G Fantasy is taking a decision on taking business in private. At agenda 1 we have consideration of whether to take items 4 5 and 6 in private. Item 4 is the consideration of a letter to the Scottish Government with the committees' conclusions on the draft biodiversity strategy. Item 5 is consideration of evidence heard today and have previous meetings on the Local Government inquiry. Item 6 is consideration of evidence heard on the programme for government for government today. Are we all happy, committee members, to take these items in private?" Yes. We are agreed. We can move on to agenda item two, which is the last evidence session as part of our inquiry into the role of local government and its cross-sectorial partners in financing and delivering a net zero Scotland. I defer members to the clartes and Felly, mae'r cymdeithas iawn, ac mae'n gwybod cyfrifio'r cwiraidd yn dewsgol i'w pethau am gweithio'r ganunio o'r ysgolhau Llewyddon yn cyfnodol i Gwyrdd Nett Zero. Gweithwch yn ysgol, mae'n gweithio i'w pethau o'r ysgolhau, ac mae'n gweithio i'w pethau a'r ysgolhau i'w pethau i'w pethau i'w pethau. ond we will conclude with the evidence from the Scottish Government. I would like to welcome Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy and Transport, Ben Macpherson, the Minister for Social Security and the Local Government, and I also believe that you have Gareth Fenney, the head of heat networks and investment. I hope that I pronounced that right, and if I didn't, I apologise. Philip Rains, the Deputy Director of Domestic Climate Change and Ian Story, the head of local government finance in the Scottish Government. We had allocated about 75 minutes for this, but due to circumstances beyond all of our control, we might have to reduce that slightly. Cabinet Secretary, we have allowed you a brief opening statement, and you will know from previous committees that you and I have attended together. I would like to keep that down to about two minutes maximum, so you have your two minutes, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you for your invitation to join the committee today. This inquiry has been invaluable in exploring the complex nature of the decarbonisation challenge across all 32 of Scotland's local authorities. I am very grateful for the evidence that has been provided to the committee from a range of stakeholders over the course of recent months. This is also the second day of Scotland's climate week 2020, which is an annual initiative to celebrate Scotland's action in progress that we are making around the climate emergency. I want to start by acknowledging the vital role that local government in the transition to net zero and the significant progress that councils have already made in moving towards achieving net zero. I am encouraged to see the end-user emissions have fallen significantly across all Scottish local authorities between 2005 and 2020, an overall drop of some 10.6 per cent between 2019 and 2020, with two Scottish local authorities exhibiting the largest reductions in emissions among all UK local authorities between those years. Western Bartonshire is showing a 28 per cent reduction, and Highland is showing a reduction of some 24 per cent. However, although good progress has been made to date, I recognise that there is still a very long way to go. Throughout the inquiry, you have heard the interlinked role that local government has with cross sectorial partners and the Scottish Government in driving forward our journey to becoming a net zero nation. All of the challenges that have been highlighted during the inquiry are made all the more acute during the present cost crisis. However, our priorities remain that you can be assured that the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to being a steadfast partner with local government in tackling the global climate emergency. In recognising the capacity challenges of gearing projects off the ground, the Scottish Government is working with COSLA to explore additional support to help local authorities to develop their pipeline of low-carbon projects. We will set out our energy strategy and just transition plan later this year. That will provide a road map for the energy sector's role in achieving our emission reduction targets and securing a net zero energy system for Scotland. We have also allocated £194 million this year to help to reduce energy bills and climate emissions to our warmer homes Scotland, area-based schemes and Home Energy Scotland. Those are just a few of the key examples of how we are working with local government to address the crucial issues raised throughout the inquiry. However, as you know, we must work together to do more to meet our climate targets and avert further irreversible damage. I am happy to respond to any questions that the committee may have. We are going to just dive straight into questions, because there is quite a lot of them. The first question is going to come from Monica Lennon. I wanted to start by asking about the impact of public sector pay increases, the recently announced spending cuts and inflationary pressures. How will all of those impacts on the ability of local authorities to deliver on these important net zero ambitions? Some of the inflationary pressures that are in Bend can pick up on the wider public sector finance situation and funding for pay increases. There is no doubt that the increasing inflationary pressures that are being experienced by local authorities will potentially have an impact. It is difficult to quantify and to set out exactly to what extent it will have an impact, but the cost base for carrying out capital works has increased because of material costs, increased labour costs as well. That will clearly put pressures on their budgets, as it is for the Scottish Government as well and other parts of the public sector. There is no doubt in my mind that it will have an impact, but it is difficult at this stage to quantify that. It is also worth keeping in mind that some of the pay challenges that local government has faced has resulted in additional funding being provided to local government to try and help to meet and offset some of the additional costs associated with the pay awards. That was, as part of our on-going engagement with COSR, to try and help to resolve the pay disputes that were taking place. Ben, you might want to see a bit more about that in terms of local government financing. Just to build on what the cabinet secretary has said, I would add that within the pay negotiations and also within the fiscal framework discussions and considerations around the new deal, there are also discussions going on between officials and at elected level on ring fencing and the future settlement for local government in the next financial year. I am sure that the committee might have questions around the fiscal framework and the new deal, but all of that has also been considered within the pay negotiations in recent months. That is helpful, thank you both. I wonder if I can come back to you then minister. Where have we got to in terms of the Scottish Government looking at current council tax system? Is there a further review in light of the spending pressures that we have just heard about? The council tax specifically or local government funding in the round? Council tax. Council tax specifically. The last engagement, as far as I can recall and I will bring Ian Story in in a moment, that took place on the future of the council tax between parties is when I was public finance minister back in the spring of 2020. Those discussions at the agreement of all parties who were involved at the Conservative party excluded themselves from those discussions. As far as I can recall, those were then postponed. Following the election and the bute house agreement, there is a commitment within the bute house agreement for public engagement on the future of the council tax and considerations around the citizens assembly, but that would be a question for the public finance minister to answer on any further detail. Is there a further review in light of the current activity in that area? Not so much on the future of council tax, but as the minister has alluded to, the concept of council tax and what that means for local government is a key part of the fiscal framework discussions, which are looking at all sources of council funding both current and potentially in the future. In terms of the political decisions, I think that the minister for public finance may be better to handle that one. My other questions are different topics, so I'm happy to stop you there. I'm going to stop you there. I'm not sure you're going to get much on that one at the moment, so Liam, to you, and then on to the deputy convener afterwards. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. The cabinet secretary talked about resources to councils, and Ben Macpherson talked about ring fencing. We heard from COSLA last week that 70 per cent of funding that is going to local authorities is ring fenced. The suggestion that they made to committee was that fewer but larger and more flexible funds would better facilitate the just transition to net zero. On that specific point, is there a way that the Scottish Government can provide more flexibility within the current funding arrangements? Is it your view, secondly, that fewer but more flexible and larger funding streams would be a better mechanism? In any event, do you foresee any risks of fewer but flexible arrangements? Thank you, Mr Kerr, for the question. May I just premise it by saying that the work of this committee on this inquiry is really helpful in the wider challenge of all of us to make progress on net zero and to work collaboratively with local government as different spheres of government all engaged in an important process of work to make a difference for the communities that we serve. Just for a point of detail, the Scottish Government disputes that 70 per cent figure. We would argue that local authorities have discretion to allocate 93 per cent or 11.8 billion of the current financial year settlement of the funding that we provide, plus that they also have discretion of course over all locally raised income. However, the point around ring fencing and how we work together on shared progress and accountability for national outcomes that both local government and central government as different spheres of government want to see progress on is all part of the discussions around the fiscal framework that are continuing at pace. The discussions on that at the elected level and official level are about how we, in the next financial year, get to a position where local government and central government are both working on an understanding of having gone through a process of considering the current ring fencing, what is the best scenario for the financial year ahead and those thereafter. I think that the evidence that you have collected around the size of different funding allocations is helpful, and it will be part of the considerations that are on-going around the fiscal framework between the finance ministers and the finance spokesperson for COSLA. I have no further questions at this stage. Good morning. Recognising that delivering net zero is a massive task. Recognising the independence of local authorities, what we have heard from councils are that they do not just need fiscal resource, they also need experience and skills. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary in particular whether the call for some kind of centralised pool of expertise in training resource but also skills to go into local authorities to help them maybe on a seconded basis when they have major projects, whether it is investment, infrastructure, different areas would be something that you might be open to. I know that we have the Scottish Sustainability Network and that collaboration and advice is really important, but the experience is really needed and the private sector could maybe snap up those people in councils that are valued at this, but is there a way of helping to share that, because not everybody can be like Dundee or Glasgow or Edinburgh where we have heard that there is a great deal of experience and a real drive, not all local authorities have access to that? I think that this is a really important issue because I think that I have been obviously financed as an important issue, but having the right skills and the right people is also extremely important in being able to deliver on your net zero objectives at a local authority level. It is an issue that we have tried to address through a variety of different means. For example, the sustainable network is one practical route of doing that, which is about pulling together and drawing together, share the expertise, experience within the public sector so that we can actually cascade that out to the whole of the sector, those who participate in it, as a means be tried to help to achieve that. There are also some funding streams that are available to local authorities that can help them to do some of the pre-capital stages of plans that they are looking at where they can get some funding to help to resource additional capacity to carry out some of the work around modelling, design, planning matters around net zero to help to support them in achieving that as well. I think that there is also a bigger issue that we probably have to do more on, and that is around not necessarily always additional staff, but the skills base of the staff that they have at the present moment in upskilling them. You will be well aware of the climate emergency skills action plan, which is all about looking to try to help to develop the skills that are needed to tackle the climate emergency. Most of that is targeted at those who are already within the private sector, to some extent. I think that there is a need for us to look at where there is more to do here in helping to support those within our public sector. I cannot say to you that we have a specific way in which we are going to do that, but I think that it is one of the issues that is becoming increasingly an important aspect that we need to work with COSR on to look at how we can address what they view as potential skills gap amongst their own staff to help to upskill them in developing plans and proposals around net zero. I am certainly happy to take that away and look at how we can help to develop that further. I cannot say to you that, particularly on financial expertise to leverage in private finance, everybody says that local public funding is not going to be sufficient to do what we need to do, so leverage in private funding is going to be essential. Those skills are very few and far between, and it is how we do, particularly in that area. There are a couple of ways in which we have tried to address some of that. One of the things, for example, that we have been developing over the course of the past two years, is some of the expertise that the Scottish Futures Trust can actually bring to the table, given the expertise and skills in helping to pull together projects and to use some of the expertise that they have got in engaging with a private sector. For example, we have taken some of that forward around aspects