Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Official Report 833KB pdf

---

Climate Change Plan

Good morning and welcome to the committee’s fifth meeting in 2021. I ask everyone to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent. I have received apologies this morning from Richard Lyle and Stewart Stevenson.

This meeting will be conducted in a virtual format. Before we go any further, we will allow members to make declarations of interest for both evidence sessions. I will start by saying that I have an interest in a family farming partnership in Moray, which is especially relevant for the second evidence session. I believe that Peter Chapman and Jamie Halcro Johnston may want to make declarations.

I declare that I have an interest in a farming partnership in Aberdeenshire.

I am a partner in a farming business in Orkney.

Agenda item 1 is an evidence session on the climate change plan. This evidence session is on the Scottish Government’s climate change plan, as set out in the document, “Update to the Climate Change Plan 2018–2032”. We will first take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity. We will have a short suspension after that and will then take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism. These are the last evidence sessions that this committee is holding to inform our response to the climate change plan update.

I welcome Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, and Alison Irvine, the director of transport strategy and analysis Transport Scotland.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement of up to three minutes..

Thank you, convener, and good morning. I am glad to be here today to discuss the climate change plan update. Our commitment to ending Scotland’s contribution to climate change is unwavering and is central to a green recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. The climate change plan update shows transport measures are at the heart of those efforts.

Climate change targets agreed by Parliament are particularly stretching and transport remains Scotland’s largest sectoral emitter. However, the transport measures in the climate change plan update provide a full package of action across transport modes to set us on the trajectory to our 2030 and 2045 targets. It includes significant new funding pledges, £120 million for zero-emission buses and £50 million for active freeways from the low carbon fund.

Achieving our targets will require widespread change. Transport is a derived demand where people live, work and learn, and access to goods and services is key to their need to travel. Many habits and behaviours are ingrained over long periods of time. It is therefore clear that behaviour change and demand management, alongside technological solutions, will be needed to meet our stretch targets.

Meeting the commitment will require action across sectors, reducing people’s need to travel with more local access to goods and services, social connectivity and flexibility and remote working approaches. Such changes take collective effort from all of those in transport and beyond and will require solutions at national, regional and local level. That is why we continue to work with partners across local government, transport partnerships, public sector bodies and others to help to reduce emissions in Scotland’s transport sector. Aligned with that, the feedback and views that emerge from the parliamentary scrutiny process will be welcome. They will assist the Government and will be considered carefully.

The climate change plan update is also consistent with the national transport strategy, which was informed by wide engagement and public consultation. It builds on the sustainable investment hierarchy aims of reducing travel by unsustainable modes, particularly addressing Scotland’s predominance of private car use. In particular, the policy outcomes to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030 is world beating. That demonstrates our level of ambition, but the collective need to achieve that should not be underestimated. We are aware that the Covid-19 pandemic is creating uncertainty for us all, and forecasting future transport trends and people’s attitudes to different modes is particularly challenging at this time.

The national transport strategy vision for a fairer and greener transport system remains as relevant in guiding our actions through and out of this crisis as it is for protecting the climate and supporting a green recovery. The climate emergency is such that we must maintain momentum and work towards helping to make sure that transport plays its part in ensuring that Scotland meets its net zero target.

I am more than happy to respond to questions from members.

I remind everyone that short questions and short answers always go down well. The first questions are from Colin Smyth.

Good morning. The committee heard a lot of evidence from stakeholders questioning whether the policies in the climate change plan update would be sufficient to meet the emissions target. In fact, there was almost universal agreement from stakeholders that, as the plan stood, it was unlikely to do so. Are you absolutely confident that the proposals will deliver a 41 per cent reduction between 2020 and 2032 in transport emissions, given the fact that there has been no meaningful reduction since the publication of your Government’s first climate change plan 10 years ago?

I am very conscious of the challenges around making sure that we reduce transport emissions over the course of this climate change plan update period, and also in relation to our 2030 and 2045 targets.

I acknowledge that transport reductions have not been sufficient in recent years and over the past couple of decades. Private car use continues to be the dominant means by which people are travelling, which has a significant impact on transport emissions overall. I believe that the package that is set out in the transport elements of the climate change plan update represents a bold and ambitious set of measures that I believe can help to achieve the target of 41 per cent.

It will not be for transport on its own to achieve that. The transport side can provide a significant amount of the support and assistance that is needed to achieve that target. It also involves people changing their behaviours and businesses adapting their approaches. Cross-sectoral approaches will be necessary to achieve the targets.

There are some challenges for us. Given the uncertainty that has been created by the pandemic, particularly around travel demand and how that will shape the recovery, it is difficult for us to identify exactly the scale and nature of some of that change over the next couple of years. However, I genuinely believe that the range of measures that are set out in the climate change plan update from a transport perspective will help us to get to the target of 41 per cent, but doing that will also require action across a number of other sectors.

The plan not only predicts that there will be a 41 per cent fall in transport emissions but that that will happen between 2020 and 2027, even before the most substantive policy—the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars—takes effect, and that there will be no further reductions between 2028 and 2032. Can you explain why the prediction is for that substantive reduction to happen between 2020 and 2027?

There are a couple of factors in there. First, the TIMES modelling is just one element of the process that provides us with some evidence to judge and assess the progress that we are making. Part of the reason that a timeline has been set out is due to the nature of the way in which some of the new technology will be introduced that will help to support us in achieving the target. Some of it will come in quite a lumpy way—that is the best way that I can think of to describe it. What I mean is that it will not all come on stream at the same time. Different sectors will make use of it over different periods of time and on different timescales. That will create some uncertainty and some challenges. Therefore, it is difficult to expect a steady pattern of change over that 2020 to 2027 timeframe.

The other factor that I think is worth keeping in mind is that, although we are setting out our objectives within the 2020 to 2027 timeframe, if we reach our target by 2027, we will not simply say that we have reached our target and will go no further. Rather, doing that will allow us to look at pressing on beyond that target. That timeframe does not mean that, once we get to that particular point, no further progress will be made. I would expect further progress to be made, but I think that some of it will happen in a fairly inconsistent way over the course of the next six to seven years, because technology will be deployed in different transport sectors in different ways. That will have an impact on the overall figure that we can achieve in that timeframe.

The model in the report projects no further progress beyond 2028, so it is interesting to hear that there could be further progress.

In your opening comments, you raised the challenge of making predictions, given the uncertainty due to the pandemic. The climate change plan update does not predict any bounce-back in transport emissions in the years following the eventual lifting of coronavirus travel restrictions. Is it really realistic to think that there will be no bounce-back? If there is a bounce-back, what would such a rebound effect have on the likelihood of meeting that 2032 target?

It is worth keeping in mind that the TIMES modelling, which has been used for the purpose of the climate change plan update has been generated on the basis of pre-Covid levels of transport use. Clearly, during the course of the pandemic, there have been significant levels of uncertainty around the future demand for public transport, the scale and nature of which is still unclear and may remain unclear for some time.

We are trying to develop a range of policies that can help us try to mitigate some of the risks that could be associated with the possible bounce-back of emissions. Some of that was set out just last week in the strategic transport projects review phase 1 report, in relation to the prioritisation that we are giving to decarbonising a range of areas within the public transport sector and how we can enhance and improve alternatives to car use.

I will be open and honest with the committee. At this stage, there is a level of uncertainty about the shape of demand going forward, largely because of the changing patterns as a result of the pandemic.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. There are eight transport policy outcomes in the plan. What proportion of the 41 per cent fall in transport emissions will be delivered by the various parts of the plan? Do you have that level of detail to hand? If not, how can you be sure that you can deliver a 41 per cent reduction in emissions over the eight policy outcomes?

Good morning. The transport section in the climate change plan update takes the same approach that has been taken in relation to other sectors in the rest of the plan. It does not give a carbon footprint for each of the specific measures or interventions, given that there is a range of variables that could have an impact between now and 2030 and 2045—technology is a good example of an area in which that is the case.

09:00  

I believe that the transport section provides a bold and credible package that can help us to achieve our net zero target, although, as I mentioned, the fact that there is still a significant level of uncertainty around future transport demand and what shape public transport will take in the future, following the societal and business changes that have taken place as a result of the pandemic, might have an impact on some of the measures that we are planning to take. However, the same approach has been taken with the transport measures and the way in which we have framed them as has been taken in other sections of the climate change plan update.

Basically, you are saying that you do not know what each part of the plan will deliver. I agree that it is a bold plan, but I struggle to see how you will ever be able to achieve it, given that no interim milestones have been set to monitor progress towards achieving the eight policy outcomes. It is all very well to have a bold plan, but the general public—and, indeed, the committee—need to be convinced that the necessary work has been done to enable the 41 per cent reduction in emissions to be achieved. We are struggling to see that that is the case—or, at least, I certainly am.

I recognise the challenge that you put to me. Let us take the setting of interim targets. The targets for 2030 and 2045 are statutory targets that Parliament has set and signed up to, and which the Government will have to work hard to deliver. I do not want to appear evasive, but the reality is that there is a range of significant factors that could influence the achievement of any of the targets.

I have already mentioned the issue of technology. Over the past few years, the number of new zero emission vehicles that have come on to the market has increased massively in a very short period. The car industry is investing billions in zero emission vehicles, and we expect that to continue in the years ahead. As that market expands and develops and greater use is made of zero-emission vehicles, not just for private use but in commercial fleets, that will have a significant impact in supporting us to achieve our targets. However, there is a level of uncertainty about the scale of that development and the timeframe in which it might take place. It will be partly down to technological advances. It is difficult to set interim targets when we do not know how much of that technology will have been developed and progressed to a stage at which it can be commercialised.

I recognise the point that you make, but we face significant challenges in being able to set interim targets when we do not know what will happen, because there is uncertainty about the scale and nature of some of the technology and how it might develop.

I recognise the uncertainty—we all do—but that is the challenge.

The fact that only two of the policy outcomes have been carried over from the 2018 version of the plan makes monitoring particularly difficult. If you keep moving the goalposts, it is very difficult to know how we are doing in getting towards the target. The lack of continuity of approach makes things difficult. Can we be sure that the eight policy outcomes will remain the same in future versions of the plan so that we can see how we are going?

I will not give a commitment that they will remain the same. The ultimate objective of achieving the targets for 2030 and 2045 will remain the same, given that they are based in statute, but I would expect matters to change again in the next climate change plan update, largely because progress will have been made and innovation will have helped us in achieving the targets. My view is different from Mr Chapman’s. I expect our climate change plan update in 2024 to have a range of new policy initiatives that will help to speed us up and support us in meeting our targets, largely because the environment will have changed.

I cannot help but think that if I had come along with broadly the same targets as were in the previous climate change plan update in 2018, I would have been criticised for showing a lack of ambition. I will not commit to the idea that we should expect the policy objectives or the policies to remain the same all the way through, because some of those will have to adapt to the different environment in which we will be operating at the time. Things such as developments in technology might play a bigger part in helping us to achieve some of the targets.

Before we move on to the next question, I would like to follow up on the points that you made in response to Peter Chapman, because I am a bit confused.

I would not criticise you for a lack of ambition. However, I am confused, because you have come up with a plan with lots of outcomes in it, but you do not know how much each outcome will deliver and you do not know when it will deliver it by. You are hoping that it will deliver the outcomes that you want, even though you have no way of measuring that. Consequently, if the outcomes are not delivered by an unspecified time in the future, how will you get back on target? To me, that is not a plan; it is an aspiration. Perhaps you can explain to me how we as a committee can understand that you are going to achieve your plan through milestones that are measurable against your overall aspiration of reducing emissions.

First, it is not the case that there are no timelines. The timelines are very clear and are based in statute. We need to achieve a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 and we have to get to our zero emissions target by 2045, and the policies and the approach that we take will have to support us in achieving those targets.

