 Welcome to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee's 16th meeting of 2019. Before we move on to our first item on the agenda, I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones or put them on silent as they may affect the broadcasting system. The first item on the agenda is to hear from the right honourable Michael Gove MP, who is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the environmental implications for exiting the EU. Mr Gove joins us via video link from London. Good morning, Mr Gove. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. I'm going to go straight into questions around common frameworks in the event of our exiting the EU. A couple of weeks ago, we had Professor Reid from Dundee University to go over some of the issues that may affect common frameworks. He asked some key questions, so I'm going to put those questions to you, if you don't mind. He said, if you're going to have a framework, you then have to ask, who will determine its content? Will it be agreed by all members—I suppose he means the devolved Governments as well as the UK Government—or will someone have a final decision-making power? Then he said, the process of creating the frameworks would then be subject to some sort of scrutiny for the public or parliamentary. Who will make those decisions? If decisions have been made by Governments in agreement, to whom are they accountable and for what they do in making those agreements? I wonder if you could give us and Mr Reid an answer to how you view these questions and what their frameworks are, how they will be arrived at. Very good questions. I think that the best way of arriving at common frameworks is through a process of continual dialogue and agreement between the respective Governments across the United Kingdom. We also heard from Michael Russell on that. He feels that we're not really getting to a stage where there is that equal partnership between the devolved Governments and the UK Government, and that the GMCEN is not working. What would you say in reaction to that? I always take anything that Michael Russell says seriously, and I know that Mike is committed to making sure that we can have as effective a set of institutional relationships as possible across the United Kingdom. In my own area we have monthly meetings which bring together Ministers and Representatives from the devolved Administrations and the UK Government to address the issues which my Department is responsible for and also related departments are responsible for. Fergus Ewing and Rosanna Cunningham on behalf of the Scottish Government along with Leslie Griffiths on behalf of the Welsh Government have been energetic and constructive attendees at all of those meetings. In addition to that, there is a complicating factor which as we all know is the absence of the Executive in Northern Ireland, but in their absence we have officials from JIRA, the relevant Northern Ireland Government Department who do an excellent job in making sure that Northern Ireland's interests are represented. Of course it is the case, but with all the institutions that we have across the United Kingdom, we in the UK Government are open to any thoughts, suggestions or recommendations from any of the constituent members of the UK about how we can make these institutions work better in all our interests. You say that you are open to discussion and suggestions in a situation in which a common framework is developed. First of all, will the Governments have an equal say on how they are developed? When the final framework of whatever sector that we are talking about is put before the devolved Governments and all the partners, who will have the final say? If there is a disagreement in how that framework is put together by the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government, they do not agree to it. Will it then have to go back and be reworked so that we can get full agreement from everyone as an equal partner? Yes, and the approach that I have taken for example towards some of the statutory instruments, the secondary legislation that needs to be put in place in order to prepare for a variety of eventualities with respect to exiting the EU, those statutory instruments have been agreed across the United Kingdom. I just want to take this opportunity to thank the Scottish Government and its officials for their very hard work under considerable time pressure in order to ensure that we can secure agreement on all of those areas. I am pleased to hear that all Governments will have to agree to a framework before it goes ahead. The other issue that Professor Reid mentioned is that if a group of states or jurisdictions have agreed that there should be a common framework, how do we make sure that they stick to it and what happens if they do not? I guess that that is a case of what body is going to be put together to make sure that environmental protections, for example, if one country or anyone that goes out with the parameters of that framework, who watches the watchers? I think that when I look at a case-by-case basis, but ultimately, if something is agreed and it has ledge that of underpinning, if it is the case that any administration or anyone acting in an administration's name breaches those principles or breaks those laws, then there are appropriate regulators and ultimately the courts which can make sure that people comply with the law. Which courts would that be? It would depend specifically on which particular situation we face. For example, if it were the case that a local authority in England were not living up to its obligations on, say, air quality, then it would be the case ultimately that the courts could intervene. Moving on just briefly about the impact of EU exit on the devolution settlement, we have heard from quite a number of people that they believe that the devolution settlement that is provided for in the Scotland Act is insufficient to accommodate returning EU powers to devolve policy areas and that the GMC cannot provide an effective forum for partnership working and dispute resolution. What would your response be to that? I think that it has to look at each of the specific examples. We've been talking with the Scottish Welsh Governments and also with the Northern Ireland civil service about different specific challenges and opportunities that leaving the European Union provides, and so far, even though there have been differences of opinion at different points, we've managed to find a pragmatic way forward in almost every area, and I think that is the right way to go inevitably when you have a family of nations and a family that works together very effectively. Then the best thing to do is to make sure that you give a fair hearing to all and that we arrive at a consensus. So far, in all of the areas that I can think