such as EV charging points and looking at areas such as fleet replacement for local government and trying to help to pull some of that together. We have also been looking at whether there is further work that they can take with COSR to help to drive up some of the expertise that they can bring to local government in helping to support them in meeting some of those challenges. There are some resources that we already have that we can better utilise to help to support our colleagues in local government, but I think that there is a genuine issue there about what we can do to help to upskill some of our public sector workers. I can move on to the Minister for Social Security and Local Government, particularly on the new deal that has been prepared. How convinced are you that net zero will be at the heart of this, as it needs to be, to ensure that we can deliver on the new deal, and particularly in relation to how local authorities manage a place-based approach to net zero, because the comments that we have just heard from the cabinet secretary were about fleet replacement, and it was about UV charging. Some of that is for private sector owners of cars, or a lot of what we will expect councils to do is help to lead action, which is about private ownership of housing. How are you facturing in what local authorities are going to have to do to lead a place-based, not just a public sector, local authority responsibility-led approach to net zero? How has that been built in to the new deal discussions and negotiations, and how can local authorities be resourced to do things that are outside their direct responsibility for the public sector housing, schools and so on? Come on to the new deal in a second, because I think that, to emphasise an important point that Deputy convener made at the start of our questioning to the cabinet secretary, was that local authorities are independent corporate bodies with their own powers and responsibilities? I know that that was a point that Councillor Gil McGregor emphasised in her evidence last week, that local authorities need to be able to develop initiatives that work for their local areas. The new deal is about how do we, between central government and local government, recognise that both aspects of government are important spheres of not just delivery but development of policy? Get to a place where we are working jointly from the next financial year onwards on our shared priorities and national outcomes that we both want to deliver. Of course, net zero is a cross-cutting policy area within that that is of the highest pertinence. Just like local government is a cross-cutting consideration across the different spheres of portfolio responsibility within the Scottish Government. The development of the new deal is going well. Through the summer officials met officials in COSLA over 10 times as part of their intensive collaboration on the fiscal framework. As the new deal develops, as you will know, it is the fiscal framework for local government, which is intended to establish agreed ways of working on the fiscal relationship, as I have said already, in greater transparency and, importantly, accountability. Alongside that is the partnership agreement, which provides the framework for specific policy agreements based on shared value based overarching agreement on outcomes and accountability. It will be in that partnership agreement space where considerations around how we work together on the net zero agenda are being developed and, of course, the resourcing is part of that within the fiscal framework. That is about working with COSLA in order to make sure that, from the next financial year onwards, we have an agreed new deal settlement where we are focusing on where we collaborate and what we can do together rather than the sometimes more polarised position that has been articulated in the public domain in years past. My experience, not just in this role but in others in government, is that when central government and local government work together, what can be achieved is really significant and makes such a constructive difference. As a Parliament, as a democracy, the more that we emphasise the good work that is going on between local and central government, the more that we can make progress together. I think that this committee's work on net zero has certainly shone a light on what has been done well and what can be done more together. I look forward to working with local government colleagues at the presidential team to progress that. I am sure that colleagues across the different portfolio areas look forward to working with their COSLA spokespeople on the shared agenda. I want to ask the cabinet secretary whether he is convinced that that partnership agreement and the new deal will be strong enough to deliver on net zero because he has the overall responsibilities across the Government? There are a number of things that sit alongside the new deal as well. That is the statutory requirements that local authorities have now got. They have gone from having had to regard to tackling climate change, to setting out plans on how they intend to achieve net zero and to tackle climate change, and now setting out targets for when they expect to decarbonise particular parts of their local government responsibilities. There is a regulatory framework that clearly requires local authorities to set out the actions that they are taking and what date they expect to achieve net zero on different areas of their responsibilities. That combination of partnership through the new deal and that regulatory framework gives me confidence that it will ensure that net zero is a central part of their thinking. You may have heard that in your evidence. From my discussions with colleagues and local government, it is very clear to me that it is a high priority for them. The way in which they go about it is different in different local authorities for good reason very often, but I am confident that it is a regulatory framework that can help to drive it forward. Natalie, do you want to ask your question? Thank you, convener. Good morning. I am interested in the role of communities in this. What can the Scottish Government do to ensure that communities become key partners in achieving net zero? Do you feel that there is a need for a fundamental change in culture and practice throughout central and local government to include community groups? We have heard so far that it has been quite sporadic between different local authorities. If so, what can be done to support this, whether that is training or guidance or more flexible funding options? If you look at the measures that have to be taken in order to achieve net zero, about 60 per cent of the actions that have to be taken involve some form of behaviour change. If you are looking to achieve that scale and level of behaviour change, you have to take communities with you. You have to do that on a partnership basis. There will be some local authorities that are better at that than others. I see that. I witness that at a local level. A big part of it is down to the skills and ability of officers within a local authority. It has been able to develop those partnerships. Collaboration with local communities is extremely important. How our local authority chooses to do that depends on its circumstances. The way in which it might want to do it in a very urban area might be different from the way in which it wants to do it in a particularly rural local authority area. However, it should be looking to try to engage with local communities around its climate change plans, the targets that it is setting, the process that it is going about, implementation of policy. It should not be part of the local engagement programme with local communities and to make sure that they are facilitating the opportunity for local communities to feed into that. Whether it be through area committees, community councils, other engagement mechanisms that they have, they can use all of those different structures. However, it has to be meaningful and it has to allow communities to feel their part of the journey and their effect in the plans and the way in which they are taking and following the plans locally. Do you feel that any new forms of democracy might help to ensure that community involvement? How do you think that those should be initiated and supported? For example, climate citizens assemblies or local net zero forums. How do you ensure that, if we take those steps that everybody is included in the communities, it is not just the people who are usually involved in those kind of things? As you say, we need to include everyone. I do not think that there is a set formula on how you should do it. You should have a net zero forum or you should have a local citizens assembly. I think that they all have a role to play. It is for individual local authorities to deploy that in a way that they think is best to reflect their local community. However, the challenge here is how do you reach out to engage people who might not necessarily engage in the normal processes that local authorities have, so whether it be to community councils or area forums etc. I can only think about my constituency basis. There is a challenge in trying to get people to engage in some of the wider consultation exercises that local authorities undertake. I think that the key thing in my view that I often hear from constituents is that they feel at times as though some of the engagement is tokenistic that they are going through a process that there is a preconceived view on what the outcome will actually be. It does not really matter what the community has actually got to say about it or what their feedback is and what will happen now. Some of that I do not think is necessarily always the case, but there are times when communities feel that is the case and that can make folk feel quite disengaged and disempowered and feel as though it is not a worthwhile exercise. The key thing for local authorities is that whatever engagement structure they put in place is that there is clear cause and effect that they can demonstrate to communities that this is the issue that we are trying to address. Those are the options that we are considering, but we are looking for your views and your feedback on that and to be able to demonstrate how that feedback, that engagement has actually had an impact on the decision that has been arrived at. I think that that type of engagement in communicating with local communities is really important to make people feel as though they have got a valuable input to the process and that has had an impact on the outcome. That is about demonstrating how the process has affected the final decision that has been made, but it is a challenge that I think that lots of local authorities face in trying to engage people in wider stakeholders in the process. Just one quick follow-up. One quick follow-up and all I am going to say is that Cabinet Secretary, a quick follow-up with a quick answer so that I can get on to the others. Always We are talking about encapsulating the wider public. Do you feel that local and national government could align their work better to inform the public about climate change, mitigation and adaptation in effect to encourage people to change their behaviours and get involved in the things that we are talking about? The challenge is that at times I find that there can be an expectation that tackling climate change is always someone else's responsibility and someone else will do it for me. The big part that I have always emphasised is that we all have to take individual responsibility and collectively will actually achieve those targets. It is about making sure that things like the citizens assemblies, the process that we have gone through there is that the input that we get from that that we utilise to help to formulate our thinking and our planning and policies so that people can see that there is clear cause and effect from engaging in the process. However, if we are to achieve the big behaviour change that is necessary, then people need to feel that they are part of that and that they have a responsibility. So that individual responsibility and the role that individuals play is really important in achieving net zero. Mark, you wanted to come in with a supplementary just a moment ago. Yeah, thanks, convener. I just wanted to go back to what you said, Cabinet Secretary, about the regulatory framework for local authorities in relation to climate. It links in with what you are saying, Minister, about developing this new deal for local authorities. Do you think that there are more duties that local authorities need to have within that framework? The impression that I get at the moment is that some local authorities are very much focused on their own corporate emissions and doing what they can to reduce emissions within that scope, but less thinking about the wider emissions from the wider area in place making. I do not know if you think that there are more duties that need to be placed on local authorities. So placing more duties on local authorities, I can imagine the reaction that that will receive. I think that that is a fair point. A lot of what local authorities are focused on is their direct corporate responsibility in looking to decarbarise and change their processes to make them less carbon intensive, if that may be. Is there a need for us to get them to think about widening that? I think that some local authorities are better at it than others. If you look at some of the things that some local authorities are doing around transport issues, such as active travel, some are doing around EV charging infrastructure as well, some of what they are doing around things such as the 20-minute neighbourhoods, all of those things have an effect on the community and a positive effect. I think that they are not direct corporate matters, but they have wider community environmental benefits. There is still a fair amount being taken for by local authorities that go beyond just their direct corporate buildings and vehicles. I think that there is a fair challenge here in questioning whether there is more that we could actually get local authorities to do. I am a bit hesitant to put more statutory targets around them at this stage, given the new statutory targets that come in two months' time around their own targets for reductions. I suppose that there is a hint of that in the programme for government, where you talk about potential new duties on public bodies to take account of wellbeing and sustainable development. That feels like more futures thinking, which obviously encapsulates some of the climate change. I do not know minister if you have anything to add to that. I do not have a huge amount to add beyond what the cabinet secretary said except to say that, of course, local authorities and the Scottish Government work collaboratively around the national performance framework, which has both place making and wellbeing encapsulated in the outcomes that we are seeking to achieve together. That is a key part of how we work collaboratively across government with local authorities. To pick up on the previous conversation that relates to that, building on the Community