 Felly, gan gwybod i'r methu 23 ymgyrch fournogau, energig a cyrnaen ddiolch yn byw. Rydym yn ymdweithio yma peth o Jackie Dunbar a dylai bobl bob Dorris a ydy'r gwagol, o bobl bobb bob, yn ymbyrch ar fnwg gweithiau. Ond yma rydw i'r ffordd y gweithio cyrnaen gyda'r ddlaifydd respondau i Ffianna Hyslop i'ch ddatblyg i'r newid ar gyllidiaeth y cyrni. that the committee benefited greatly from Fiona's experience in government, and the diligence with which she sat on this committee with, and I'm sure that we would all agree that we wish her well in her new role. There are lots of things to deal with. I think that I'm glad that we've got that on record. The first decision will be on the agenda. Therefore, it is a decision in taking business in private. We have consideration whether to take items five and six in private. Item five is considered the evidence we will hear under agenda item two and item six is to consider our work programme. Are we all agreed to take these items in private? We are agreed. Gender item two is an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition on the Scottish Government's priorities relevant to the committee's remed. As we head into summer recess, this is a wide-ranging session to help the committee to understand what the new Cabinet Secretary's priorities will be not only in the coming months but over the remainder of the parliamentary session. We are going to explore the biggest challenges that I hope that she will face during this time, so I'm pleased to welcome Mari McCallan, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition. Philip Rains, the Deputy Director of Domestic Climate Change from the Scottish Government. David Signorini, the Director of Environment, Forestry and Scottish Government. Annabelle Terpy, the Director for the Marine Director of Scottish Government. And Alison Irving, the Chief Executive for Transport Scotland. I thank all of you for accepting our invitation. Before we begin, Cabinet Secretary, I believe that you wish to make a short opening statement. Yes, thank you, convener. I will do it. I should say first of all that, although having deprived the committee of Fiona Hyslop, I am very glad to welcome her back to this side of the house and in her role as Minister for Transport. I'm very pleased to be with you today. In all the evidence that the committee takes, you will be aware that we face a number of challenges just now as a country and more broadly, but for my part, the climate and nature emergencies are front and centre of the challenges that we face. It's the collective fight of our lifetime and this portfolio is really centred on that. It is a vast portfolio, as you'll see from the number of directors that I have with me and equally the number of junior ministers that take forward work on a daily basis across the portfolio. I suppose that this is just a reflection to start with. This is the first time that net zero and just transition have come together at cabinet level. For me, that represents my work in being both rising to the imperative of climate change and equally doing that in a way that recognises that the scale and pace of change is quite extraordinary and that we have to make sure that we are taking decisions that are fair for economy and society. If I can just run through some very headline priorities before we get into discussion. On the net zero front, we are halfway there, but the hardest part lies ahead. Obviously, one of the big significant staging posts that we have in the coming months is the publication of the draft climate change plan, which we are working on furiously. On transport, of course, that is the largest source of our emissions. Public transport is a key driver of our net zero goals. It needs to be available, attractive, affordable. Of course, that is one of my priorities as well. So, too, is decarbonising transport. We are working with COSLA on the 20 per cent route map just now. On heating buildings, we are taking steps to decarbonise new buildings. We will shortly publish consultation on proposed bill measures to regulate both efficiency and heating sources. The portfolio also covers biodiversity, the twin crisis, and my colleague Launas later is taking forward a lot of work there, including on a biodiversity strategy natural environment bill. She also leads day-to-day on the circular economy and is taking forward work on a circular economy bill, on a litter-and-fly tipping strategy, among others. Marine protection also comes within the portfolio. I know that we have had many discussions about highly protected marine areas, but, of course, it is broader than that. We also have the NPA network and others besides. Just an ultimate point, just transition, is the thread that runs through the whole portfolio. As I say, a significant change agenda is before us on account of the emissions reduction targets that the Parliament has set. More important is the face of the climate and nature emergency that we face, but we have to make sure that the decisions that we take are fair, take communities with us and learn lessons from the past. We are seeking to do that through our discussion papers and the final just transition plans to accompany all of that work. More needs to be done, convener. It is a very busy area. I am very happy to answer questions on the vast scope of the transport net zero and just transition portfolio. I think that the vastness of your portfolio is fully understood by this committee, who has a vast remit as well. Sometimes we struggle to get around to every single part of it. We will have a go today. Ash is starting off with the first questions. Given that the annual emission reduction target for 2021 was missed, and that Scotland has now missed eight out of 12 annual targets for emissions reduction, how confident are you that the 2030 interim target can still be achieved? It is a good point. We have to always assess the progress that we are making as well as looking forward to the next targets. Just last week, I made a statement to Parliament on the 2021 target, which we missed by 1.2 per cent. That said to me two things. One is that, in the year 2021, we were tracking quite closely where our world-leading targets dictate that we need to be, which is 1.2 per cent behind where we needed to be for that year. I think that that is a positive thing, albeit that I would have loved to have met the target. The other thing that it tells me is, of course, that there is so much work still to be done. In all Canada, that is increasingly the case as we move to the 2030 target. I was not in Parliament at the time when the last climate act was set, but those of those who were will remember that the Committee on Climate Change were quite clear that they did not recommend the 75 per cent 2030 target. I think that it was changed at stage 3 with cross-party consensus, I should say. My view is that it is exceptionally challenging, but we have to do everything that we can and that, by aiming high, we will get very close to where we need to be in the shorter term. I am very confident of the long-term progress at the mid-century 2045 point. The CCC progressed report for Scotland at the end of last year. It said that it did not see evidence of sufficient action in order to meet the stated ambitions and that the Scottish Government's own monitoring report finds that there is more than twice as many policy indicators on track than off track. How can that be? Are those indicators fit for purpose? I might come to my colleague Phil to say something about the monitoring report and the comparison of that with the CCC report. For my part, I welcome the CCC's guidance throughout, including its paper that was published in December last year on our progress on mitigation. I published my response to that last week when I made the statement on emissions reduction for 2021. We accepted 98 of the 99 recommendations, the latter being entirely reserved and not in our gift. I think that things have moved on somewhat since the CCC's report in December to where we are now. We have done a number of things. For example, my colleague Mary Gougeon has made progress on the vision for agriculture and the decarbonisation of food production and moved to regenerative farming. That means that we have moved on from where we were when the CCC first published their report. In our policy prospectus, we have upped our commitment to peatland restoration in the near term. Of course, we are taking forward work on the 20 per cent car kilometres reduction route map. If the question is compared with where we are now with what the CCC said in December, I accept what the CCC said, but equally, there has been movement since then in what the Government has taken forward. I do not know if there is anything that you want to add to that. Yes, thank you, Cabinet Secretary. One way we are looking at the way that the CCC responded and criticised the Scottish Government in December, which used very similar language, I note that they criticised the UK Government in their report in June. As an aside, we are very much looking forward to what their response is, what their review is of the UK Government's progress, which is due in the next week or so, I believe. It is not so much the lack of tangible progress so much as, well, what are you going to do next? You make commitments, for example, around 20 per cent car kilometre reductions. Where is the detail on this, what this is coming forward? When we have done the monitoring report, we have always been clear, as was set out in the updated climate change plan, which is existing climate change plan that we are operating on, that we have these ambitions, we have these absolute far-reaching goals that we are trying to reach under the different sectors, and that there is work that would need to be done to set out the precise detail of how we are going to be doing that. One of the ways that we read the climate change committee's report in December is, in a sense, they are saying, where is that detail? We need to see where the next stage is going to be, so it is very much, in our view, a forward-looking report. The monitoring report that we produced from May, which is based around our progress and what we said we are going to do in the updated climate change plan, is very much focused on where we are now. If there is a difference in view, a difference in perspective, the monitoring point is looking at where we are now. The climate change committee, one way to read it, is to say, we are less interested in that, we are more interested in the critical detail that you are going to need to put in place to be able to say how we are going to get to 2030. As the cabinet secretary has said, that critical detail is going to be forthcoming, and we accept the climate change committee's pressure on us, if you will, to come forward with that. The big areas where, just as maybe on the side, three big areas that the climate change committee has noted that further work was needed, and bear in mind that this report was in December, was that one area was agriculture, and you will note that the detail on how the Scottish agricultural programme, the route map for that, was published in February. We have come forward with more detail about how we are going to get to meet our obligations or commitments within the climate change plan, but also what the climate change committee was asking for. The two other big areas are heat and buildings, particularly the 20 per cent car kilometre reduction of the route map, and those are areas that, again, to borrow the cabinet secretary's word furiously, we are furiously working on to provide that detail in the coming months and being able to set that forward. Sorry, that's a long answer, but I hope that gives some detail. It does, thank you, convener. Okay, just before we move on to the next question, cabinet secretary, could you just tell me, I mean, during 2021, we were still struggling to come out of the pandemic, and it was a struggle, and emissions would have naturally been lower because less people were travelling, less people were moving around, and less things were happening. So, the fact that you narrowly missed the target with that in mind, is it going to make the next target more difficult to reach? I think it's a balance. We were having a discussion about that as well. I should