within your responsibility to look at how well we are doing on the other parts of the 2009 act, besides simply the numbers. We are already doing some of that. It is not something that is not already happening. One of the things that we are already doing is reviewing the public bodies reporting duties. That is something that was set out under the 2009 act. I do not believe at the moment that things like climate change adaptation and changes to those parts of the act would be particularly helpful. We are looking at the aspects of the act that we think are appropriate to be looked at, but we are not really looking at it overall because we have taken the targets issue and we are re-legislating on the targets issue. We have some aspects of it under review, but we are not looking at it as a single act that is under review. There will remain parts of it that are still relevant. If necessary, we will go back to that, but it is not at the moment something that we have got planned. Given that the whole thrust of what the Government is trying to do is to mainstream it, we are going to another question and talk about how ministers respond to that. I am not asking about that. There are policies—I just choose two at random out of the 2009 act, which I guess are with Derry Mackay as finance minister, for example, in relation to local rates and what is charged and business rates. Are there other examples? Are there resources that you are aware of, as Cabinet Secretary, that are being devoted in other areas of responsibility to look at bits of the 2009 act that are relevant to other ministers? I have just delivered a statement in Parliament about a huge one, which was deposit return, which was flagged up in the 2009 act. We have been able to use the provisions in the 2009 act to do deposit return by secondary legislation and not have to go through primary legislation. There are things that are already being taken forward. We are looking across a whole range of responsibilities, as I indicated, to look at the things that are working and increase action where necessary. That looks at the issue of resourcing across the piece, but that will be part and parcel of the exercise that we have to conduct in the more recent changed circumstances. I understand that there is work happening in housing as well, so I am less across the detail of other people's portfolios, but I understand that there is good work being done in housing, too. It seems that one of the main ways that the Government has to build that collective responsibility is through the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Climate Change. How many times has that met in the last year? It meets hasn't quite necessary. Off the top of my head, I can't remember how many times it's met in the last year, but it's met fairly just within the last few weeks. It met because of the advent of stage 2 and the amendment process. It is a business committee. It's not sitting around during the fact committee. I don't want people to misunderstand what the reality of the Cabinet Sub-Committee is. It doesn't have a regular scheduled programme of meetings as if it was the Cabinet. It meets hasn't when it's necessary in order to take decisions that are delegated to it from the Cabinet. In terms of changes that have come as a result of that committee meeting, have there been discussions around budget? Have there been discussions around policies in other Cabinet ministers' portfolios that have changed as a result of those discussions in light of the bill? Well, the most recent meeting was about what could reasonably be expected at stage 2. There's a number of different portfolios represented. Previous meetings have discussed a range of things, particularly in the early stages and throughout the process of the climate change plan development. Those were very alive discussions about some of the things that, from portfolio perspectives, were considered to be more or less achievable. That's an important part of the discussion, because I'm not able to make a decision on behalf of another Cabinet Secretary and they would need to come and advise whether or not a potential target in the specific area is or is not an achievable one. That's the kind of discussion that happens. It can be quite wide-ranging or, depending on the point at which we're having the meeting, it can be quite narrow, so it depends really on the purpose of the meeting. As I said, it's not a discussion meeting that is had on a regular basis. The meetings are called to deal with specific issues. In terms of the First Minister's policy review that she announced a couple of weeks ago, is that something that the Cabinet Sub-Committee is now working on? No, portfolios, Cabinet Secretaries and senior officials in portfolios will already be working on that. That is not something that the Cabinet Sub-Committee works on. That is not the kind of thing that the Cabinet Sub-Committee will be doing at this stage. It is a matter for relevant Cabinet Secretaries, ministers and their senior officials to take forward. At the point at which all that begins to come in, there may be a decision at that point whether or not another Cabinet Sub-Committee is required or not, or whether in fact it's perhaps a full Cabinet. These are not my decisions, so it's up. How does Parliament deal with the outcome from these discussions? When you stand up in the chamber, would you respect to ask your question about budget, you're not able to answer that, so it does present a challenge to Parliament about how we scrutinise the kind of joined up discussions around policy that are taking place? As far as I'm aware, you can ask to speak to any Cabinet Secretary. If you have specific questions, they will answer them. You've had Derek Mackay here, you've had Mike Russell here, you've had Fergus Ewing here as well. You have the capacity to ask very detailed policy questions. If you ask me very detailed policy questions and I haven't had advanced notice, I will be able to give you some information, but I won't be able to give you the level of information that my colleagues would be able to give you because I'm not the Cabinet Secretary for everything. Claudia Beamish. Good morning Cabinet Secretary and good morning to your team. Can I take us back briefly to the 2009 act? You referred to deposit return scheme as an example of what was in that act and that enabled secondary legislation for what I and others are very supportive of in terms of DRS. Would you agree that there's a case for the possibility of putting down policy markers in a similar way in the act that we're scrutinising at the moment? That's a matter for the parties to think about. We'll be looking at anything that we wish to put down at stage 2. I'm aware that other people will have other ideas. I can't speak because I wasn't directly involved in the negotiations around what was and was not agreed in terms of the 2009 act, so it'll be a matter for members to think about whether or not they consider something to be appropriate to be brought forward. I just remind everybody that in terms of deposit return, the 2009 legislation didn't mandate that there would be a deposit return system. What it said was that there would be a kind of opening if at some point that's what was considered to be appropriate. There's been a lot of work on deposit return. It has actually been discussed over a long period of time and I think it probably will have benefited from being given that space to do that. From our perspective, I'm strongly of the view that we set out in terms of this bill, that this bill should be about focusing on the targets in response to the Paris agreement. I don't believe that we need to start all over again in terms of the 2009 act. We're not repealing the 2009 act with this piece of legislation. We're changing the targets. That's a different point. I'm not sure if that's what the implication of what I said was. That wasn't what I was trying to say, actually, Cabinet Secretary. No, but our hope was that people would get on with this bill in terms of the targets, because that's the important thing that we need to be doing right now. In my view, the climate change plan is probably the best place to be dealing with individual delivery mechanisms, and that's the appropriate point at which all of that should be discussed. As we've already indicated, we're prepared to update the climate change plan within six months of royal assent. Mr Simpson. Thank you very much. During our discussions as a committee on the bill, we were somewhat exercised by the times model that the Government has been using, and reflected that in our report. When the Government said in its response to our report the working to improve the consistency with which sectors are dealt with through times, I made the observation that quite a lot of it was that it didn't properly address agriculture. John Scott, myself, will return to the subject of agriculture later, so I'm not specifically targeting that. However, the Climate Change Committee has developed its own scenario and sectorial analysis, essentially its own multiple models. I just wonder now where the Government stands in relation to their future use of models. Will you seek to access the climate change committee models if it's correct to describe them as models? I isn't to add. Or will you persist in using the times approach in which the committee identified had some gaps in its coverage that left us a bit concerned? From our perspective, although the CCC isn't using the times model itself, people need to remember that the times model is not specific only to Scotland. There are a number of places that are used in a well understood process. The CCC is using something slightly different, but it provides a fairly similar representation of the whole system. In that sense, it achieves pretty much similar results. From our perspective, we believe that times are still a