What makes things more challenging is the fact that some of the developments that we will be pursuing in some policy areas to assist us in achieving the targets are at the very edge of technological capability. That has been recognised by the Climate Change Committee. Some of the technology that will be necessary to assist us in achieving the targets is not available at the moment, while some of it will come on stream and support us in the years ahead. It is extremely difficult for us to set interim targets on the basis that some of the associated timescales are uncertain at this stage. The end objective of getting to the targets that we need to reach by 2030 and 2045 remains the same. The approach that we have taken on transport in the climate change plan update is consistent with the approach that has been taken in other areas of policy across Government.

I recognise the point that you make about the challenge that that presents for our ability to assess the progress that we are making in some policy areas, but I have no doubt that if, over the next three or four years, we are not able to demonstrate that we have made progress in helping to deliver on the targets, parliamentary committees will challenge ministers. I am very clear that the plan is bold and ambitious but that it will deliver on the ultimate target. We will certainly look to see how we can demonstrate the progress that we are making, but there are areas of uncertainty around how that will be achieved, because some of the technology still needs to be developed to support us.

I accept that there is a target that you are aiming for; I absolutely understand that. You have given us eight policy outcomes and you are saying to us that you are keeping your fingers crossed that the technology will come along to help you to deliver on the end targets, but that you have no way of monitoring whether the eight policy outcomes will deliver at the end of the day. Truthfully, if we were talking about a business plan that had been submitted for a business, I think that you would be asked some serious questions, and I am not hearing the answers to them.

We should keep in mind the fact that Parliament has set a statutory target of achieving a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. The Climate Change Committee and others have highlighted that, at this point, a target at such a level is a considerable stretch target, because of the limitations on the technology that is available to help us to achieve it. That is not to say that we cannot work to deliver on it, but we are pushing the boundaries.

Let us take the commitment to reduce the number of car kilometres by 20 per cent. We hope to set out the route map for that policy later this year, as transport recovers from the pandemic. That route map will set out how we intend to implement that policy and achieve the target. There are some areas of policy in the plan that will be developed and set out more clearly as we move forward with specific policies—the route map on the 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres is an example of that—but there are some areas in which it will remain challenging for us to provide the evidence that you are looking for because of the associated technological challenges.

My response to that is that it is fine to set a target, but if you do not have a plan for how to get there and you are relying—fingers crossed—on technology to deliver it, what will happen if you do not deliver it on time is that the parts of the industries that you feel have not delivered will be put under increased pressure to deliver without knowing how they are going to do it.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to look in a bit more detail at travel demand management. In your opening remarks, you mentioned that the draft CCPU includes one travel demand reduction policy outcome, which, as you have just mentioned, seeks to address our overreliance on cars and reduce the number of car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030. It is clear that that will require the reversal of a decades-old trend in growing car use.

With that headline transport policy outcome in mind, can you give us a bit more detail on what that means in practice? What baseline will performance in achieving the target be measured against? Are all car trips included in the 20 per cent target?

The 20 per cent target covers all car journeys. Achieving it will involve a combination of carrot and stick. We will incentivise people to make better use of public transport and will ensure that public transport is decarbonised as much as it can be. We will also consider the use of measures such as workplace parking levies and low-emission zones, all of which have a part to play in helping us to change behaviour when it comes to the use of cars.

Alongside that, as I said, we will set out a route map—later this year, hopefully—that will provide a pathway for meeting that policy target. We will use the baseline from 2019—the pre-pandemic baseline—to assess whether a 20 per cent reduction has been achieved. I say that we hope to deliver the route map by the end of this year; the reason for the uncertainty is to do with the uncertainty around the use of public transport, and of transport in general, in the future. We need to take into account changes in work patterns and journey times and changes in the ways in which people use public transport, which might have changed permanently. We need to fully understand that in order to make sure that our route map is meaningful and can deliver on the objective.

09:15  

Can you give us any more details on the carrot-and-stick approach? How will we attract people to alternatives to car travel? How is that approach meant to make car use less attractive?

Not all of the approach sits within transport. A cross-sectoral approach will be required through, for example, policies such as the 20-minute neighbourhoods. Compared with what happened in the past, more individuals are working from home or working from home for part of the time, and we are prioritising public transport through policies to make it more attractive, such as bus prioritisation and increasing rail services. All those policies have a part to play in helping to support people in moving from single-occupant car use to public transport, or changing their travel patterns by working from home on a more regular basis.

There are a couple of other big policy areas that we do not control that might also have an influence here, such as fuel duty and vehicle excise duty, which could be deployed to alter behaviour around car use. In, I think, the latter part of last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer highlighted that the UK Government was looking at a change in the way in which the existing fuel duty and vehicle excise duty systems operate to fit with its climate change objectives. Such factors could also be influential, or could support us, in meeting our 20 per cent reduction target.

We control some areas—for example, we have given councils powers to introduce workplace parking levies and low-emission zones, and to take action on public transport and so on—but there are some areas that are reserved to the UK Government that could have a direct impact. It is clear that the UK Government is already considering the possibility of changing the existing tax regime, which could have an impact on the target overall.

That is helpful—thank you.

The next questions come from the deputy convener, Maureen Watt.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. As we take evidence, I cannot help thinking that the plan is predicated on people having alternative modes of transport to the car, which of course is not the case in rural areas. We have heard that a significant proportion of transport carbon emissions are produced during long car journeys. I do not know whether that is true, but in the north and the north-east where the car is the only mode of transport available and, presumably, we expect people to have electric cars in the future, they will still require decent roads to travel on. Is there a contradiction between reducing car travel and emissions and expanding trunk road capacity?

I do not subscribe to the view that investment in road infrastructure in some way suggests that we are undermining or not supporting the approach to achieving our net zero targets. Good road infrastructure is critical to local communities and to our economy, so investment in road infrastructure will be required in future.

We have set out in our national transport strategy, and also in the infrastructure investment plan, which I published just last week, that we are prioritising investment in maintaining and upgrading existing infrastructure, which reflects the recommendations that were made by the Infrastructure Commission for Scotland, as well as the feedback that we received from the consultation on the national transport strategy. Priority has been given to the maintenance and upgrading of existing infrastructure.

We are not investing in more infrastructure simply to sustain uncontained growth in car use. Where we are making enhancements, some will be with a focus on safety because some road infrastructure improvements are about improving safety as well as improving connectivity.

We are trying to strike a balance between improving road connectivity, which is critical to communities and the economy, at the same time as focusing our broader investment on improving maintenance and the upgrading of existing infrastructure as well as trying to balance that with investing in areas such as active travel and public transport in a way that helps to sustain and grow a public transport network.

I do not subscribe to the idea that investing in roads undermines our climate change objectives. It will still be required to an extent but we have reprioritised the way in which we invest in the future, and that is reflected in the national transport strategy and also the infrastructure investment plan.

Let us take the A96 as an example. It has Inverness at one end, Aberdeen at the other and the larger towns in between, and people travel to work between those areas. How can people in rural areas contribute to reducing emissions, apart from getting electric vehicles?

You raise a good point. Very often, people in rural areas are more dependent on their cars because they do not have the opportunity or the option to make so much use of public transport. Bus services might be more limited and many might not have train connectivity. A big part of reducing emissions in rural areas is about supporting digital connectivity to help people who live in rural communities to work or run a business from home. Good digital connectivity is important in helping to reduce the need for people to travel for the purposes of work, which is why our reaching 100 per cent programme is so important.

I recognise the combination of the lack of rural transport and the fact that people in rural communities are more dependent upon their cars. Digital connectivity is probably one of the other areas that can help people in rural areas to work from home or to run a business from home, which might reduce the need for them to commute for work purposes.

I have a couple of supplementaries. The cabinet secretary and Maureen Watt covered some of my points about rural communities.

Given what he has said, can the cabinet secretary confirm that rural Scotland is unlikely to be part of meeting the target of a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres? Also, given that the projects such as the dualling of the A9 and the A96 are likely to increase the number of car journeys, can he confirm that the Scottish Government is still committed to those projects, and to them being delivered in the original target timescales?

It would be foolish for us to think that the 20 per cent target would apply consistently across the whole of Scotland. That simply would not happen. The 20 per cent target is a national target and I would expect urban areas, and our major urban areas in particular, to be larger contributors towards that target than some of the rural communities for the very reasons that I have just outlined to Maureen Watt about the need for people who live in rural areas to be more dependent on their cars. If we were to attempt to apply the target consistently across all parts of the country, we would potentially disadvantage people who live within our rural communities, and that is not the objective of this target. So no, it is not that we expect rural communities to get to 20 per cent. It is a national target, and I would expect the majority or a significant portion of that target to come from the more urban communities where there is a greater concentration of car and vehicle use.

We remain committed to the A9 and A96 projects and also to the timeframe that we have set out for them. They are major infrastructure projects that will play a significant part in supporting the economies and the communities that are served by the A9 and the A96 while also helping to improve safety, which is a significant issue on both of these roads.

I have two questions on electric vehicles. My first question is about incentivisation. How exactly will the Scottish Government incentivise the purchase of electric vehicles, because they are incredibly expensive?

You will be aware that we have had a programme in place for a number of years now to provide loans to support people to purchase electric vehicles because I agree that they remain expensive and out of reach of most households. Although we are seeing the price starting to reduce, and I believe that the car industry expects the price differential between electric and combustion engine vehicles to cross over in the next three or so years, the price remains high.

Our scheme is based on loans to help people to purchase an electric vehicle. We do not have the same levers in our approach to electric vehicles that are available in some Scandinavian countries, for example, largely because we do not control VAT or other taxes that are associated with vehicles. There are levers that could be used to help reduce the cost of electric vehicles and increase the number of people who are able to purchase them, but they are outwith our gift.

Alongside the continuing loan scheme is the roll-out of a charging network to remove one of the biggest barriers, alongside the cost, to purchasing an electric vehicle, which is range anxiety. We now have more than 1,500 public charging places across Scotland, which is one of the highest densities in the UK, but we still need to do more on that, we need to continue to roll out our public charging network, and we also need to encourage private sector investment in the charging network.

Thanks for that, cabinet secretary. It is good to hear. I was not aware that the industry itself thinks that the price cross point might be three or so years away, so that is quite good news.

What you said about range anxiety in the latter part of your answer goes to the major part of my question. You said that we have 1,500 charging points across Scotland, but some of the evidence from previous witnesses suggests that it is not just about replacing petrol filling stations with electric charging points.

09:30  

They argue that people have to take a different view, that they need to charge at home, so they would charge overnight, which would help because, as you are well aware, it takes much longer to charge an electric vehicle than to put petrol in the tank. My question is focused on that. It is great that we have 1,500 public charging points, but what about home charging points? It is relatively easy for people who live in houses, big houses, detached houses, semi-detached houses, with a drive or whatever it is, but if you take the city of Edinburgh, where I am speaking from at the moment, we have a huge number of people living in flats. How will it be practical for them? I am just going by the evidence we have received from experts. If they think that this will happen and people will be charging at home, how will the Scottish Government enable flat dwellers in all the major cities and elsewhere throughout Scotland to access the same charging points as people who live in more affluent areas?

That is an important issue, and it is also a very reasonable issue to raise with me. If I can take a step back, Mr Rumbles, one of the challenges that we have with a greater roll-out of charging places, including domestic charging places, is the capacity of the network to deal with an ever-increasing demand for electric charging for vehicles at hubs and domestic dwelling places. Large parts of the grid infrastructure for Scotland and across the whole of the UK, are currently incapable of coping with a big surge in the number of vehicles that need to be charged at domestic dwellings.