say from the outset that when I presented the 1.2 per cent miss, I was very clear about why we thought that was the case. It was a rebound in transport emissions, exactly as you say, following a year of lockdown in 2020, and it was about, I think, one of the coldest winters in a decade that we had, which meant that emissions from heating our homes was higher. I was thinking to myself in 2022, had transport largely settled, were people not using transport because of fear of Covid, or was there a behavioural change that had started to set in? For example, the way that people travel to work, people's lifestyles have changed. I don't know, basically, as the answer to what extent that return to transport emissions will continue to be seen into 2022. I think that there will be some, I think that we might see some aviation rebound in that as well, but I also would like to think that one of the positives from the pandemic amid a plethora of incredible negatives was that lifestyles did change in respect of how, for example, people travel to work, and I hope, therefore, that we will hold on to some of those changes in the 2022 results. Of course, all the time, we are seeking to bring forward policies that can make the change now and be borne out in future targets. I think that what we have seen, cabinet secretary, is more people moving back to trains and, hopefully, more people back to buses, but that will definitely increase the emissions if more people are using those transports. It is going to be a problem as you encourage them to use trains and public transport to get the balance right. On that note, I think that there is a huge amount. I am going to move straight to the next lot of questions that come from Mark. Can I ask you about the launch date for the climate change plan? Are we still on track for November for that? Yes, it still might aim to lay a draft with the Parliament in November. Just to go back to the points that Phil was raising around critical detail, that was a feature of UKCCC's comments there. Can you explain that a little bit more? When it comes to individual policies that will be listed in the climate change plan, will it be really clear what the expected reduction in emissions will be, what any underlying modelling is behind that, what assumptions have been used? With previous climate change plans, it has been almost impossible to see what is going on behind the assumptions. I think that, particularly with the use of the times modelling, previous cabinet secretaries have said that it is incredibly complex. We could not explain it to you because it is all a big computer model. For people who are looking through this, particularly sectors that are going to have to make quite big reductions in emissions, they are going to have to respond to the opportunities around heat and other areas. How clear is that plan going to be? I will come to Phil on that as well. For my part, I see the times model as a well-regarded, exceptionally rigorous tool that is critical to our ability to plan sector envelopes for emissions reduction. Equally, it is a model, and therefore we have to apply human judgment to a lot of what it might throw up to us as being the least cost pathway to net zero. That is the job that I and the civil servants will do to apply human judgment to what times tell us. I think that we will be as explanatory and transparent about that as we possibly can. One of the great benefits of that strand of work is that we have a tangible measurement in emissions reduction, which we can, with great detail, set out the emissions reduction policy that is expected to run with a policy. Compare that to something like biodiversity gain. It is quite different. Where we have that tangible measurement, I am keen that it is as clear as possible what each policy accrues to. I will hand over to Phil, whose days are probably filled with this very much just now. The legislation is clear that, when we put out the climate change plan, we have to say what the policies are, what the costs and benefits are, and our intention is to set out exactly how it is going to be building on those emissions. With all those things, there are going to be assumptions, because you are making guesses on technological developments, on behavioural change. You are drawing on a field where there are differences of views, and that is one reason why we are seeking to speak to as many people as possible. We give the cabinet secretary chairs a climate change plan advisory group that pulls in individuals, as you well know yourself, to be able to represent that diversity of view. However, the plan needs to be very clear about how those things work. Some things we are going to have to make are best guesses about things, and some of them are to do with the intentions of others. It probably goes without saying that the achieving our climate change targets is just as much as we, the UK Government, need the Scottish Government and the action of Scotland to be able to achieve their national and UK-wide targets. We would expect them to be able to provide contributions for our plan, particularly for areas where many of the powers are already reserved, such as the industry envelope. We will need to make those assumptions and things, but the November document is the starting point for that discussion. It is the starting point for the discussion with Parliament, and it is the starting point for that discussion with the public and the stakeholders. Over the next 18-month period, or however long it is, March 2025, that debate will go on about our assumptions and things, but we need to be as clear as possible about that. Times is part of that, but times is a tool. If you are looking at the way a house is being made, it is good to understand what the workmen have used for the tools and things, but it is probably the quality of the work that is probably the essential thing there. With previous plans, it has been very difficult to understand some sectors because there has just been a lack of data, a lack of information, and it has felt perhaps rightly or wrongly when it comes to say farming, land use, because there is a lack of data there and a lack of clarity as to what individual actions will do in terms of reduction of carbon emissions. Certain sectors have almost been given a buy, almost kind of left off a little bit. Whereas other sectors such as transport are very clear, or heating buildings or whatever, it is very clear what certain actions will do in terms of reduction of carbon emissions. How do we bring the data up to a point where we can understand exactly what is happening across different sectors and exactly what different measures will achieve? Because there seems to be some areas of a fuzziness around you making that change while it might result in X, but we are not exactly sure. Phil, you should certainly come back in on that. I would begin by saying that it certainly does not feel to us like any sector is being given a buy. When Mr Egan was asking about the long-term targets, the stretch and the pressure that our targets place on every sector across our economy cannot be understated. I take your point about how we set that against each other, and I will bring Phil in. I think that I just wanted to draw out two points that he made as well, which is that when you are making policy out to 2040, in a fast-paced area where we require innovation to come to our aid, you have to be able to give some scope to technological advance and, as Phil said, actions that UK Government might take. You mentioned agriculture. I strongly take the view that technological advance will come to our aid to an extent in the decarbonisation of agriculture. Some of them are in training now, and we can allude to them, and they can build them in. Some of them will undoubtedly come on track before 2040, and we do not even know about them yet. Just to build on that, there is absolutely no sector that is going to be, I do not know if the record can catch your scare quotes, but there you go. We have protected as such. Just as climate change affects the whole of Scotland right away across every community, every sector, every individual, the work to address climate change is going to affect everyone. I do not want to use words like sacrifice because part of the beauty of the legislation—I use that word deliberately—is putting this idea of just transition in, which is that it should not be seen as sacrifice, it should not be seen as the loss of the world we had. It should be seen as embracing the change to ensure that Scotland gets the full benefit of it, which is one of the reasons why it is one of the three key goals in the policy perspectives. To pick up on the point of fuzziness, there will be some fuzziness on some of the data just because of the complexity and the state of where the research is. Peatland is a great one. Our understanding of Peatland emissions is changing monthly. Last area that I want to ask about is negative emissions technology, so bec, CCS and the Climate Change Committee highlighted that there is continuing uncertainty around that and recommended two years ago that there should be a plan B. It is very challenging, but how do you respond to that? It is very challenging and it returns to that point that I was trying to make previously, which is that no stone can be left unturned. Therefore, if, for whatever reason, a significant stone like CCS cannot be overturned by the Scottish Government and we require intervention from the UK Government, that makes it very difficult because there really is no scope across other sectors of the economy to compensate for that. What I can do in my role is continue to work with UK Government colleagues, including through the net zero IMG, to impress upon them the necessity that CCS, the ample scope that we have for it in Scotland, is brought on track as soon as possible. It is mission critical for the decarbonisation of industry. The CCC has been very clear about that it is not a nice to have, it is an essential, and I share that view, so continue to push on CCS. There has obviously been positive movements of late, I need a timescale for when track 2 is going to be complete, in particular for my planning for the climate change plan. We have also been trying to take forward other forms, so the Bioenergy and CCS, we have set up a working group to look at that and trying to progress it as much as possible, but I think that if the question is do we compensate for that elsewhere, it is very difficult to do. Just a couple of housekeeping points, just if I may, just first of all to remind, because somebody has talked about agriculture getting a buy, just to remind the committee that I do have an interest in a agricultural holding in the form of a family farm which we run and operate. I do have trees on that farm in case we get on to trees, and I do have houses on that farm as well, which I'll let out, just so there's no dubiety and I'm not trying to cut anyone off. The other thing, just to remind people, is if you're a witness you certainly don't need to push the button on your microphone, in fact if you push the button on your microphone it probably turns it off when we're trying to turn it on, so leave it alone, we'll make sure it happens and we make sure that everyone can hear your dulcet tones, and he says with a smile that if you move your microphone away and you suddenly get to speak then we won't be able to hear you, I'm not looking at anyone in particular. On that note, the next questions come from Liam. Thanks, convener, good morning. In 2019 the Scottish Government published its second adaptation programme, The Climate Ready Scotland. In March 2022, the climate change committee's progress report noted that progress in delivering adaptation has stagnated. That was 15 months ago, so what work has been done to address that stagnation, cabinet secretary? Thank you for the question. It's very pertinent that we should discuss adaptation following mitigation. You'll be aware of SCAP 2, our plan for adaptation in Scotland, 170 policies contained within that, most of which are within my direct responsibility. We have flood risk within that, which is obviously one of the greatest challenges that Scotland faces in terms of adaptation. We've been funding that to the tune of £42 million a year and continue to do