key element of the whole analysis and modelling that underpins our approach to climate change. As I indicated, it's not just used by Scotland, it's used throughout the world. By using it, we have the benefit of there being a consistency internationally. If we start randomly inventing our own system, we don't have. It's accompanied by other analysis, and I suspect that that's perhaps not so well understood, because it's not the whole story. We also have used the Scottish electricity dispatch model, the Scottish heat map, the national housing model, the transport model for Scotland and the Scottish government heat model. There are other models and analyses that are used alongside it. What we do with times is look at the interaction between all of these and make sure that we have an overall plan that makes sense. I recall from a couple of years ago some heated discussions about different models. If you try to move to a model that reduces dependence on gas heating and sets a target for the likes of 2025 in order to do something along those lines, what would be the knock-on effect then? What would that look like if you tried to do that in one sector and looked at the impact on other sectors? That's what time is important for allowing us to be able to assess that impact right across the sector, because there are implications for what you choose to do. If you go, for example, too fast on the reduction in the use of gas-central heating, even supposing you could set in place the ability to do it as quickly as you might want to, do you even have enough gas plumbers to do it? Those are real questions that underlie some of the ideas that emerge and have got to be thought about and worked through. That process has got to be thought about and worked through. That goes back to the conversation about what is achievable and what might not be achievable and what timescales are appropriate for those things. On the similarity between the approach that we take in Scottish Government and that the CCC use it, you are right that they are different, but they are similar in an important way, and that is that they are based on sector-level analysis and sector-level evidence that then gets brought together. Within Scottish Government we bring that together in times for them to look at the interactions that the Cabinet Secretary was explaining. The CCC have a different thing that brings it all together to look at the interactions, which clearly I am less familiar with. It is the same basic system of sector-level evidence and then looking at the interactions. The point that you raise about agriculture and transport are absolutely right that they have not been integrated into times to look at those interactions so well to date, and that is something that we are working on actively. Hopefully, in time for the update to the plan, those interactions will be properly established within the times model. If not for the update, then definitely for the next full plan. It should be said that the analysis from the various CCC feeds goes into times as well, so there is an interaction. We are not sitting running completely separately and times is not static, so it does get improved and worked on, so it is not a static model. There is data to a particular time when it was developed. That is fine. I have a description of what economists would describe as second and third-level effects, whether there are enough plumbers to redo the gas system or to change the gas that you are using. Clearly, that is going to be important as you develop policy that is responding to the agenda. I wonder whether one of the differences that the Climate Change Committee put before us between what they are doing and what times does is that times seeks to provide a single answer and what they suggested was that their approach provides multiple options. I am unclear and perhaps you could help me whether that is the difference between the shorter term, say 10-year horizon of developing policy and the 30-year horizon that takes us to the end targets. Are there different approaches for those two parts of what needs to be done to set targets for, for example, 2045? I do not think so, but I cannot confidently answer that question. I think that we would need to have an economist here, which is much more familiar with the modelling to answer that. Perhaps that is something that we could get back to you on. The description that I was talking about, the kind of conversation about the times modelling in respect of if you choose a way of doing it, what will that look like? That led to one particular proposal being rejected and another one being run through. In the sense that it comes out with one answer, it is not just quite as simple as that because it shows you what the implications are of making a decision. You can see if the on-cost, and I do not mean cost just in terms of money here, but if the on-cost of that decision is going to become extremely difficult to manage, then you will choose a different way of approaching it. The times model is not just a, well, here it is, and that is it. That is not how it works. I am not an expert on times, I have to say. It is not just feeding a bunch of information in one end and waiting five hours for the computer to spit it out at the other end. It is not as simple as that either. It does enable you to assess scenarios. That is the benefit of the whole economy approach as well, because you are testing all the time what the impacts are going to be in other areas. If you do not do that, then what is required from other areas? The example that I used was a discussion. It was something that times was used to look at, but it was rejected because it was probably in deliverability terms going to be almost impossible to physically deliver. Let me finally just then say that you have just used the word scenarios in the context of times and putting scenarios in and seeing what that tells you. The climate change committee is telling us that they have developed their own scenarios. I just simply would like to know if you are cited on that and if you are not currently cited on the detail of this. Across the detail of the climate change committee's particular analyses, we use the information that they develop and it is helpful for us to feed it in, but I cannot answer questions about the climate change analysis. No, I was not seeking to have you do that because I shared what you have just said as an expectation. I was merely seeking to say will you take further steps at official level, I suspect rather than ministerial level, to have sight of their scenarios simply to help inform the decisions that we will make here. I can put this question to them, but my understanding is that the scenarios are set out in the reports that they have just published. I will need to read it more carefully than I apologise. Crucially, and you may not realise this respectfully, there are two reports. There is the main headline report and then there is an additional 300 page report, the technical detail. John Scott. Good morning. I just have a brief supplementary about the times and modelling. I was interested in what Sarah Grange said about how that would essentially take in agriculture and transport you hoped at any rate for the development of the climate change plan in due course. Will that take into account peatland as well, since it seems to be the huge variable, or yet another variable in all of this, or a wild card in all of this, will it be able to incorporate that into the times modelling and the restoration of peatland? Restoration of peatland is already part of the times model. If you are referring to the revisions to the peatland data that are coming, it will be very important to incorporate that into the analysis that is done when we update the plan. I think that that leads us nicely on to some of the evidence that we had last week from the climate change committee, particularly around interim targets in 2030. There does seem to be continued uncertainty, particularly in relation to peatland, and what emissions may be coming from that. It is clear that some of that cannot be bottomed out until the UK also look at the issue in relation to their next carbon budget. Given that, would it not be sensible to set interim and longer term targets now, based on the current inventory that we have, on the basis that potentially that could be revised down if estimations of what peatland contributes are revised in the years ahead? Sorry, what are you suggesting? We have already accepted the CCC advice on the interim targets for 2030 and 2040. Are you suggesting that we depart from that advice? I think that we had a very useful clarification from the CCC yesterday that came into the committee in a form of a letter that suggested that, based on the current inventory, as it stands today, that the targets would be different, potentially 76 per cent by 2030, for example. Obviously, if we change the inventory, then the targets would be less. I just wonder if you have seen that analysis, if you have thought about that, because I clearly have two options. I haven't seen that letter, Tom. I think you have seen that. I have indeed. As the cabinet secretary has said, the CCC's recommendations on targets were set out in the initial main advice report. As I understand it, the further letter that the CCC secretary provided is exploring this question about how expectations around future inventory visions are factored into the advice they have provided, but that letter doesn't change in any way the advice they have provided in which the government has acted upon. On the substantial question of do we follow the CCC's advice, I would obviously defer entirely to the cabinet secretary. It's an observation on what I understand is being suggested as a potential alternative. The government certainly of the view that it's important that targets offer clear and stable signals and aren't