Around two years ago, a joint project to identify the areas that we need to invest in to improve the grid infrastructure to provide greater capacity in charging infrastructure across the country was launched by the First Minister, along with the energy networks, SP Energy Networks and Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. A couple of projects are already well advanced. SSEN is working on one in Lanarkshire that has resulted in it identifying areas within the local grid infrastructure that can sustain a big increase in charging infrastructure, then deploying charging infrastructure in those areas. The project has also identified areas that do not have the capacity and is looking at what has to be put in place to reinforce the grid. We are doing the same SSEN in rural Scotland, particularly in the west Highlands, by identifying the investment needed to reinforce the grid and provide the necessary charging infrastructure in those areas.

A good, practical example is that there are many bed and breakfasts on the west coast of Scotland, and I am sure in north-east Scotland, that will probably not have a charging facility for guests who may be using an electric vehicle and staying with them overnight. The grid infrastructure needs to be reinforced to support that. SSEN is looking at the measures that might be necessary, including introducing what they have described as pop-up charging infrastructure during the summer months to support tourists who need charging stations.

Specifically on charging in urban areas and tenement areas, the most effective means for us to support that is not going to be through everybody being able to charge their cars at home, but by working with councils to create charging hubs, where people can park their car and charge it within their local neighbourhoods. We are taking forward a programme of work with counterparts in local authorities on how we can create hubs and identify areas where hubs can be created for individuals to park and charge their cars. We are encouraging local authorities to carry out this programme of work as part of their bids for the ChargePlace Scotland network that we have in place at the moment.

For example, my constituency has one of the biggest charging hubs in Scotland at Falkirk stadium. It is partly supported by solar energy. It is a community hub, close to town, where individuals can park their cars and charge them, and is intended to encourage people to make use of electric vehicles. There will not be just one type of solution. There will be a variety of solutions, at the same time as we are making sure the grid infrastructure can support the transition.

I have one supplementary question, if the convener will indulge me. Cabinet secretary, your answers have been positive, productive, and helpful. It will cost local authorities a lot of money to set up these hubs and as we all know, our local authorities make the point that they are not funded to do a lot of the jobs that they are doing now. Will there be extra funding for local authorities to help them provide community hubs?

The approach that we have taken by and large so far in Scotland is through the ChargePlace Scotland network, creating a single network to make it easier for people who choose to charge their cars. One of the criticisms in other parts of the UK is that there is no consistent approach and you can end up needing three, four, five, or six different cards to charge your vehicle. We are trying to take a consistent approach to gearing up our public charging infrastructure to make it as easy as possible for people to charge their vehicle with a single system.

Of course, private charging facilities are also developing. I will not mention them, but a variety of companies are moving into that space. You will see us continuing to invest in supporting local authorities. We provide grants. Local authorities can make proposals for charging infrastructure, bid for the grants, and we will support them by providing the funding.

I think we will also see greater investment in private sector charging infrastructure. We are already engaging with a number of private sector companies, looking at how that could be rolled out, but trying to align it with the ChargePlace Scotland network, so that we do not get into a situation in which individuals end up with five, six, seven, or eight different cards to charge their vehicles. We have time to work with them to do that.

However, we do not want rural Scotland to be disadvantaged by private sector investors who do not think they will get the same economic returns from investing in rural communities. We are working with the private sector to identify a way in which we could support some private sector investment in rural communities that may require a level of subsidy. We are trying to avoid creating areas that lose out on private sector investment through commercial decisions where the company just decides it is not financially viable for them. We are having that engagement just now.

I can say that the pattern will change as we go forward, with more private sector investment alongside public sector investment, but we want to be consistent and make it as simple and as straightforward as possible, while also making sure that our rural communities do not lose out.

I found that very helpful, cabinet secretary. Convener, thanks very much, I have now finished my questions.

You will note, convener, that one of the areas that I was going to ask about has been addressed, so I will ask for clarification of an earlier answer from the cabinet secretary to Mr Halcro Johnston’s question on the dualling of the A9. I might have noted you incorrectly, cabinet secretary, but it was my long-standing and clear understanding that all safety issues had been engineered out of the road between Inverness and Perth, that the installation of average-speed cameras had removed all safety concerns and that any issues thereafter regarding collisions were a matter of driver error. I noted that you said that there are “significant” safety issues, which is a complete turnaround. Specifically in relation to that road, have I noted you wrong?

In fairness, my comments on safety were probably more targeted at the A96.

Were they not exclusively targeted at the A96? I want no unintended inference that there are safety issues with that stretch of the A9, when my understanding from your officials and everyone is that that has not been the case for some time, since the issues have been engineered out and we have the safety cameras. Are you talking about the A96, rather than both roads?

I am talking principally about the A96, where there continue to be safety concerns about key parts of the existing road infrastructure.

Okay—thank you for that clarification.

The update commits the Scottish Government to working with bus and freight operators to adopt zero-emission vehicles. How confident are you that those industries will be able to deliver within the timescale that is set in the plan update?

I am much more confident about the bus sector, because we already have well-tested electric buses in operation, and there are some hydrogen buses in operation. The challenge for the bus sector is the significant drop-off in patronage. We do not know what the recovery will be like, and the nature of the recovery will have an impact on the investment decisions that bus operators make. That is part of the reason why we have set out a considerable package as part of our low-carbon fund to invest £120 million of additional funding in supporting the transition to zero-emission buses.

There are greater challenges with moving heavy goods vehicles towards zero emission, due to the nature and scale of the issue and the maturity of the technology in that area. Freight will probably be more challenging, but developments are taking place. Many of the major HGV manufacturers are developing electric vehicles and electric traction systems. We are investing in the Michelin Scotland Innovation Parc in Dundee, which is looking at developing drive-chain mechanisms to support the heavy goods sector. We are also working with the University of St Andrews through the hydrogen accelerator to support that type of innovation and work.

Of the two areas that you have identified, I am more confident about the bus technology. The HGV technology is still in development, and the speed and nature of how that develops will have an impact on the transition to greater use of zero-emission HGVs.

I had a question about the fact that the growing popularity of sports utility vehicles has negated emissions reductions, although you largely answered that in response to Mr MacDonald.

I imagine that we share the view that, if we were an independent nation, we would have the full range of powers but, on the balance between carrots and sticks—to continue with that perhaps unfortunate metaphor—you seem to have a lot of carrots and a minimal number of sticks. How do you get the balance right between incentivising but not having industry sit back and say, “It’s okay, because we’re going to get Government cash at some point”?

You say that there are challenges with freight. The balance of course needs to involve encouraging, because we will need a mix of methods of conveying freight, but are we moving that balance and slightly tipping it towards rail, where that is a better option for conveying significant amounts of freight? How do you get both of those balances right?

09:45  

We will do that with difficulty, it is fair to say. Different people have different views on what the balance should be. I do not think that we have the balance right in supporting people to move towards zero-emission vehicles, for the reasons that I outlined. We have a loan scheme in place, but other measures could be taken that would make zero-emission vehicles more affordable. We have seen actions in other countries that have made a significant impact in encouraging people to use zero-emission cars—Norway is probably the most obvious example. The reason for that is that people do not pay VAT on electric vehicles, and there is also a significant cut on import tax on electric vehicles that come into the country.

We also need to invest in public transport. The scale of the investment that we have set out in the past couple of years in bus transport goes beyond any level of investment in prioritising buses in the past. We have £0.5 billion for bus prioritisation over the next couple of years, alongside record investment in helping to decarbonise the fleet. The objective is to make the bus a much more attractive and reliable option for people to use as an alternative form of transport.

Alongside that is the investment that we are making to decarbonise rail and to extend the rail network, from the recent opening of Kintore station through to investment in the re-establishment of the Levenmouth line. All of that supports people in making the transition to public transport and it helps to decarbonise the transport network.

Can we do more through having a bit of stick? Some of the measures that we are putting in place will play a part in that, such as the introduction and deployment of low-emission zones in our cities. We have also created the powers for councils to introduce workplace parking levies, if they see that as an important factor in helping to change behaviour. We have created some of the legislative framework that can provide some of the stick, alongside trying to develop some of the carrot, to incentivise and encourage people to make use of public transport and other forms of sustainable transport, including active travel.

Before we move on, in one of our earlier sessions, we heard a suggestion that, rather than encourage hybrid vehicles, we should go straight to electric vehicles. Is that your belief, or do you think that hybrid vehicles are a way forward?

I understand the desire to move straight to electric vehicles, but hybrid vehicles still have a part to play. If the cost of electric vehicles came down markedly, there would be less need for hybrid vehicles, but I do not want to rule out hybrid vehicles. That is not in our interest, given the current cost associated with moving to purely electric vehicles.

I think that Chris Stark made that comment when he gave evidence to the committee. I hope that I have not misquoted him, but I think that that is pretty much what he said.

The next questions are from Emma Harper.

I have questions on active and sustainable travel, cabinet secretary. You have mentioned investment in bus transport and decarbonisation of buses and rail. The Scottish Government has a long-standing policy to create modal shift from cars to public transport, and even to increase walking and cycling. I have a graph that shows that, between 2010 and 2019—which is pre-pandemic—the number of car journeys increased to more than 50 per cent of all journeys. What will the Scottish Government do to increase modal shift and reduce car use?

There are a number of factors. One is to make public transport more attractive and to encourage people to make use of it. Things such as the extension of the under-19s concessionary scheme can help to encourage young people to make use of buses. As I mentioned in my answer to Mr Finnie, the significant investment that we are making in bus prioritisation and decarbonising the fleet will play a big part in improving reliability.

Alongside that, we are making a record investment in active travel of £0.5 billion over the next four to five years. On top of that, there is £50 million for active freeways, which is again to support greater expansion of active travel infrastructure for people walking and cycling. The levels of investment in bus and active travel are way beyond any level of investment in those in recent years. That demonstrates an ambitious approach on our part to investing to support people to make the transition to making greater use of public transport or active travel methods.

Alongside that, we have schemes such as the e-bike loan scheme, which supports people who want to purchase an e-bike. Like electric cars, e-bikes are more expensive than normal bikes. The scheme supports people to make use of active travel if an e-bike can assist with that.

I hope that that explains the range of measures that we are taking that can all play their part in helping to make public transport more attractive, while supporting people to use other forms of sustainable travel, including active travel, whether it be walking or cycling.

You mentioned the e-bike loan scheme, which is great. Other members will talk about the impact of Covid, but I know of loads of people who have considered and purchased e-bikes. Does the scheme include cargo bikes? E-cargo bikes could be used for the last-mile delivery. Are they included?

Yes. Some schemes are already operating with support that has been provided for e-cargo bikes. There are a couple in my constituency, in Falkirk, there are some in Edinburgh and I believe that there are some in other parts of the country as well. E-cargo bikes have an important part to play.

There is also an opportunity for private sector investment. I do not see why some of the big delivery companies, and some of the big retail operators, could not look at the potential use of e-cargo bikes as a means to help to reduce car traffic on the roads and to have a much more sustainable form of delivery. We have been having discussions with logistics companies to encourage them to consider whether they could use electric vehicles or e-cargo bikes for what is often referred to as the last mile of delivery. We are keen to encourage that, and loan funding is available to businesses for moving towards cargo bikes.

We also provide funding of about £900,000 a year for local initiatives to purchase e-bikes. That is for local schemes such as sports hubs or environmental groups or for schools that want to purchase e-bikes. Such initiatives can apply for grants to create an e-bike hub in their facility to provide e-bikes that can be loaned out to individuals.

I have one final quick question. You mentioned local authority charging hubs for electric cars. Might those include charging hubs for bikes, so that folk would be encouraged to cycle into town centres? They could then secure their bike and charge it at the same time.