Empowerment Act 2015, the last Parliament was a very good piece of work undertaken in the local governance review. Part of the work in the new deal will be to act collaboratively between local government and central government on how we progress the local governance review. That will involve considerations around engagement with communities and progress on the wellbeing agenda. Just before we move on to the next lot of questions, I was just taken by the fact that from the evidence that we heard local authorities felt that there were about 70 per cent of their funds, Minister, that were ring-fenced and you were saying 7 per cent of their funds seems diametrically opposed in the way forward. On the principle, there will be some national targets. Achieving those national targets will be difficult because there isn't a mass of money to throw at them, money is tight in all sectors. Do you foresee ring-fencing becoming a key part of your armory to ensure that the national targets are achieved at local government level? That is a question for all of Government, but I will bring Ian in on the point of ring-fencing and the percentages to just provide a bit more detail on that. The funding that is allocated and the considerations around ring-fencing are all based around decisions that a lot of which this Parliament takes on shared outcomes that we agree is a democracy that we want to see and then working collaboratively between the different spheres of government to deliver that. Local authorities have argued and engaged constructively in a process of how we get to a position where local authorities have the flexibility that they feel would be beneficial for them to meet those shared national outcomes and aspirations and targets that we want to see realised. That discussion of how we consider the balance into the next financial year and going forward is at the heart of both the discussions on the fiscal framework and the considerations around the new deal more widely. There has been good constructive discussion on ring-fencing, but the funding that is allocated to local government is for a lot of which where it is ring-fenced, so to speak, is around how we meet aspirations and policy targets and commitments that both spheres of government want to achieve. The discussions around the fiscal framework and the new deal are about where there is contention between central and local government on what would be the optimal position, and that is why we are engaged in this very constructive process of how we move this forward. We are short of time, so I'm very happy for Ian and via your office to send the committee your breakdown of what you consider to be ring-fenced funds. I'm not sure that I've had a specific answer from you. Do you think that ring-fencing is going to be important for the Government to be able to achieve the national targets that are being set? On climate change? Yes. Or more generally? On climate change? On climate change? I don't know if the cabinet secretary wants to add anything afterwards, but the targets that this Parliament sets and how local government and central government work collaboratively on the delivery of that. In fact, they said this last week to the committee that local government want to understandably be in a co-design relationship of how policy is developed and obviously contributed to the target setting of this Parliament on climate change. In terms of how that is delivered, there needs to be a structure. Do you just mean on resourcing? I think that you do on how that resourcing is properly structured in order to deliver the targets. However, as part of the considerations around the fiscal framework and the new deal, as I've said and as the cabinet secretary has alluded to as well, considerations around how we give local authorities the flexibility that they need to do what's right in their communities is part of how we're developing the new deal. Of course, I can't say more in the new deal because it's still in development and we'll be there for you to see as we go into the next financial year. I think that I'm going to leave that there because there are lots of questions, but it's obviously a naughty problem between ring fencing and non-ring fencing in front. I want to go to the deputy convener who's got some questions now. Have you got some? There might be some earlier ones, but on the theme still of financing, what do you think can be done by the Scottish Government and what are you doing to de-risk investments in net zero infrastructure and what barriers do you think are preventing more successful partnerships between councils and private investors and how do you make sure that there are investable opportunities because the criticism that we have is that they're not big enough, that the propositions are not big enough, so who helps to resolve that situation? Also, particularly because heat and transport are the big issues that we have to address, not all heat is in council housing and there's also social housing and private sector housing. How is that going to be financed and how do we make sure that we've got propositions of new finance models to make this happen? Is there a role whatsoever for local government in this? Is that what you're going to expect or if in a place-based approach who's going to do this? It's really around that wider investability and that big question which is how do we leave region the money and what role have local authorities got and what are you doing to support them and do you think they have any responsibility whatsoever for private sector housing in a place-based approach to tackle net zero? Number of big issues in there. In terms of private sector investment, there's absolutely no doubt that the public sector is not going to be able to pick up all the costs that are associated with the decarbonisation across a whole range of areas within local government and private sector investment. It's going to be critical to help to support that. It's also fair to say that there's a significant amount of private sector investment available for investment in the right types of propositions. One of the things that we developed was the global capital investment plan, which was published back in March last year, which aims to align between what investment opportunities there are in Scotland with that of what the private sector is looking to make investments in. Out of the outcome of that is the green investment portfolio, which brings together about £3 billion of potential projects that private sector investment could be made into. Some of that is across different local authorities in different parts of the public sector. What that is seeking to achieve, and this is one of the things that you get from private sector investors, is that they are looking for investment propositions of a scale that they believe that it actually merits their investment and that they ultimately will get some form of return on in the medium to longer term, which means that outwith maybe four or five big local authorities, even with them, they might struggle to actually get propositions together. That is the idea behind the green investment portfolio to try and help to bring together some of those proposals that local authorities have got to try and align that with what private sector investors are looking at. What could that be looking at? It could be looking at a whole range of propositions. It could be from looking at things like district heating opportunities and investment in the provision of district heating, which wouldn't be just for social housing, it would be for private premises and also potentially commercial premises as well. It looks at things like, for example, what we announced around EV charging in the partnership with the private sector over the course of the next couple of years and doubling the level of investment from private sector investment was about again trying to scale that up across local authorities to align with what private sector investors are looking for. We have created a mechanism that allows local authorities and other public sector organisations to come together to create propositions. There is some funding that is available from the Scottish Government that can help to do some of the pre-capital investment work around just developing those propositions in a form that could actually make them attractive to private investors. We have got a mechanism for doing some of that. I think that the key thing has actually started to make some of that become a reality and to see some of that investment start to flow into local authorities. I had previously launched the green investment portfolio. It was primarily private sector propositions at that point. It would be helpful to the committee if we get any examples of public sector council-led propositions that are part of that portfolio now. The issue that we have concerns about is that councils are telling us that they would carry the risk in terms of joint propositions and the scale of them. Most of them are probably city-based. What are we doing for the smaller local authorities in helping them to access the proposition of investments that we know are available? How would we help smaller local authorities? What can we do to help to de-risk it for local authorities in backing on putting forward an investment proposition? For some of the small local authorities, one of the aspects of that is to actually try to pull together proposals that some small local authorities may have that would not be attractive to private sector investors on their own. You could have several local authorities looking at doing something. If you take, for example, in someone like Ford Valley, someone like Falkirk Council would probably try to do something on its own but possibly working in partnership with Stirling and Clackmannanshire, or maybe West Lothian as well, bringing together a collective proposal is one of the mechanisms to try to help to make it work better for smaller local authorities than the big local authorities. I would also say that, even for some of our big local authorities, operating on their own for the scale of investments that some of them are looking at is probably not viable. Some of them will probably have to think about working in partnership with other big local authorities to get the scale that some private sector investors are looking for. In terms of de-risking it, I will need to take that away. It is obvious that the finance colleagues that lead on that matter, but I am more than happy to take that away to look at what we are doing to try to help to de-risk some of the challenges around that. I know that that is some of the work that the Scottish Futures Trust is doing around, for example, EV charging, on how to try to de-risk some of that for local authorities and private sector investment in it. I am more than happy to take away the issue about reducing the risk and your other point around local authority propositions that are in the GIP. I am more than happy to take that away and come back with some details on what propositions are going on. We are coming to the end of our inquiry, so if we could do that quite quickly, we would be happy to help you. I am happy to do that. Thank you. You have saved me chasing the cabinet secretary. Thank you. I mean it. Straight on to Jackie, who has been sat very quietly. It is your turn now. I am always quiet, convener. Good morning. My questions are around waste and circular economy. I will just get straight into them because I know we are short on time. Written evidence has highlighted the importance of innovation and skills and procurement to support a transition to circular economy. What support do you think the Scottish Government can provide local authorities to support circular economy approaches when they go out for procurement? Part of that goes back to the question that I was answering earlier on, which is about helping to develop some of the capacity that we have within local authority employees and officers of council to take forward net zero proposals. One of the organisations that works very closely with local authorities around things like circular economy is Zero Waste Scotland, and it can provide additional support and advice to local authorities. What in title should we have? It can provide training, but it can certainly provide assistance and expertise to local authorities around aspects of the circular economy. We are also looking through MPF4 to make some changes around the way in which building use is considered as part of the plan process to help to encourage and develop the circular economy. However, I think that the principal way in which to try to help to support local authorities is through the skills that local authority councillors or council officers need and making sure that we are utilising the expertise that we have in things like Zero Waste Scotland to already work very closely with local authorities around aspects of the circular economy. Evidence also emphasises the importance of re-use and repurposing existing buildings. I think that you just touched on that over the demolition and construction to reduce waste and embodied carbon. How can the Scottish Government strengthen decision making and planning legislation to encourage that so that local authorities just are not demolishing all the time? That is one of the things that we are trying to take forward through MPF4, which is due to get published in the next couple of months. Demolition should not be the default. It should be the last option that you are pursuing and looking at whether you can repurpose or redevelop the facility first. Part of the way in which we address that is through things like the guidance that we offer to local authorities through MPF4 so that they can make sure that it is embedded in their policy in development as we go forward. MPF4 will be laid before Parliament to make its views known on it as well, of course. Thank you, Jackie. I am happy with that. If you are, Monica, you have got a couple of follow-ups on that. Yeah, just briefly, convener, just some follow-ups although I could talk about planning all day, because I do believe that it has a big role to play in enabling sustainable development. You have mentioned MPF4, so I will come back to that briefly. I just wondered if you were able to say how the work that has been done around the circular economy agenda, how that aligns with Government's aspirations on community wealth building? Explain what you mean by that. How are the links together? Well, there are issues around procurement, I suppose, but in terms of, I suppose, your strategic approach, Cabinet Secretary, to make sure that when we have those very well-intentioned strategies that there is some alignment, so the work around circular economy does make us think about buildings and land, and then in terms of community wealth building, we want our local communities to get the most benefit from that and from any investment. Is there any work going on between departments and ministers to make sure that there is some alignment from those different work streams? Are you referring to the idea that, as in community asset transfers from local authorities to communities and how that fits into the circular economy