changed more than is necessary. This is something we've heard a lot from stakeholders, especially from businesses, when we were preparing the bill at the outset, the importance of the signalling function of targets. To our mind, that means that it's very important that we use the best evidence that's available now in terms of setting those targets. The CCC have been clear in their advice that they consider that best evidence to be the inventory as it now stands, plus the things that we know are coming into the inventory in the next couple of years. We know, as a matter of certainty in so far as anything around the inventory can ever be certain, that the IPCC wetland supplement, which is the peatland revisions, is going to be implemented within the next three years because the UK government has made international commitments that will happen. The UK government's published a substantial scientific report about what the implications in numerical terms for the inventory of that implementation will be. The CCC have reflected those expectations in their advice on the targets. If I can just quote what Chris Stark said to the committee on 14 May, it is that, in terms of all the targets, we have offered you the best assessment of the evidence as it now stands, and the government's view is to follow that best assessment. Does that help? A little. Does that represent a shift, then, in the CCC's thinking? Back in 2017, they recommended setting the targets on the basis of current inventories, freezing those for five years in order to assess against targets. I'm sorry, you're asking me about the CCC's thinking. What we have is the report that they delivered to us, and the advice in that report has been accepted by us. If you're asking me to go somehow behind that report into an area about which I'm afraid I can't answer questions, which is what effectively internally the CCC might be thinking about things, other than what is written down, is somewhere I cannot go. You're asking me a question that I don't believe I can answer, or any of us can answer. John Scott. Cabinet Secretary, I'm notwithstanding what you just said, and I'm notwithstanding the fact that you're partly not cited of Chris Stark's letter of yesterday, which essentially said that 70 per cent was the interim target. He essentially said yesterday that that actually means 76 per cent, and that 90 per cent equals 96 per cent. Well, there's some dispute here. Certainly, it's open to interpretation. What I wanted to know is, were you aware of the contents of what this letter was likely to be when you lodged the amendments proposing the new targets? I clean forgot my crystal ball, so no. I was not aware of a letter that was going to be delivered on 20 May when I lodged the amendments on 2 May. There really isn't very much more I can say than that. It is unfortunate that the letter has appeared after you've had the CCC in front of you to ask these questions. It has arrived quite late in terms of us being able to go back to the CCC to get some further clarification to ensure that what we read is what we believe we're reading, which may now be the issue. At the moment, those are not questions that I can answer. As far as I understand it, and I haven't read the letter, as far as I understand it, what the CCC has basically said is that the 70 per cent that they're advising us for 2030, if they've already taken into account the future revisions when they're assessing that 70 per cent. They're already, because they're aware of all the conversation, and so are we of course, because part of the bill, which is going to be passed, part of the bill that we're talking about actually has a section which deals with the fact that these revisions are going to make a pretty significant impact on our results, and there's a handling mechanism designed in the bill precisely for that. What the CCC is saying is that if they set us this 70 per cent target and we accepted, in effect, it's the equivalent of a reduction of 76 per cent if we were sticking to the current way of accounting in terms of land use, but we know we're not going to be able to stick to that current way of accounting. We know that there are big changes coming in, so my guess is what the Committee for Climate Change effectively has done is has already taken that into their thinking, and that's where they've come up with the 70 per cent. It would look like 76 per cent if none of those revisions were going to happen, and no doubt if they didn't have any idea about those revisions, they'd have set us 76 per cent for 2030. But we are in a position where we all know that these revisions are taking place. We know, because we've got sections of the bill which deal with that very issue and which I have to say that prior to lodging the bill, we thought we were going to be controversial and they've not turned out to be controversial at all, perhaps to the point where everybody's actually forgotten about them, but they are there in the bill. And so they're there in the bill, we're kind of working on that basis. Committee for Climate Change is working on that basis as well. I'm still a little unclear on that, but perhaps if there was further reflections on both the letter and your views on it, you might wish to write to us if you could explain it more clearly, because it's just too complicated for me. We can happily provide a letter. The key issue is that the CCC have considered all of the relevant evidence in advising on the targets. The letter that they provided in response to a specific question said what they would have advised had they excluded some evidence. I think it's right that they consider all the evidence and that we set targets based on their advice, based on all of the evidence, and not decide to remove some sections of the evidence to get a different result, that we would know we would have to then come back with secondary legislation within three years, if not sooner, to amend. Can we move on to questions from Angus MacDonald? Okay, thanks. I could turn to something a bit less complicated with regard to cross-departmental approaches. Chris Stark told us committee last week that it was not acceptable that the CCC was the only organisation addressing decarbonisation in detail at UK level. Can I ask what discussions have taken place with Bays and other UK Government departments about mainstreaming climate change policy? Since most of this has devolved, our interactions with the UK Government tend to be about specific issues, so there's a detailed interaction around UK ETS rather than a bigger conversation about mainstreaming climate change policy. As the committee is aware, I have written to Bays on the back of the CCC advice to Westminster and the devolved administrations because what is now needed urgently is that we begin to have the kinds of conversations that might be subsumed under the idea of mainstreaming climate change policy, because if we have not got everybody in the UK working to the same ambition, then we won't achieve what we're hoping to achieve. I remain optimistic that the Government at Westminster, whatever it looks like over the next few weeks and months, will nevertheless regard that as a continuing and major issue that needs to be discussed. From our perspective, I suppose the difficulty is that they can choose to simply go on doing whatever it is they're doing without much reference to us. It is quite clear from the Committee for Climate Change's advice that if we want to reach the ambition that we want to get to, then we need to be doing it in concert with them and they need to be taking actions that I don't know whether they're ready to take or not. My guess right now at UK Government level is that minds are not actually on this right now. While we're doing this and we've got a bill that's already in place and we've got all of this process under way, that's not where the UK Government currently is. I can't force them into a position that they're not at present ready to take. Okay. Would you say that there is any way that the Scottish Government could influence the integration of climate policy across the whole of the UK? When you're talking about the integration of climate policy, just remember that most of this is devolved. What I don't want is a situation set up where we lose the accountability and the control and the decision making from Scotland. So I think there is a bit of be careful what you wish for when it comes to using the words integration. What we have to do is work alongside Cardiff and Westminster in this respect to make sure that we're all heading in the same direction, in the right direction. In terms of whether or not I can bounce Westminster, I don't really think I can. The CCC and Lord Debbon frequently make it very clear that we are being more ambitious, that we are in the lead on this and that we are a model which Westminster and Cardiff should be looking at. However, I can't mandate other Governments and I can only do what I have done, which is invite these early conversations for us to be able to take this forward in a way that's much more urgent than has been the case up until now. Okay, thanks. John, did you have a specific question on this? I was probably just going to... On that, I'll move on to my own question with your permission, convener. I appreciate the awkwardness of what you're saying, Cabinet Secretary. Is the Scottish Government, though notwithstanding the devolved nature of our responsibilities, how dependent are we on the UK Government coming to a view on this? Well, I think in my statement, I tried to lay out some of the decisions that are being made at a UK Government level or indeed, in some cases, not being made at a UK Government level that will hinder us. The Committee for Climate Change, I think, highlighted a huge one, which is the taking forward carbon capture and storage, and that continues to be an issue if that's not