of, which are critical to making sure that we work in the interests of all our citizens, consensus or a modus vivendi, a way of working, has been arrived at. Can you confirm then that the Scottish Government and indeed the Scottish Parliament, all the powers that are returning from the EU that relate to devolved powers will all be dealt with and scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament and will be acted upon by the Scottish Government? Yes, but one of the things about leaving the European Union is that it means that powers come back to not just the UK Parliament, but also to Holyrood, to the Welsh Assembly Government and to the Northern Ireland Executive when it's reconstituted. Okay, we're going to move on to questions from Mark Ruskell. Thanks, convener. Yeah, good morning. I'd like to ask you about the chemicals regulations, the kind of shadow chemicals regulations that are being established at UK level alongside reach. Now, we've spent some time looking at this in committee and I know that Westminster committees have also been examining them. I think that one of the concerns that's been raised is the potential for duplicate animal testing. You know, we've had 10 years of animal testing for chemicals and now it appears that under the UK shadow regulations there may be a requirement for retesting of chemicals that have already been proven to be safe. What's your response to that? Can you rule out duplicate animal testing? I don't see that there would be a case for duplicate animal testing, but it's one of the things that we want to do is to provide a UK reach IT system which will allow people to transfer the registration of chemicals that have already been registered with reach straight over without the need for additional testing. Again, I'd want to see any specific examples of where people have concerns, but I can't envisage any need for repeat animal testing, no? Well, that's a worthy aspiration, but the reality is that there are data issues to do with the registration of chemicals, which means that the data cannot be instantly transferred over to the UK regulations and be used in the same way. This isn't news. It's something which Westminster committees have been looking at. There's been a cross-party letter that's been sent to Theresa Coffey on the back of the scrutiny Westminster committees raising these issues about data, so it's not just preparedness in terms of the database. It's about the accessibility of this data. Are you prepared to rule out, then, the requirement for increased animal testing? Yes. I think that it is the case that, ultimately, while the data is registered with reach, the data belongs to the relevant chemical companies, so they can make sure that that data is provided to a UK database just as they have to the reach database already. I don't see that any problem need arise, but of course, if there are specific examples, chemical by chemical or company where individuals have raised concerns, then I and Dr Coffey will be more than happy to look at them. Okay. Another concern that's been raised with us in relation to these regulations is that it does dismantle the stakeholder expert working group that has been used with the reach regulations to really flesh out stakeholder concerns, whether that's input from industry or animal welfare NGOs or unions or others. We don't have that kind of system. We don't have the expert working group within the system that you're proposing. Will you reconsider that? Will you establish expert stakeholder working groups in order to explore all these kind of issues that concern people? I'm always open to working with industry in order to ensure that we can provide them with all the assurance they need, but there's one other thing that I would say, of course, about discussing a variety of potential EU exit scenarios, but the UK government has said that we want to remain part of reach and we want to be an associate member of the European Chemicals Agency. If we achieve our negotiating objectives, I think this is shared actually across parties, then we will still be part of the reach system, but of course, we have to prepare for the eventuality of a no deal exit. In those circumstances, then we would be more than happy to continue and to intensify our work with industry in order to make sure that industry is satisfied that we're doing everything we can. Of course, the end users of chemicals and the wider public have their particular concerns about health and safety properly addressed. So you acknowledge then that the current EU system is the best system. It works in the best way and you want to remain aligned to that and continue to use that. Can I go back to the original question then around the stakeholder working groups? If we leave without a deal, will you seek to mirror that stakeholder working group within the UK regulations? We instruct the HSE, for example, to set up that working group so we can properly involve civic society and industry and others in the way that we go forward and develop our chemicals regulations in the UK. I think there are two things there. On the first part, we certainly think that for the foreseeable future, being part of the rich regime is certainly helpful. There's always a balance in that way. In respect of that balance, if we were to have a no deal exit and we were to have our own system established, which we've taken significant steps to do, then that would allow us to explore new and perhaps better ways of making sure that industry and other concerns were incorporated. The Anthem Safety Executive is the direct ministerial responsibility of another colleague in the UK Government, but I can't imagine that they would have any problem taking the sorts of steps that you've had there. I have a follow-up on what we're talking about, which is that over the past six months, we've all been working very hard in the Scottish Parliament committees to scrutinise SIs that have come that have been put in place in the event of a no deal Brexit. We looked at them and understood that they were for a no deal scenario. We're now finding out that they are pretty much a permanent situation. We want to ask you if, because that has a very quick process, it had to be a very quick process, we might have given not as much scrutiny to some of these SIs as much as we would have actually liked. Certainly, in looking at the reach, that was an area that we felt a little bit conflicted in agreeing to that SIs. Will those SIs be reviewed in the light of if there is a deal or if there is not a Brexit? There are some stakeholders that are saying that there have been mistakes made. We are perfectly happy to review any piece of legislation, primary or secondary, if a case can be made for alteration. We wanted, and I want to emphasise how grateful I am to the Scottish Government