that. We've also made more funding available, £150 million over the course of this Parliament, to be distributed to manage flood risk in Scotland. We also fund coastal erosion work, which I know is of interest to Mr Kerr, on to his region, and the dynamic coasts project, working with local authorities. Funding is not always simply showing up coastline, but it is also understanding that coastlines need to move. It is about adapting our communities around that. We are also developing a programme for publication in 2024, which will respond to CCC's comments and the ever-increasing risk of the need to adapt in Scotland. I'm very grateful. The Climate Change Committee called for urgent implementation of a monitoring and evaluation framework, which presumably becomes even more critical, given the funding that the cabinet secretary has just described, to ensure that it is well spent and effective. The Scottish Government committed to progress with such a framework, but, as it may 2023, it remains merely in development. Cabinet secretary, why is this taking so long, particularly given that the Climate Change Committee said that this was an urgent priority? Thank you. I'm going to hand over to Phil, but it's taking longer because it's an exceptionally difficult thing to monitor. I get that this returns to my point about having that numerical emissions reduction ability to measure emissions reduction in a mega ton of carbon. It's not as easy to measure something like adaptation. Phil will correct me if I'm wrong, but the approach that has been taken to date against our adaptation programme is to assess the fulfilment of the policies that we have identified that will contribute to adaptation. What it is harder to do is to have that separate monitoring of adaptation as a whole, because it is so many different things in so many different circumstances. Phil, is there anything that we can add to that, please? I think that even just to note that the Climate Change Committee itself recognises that this is new territory, this monitoring evaluation. My understanding is that they are doing work at the moment about how they can enrich the research base and provide advice on what that monitoring evaluation would look like across the board, and that work is still to come. I think that the fact that it's difficult to do, and as the Cabinet Secretary rightly notes, we are more about measuring the outputs rather than the outcomes. We still need to do something around outcomes, and we recognise that. It is something that we are intending to put in place over the period of this calendar year and being able to take forward. If you will, the framework that we can continue to improve on and enrich as better ways of doing things, as better advice comes forward. You are right to call us on it. As indeed it is right to call on it just about everyone else, I think, who is trying to wrestle with this difficult problem. It is one that we fully intend to try to put something in place and get better at doing as the years go by. Thank you very much. We have tackled a series of questions from Monica. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. I want to start by asking about water scarcity, an issue that has been in the news recently and has been discussed in Parliament with your Cabinet Secretary. I am interested to hear how will water scarcity and flood management be strategically resourced and prioritised over the summer, when we are all in recess? What is the longer-term outlook? If you do not mind, it would be helpful to separate them out in my thinking, because they require different things. I often think that sometimes I am hoping for rain and sometimes I am hoping that the rain will stop, so there are different issues. I think that, first of all, with water scarcity, given that we are in that period of the year in which that is problematic, I arranged for that round table last week, because I understand how much that might be affecting constituents just now. Ultimately, I am very confident right now that between ourselves and the Scottish Government, SEPA, the independent regulator, who oversees car licences and abstractions from the environment, and Scottish Water, who is responsible for the public water supply, we have a robust means of monitoring water levels in the country, virtually 24, 7, 365 days a year. I think that the political challenge is on abstractions. What happens when the water levels are particularly low and SEPA observes that there could be a risk to the environment, and then we get into the situation in which licences for abstraction have to be curtailed. Last year was the first summer that we ever had to do that, and we were very deliberate in the aftermath of that to take time to make sure that we learned all the lessons from it, including one of the things that was as early communication as possible about the risk of prolonged periods of dry weather, and also quite a clear idea for farmers, businesses, aquaculture and hydro businesses about the conditions in which their abstraction licences might be changed. We have tried to do all that in terms of your question about suitability of the current framework. If you want to move on to flooding, there is obviously another significant issue. There are two points to make about flooding. One is about funding, and the future framework and preparedness on flooding. I mentioned in response to Liam Kerr regarding adaptation that an agreement between us and COSLA 2008 meant that we have provided £42 million per annum to councils for flooding and that 80 per cent of that was agreed that it would be spent on the strategic projects, and 20 per cent would be distributed among the other 32 councils for others, and that we have made £150 million available to this Parliament. However, it has to be said that, as the risk of flooding increases, the project and the need for investment are beginning to outstrip the funding that is available. We have a Scottish Government, COSLA, local authority working group right now looking at funding for flood mitigation schemes across the country, not just levels of funding but how it is distributed. I am awaiting recommendations on that because I recognise that we have some very expensive schemes in the pipeline, and I want us to collectively all be prepared to do what we can on that. I have slightly forgotten what my other point about flooding was. It was funding and it was the strategy. The other bit of work that we are doing. Again, it is about making sure that we are as up to speed as we possibly can on everything that flooding demands of us is that we are setting out a new draft strategy. It is right at the very beginning of the process and we are working right across civic society on it. One of the things that I have asked to be drawn out is that it is a great deal clearer who's responsibility is on the ground and that there is better joined up working between agencies. We all know what our constituency is when something happens. Do you wonder whether it is the road network and gullies that have caused the blockage, what SEPA's responsibility is, where the council comes in, where we come in? I am hoping to make that much clearer. That is a really helpful update. As part of that work, will Government be looking at whether there is a need for any sort of change in terms of legislation, the governance arrangements, because it can be quite complex with a number of agencies involved? At the moment, do you have any sense of whether current legislative and governance arrangements are sufficient to tackle both the current and the future challenges that you have alluded to in terms of risk profile? That is the question for the strategy. I am not envisaging a change to legislation just now. I expect that it will be more a clarification of roles and a reinforcing of my expectation that, in the event both before and after our infledding event, that all agencies with responsibility are working together and that communities are really put at the heart of it. That is my objective. Thank you. You did mention communication at the start, so I am sure that it is appreciated. I am coming back to water scarcity, because I am sure that it may be an issue over the summer. Have discussions been taken place between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the issue of water scarcity? It is not something that I discuss regularly with the UK Government, no. I think that it was about 10 days ago that I read a report on the media of some restrictions in parts of England around the use of hosepipes and sprinklers and so on in people's gardens. Is that something that could be introduced in Scotland this year? I suppose that those are measures that are always in the toolkit that I do not foresee right now as having to do that. Our public water system is very resilient. Thanks in large part to a great deal of investment that Scottish Water has done to provide resilience between areas. We have issued guidance to ask people to be very responsible about the way they use the public water supply during periods of scarcity. The more vulnerable is the private water supply network in Scotland, which has many running dry right now. That is why we have made the bottle water scheme available very early. That is a bit of a way of dealing with it in the here and now. We have also got a longer piece of work on-going, trying to see what would be required to connect those who remain on the private supply into the public network. Thank you. I have a few more questions, convener. Moving more to environmental protection and biodiversity. Regarding progress with the Scottish environment strategy, can you let us know what work is being undertaken to identify additional indicators and what is your view on how the strategy and its monitoring framework can be used to have a tangible impact in the context of multiple other strategies? Thank you. This is demonstrating the vastness of the portfolio now. The biodiversity strategy is a really important piece of work. I think that it both collates in one space all the important interventions that the Government is making across the piece, which are many. It should also be the platform from which we strive for greater progress. Officials have been undertaking quite a bit of work on that. It is Dave's team. One of the things that has been done recently is we have commissioned research against three or two or three of the outcomes that we had published along with the vision for the strategy. That work is on-going. I think that we had done economy and one other. We were looking to commission research on the social outcome, but that work is on-going. Thank you. The panel will know that the Scottish Environment Strategy is a requirement of section 47 of the continuity act. That act enables ministers to keep pace with EU law. Its design ensures that Scottish environment law and standard can keep pace with EU developments. To that end, I am wondering what actions are ministers and officials taking to ensure that environment law keeps pace with EU standards, including the work that is progressing on equal-side law. We scan the horizon for EU developments in the environment, and what we were just talking about with water is a key example of that, with the new water directive coming through and us doing what we can to comply with that. Equal-side is another issue. I know that it is one that you are very close to. I have advice on it. Just now, my view is that, in taking forward the right to a healthy environment via the human rights bill, we should be able to achieve a great deal of development of equal-side might. I absolutely do not turn my mind away from something domestically on equal-side. For now, I feel that some of its objectives are being taken forward in the right to a healthy environment. I have got to say that that is being led by the cabinet secretary for social justice. I am sure that that is a conversation that will continue in the months ahead. Thank you for that. We also had a letter from the minister in December stating that the process for developing a biodiversity delivery plan will involve identifying priority actions and identifying delivery partners' mechanisms for delivery, and the targets and indicators need to successfully deliver those actions. I wonder if you can update on how you are determining