taken forward because it was quite clear from the CCC advice that that is absolutely necessary now to be taken forward. So there is one. I flagged up in respect of one issue that I had picked up on the day of the statement, which was that the VAT rate on solar panels was going to be increased from 5 per cent to 20 per cent. Although I only knew about solar panels, in fact, on further investigation, that decision to jump VAT from 5 per cent to 20 per cent, and it will be brought into place on 1 October 2019, is not just about solar panels. It's for a whole host of renewable technologies, including solar, wind, biomass and heat pumps. Well, if you're trying to get people to actually take these things up, whether in domestic settings or any other settings, jumping the VAT from 5 per cent to 20 per cent is going to have the absolute opposite impact of what you want. So there's another example of the kind of thing which we have no control over, but nevertheless will have a very distinctive impact on decision making at the level of quite ordinary people who are hoping to be able to do the right thing. So there are a whole load of other specific ones. I don't know if you really want me to go through them all, but the whole issue of vehicle taxation and all the rest of it is also reserved. So there's another whole area that we are unable to effect change. So if we're trying to do things, we're limited in where we can do it and how we can do it. Decarbonising the gas grid is a matter entirely for the UK Government, and it goes back to the discussion that we had earlier about, in practical terms, how do you manage the heating issue in domestic and business properties? Well, the other side of that is decarbonising the gas grid, and if that's not going to happen, if that's not getting taken forward, there's a big blockage there. So these are the kinds of things that the CCC is talking about that actually will inhibit us from reaching our 2045 target, which would otherwise be possible if we could get the UK Government to do that. So there are more, but I'm sure you don't want me to list. That's enough to be going on with. Although if you want to send us an exhaustive list, I'm sure you're probably going to do it. We can try, but I mean, I don't know how exhaustive the list would be. Can I bring an answer? It seems in a very brief supplementary. I just note, press comment, that British Steel have applied to the UK Government for £100 million to cover the period 29 March to 31 October and their inability to participate fully in the emissions trading scheme. I wonder if, or clearly that's nothing particularly to do with Scotland, but it's an example of how the emissions trading scheme operation, which I gather is at least a quarter of what goes on on the whole issue in terms of numbers. Uncertainty on that, there is a policy and practical lacuna. Of course it may be that British Steel have other reasons related to their business performance for asking for £100 million, but they are hanging it on that hook. I wonder if that's in general terms something that the Government and officials in the Government are looking at. Well, yes, very actively the EU-ETS is an active discussion. In fact, currently there is a consultation out there and the committee might wish to go and have a look at that because actually that is devolved. The emissions trading is just that Scotland as a market is not big enough to really make it in practical terms, which is why, from our perspective, staying in the EU-ETS is the best way to do and if we are not going to stay in the EU-ETS then what we need is a UK-ETS that is linked to the EU-ETS. There is an active live consultation right now which, effectively, we are a part of. The uncertainty around ETS is causing more than British Steel some concerns. It's causing a lot of businesses some real concern because the future is uncertain. If we're on a deal Brexit, we will overnight switch to a carbon tax which then removes that whole devolved accountability and scrutiny from us because it will be an entirely treasury-led exercise which is on the face of it intended to only be a temporary fix. I fear that, once the treasury gets a hold of it, it might end up being a very long temporary fix. I should have declared an interest already as a farmer and a landowner, but I'll do so now. My question is about agriculture. How can a truly multifunctional land use strategy be put in place? How do we get from the Climate Change Committee advice to detailed policy delivery in agriculture? With a lot of hard work and a great deal of talking to a variety of different interests to ensure that they are coming along with us. Obviously, revisiting of some of the agriculture proposals will be required when we do the revision of the climate change plan that we've agreed to do. I've already been in conversation with some of the NFUS because I wanted to make sure that they had seen the vivid economics research that was commissioned by WWF because I thought that was a very helpful and constructive contribution to everything and gave perhaps rather more comfort to the agriculture sector than they might have been feeling about this up until now. They are very much aware of the role they have to play, but the thing is to have them understand the enormous contribution that they have to make. I noticed that the Committee for Climate Change, for example, did foresee a continuing healthy livestock sector in Scotland, and I know that that has been a matter of some concern for a number of parts of our agriculture sector. Absolutely, I am declaring an absolute interest in that regard again. What can be done to ensure that trees are planted and peatlands are restored at the necessary rate and to the required levels? How can that be done without affecting too much traditional land use? That is always a question because I use an analogy and I often say it in different quarters, that if you have an acre of land, that acre of land is expected to grow trees, produce food, provide us with flood protection, have a house built on it, we would put an enormous burden on land and there are a massive number of competing priorities. The issue is to establish the best use for particular land. The majority of Scotland's land is basically... I do not want to use the word poor, but it is not land that is going to be able to be used for a great many other things. If you are a hill farmer, you cannot suddenly switch to arable because that is not going to be within your gift. It is getting the right decision in the right area. Those are tricky matters because there are other aspects at play here. I am conscious of the concern amongst the agriculture sector about seeing land go out of agricultural use and effectively being planted up with trees instead of agricultural use. There are all sorts of issues in and around that that are also about how far, as a Government, you can prohibit or mandate certain uses for land. There are other restrictions there because at that point the lawyers become concerned about how far you can and cannot intervene in specific decisions that are made about a specific piece of land. Quite. I am not wishing to blindside you at all, but I will make a suggestion that came out of discussions that I had been involved in. Would you consider developing a new class of land, one arable land class, two land class, three land class? Maybe we should be looking as an innovative way of approaching this problem of developing a climate change mitigation land class. Top of that land class would be peat bog restoration and subsequent would be forestry. That land class might then attract a value for those who wish to use it to offset their organisation's responsibility towards carbon mitigation. I just offer the thought to you. I am happy to discuss it with you further. It wouldn't be a conversation just for myself alone anyway. We have one for Fergus Ewing as well. We would look at all ideas, but I go back to some of the points at which you then run into, whether people like it or not, ECHR issues about ownership and things. You are presuming that a landowner or a farmer or whoever might consider that that field attracts more value if it is designated in that way. I would rather sell that field for housing if your offer is not going to cut it. There are lots of conversations to be had around that. You would need to work through very carefully unintended consequences of that kind of reclassification. It is certainly a conversation that is worth having, but whether or not it would necessarily result in what you are suggesting is another matter entirely. After all, we already give grants and money to things such as peatland restoration and what have you. It is not as if we are not already doing some of that. No, I agree. I think that it could just develop a hierarchy of subclasses within that climate change mitigation class of land. I appreciate what you said about ECHR, and I am well aware of the pitfalls of that historically, that this Parliament has fallen into it, so we would not necessarily want to go down that road at all. Thank you for that. I think that that has been finished. I am going to take a brief supplementary from Mark Ruskell. On the Cabinet Secretary, we are getting on fine with our questions. Would you welcome a five-minute break after this question? If you are happy in terms of time, that is fine. Mark Ruskell makes a very interesting suggestion, but there is a broader point about making sure that climate change mitigation is at the heart of farm subsidy financial support going forward. Is that a discussion that you have had in the Cabinet sub-committee or in cabinet or in bilaterals with Mr Ewing? I have a lot of discussions with Fergus Ewing about all aspects of both portfolios, as you would expect. We are well aware of some of the issues that might emerge. There hasn't been a cabinet sub-committee since the one