Chamber and committees

You have mentioned in your presentation some of the excellent work that countries such as Belgium, Sweden, Germany and Costa Rica have done. Should the Scottish Government and the UK Government look in detail at what is happening in those countries and try to implement some of those measures here, rather than reinvent the wheel and come up with something new that might or might not work? Adapting successful measures from elsewhere could save a lot of time and effort, if that can be done.

Human scientific ingenuity should not be ruled out. In my constituency, DSM, which employs around 350 people, has developed a feed additive called Bovaer, which will reduce the amount of methane emissions from cattle by between 30 and 90 per cent, depending on what type of cattle they are—dairy or beef—and on what their feed is. That would cost much less than retrofitting huge numbers of houses, for example, and it could have a significant impact on the environment. That example shows that there are a number of other areas that we could consider.

An investment of £100 million-plus will be made in that factory. The food additive will be marketed worldwide, and it has already had regulatory approval in the European Union. You spoke about changing some of the subsidies for agriculture. We could perhaps incentivise farmers to use that safe food additive to reduce methane, rather than progress some of the more complex methods that are currently being considered.

That advert for DSM is now over. I will open up to questions from around the table.

Douglas Lumsden touched on the issue of ferries. Ferries are now being designed to be hybrid but, given that they can last upwards of 25 years, smaller ones are now being designed so that they can be retrofitted. They might be fitted with hybrid power systems now, but in five years’ time they might have to switch to electric, and in 10 years’ time they might change to hydrogen or whatever. That is now being built into the design of ferries. After all, it is not just buses, cars and trains that we have to make more environmentally friendly.

John Mason is next.

You can ask another, if you like.

Scotland’s only no-take zone is in my constituency, so we can do a lot more in the marine area. However, I will stick to land at the moment.

You have said that it would be great to increase the number of squirrels, pine martens, birds and so on, but what about increasing the number of apex predators? Wolves died out in Scotland in the 17th or 18th century, and bears died out perhaps 1,000 years earlier. Minnesota has reintroduced wolves, but the move was viciously opposed for understandable reasons by farmers and people who were brought up on “Little Red Riding Hood” and so on and thought that wolves would have a severe impact on human populations, which they do not. I do not think that Scotland is quite ready for such a reintroduction, but might it be palatable in the decades to come? The red deer population in Scotland is high because there is a lack of predation. Is that an argument for introducing a predator that could reduce their numbers, so that we could protect the trees—an issue that we have just been talking about—without introducing culling?

I am sorry, but I must interrupt you. I neglected to give apologies from our deputy convener, Daniel Johnson, who is unable to be with us because he has Covid and is quite unwell. I apologise for forgetting to say that and for interrupting you, Mr Blackburn, but I wanted to put that on the record.

Yes—waiting for decisions to be made can be quite frustrating. However, if we are looking at something that is about cost cutting and that involves a host of Government departments, umpteen ministers, consultation and so on, we need to try to make sure that we do not end up with unintended consequences. For example, we do not want some people being so heavily penalised that they could go out of business, whereas other people make a killing out of it. We need to try to get the balance right. We need to get the 10-year programme, or whatever it might be, right. There would have to be checks and balances, because there is no doubt that decisions would be made that would prove to be wrong when it came to delivery, because nothing ever works as one would hope.

On constraints, you talked about a UK solution. You mentioned the importance of working with the UK, and I think that everyone would agree that that is essential on this huge issue. However, we cannot always move at the pace of the slowest caravan, so should the Scottish Government look at things on two levels—what the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government can deliver in one sphere, and what we can deliver with the co-operation of the UK in another? Is that possible? Can that be done on a parallel track?

Even if there were an overall increase in tax take, there is still a potential for the imposition of significant costs on the public through laws or regulations. For example, we were told that the installation of renewable heat in people’s homes could cost up to £33 billion over the next eight years. The cost per house is colossal. There is about £1.8 billion available for that. If we assume that we have heating engineers to deliver the programme within eight years—I am dubious about that—how do we deliver those admirable ideas in practical terms, both financially and ensuring that we have the people to deliver them on the ground?

Australia has had road pricing for 20 years. You have an electric chip in your car, you drive along a motorway and you do not have to stop at any tollbooths or anything. You drive along, and you pass these things every 5km or whatever it happens to be. It is almost like being in a taxi—the meter keeps ticking over. If Australia has been doing that for 20 years, there is no reason why it cannot be done here, although, as you said, it will not be very popular. It would probably have to be met with reductions in other motor-related tax. One of the things about road tax is that it is not all spent on the roads—it just goes into general taxation.

Well, they will not happen without significant fiscal measures, so I think that it is an important fiscal issue for us. If farmers are not incentivised, they will just not do it; it is as simple as that.

Thank you for your evidence. We appreciate your giving us your time this morning, and thank you for your excellent report and for answering our questions. Your report will inform the committee’s approach to examining the finances of our net zero ambitions and areas beyond that, and we will consider the issues again at a future meeting.

We will now move into private session.