and its officials. We did work under time pressure to get the statute book ready for a no deal exit. Again, there is the possibility that it could occur again on October 31. Indeed, even between now and October 31, some EU legislation may change and is changing. Therefore, we may need to update secondary legislation in the UK in order to keep pace appropriately. Of course, we've been more than happy to take evidence from the Scottish Government or others. If there is any aspect of the existing statute book that needs to be updated or reformed. Will you commit to giving the Scottish Parliament more time to review any SIs in the future? We had a situation where at least one SIs that I can think of was laid in the UK Parliament before we had time to scrutinise it and we had to effectively rubber stamp it without any real time for scrutiny. Indeed, even if our scrutiny had gone a different way, it wouldn't have mattered. We all want to make sure that we can give every part of the UK and all our representative institutions within the UK appropriate time to reflect on any legislation that we require and, in particular, to make sure that the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and others have the time and the resources that they need to provide effective scrutiny. I want to talk about a few financial things. I will be with you in your next committee because I am also in the rural committee. The first one that I want to talk about is that the cap provides a number of areas of finance of interest to this committee that relate to environmental actions, biodiversity, climate change projects and tree planting. Just a general high-level question about cap, cap puts in place a seven-year programme of commitment to financial support to farmers and others, but the UK Government at the moment has basically committed to continue the current arrangements financially until the end of this Parliament. How can you deliver something that is functionally equivalent to the seven-year programme that farmers and others could rely on when they were in the cap, which helps them to make the long-term planning that they often require to make? The first thing to say is that the overall guarantee that the UK Government has given on funding for farmers, land managers and landowners is at the moment a greater degree of assurance than any other EU country has. We don't know at the moment what the future common agricultural policy regime will be post 2020, but we do know that the amount that we spend on farming support and rural enterprise is going to remain absolutely the same in catch terms until 2022. At the moment of questioning and replying, we are providing farmers across the United Kingdom with a greater degree of certainty. We are also considering potential amendments to our agriculture bill in order to make sure that we can have a multi-annual financial framework in order to provide a greater degree of certainty. In addition to that, we have also laid out a programme for an agricultural transition, which would mean that we would move away from our existing system of funding to a new system of funding in England, which would guarantee, of course, that we would continue generously to support rural enterprise and farming, but we would increasingly put the money towards public goods rather than simply an area-based payment of the kind that the common agricultural policy has had for several years. That appears to be welcome if we have the similar view forward of a 70-year horizon that enables farmers and land managers generally to make the plans that they want to make. That is helpful. I suspect that, in Scotland, we are equally of the view that area-based payments have to shift to some extent to production, which perhaps might be different. That is not for today's discussion at all. I want to ask you about the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, which relates to both the committees that you will be talking to today. We have heard the title of a shared prosperity fund, but ministers are currently telling us that they have no knowledge whatsoever of how that should be structured. I note some of the comments that you have reported to have been saying over the weekend that would suggest a transfer of some of the spending decisions that are made in Edinburgh to your office in London. Do you care to comment on that? The first thing to say is that, in December of last year, we were able to announce on top of the current EMF allegations an extra £37 million to help the UK seafood sector. This is money that the UK Government has provided, and that money will be split broadly along EMF allocations, and it will be for the appropriate Governments and Executives to spend that money at their seafood. This is additional cash, which goes to the devolved administrations, which they can spend in an appropriate way, which supplements what the EMFF does. One of the things I think it's important to be able to do is to ensure that when we come forward with proposals for a shared prosperity fund and for other means of support, the UK Government can devote extra resources beyond both that the Scottish Government already has in areas which are devolved. So, for example, it may well be that we consider it appropriate to provide additional resources to Scotland, for example, to invest in the redevelopment of Fraserborough Harbour. It would be a good thing, I think, if your constituents and David Ugoode's constituents would have the confidence of knowing that the Scottish Government and the UK Government were working together to take advantage of the opportunities that exist outside the common fisheries policy. But everything that we're talking about is additional support and help for Scotland in order to enable Scotland's industries and Scotland's citizens to take advantage of the opportunities that will exist outside the European Union. Much of that is very welcome. It's off your responsibilities and perhaps today, but if the UK Government were to provide more opportunities for contracts for difference, that would certainly help Fraserborough Harbour and its aspirations to be a major offshore renewable energy source. Let me just move on a little bit in the limited time that the community is allowing me to another financial subject that crosses the boundary again. One of the things that I'm told UK ministers have constantly been saying to MPs that there will be the constant giving assurances that trade will continue unimpeded. Now, for local government, there is one issue there, and that is the export health certificates. We understand that that may cost £17 to 30—the figure is imprecise—million pounds for seafood and there may be other industries affected. It's essentially local government. There's a general commitment to the UK Government to make sure that the devolved