that we did in terms of coming preparation for stage 2. That is not necessarily where that discussion would be located. Our senior officials are probably, as we speak, thinking along some of the lines that are being discussed, at least in so far as they need to be considered before they can be discarded if they have to be discarded, but they need to be considered. We are trying to now consider absolutely everything, but those decisions will be made effectively, ultimately, by Cabinet. I will take a brief suspension. Welcome back to the Environment, Climate Change meeting. I will move on to questions from Claudia Beamish. Cabinet Secretary, could I turn our minds to the co-benefits and multi-benefits that are possible from what was scrutinising from the greenhouse gas emissions? As you will know, our committee stated in its report that we would welcome a model that highlights the significant additional and secondary benefits to, among other things, health, industry and employment. We made a few requests in that report. I was heartened to see the Scottish Government stage 1 response noted, and I quote again, that it would be happy to engage in further discussions with the committee and the CCC about the potential to further develop the analytical approach to assessing the impacts of mitigating and adapting to climate change and the additional and secondary benefits to, among other things, health, industry and employment. Cabinet Secretary, if you could give us an update on any developments in those areas of research. Not least, I think that there is a Strathclyde University research project on-going. More broadly, any engagement that has been had with the CCC or developments from the Scottish Government? I think that I have already indicated in the letter that I sent to the committee last week that we are going to bring forward stage 2 amendments to require that future climate change plans include cost-benefit estimates to be delivered by each of the policies set out. I need to be very clear that that is future climate change plans because the methodologies would not be available to do it in the six-month rehash of the existing climate change plan. The timescale for that would be too short because it will take a fair amount of work and thinking. I think that it is going to be a really vital part for all Governments to do this because up until now, most of the actions that have gotten us to where we are in terms of climate change mitigation have not really impacted directly on ordinary people, but we are now moving into a scenario where actually that is going to happen. So being able to very clearly outline co-benefits and make that very clear tying together is something that, from our perspective, all Governments are really going to have to do. There have been a number of conversations with enterprise agencies and the investment bank just to look at the state of low carbon investment and identify future funding interventions and look at innovation. In some areas, there are quite deep conversations taking place and the investment bank is one of those. Some of that work is already taking place, because I indicated that if we are going to look at common approaches and methodologies, it is going to take us a little time to work through all of that. Some of them are more obvious than others, and I think that health benefits and we see people already drawing the lines between air pollution and health. Sometimes co-benefits are actually more easily explained. It does not always mean that everybody agrees that solutions will be, but at least in terms of people being able to draw the lines between the two, that is important. We are running a campaign at the moment on food waste, which directly draws a line between food waste and climate change emissions. There is a lot of work being done in respect of that. We are already trying to do it quite explicitly in terms of the number of areas, but assessing the actual impact of that, understanding exactly how to cost that, is going to take us a little while. You specifically asked about the Strathclyde project. It is under way, it is progressing. It is going to be at least 18 months to two years now before we get the results from that. It is a massive undertaking to explore fundamentally new and quite profound methodologies to look at how the actions necessary to tackle climate change will impact on GDP and economic growth, as opposed to the economic costs of the actions, if you see what I mean. The work is under way, it is happening, but it will be 18 months to two years before we have any results. I could ask about a little more detail on the Scottish National Investment Bank, Cabinet Secretary, in relation to what discussions have been had. If not today, it would be helpful if you could let the committee know what stakeholders have been involved in those discussions as well and how they are developing. Officials in the programme team and in my portfolio are already in frequent discussions so that the climate priorities of the Government are well reflected in terms of the bank. The bank team has also been engaging with the Just Transition Commission directly, so there is a work stream there already and I believe that there is a workshop coming off quite soon with environmental groups via the Just Transition Commission and the bank. Some of that is already started. As I understand it, the bank team has commissioned a report to look at investment around low-carbon and climate change initiatives to try and assess which markets are the ones that are most well-developed, but I do not have a timescale for that. The report is still in development so I cannot say when that will be available. It is trying to identify existing availability of finance so there is quite a lot of work going on with the bank team and in that respect, because it is still a new part of the scenery, it is becoming integrated into all the conversations that we have to be having. In a sense, that is work that is already under way. I will come on shortly to a bit more detail on the Just Transition Commission. If you have any further detail of what the CCC highlighted in oral evidence to us, the issue is not only just Government integration, which you have already highlighted today, but we have to get better at taking integration out into the community. You have highlighted one example of that today already, but in what other ways is the Scottish Government, through your own department and other departments, able to communicate and ensure public buy-in in achieving the net zero emissions? I have already flagged up that we are embarking on a programme of engagement over the summer into the autumn, which is explicitly designed to get out there, to look at the 60-odd per cent of the population that think climate change is a problem, but do not necessarily yet have a sense of what that means for them in a realistic way, but also to try and reach those that third of the population that do not regard it as a problem, because we have got to think about them as well. That work is going to be starting, and the outcome of that will give us a better sense, of where people are in reality when they are confronted with some of the actual decisions that might have to be made. Are you able to give us any more details today about how that will be shaped at all? I know that it is early days, but would you then be able to write to the committee and let us know how that develops? We are looking at a variety of different methods to get out there and do that, but in detail, no. Would you be able to write to the committee to keep us informed on this? Obviously, engagement is very important, and we have done considerable amounts of engagement ourselves, and to be able to liaise with yourself is important in this context. There is a formal programme. There is a decision about how you go about interacting with that. That is helpful. A short supplementary from Mark Ruskell on this. The climate change committee did highlight dietary change and dietary trends that are already existing in society, and it may increase over time towards eating less meat. Is that something that is a bit of a taboo subject within Government? Or are you considering what actions you can take to encourage that dietary choice on both public health grounds but also in terms of climate as well? It is a taboo subject. From the Public Health Minister, as far as I can see, I discuss this on a regular basis. I am looking across the board at food-related public health initiatives and the issue of obesity. There is an example of when you move from the general, which everybody would agree with, to the particular, that people then become very exercised. There is an issue about that level of connection that people might or might not be making to these bigger issues. You start telling people what they will and will not be allowed to eat, and you run into very considerable resistance. I think that one has to have some care about that conversation. I think that all of us here, probably, in theory, want to encourage people to eat a lot more fruit and vegetables because Scotland has a very poor record in doing that, and it results in all sorts of issues, including health issues. However, you cannot force people to do it, and that is where we have to have this conversation to try to fill that space. Claudia Beamish Before we move on to the Just Transition Commission specifically, Cabinet Secretary, could I ask you for any comments from your perspective on the intergenerational justice issue and where that fits within the bill, please? Claudia Beamish We have declared and are one of the countries that is accepting the global climate emergency. Clearly, as part and parcel of that message, that is about safeguarding the planet for future generations. Frankly, we are doing that through the bill because this bill effectively legislates for what are world-leading