priority actions and how you are engaging with stakeholders in securing buy-in across multiple sectors? Yes, I can do that. I assume that the letter from the minister was from Ms Leiter, because she is leading on the biodiversity strategy and the overlap with the natural environment bill. She will go out to consultation this summer. I understand that the consultation is in two parts. One will be on the draft of the biodiversity strategy and the delivery plan that you mentioned. The other part is on some of the early proposals for the natural environment bill and our intention to legislate for nature recovery targets. She will go out to consultation on that in the summer, I understand, and that will be the first step to gathering the public view that you have rightly asked about. It is helpful to get the timescales. My final question is about the biodiversity delivery plan, investment plan and proposals for a natural environment bill. How will Government take best efforts to ensure that those plans are integrated and what resources will be allocated to them that is commended with the scale of the nature emergency? One resource is, first of all, that we will attribute resources in a budgetary manner in the normal way. Once the consultation is done, once we understand how the public feel about what we are proposing and once the proposals are more concrete, I will consider it as part of the portfolio budget. More widely, there is a question about public sector funding versus private funding. The Government's view is very much that two things. The public sector cannot pay for the restoration of nature alone, particularly when it is set alongside everything else that needs to be done in the climate and nature emergencies. There is scope to leverage in responsible private finance. We see that as being part of the development of the delivery plan for the biodiversity strategy. However, I should be very clear that that is responsible private finance. That is not greenwashing, it must have integrity. We are working on all that through the interim principles of responsible investment in natural capital, which I always wish had a shorter name, in terms of linking those up. I mentioned that Ms Slater is leading on that on a daily basis. Her, Mary Gougeon and myself, we have regular trilaterals on natural capital and the natural environment to make sure that, from both Mary and I's perspective, it is reconciling between our portfolios. We also have the Cabinet Sub-Committee on the Climate Emergency, which the nature emergency is part of as well. I would expect that Ms Slater will want to present to that cabinet sub-committee at some point on that as well. There are a number of ways in which we can make sure that those policies and strategies are linking up across Government. Thank you. There are many more topics to get through, so back to you, convener. Okay. Just before we leave the environment, have you explained, cabinet secretary, the importance of biodiversity and the aim to reach net zero? Trees, which we grow a few on the farm but purely for non-commercial purposes, but commercially and across Scotland, we had a target of 15,000 hectares to be planted last year. We achieved 8,000 hectares, that is only 53 per cent of the total. We are gradually dropping behind year on year, since 2016, from Government targets. Does that worry you? Of course. The extent to which we are not meeting our targets across Government is a concern for me wherever it occurs. However, in the case of forestry, which is not in my portfolio any more, I should flag up. I am freewheeling here in the Muscojones portfolio, which I ought not to do, but having had that role previously, in forestry I have great confidence in that industry. It is exceptionally well established. It brings £1 billion into the economy. It employs 25,000 people. It is doing exceptionally well in Scotland, and people around the world often ask us how we mirror what our forestry industry has done. However, we are stretching them. We are pushing them with targets that are really stretching. Headwinds such as Brexit and Storm Arwyn and others have created difficulties in recent years, so too has a contraction in the availability of labour following EU exit. I want us to meet annual targets on tree planting, because it is essential to net zero. However, I have great confidence in the forestry industry in Scotland that they will face the headwinds and come through them and reach the very stretching targets. We did see an agreement signed between Lorna Slater and private investment to increase forestry. We are trying to find out exactly what that would involve and what levels of funding would be generated and how the private sector would benefit from it, because although they are altruistic, I am sure that, in one who sees more trees, there must be some benefit. I am not sure that we ever got to the bottom of that. Do you fully understand it, cabinet secretary? I do not know what agreement you are talking about. If you can give me more information, I would be glad to talk about it. I am wondering if David knows about it. Are you referring to the agreement that NatureScot made with the financial institutions? I am indeed David, the one that the cabinet secretary's colleague Lorna Slater signed. We should clarify if there can be no forestry in this portfolio. I know, but forestry is going to play a part in biodiversity and reaching our net-zero targets. I thought that David's role was director of the environment and forestry in the Scottish Government. I felt that he might be able to answer the question. David, you can see what you want on that, but we should stick to the remit of the portfolio, just as we would not delve into agricultural policy or energy policy in this depth. David, do you want to comment on it? I do not think that it is appropriate for me to comment on the arrangements that NatureScot has entered into this committee. I would add that I am again reaching back to when I was in the environment portfolio, that if it is a question of tree planting funded by the private sector and what they get from that, of course we need the woodland carbon code, just as we need the peatland carbon code, to have integrity, to ensure that any support is additional and does not amount to greenwashing, and recent changes in the woodland carbon code brought me great comfort in that regard, because what they said was that, if a scheme was to be commercially viable on its own, carbon credits would not be available to it. Yes, the woodland carbon code is catching up with the speed of the land market and the natural capital market in Scotland, and it is using those mechanisms to make sure that any private investment and carbon credits that come from it are not amounting to greenwashing in Scotland. Just before we leave this, can you just confirm that NatureScot falls within your portfolio or Marie-Gougeon's portfolio? NatureScot is controlled entirely by her. Miss Slater is the portfolio lead, and I understand that she works to Miss Gougeon on that. NatureScot does not fall within my remit. It is very confusing for us all. I am sure that Mark, you have some questions. If I can move on to the retained EU law bill. In particular, we are aware of the timescale now, the concerns that the Scottish Government has over schedule 1 and the list of retained EU law that is proposed to be revoked. Can I get your comments on the laws that are within schedule 1 and what your overall impression is of the bill? First of all, I welcome the change in the approach with the retained EU law bill. I think that the initial formulation of it is one of the most foolish, idiotic approaches to developing law for a country that I have perhaps ever witnessed. I think that many people who have been doing this for a great deal longer than I have would have ever witnessed it. It was utterly worthy of ridicule. I am very pleased that a U-turn has been performed on that and that we now have a case where you have to explicitly flag something up if it is to be lost rather than just by omission. For my part, I have been concerned to see the air quality. The laws are contained within schedule 1. The Government as a whole has been pressing the UK Government on matters that have been included in schedule 1. My view is very much that it should be removed and should not be there. I do not understand the justification for it being there. I do not understand what UK Government intends to do in the absence of it and it is very concerning. We have explicitly asked at director general level that it be removed and that it has been declined. It is now coming to me and I will communicate with my UK Government counterparts about it. It is somewhat of a relief that we are looking at only nine pieces of legislation in schedule 1 rather than potentially 4,000. I think that I would have given this committee quite a job to do, as well as the Government. Can I ask a bit more about the national air pollution control programme specifically and the proposed revocation of that entire legal framework, as is currently proposed by the UK Government? What are the particular concerns that the Scottish Government would have about losing that air quality framework? The first concern is that I do not know what would replace it. Let us assume that there is no plan. The most concerning thing is monitoring. I am not intimately familiar with the legislation itself, but it is about monitoring and transparency and to lose that overarching piece of work is, of course, a great concern. That is why we have been pushing for it to be removed. Presumably, the Scottish Government is in contact with the environmental standards Scotland as well. We received a letter from ESS, particularly detailing concerns about what the loss of national plans might involve the removal of the public duty. Yes, absolutely. We share environmental standards Scotland's concerns on it all. I think that they put it better than I could. What is the route that the Scottish Government ministers have to remove the air quality legislation from schedule 1? My understanding is that it is a shared area of policy, so it is shared between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. What is the mechanism for doing that? Does it now go into a common framework conversation? The clock is ticking as I understand it. I think that we have got until 31 October at the very latest, and then we have obviously got summer recesses as well. If this is just to fall over the cliff, what does that conversation look like? I should clarify that in terms of the oversight of the retained EU law bill and the relations between us and the UK Government on that, my colleague Angus Robertson leads on the Government's approach. For my part, it was important to me to understand that, first of all, we were undertaking this enormous piece of work to try to find everything that had not been listed. Now I know what is potentially under threat in my area, and it is about me, as I said, senior civil servants, and then myself in the case of a refusal, making the case for why that should not be there. However, in terms of your question about the Scottish Government's response to rule at large, I do not lay down that. That is for Angus Robertson. However, specifically in terms of air quality, you said that there has been a discussion around the loss of the national air quality plan, and the UK Government's position is that it is in the schedule and it is going. The UK Government's position is that they have declined when we raised with them at director general level to remove it. They declined that request. As far as we understand, there is no plan to replace it on their part. Therefore, it is now for me to escalate that to my ministerial UK Government, Count of Artisans, to make the case very clearly as to why we believe that it should be removed. I do not think—again, I am reluctant to stray into this because it is something that Angus Robertson is leading on. However, as far as I am aware, you mentioned that it is a joint piece of work. I do not know of the tools that we have in order to change what the UK Government proposes or otherwise in the schedule. I do not think that there is a mechanism that we could use as Scottish ministers to do that. That is the case that I will try to build against. Okay. All