process and how we make sure that if investments are being made in asset transfers that it is consistent with the circular economy approach? Yeah, that could be part of it and obviously more wider, so I just wonder to what extent the minister believe for planning in community wealth, Mr Arthur, is how much he's around the table when you're taking the temperature to see how well these things are going, but if that's maybe a question for Mr Arthur, I can pivot to NPF4. Yeah, I can maybe take it away because it is something that would sit much more on the planning side of the idea. One of the things that you will see in NPF4 is much clearer focus around helping to support meeting our net zero objectives and the guidance observation to local authorities around that. There's no doubt when it comes to looking at... One of the things I think you've got to be careful here of asset transfer in local authorities is that it's not simply a local authority getting rid of a problem facility for themselves on to the local community. It's got to be... I'm very clear of experiences locally where local authorities are transferring assets that they do so in good order and they don't leave a community with difficulty in being able to upgrade it to improve its insulation, its heating etc as well, so I think we have to think about how that would all fit in to make sure we're making these bills and sustainable going forward, but in your wider point I'm more than happy for us to take that away to see if we can get more details for you from a planning point of view. Yeah, that would be helpful to get some written follow-up because we've heard a lot in this inquiry about procurement and that will present challenges for approaches to circular economy, so yeah, we could follow that one up. On NPF4, Jackie Dunbarred talked about buildings and I just wonder in terms of the strategy outlined in NPF4, it does talk about a combination of incentives, investment and policy support to encourage development of brownfield land, so thinking more wider than just buildings. I just wonder if you're able to give us an update on what specific incentives are being planned to encourage more brownfield development. I would probably have to get a response more from those that deal with planning directly on the use of brownfield sites and how that's planned within NPF4. It doesn't sit in my policy area, it's not in my portfolio, so I don't want to start saying what the Government's position is in a matter that Evdra Cot on a policy area that our ministers deal with. In fairness, Monica and I could talk about planning all day, but I think there are quite niche areas within it, but I think it would be useful to get some feedback from on planning and how the welfare of communities is considered as part of the net zero and how we reuse buildings rather than just remove them. I think that's what you're driving at, so it would be helpful to have some feedback and I'm sure Cabinet Secretary you can get us for that. I'm going to slightly move on, although I could, as I say, talk about planning all day and move to Mark Ruskell, who's got some questions, I believe. I'll come back to transport again. Obviously now with national transport strategy, STPR2 has been a shift over time towards working with the transport hierarchy, prioritising active travel, prioritising public transport. Do you see that reflected, though, within local authority plans, local authority investment plans, city deals, local transport strategies, or is there a gap there? Are we all moving forward together, or are there some local authorities that may be still hanging on to high-carbon projects when the world has moved on? I think that you see it happening in some local authorities, so I think that you can see with the scale and level of investment that is now getting into aspects of active travel, that you can see clear, very considerable levels of ambition that some local authorities have got on helping to get the right type of active travel infrastructure in place. It's part reflected of the very significant increase in funding that we're making available to active travel. Given the priorities that we've set out in the national transport strategy and the investment hierarchy and the transport hierarchy, you can also see it by some of the ways in which local authorities are also looking at future delivery of transport provision within their areas as well. I'm looking at different models and different approaches, in which to take it forward. We are seeing, I think, some real ambition being set out by local authorities. Is there more that I'd like to see happening in some local authorities? Absolutely. A lot of it is dependent upon sometimes individual officers and their desire to pursue particular areas of policy, but I do think that we're starting to see aspects of the NTS hierarchy starting to become real policy on the ground, particularly in areas such as active travel and looking at wider transport provision within local authorities. Given the level of funding that we're putting into that in the coming years, I would expect that to continue to develop. Are there other issues around transport governance, around who's making decisions, who's implementing projects that need further consideration? Obviously, we've got the regional partnerships for transport planning in taking us forward. It's then down to individual local authorities. I would say that some local authorities are more proactive and better at it than others in pursuing areas around transport planning. Is there more? We gave a commitment to review the structure for transport planning, which will be taken forward in this Parliament to look at whether the structure is the optimal model to be taken forward. We want to do that on a co-productive basis with local authorities to make sure that whatever structure we put in place is one that is reflective of what they believe is the best approach alongside what we are trying to achieve as well around transport planning. The model that we have just now is the optimal model, but I think that there's scope for us to look at how we can improve on it. However, there are some local authorities that are making good progress. Okay, thanks. I'm just going to move on briefly to looking at nature-based solutions. I think that Jackie Dunbar might be interested in this area as well. Obviously, the climate and nature emergencies are running alongside each other, but there are also solutions to climate change that can come from investment in natural capital as well in council areas. Do you see ways that Scottish Government could enhance support to local authorities to do more of that work, to consider adaptation, to consider investment, to bring forward investable models that private capital can come in as well? It feels like often we're talking about climate and often we talk about nature, but some of the solutions and some of the tools and the planning and the investment required feels in a similar space. What can we learn from the work on climate when it comes to implementing nature-based solutions and improving natural capital? The aspects around nature-based solutions are really important in such alongside aspects such as tackling the biodiversity crisis that we face as well. How can we make better use of our natural assets? Some local authorities will be better provided for them than others just through pure geography in itself. How can we make better use of those? How do you make them investable compositions? We're already doing work around peatland restoration, addition of woodlands, etc. Is there a way in which we can work with local authorities to make better use of existing spaces that are not necessarily playing the role in nature-based solutions? Yes, and some of that is already happening. I can think of going back to my constituency, what has been taken forward in Hall Glen area, which is redeveloping an old colliery bingheep, which has now been turned into a nature park to help to support biodiversity, which has brought together a whole range of different stakeholders. Some of that work is already happening. Could we do more of it? Yes, I would like to see more of that happening. I think that part of that is also about things such as our local neighbourhoods communities. How do we make better use of our own community assets within a neighbourhood to support nature-based solutions? There is simply more that we could do in that area. In investable proposition, we are taking forward work and looking at how we can make sure that we have what would be viewed as being a very clear set of principles around any private sector investment in nature-based solutions as an option that some local authorities and others might want to access, but we need to do it in a way that is consistent with it being of a high standard and has a very clear set of principles before we start opening up widely to private sector investment. Mark, I am going to move to Jackie, if I may, on that subject. Some councils have said that they consider that the planning tools to protect the natural infrastructure are not sufficient and that there is a lack of resources to enforce the existing current rules. How will the Scottish Government ensure that local authorities have the planning tools, but more importantly, the enforcement resources to protect the existing natural infrastructure that we have, such as trees, for example? There is a review of MPF4, which has taken place in the updated MPF4. We will publish this in the next couple of months. I hope that that will deliver the tools that they believe is necessary to help to support them in delivering nature-based solutions and in protecting nature-based provisions that they have in the local area. If there are particular gaps that local authorities feel that there are in the existing planning regulations, I have no doubt that we will be more than willing to look at that. However, I certainly want to make sure that local authorities have the necessary powers that are required to protect nature-based environments in their own local authority area and to develop areas in their own local authority area. However, if there is a particular area that feels a gap, I am more than happy for us to take that away and to pass that to the planning minister to look at it as part of the MPF4 process. I have no doubt that that is an issue that has been flagged up during the review of MPF4. I ask the minister for social security. I previously asked about net zero being part of that new deal in the agreements. Are you convinced that nature-based solutions in the climate emergency is being given equivalence to the biodiversity and nature crisis that we face, and will that be in your new deal negotiations on equal footing as net zero? The Scottish Government has always seen the two crises as of equal importance. Along with other considerations in the new deal, discussions are absolutely along with the net zero agenda and an important part of the wider Government agenda. Of course, that means in our engagement with local government around the new deal. Is that a yes or a no? Yes. As far as I am aware, I will confirm with the committee. Every Government priority is under consideration with the new deal because local government is a key partner, not just in delivery but in development of how we move forward and deliver on both the priorities for the Scottish people and what this Parliament sets as the agenda. I interpreted that as a yes. It is a clear yes, as stated and interpreted. Liam, you have got some questions. Just the one, convener. We have not looked at heat and buildings at all this morning. Committees rehearsed lots of that, but just one question that arises from that is that currently owner occupiers and those who are not in assess has been in fuel poverty need to be proactive in seeking decarbonisation information or advice and support, which, given the current cost of living challenges, might not be at the forefront of their minds. What is or what can the Scottish Government do to ensure that consistent energy-efficient guidance and advice is given to all, whether given by the Scottish Government or at the local authority level? I think that there is an important issue around the need to make sure that we are doing more to help to educate people and to make sure that information is available. As you are aware, there are a variety of different schemes that currently operate at Home Energy Scotland. They are the main point of contact for advice and partial advice and information as it stands at the present moment. There is a single point of contact to get that information and that advice that individual households may be looking for. We are also taking forward the development of our national public energy agency, which is going to have a clear role in helping to support decarbonisation and energy efficiency work and to make sure that there is a much more consistent approach across the country and to bring together a range of different stakeholders who are engaged in the process. Home Energy Scotland is the main point of contact at the present moment for that independent advice, but I would expect, as we take forward the development of our public energy agency, that it will have a clear role in helping to support households and giving advice as well and information, but also helping to co-ordinate the development of heat decarbonisation across local authorities, public sector organisations and working with the private sector, housing sector, as well. No further questions. Thanks, Liam. Monica, you've got a follow-up, and then I've got a question at the end, I think. Yeah, and this might have been published elsewhere, but is there a date for the virtual public energy agency coming to foreshap? What will it mean in practice? Is it going to be a website? Can you just expand on what you mean by virtual agency? I think I gave a commitment to the committee earlier in the year to give you an update, and I'm just about to provide you with an update this week on that, so I hope that that will provide you with much more detail on how it's going to be taken forward and the nature of how the organisation is going to operate as well, which I would hope the committee would find useful as well, given that I gave a commitment to provide that for the details. That information will be with you shortly. Well, there were Monica, you're on the board, you were expecting it to come and reminded them at the Cabinet Secretary. Unless the committee's got any other questions, I've got one I'd just like to ask on the issue that Liam brought up, and just for idea, remind the committee that I actually own properties, which are available for rental, and I'm a chartered surveyor by training. So one of the things that we use in this country is energy performance certificates, EPC certificates. Are you happy, Cabinet Secretary, that EPC certificates actually are worthwhile and do what they're said to do and are useful to home owners in working out whether their house is energy efficient? I can't profess to be an expert in EPCs, so from a technical point of view, I know we require them for a certain range of different matters. For example, for social housing landlords I think, and