targets. They are in line with what the CCC calls Highest Possible Ambition, as called for by the Paris Agreement. That is how, in a very practical sense, we are, in fact, trying to ensure intergenerational justice. From the perspective of Scotland, we have focused very much on practical actions rather than just rhetoric. I think that that is where we should be. Intergenerational justice will be met by countries similar to what Scotland is doing. It is a global issue, so we are talking about it globally. Will you see it as possibly appropriate that it might be recognising the principles of the bill on the face of the bill? Claudia Beamish Legislation is actually about making law. You would have to be, from the point of view of drafting things like that, how you draft that into actual law as opposed to policy statements, which are different. I am not clear and I wouldn't want to venture an opinion on it because, for me, a piece of legislation is about the practical side of things rather than rhetoric. We don't legislate rhetoric in this country generally. In fact, most countries don't. Surely the principles, cabinet secretary, would contextualise the purpose of the bill? I haven't seen a list of principles, so it might be helpful if you could outline what the list of principles might look like. It might be more easy for SGLD to give an initial sense of whether or not they think that is something that can be or cannot be legislated. Often in bills, as you will know as well as I, and probably better, there are, near the top of it, principles which contextualise a bill. That is very important, obviously, because otherwise it could be a list that is exclusive rather than inclusive. I just wondered whether intergenerational justice might be one of those principles that was important. The bill, as introduced, is about target setting. Effectively, what you are talking about is, if pretty much changing the long title of the bill, that would be what you would end up having to do. At that point you were doing that, and that changes the bill completely. There are issues around doing that this way. In terms of the principles for target setting, which aren't so much contextualising the whole of the act, but a very specific requirement on ministers and the CCC to consider these in deciding what targets should be. I have played an important role in recent discussions. We have, in response to stakeholder requests, looked at making a couple of minor amendments to the principles, as they are currently worded, to better reflect the fair and safe emissions budget and the Paris agreement. If I recall correctly, and Tom will correct me if I'm wrong, intergenerational justice is not one that we have been specifically asked and encouraged to put in there for the reasons that the cabinet secretary said. The whole purpose of the bill is intergenerational justice. It is to end our contribution to climate change for the benefit of future generations. It is unclear how an additional principle of intergenerational justice would make any different practical effect. In terms of the Just Transition Commission, as you all know but for the record, the committee recommended that the Government keep an open mind in relation to establishing the Just Transition Commission with a statutory underpinning or considered an independent parliamentary commission. The Government has stated that it is giving this further consideration. In your recent letter, again very quickly for the record, you state that having carefully considered it, we remain unclear why a statutory basis is needed. We remain open to further discussion with the committee on these matters, but we would wish to be convinced of the positive case before bringing forward additional amendments. In that context, could I ask you what work your Government and yourself and your department have done on the options and merits of pursuing a statutory route for the Just Transition Commission? Has there been consultation with on relevant stakeholders on this? Our position is, as stated, that we don't see the necessity for this. I have outlined in previous sessions here that there are implications for putting this on a statutory basis, that include cost implications as well. What we have proposed to do is bring forward amendments that would put the principles of Just Transition on the face of the bill as matters that have to be considered when preparing climate change plans. I think that those principles are probably fairly well rehearsed. At the moment, we are looking at the options and pros and cons of a statutory basis. Stakeholders are involved in conversations, but I am still not convinced that it is necessary. The Just Transition Commission that we have set up is already working, is working well, is doing its work, and I failed to understand what the purpose of making that statutory would achieve at this point. From the perspective of where the Government is, we are talking to try to get an understanding of why it is really thought to be so important. At the moment, the way that the Just Transition Commission is working ought to give some comfort to people that what is currently in place will do the job. A number of stakeholders who have spoken to myself and I am sure to others and to you have found it puzzling that the Just Transition Commission is set up for two years when net zero is up to 2045 and Just Transition Principles should be underpinning the whole process. I find it difficult to understand why two years seem to be appropriate and why Governments can change. Governments can change, but Governments change and they change the law, so I am not entirely certain that putting it in statute protects it from some future Government which you would have to argue would then be hostile to all of this. I am not clear that that is the case. I have already indicated that we will put the principles of Just Transition at the stage 2 amendment into the bill as being integral to the development of climate change plans so that the climate change plans will need to take them into account. The Just Transition Commission was set up initially for two years and I think that I have said on a number of occasions that when they report to us at that point we will reconsider what then is the best way to take the whole Just Transition issue forward. All we are not doing at this moment is saying that the only way to do this is through a statutory body. I think that it is really important if Governments are going to set up a statutory body that there will be absolutely strong arguments for doing so and a clear rationale for it that cannot be met in any other way. I do not think that that is clear yet. Some stakeholders may take the view that you are taking but not all stakeholders do. There are a wide range of stakeholders so it is not by any means a unanimous position. I hope that I did not imply that it was. I think that there are a variety of voices out there. I would ask members to give the Just Transition Commission some time to do its work and then consider at that point what is the best way to take that forward. Just to highlight one of the points that you have made and put a different position to that, you say that other Governments in the future may disagree but surely one of the reasons for enshrining something in statute is that it is harder to repeal than if it is not there on the face of a bill. Do you have any comments on that, cabinet secretary? That is why we are putting the principles in, yes. Just finally, for the record, what is the Government's view on establishing an independent parliamentary commission? I am not very sure what that would be designed to achieve. The role of Parliament is to scrutinise progress. What a parliamentary commission would achieve, I am not entirely certain, and I am not sure what value people think it would necessarily add. I am sure that some stakeholders will be informing you of that. They may very well be, but with the greatest of respects, littering the entire landscape with various different bodies and commissions is not necessarily going to do the job for us. We just need to take a step back and be certain that we are not cluttering things up, rather than, from the point of view of Government, in terms of a global climate emergency, one of our jobs is to consider whether or not we can declutter, not add clutter. I am just a little bit uncertain what a parliamentary commission would bring to this, what role it would have, what it would mean in terms of what we were doing, but it could not, I mean, Government, whoever forms the Government, is the Government. Kate, we run to questions from John Scott. Just one question on the subject of the Just Transition Committee, and I would say that I share the cabinet secretary's views that it does not think it needs to be put on to a strategy basis. However, I would say that it has been suggested to me that agriculture and land use interests are underrepresented on that Just Transition Commission as it stands at the moment. I was just wondering if that is a view that you are sure and if there is anything that you might want to do about it. I very specifically made sure that land interests were actually represented directly on the Just Transition Commission. I think that when people were first talking about Just Transition they probably weren't thinking about terms of land interests. That has been a conversation that has been embedded into this. I cannot just off the top of my head tell you the names of the people on the commission who are representative of it, but they are there. The land use and agriculture very much on the minds of the Just Transition Commission and its important element of their work programme is something that they will be exploring. There is going to be a specific meeting about that, but it is going to provide people from that sector and community representatives that is definitely