right, thanks. Thanks, Mark. Now, Cabinet Secretary, I have got a couple of questions on transport, if I may. The committee in its pre-budget scrutiny session last year looked at EV charging and the roll-out of EV charging. I believe that you indicated when you wrote to us that there was going to be quite a lot of public investment—I think that £30 million on top of the Government's investment. So far, this year, when you updated the committee, we had spent £7.25 million of the funding that had been allocated, but no new charge points installations had been directly supported by the fund today. Installations are expected to begin in early 2024. Do you think that we are dropping behind on EV charging points? Do you think that, if we had more, more EVs would be on the road because people had confidence that they could top them up when they need to? I think that we always need more. That is why I think that one of the first things that the Minister for Transport did was launch our vision for the public charging network. To date, we have done very well. You will have heard us quote ad nauseam that we have the most per head of population public charging points outside of London, but we are not resting on our laurels. That is why we are, as you pointed out, making more public funding available to continue the spread. I understand that people will have confidence to buy an electric vehicle if they have confidence that they will be able to charge it. We have done really well to date, but we are keeping to push on. I think that our ambition is to double where we are today. I am not sure that that view is the one that is shared out in more rural areas. If you look at London, for example, you can see virtually a charging point almost on every lamp post with the ability to do it. If you go to Milton Keynes, I seem to remember that they have a strategy if you are more than a certain distance from a charging point. You can ask for a charging point to be installed in a lamp post to enable you to charge your vehicles. Do you see the Scottish Government promoting it to that level, or do you think that that is unreasonable? I think that you make a good point about the difference in requirements between urban and rural Scotland. It is ever thus with transport, and we have to understand the requirements and respond to them. They are going to be different between Glasgow and London, as they are with rural Scotland. I think that you might want to come in on that analysis, but some of that funding, which, as you rightly point out, is currently being used as scoping and planning and development with installations to be expected to begin from 24, is probably about understanding the needs of the various different areas and the local authorities being very well placed to speak to that. Just to add to what the cabinet secretary said, I think that what I would describe as a pivot point with a review charging and the approach that we have taken to support where Scotland is in terms of the level of provision. There is absolutely no doubt that we need more. The climate change committee was very clear on what it sees as the number of charging stations that are needed to support the level of ambition that we have. We do not feel that that is something that the Government can do on its own, so we need to find a way in which to drive quite a significant private sector investment. You drew out the differences between London and some of our rural areas. If you look at the way in which private sector investment tends to go, there will become clear areas where there will be more of a need for public sector involvement, funding and support than there will in other areas. What we are trying to do at the moment with the charging vision that was launched last week is to get us to that transition point where we are able to encourage private sector investment but recognise where public sector investment is best made. How do we do that? We do that using our local and regional transport authorities because those are the organisations and people that know and understand our communities best, and that is the work that is on going at the moment. Is the view that we need many more? I could give you the example of the charging point at Aknesheen, which was sat there for two years looking very pretty, but it did not work because it was not connected to anything. Rural areas are feeling a bit left out. What more are you going to do if we need to move to EVs? The climate change committee said that we need 30,000 EV charging points by 2030. That is quite a significant increase on where we are at the moment. Our public commitment is to get to 6,000 by 2026. That was set out in the First Minister's policy perspectives, and that is the work that we are trying to drive the change with the EV framework. I cannot comment particularly on the Aknesheen particular charging station, however, I would say that everywhere I go, if there is a charging station that is not in action, then I am held personally accountable for it, and that points to the complexities of the market that we have. You do not need to worry that it is now being connected, but it was an awfully long time getting there. The point is that 30 million put aside, we have spent 7 million, and there is quite a drop there. There is a mismatch if we need so many more. I would not say that it is a drop. I would say that it is a continued challenge and we are trying to change the mechanisms in order to bring in much more public sector investment. It comes to that question about the public sector's role in giving confidence to the market. We make an intervention, we did so early, we were successful in that, and it is only right that we should then assess whether public funding should continue at the same level or whether the market is developing sufficiently to allow it to develop. Alison has a point about, and it relates to yours, that there will be areas where the market might not drive the change that is required. Of course, that is where public funding can come back in, but we need more. We have done very well today, and it is worth pointing out that the current charging network is already owned by a mixture of private and public. I seem to have sparked an outbreak of questions on EV charging points. I am going to go to Bob and then I am going to Monica if these are on the EVs and then to Mark on the EVs, or if it is transported as a hallmark, I will ask my next question after those two and then come to you. Bob? It is on EVs, it is not about ACNAS, I have to say. It is an EV charging point, but it is not charging points, rather it is charging regimes across each local authority and the length of stay requirements at different bays within each local authority. It is certainly my experience in Glasgow, particularly with the taxi trade where they have invested in EV vehicles. There is EV tourism taking place where vehicles go long distances to get cheaper tariffs or they cannot fully charge their cars because restrictions are at a three hour limit. It causes a lot of issues and it is also counterintuitive that we are getting EV vehicles to travel longer distances to get better tariff rates. Is that something that is on the radar of government and can we look to see an alignment and a reasonable charging regime implemented across Scotland, urban and rural, convener? Thank you, Mr Doris. I will answer a couple of those points and then I might come to Alison. First of all, the point that I was making to the convener about the fact that the network itself is currently owned in some public, some private, in a series of different ways, so there is a limit to our oversight of it or a local authority oversight of it. On the point about charging, I was quite supportive of local authorities, I was not imposed at the time, but I felt like it was the right thing to do that local authorities should begin to charge. While folks are paying a great deal of money for petrol and diesel, I thought that it was right that we should be able to recoup some revenue from electric charging. There is a question about the extent to which local authorities have taken that up and there will be some who are and some who are not, and the levels of charging. It comes down to a question of the local authorities' right to decide, I suppose, on the existence of charging to start with and the level of it. If it is causing concern, particularly among those who make their living and are required to charge their cars, it is something that we should look at. I do not have much to add apart from confirming that it is on our radar. We have a myriad of different charging structures that exist across the country that drive certain behaviours, just as you have outlined. If you look at the similarities between the ICE, the petrol and diesel filling stations and the way in which that market has evolved and matured, that is probably where we will need to get to with the EV charging regime. In order to do that, while we are still encouraging people to update their vehicles, there are a number of steps that we will need to take along the way and it is complex. It is on our radar. That is so helpful, convener. I have already sought a meeting with the relevant political leads at Glasgow City Council about the impact on the taxi sector in Glasgow. It is obviously a much wider issue. We are really at a meeting separate from this committee, of course, with Transport Scotland and some of the wider issues that perhaps go in notice. For example, convener, it takes much more expensive to charge an EV vehicle in the winter. They have to work harder and it is more costly. I do not think that the tariffs are reflective of the overall cost, certainly if you make your living from driving a car that is environmentally friendly as a car can be. I would certainly welcome a meeting out with this forum to discuss that further. Not at Glasgow, but I am working on national strategies. You would be very helpful. I am happy to do that. It is quite interesting that Highland Council stopped its rates a couple of weeks ago because it was undercutting everyone else, giving cheaper electricity. Monica, you wanted to come in on that. Yes, just briefly. It is not so much about the number of chargers, but it is about whether we have enough ultra-rapid chargers. That is the latest terminology. The vision document may cover the apologies that I have not read yet, but I am glad that Ms Hyslop is involved. As well as the roll-out of more chargers, what work has been done to upgrade existing chargers and to use best technology to get more rapid chargers across the country? It is an absolutely key point. It is one of the many complexities, so it is availability of the charge network and the speed with which you are able to charge and the price that it costs you. Again, all those variables that I have mentioned with Mr Doris's supply in the case that it is borne by different companies and set by different local authorities in some cases. Obviously, our aim would be to have the rapid ultra chargers rolled out to the greatest extent possible because they are the quickest and the most convenient. I am increasingly seeing them and they are a mark of how technology has developed quite quickly over the course of the period when people's expectation of charging an electric car has grown. It is a mixed picture with the types of technology, their roll-out and the costs of them. Of course, ultra and fast chargers are the optimum of what we would all want to see. Mark, I am going to come to you afterwards if it is a general point. My next question is not going to surprise the Cabinet Secretary, it is surprising that no-one else wanted to answer it. It is on the A9 and when are you going to lay out the programme for dualling the A9 that has been promised? I will lay that out as soon as I possibly can and with a backdrop of autumn this year. By the end of autumn, and before the start of winter, we will have the dualling programme for the whole of the A9 from Perth to Imanus. It is my intention, with a backdrop of autumn this year, to set out next steps on the dualling of the programme. My principal objective here is the quickest, most successful procurement that I can possibly manage, ensuring value for money. All of those strands are currently occupying a lot of time across the transport