Administrations and ourselves in Scotland are no better, no worse off after departure from the EU. Is that something that's on your radar? The EHC is both a financial burden but an administrative burden and a potential source of delay for live animal exports in particular, and I'm thinking of lobsters, crabs and so on. Yes, it's a very important point. I had the opportunity just under a fortnight ago to visit an exemplary fish processing business in Aberdeen, Nolan Seafoods, and while there I talked to a number of representatives from the fish processing sector, they reflected to me the additional requirements that will be placed on ports, harbours and local government in order to make sure that export health certificates were granted. One of the things that I said then is that I had said to Fergus Ewing that I would be more than happy to provide additional resource in order to make sure that we have the trained inspectors required to expedite the effective export of Scotland's great seafood produce. This would be an example of the UK Government providing additional resource both to the Scottish Government itself and also potentially to local government to Aberdeenshire Council because we just want to make sure that those industries that will benefit from EU exit are supported every step of the way. A tiny thing, almost on observation, you probably don't have time to respond. The UK Climate Change Committee has recommended that Scotland be planting a very large proportion of the UK's forestry in response to climate change. Will the UK Government support that effort because it's in UK's interests that we do well on climate change to support EU reference? One of the things that I admire is the way in which Fergus has developed an approach towards forestry that is progressive and market sensitive. I want to work with Fergus and those involved in the forestry sector in Scotland to ensure that our shared ambitions can be more successfully achieved. Thank you. We move on to questions from Angus MacDonald. I'm sure that the Wreck Committee will take the opportunity to discuss fisheries with you in the next session coming up this morning, but if I could turn to salmon populations briefly, which is the remit of this committee, each year our committee scrutinises wild salmon regulations, which clearly seek to protect wild salmon in Scottish waters now. As we all know, wild salmon numbers continue to decline. And since we last spoke with you last June, we've seen new regulations south of the border preventing netting of salmon in the north-east of England, which exploited salmon destined for Scottish rivers. And of course, we've taken our own measures with regard to netsmen in Scotland. So can you tell or can you update the committee how these new regulations are being monitored and enforced in the north-east of England? Well, we do take incredibly seriously the decline in salmon stocks in all our rivers. And as someone who has fished on the tweet and someone who just again a few weeks ago was talking to those responsible for managing the deed, when I was to divine, I'm aware that there are a number of factors in play here. And of course, we must have effective monitoring of the netting regulations, but we also need to take into account the fact that as I was told on the D, we need to look at land use. We need to look at the way in which we may have soil runoff, for example, having an impact on the environment in the D and in other salmon rivers. We also need to consider the impact of climate change. Again, that has a direct impact on north Atlantic salmon stocks. And I know that the Scottish Government has been looking at the interrelationship between wild salmon and aquaculture. So I think we need to look at all of these things holistically because the decline in salmon stocks is particularly worrying. And it also reflects and it is an acute example of the broader problems that we have with the number of freshwater fishing by rivers. Okay, thanks for that. With regard to NASCO and the regional fisheries organisations, last June this committee explored the issue of whether the UK would continue its membership of regional fisheries management organisations following EU exit or whether replacement bodies would be established. Now we're unclear whether plans to join regional fisheries management organisations such as NASCO are further advanced. Is there any update on that that you can give this committee? Yes, we've applied to join five regional fisheries management organisations, including NASCO, and the EU has agreed that our application should be looked on favorably, and we have every reason to believe that it's in the interest not just of the UK, but the other members of these RFMOs that our membership should be expediting. Thank you. Questions from Claudia Beamish. Thank you convener and good morning Secretary of State. I'd like to turn our scrutiny to the environmental principles, environmental governance, and the committee would like to know if you can give a guarantee that the EU guiding principles will be enshrined in UK law, whatever the way forward that is negotiated. And if I could just highlight those that we focused on in the continuity bill, the precautionary principle, polluter pays, the prevention principle, and environmental damage rectified at source. If I could put on the end of that, importantly, animal welfare and animal sentience. I wonder if you could give that guarantee and reassurance today. Yes, I go. Good, that's very good. Thank you. And as trade negotiations and agreements are of course some reserved, what do you see the Scottish Government's role and influence in these negotiations, if you could expand on that please. Yes, there are a number of pieces of legislation that will help shape our trade policy. The first is the trade bill, which has laws that has been an amendment there in order to ensure that the UK Parliament and parliamentarians can provide more effective scrutiny. It's also the case that we're in discussion with opposition parties about what the best means in the agriculture bill could be providing people with reassurance that we will maintain high standards of environmental protection and animal welfare. Now trade negotiations are by themselves an exercise of the royal prerogative, they lead to treaties, these treaties of course are then translated into UK legislation and it's part of the tradition of the the dualist system of UK law that it will be the United Kingdom that will be involved in these negotiations, but I have sought at every turn to make sure that we involve not just parliamentarians from across the United Kingdom, but also devolved administrations in understanding what our priorities would be in any trade negotiations that we undertake. Right, thank you. Could you explain for the committee in