being covered. That reassurance, thank you very much. Do you want me to carry on to the next series of questions which takes us back again to agriculture? This is with regard to nitrogen use efficiency and I just want to ask the cabinet secretary is it now feasible to introduce a smart target for nitrogen use efficiency or is it not? I think I have you at this point is that it would be difficult to set any kind of target because we need to be absolutely aware of all the benefits, impacts and future implications, but we are actually doing work directly on this and we are funding research directly on it because we do see it as something that we will have to ensure we get right. There is work currently being done, an analysis of the current accounting tools being done at SRUC in collaboration with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and that is the kind of thing that we need to be very clear about. Our knowledge and our understanding of those aspects of nitrogen accounting and management are not yet in a place where being able to set a specific target would be sensible, but it is certainly something that we think needs to be worked on and considered actively and we are doing so. Progress, thank you. What are the key risks and threats to researching and publishing more detailed information on emissions in the wider agriculture sector and what are the benefits to providing this information? We are currently exploring a lot of alternative methods to provide further estimates of emissions from the wider agriculture sector. I know that there is a considerable degree of unhappiness among the agriculture sector that they are not credited with a lot of the really good work that they do. Unfortunately, the way of accounting is a global agreement and therefore we cannot change things in terms of our own greenhouse gas inventory. However, I do think that there is some real benefit in trying to come up with a better way to assess even if it is not going to sit in the GHG stance. Nevertheless, it can be a tool to help to identify with farmers the really good work that is being done, but also to get that out to the wider community, including the research community, on a little bit of a difficult issue. I understand why. We are going to report back to the committee when we can come up with the potential approaches to the reporting issue and the likely accuracy of estimates as soon as we have the work progressed sufficiently in order to make it substantial enough to bring to committee. The work is on-going. We are looking at the wider agriculture sector. We are thinking about how that can be better reflected. What we cannot do is make it part of GHG because that is pinned to an international standard that is set for us rather than one that we invent for ourselves. That is some of the work that is being done. There is a lot of work out there. I always want to credit land managers for that work, even if they are not seeing it directly reflected in the official stats. However much they may wish that to happen, as I said, it is not my gift. I very much welcome what you say and the response to those points in our report. I think that it is real progress. Will there be a point where the data on this, as it were, parallel system might be robust enough to be included in annual statutory reports in a parallel life universe? I think that that is what we would hope. We can get the data into a place where we can do a sort of parallel report. We are already doing work. I think that there is information available already on the climate exchange website which relates directly to emissions intensity figures for agricultural products and some public facing work available at the moment. Obviously there are other areas that Government support, for example the carbon positive project, which is led by industry as well. We are continuing to try and refine the data to ensure that it can accurately reflect what is going on farms. At this point, it is still immature. It is not really able to be brought together in the kind of way that I anticipate that yourself and other farmers might wish to see it. There will be needed to be a lot of work before we are into that stage. It is however our intention to get to that stage. I appreciate that. I understand why you cannot see more than you can at the moment. It is essentially the concept of on-farm offsetting. At the moment, if you are an airline and you want to offset your carbon emissions, you can go and plant 100 or 1,000 acres of trees. If you are a farmer with cows that produce methane, you cannot offset that on your own farm by planting 50 acres of trees, apparently. I understand the argument. Obviously, you can plant the trees, but what you do not do is get credited to you. That is the point exactly. That might be another concept to explore. As it were, on-farm offsetting. I will leave the thought with you. That would be taking a whole farm attitude to emissions. A holistic approach. Thank you for articulating what is better than I could for me. I suspect that this might be more directed at Fergus Ewing than your cabinet secretary. Given that the agricultural emission that causes most concern is methane, I want to ask in particular that there is one peer-reviewed paper from Australia in 2015 on the anti-methanogenic effects of asparagosis taxiformis in vitro. In other words, there is something in seaweed that in the petri dish prevents methane emission. There is a 2018 study in the United States that is very small, and I cannot see a peer-reviewed paper from it, on 12 holsteins feeding them at seaweed reduced the methane by 99 per cent. I have to say that that sounds implausibly large, but the general question is just whether Government scientists and others are tracking that so that we can get to a point where farmers get the kind of support from public resources that might pick those up. Of course, I note in particular that Scotland is quite a good place for seaweed, even if it does mean harvesting kelp. That was a very long question to which the answer is we are already doing it here as well, research. I would invite the committee to go out to the SRUC facility on the outskirts of Edinburgh where there is an active programme of testing, so it is not just seaweed that has that impact. If I recall correctly, Coriander, I am not looking at it, these officials weren't there, but there are a variety of different natural substances which, if added to the feed, look like they have a very direct impact on emissions. There is work going on around the world on this issue because, obviously, it is something that needs to be addressed. Not only is Scotland looking at what other people are doing, but we are also doing ourselves. I dare say that other people will be looking at us. That is about as far as my technical understanding of this goes. As far as I am aware, Fergus Ewing is actively, from his policy perspective, pursuing this as well. Questions from Mark Ruskell. We had some immediate policy announcements on day 1 after the climate change committee's report came out. I am just wondering what other areas that the Government is working on, what you see as the big challenges for meeting the targets going forward and where we might expect to see some conclusions. I appreciate what you said earlier that the UK Government has a role to play in terms of various areas, including decarbonisation of the gas grid. We put similar questions to Michael Gove last week. There is clearly a policy process that is now in train, but in terms of your policy process, what can we expect to see coming out of that and by when? I cannot tell you what you can expect to see coming out of it because that would be pre-announcing what is coming out of it and I am not in a position to be able to do that. As I have already indicated within the portfolios, both at the level of Cabinet Secretary, Minister and senior officials, work has already begun to look at the specific portfolio areas to identify continuing ways in which we can make the achievements that we want to make. I have already flagged up that it is going to be the central part of the programme for government. Please do not ask me what that will look like. That is a matter entirely for the First Minister and it will be her decision what does and does not appear in the programme for government. It is an enormous concession, I think, historically to be told this far in advance that climate change will be an integral part of that programme for government. The work is happening right now. We are already doing it. Anything that I can, for example, identify in my own portfolio that can be done more quickly or brought forward or differently without having to go through. Here is the thing, without having to go through the usual panoply of consultation, impact assessments, etc. I need to remind everybody here that the processes of government do not go away. I do not have a magic wand that makes all of that go away. The issue is what can we identify that does not require to go through all of that? I do not know what we will be able to come up with and that would be a much shorter term into a more medium and long term what changes and policy proposals there might be that will nevertheless still require to go through the sausage machine. I am hearing that the programme for government is going to be key, but what are the subject areas? I am not going to ask you to identify policies. What are the broad subject areas that government is currently looking at? All portfolios have been asked to look within. I have flagged up, even in those portfolio areas, that have not hitherto regarded themselves to be on the front line. There is a handful of portfolios, for example, the rural economy, transport and housing that people see as being an energy, that see as already being part of that wider team. I have flagged up that all policies now, all policy portfolios, all