also for learing properties as well, and I think for the time of sale of properties, EPCs are due to be completed, but in terms of whether they are the most effective way in which to technical way in which to provide that type of assessment to an individual household, I'm afraid that I have to take some technical advice on that, it's not something that I'm particularly versed in. Well, I'm very keen on every house being as energy efficient as possible, and I know from doing EPCs that sometimes seeing change in the light bulbs to LED light bulbs gets you more points than putting in double-glaze windows, which actually to me questions the whole thing of EPCs. Would the Government consider as part of moving to net zero, which I think is really important, reviewing how we do energy efficiency in homes and how we achieve it, because gas prices are going up? Is the EPC system currently relevant? That's my question. It's obviously covered by building regulations, but I'm more than happy to take that away and we can come back to you with some further detail on that, including the technical points that you've raised around how the point system operates. Thank you. Unless there's any other questions from the committee, thank you very much Cabinet Secretary, and we're going to have a brief pause to allow a new panel of witnesses and the current witnesses to leave, so thank you those that are leaving and thank you those that are staying and I suspend the meeting. Okay, and welcome back. We're now going to move on to the programme for government 22-23, published on the 6th of September, and it sets out the actions that government states it will be taking in the coming year, including its legislative programme. Cabinet Secretary, thank you for staying with us for this evidence session, and we're looking forward to discussing the programme with you and your priorities for this Parliament this year. I welcome your officials, Donald Henderson, the Deputy Director of Natural Resources, Ann Martin, the Head of Transport Strategy and Coordination, David Pratt, the Head of Marine Planning and Development, and Philip Rains, I think, has stayed with us as the Deputy or Director of Domestic Climate Change. Now, we've got about just over an hour for this session, and Cabinet Secretary, I know you're keen to press on with the questions, but I'm very happy to give you a short opening statement. Thank you, convener. This programme for government is set against the backdrop of a cost crisis and is focused on providing help now, as well as continuing to build a wealthier, fairer and greener country. In my portfolio, this has been approached on a number of fronts on energy. We are continuing to invest and extend eligibility for the warmer homes Scotland programme to support household lower energy costs and help to tackle the climate crisis. We are launching the £25 million Clyde mission decarbonisation fund to support zero-emission heat projects, and we will publish the energy strategy and just transition plan to guide our path to net zero. The strategy will set out our continued support for the energy sector and plans to maintain Scotland's position as one of the most advanced nations in the world in the development of wavewind and tidal technologies. I'm determined that we take full advantage of our natural assets and support our burdening industries in these sectors. The scale of our onshore and offshore wind capacity also gives us huge potential in green hydrogen. In the coming months, we will also publish our hydrogen action plan backed by 100 million pounds of capital funding. The effects of the global climate crisis on nature is also a key feature within and builds on the programme that we set out within our bute house commitments to deliver on Scotland's climate and nature ambitions. Climate actions range from record investment and active travel to providing 50 million pounds of funding over the next four years as we move forward with our just transition fund. To address the nature crisis, we will publish a biodiversity strategy, take steps to meet our commitment on highly protected marine areas and consult on fisheries management measures. We will start the process of developing a new national marine plan, continuing work to identify the location of a new national park and develop a land reform bill. We will enhance the forestry grant scheme and introduce the World Life Management Bill for Grouse. We will introduce a circular economy bill and publish our new national litter and fly tipping strategy for Scotland later this year. In August next year, we will launch our deposit return scheme, the first of its kind in the UK, which will cut carbon, increase recycling and reduce litter. On transport, ScotRail fares will be frozen until March 2023 and we will complete the fair fares review, developing and delivering options for a sustainable and integrated approach to all public transport fares. We will also support the continued delivery of free bus travel for those under 22 and over 60, which covers almost half of the population. We will invest in vital improvements in our ferry services and consult on our island connectivity plan. We will deliver record investment in active travel to continue to support new routes for walking, wheeling and cycling. Of course, I am more than happy to respond to any questions that the committee may have. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I am going to enjoy this section because this committee and you have such a wide remit. There is going to have to be a certain amount of mental agility from you and committee members, so I am looking forward to that. The first question is again to come from Monica Llyr. My first question is on rail, just so you get a heads up on the topic. The Government has announced a freeze on ScotRail fares. You have told us that until March 2023. Normally, ScotRail fares increases annually in January. We know that the franchise is now under public ownership since April of this year. I wonder if you can give a precise date for how long that freeze will last. If fares are not due to increase until January next year anyway, does that not mean that the freeze period itself is rather short? Is there an on-going discussion on the wider work on the fair fares review to extend that beyond March 2023? So it is still March 2023, but it is part of what we are taking forward around the fair fares review as we are looking at whether it would be if we were to take, for example, so the fares that were due to go up in January would be based on July's RPI, which was 12.3 per cent for regulated fares, which is clearly a rise that is just not sustainable and we are not taking forward. We are presently undertaking work around where we go with the fair freeze. What we have to keep in mind is that when you freeze fares, you create a revenue gap on the rail network that has to be met. It is part of the fair fares review and part of the work that has been taken forward by the finance secretary for the next financial year. It is all part of looking at what we should do in order to try to help to make sure that we minimise the potential increase in any fares. It is all part of that on-going work. So, instead of a fair freeze that could last between six and eight weeks, we could be seeing a longer period where people can benefit from that? Yes, it is part of what we are looking at is whether it would go beyond that period of time, but part of that would be into any financial settlement for the next financial year, which obviously starts in April next year, which is why it goes up to March 2023. I wonder if you can give a date for when the fair review will be completed. What is current thinking around peak fares? I know that there is a petition sitting with Parliament at the Public Petitions Committee to have the peak time fares abolished. Is that something that you have taken a look at as part of this review or do you feel that there is more urgent action given that we are not getting enough people out of cars and on to trains as we need to? We have sought recovery in real passions, not to the levels that we want to. That has obviously been affected by industrial election. I do not know where Anne-Marthe can say a bit more on the fair fares review and the process that has been taking forward. I am not entirely sure exactly what has happened to that petition, but I would have thought that drawing it up into the fair fares review would seem to be the most appropriate way in which to deal with it. Anne-Marthe can maybe say a bit more about how we are taking forward the fair fares review and the timescale for it as well. I hope that that works. The fair fares review is looking to ensure a sustainable integrated approach to public transport fares. We are looking at all the various fares across the various public modes. It includes consideration of the increasing inflationary pressures at the moment and the cost of living crisis. We are considering both the availability of services and the range of discounts available and the concessionary schemes. We will be developing and assessing options on all around this and we are going to be also working with local authorities and delivery partners to develop demonstration projects, to introduce measures that encourage more people to use public transport and to walk and cycle locally as part of the case programme. We are hoping that the full review will conclude sometime early 2023, but there is no set date yet and it will really depend on the evidence that we gather as part of the actual review. I will go straight now to the deputy convener with some questions. On forestry, can the cabinet secretary explain the rationale and also the timing of the commitment to enhance the forestry grant scheme to deliver improved outcomes? What do you think those outcomes will be and will it address the serious concerns that people have of large-scale investors buying significant land for forestry and getting the benefit of carbon offsetting at the same time as it is being paid by the public purse for the same and addressing some of the issues around farms and good farmland and increasingly being sold off market when combined forestry and farming may be a better solution? On forestry, you will be aware that we are reforming the forestry grant scheme in order to help to deliver woodlands creation targets. That is in part to ensure that the scheme delivers better public value and to help to support our biodiversity strategy and our community wealth building programmes. We are also looking to make sure that the scheme is more aligned with helping farmers to understand the benefits that they would gain from growing trees and supporting their farming business to assist them in recognising the value that it may have to them as a business in using part of our farmland for forestry. In doing that, it will also help us to achieve our biodiversity targets and our woodland creation targets as well. On the use of land, we are proposing reforms that will come forward in the other land reform bill, which will hopefully help to address some of the issues that you have highlighted. Overall, on the forestry side, we are trying to take an approach that makes it attractive to farmers on the lines more with their own thinking and helps to support them as businesses in taking forward any forestry grant that they are provided with. Donald Henderson might be able to say a bit more in terms of the use of land and how that can be developed to help to support some of our nature-based solutions in biodiversity loss. He might be able to say a bit more about the forestry grant aspects as well. A couple of things that I could perhaps helpfully add. First of all, on the use of land, although there is forestry plant of woodland planting on better quality land, the majority of it is land that is not high-grade agricultural land. The substitution effect is less than one might think if you just look at the hectareg involved. Half of the woodland grants have been for quite small plantations. As an example of the sorts of activity that can benefit farmers, as the cabinet secretary was saying, in the upland country, the gullies where streams are running down are not good land by anyone for agricultural purposes, but that can be very good land for native forestry in particular and improving biodiversity and improving in some areas some of the water retention in the landscape and helping towards flood management. There is a wide diversity of different approaches being taken recognising the different land that is involved in the different parts of the country to try and tune it. For all interests of timing, do you know when this revised grant scheme will be delivered? I do not have that to my hands, I am afraid. It is not my area within the directorate. I will look after the committee to give you some more specifics on the time frame. Thanks, cabinet secretary. I have a couple of questions just on forestry, if I may, just very quick ones. I remind the committee that I am a part of a family farming partnership farming barley and cattle for a few trees. The Scottish Government set planting targets in 2016 up to the current day. They are increasing. We failed to plant 10,000 hectares in the period 2016 to 2022. In fact, we were nearly 3,000 hectares below the target for 2021-22. Is there not a real need for a new forestry grant scheme to make up the deficit and to make sure that we do not fall further behind the targets, which are increasing year on year from last year? As we are part of the reform of the grant schemes about, we are trying to help to make it more of an attractive proposition, particularly for farmers who might be considering the possibility of using existing farmland for forestry purposes. We agree that there is a need for it of what I was concerned with what Donald Henderson said to the committee just now, that he did not have a timescale for it, so I am trying to push him on the timescale. That is what I am going to have to come back to the committee on the specific timescale, I do not have that to hand. I am actually going to push, because I have just asked a question, the next question to Mark, and I may follow up on that mark. Do you want to ask your question on the subject and I will follow up on that for me? In this general area, yes. What will actually be in the wildlife management grass bill, the scope of that bill? The details of all that I think have still to be published, so I do not want to pre-empt what has got to be agreed through government and published, but obviously grass management is one of the key aspects of that and how you balance that out with biodiversity challenges as well, but I would hope that it will help to provide a more modern framework for grass management in particular and how that balances out with the need to tackle biodiversity laws. Will that include reforms to the powers of the SSPCA, which are currently restricted to domestic animals rather than wildlife? You will need to wait to see what is in the actual draft bill itself. I am not going to pre-empt it, but we also need to make sure that, when we are providing any additional powers, particularly regulatory powers like that, two third-party bodies will