Some of the new bike storage facilities that are being designed include charging facilities. As someone who has an e-bike, I know that one thing that is important to consider when you are looking to purchase an e-bike is how it is charged. There are a variety of models, but with some you can remove the battery and take it with you to charge quite readily, and with others the battery is built into the bike and you have to charge it on the bike.

I am very much of the view that, if you use an e-bike regularly to commute, you probably want an e-bike with a detachable battery that you can take with you to charge it more readily, rather than a whole bike that you have to bring inside for the purpose of charging. However, the issue can be looked at as part of new bike storage facilities. That would probably be better suited to bikes where the battery is built in rather than those with detachable batteries. It depends, but my bike charge lasts about 70 miles. For most people, the charge lasts a considerable distance.

Before I get on to my main questions, I want to briefly ask about ferries, which are a big issue for my region and for the island community that I come from. Your target is to increase the proportion of low-emission ferries in Scottish Government ownership to 30 per cent by 2032. Given that the Scottish Government purchased the three boats operating on the northern isles route in April 2018 and then two more freight ferries operating northern isles routes in 2019, none of which, as I understand it, are low emission, what is the current figure for the proportion of low-emission ferries owned by the Scottish Government and has that figure increased or decreased since the target was set? Also, is the new Glen Sannox included in your calculations? It is not operating, but it is officially launched.

It would be included within the target. I do not have that figure off the top of my head, but I am more than happy to get back to the committee with it.

It would be interesting to know that, because I want to ensure that we are moving forward and not back on those issues.

Emma Harper alluded to my main questions, which are on the impact of Covid. You talked about locking in healthy green travel choices during the pandemic. How do you intend to do that? Could a simplified process be adopted for councils that want to make permanent the temporary spaces for people facilities?

The locking in of some of that was set out in the STPR2 phase 1 report, which was published last week. It sets out a range of priorities for investment that will help to support locking in some of the benefits around changing behaviour that we have gained during the pandemic.

On your specific point on the spaces for people programme and the £39 million that we provided to local authorities to deliver temporary active travel infrastructure, we are in discussions with local authorities on how to support them with translating some of that temporary infrastructure into permanent infrastructure. Under the temporary road orders that they use at present, they have a timeframe of about 18 months in which to operate the temporary infrastructure. To make it permanent, they would have to go through the full process of a traffic regulation order.

10:00  

We have been reviewing that process to see whether it can be speeded up or simplified to assist councils in taking it forward. However, the big challenge is that a lot of the delay that is associated with TROs in relation to active travel infrastructure is around community consultation and the way in which objections are dealt with. We have to try to strike a balance between the need to maintain the right level of community consultation—I know that members would want to make sure that that happens—and the need for greater roll-out of active travel infrastructure.

We are trying to identify ways in which we can improve the process. Just last week, I had a discussion with my counterparts in Northern Ireland and Wales, who are experiencing the same difficulty. We exchanged views on how we could try to improve and speed up the process. We are working with local authorities to support them in making permanent the temporary infrastructure that is working and is proving valuable. We are also trying to identify ways in which we can improve and speed up the TRO process, because the lengthy delays that are associated with it can make it difficult for councils to put in place permanent infrastructure, which is inhibiting progress of the scale and level that some councils would like.

I certainly agree that opinions differ on some infrastructure that has been put in place and that it is vital that scrutiny remains.

I had a meeting with ScotRail—as I am sure you have on many occasions—about the significant shifts in work and travel patterns, which are likely to have huge implications for public transport use. How do you intend to support and encourage a return to public transport as we exit travel restrictions? Are there other ways that you can promote it, such as flexible season tickets or encouraging more home working?

That is an important point. We have provided around £700 million to help to maintain and support transport operations during the pandemic so far. Recovery will be an important part of supporting the industry to come out of the pandemic.

Specifically on rail, ScotRail is already considering a range of ticketing options that could be deployed to incentivise people back on to rail and to provide greater flexibility, because work patterns may have changed. The existing flexipasses, which have time limits on their use, might no longer be suitable. For example, some tickets have to be used within a month, but people might need to use them over two months rather than one. We need to demonstrate flexibility in responding to the changes in work patterns and travel behaviours.

In short, ScotRail is considering the options. Part of the issue is about incentivising people back on to public transport and trying to align with the change in people’s working patterns. Some of that remains uncertain, but we need to address those issues.

I think that Emma Harper wants to ask a supplementary question.

That final wee supplementary was just the question from my previous section. I do not have any further questions.

It seems that I caught you on the hop there, so I am sorry for misreading that.

We have come to the end of the session. I thank the cabinet secretary and Alison Irvine, who remained quietly in the background, for attending.

We will now have a 10-minute pause. We will reconvene at 10.15 for the next session, which is with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism.

10:04 Meeting suspended.  

10:15 On resuming—  

I welcome members back to the meeting and I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism, Fergus Ewing; John Kerr, head of the agricultural policy division; Dave Signorini, chief executive of Scottish Forestry; and Simon Fuller, deputy director of the rural and environmental science and analytical services for the Scottish Government.

Cabinet Secretary, would you like to make a three-minute opening statement?

Yes, thank you, convener. Thank you for the invitation to address the committee this morning and to provide more information on the climate change plan update.

The update is ambitious and rightly so. We know that we face the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss and we must do all that we can to address those, including in agriculture and with our land use.

I want to make it clear that Scotland’s landscape and climate mean that our role and reputation as a globally renowned food producer should continue. Our challenge now is to do that as sustainably as possible and to build on the good work that is already being undertaken by many farmers, making best practice everyone’s practice. It will be challenging but it can be done. We can produce food in a way that cuts emissions and contributes to our environment and we can seize the opportunities that arise from doing so.

That, in short, convener, is our vision. I hope that other parties and all members will support it and the work that we are now doing to turn that vision into delivery and action.

The policies and the plans set out a route map, which will minimise emissions and enhance sustainability. That route map sets the direction of travel and we now have five farmer-led sectoral groups helping to determine and recommend how we get there. We have set out the macro approach and they will determine the micro, farm-level changes that will be needed.

A change of this scale can be effective only if we take people with us. Partnership is the key to achieving a just transition. Already, this co-development approach is making real progress. In less than a year, we have a practical set of recommended actions that can lower greenhouse gas emissions from the beef herd, enhance the environment and boost business profitability. The suckler beef programme board, which I co-chair with Jim Walker, is now working at pace to deliver those recommendations.

I have formed three further farmer-led groups on dairy, arable, hill farming and upland and, in addition, there is one existing industry leadership group from the pig sector. They are there to lead work in their various sectors. Each group is looking at research and evidence in Scotland and the UK as well as internationally. They are considering reports and looking at recommendations that others have already made and they are exploring how others are approaching these shared problems. They are engaging with wider stakeholders and agencies such as NatureScot. Crucially, they are listening to and learning from each other to produce recommendations that I hope will radically reform policy for farming and food production and how we support farmers and crofters in the future and focus their activity on producing food sustainably while also taking a whole-farm, low-carbon approach.

The update also sets out our proposals to change how land is used in Scotland. Expanding and sustainably managing our forests is crucial to achieving our climate targets. The targets are ambitious but I am confident that, with the public and private sectors working together, we can deliver.

We are matching ambition with action and funding. I am pleased that we have secured significant investment in the expansion of public and private forestry and for native woodland creation, too, which is over 40 per cent of what we plant. However, the challenge of tackling climate change is made more acute because of the UK Government’s £170 million reduction to the Scottish Government rural economy budget to 2025.

The climate change plan update sets out a clear vision and route map for addressing climate change in agriculture and land use. I look forward to members of the committee getting behind that effort and supporting a team Scotland approach.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Some stakeholders we have heard from feel that, at the moment, there is a lack of clarity on what will be required in the future and a reliance on stakeholder groups without any direction-setting to them, and that there are non-specific commitments to explore, research and consult without a commitment to action.

Is the Government looking at a rural policy that is very different from the one that we have today? How does the Government, which should be looking at food security for its citizens, feel that food security can be maintained and guaranteed while also looking after our climate change commitments?

The climate change plan update gives a clear vision, which underlies our instruction to the farmer-led groups. We have to tackle climate change and we have to farm sustainably while producing high-quality food. That will require radical change.

To answer Maureen Watt’s question—yes, there will have to be change. However, it is my profound belief that if we are to achieve that change, as we must, it is essential that we get support and buy-in and that we persuade those who are working on the land, principally our farmers and crofters, to change. The best way to do that—and, arguably, the only way to do that—is to set out a series of practical actions that will deliver the goods on climate change so that farmers and crofters can have confidence that it is their peers, the experts and leading exponents of farming in each sector, who are driving that change, guided by and with the full support of experts from Scotland’s Rural College, NatureScot and others, all working as a team. I am confident that we have the clarity that we need and we have very clear leadership indeed.

The last part of the question relates to food security. Some on the fringes argue that the only way to tackle climate change is to abandon livestock production altogether. That is absolutely not the way forward for Scotland, but let us take it at face value—let us assume that we did that. Would people want to stop eating meat? No, they would not. They would simply buy meat which was imported from other countries, many of which do not observe the very high—and rightly so—animal welfare and hygiene standards and rules governing the operation of the supply chain, notably abattoirs and processors, that we have in Scotland and indeed throughout the UK.

I think that climate change and high-quality food production go hand in hand. If we were to imperil food production to pursue climate change, we would not achieve climate change; all we would achieve would be displacement, and possibly a higher overall carbon footprint if it is the case, as I believe it may be, that other countries do not operate as sustainably as we do or have the aspirations that we do.

Thank you. In the previous session with the transport secretary, we talked about interim targets to reach the emissions targets that have been set. Do you have any details and timescales for how rural policy needs to change in the coming years and how those changes will lead to concrete emissions reductions?

The most important thing that we can do is to make haste and proceed with the implementation phase of the work.

I described the work of the farmer-led groups. We are starting with the work of the suckler beef group. We are indebted to the members of the group, led by Jim Walker and Clare Simonetta, who produced a report in fairly short order and published it late last October. It sets out a blueprint—or a greenprint, you might say—for how to tackle climate change. We are now in the course of working with officials to plan the delivery of that, which will be in three phases: enrolment, data gathering and then delivery of the actual programmes, which will involve changes in farming practice.

The key answer to Ms Watt’s question is that we need to try to get on with it but—and I note the evidence from NFU Scotland on this—we also have to introduce the change in such a way that it is manageable and deliverable in practical terms so that we get buy-in. I note that the NFUS said that, at a time when the average farm is losing £9,000, it is difficult to ask them to incur additional expense. That is why, for example, we have the agricultural transformation programme and we have made offers totalling £18 million. We might come on to discuss that in more detail.

It is important that we strive to achieve the maximum possible practical reductions in emissions. It is the aim of the farmer-led groups to do so and to produce the practical, deliverable, radical changes in farming practice that will be required. It will be a condition of obtaining future income support that farmers farm sustainably.

However—as I think Ms Watt will agree, with her innate knowledge of farming—to do that and to get farmers to support us, we need to take them with us on this journey and to have a practical debate with them. I would not turn up as a lawyer at the farm gate and say, “This is what you have to do tomorrow, Mr Farmer.” If I did that, I might well get an Anglo-Saxon reply involving a two-word epithet. That is not the way to do it. Winning hearts and minds is crucial to tackling climate change. That idea underlies the farmer-led groups and I think that that is why there is such enthusiasm in the farming community for these groups. I do not know whether you have taken evidence from any of them in the course of your inquiries or whether you might have an opportunity to do so. Perhaps time may not allow that but, if you did, you would get a real sense that this is an idea whose time has come.

Thanks for that. This is my final question. Listening to some, you would think that farmers are just waiting for some direction from you as to what they should be doing, whereas the reality is that a lot of farmers are already making changes on their farms themselves, as I heard recently at an NFU evening session. It was held in the north-east, but it had people from all over Scotland listening in.