some more detail please Secretary of State what the process for that engagement is and how that, how in your view that's working? The principal process of engagement is through the monthly meetings that we have of the relevant ministers who deal with agricultural fisheries and the environment across the United Kingdom, but I'm more than happy to intensify that engagement if there are particular issues of concern and also those monthly meetings have sometimes been attended by ministers from other government departments like for example the Treasury and I think if it were the request of ministers that a team from the Department for International Trade were to come along in order to explain their thinking then of course that is something that we would do. Again the leaving the European Union and providing us with the opportunity to have an independent trade policy, but it is also the case that at the moment until the withdrawal agreement bill is passed these issues rest in the future and again even if the withdrawal agreement bill is passed we hope in an implementation or transition period during which while we can talk to other nations about our trade arrangements we won't be signing trade deals until that implementation or transition period ends. I see, thank you Secretary of State. Could I ask you in relation to the Scottish Government having as you'll be aware a significant responsibility for a large proportion of environmental law being devolved and I wonder if you could comment on if you have any concerns about divergence and how you might deal with those? I think the long view record concerns yet, but in practical terms I just wanted to say firstly that while we don't always agree on every issue I'm full of admiration for the leadership that was in and coming and was shown on a number of environmental questions and I have no doubt that the view across all parties in the Scottish Parliament is that there shouldn't be any divergence, there should be a commitment to very very high environmental standards and when I was in Aberdeen recently and talking to Donald Cameron and others in the Scottish Conservatives I was incredibly impressed by their determination and commitment to the highest possible environmental standards and that was fantastic here so the political commitment that underpins a shared level of high ambition I think is shared across parties but of course as well as that commitment we want to make sure that there are institutional mechanisms that can hold us all to those high standards and those high ambitions and the Scottish Government has issued a consultation on environmental principles and governance and I wouldn't want to pre-empt what the conclusions of that consultation would be but I've made an open offer to the Scottish Government that should it conclude that it wants to have the Office of Environmental Protection that we're setting up in England also encompass Scotland's interests then it may be possible for us to locate that office within Scotland itself as a sign of our commitment to the whole United Kingdom upholding these high standards. Right thank you Secretary of State and in terms specifically of environmental Governments there have been some concerns expressed not least by NGOs but by a range of others in Scotland about these issues about how environmental regulation standards will be monitored, evaluated and enforced in Scotland and indeed across the UK and the Scottish Government has told our committee that it will be legislating and is consulting at the moment. I wonder if you could comment on that broadly and then I might have one or two follow-up questions for you. Yes I mean there's no criticism of the Scottish Government to say that our own plans are more advanced that we've published draft clauses for our environment bill, the deal with principles and governance, those draft clauses have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by two committees of the House of Commons on which there are Scottish MPs and so we've had feedback on those. A number of points have been raised by the way in which we might improve the operation of the Office of Environmental Protection. We're open-minded in considering how we might respond as I say it is no criticism of the Scottish Government to say that they're at a later stage in this process they haven't come to bring forward the same degree of detail yet that we have set of the border. I can understand why NGA's on either side of the border want the greater degree of clarity and of course we're engaging with them in order to make sure that the recommendations that were made as part of pre-legislative scrutiny can also meet some of the concerns legitimate concerns that they've raised. Thank you and lastly Secretary of State could you comment on concerns which have been expressed which I also share about the independence of any any watchdog and in relation to infraction and the ability to to put set fines and penalties? Well I think the first thing is in terms of independence we've been clear that the body must be it's an armazen body which must be fully independent and we wanted to make sure that the process of appointment of the chair is one that is subject also to pre-approval sorry yes pre-appointment hearings so that the House of Commons and its members can have absolute confidence in the qualities and the independence of that individual and then that individual will be appointing the chief executive and the will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the organisation. We've also wanted to ensure that the body has sufficient funding to give to discharge its functions without feeling that it's in any way constrained bringing forward commitments in order to give further effect to that and then more broadly in terms of fines this is an open question and it does a legitimate area of debate. The infraction proceedings that can be brought by members of the European Union have had an effect in maintaining a high level of environmental protection I don't think anyone denies that but that is a supernatural finding of national governments for their failure to adhere to these rules. If we had fines within any particular national state then the question would be what would happen to those fines you could have a situation where for example my department or the MOD was found not to have lived up to its obligations a fine was imposed then that money would then go to the Treasury so in a way we would be shifting money between different government accounts. Now there are others who say actually what you could do is you could have a system of fines where by the money that came from a particular department let's say if the same argument it was the MOD could go into a particular fund for environmental improvement. These are open questions but it is also the case that