satisfy that there is the appropriate regulatory function for managing that as well. For example, powers that are exercised by local by police have a stringent range of challenges around them, if they seem to be misappropriately used in a way that someone like the SSPCA might not have. Once you have signed the bill itself, you will be in a position where you can determine whether the powers that we are providing are sufficient or not, but we also need to be mindful of the regulatory aspect of providing any additional powers to the third-party body. I will start by asking additional questions about the high-protected marine areas as well. I am good to see that mentioned in this one-year PFG. Can you detail what exactly will be happening to develop those in the next 12 months? Obviously, there is quite a timescale here out to 2026, so I would imagine that there is a lot of stakeholder negotiations and discussions at any area and a lot of lines on that. It would be good to know what is happening in the next year. David Tickman, you can give you a bit more detail on how we are going to take that forward. I will follow the standard processes where you require strategic environmental assessment, relative socio-economic assessments and other related assessments that will seek to inform the network. We can get you a written update on the actual process breakdown, but it is much like the planning process for offshore wind when we are looking to designate spatial areas for the activity. There are all the related assessment consultations and stakeholder groups with all the affected stakeholders that will be involved in that. With that, screening and scoping generally is the key initial stages that you would expect in the first 12 months. I am going to go to Natalie now for her question on land reform. The public consultation on land reform in a net zero nation closes on 30 October, but I understand that that has recently been extended by five weeks. It is just to ask what the response rates to the consultation have been like to date. There have been six public events that were took place over the course of August. Five of them were in person, six of them were virtual. I do not know the exact details on the number of responses that we have had, but what we did receive was representation in looking to extend the consultation period for an additional amount of time to allow other stakeholders to engage in that process, which is why we agreed to an extension of the time frame. I am more than happy to ask officials to provide an update on what we have received in terms of feedback so far in terms of quantity and to pass that on to the committee if that would be useful. That would be fantastic. I was going to ask why it had been extended, but you have covered that in your response. Can you confirm whether there will be a knock-on effect on the timings for introducing the proposed legislation, which I believe is to be introduced before the end of 2023? No, it will not have any impact on the time frame. It will allow stakeholders a bit more time to make their submissions and to make representations, but it will not have any material impact on the plan timeline for the legislation. Fantastic, thank you, convener. The next questions come from Liam. I would like to move to Fisheries and Marine for a few questions. First of all, fishing industry representatives such as the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have expressed concern about a spatial squeeze in Scotland's waters because of things like expanding marine renewables and conservation measures. The current national marine plan has not been updated since 2015. Whilst the programme for government says a new one will be developed, we do not yet know what the status is. Given the climate emergency and new developments like Scotland's wind and general competition for marine space, when will that updating be done? First of all, I recognise the challenges that some of our fishing community face, given the high marine protected areas and the renewables, offshore oil and gas, all of which have an impact on the fishing communities and fishing grounds, alongside the challenges that they have around accessing certain fish types. It is important that, as we move forward with the development of the marine plan, we fully engage them in that process and try to compete. You recognise that there are a lot of competing balances that we have to try to manage, but the concerns and issues that they have have to be a central part of our consideration in that. Last day, we have to say a bit more about how we are going to take forward the marine plan, but there is no doubt in my mind that we have to make sure that our fishing communities are a key part of how we consult and engage in that process, given the many competing challenges that we face in our marine sector. The spatial squeeze is reflective of the general issue of prioritisation. One of the big challenges that we have with the current national marine plan is that there are a number of priorities that, when we develop that, we have seen an acceleration in the activities and the biodiversity crisis, the drive for net zero and the offshore wind programme that contributed to the need to set a very clear framework on decision making so that all of the kind of related stakeholders understand the marine management policies. The national marine plan, we would hope to take forward in as fast a time period as possible, where we are aware that big decisions will be required in line with the Scotland development programme, and through that, the stakeholders will obviously need to have a clear idea of how they operate within that system. I would expect that, in the coming weeks, we will set out a statement of public participation that will provide more kind of a breakdown on the process and timeline that we have followed. Cabinet secretary, you mentioned in your answer that highly protected marine areas. Last year's programme for government said that it would establish a world-leading suite of highly protected marine areas to eventually cover 10 per cent of Scotland's seas. I believe that, to date, none has been established, so why is that and what progress can we expect imminently? I think that some of the progress that we wanted to make in the course of last year was not possible, and we are looking to try to do that as a result of a whole range of other requirements. For example, some of the aspects that came from Scotland were much greater than originally intended, which meant that additional resources had to be deployed from Marine Scotland into dealing with some of the issues that arose from it. However, it is clear that highly protected marine areas will be one of the key aspects to helping to protect our marine environment, which has an important part to play in tackling climate change and in helping to tackle biodiversity loss. I hope that the work that was not able to be taken forward in the course of the last year will be able to be taken forward in the coming year. I can go back to your point on the marine plan as well. Just to offer a point of reassurance, when we were taking forward the sectoral marine plan for offshore wind, which was a piece of work that took place over, I think it predates me, but it was over a thing about a two-year period, it was very extensive engagement with the fishing communities and fishing state coders. I hope that, given our track record in taking the sectoral marine plan offshore wind forward, our fishing communities can reassure that, in taking forward our marine plan, it will be looking to do something similar to the level of engagement that it will have in that particular process. I hope that the work that we had hoped and planned to take forward last year will be taken forward in the coming years. We will take forward our work around the highly protected marine areas. Very grateful. Just arising from that, the Scottish Government is obviously making decisions on the management of Scotland's fisheries but has yet to provide a response to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee inquiry report from December 2020 on exactly this. Cabinet Secretary, why has that response not yet been published when, obviously, Scotland's fishing industry needs confidence that their livelihoods are being managed and when will it be? I think that the challenge around this, if I recall correctly, was that we had intended to respond to the committee's report with our work around developing a new marine plan, and because that work was paused and delayed and meant that we weren't able to or we didn't provide that full response, but I'm more than happy to make sure that we look at providing that response as part of the work that we're taking forward around the new marine plan that's being developed. I'm very grateful. No further questions. Thanks very much, Liam. Jackie, I think that you've got some questions now. Thank you. The programme for government includes a commitment to consult on a new flooding strategy for Scotland, so can I ask the cabinet secretary if he's able to provide more details on the commitment and how does he think that this will improve the resilience to the impacts of climate change? We can see that as part of climate adaptation, the need for better planning and management around flooding is becoming an increasing challenge for some local authority areas. Part of the challenge that has been to date is that very often flood management is very focused on just that particular flooding event. A key part of what we're looking to do with the revision of the strategy or the plan around the strategy is to try and take a much more holistic approach to how we deal with flood management so that we are looking at the wider issues that impact on causing flooding as well run individual instances and events. That's why we're taking this piece of work forward to what shall be in partnership with local authorities and other stakeholders, such as SEPA, who all have a part to play in helping to tackle where is the increasing problem. The other part to this is that the nature and the way in which flooding is happening is occurring much more around very localised intense weather events over a short period of time, which very often just overwhelms the existing flooding infrastructure that's in place, which is why we need to look at some of the wider measures that need to be put in place around that. That's the intention that we want to achieve through the work that we're going to take forward around the flood planning and with stakeholders on how we can develop that better. Moving on, we saw this summer with the high temperatures a water scarcity in some parts of Scotland. Would you be able to provide an update on Scotland's water levels and how you're working with SEPA to help improve resilience to the water scarcity? Sure, so we had a period where we had some water scarcity issues on a number of water courses in Scotland, in Fife and also in the south of Scotland. I think that at the present moment we have only got a single water course where there is a scarcity warning, which I think is Enric, which is presently at a lower level. The others are no longer at levels where it is of concern. If I recall correctly, on Enric, those who are abstractors on that particular route have already had a process in place in managing their abstraction levels in order to deal with it, so there have been no orders taken forward at this stage to try to tackle that issue. I've just found that the other rivers were the Eden, Tyne and the Tweed, which reached levels of significant scarcity due to the dry conditions that resulted in the national water scarcity plan being activated, which meant that, for the first time in Scotland, abstraction licenses had to be suspended due to water scarcity, given the seriousness of the situation. However, it is at the present moment that it is only the Enric catchment area that is entering a level of significant scarcity and there are arrangements in place to manage that. The rest of the rivers are at levels of moderate scarcity or better. Thanks, Cabinet Secretary. Just a quick question on that. I have declared in my interests that I have interests on the SPA, but looking across the Highlands you've got rivers such as the Farrar that is used for generation, and all the burns at the top end of it are drained off and put into lot monar, so there's no water there dried up. The brawer takes water from other rivers. The SPA gives 40 per cent of its water flow above Avymor to the Tay and down to Loch Arbor. Those are almost inter-catchment transfers of water. There's a time of feast or famine, which we've seen in this summer. Do you think that SEPA should be looking at catchment transfers of water and whether they're actually denuding the catchments from where the water is being taken? We're going to take forward a piece of work in looking at how we can better manage where scarcity issues arise. We've got the framework in place, but there are ways in which we can better manage that. One of the issues that we want to look at is whether abstractors could be more efficient in their use of abstraction from river basin. For example, some will do it. If you take, for example, a soft fruit business, they will probably have a trickle system, as opposed to someone who might be doing some form of vegetable-mavisor idea where they will actually bring in a much greater quantity of water, even though there might be a question about where the soil at that particular point requires that they just do it in a routine. I may be wrong here, but I think that they do it in a cycle in terms of the volumes that they bring in. Soft fruit operators are much more efficient in how they use water abstraction than in some other areas. One of the areas that SEPA wants to look at is ways in which we can get much more efficient or better way in which we could manage some of that abstraction when levels start to reduce to a slightly lower level in order to make sure that there is greater efficiency in it. I am not sure about the technical aspects of that and whether there would be issues that SEPA would have around it in terms of environmental impact. We are taking follow-up work to look at how we can make sure that, when levels drop to certain levels, we are getting greater efficiency from abstractiles in looking at minimising the amount that they have to take at particular points. The catchment transfers mainly date from 1950s legislation, which perhaps is not relevant in 2020, and biodiversity. Also, in the forms of disease transfer, it is not a great thing to be doing. I am delighted to see that you are looking at it. Very briefly, cabinet secretary, on Jackie Dunbar's earlier question on flooding, you probably will have seen, I expect, yesterday's courier, which had a very good report on coastal erosion and flooding around courier country. I have been raising this issue for years and the impact of a policy of managed retreat, especially around montrose, and some possible solutions that the local community proposes, such as a sand engine. Cabinet secretary, when you answered Jackie Dunbar and talked about a holistic approach, is the intention to create a one-size-fits-all