areas need to be looking at what they can do. Even if they have not necessarily seen themselves in that way, they have to know. That will be happening across the whole of government. We are not picking out, but we are just saying that this has to be an all-government approach. One area that is in your portfolio on which there is a current consultation is the climate challenge fund and the future of that fund. You will recognise the important work that has taken place and the 1,000 projects that have blossomed across Scotland. What do you see as the vision for that fund? Do you believe that it should continue to expand in its budget? Is there a different way of engaging with communities and engaging with hard-to-reach individuals in the public? The review that has been on-going is not yet out there. I have not made any decisions in respect of that, but in terms of my portfolio, as I said, everything now has to be up for scrutiny, and that is really everything. All funding for community action on climate change has to be looked at in this regard to ensure that what we are doing is the right thing, and that is currently on-going. There has been a lot of discussion about numbers, but the reality is that this, from the point of view of community projects, has been incredibly successful. It has been supporting communities across Scotland to take action. That is the only fund of its kind in the UK, but I think that this is the right time to consider whether the approach that we have been taking over the past 10 years is the right one to help to deliver what we are all agreeing now as a step change that is needed, and that is what we are thinking about. That is happening across my portfolio in the same way that it is happening across everybody's portfolio. I have another question from John Scott. Can I just take to the climate change plan, please? Given that the climate change plans largely collate and present information and commitments set out in other strategies, will our revised climate change plan present a truly integrated approach? I would certainly hope that it would. What is the timetable and process for the new climate change plan? Can I be really clear about what it is that we are discussing here, because we have committed to a review of the existing climate change plan within the first six months of the passing of the bill. If you are talking about a brand new climate change plan, that is a different animal entirely. I think that it would be advisable for the committee to think about the difference between doing that. Six months is not a long time, so it is not a complete, entirely start-from-scratch and renew the whole plan. We are talking about the current one. The current one, yes. What we have agreed to do is to do that within the six months, which is what the committee actually asked for. That does mean that, because you are doing it on a much shorter timescale, it will not be as detailed as if you were doing a whole new plan. It cannot be. It is impossible in terms of timescale to manage that within the six months. We will do that review and revise it. Sarah is worried that I use a phrase. Don't do it. Because we have that set timescale for it, it cannot be as if we were doing a whole new plan. I think that that is an important thing for people to understand. I appreciate that, of course, but notwithstanding. Will it involve stakeholders in the industry or will it be open to all the general public? I appreciate the constraints of time that have laid out in your response to our report. I very well understand that, but notwithstanding, would you like to comment on how wide you will consult in that regard? That will be some of the engagement over the summer that will feed into that, because although the six-month trigger does not happen until the royal assent, that is now not going to happen until autumn. Nevertheless, the work that we do, the public engagement that we do over the summer, will be something that we will use to feed into the revisal of that plan. Yes, there will be as much engagement as we can, and I have indicated that I will let the committee know as soon as we have a formal timetable for that engagement so that you can see the areas that you might want to engage with. That will involve all stakeholders, and since that is pinned directly on to the target of net zero emissions, it will then feed into the six-month revision of the climate change plan. Thank you. Further questions on the climate change plan from Magus MacDonald? Exactly. I will just briefly stick in with the climate change plan and scrutiny of the CCP. What discussion is currently held with the climate change committee prior to finalising CCPs? Obviously, the CCC has a statutory role. There are independent advisers, and that is basically what informs our engagement with them. They have already set out their views on the most recent plan. Those views and that engagement takes place while it is a draft plan, and then we have consideration for those when we are preparing the final version of the plan. I just need to remind committee members that the final version of the plan was only just published in February of this year. Sorry, last year. Seeking CCC views on draft climate change plans will not change. The ability of the CCC to operate within the timescale that the committee recommended for the revision of the current plan is not certain, so we will ensure that they are aware of what we are doing, and if they wish to make some comment, they can. However, as committee members know, the committee for climate change doesn't do immediate advice. How actively they will be able to be involved in the revision is an un-matter entirely. That is a challenge, and that is back to the phrase that I am not allowed to use. I will tell you privately afterwards when the microphone is switched off, but the six months is a tight timescale, and that means that it is a tight timescale for everybody, including the CCC. Rounding off questions on the climate change plan, Mark Ruskell. It is about proposed scrutiny, the 120-day period. Will that take recess or dissolution into account? I don't think that this has been a final decision on 90 or 120 days. I think that what we have said is 90, a 90-day parliamentary scrutiny period. Are you prepared to accept 120? I am told that we are prepared to accept 120. My view is that if we start building in recesses, how long is this all going to take? If we have a climate emergency, why would we be making things even longer and more difficult? Back to Angus's question on carbon credits. On that, will the Government bring forward amendments at stage 2 to require an enhanced affirmative procedure to use carbon credits? What more could the Government do to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny of the use of carbon credits? We are still exploring the possibility of further amendments in respect of that, but I am not clear what is meant by enhanced affirmative procedure. If you mean the superaffirmative procedure, it would be more straightforward unless the committee has got some other new procedural form in mind, and I was not clear what that might be. That would help to clarify for us. If you mean superaffirmative, is that what you mean? Superaffirmative, right? Obviously, carbon credits have never been used. We have set out clear policy commitments not to use them. There is a legal limit of zero in any future use unless Parliament actively agrees. I am not 100 per cent clear what amendments to that would make a difference. What would you want there that was not already there? In that regard, I was in Ireland last week and had much talk about climate change. They are very definitely going down the route in Ireland of carbon credits in terms of mitigation. Therefore, would it not be a pity to close the doors on the ability to use carbon credits should a need arise? Without dispute, it seems that it is entirely linked to the growth of the economy, the carbon emissions, and they have proved that to their own satisfaction on three occasions in Ireland. The two big issues around carbon credits are this. First of all, all that you are doing is exporting your emissions when you do that. Secondly, it is incredibly expensive and will probably get even more expensive. Ireland may theoretically be talking about that, but, as Sweden does, whether or not, when it comes to it, it actually will, is a different matter entirely. From our perspective, what we are doing is talking about domestic effort and not just exporting. Carbon credits are letting somebody else do the emitting for you. That does not seem to me to be a particularly moral way to approach that. Finally, I can ask you about the financial resolution. Given that the Government is lodged and planned amendments, does the Government intend to lodge a new financial resolution? We were told at the outset that this would cost £13 billion. Do you see any change to that figure or a figure that seems to lack reliability from our perspective? If you have any comments to make on that, it would certainly be interesting to hear them. There is no financial resolution at present because the direct costs of the bill are well below the £400,000 per year threshold. In terms of what is happening around the discussions, the only current thing that might change that is the discussion around just transition commission because, as I said, there would be a cost to that. The figures that you are talking about are the 2045 figures, which I do not think that you can really reflect on a financial resolution in a bill going through Parliament in 2019. That is the end of our session. I thank the cabinet secretary and our officials for their time today. It is next meeting on 28 May. The committee will be taking further evidence from stakeholders on the climate change emissions reductions bill at stage 2. That concludes our meeting in public today.