without necessarily having fines you can also impose compliance with these rules so we're exploring whether or not there should be a new system of environmental law tribunals to not to mirror but to emulate some of the good work that immigration and employment tribunals do by developing a body of expertise in the legal profession that can ensure that we have the rapid adherence to regulations and laws that guarantee high environmental protection and of course ultimately it can be the case that the High Court can impose on government a requirement to change its ways which if that government whether it was the UK government or any other refused to adhere to it would mean that the relevant minister or cabinet secretary was in breach of the law with all the consequences that would follow. Thank you very much. Short supplementary question from Mark Ruskell. Thanks, I just want to go back to your point about divergence. There have been concerns raised that in Scotland there has been a sort of reduction in the protection that's given to Ramsar sites you know the internationally protected Ramsar sites such as Cool Links and Loch Lomond. I just wonder if that's something that you're aware of because it does seem to be policy divergence now across the UK in terms of the status of the protection that's given to these sites and if that was something that Defra aware of whether you'll be notifying the Ramsar Convention because obviously post Brexit you know international frameworks and designations are going to become increasingly important. You're absolutely right and in the first instance this is an issue that I hope that we could resolve amicably between the UK government, the Scottish government and others who are concerned. I won't go into details but there are one implications where individual UK members of the UK parliament from devolved nations have raised issues with me where they are concerned about environmental issues either in Wales or in Scotland and the point that I have made is that why I can clearly understand their concerns to respect the devolved competencies of the Welsh Assembly government and of the Scottish government but I have also found to be fair that when I've raised those issues informally with Scottish government or Welsh Assembly government ministers they're only to be happy to take those matters and to keep the government informed. Okay thank you and questions from John Scott. I just wanted to ask you about costs and the costs of our climate change bill here in Scotland have been put at something like 13 billion but costs vary and go higher than that significantly for the targets that we're aiming for in 2045 or 2050. What percentage of these costs will be borne by the UK government and relative to the Scottish government in terms of the shared objectives that we all have in terms of and delivering carbon reduction and keeping temperature at 1.5 degrees? We will work with the Scottish government in order to make sure that we have an effective burden sharing but also that we can all benefit from the changes that we can make in order to ensure that we have clean growth in the future so let's say a couple of things. There are sometimes initial to take renewables as an example there are sometimes initial costs and initial subsidies in making sure that we can kickstart or pump prime growth in renewables and we had subsidies for example for for solar power there's been some criticism of the government UK government in removing some of those subsidies for solar power but the reason why the subsidies went is because the price of solar dropped there was no need for subsidies the industry was going well and we have had since 2010 99% of the solar power generated in this country being generated since then so of course we will talk to the Scottish government we'll seek to develop a framework whereby we can work together in order to advance action to deal with climate change and I hope that across the UK we can also reap the benefits but there were references made earlier by by Stuart to some of the work that's being undertaken in Fraser to think about the the possibilities of the north east of Scotland using its expertise in the energy sector to play a bigger role in carbon pattern storage and in other of the initiatives that we need in order to deal effectively with climate change so we are open to discussions with the Scottish government the Scottish civil society and Scottish entrepreneurs in order to ensure that we can help them in the fight against climate change and also in the effort to ensure that technologies that we develop to deal with climate change can also contribute to jobs and growth in Scotland as well. Thank you very much can I just ask you more specifically about carbon capture about support for agriculture support for transport and infrastructure HS2 where are all these costs how are all these costs going to be met and by whom? Well the cost of HS2 which if it goes ahead as envisaged will bring benefits to the whole of the United Kingdom potentially the majority of those the overwhelming majority will be met by the UK government because of course we will be developing and building that infrastructure but if we think about other aspects of carbon capture and storage for example the restoration of peatland to the best possible environmental condition or indeed tree planting one of the things that we want to do is to work with the Scottish government in order to make sure that we respect its devolved competence but we also recognise that if Scotland is as in the past pumped above its weight in some of these areas that we can do everything that we can to support it because I think the working together of the Scottish and the UK governments in the battle against climate change shows how we as a united kingdom can collectively touch above our weight. I won't take anything away from the determination and energy of members of the Scottish Parliament across parties to deal with this issue but I think we all recognise that it's effective working across all the nations of the United Kingdom that can mean not just have additional economic benefits because we can invest in technology more effectively it also means that we have additional environmental benefits because we can work together across these islands and it seems to me that the more one thinks about both the the challenges and the opportunities of environmental improvement and change the more one realises that the United Kingdom is a powerful platform in which we can all stand. Stewart Stevenson has a short question. I just wanted to go back to the oversight body. The UK climate change committee and appointments to that and the appointment of the chairman requires the unanimous agreement of all four jurisdictions is that the model you're looking for in this body and I encourage