approach towards coastal erosion, or can we expect a bespoke approach to places needing urgent attention, such as montrose? You may have visited Montrose last year when we were publishing our coastal erosion plan. You cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach to it. What we now have is that we have much better data and understanding of where coastal erosion is taking place in Scotland. That is part of what we published, a mapping of coastal erosion, so that we know where the particular challenges are. Montrose is a clear example of that. Some of the measures that have been put in there previously have had a positive impact, and some not so as well. I do not think that you can take a one-size-fits-all approach in tackling coastal erosion. It has to be based on what the local circumstances are and what the local environment is like in taking up forward. Some of the work around the coastal erosion planning was to make sure that we were taking a bespoke approach to how we meet some of those challenges. I want to reflect on the recent refuse worker strikes, because they bear the amount of single-use waste that we generate in our towns and cities. We know that household recycling rates have declined in recent years. How will the Scottish Government's forthcoming circular economy bill and deposit return scheme seek to improve recycling and reduce reliance on single-use products? A combination of the bill and the waste-route map consultation, which closed just last month, sets out some of the measures that we are looking to take forward in order to tackle the very issue that Ms Lennon has raised. Those measures were looking at how we can make sure that we transition much more effectively to our circular economy and to increase reuse and recycling rates and to also modernise and to improve the way in which waste and recycling services are provided. It is a combination of the route map and how we will take that forward with local authorities to help to drive forward improvements in how waste management recycling is being provided and in the circular economy bill, which will look at putting strategy provisions in place around targets and approaches that should be taken in order to help to reduce waste and to increase recycling rates. At this stage, do you have any particular thoughts and ideas on the procurement side of this? I know that I touched on the opportunity to align with community wealth building strategies, but we have heard a lot in the inquiry that the committee has been doing on local government about the need to do procurement better and make sure that it is net zero focus. Are there any particular opportunities around circular economy legislation and deposit return scheme work that could help with that agenda? There is a requirement on local authorities as part of the procurement process to look at how they can ensure that they are taking an approach that is in line with their net zero ambitions and their requirements as a council to meet net zero as well. Is there more that we can try to do? What I see increasingly is companies becoming increasingly mindful in recognising their own carbon footprint or contribution to tackling climate change. Some of that is feeding through into the procurement process, where they are clearly highlighting that they can do things in a much more efficient, much more effective way, but procurement is getting an important part to play and helping to encourage more of that to local authorities, particularly for their own contracts. In terms of the circular economy bill, I am not sure whether we are specifically referencing the requirements around procurement as part of the bill, but I am more than happy to check that, but I am not sure whether we are making specific requirements around procurement as part of the bill as it is proposed at the present moment. That would be helpful, because could the committee have a big interest in that bill as the lead committee? There might be amendments in convober, so it would be good to have those discussions early on. We have talked a lot about waste, but in a previous session we have talked about environmental crime, particularly when we have seen fly-tipping on an industrial scale. I know that the Government is considering a new litter and fly-tipping strategy. Is that going to be sufficient to discourage and prevent waste crime, or are there other measures that the Government is considering? There are different levels of waste crime here, so there is the focus on undertake fly-tipping, and there are those that are involved in waste management, which may be a cover for other criminal activities. There are different levels of it. When I was just a secretary, there was a lot of work being carried out by Police Scotland and its enforcement agencies on waste management and involvement in series and organised crime. That is not to say that there is a big issue in the sector, but there were some that were suspected that were being investigated. There is a wider enforcement issue there, which is really important in tackling some of that series and organised crime. The strategy aims to set out a range of commitments to deliver on the policies that have three key themes to it, part of which is about behaviour change, services and infrastructure, and enforcement. There are three key component parts to it, which is seeking to address the enforcement aspect that you mentioned, but also to change people's behaviour around aspects such as fly-tipping. The intention of the strategy will be to have a six-year lifespan with actions that will be rolled out and taken forward as part of the strategy over a two-year, four-year and then six-year time period for the ability to assess the completion of that six-year period. Final question briefly, because you have reminded us of your previous role in justice, which I think is very helpful to your current responsibilities. Thinking in about the most extreme examples where serious and organised crime does play a part, is the Government aware of the international movement and campaign around criminalising ecosides and what has been discussed in New York recently? I think that Minister Mary McCallan has been over in New York. Is that something that the Government is open minded to in terms of whether we should be looking to criminalise ecosides in Scotland? I am aware of the international movement around it. The reality is that any criminalisation would be a justice matter, rather than it being for my portfolio. I am not aware of whether justice colleagues are looking or pursuing the issue at the present moment, but I can go back to the committee to see where they are giving consideration to it, but it is certainly something that I am aware of in the international campaign around it as well. I have had written answers before from Mary McCallan, who I know is the director of poetry of Cabinet Secretary, but it is good to know who in the Government is best expected. I would like to move on to the much anticipated energy strategy. Perhaps you could give us an update on the timing of the publication for the energy strategy and the associated energy just transition plan. Can you reflect on what the impact of the energy price crisis has had on it? Perhaps, Cabinet Secretary, you can share what your views are on the UK Government's announcements on the reserve matters in relation to energy and what implication that has for Scotland's future economic and energy strategy. The work on our new energy strategy refresh and just transition plans are ready started, so we are published by the end of this year. Some of the documentation and some of the consultation processes have already started to be put in place as part of that. The draft strategy will be published by the end of this year, and we have already had engagement with some stakeholders around helping to shape that. It will be a whole system approach looking at, and every aspect of the system over the years ahead and how we can maximise economic benefits to Scotland in delivering our energy decarbonisation process. Of course, that will also be the first of our just transition plans, which will be energy specific, which will sit alongside it as well. Some of the engagement around that has already started with some key stakeholders to inform that process. In terms of the energy price crisis that we face at the present moment, the energy price crisis started that predates the illegal invasion of Ukraine. It started when the economy started opening up last year, when we saw demand increasing to a level that started to push up wholesale gas prices internationally. It intensified and became even more acute with the illegal invasion in the war in Ukraine. The reality is that, if you look at the way in which wholesale gas prices are set, there is very little that any individual country can do in terms of increasing its gas output in order to help to offset that. We can, as it stands at the present moment, speak to the North Sea Transition Authority. Everything within the North Sea at present moment is at capacity. There is nothing spare there.  The answer is no, because wholesale gas price is set at an international level. While the market remains tight and demand remains high, that will continue to be the case no matter what. We do not have sufficient supplies to alter that. That is widely held and recognised being the case. How do you then reduce your dependency on things like fossil fuels such as gas? How do you reduce the risk, given that the international forces that set the price in the way in which to do that is to decarnarise at a faster rate? That is about rolling out renewables much quicker. Reducing your dependency on fuels that are set at an international level and making ourselves more dependent upon renewable energy will particularly help to give us energy security and reduce the cost, because it is a cheaper form of energy production. I agree with the view that the then energy secretary, the UK Government, said that the answer to that is faster decarbonisation of our energy system remains the case. That is the way in which to address this issue. Reserved issues around that and, for example, the announcement of a new licence around for offshore oil and gas in the UK sector. I think that my challenge around all of this is that the UK Government might dispute this, which is presented as though this is a way in which you address energy security and that you address high energy prices. It will not have an impact on either of them, so it will not, because of the timeline that the committee in the climate change says that the average time it takes to go from an exploration licence to a production licence is about 28 years. It is not going to help energy costs now and in the near future. At the same time, it is producing a form of energy, but the price is set at an international level. Faster decarbonisation is the answer to this. In the quickest way in which to do that is through renewables. Onshore and offshore wind in particular are the fastest way in which to deploy renewable generation across the UK and across Europe as a whole. Scotland is blessed by having some fantastic natural resources in which to be able to do that, not just to help to decarbonise Scotland and the rest of the UK, but also potentially other parts of Europe from the export opportunity. My view is that there needs to be a clearer focus on ramping up and roll-out of renewable energy as the way in which we tackle the cost of energy and deliver energy security in the future. I specifically look at how we get the economic benefits from renewables. I agree with the comments that you have just made, but what the oil and gas sector are saying to us is that they are to upskill and re-skill to move into renewables. They need certainty. That is what they will be looking for from this energy strategy, certainty about renewables and what is likely to come down the track in order to then invest in their staff for re-skilling. Some of that work might not come on stream for maybe five years. Therefore, how can we help to support that transition? That whole-system approach that you said you are taking to the energy strategy, will it make clear how that economic opportunity for Scotland will be realised for manufacturing and, obviously, for the skill base in particular? That is their intention through the strategies to give that certainty and a very clear sense of direction in the way in which we are moving forward. That is why we are taking a whole system approach. You will look at our need for oil and gas in the future as well, which will continue to be the case for many years to come. The oil and gas sector will play a really important part in our energy mix in the future, but that does not mean that we should not be looking to decarbonise our energy systems. They both go hand in hand. They are not in competition in that sense, from my perspective, in taking forward the policy area in this. The key thing is how does Scotland get the economic benefits of it? One thing that we cannot allow ourselves to be is purely a production basin. If we purely see ourselves as a place where energy is produced and it quite literally flows by our door, we do not see the economic and social benefit that comes from that. We need to make sure that we are taking forward an approach that helps to secure the manufacturing and expertise that goes alongside the energy transition as well. Whether that be in offshore or onshore wind, we have lost a big opportunity in the offshore wind side because of the way in which the changes were made back in the 1980s and 1990s, way before the time I was involved directly in politics, but it meant that countries such as Denmark, et cetera, were able to capitalise on that and are world leaders in development of offshore wind technologies and, to some degree, offshore wind technologies. Given the scale of what we have here is an opportunity in Scotland, we need to be able to create a pathway that industry can be confident that there will not just be projects this year, next year or the year after that there will be projects for many years to come that make it worthwhile investing in the manufacturing capability here in Scotland, which can not only meet demand within Scotland and the UK but potentially export to other parts of the world. If you look at some like Scotland, the number of projects within Scotland that are floating wind technology is more than half of them are floating wind technology. I think that it is about two thirds of them are floating wind. However, the sector has not settled on what is the floating wind technology of the future. There will be many countries that will always be looking at floating wind technology, nor will we have to look at floating wind technology, so will America, USA, have to look at floating wind technology. However, the sector has not settled on it. What we have is the advantage of being ahead with Scotland, having lease agreements in place, to be able to be at the forefront of the development of that technology and then potentially the manufacturing of it here, which can then be exported to other countries. That is one of the advantages that we have with Scotland and where we are at compared to