There are lots of pilots going on—some of them commissioned by you—but when will we see the totality of all the examples and also when will you be looking at pilots that are already going on so that you can include the bottom-up approach as well as giving some direction and indeed some money?

Of course, we have been supporting that work. For example, at the monitor farms, we have seen examples such as the Soil Regenerative Agriculture Group. We have seen the research done by ClimateXChange. Lots of work has been done, for example, in the arable sector, which is already making substantial progress in these areas. We have seen many farmers reach out and do their own soil tests and analysis and carbon audits. Some are way ahead of the game but others are behind the game, so we have to try to reach out to all of them.

Maureen Watt is absolutely right in her essential thesis that it is completely wrong to think that farmers are just waiting for some master plan to be handed to them so that they can then start running with it and delivering it. They are already doing great things and having successes—all over the country, different things and different pilots are going on.

On the timescale for delivery, I said in my previous answer that we wish to start with the suckler beef group. That is because a substantial part of the emissions come from methane from cows. It makes sense to start where there is the biggest challenge. However, the work done by ClimateXChange on the use of methane-inhibiting feed additives for dairy and beef cattle is just one of many examples of the good points that Ms Watt is making.

We will drive this forward as a Government if we are in a position to do so following the elections in May. If I am around then in this job, I will be driving this forward, as I am now, to make sure that we turn the action plan into delivery. Speed is of the essence here, as I believe many of your witnesses have opined.

10:30  

Cabinet secretary, I was delighted to hear your very last statement. You said that speed is of the essence, and I could not agree more. We have taken evidence from various experts, and the consensus of opinion is that there is lack of leadership from you and the Government, and that there is a lack of urgency. My assessment is that industry is crying out for a plan.

We do have something: you mentioned the agricultural transformation fund, in which there is, I believe, £40 million. You said in your answer to Maureen Watt that £18 million has been spent. Can you expand a wee bit on how the rest will be spent, and on what you think a scaled-up version of the agricultural transformation fund would look like?

Yes. I am delighted that we have made good progress with the agricultural transformation fund. As I said, £18 million has been the total cumulo of offers that have been issued. The agricultural transformation fund is intended to help farmers to make the transition to tackle climate change through investments that will reduce their emissions. There are a number of qualifying projects, details of which I can provide for the committee, if it so wishes.

I believe that there will need to be more such funding. We have worked quite well with stakeholders and the non-governmental organisations. I recently met several of them and we will continue to work with them. I am not quite sure whether members have fully caught up with the 200-page report that Jim Walker and Claire Simonetta have produced, or with the work that we are doing to take forward farmer-led groups. If members are able to make themselves fully aware of that work, they will see that leadership is exactly what we are providing.

We have the vision, we have the plan and we have the will. We have the farmers and crofters working with us, and we will succeed in delivery of the plan. I believe that it is the best—arguably, the only—way to deliver the change for Scotland.

I will go back to the balance in that fund. How and when will it be spent? Is the £40 million for the next year or the next 18 months? How far ahead does it go and when will we see more cash going into the fund? Can you expand a bit on the transformation fund?

Yes. Offers under that fund have very recently been issued. It is an essential mechanism to aid the sector in the transition, as I have described. I have quite a lot of detail about progress of the fund, but I anticipate that, in fairly early course, additional rounds of that fund will be required. Mr Chapman is absolutely correct, on that.

I say simply as fact that the particular challenge that we face in managing the rural economy budget is that we were advised by the UK Government in late September or early October last year that there would be a reduction of £170 million in the overall funding that will be received for the rural economy between now and 2025. I recall that Mr Chapman and his party were supportive of us when we fought and successfully won the campaign for restoration of the convergence moneys, so I hope very much that we can take that united Scottish Parliament approach in my campaign to fight and win back that £170 million.

If we are to do all that we need to do to tackle climate change, we will need that money, which was withdrawn unilaterally, and without consultation, from the Scottish Government—and, incidentally, from the Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations as well. Funding is absolutely key, so I am afraid that I must make that point, although I hope that Mr Chapman will perhaps take this opportunity to confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support us in that campaign.

My response is that I am not aware that there is a cut coming down the line. George Eustice was very specific, when he gave evidence to the committee not that long ago, that the funding would remain as it was. I suspect that if there are cuts coming down the line, we will support trying to achieve level funding.

I will move forward. The updated plan is not clear on how we will achieve a 24 per cent reduction in carbon emissions. It is an aspiration, but how will we achieve it? How does the cabinet secretary propose to monitor progress towards it? The plan is for a 24 per cent reduction for agriculture by 2032.

That is a fair question. I think that the answer is in the report by Jim Walker and Claire Simonetta that was published last October. It has been on our website since about then, so I assume that Mr Chapman will have digested it.

In summary, I say that, essentially, a large number of measures will need to be used. I will run through some of them. I am not an expert on this; the farmer-led groups contain experts, which is why they are doing the work. The measures include carbon audits, animal health and welfare plans, soil analyses, forage analyses, manure analyses, biodiversity enhancements and continuing professional development. Those are some components of the recommendations.

It is clear that, in order to achieve the reductions, a series of practical and pragmatic actions will be required. Therefore, my vision is that the farmer-led groups will develop a suckler beef scheme that will set out requirements in guidelines. Farmers will be invited to join the scheme, for which they will receive financial support. Over time, they will be required to comply with the guidance. The length of the transitional period will be a matter of debate with farmers, the NFUS, tenant farmers, the beef and sheep associations and others so that we have buy-in about how the measures are introduced. That is for reasons that I alluded to earlier in relation to the evidence that the committee received from the NFUS.

It is all out there in the open, in the Walker report. The ways in which we can cut emissions have been guided by excellent scientific evidence from Scotland’s Rural College, which has worked tirelessly to help us. NatureScot is also fully involved; I appreciate very much its leadership of, and participation in, programme boards and other farmer-led groups. This is a team Scotland effort. I am very confident that it will bear fruit and be successful. Therefore, it is a very exciting time to be the farming minister.

Thank you for that. You mentioned that science has a part to play. We are lucky to have SRUC, the James Hutton Institute, and various other world-class science institutes involved. Some of them are looking at gene editing as being important in achieving carbon cuts. If we can find crops that need less fertiliser, fewer sprays or less water, that is obviously a way forward. I believe that gene editing is a tool that we should look at very seriously, as I know the James Hutton Institute is. What is your opinion on that?

I know that there are many ways in which use of fertiliser and pesticides can be reduced or, indeed, even eliminated by alternatives. I am not an expert on this, I should say. You are right that we have significant expertise. I pay tribute to the work of the James Hutton Institute. I have obviously visited it, although not for some time because of lockdown. You are right that its participation in the groups is, of course, of benefit. Scotland is GM free; we believe that that is the correct approach. Of course, if Mr Chapman contributes his thoughts to the advisers and the suckler beef group, I am sure that they will give them due consideration.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You spoke earlier about the farmer-led stakeholder groups and the suckler beef climate group that includes Jim Walker and Claire Simonetta. It sounds as though many of our farmers are already innovators and are already making efficiencies and improvements. I have read a lot of SRUC research as well as Nuffield Farming Scholarship Trust and Monitor Farms information. I am interested to know when the dairy, high nature value farming and crofting groups, which I believe are in the pipeline, will be rolled out.

I can confirm that groups have been set up. Jackie McCreery is chairing the dairy sector climate change group and the hill, upland and crofting group is co-chaired by Martin Kennedy, who is the incoming president of the NFUS, and Joyce Campbell, who is a well-known farmer and, of course, co-chaired the women in agriculture task force with me.

The hill, upland and crofting group’s remit is to look at the opportunities and the challenges of having more forestry, agroforestry, croft woodland and peatland restoration. We are mindful of the need to do more on all those fronts. We have tasked the hill, upland and crofting group to consider those aspects and to consider a longer-term replacement for the less favoured area support scheme because, of course, that scheme is operated substantially in such areas. The dairy sector climate change group is chaired by Jackie McCreery. There is, of course, an animal scheme group that is chaired by Andrew Moore and there is a pig-meat industry leadership group that asked to have in its remit tackling climate change, such is its enthusiasm.

All those groups are up and running. I have asked them to come forward with recommendations as soon as possible—preferably, in the spring. I will give them a bit more time to see whether that is realistic or whether, in view of the complexity of some matters, more time is required. It is fair to say that such is the range and complexity of the issues that the hill, upland and crofting group is required to consider that it will almost certainly require more time.

I see two phases in going ahead with the plan—if, of course, it is supported by Scottish society as a whole. Broadly speaking, phase 1 will be data gathering and phase 2 will be implementation. Increasingly, we will see farmers being rewarded for the work that they do. I believe that they do not get subsidies, but that the money is hard earned for their work. They will continue to get that support, which is, as we have heard from the NFUS, essential to sustain farming in Scotland, particularly in upland areas and on the islands.

Farmers will have to accept that there is conditionality—green strings will be attached. The method will be to produce guidelines and guidance on practices, and that farmers sign up to the practices and guidelines over time, with us working at all stages with the farming sector and its representatives.

I have one more question for the cabinet secretary. In written evidence it was highlighted that the CCPU does not mention outcomes from the farming and food production future policy group. Will recommendations from that group be published?

10:45  

As the committee knows, that group was established as an independent group mandated by a parliamentary vote, and was specifically mandated to include representatives from the farming and food production sectors as well as environmental and land-management representatives. We cannot yet take account of outcomes from a report because the group has not produced its report. I believe that, given the industry involvement in the report—I do not want to mention names; obviously, we appointed industry representatives—it is inevitable that Covid and Brexit have had significant impacts on the group’s work, because of difficulties that some members of the group have obviously had to deal with.

The report will be an independent report; it is not for me to direct or instruct the group, as I have said to the committee before. It is up to that group to determine when its report is ready for publication. However—this is the key point—we are not waiting for that. If we did wait for that, we would, I think, be quite fairly criticised.

I set up the suckler beef climate group over a year ago. We have seen its report and are now moving towards implementing it. We have set up four other groups; we are not hanging around and we are not waiting, procrastinating or delaying. We are getting on with it.

Now that Brexit has happened and, sadly, we have seen that there will be a £170 million cut, we must cut our cloth according to the budget that we have. Nonetheless, I am determined to do all that we can do to achieve the climate change targets. We have a very clear vision and route map on how to do that, and we will get on with it.

Before we move on to the next questions, which will be from Mike Rumbles, I respectfully say, cabinet secretary, that you are giving detailed answers but we do have a timeframe that we are working to. Succinct answers with the detail in them would be much appreciated.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. My questions follow on from Peter Chapman’s questions on the agricultural transformation programme. Initially, in the budget, there was an allocation of £40 million for this financial year, which ends in less than two months. I know that the NFUS has raised questions about how much has been spent and that you have kindly confirmed that £18 million of that fund has been spent to date. By my calculation, that leaves £22 million to be spent in this financial year.

I might be wrong, but it strikes me that the issue is one of two things. If the blockage is not the money, is it the number of people who are applying for the fund? Or is the blockage the powers that be not allocating the fund? What is it?

Mr Rumbles asks a very fair question, and I am very happy to answer it.

I do not think that there is a blockage. Because of the lack of clarity and certainty prior to Brexit, I felt that it was prudent to be cautious in committing public money, just in case it turned out that we did not have, post-Brexit, what we would have had if we had remained in the EU. I am afraid to say that my caution has proved to be vindicated, because, as I have alluded—and I do not want to mention this again—the £170 million cut is a very substantial amount of money. I had to be cautious about how we proceeded in case it turned out that we did not have all the budget that we anticipated having when we set those limits.