team. Cabinet Secretary, the one word or two words or one sentence, sorry, not two words, one sentence, it is my intention. Are we or are we not going to have the programme with dates on when the A9 will be dualled from Perth to Imanus by the end of autumn? I am not going to pre-empt what I will tell Parliament because there are still decisions to be made and there is still a great deal of work on going, but I will set out with a backstop of autumn this year the next steps on the dualling programme. I am not sure that I am any more comfortable on that. Liam, do you want to come back on if you can go further? I am very grateful. The question begged, of course, if asking about the A9 is, because a similar promise was made about the A96. The question begged is, when will the A96 be dualled, Cabinet Secretary? We are work is on going all the time. I might ask Alison to give a technical update on it on the Inverness to Nairn the bypass. Separately, we are undertaking the corridor review and that work is on going. I do not have a date for when that will be completed. But the A96 will be fully dualled between Aberdeen and Inverness? Yes, that is still our plan. But you have no idea when? Well, we are undertaking a review as we set out in our programme for government. But you have no idea when, Cabinet Secretary? It is not a case of not having an idea. It is a case of being a responsible Government and Minister looking at all of the matters that we have to consider against our commitment to review the corridor as a whole. Convenor. Just before I pass over to Mark for the next question, running along the edge of the A9 is a very important railway line for the Highlands. A lot of talk has been made of decarbonising transport and that would require more trains to go up and down that route. So what are the plans for putting double tracks up there in significant proportion to allow more trains to run on that route and maybe increase the use of it by decreasing the travel time in the future rather than increasing it, which is what has happened in the last 10 years? Convenor, I am not able to speak to that particular line today. I am more than happy to go away and get more information for that. If my colleague Alison wants to add anything to it, we can, but on specific rail projects like that. I should just say in response to Mr Kerr that we are taking forward the work. Part of that was a climate compatibility test. We have outcomes of work that we have done that are due to be available this summer, and then they will go for final consultation. If that is helpful in any way, there will be developments this summer. Sorry, I am going to let Liam Kerr. You asked the question and you have a response. You have just come back in. Yes, I am grateful for the clarification, cabinet secretary. But then the question is, could the climate compatibility test that you have just talked about then prevent the full dualling of the A96 from Inverness to Aberdeen, given that, if its conclusions are, that is not climate compatible? I suppose that all of our considerations in respect of the project could have a bearing on it, but I will set out the more details of that this summer for a final consultation. Thank you very much. Cabinet secretary, any information you could provide on the railways and the link between Perth and Inverness would be much appreciated. Could you add a spot, if that would be helpful? We are quite close to time. I would be very happy to take a written answer if that helps you, cabinet secretary, and maybe give you a chance to find a bit more information on it. Mark, next question. I think it would be useful to get a written response on the corridor review of the A96, because, as I understand it, there are multiple options there, including the completion of a number of bypasses as well. I wanted to take to the skies, cabinet secretary, and ask you about the aviation strategy. How will the aviation strategy dovetail with the climate change plan? I think that the aviation strategy was due earlier this year. We have seen the post-Covid bounce back in aviation. I am sure that the aviation sector would like a buy. I would like to see an increase in flights, increase people using flights. How do we square that? I am going to ask Alison to come in with some of the details on that, if she does not mind. I suppose that, just on the generality, there is likely to be a rebound in aviation as people travel post-pandemic. I am very much of the view that we have to tackle aviation emissions, of course we do. We are an island nation, however, and I think that we do not want to cut ourselves off from travel, economic, cultural exchange and so on from the rest of the world. There are a number of options open to us, including development of sustainable aviation fuels and others. On the strategy, I might hand over to Alison. Cabinet secretary, you have covered all the main points, but on the aviation strategy itself, I am aware that there was a commitment to publish one. We are doing a lot of work on that, and it is a case of bringing ministers up to speed with what the strategies are going to set out so that ministers can get comfortable with that before we publish it. Work is on going. Does that mean that emissions from aviation are going to drop just as they are going to have to drop on the A9, the A96, in farming and every other sector of our economy, or is aviation going to grow? As we started, the outset of the committee session is really obvious that action needs to be taken in every sector. What we are having to do in every sector, including aviation, is to balance that economic connectivity piece that we want versus the very significant, very serious climate emissions challenge that we have here. That is a very fine line to walk, and that is the path that we are taking. It could be that other sectors or other parts of the transport sector might have to have steeper reductions in emissions in order to deliver the benefits of aviation. Again, you have that kind of balance between where the technology is at and what the opportunity is, how the cost sits with that, the powers and the role of the private sector and all of that. On that point, thank you, Alison. On the point about powers, Phil was just mentioning to me about UK Government work on that. Aviation is in a similar territory to what you might think of the wider industry envelope, which is that there is a huge amount that we can do ourselves within Scotland, but the real bulk of it, the powers of it, lie with the UK Government. The UK Government has set out that its vehicle for tackling aviation in a climate change perspective is going to be tied up with the Jet Zero strategy. There is an element where there is much that we can do ourselves, and as my colleague Alison has pointed out, there is work under way, and there are a lot of different considerations that need to be brought into bear on that. We also have to recognise that we are looking for the UK Government to take the lead and to show its hand, if you will, on some of the key measures going forward as part of that, so it is an important context. I think that you have got the next question. The Environment Committee did a report a while ago on the implementation of the regional marine planning. The Scottish Government had undertaken to provide a response to that, but we have still not received it. Would you be able to give us an update on the timescale for that? Yes. I acknowledge the length of time that has passed between the publication of it. We are working on our final response, and I am hoping that that will be published in due course. Moving on to the highly protected marine areas policies, the Cabinet Secretary and I have exchanged letters on that topic. The Scottish Government is saying that it is going to be evidence-driven, evidence-led, but if we think of the landlash bay as a trial, it would seem to me and to others that that is quite a small area. Clearly, there is not sufficient data coming out of it. There is very little data there at all. Would a larger trial area or even a number of trial areas ahead of the policy coming into implementation not be prudent in order to collect more data that the Government could then use to base its policy decisions on? Thank you for the question. I would say from the outset that in the context of something like the HPMAs, I do not discount any suggestions or views on what might have or might work in the future. There is evidence that enhanced marine protection is needed, not least us and the UK, in missing 11 out of 15 of the targets for good environmental status. There is evidence that it works—you mentioned landlash bay, although I appreciate that on a smaller scale—but there is evidence in California, New Zealand, etc., that completely protected areas work for species abundance, for ecosystem recovery, for spillover, for a whole series of things. On the point about a trial area, of course the UK Government has taken that approach. I have two main concerns about it. One is that the changes that we see in marine protected areas happen over a long period of time. I would be concerned that if we rested on a trial area, we would be a great deal of time waiting to see what the impact would be before we could make the progress that science tells us is needed now. The other reason that I do not think that it is the right thing to pursue is that it is top-down, so it would require, or it would have required if we had done it like this from the beginning, me to say that sites have been selected by the Government to become a highly protected marine area and it would not have had the community engagement and the social economic assessment that I wanted to run through the whole process. However, I appreciate that, on the question of how you do those things, it is balanced. That is why we did not pursue a pilot. There has been a high degree of criticism of the plans that the Government is setting out. I note that the Government said that it met 20 stakeholder group representatives of the marine industries and users as well, but that was prior to the consultation. That includes now some of those who are now the most critical of the proposals. I wonder if the Government can update on what schedule they have for meeting with people now that the proposals are a little bit clearer. How does the Government intend to work with stakeholders and local communities? I am noting that it feels like it is quite a confrontational situation that we have got ourselves into now, certainly with local communities. How does the Government intend to move forward from that and get into a situation in which they are working with communities? Is it maybe a better way to look at it in a way that the communities themselves would consider to be meaningful? That last point is the critical point. The approach that has been taken to consult deeply and write the very beginning of the process. I believe that my team believed that it was the right way to do it in order to be at the drawing board and to bring people to the drawing board with us. However, I absolutely accept that for many people, particularly those who felt that they would be impacted by it, they did not feel that that was the right approach for them. You mentioned the meetings around 20 prior. We also held around 20 during the consultation period to make sure that people could be taken through it and could take part in it, because that was really important to me. Since then, I and Mary Gougeon have been meeting with stakeholders on it since it closed. I think that she met stakeholders in Shetland. I did so in Trun. I have had a meeting with Fisher people in Trun and with Coast in Arran. I have met with the Western Isles Council and with SIF. I have plans over the summer to visit the EUists and Orkney, although they are not completely finalised yet. I think that it is confirmed, convener. I do not want to pre-empt any decisions of the bureau, but I am due to give a statement this week on next steps on the highly protected marine areas. With that being the case, I should not want to pre-empt any of that, but I will reflect a little bit on some of the early consultation responses and give my view of where we go from here, exactly on the point that you mentioned, meaningful engagement. There is one final short question, if the