The minister asked for an answer, so she should let me answer and not barrack me from a sedentary position.

I do not believe that it is up to the UK Government to do that. SSEN should step up to the plate and deal with communities properly.

Turning to other ways of dealing with our problem, I note that we could be generating more electricity than we are at the moment by using hydrogen. At times when we are generating power and it is not being used, hydrogen is also a very good way of storing that power. I accept that the UK Government has a role in that. For example, it could ask electricity companies to ensure that 20 per cent of the electricity that is used is generated from hydrogen. We could also use more hydro-treated vegetable oil to allow vehicles to run on non-fossil fuels and older cars to be allowed into low-emission zones.

I support the electric vehicle infrastructure fund that the Government announced last year. It has to deliver more charging points by 2026. The Government will say that we have more charging points per head than anywhere else in the UK, but that makes no difference if there is not one in a person’s locality. The Government promised £30 million for that, and it was to generate £30 million from private investment. However, I have not seen the £30 million from the Government and I have heard no news of the £30 million from private investment. Perhaps the minister could address that when she sums up.

My understand is that that is different to arbitration. Jeremy Moody may correct me.

Sorry to interrupt, Sarah.

Bob, I commend you for your quietness throughout the meeting. Now the floor is yours.

We have run out of time, which is annoying, because I had one further question, but I will let the witnesses write in with a response, if they want to. At the beginning of this session, you all said that the bill would not create any more agricultural tenancies. I would like you to consider providing us with a note of what you think might create more agricultural tenancies. It would be helpful to get one idea from each of you. I would be happy to receive written answers on that after the committee meeting. If you crib Lord Gill’s words about making agricultural tenancies simpler, I will know where that has come from.

Thank you very much for the evidence that you have given this morning, which has been very helpful. We will look at the bill again after recess. At this stage, we are not quite sure when we will take it up again—that will depend on what happens with other legislation.

We will have a brief suspension to allow the witnesses to depart. If committee members could be back here at 11.25, that would be very helpful.

The next item on the agenda is consideration of a type 1 consent notification relating to a UK statutory instrument. On 29 May, the Minister for Climate Action notified the committee of the proposed UK SI. As with the previous item, the UK Government is seeking the Scottish Government’s consent to legislate in an area of devolved competence. Again, the committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the UK Government making the regulations within the area of devolved competence in the manner that the UK Government has indicated to the Scottish Government.

If members are content for consent to be given, the committee will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. In writing to the Scottish Government, we have the option to pose a question or ask to be kept up to date on relevant developments. If the committee is not content with the proposal, we can make recommendations, which I can go through. Before we do that, do committee members have any views?

Absolutely. We can ask the Government for the impact assessment of the species and ask it to make sure that that is available in the future. The committee is agreed on that, so we will move into private session.

I get enthralled listening to the questions and answers. My problem is that I have other committee members who will be nipping my head. I note that there are about 12 different sets of questions that people want to go through. There was a positive and a negative note from Jeremy. Maybe we could gently leave it there and I will move to the deputy convener to come in with his questions. I apologise, Douglas.

Agenda item 3 is on a United Kingdom subordinate legislation consent notification. We are considering a type 1 consent notification relating to a proposed statutory instrument, the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024. On 21 May, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy notified the committee of the proposed UK SI. The instrument will involve the UK Government legislating in a devolved area of competence, and it is seeking the Scottish Government’s consent to do so.

Members will recall that we discussed our approach to consideration of this UK SI on 11 June and agreed to write to the Scottish Government and stakeholders to seek their views on the proposal. The Scottish Government’s response is provided in an annex in the committee papers. Other responses were circulated to members last Friday.

The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the UK Government making the regulations within devolved competence and in the manner that the UK Government has indicated to the Scottish Government. If members are content for consent to be given, the committee will write to the Scottish Government accordingly.

In writing to the Scottish Government, we have various options. We can draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions to it and/or ask to be kept up to date on relevant developments. If the committee is not content with the proposal, it may make one or two recommendations, which we could come to.

Do members have any comments?

Good morning, and welcome to the 23rd meeting in 2024 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. We have apologies from Monica Lennon and I welcome her substitute, Sarah Boyack, to the meeting.

The first item on the agenda is a decision on taking items 5, 6, 7 and 8 in private. Item 5 is consideration of the evidence that we will hear today on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Item 6 is consideration of correspondence about appointments to the Scottish Land Commission. Item 7 is consideration of correspondence about an appointment to Environmental Standards Scotland. Item 8 is consideration of the committee’s work programme. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The issue is quite niche, Christopher, and a lot of other committee members want to come in. Jackie Dunbar has the next set of questions, and then I will move to Sarah Boyack.