The first tranche has been a great success, and an additional £8 million was made available on top of the original allocation of £10 million to cater for the demand. I should say that the grant letters have been sent out to 3,500 farmers and crofters, and acceptances have been received from the majority. The expected level of the grant is estimated to be slightly less than £18 million—that is, I think, always the case. We will report back to the committee as soon as matters become clearer.

The last point I will make—members might well come on to this, so I will not dwell on it—is that this is not the only thing that we have been doing. We have committed a great deal of money to the agri-environment climate scheme, which, as I mentioned, we might come on to, as well as to agroforestry, which has had considerable successes over recent times. I would not want members to think that the agricultural transformation fund is the only means by which we are seeking to improve environmental sustainability improvement—it is not.

The work that farmers do in maintaining permanent grassland, of itself, contributes towards biodiversity—a fact that some of the NGOs recognise, I believe—and that is a very good thing. Some of the other work that is carried out by farmers and crofters also supports environmental improvements, not only what is funded through the agricultural transformation fund, which is intended for capital items. Nevertheless, I recognise that there will need to be more of that fund, and, if I am around after May, Mr Rumbles, I will get on with making sure that we proceed with further rounds as quickly as possible.

I can confirm that I will not be around after May, so I will not be able to ask you any more questions about it.

You mentioned the agri-environment climate scheme, but I understand that it has not been fully open to new applicants since 2019. I really wanted to know if that was the case and, if so, why that is. I come back to the money. It cannot be an issue of money, because there is still £22 million unspent in the agricultural transformation programme—or am I misunderstanding this? I am just trying to get it right.

My overall approach was to be cautious in committing public money until we were clear what the post-Brexit situation would be. I think that that was a sound, careful approach.

On a different point, we need to listen to and be guided by the farmer-led groups on what future capital expenditure will be required. We think that we have a very good handle on it, but we should not assume that we know all the answers. We will shortly have the benefit of that advice from most of the groups.

As far as the AECS is concerned, we were not able to take forward a 2020 round due to lack of funding certainty from the UK Government, but we did extend contracts in 2020 for a further year, ensuring that a further £6 million will be invested in 2021. That means that the land that is managed under the AECS in 2021 will not substantially change from the 1 million hectares managed in 2020. A further round of AECS funding was opened in January this year to support delivery of a wide range of environmental measures.

We are seeking to provide continued AECS support, but, because of the £170 million cut, we have had to be cautious in our approach. I am afraid that that is just the reality for those who are involved in managing budgets.

On a personal note, I am quite sure that I speak for everybody when I say that we will miss you after you have gone, Mr Rumbles.

Thank you very much, cabinet secretary.

I know that time is short, so I will not pursue the money issue. I have only one other question. You said—quite rightly—in your introduction that a just transition must be achieved through co-operation and by taking people with you. I am interested to know what, in your view, a just transition in the agricultural sector will look like for both producers and consumers.

If we are asking farmers and crofters to change what they do, the fundamental requirement is to take them with us. The worst possible thing would be for us to issue a diktat that was greeted with resentment, disbelief and arguments about the practicality of measures. The worst possible thing would be for us to get into the trenches with the very people whose support we need to deliver climate change.

What it looks like is a team operation. The transition will require us to make sure that the existing bespoke advice that is provided to individual farmers is extended, so there will be a need for more bespoke advice. Farmers and crofters will need assistance and advice on an individual level, I believe, and they will need time to adapt.

The first stage will be information gathering. Things like carbon testing, soil analysis and soil management will have to be routine. Ian Miller has stressed—quite rightly—in his evidence to you the importance of that. We have a lot of learning from his report and from work that the NGOs have done, and so on.

It will be a team effort, but it will take time. Any change in farming takes time. The farming cycle in itself requires long-term planning. I think that a transition of perhaps two to four years—probably nearer four than two—will be required, but we must try to front load the process and get in early with actions to reduce emissions. That is absolutely key. We are starting off with the suckler beef sector because, as I said earlier, that is where the biggest target is.

The last thing I would say is that, if we do achieve this, I think we can market beef in Scotland not only as quality Scottish beef but as pure beef. Increasingly, maybe, consumers will be attracted by that, and it might attract a premium in some markets.

I almost got caught with my cup of coffee in my hand, but I was not, I hope. We will move on to the next questions, from Angus MacDonald.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Let us turn to low-carbon farming measures, regulation and conditionality. It is fair to say that conditionality has been broadly welcomed by all stakeholders, with both carbon audits and better understanding of the soil being raised in oral and written evidence to this committee. Given that the draft CCPU commits to bringing forward environmental conditionality, what will our system of conditionality look like? What conditions will be required, and will all farmers who receive public money be required to meet conditions?

Cabinet secretary? I am not sure whether the cabinet secretary is still there or whether he has dropped off.

I do not see him, convener.

Me neither, which is a problem. I will briefly suspend the meeting to try to get the cabinet secretary back. I ask you to stay where you are, at your desks, but the meeting is now suspended until we can get the cabinet secretary back.

10:57 Meeting suspended.  

10:59 On resuming—  

I welcome you all back—I hope that you are all back. The cabinet secretary is back. I think that there was a temporary problem with broadband. Cabinet secretary, I do not know whether you heard Angus MacDonald’s question. If not, I will get him to repeat it.

If he could repeat it, that would be helpful.

I will give you a moment to consider it. Angus MacDonald, could you repeat your question?

One word from me and the whole system grinds to a halt.

I was trying to turn to low-carbon farming measures, regulation and conditionality. It is fair to say that conditionality has been broadly welcomed by stakeholders, with both carbon audits and better understanding of the soil being raised in oral and written evidence to this committee. Given that the draft CCPU commits to bringing forward environmental conditionality, what will our system of conditionality look like? What conditions will be required, and will all farmers who receive public money be required to meet conditions?

The system that I envisage will require farmers and crofters to meet environmental conditions and requirements in order that we can tackle climate change and promote biodiversity. Increasingly, over a transitional period, we will move to a system in which income that is provided to farmers for what they do will be justified and earned but, yes, will be subject to conditionality. That is the general model.

In a previous answer, I alluded to seven of the ways in which in the beef sector will farm green. Each sector will have its own set of guidelines, and there will be overlap as well. There is mixed farming in many units; therefore, the groups are working together to get a holistic overall strategic approach. Many of the recommendations in the report by Jim Walker and Claire Simonetta apply to all farmers. In gathering the baseline data that is required to measure success, many of those who provided evidence pointed to the need to monitor and measure, and that is correct. The baseline data for a baseline record is an essential component of the overall implementation of the scheme.

As you know, convener, I could go on, more or less, for ever, but I will stop there, because I want to try to answer all the questions.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. That saves me interrupting you.

Thanks for that, cabinet secretary. You will be aware that the Climate Change Committee has urged the Scottish Government to develop a strong regulatory baseline and that stakeholders have highlighted potential compulsory elements, including the carbon audits and the soil testing that has been mentioned. Will the Scottish Government be reviewing and updating the current regulatory baseline that applies to all land management? In particular, is the Scottish Government warming more to compulsory soil testing?

That is the direction of travel. I think that we will need to make some requirements mandatory. I want to do that in a way that secures maximum buy-in, but we need to give a clear lead and say that matters such as soil testing are essential ingredients of improving the environmental footprint of how we farm.

As Mr MacDonald will know, soil quality, management and drainage and things like liming are not new to farmers and crofters—they know more about them than I will ever learn from experts: that is a fact. Earlier this morning, I read Ian Miller’s evidence. In the report from his group, as in the report from Jim Walker’s group, everybody is in agreement about the main things that need to be done, which I read out earlier.

I think that we are on fairly common ground, but we will, therefore, need to move towards a model of the sort that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee was postulating.

That is helpful. Not everybody is on board, of course. There will be some stragglers who are not on board with soil testing. How are you communicating the message to farmers and crofters who are not on board, and how is that being monitored?

I think that we need to do a bit of hand holding, providing advice and a bit of financial support. The NFUS was not alone in pointing to the pressures on farming at the moment. I am bound to reflect that meat exports have been reduced by a staggering 80 per cent following Brexit. It is not only the seafood sector that is facing financial pressures.

In asking farmers and crofters to do soil testing, I have to recognise that there may be a few who do not wish to. I think that it will be only a few, because most realise that it is required. For those who are not particularly willing, I hope that we can provide enough financial support for soil testing and so on to enable that to be done across the board in Scotland. It has to be done if we are to tackle the challenge of climate change—I do not think that there can be any dubiety about that—and leadership will be required from myself and from farming leaders.

It is immensely encouraging that we have contributions from people like Martin Kennedy, the incoming president of the NFUS, whose seal of approval is very encouraging. Equally, the imprimatur of other leaders of farming and crofting will help to reduce to a relatively small number those in their worlds who disagree. Nevertheless, it is a very good question.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. The plan proposes further research, demonstration and exploration into a number of topics such as agri-tech, nitrogen use efficiency, precision farming, crop varieties and feed additives, but there is concern among stakeholders that there is a lack of clarity from the Scottish Government as to what actually is to be done. RSPB Scotland has said:

“Other proposed policies and proposals do not appear to actually add up to real proactive efforts to reduce emissions.”

Do you recognise those concerns and accept them? What will the Scottish Government do to drive uptake in low-carbon practices and translate the findings of these exercises into emissions reduction?

A lot of good work has already been done. We have seen that across agriculture in peatland restoration, although that is a nascent sector at the moment. My colleague Roseanna Cunningham is dealing with that.

In the area of forestry, I hope that the RSPB agrees that we have made enormous progress across the board in all types of species. In both productive and native species, we have made tremendous progress, effectively doubling our output. I think that we have already done a lot.

How will we ensure that, in practice, we get the necessary benefit of research and scientific advice? We are already doing it. The groups that I have set up have the relevant input from experts in those sectors, so we are already using that in practice. I mentioned the provision of advice, and the SRUC has an advice contract with the Scottish Government that it has had for several years, through which advice is provided to individual farmers. There is already a system of bespoke advice, which I envisage will be required. Of course, expert scientists and researchers will play a part in that.

I am absolutely confident that we will deliver on our objectives, and I look forward to working a lot more closely with all NGOs—particularly those that may not have fully understood from the report that I referred to, which was published last October, just how exciting the opportunities are.

I will quote the NFUS:

“NFUS would encourage Scottish Government to ensure that the outcomes of this research are widely disseminated, clearly translated, and succinctly communicated to direct policy and inform practice on farm.”

It touches a little bit on the questions that Angus MacDonald asked. How will that be reported, and what barriers do you see to ensuring that that information is communicated to farmers and to crofters in a way that they can utilise and take forward? What monitoring of that will there be?

That is a very fair question. I think that it is a team effort. We have a leadership role, but the NFUS has a leadership role and other stakeholders in the rural economy have that role as well. How will we disseminate it? We already have done, through the specialist agricultural press. The work that we are doing has been pretty well covered and promoted—not so much in the mainstream press, but that is perhaps to be expected. In the agricultural press, there has been very good coverage.

Once we get to the detail of the schemes, there will plainly be a requirement for us to engage—as we do continuously—with the NFUS, which I have met extremely regularly over the past five years. I agree entirely with what it has said. We need to disseminate what will be required, explain why it is required and provide practical support, both in finance and in advice, to help farmers and crofters to deliver. That is what we are aiming to do.

That will be integrated into the support going forward once there is a plan on how support will be delivered.

Yes, it will be, and we are working on said plan right now.

Do you have any timescale for when that will be available?

We are working very hard to implement it as quickly as we possibly can, mindful of the fact that I have to make sure that all schemes of financial assistance can be properly, swiftly and efficiently administered by the rural payments and inspections division payment system. We are working inter alia with the leaders. I do not want to mention the officials’ names, but we are engaging very closely with several very senior colleagues in RPID about the practicalities of the administration of the scheme.