convener allows. Have the Scottish Government taken into account the criticism of the selection criteria? I will reflect on the early responses to the consultation. The much more in-depth analysis of what people told us is still developing. We invited commentary on site selection criteria, what would be protected, the whole spectrum, what would constitute an HPMA. I have to continue looking through all of that. Of course, I will reflect on every aspect of it. We have some questions next from Liam and then from Bob. I remind members that we are quite short on time, but I do not want to curtail you, Liam. Cabinet Secretary, you talked about the vastness of the portfolio right at the start, but many, particularly in the north-east, were pretty stunned that energy was removed from net zero and put elsewhere. Meanwhile, of course, just transition is in your brief, but by virtue of that decoupling earlier has been decoupled from energy. Do you have any reflection on whether those were the correct choices? I think that they were. That is for one key reason. Just transition is absolutely oil and gas, but it is also broader than oil and gas. The climate change brief is a very cross-cutting, cross-government role, and so, too, is just transition. For every decision that we make in the climate change space, which, as I have narrated today, is an enormous change agenda, it is very important that the just transition principles sit side by side with that and follow the climate change progress throughout government and everything that we are doing more broadly. No, I think that it is the right thing to do. Just transition is not just oil and gas, it is a huge part of it, but it is also agriculture, it is also marine, it is also transport, it is everything that is encompassed within the climate change brief. Well, indeed so, but your government published the Just Transition Plan for Energy in January 23 and committed to another three Just Transition Plans to be published ahead of the climate change plan update, which, I understand, will be November 2023. Recent correspondence seems to suggest that they will not be published until 2024, so will these Just Transition Plans be published prior to the climate change plan, as the Government committed to? It is my intention that they are. Yes, Phil is just saying that he can perhaps come in on this. It is my intention that they are. The statutory requirement regarding the plan is for it to be laid later than we are proposing that it does so. Our bute house agreement is that we publish it in November, the first draft. My intention is that the Just Transition papers should also go alongside that because of that statutory commitment within the climate act to the Government has to demonstrate that it is taking into account Just Transition principles. In my view, the publication of those is the way that we will demonstrate how we have done that. I think that it is right that they should coincide, but I do not know if there is anything that you want to add to that. I am sure that there is stuff, but you answered the question just conscious of time. Sticking with the Just Transition Plan for Energy specifically, the consultation recently closed on that. What is the timeline for revising that in light of that consultation? Will there be a further consultation or whatever comes out from that? Will that be the final version? Currently, I am not expecting a further full consultation. A great deal of work is currently on going, responding to what was a number of comments. Most of those, I should say, pertain to the energy aspects of the report rather than the Just Transition aspects of the report. While Neil Gray and I are working jointly on that, it is principally the energy teams who are engaged with responding to what were principally energy comments. Finally, on the Just Transition Fund specifically, we know that £25 million was released and has been applied into it. The next £25 million is being made available through the Scottish National Investment Bank. Why did the process change? Is that going to be the process going forward involving the SNP for the rest of the funds? The future approaches to the distribution of the £500 million fund are subject to budgetary choices in the future. There is no saying that we will not return to the way that it was before. There is no saying that the next one will be via the Scottish National Investment Bank. That is the way that we have chosen to distribute the first and the second pot. I will make my decision as to the third suite of funding when I get to it. Does the fact that it is being run through the SNP change the thresholds for minimum applications? Is there any impact on the geographical spread of the Just Transition Fund? I am really sorry, Mr Kerr. I missed the start of your question. The fact that it is being run through the Scottish National Investment Bank this time, does that change the thresholds? The Scottish National Investment Bank usually has a threshold for applications in, so does the fact that the process has changed change those thresholds for applicants? Does it change anything about whether the Just Transition Funds geographically should be put? It does not change the geography, and I do not expect that it changes the thresholds, but I will check the latter point and come back to you. It is going to be interesting in the future as this committee remains with energy and trust. The Just Transition Fund remains with the economy committee, but I am sure that there will be some blurring of the lines as they both come with a new portfolio or some of it comes with a new portfolio. Bob, I think that you have got the final questions. I will restrict myself just to the ones that you were hoping to get some comments on the record. As the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, I have to travel on tennis rights. It is obviously a worry of supporting ministers. Could you give the committee an update on when the Scottish Government plans to consult on the proposals of the heat and buildings bill, or likely to emerge? We are working on the final details of what we are going to be consulting on right now. We are moving to start that process as soon as we can, but we are in quite a delicate period of the development, so I would not want to pre-empt exactly, but it is a major part of our climate change plan draft, which will be laid in November. I hope that that gives you an idea of timescales. Later this year? Yes. Can you update the committee on the heat and energy efficiency Scotland agency, which is being developed as virtual at the moment, but it is not fully fledged as it gets? Where is it in relation to its development? I am trying to retrieve from my mind the last update that I got on this. We have appointed Professor Lorne Crerar, who is a very well-respected lawyer, to advise on the board's remit and its setting up of it, etc. I will hopefully receive an update on that shortly. I understand the breadth of the portfolio. It would be helpful to have a written bit more detail in a written response post to the committee when you have had a chance to reflect on that. I will forego my supplementary question, but will the guy written update in relation to that? I do not know if time is tight. If you want to put it on the record, I can make sure that the written update responds to it. No, I was just going to ask—I am passing through this committee cabinet secretary, and I was curious to know whether the new agency, at what extent it will be consumer facing, because I was looking at some of the things that it will be trying to pull to other various strands on. For example, the area-based schemes for Warwick, Scotland, the whole-house approach in relation to some of that as well, the heat networks fund, the social housing zero heat fund, the green public sector heat fund, and that is just some of them that I looked at ahead of this morning's committee. I am just wondering at what point will that be sector facing, will it be enjoying the dots of government, and how will it be consumer or public facing? I think that you identify a really important point, and I think that a lot of that is exactly what the strategic board will look at. I expect that there will be an extent to which it is working with local government and also have that public facing public awareness raising role, but a great deal of that is still under development, and I will update you in writing on it. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, just on that, could you just clarify the heat and energy efficiency, or sorry, the heat in buildings bill? I mean, just my calculations if Highland Council were to update their housing stock to make it all EPCC, the estimated cost is a quarter of a billion pounds. Will that heat in buildings bill have some detailed financial workings on how we are going to achieve the requirements of the bill? Absolutely. I mentioned in response to Mr Doris about how all those aspects of what is quite an enormous piece of work are currently being looked at. It is the cost, it is supply chain, it is the skills involved in the development of it, it is the impact on the housing market, a huge amount of work happening on all of that just now. Of course, we are moving to consultation, so that will be the point of which we will seek views on what is there and anything that this committee or anyone else thinks ought to be there. Thank you very much, and that comes to, oh, Liam, your frowning. Have I missed a question you wanted to ask? Just if I may, convener, so long as it is one and it is brief, one and brief, Mr Kerr. Thank you, convener. Cabinet Secretary, when the heat in building strategy came out, which was around two years ago, it quantified the cost of decarbonising heat in buildings at £33 billion. Now, two years on, an obviously very changed situation. What's that cost now? We have two sets of costs, one out to 2030 and another out to 2045, and the recent figures that I've seen are still in the same remit that you've set out there. Thank you. Brief question and a brief answer. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, that brings us to the end of this session. I am going to pause the committee until 11.15 to allow a changeover of witnesses and to allow us to prepare for the next item. Thank you and your officials for attending this morning, and you're going to stay, so we'll see you shortly, Cabinet Secretary. I'll suspend the meeting until 11.15. Thank you. Welcome back. Our next item of business is an evidence session on a type 1 consent notification on the Persistent Organic Pollutons Amendment Regulations 2023. This is a UK statutory instrument where the UK Government is seeking the Scottish Government's consent to legislate in an area of devolved competence. On 18 June, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Networks and Just Transition notified the committee of the UKSI. The Scottish Government asked if the committee could exceptionally consider this by 28 June in order to complete our parliamentary consideration before the summer recess. I therefore agreed to place the item on the agenda for this meeting. The committee's role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government's proposal to consent to the UK Government making these regulations within the devolved competence and in the manner in which the UK Government has indicated to the Scottish Government. After today's evidence session, we aim to come to a view on this. I'm pleased to welcome back Mary McKellen, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Networks and Just Transition, joined by Dan Merkel, the Chemicals Team Leader for the Scottish Government. Before we move on to questions, I think that you want to make a brief opening statement. I will be as brief as I can, although sometimes with complex matters like this, I think that it's helpful to try and set out in clearest terms possible what we're discussing. This is the proposed UK statutory instrument to extend the expiry date for a specific use of a chemical called PFOA that is a persistent organic pollutant that is regulated under the UK POPs regulation. The purpose of this SI is to extend the expiry date from 4 July 2023 to 3 December 2025 to allow the continued use of the PFOA in specialist textiles for oil and water repellency for the protection of workers from dangerous liquids that comprise a risk to health and safety. By way of very brief background, the UK POPs regulation implements the Stockholm convention in the UK. POPs, again, persistent organic pollutants, are chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the tissues of humans in wildlife and have harmful impacts on human health or the environment. They therefore present a risk to the environment and people that extend beyond national borders, and therefore require a co-ordinated response. The chemical, commonly known as PFOA, was listed as a POP under the convention in 2019 and is subject therefore to elimination. That means that it cannot be made, imported, sold or used in signatory countries. Several time-limited exemptions are included in its listing, reflecting the continued need for its use in a number of critical applications in signatory countries. It is one such use that is the subject of this UKSI. The use is required for a chemical—sorry, for a defence critical capability. The use is small, it is critical and the chemical is used and disposed of by professionals. Having considered matters, I am happy that this use presents a very low risk to the environment. I am less happy about the timeframe that the Scottish Government has been asked to respond and the consequent impact of that on the committee, but I understand that there were good reasons for that. Ministers and officials in the UK Government alerted us as soon as they were able to. The committee should note that the UK Government is having to break its own 21-day rule to lay the instrument, but in summary, although I apologise for the delay, I consider that consenting to the UKSI is an appropriate course of action to follow continued access to critical defence function and its availability across GB, including Scotland. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I am happy to take questions, or you are, I am sure, cabinet secretary. The first one comes from Mark Ruskell-Marth. Thank you very much for that. Am I right in saying that this is what is known as a forever chemical and these are getting banned under the REACH regulations, is that right? Is this one that is scheduled for effectively withdrawal from the market under REACH? Yes, I am sorry. No, I did not mean to interrupt you, go on. No, no, I am done. Yes, I think that the word that I used in my opening remarks was scheduled for elimination, but I will let Dan give us a brief update on that in the context of PFAS. Okay, thank you, cabinet secretary, and good morning, committee. Yes, so this is one of the few PFAS chemicals that have actually already been banned. There are just quite a small number of those, and this is one that is subject to complete elimination under the Stockholm Convention, so the work that you refer to in the UK is much broader, and it is looking at PFAS as a whole, which is a class of, depending on how you count them, more than 4,700 chemicals in total. The health and safety executive, who are the agency for the UK REACH regulation, published something called a risk management options analysis earlier this year that gave recommendations for how to regulate these chemicals as a whole. Those actions are going to be taken forward starting with work this year under UK REACH that will shortly be published. Okay, so if we ask a nice question, there was one point you made in there which I don't think answered and it would be helpful, I think, for the committee tonight. You said withdrawn from, I think, the market. It's not a market, is it? It's one specific use. Is that not correct? Yes, we're just talking about one specific use today here that is a current exemption under the UK POPs regulation, so the question was solved. Generally speaking, PFOA is not available within a wider market. It's just a single exemption that we're discussing today. Is it the case that there are exemptions that are applied for by ministry defence or defence-related contractors within that industry for environmental regulation? On the face of it, if you're wearing protective clothing and you're a civil contractor, then the use of this chemical in that protective clothing would be banned whereas if you're working in a defence-related sector or industry, then its continued use is allowed. So it feels that there is a bit of divergence there between people who are working in defence-related industries and people who are working in civilian areas where they don't have this exemption for this chemical. So it might be a minor sort of divergence there, but I'm just wondering how those issues get disgust resolved. Is it something that you just have to accept that, well, this is the decision that the UK Government has made on this one, or is there a protocol with the MOD or defence sector more generally around lower or different environmental standards? So Dan, you might want to say something about interaction with UK Government and MOD. I suppose what makes this difficult is that we're limited in the information that we can give regarding the specific use. It defends critical capability, it's small, it's critical and the chemical is used and disposed of by professionals. So it pertains to the specific use, the exact details of which we're not liable to share, but the other critical point is that the current scientific research suggests that only this substance provides the high level of protection that's required for this unique capability, and that that's why it's required in this instance to give the exemption. There might not be nothing to add on MOD. It's getting faced out by 25 anyway, is that right? That's the plan. Are you happy with that or do you want to hear from Dan? Unless Dan has anything more. The only thing I would perhaps add is that PFOA is still also restricted under UK reach, so when that restriction was put in place, and it includes very similar provisions to those of the Stockholm Convention, there was a thorough consultation in the EU because we were still in the EU at that time, and that's where this date of 4 July 2023 comes from. So for those other kind of uses that you referred to and emphasising that we're not entirely clear on the exact use, but we don't need to know that, I think, from the point of view of environmental risk. Yeah, for these other uses there are alternatives that will be sufficient for the application in question. Okay, that's me. Thank you, Bob. Thank you, convener. Cabinet Secretary, I think you said that only this particular substance, this PFOA, can be used. There's not a substitute, there's not an alternative. So what happens in the 3 December 2025? Does the need for it just disappear or does the UK Government move away from the Stockholm obligations? Has that conversation been had with the UK Government? So I wouldn't expect either of those to come to pass. The reason the extension is required just now is that the technical progress on an alternative hasn't reached a sufficient stage, as I understand it, and I would expect that this would focus the work on that technical alternative and would give the time to have it developed. That's our expectation anyway. It's odd that I'm scrutinising in the dark a little bit, cabinet secretary, but I appreciate what you say in relation to that. The papers that I always talk about from the Government, but it continues to be used as required for our defence critical capability. The use is small critical and the chemical is used and disposed of by professionals. Have you had reassurances from the UK Government over the monitoring and reporting of that to make sure that there are robust protocols in place rather than the assertion that there's robust protocols in place? I think that the thing to say is to emphasise that it's a continuation of a use that they already have, so I'm not aware of what the specific monitoring and reporting requirements would be, but all we're doing here is changing the deadline for that use to stop, so everything that's in place currently to make sure that the chemicals used safely will continue. I'm not made to oppose this, I'm just, I get this, this is based trust as much as anything, but I wanted to ask those questions to get some of that on the record. Thank you. Thanks, Bob. Are there any other questions? No, so that's helpful. We're now going to go on and consider the consent notification. Cabinet secretary, as you've answered all the questions that you've been asked, I'm very content if you'd like to leave at this stage. And I thank you again for your attendance for both sessions this morning. Thank you very much. Okay, so gender item 4 is to formally consider the type 1 consent notification by the Scottish Government relating to the persistent organic pollutants amendment regulations 2023, in light of the evidence that we've just heard. The question is, if members are consent, sorry, members are content for consent to be given, we could just write to the Scottish Government. We could ask them to keep us up to date on developments at a reasonable stage in the future, but we could also write to them and say we're not content. Can I just ask at this stage, is anyone on the committee not content to grant consent for this? So we're all content to ask, I think it would therefore be appropriate if the committee agreed that we're asked to be updated in perhaps a year's time to find out how we're moving forward on finding an alternative to this. That might be the most appropriate thing to do. Is the committee content for that, Mark? I'm content with that course of action. It is a slightly odd situation because of the defence-related nature of the chemicals use. There is a lack of transparency there. I think Bob's points there are well made. I think perhaps there is an issue going forward about ensuring that there is that adequate opportunity for scrutinising how the Ministry of Defence supply environmental management and more wider health and safety requirements. So yes, we are taking it on trust that there's a defence-related use of this chemical that will be dealt with in a responsible way, but there's no real way for us to scrutinise that. So I think it's just worth putting on record and it isn't the only area I've come across in this committee and predecessor committees where environmental regulation has come up against a defence exemption. You're left wondering what the actual protocols and protections are for workers and the environment within the Ministry of Defence and related industries? We could, as part of writing to the Scottish Government, say to them that we'd like to be kept updated and we'd like a comment from them whether they feel that there are sufficient protocols in for the disposal of the use on continuing. We can easily do that as part of the letter. One understanding is that in the past there has been a memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the Ministry of Defence over a range of different areas, most notably environmental compliance, habitats regulations, environmental management, that side of things. This is obviously straying more into health and safety areas, but there clearly is environmental compliance within the Ministry of Defence, but scrutinising it is pretty hard. This is another example of that, which comes up from time to time. It's a very helpful discussion. It would be worth just making the point that, if such protocols have previously existed, what the current situation is and that I've given consideration previously, I could be doing in the future to how committees in this parlor can get appropriate scrutiny in relation to looking at some of those matters, because I'm sure we all agree that it's absolutely necessary, but deeply unsatisfactory that this is being proposed within days of the expiration and that there's no really meaningful scrutiny at all being taken on trust. I take that point and I think that the committee could easily write under a separate letter to the Government to ask to identify that, but I'm going to move to a substantive question to the committee, which is, is the committee content that the provision set out in the notification should be made to the proposed UK statutory instrument? We are agreed, so we will communicate that to the Government. So, that concludes our public meeting and then we now move into private session. Thank you.