you to say yes because I think that would absolutely guarantee that it's independent of the transitory views and decisions of any single administration and thus have increased credibility. The climate change committee has done a fantastic job it's a very good model to follow and I will reflect on that very helpful suggestion and discuss it with Ferris because I wouldn't want to say anything that they might regard as me boxing them in. Very wise. Okay coming back to climate change and the climate change the committee for climate change report Mark Ruskell has some questions in that area. I do yes you've met Greta Thunberg you've read the UK climate change committee recommendations you'll have heard the response to those recommendations in the Scottish Government announcing a net zero by 2045 target if you the UK state adopt a net zero by 2050 target so have you got good news for us in this committee this morning? I'm afraid I can't make that announcement now and today one of the things about thank you one of the things about the UK Government structure is again in the same way as the Scottish Government has overlaid responsibilities but also a division of responsibilities between Ferris Ewing and Rosanna Cunning. So there are overlapping but also separate responsibilities between my department and Greg Clark's department of business energy and industrial strategy and Greg's is the lead department when it comes to responding to the recommendations of the climate change committee. As I mentioned in response to your question earlier I've got the highest regard for John Deyman and the work of the CCC. The report makes a number of very very powerful arguments which I welcome but the official government response will have to come just a wee bit later and from Greg but I hope that you can take from my comments my gratitude for the CCC's work my appreciation of the urgent need for us all to do more and also my acknowledgement that the Scottish Government is and indeed Scottish parliamentarians from every party are making the case for more urgent action as well which I welcome. Well it certainly is urgent and I think the question is not just about setting the target and when you're able to do that it's also about what actions you're going to take what changes you're going to make to government policy as a result. You'll have heard also the First Minister announce here in Scotland that there's going to be a full review of every single Scottish Government policy obviously I'm very much looking forward to that as a green. Will the UK Government be doing something similar? I mean you pointed to the fact that you represent one department there are other departments that cut across climate change isn't that where the real action needs to take place there needs to be a full review of all government policy and what policies would you like to see reviewed in that mix? Well I think there are a whole range I think everything from how we build our homes and where we build them to land use to the whole question of not just energy generation itself but also how we decarbonise particularly energy intensive parts of the economy for example steel and concrete production. I think that we also need to look at how we design our transport system and I also think that we need to look in particular at how we get more investment in insights and innovation. I think that it is an issue for every government department from in the UK government from the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department of Transport and the Treasury so I don't think that there is any part of government that isn't affected by the challenge of climate change and the need to respond. Do you think that there should be any areas that are off limits? I mean you know last time we spoke we talked about the decision to potentially approve a third runway at Heathrow should that be reviewed should your target to phase out petrol and diesel cars by 2040 be reviewed what are those two areas? I'm on the first. I think it's the case that the Scottish Government and the UK Government recognises the need to look at aviation capacity in the southeast of England and the proposal to develop a new runway at Heathrow is being carried forward by Heathrow and by the Bump for Transport in a way which is sensitive not just to climate change but also to air quality criteria. I thought John Holland, the chief executive of Heathrow who sits on a committee in my department that looks at how we can make business more sustainable overall. There are lots of opinions about what the future of aviation might involve but I think that most people recognise that it will continue to be an important mode of transport in the future and there are perhaps technological advances coming down the track which can significantly reduce the environmental impact of aviation. On the question of petrol and diesel cars, we were one of the first countries to say that we wanted to phase out internal combustion engine sales by 2040. They're one of the countries that have more ambitious targets than that. My view is that all of these targets need to be kept under review which shouldn't have arbitrary topping and changing but what we should do and this I think has been the approach of the climate change committee that were is if you set an ambitious but achievable target and then people are on course to meet that then you can meet the target a wee bit more ambitious thereafter. So I'm not signaling that you will change it but I am saying that it is not something that we regard as the very limit of our ambition if it is the case that we are making progress and we can secure consent for a higher level of ambition and that's something that we are going to keep under review. So who's going to be first then? Is it the European sorry? I have to bring in Finn Carson. There are other people who want to ask questions on this theme. I apologise. Finn Carson. Good morning, Secretary of State. We all understand that low carbon farming practices of forestation, agroforestry and peatland restoration are all crucial to reducing emissions and you'll be pleased to hear that the majority of the discussions taken place in Scotland around that are based on the ideas that you've floated in the past and probably in light of the vacuum of ideas coming from the Scottish Government at the moment. Can you give us some more ideas on the policies which may encourage emission reduction and do you believe that we need to move beyond the current voluntary approach? So we can get the connection back. There we are. Mr Gove, can you hear us? We lost you for a second. I was just hearing the beginning of this question and then it cut out. Right. I'll go back to Finn Carson and then he can recap. Thank you. I'll try again. We know how important low carbon farming, forestation, agroforestry