We already have records of beef cattle, and we have a database. We have delivered the beef efficiency scheme—ScotEID has records and is working very closely with us. In that scheme, which relies on applying a set of guidance, the guidance can be separate from the information technology and the computer system. Therefore, the ask of each beef farmer is to decide whether they wish to join the scheme; if they do, they have to sign up to the guidance. In applying the guidance, we recognise that a transitional period will be needed in which to adapt farming practices to it; however, over time, we will move to a system in which applying the guidance is mandatory rather than discretionary.

All of these things are subject to debate with the farming community, and rightly so. That debate is going on at the moment. It is the talk of the steamies at the moment precisely because, as Mr Halcro Johnston will know, farmers and crofters talk to each other all the time about what is going on. I am offering leadership, along with Jim Walker and others. I am confident that we have excellent teams of people leading the sectoral groups, and I think that we have the right plan—the right modus operandi—to get things done. At the end of the day, what motivates me is getting things done.

11:15  

Cabinet secretary, before we move on, I have a quick question. I am delighted to hear that it is not the payment system that is holding up change. Chris Stark was fairly condemning that a new policy would not be announced for four years. Do you refute his criticism or do you accept it?

I have met Mr Stark and I must say that we had quite a cordial discussion. That was some time ago. I wonder whether he has perhaps had an opportunity to catch up fully with the exciting work that we are doing. We have achieved a lot in environmental improvement in the past five years, and my colleague Roseanna Cunningham has been in the driving seat in much of it.

A bit more explicit acknowledgement of what farmers and crofters do would be helpful because people like Martin Kennedy have been in negotiation over biodiversity for years. The last thing I would say is that on forestry, for example, we have doubled our output. I am sure that Mr Stark will be delighted about that.

Chris Stark’s comment was about the fact that there would be no new agricultural scheme for four years. He acknowledged the work that farmers and crofters have been doing, but his criticism was about the four-year delay. Do you refute that and say that what you are doing is enough?

I think that our approach is correct. Quite obviously, the agricultural transformation programme is a new scheme, so factually it is not quite correct. Rather than get embroiled in whether there is an extreme difference of view, I plan to continue to work with and engage with all the stakeholders so that they better understand what we are doing. I welcome this morning as an opportunity to set out my vision more clearly and at more length than I have had an opportunity to do before. I hope that Mr Stark is watching; if he is watching, Chris, I am keen to meet with you over a cup of coffee any time soon.

I am sure that Chris Stark is watching and I am sure that he will bear your comments in mind.

I will continue to look at the role of advice and training. Cabinet secretary, you will be aware that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s green recovery inquiry report also talked about the role of advice in a green recovery. The committee’s recommendation was that

“additional resources be provided for enhancing advisory services to support a green recovery and transition to net-zero, including the provision of free advice for farmers, crofters and other land managers.”

Earlier, you talked about the NFUS evidence that farms are losing on average £9,000 per annum. The CCPU has committed to realigning and enhancing advisory services to support the transition to net zero. What does that mean in practice? In particular, with regard to the cost to farmers and crofters, will it be free advice on farm, just like the good old days?

I am not quite sure how far back I am asked to go to the good old days, Mr MacDonald, but perhaps I will leave that speculation for another time.

I envisage that the advice will be free. Free advice up to a certain value is currently available, and that model should continue, particularly when we are asking farmers and crofters to do more and to do things differently and better.

What will the advice be? It will be advice on low-carbon practices. It will be wide-ranging interventions about precision farming, nitrogen use efficiency, optimisation of fertiliser use, improved manure management, and improvements to the efficiency of enteric fermentation in farm livestock. It will include knowledge transfer and advice on peatland preservation and restoration, and uptake of tree planting and agroforestry schemes. That is just a list that I have read from. Each one of those might not be appropriate to all, but all will be appropriate to some.

Can you confirm that land managers will receive more bespoke advice? Are you planning to assess and address the skills and training of the advisers to ensure that the knowledge base among advisers is aligned to the net zero ambitions?

The answer to the second question is yes. We obviously need to make sure that advisers are properly equipped to deliver effective advice. I should say that we have had quality farm advisory services for some considerable time, and I pay tribute to the advisers and to their ability to help farmers and crofters, as they have done. We are not at the starting line of the marathon: we are some way into it, albeit we have a long way to go to the finishing line.

To the first part of your question, I would want to make sure that advice is made available to a wide range. Plainly, landed estates and so on are slightly different from a humble croft and perhaps better able to access their own advice and choose to do so. Generally speaking, we want to be as helpful as possible to all, especially working farmers and crofters who are producing food for the country and sustaining our rural communities, such as in Mr MacDonald’s native Hebrides.

Indeed.

I remind members that we are now halfway through the questions that people have indicated they might like to ask, and we are more than halfway through our allotted time. I am in your hands, cabinet secretary. If you want to give long answers, I am sure the meeting will be able to continue.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have touched on a couple of issues regarding forestry and I want to expand a little bit on them, please. Stakeholders have discussed the need for more nuanced policies for woodland creation, ensuring that the trees that are planted are of diverse types and in the right locations to ensure maximum carbon storage and biodiversity value. How will the Scottish Government ensure that new woodlands not only deliver on hectares planted, but deliver multiple outcomes, including net carbon sequestration, biodiversity habitat, recreation and productive forest uses?

I can say that we largely deliver on those multiple objectives. I absolutely recognise the importance of new native woodland, for example. In the period from April 2019 to 2020, we supported approximately 4,529 hectares of new native woodland out of a total of just 11,000. To answer Mr Finnie’s question directly and shortly, convener, the Scottish Government has met the Scottish biodiversity strategy target for 3,000 to 5,000 hectares of new native woodland a year for the past three years. We expect that the number of native trees planted will increase as the amount of woodland creation increases. Therefore, we recognise that there are a variety of things that are important, as Mr Finnie points out.

Another issue highlighted by stakeholders was soil types and cultivation methods that require more research to ensure that woodland creation will deliver a net carbon benefit. Is that research being supported and what is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that new woodlands avoid adverse impacts on soils and have a net benefit as quickly as possible?

I know that that is an important area and I have had meetings about this. Since it is a bit of a technical question, I will ask Dave Signorini to give a fuller answer.

We absolutely acknowledge the need for research and guidance in this. We have an on-going programme of forest research—

I am sorry, we are having problems with your sound. We will try to bring you in again without the picture. Could you try your answer again? If not, it might be for the cabinet secretary to expand his knowledge about agriculture.

I will try again. We absolutely acknowledge the importance of soil management and soil preparation in woodland creation. We have extensive guidance and we support a programme of research. Forest Research—the institute—is in the lead on that. Last month, it published a set of guidance notes around woodland creation, carbon and soil management. I can provide those links to the committee if required.

I thank Mr Signorini for his answers. I have a final brief question for the cabinet secretary. As with my previous questions, cabinet secretary, I want to put to you things that the committee has been told by stakeholders. You have highlighted that targets for native woodland creation lag behind the overall planting targets and propose that half of new woodlands should be made up of native species. I know that you have commented on the progress that has been made. Is it the Scottish Government’s intention to consider a new percentage target for native species?

We already have a target for native woodland, which we have met. The amount of native woodland has varied over the past 10 to 15 years and previously it has been in the majority. I am aware that there needs to be a mix of applications for plantings. In other words, it is not possible under the forestry standards, which have been applicable for a quarter of a century, to have a monoculture. Some people perhaps think that current practices go back to the 1980s but that is not the case any longer. There are maximum limits in terms of productive species and percentages in any new application for planting. I think that we have a fair balance.

I also point out to Mr Finnie, and I am sure that he knows this, that we have higher levels of grant to encourage the plantation of native species, particularly in appropriate areas. We work with a variety of partners, such as NGOs in the woodlands sector, national parks and landowners, to have a balance, including native species. Of course, we also want to reduce our carbon footprint by reducing the huge reliance on imported wood in the UK. The UK imports massive amounts of wood, second only to China. It would improve our carbon footprint if we allow productive species in Scotland to be planted so that we can see the increasing use of wood in construction, for example, and supplant some of the imports from other countries with the enhanced carbon footprint that that of necessity entails.

I have a brief follow-up to John Finnie’s question around the target. You said that we currently have a target for native species of between 3,000 and 5,000 hectares a year. That was obviously up until 2020. Given the fact that the overall target for the number of hectares of tree planting is going up and up, as a percentage of the overall number, the figure of 3,000 to 5,000 will by definition fall year on year. Surely you need to set a percentage target rather than stick to what is a very outdated target.

The immediate challenge and focus has been to meet targets and get that job done, but Mr Smyth is quite correct. We have recently reset the target so that we increase the target from 12,000 to 18,000 hectares a year by 2025. It is quite right that, as we do that, we need to have a balance and I have already said that our approach is to have a balance. There is a phrase that is used quite a lot that really is applicable here—the right tree in the right place. Commercial species are appropriate in many locations but most certainly not in others. I think that the silvicultural practice and professionalism of Scottish Forestry ensures that there is a balance. I absolutely accept that we want to do more in native woodland, we want to do more in natural regeneration, and we want to do more in native species, so we are working with a wide range of others to do precisely that over the next few years.

11:30  

Convener, I will finish with this: the real challenge is how we meet the overall increased target of 18,000 hectares a year. That is the big question on which I am engaged with Scottish Forestry and Simon Hodgson at Forestry and Land Scotland, because we will need more nurseries, more foresters, more felling contractors and more young people coming in.

A skills summit that I asked for recently was held in November, and it resulted in a great number of increased opportunities for young people from the private sector. The public sector has committed to taking on 50 more young people. The practical challenges are where I would respectfully urge the committee to apply its focus, to allow us to meet the target of 18,000 hectares a year and, yes, native species will play a very substantial and growing part towards that target.

I do not think that anybody is suggesting that supporting native species in some way deflects from the overall target of 18,000 hectares a year. In fact, they should be complementing and be part of that, and not falling behind.

I move on to another question that we also asked organisations that gave evidence to the committee. It is about policies to ensure the effective management of existing woodlands that are not currently evidenced in the plans. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that existing carbon stores are protected in the long term? Are there any plans, for example, to improve the availability of grants for natural regeneration of trees, given the evidence that that is the best tool to help native woodlands adapt to climate change and to lock in carbon in the long term?

We are supporting the effective management of woodlands through our regulatory activity and, as Mr Smyth rightly says, the forestry grant scheme. The forestry grant scheme already provides substantial additional support for the planting of native species in the Highlands or in certain areas in the central belt, for example. Scottish Forestry also ensures that existing woodlands are protected under the felling regulations. For example, any harvesting requires a felling permission for which there is then a presumption that the land will be restocked, except in certain circumstances. Therefore the forestry grant scheme provides support for the management of existing woodlands for multiple benefits, especially in relation to biodiversity. Under the UK forestry standard for carbon benefits, all woodlands are also expected to be effectively managed for multiple outcomes. Current research suggests that the best way to absorb more carbon is by planting more woodlands, but the benefits of different woodland management types is something that we continue to look at as we build our evidence base on carbon.

The climate change plan updates the need for large-scale land use change and a wider integration between forestry and farming. However, the evidence that we have heard made it clear that even for agroforestry does appear to be insufficient. Are there any plans to improve agroforestry schemes beyond the farm and croft tree demonstrator network that is outlined in the plan?