other countries. We are ahead of Norway and the USA on that technology, so we need to capitalise on that. That manufacturing capability and that pipeline of opportunity for developments in Scotland alone are critical to making sure that we do not become simply a production basin, that we have the benefit of delivering the manufacturing capability. A key part of that is creating the skills reservoir, which will be necessary to facilitate that. Again, our oil and gas sector is a strength to us in that, because there is a lot of the technical skills and knowledge in oil and gas that can also be used in renewables as well. One of the pieces of work that we are taking forward is—I am conscious of what the community is telling me to hurry up, but we are taking forward—I think that it is later this month that I am hosting an event or next month that I am hosting an event around the whole issue of skills transfer. There are issues about how you can transfer certain skill qualifications from the oil and gas sector into the renewables sector to look at how we can address some of those regulatory issues as well, so that those who are looking to transfer are in a position where they have the ability to do so, and they know what the skills that are going to be needed going forward as well. Cabinet Secretary, you drew attention to that. I was trying to do it subtly, and I obviously failed. I want to go to Jackie at Lentilliam, and I will then come back to Fiona if you have any follow-up questions. I will go back to Fiona Hyslop's first question slightly, if you do not mind. It was just to ask you if you are able to provide an update on what the work the Scottish Government is doing in regards to carbon capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage on negative emission technologies are going to be mission critical to deliver on our climate change targets. That is not just my view, it is a few of the Committee on Climate Change who are expert independent advisers in those matters, so they will be critical. They are critical not just to Scotland but to the whole of the UK, so for the whole of the UK to achieve what the UK Government is looking for net zero by 2050, they need net zero, they need negative emission technologies such as CCUS. Look, we are in a position now where the Scottish cluster is lost out on track one status. We have continued to make representations to the UK Government on reversing that, and the reason we have continued to make representations on it is because the UK Government's net zero strategy cannot achieve their carbon capture targets without having the Scottish cluster as part of that mix. We need to move forward with carbon capture because it is an important opportunity for us here to meet not just our climate targets but also our energy transition as well. We are continuing to engage with the UK Government around that. The indication that we have from the UK Government is that they are planning a track two process possibly this year but maybe into next year. I am conscious that there has been ministerial changes there, so I do not know where that timeline has changed. I was at Stfergus last month, and I mean with the Scottish cluster of representatives. What we need to understand here is that it is not only mission critical, it is costing a lot of money in keeping the partners together. Unless there is a very clear indication that this is going to materialise and it is going to materialise soon, it will become increasingly difficult to keep those partners together. That is what worries me the most, which is why we have offered financial support of £80 million towards it, but we need to get the regulatory agreement to move forward. The danger is that we lose the opportunity and the time slot that is necessary to keep the partners together to make sure that we deliver on the Scottish cluster. There is unanimous agreement across the Scottish Parliament. I know that Liam McArthur is a supporter of the Scottish cluster. We all want to see it happening. We need to see it happening sooner rather than later, because it is costing money, and the longer it takes, the more difficult it is to hold partners together to make it a success. The three new Shetland Scotland developments that were announced last month will reportedly raise £56 million in option fees. Scotland's money is key to the just transition and the skills transfer that you mentioned. In the public sector pay and emergency budget review, the Deputy First Minister specifically said that he would take £56 million generated by Scotland to plug holes in budgets elsewhere. What impact will you envisage taking the £56 million will have on the just transition and developing the pathway and skills that you talked to the deputy convener about? It will not have any immediate impact, because that money was not ring-fen specifically for that purpose. The finance secretary also said that that money would be returned into the Scotland pot in the next couple of years when finances allow for it. However, it is a recognition of the very serious and difficult financial circumstances that we are facing. The finance secretary made that decision on the basis of the financial pressures that we are facing, but gave the commitment that the money would be returned in the years ahead as we look to use the Scotland investment, not just for the transition, but to help to support us in meeting our climate change targets and how we can affect that at a local level in supporting local authorities and partners, just like the inquiry that you have been considering over the course of last year to support calls at a local authority level to help to meet their climate change obligations. Is a reflection of the challenge in the financial environment that we are operating in just now? Can I just push a little bit on that, cabinet secretary? I think that the £750 million was not there on the Scotland wind that was generated in the option agreement. If 9 per cent remain with the current estate because it is revenue rather than capital, it gives you a shy of £700 million. Are you saying that all of that £700 million will be kept within that pot to justify or to help with the transition? In the way in which it operates just now, in lease options in offshore wind, is there an agreement in place that if it is less than 12 kilometres for local authorities? If it is within 12 kilometres of a local authority area, then the revenue that is generated from the lease option goes to that local authority, that neighbouring local authority. The difference with the Scotland wind is that many of them are beyond that. What we intend to be is a central fund that will then be used for what we want to do is to work with local authorities to use that money to help to support them in the climate change objectives that they have as well. That is the purpose behind what we are trying to achieve with the Scotland wind. There is a wider community benefit right across the country from it. Will 9 per cent remain with the current estate as per the agreement? I am not entirely sure whether that is that. Again, in the emergency budget review, as it stands at the present moment, however, the level that will potentially come into Scotland is way in excess of what Crown Estate would probably have been anticipating or expecting, and therefore it may be that that level is not necessary. It is obviously good that it is closed as revenue and not as capital, because if it was capital under the agreement, it would all have to stay in the grand estate. We will part that one there. Mark, I think that you have got some questions. Yes, it was a really interesting session. The sense of a pipeline of opportunities is definitely there for renewables. I wanted to move back to public transport again. Looking at the PFG, there is a range of commitments there, including reinforcing the roll-out of under-22's bus. I wonder whether you could say a bit more about what the Government's vision is for bus and how that cuts across the work that you are doing through capital investment, through concessionary travel, through bringing in better regulation or opportunities for local authorities to regulate bus, because my sense is that people are writing to me saying that under-22 is great, but it has still got issues around the reliability of bus services locally and still got frustrations around how bus services are being run and the quality of service. I wonder what the Government's vision is for bus and particularly the work that is going to be taking place in the next year beyond concessionary travel. The importance of bus in tackling some of the challenges that we particularly have in getting folk to move into public transport is often underestimated. 80 per cent of public transport journeys are on a bus, so it plays a huge role in getting forward on that. I recognise the challenges that there are within communities, and I suspect that we've all got challenges in our own communities. I have them in my constituency around bus services and the quality of bus services or services being withdrawn. We want to see our bus services being sustainable, and part of the provisions within the Transport Act, the convener, will be familiar with, is to provide a suite of options available to local authorities to take a normal, more effective regulatory role around how we can manage and deliver bus services, whether that be through bus improvement partnerships and through to whether running bus services is on their own or whether we are going to a franchise model. I sense that there are a number of local authorities looking at the issue of potentially franchising, which gives them much more direct control over specifying the services that will be delivered within their community. I want to see bus services being an important part of the public transport offer in urban and rural areas, but I recognise the challenges that are there. I think that there are regulatory provisions now that allow us to get some work around to some of the statutory guidance that goes alongside this that we've still got to complete, which will hopefully complete this year, until local authorities start looking at what model might best work for them in the delivery of bus services in their area, and until they are much more reflective of what the local community is looking for and what the council's expectations are for the local community as well. Would you see the community bus fund as a way to build up that business case for more transformational change? Potentially. I think that what works in Edinburgh does not necessarily work in West Dirlingshire. A community bus model for somewhere like West Dirlingshire might look very different from what you want to provide in Edinburgh or Glasgow or Aberdeen or Dundee. The community bus fund can help to support some of that and maybe some of the work around that. I do not know whether you want to say a little bit more about how we are looking to take forward the community bus fund and how that might operate, but I do not want it to be it can only be used for this purpose and no other purpose beyond this particular type of model because there will be different models and different approaches that will work in different areas. I do not have much details in front of me, so I can provide some written material on that, if that is okay. Some written responses to the committee on that would be very helpful if you could fold those into the clock. That would be very useful. I have time for one market if you have finished. Have you finished on that? I have never finished on bus, but I think that for time being. I have time for one further question if somebody had a burning question. Looks like Monica got her hand up first. Monica, the final question is with you. If we can stick with buses then, the committees had a written submission from CPT Scotland. There is a concern about the network support grant and the bus recovery funding I think comes to an end in October and they set out in a paper the current state of the bus sector. It does not make for a good reading and they do talk about the impact of Brexit and so on in terms of driver shortages. Is there any update that you can give us since we received the submission? I am sure that it came in your direction too. It sounds pretty bleak and I know in terms of concerns that we have all had about uptake for the construction and travel scheme, there is not a lot of incentive if your local bus services are diminishing and the buses disappeared. The CPT briefing, if you get anything you can say to reassure us. Part of that is part of the emergency budget review, so we are looking at whether further provision can be made for bus services through the support grant. That is part of the review process that the finance secretary is taking for just now, which all portfolios are engaged in. Cabinet Secretary, because you were so quick, I am going to allow one last question from Liam. That may have been a mistake, but Liam, very brief, just in your opening remarks, Cabinet Secretary, you talked about the hydrogen plan and you mentioned that it was coming out in the next couple of months. Are you able to be any more precise than that? By the end of this year. I cannot be precise, but in terms of what we have also viewed as being the hydrogen proposition or investment proposition, which I launched or published last week at our hydrogen supply chain event in Edinburgh. We have developed a hydrogen proposition. The reason why that is quite important is because I think that a lot of the initial investment and opportunities around hydrogen will be driven by export potential and domestic demand. I think that there is huge interest in Scotland's capability to produce large quantities of green hydrogen, which are not only for our own domestic consumption, but also for export potential. If the UK Government has got an objective of setting what I think is at 5 gigawatts between now and 2030, Scotland alone is looking to do 5 gigawatts. There is a lot of interest from European countries, mainly European countries, who are going to require to import green hydrogen and looking at import opportunities. That investment proposition in a supply chain event was really important in actually starting to set out Scotland's potential opportunity here in manufacturing and producing green hydrogen, both for our own needs and our own expert needs as well. We have already published that last week and I will have the action plan published by the end of this year. I cannot give you a specific date, but it will be by the end of this year. It is amazing that, in this section, I was just going through it. We have covered recycling, marine planning, trees, farming, flood water, gas prices, railway tickets, railways, flyer tipping, land reform, skills basis for achieving climate targets, buses, carbon capture and green hydrogen. If that is not a wide portfolio of subject areas, I do not know what is for this committee. Cabinet Secretary, thank you and your team for coming and giving evidence today. We will be discussing the evidence that you have given as a committee later in our session, but that concludes the public part of the meeting. We are now going to go into private session.