and peatland restoration will be in tackling climate change. I was saying you'll be pleased to hear that the vast majority of the discussions taken place among stakeholders in Scotland are based on the ideas that you've floated previously and also there's a lack of ideas coming forward from the Scottish Government. I'm looking for your position on policies that might encourage emission reduction and agriculture and whether we potentially need to move beyond the current voluntary approach. I think that the kind of work you say and I'm also very grateful to the NFU whose leader, Minette Baptist, has said that she wants to move to zero emissions and agriculture by 2040 and I think the leadership that she has shown has been the exemplary. And you're absolutely right. If you think about things like agroforestry, the common agricultural policy work to get at as you know trees on farm and are deemed permanently ineligible features for substitute support under the common agricultural policy, the approach that we want to take will be more flexible and will allow people to combine enlightened environmental measures which provide not a habitat for wildlife but also a carbon sink alongside effective food production. One of the other things that we also recognise is that improved animal health can ensure that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and also improved management of many of the flourished minerals to help in that way. There are a number of different things that we can do where the government we think can support farmers to do the sorts of things that farmers want to do by providing support for capital investment and also providing recurring income support for doing the right thing. I hope that the Scottish Government will move in that direction. I was very struck when I was in Aberdeen as I said just under a point to go that one of the AFU Scotland senior officials there was critical of the Scottish Government for not having come forward with a comparable vision for the future of Scottish agriculture. I do think that there is an opportunity which I am sure yourself and others in the Scottish Government will take up in order to try to shape the future direction of agricultural policy so that high quality Scottish produce continues to enjoy a strong export performance but also that Scottish agriculture can play its distinguished part in dealing with environmental questions as well. I ask for your thoughts on the interim targets in view of the IPCC report and the recommendation to hold us below 1.5 and rapid transformational change. Could you share those thoughts with us please? Yes, as I say one of the things that is a feature of the UK Government is that Greg Clark and Michael Clare Perry are the lead ministers in this area but I do believe that a higher level of ambition is required and one of the things that I've asked my department to do is to consider what we can do in order to make our direct contribution and my department leaves on adaptation to climate change, which is why you will have heard from police and the environment agency more responsible for, for example, flood management south of the border, some of the steps that they believe that we need to take in order to deal with the effects of climate change but it's also the case that there are areas and as Finlay was pointing out which my department is responsible for south of the border can contribute to climate change mitigation and whether it comes to AA questions like land use or even the principle of biodiversity net gain for new developments which is a good in itself but which can also ensure that we have the types of habitats that can help us in the back against climate change. We are anxiously looking to see what we can do more in order to play our shared part in this endeavour. Is it not a case, Mr Gove, that in order for Scotland to reach the very challenging targets that they have been advised by the CCC, a lot has to happen at UK level as well particularly around things like the decarbonisation of the gas network, investment in carbon capture and storage and regulation around energy supply? Yes, I think that we do need to work together and again it comes back to one of the points that was touched on earlier. My view is that this is a shared responsibility across the whole of the United Kingdom and I admire what Scottish parliamentarians have done to ensure that this issue is properly addressed and put it higher up the agenda but I also want to make sure that the UK Government's resources that we deployed in every way possible in order to help the Scottish Government and Scottish entrepreneurs and Scottish civil society to do more. My view is that when it comes to helping Scottish universities to play their part and helping Scottish entrepreneurs to play its part then what we choose to do is to work together as pragmatically in energy space possible. A final question from John Scott. Thank you again, convener. I am declaring an interest as a farmer. I just want to take you back to Finlay Carson's question again and reinforce that that our culture is regarded as one of the sectors that needs to do more yet while aviation for example is able to offset their carbon emissions by planting trees elsewhere in the world. Farmers and landowners do not get credit for planting trees that are allowing wind farms on their land or peat wetting. Do you think that a more holistic approach to agriculture is required rather than the way carbon production and mitigation is measured by the IPCC? Obviously it may be not fair to ask you that in Scotland but in the generality. Do you think that a parallel approach to actually measuring the contribution that agriculture makes is required? Yes, I do. I think that it is also one of the things that we are seeking to do south of the border is to make sure that farmers who do those things and many of them do them energetically and without appropriate reward are rewarded from the public purse for contributing to the wider public good of dealing with environmental damage. One of the things that I hope that we can do is work with the Scottish Government to ensure that the sorts of approaches that we are pioneering south of the border can be adopted. Obviously it is a matter of all confidence. Obviously it is Scotland's geography. We appear to have lost Mr Gove again but I want to thank him for the evidence that he has given us this morning. That concludes the committee's business and public today. Our next meeting on 21 May will be taking further evidence in the climate change emissions reductions targets Scotland Bill at stage 2 from the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform. As agreed, we will now move into private session and ask that the public gallery be cleared as the public part of this meeting is now closed.