We have made great progress with agroforestry, and I could talk for a long time about exactly what we have done to do that. Far more farmers than in the past have availed themselves of agroforestry as an investment, a diversification, a shelter belt, flood alleviation plans, or for a variety of other purposes, and they can combine that with livestock production without reducing holding capacity, so a lot of work has already been done. However, I accept that we need to do more. I have therefore specifically tasked Scottish Forestry to do more on farming and crofting lands, to set up more croft woodland schemes, to work with communities where that is appropriate, and to increasingly work with farmers. I am particularly keen to see that the secure tenant farmer sector is enabled more effectively than they are currently to participate and benefit in agroforestry schemes where appropriate. I have tasked Scottish Forestry, along with the tenant farming commissioner, to work with a group of experts in order to deliver more schemes.

Yes, we do a lot at the moment and, yes, we have done much more in the past few years than previously, but we need to do more still. We need to see changing land uses, but the best way to do that is by working with the grain and working with people to identify the best land use in the best way in the best part of the country.

At our previous meeting, stakeholders raised the fact that deer management is not included in the plan update. What are your views on that? Do you think that policies on deer management are needed? If so, what should those policies be?

The climate change plan update is intended to cover a lot of things, but it is not meant to cover absolutely everything, otherwise it would incorporate just about all rural economy policies, which would make it pretty unreadable.

In our programme for government, we laid out our commitment to publishing a response to the report by the deer working group and recognised the important role of effective deer management in supporting a green recovery and climate change mitigation. Our response will cover all the group’s recommendations, including those on upper limits for deer density and measuring deer impact.

I appreciate that that is a high-level, general answer. Much of this is on the cusp between my portfolio and Ms Cunningham’s portfolio. We are committed to tackling the issue, which we recognise is a very serious and significant practical issue, both on the deer side—the Association of Deer Management Groups, gamekeepers and so on—and on the forestry side. There is a lot of expert knowledge on both sides, working together, which is the best way to get the best results.

The specific issue for forestry is all to do with grazing pressure, which not only comes from deer but could come from hares and other species. We should never forget that, at one stage, the Forestry Commission encouraged its rangers to kill every capercaillie because of the damage that they did to trees. Do you think that the way forward is for there to be a balanced approach to habitat management, to ensure that biodiversity is maintained?

Yes. You are right that all these things need to be balanced. Ms Cunningham and I both recognise that we should work with and listen very carefully to those involved—particularly those operate in the rural economy, day in, day out—to get that balanced view of biodiversity, species and forestry. I am aware that it is a very serious practical issue, with many aspects to it. I apologise if I cannot go into it all now; I do not want to use up the time, convener, given your earlier strictures.

I am delighted with the generality, because each area will require different management practices that achieve different aims, so I respect your comments on that.

I will probe more deeply what you said, cabinet secretary, about increasing timber use in construction being one of the Scottish Government’s key policy outcomes. Stakeholders have highlighted to us that that requires action across the supply chains on skills, and across sectors, from architecture to construction. What action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure both that there is systemic support for new timber building techniques and materials, and that we have an industry in Scotland, given that a lot of the pre-construction offsite builds come from further south?

This is a hugely important area, on which I have been involved in work with the industry and Confor. The private sector has a big role to play. The Wood for Good programme, which was launched in July last year, sets out the timber industry’s campaign to promote the use of wood. Edinburgh Napier University has been at the fore in the area. With the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland and Architecture and Design Scotland, we are supporting timber housing projects. We have many house builders in Scotland who routinely use wood, as Ms Watt will know, given their strength in the north-east and the north of Scotland.

It is fair to say that there is much more that we could do. I recently met with Zac Goldsmith, a UK Government minister, and urged him and his colleagues to look at how building regulations might better enable the use of wood for the construction of buildings of several storeys, which can be done using cross-lamination as a technique. Many of the key sawmilling and panel product businesses in Scotland are investing or looking to invest in this area. I do not want to go into details—that would not be for me to do—but I know that there are tremendous opportunities.

I will finish with this. I think that society as a whole is inspired by the idea of wood as a building material that can be used, perhaps not to replace concrete block entirely, but instead of concrete block. That could make a contribution to climate change mitigation. If we see the movement in Scotland that we have seen in other European countries, we will also see a decline in imported timber, the use in construction of a greater quantity of commercial species that are planted here, and the locking up of that carbon in buildings after the trees have been felled. The benefits for the climate of greater use of wood in construction are manifest. This is an area where there is huge potential for further growth and an appetite among the leading industries in Scotland to develop that market opportunity.

The Scottish Government has pledged £20 million to increase tree nursery capacity. Is there more that can be done to ensure smoother integration between planting grants and nursery supply?

I have worked closely with the nursery sector—I spoke to the leader of the Confor nursery group, Rodney Shearer, not so long ago. The sector has risen to the challenge. It has to plan several years ahead in terms of how many seedlings it takes on—its commitment to that means that it is making a big investment. It has been reassured by the constancy, if you like, of Scottish Government support and the clarity of the messaging, and it has responded, since 2016 in particular, by increasing its output. However, Ms Watt is correct: we have highlighted the £20 million because we think that more needs to be done if we are to move to the 18,000 hectare target.

We do not want all our nurseries to be in the same part of Scotland. Disease is the biggest challenge. If there is disease and it knocks out all the nurseries, we have—well, I do not want to use the word that was going through my mind, which was not very parliamentary. My point is that we need a variety of nurseries across Scotland and the UK. That is why there needs to be a smooth integration between planting grants and nursery supply.

Among those in the third sector and those in investment trusts who wish to reduce their carbon footprint, there is a lot of appetite for investing in woodland in Scotland. That will help us achieve our environmental targets and assist us in supporting opportunities for young people, which I am really excited about and keen to continue to drive forward.

In making the grants, are you ensuring diversity in the seedlings that are planted? Are you ensuring that the grants do not just support a monoculture?

We work with the nursery sector to ensure that balance. I am not directly involved with that, but we have the targets that I referred to, which are published and give clarity to the sector about what is required.

Although I am no expert, I know that different nurseries plant different species because of the quality of their soil and the suitability of both the soil and the conditions for particular species. However, my overall answer is yes.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I trust that you can hear me. I disappeared for a while—whatever happened to your internet probably drifted down river to mine, but I am back now. Emma Harper will ask the next questions.

11:45  

I have a couple of questions about connecting and linking different sectors. We have heard evidence, particularly from Ruth Taylor from the NFUS, that better integration in accounting terms is needed to better recognise the efforts of farmers and crofters to restore peatlands, manage for nature and plant trees on their holdings. Regional land use partnerships have been widely accepted as a way of accelerating change. Five partnerships have been created—I know that Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council have a partnership in my region.

Cabinet secretary, can you help me gain a better appreciation of the importance of regional land use partnerships and the progress that is being made? What can be done by way of facilitation with the right tools and the right equipment so that land-use decisions can be made and strategic policy development can be achieved?

Thank you for that question. I have alluded to my belief that, in general, farmers and crofters do not get the credit that they deserve for what they do, whether in relation to biodiversity or in other areas.

The partnerships have a role to play in bringing people together. They are being piloted in several areas of Scotland, including in the Cairngorms national park, where there are already groups such as Cairngorms Connect. We are not starting from a standing start. Discussion among local landowners and users and those who play a significant part in the rural economy is always a good thing and has been taking place informally for many years. Formalising the partnerships will give us more opportunities to explore what more can be done. They should not be seen as an enemy, a challenge or an encumbrance; they should be seen as an enabler, a facilitator and a way forward that will allow us to work together to achieve what are extremely challenging climate change targets. I do not directly lead that work, but I support it, and I think that it can play a very useful role.

Our local NFUS branch has spoken very favourably of the regional land use partnership that has been created in Dumfries and Galloway. Are there other mechanisms that can be supported so that change can be managed? Are there other objectives that need to be looked at? Many people will need to work together so that we can connect the forestry folk, the farming folk and everybody across all sectors.

A lot has been done, some of it at a very practical level. Sadly, that work has been curtailed because of lockdown restrictions. I have been at many agricultural shows, including the Royal Highland Show, where I visited the Forestry Commission—now Scottish Forestry—tent. I have seen the increase, even over the past five years, in the number of farmers who come along to have a look and a chat, asking, “Is this right for me and my farm?”, and who then follow that up.

Scottish Forestry has run a terrific scheme from one of its conservancies. An expert in silviculture goes round the farm with the farmer and then has a cup of tea in the farm kitchen and a chat about whether agroforestry is suitable for that farm and what that would involve, including the financial side. It is a great scheme.

I would also like to see more assistance for smaller farmers and crofters who do not have access to large amounts of capital, perhaps through a funding scheme that would allow them to participate in agroforestry or crofting forestry. I would like to get them a bit more financial assistance, perhaps through bridging finance to pay the planting costs upfront, which could then be repaid within a relatively short period by forestry grants, when they become available.

We are starting to focus on removing the barriers for the smaller guys—the small farms and the crofters—to participate in agroforestry, but we could well do more of that in the years ahead.

Stakeholders have highlighted the need for a whole-food-system approach to enable agriculture to meet emissions reductions targets. That approach would involve procurement, local supply chains and diet. What is the Scottish Government doing to support a whole-food-system transition to net zero? Why have policies on procurement and diet not been included in the plan?

As part of our good food nation vision, a diverse range of work on the food system is already going ahead in Scotland across health, social justice and environmental sustainability. I have been involved in encouraging the procurement of locally produced food in Scotland by schools and across the public sector, for example. In our good food nation vision, we have a great number of methods for seeing the food system transition to net zero.

As I said, not everything is mentioned in the climate change plan because we already have policies across the range of Scottish Government activity—in public health, for example—which aim to achieve our objectives.

The updated plan reaffirms commitments to the ambition to double the value of food and drink exports by 2030 to £30 billion. Has the Scottish Government mapped out a pathway to ambition 2030 that is compatible with statutory targets for the 75 per cent reduction in emissions by that date? It is very ambitious, but at the same time we have to meet climate change targets. Are the two things compatible?

That is a fair question. I think that they are compatible. My vision is that we continue to be a producer of high-quality food across the spectrum. As you well know, Mr Chapman, we have centuries of expertise and experience, and real experts in every sector where we are active. The world needs food and we produce it. The aquaculture sector also can do more in producing food that, arguably, has the lowest carbon footprint—namely, farmed fish.

I do not want to be negative or political, but our plan is a pre-Brexit plan. In the immediate aftermath of Brexit, we have seen massive disruption to our exports of seafood and food. I alluded to this earlier, but meat exports are down by a staggering 80 per cent in some areas, and some types of meat and fish are banned from export. I do not want to be negative because, as everybody knows, I am a positive chap by nature, but I cannot help but allude to the very practical issues that are causing massive problems for businesses right now in Scotland.

Forgive me, but my focus is not on 2030. My focus is on 2021. I am trying to get this boorach sorted oot as much as I can, although many of the problems rest with the UK Government to sort oot.

Can I just add—

No, you cannot, Mr Chapman. I have to get the final question in. I ask the deputy convener to be as concise as possible, and the cabinet secretary to be even more concise.

The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee heard evidence on the protection of blue carbon hotspots in the marine environment, which may benefit from fisheries management steps such as the separation of mobile and static fishing gear. How will the Scottish Government ensure that the blue economy action plan reconciles the need to ensure protection of natural capital such as blue carbon and marine biodiversity hotspots with the socioeconomic priorities of fishing and coastal communities?

We recognise in our future fisheries management strategy the overall need to fish sustainably and to transition to net zero goals. Our vision is to establish and grow the recognition of the blue economy as a natural capital asset in Scotland that significantly contributes to economy recovery. The blue economy action plan takes a holistic approach that sees environmental stewardship of the marine environment as key to sustainability.

I could say more, but I always endeavour to be concise, as the convener has just requested.

I do not always agree with you, and I may not agree with that comment, either, but we will leave it there. Thank you very much.

The committee will consider our response to the climate change plan update in the coming weeks. I thank you and your team for attending the meeting to answer our questions.