The expert committee on drug dependence of the World Health Organization recommended the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs in 2018 to revise the scheduling of cannabis in the framework of the International Drug Control System. According to the recommendations, cannabis should be moved from Schedule 1 and 4 of the 1961 Convention to only Schedule 1 of the same Convention. This would recognize the medical value of the cannabis plant and resin, tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, the main psychoactive substance of cannabis, should be moved from Schedule 1 and 2 of the 1971 Convention to Schedule 1 of the 1961 Convention with minimal difference in its control. They recommend that cannabidiol or CBD, another important compound known for its therapeutic use, remains unscheduled in the future because it has no relevant risk to public health. Specific pharmaceutical cannabis preparations should be placed in a new entry in Schedule 3 of the 1961 Convention as substance is posing no risk to public health. Because of the resistance from some member states, the vote is still being postponed by the CND until December 2020. We interviewed several professionals about the rescheduling of cannabis at the CND, among them Gilles Forte from the World Health Organization. Because cannabis was scheduled in 1961 when all this information was not available, it was about time to review the scheduling and to apply scheduling or recommend the scheduling that was more in line with the current evidence. It's about reviewing the level of scheduling and making sure that on one hand we prevent harm from cannabis, but on the other hand when there is evidence of therapeutic use, the cannabis-based preparations and cannabis-based medicines are available for people who need them, particularly populations like kids that suffer from epilepsy or people that suffer from multiple sclerosis. Any recommendation that the committee will issue is based on science and is clear of any political consideration. And this is what makes at the moment the international drug control system relevant because at the beginning of the process, at the centre of the process, there is an independent, transparent decision, recommendation that is made on those substances. First of all, on the recommendations, many of them are good. Some of us would argue they don't go far enough. The recommendation is to keep it within schedule one next to the most harmful drugs considered by the scheduling system of heroin and cocaine and that seems to be a political decision to keep it there. So how evidence-based is that decision, but it's not a criticism of the ECDD, it just demonstrates what political pressure they are under even though their mandate is to be independent and based on science and evidence. For reform towards recreational cannabis, it doesn't have much impact. Cannabis remains in schedule one, although the WHO, the expert committee did say that it actually doesn't belong there, but for reasons that it's used worldwide at a large scale, they keep it there, which is I think procedurally a dubious debate and from there, the problem starts. The whole scheduling system is inconsistent. The whole exercise shows that actually you need another kind of scheduling system. So what change it will make in people's lives or in accessing these medicines at home? It's about reducing the barrier at country level and the regulatory barriers in the distribution and in supply prescribing and dispensing of those medicines. Another impact of those recommendations will be also on research and development of new medicines. At the moment, there are about more than 300 clinical trials that are done on cannabis, which means that there is a huge interest in finding out more medical indications from cannabis. Although we understand the need for member states to properly assess and understand the recommendations, I ask you, dear delegates serving on this commission in narcotic drugs, fulfill the mandate of the International Drug Control System to ensure access to medicine. Medicine is capable of relieving human suffering. We have waited long enough. Thank you. Take care of yourself and ensure access for all. Beside the science, you know, that is informing the recommendations. There is also a vote that goes beyond science that involves different other parameters that are of concern to countries. Member states are moving ahead anyway with medical cannabis. Many of them, every single day, you hear of another country that's deciding to do this. So the fact that here we cannot acknowledge what is happening in the real world, it's just another example of, you know, yeah, it's rather out of touch with reality, space in which member states are discussing drug control policies here in Vienna.


I think everybody and welcome to the 34th meeting of 2015 of the Rural Affairs Climate Change and Environment Committee. Remind those around that mobile phones should be in silent and members of the committee use tablets for their papers are produced online. We apologise for Angus MacDonald not being here but we're joined by Christian Alar as is substitute. In the outset, I remind members and those in the public gallery The committee will be suspended between 10.50 and 11.10 this morning in order to allow people to attend the Remembrance Day ceremony being held in the garden lobby and to note that there will be an amended agenda for the period after that, which gives an update on the case of Andrew Stoddart. Agenda 1 is to consider whether to take agenda item 4 in private. It's consideration of the evidence heard from the minister this morning on the Paris 2015 UN climate change conference COP 21. Agenda 2 is to consider whether to take agenda item 4 in private. It's consideration of the private and public water supplies, miscellaneous amendments, Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015, 346 and the climate change duties of public bodies, reporting requirements, Scotland order 2015, SSI 2015, 346. As members will recall, the committee has agreed as part of its work programme to write to public sector bodies regarding their experiences of reporting in the trial year with a view to considering this issue as part of its legacy work in early 2016. I refer members to the paper and ask if there are any comments. I do want to make a comment on the private water supplies subordinate legislation. I declare an interest in the sense that I used to have a private water supply as other people in this committee have, but I represent quite a number of people who do have private water supplies, which are quite common in rural parts of Scotland. I think that there are four issues that I would like some answers on perhaps and perhaps we could seek those answers from the Scottish Government. The first of which is the issue of who will be affected. The briefing document that we have talks about business as being affected, but I'd like to know about individuals being affected because I suspect that many individuals will be affected. Secondly, who was consulted. The document speaks of consulting local authorities. I'd like to know if individual users were consulted. Thirdly, I'd like to know the total number of private supplies still extant in Scotland because I think that it is important. Finally, I'd like to know what resources are available to help those with private supplies to adapt in the light of those changes. For example, I don't think that it is onerous, but not terribly onerous, to filter a private water supply. I suspect that it is very difficult to remove radon from a private water supply and in those circumstances presumably the private supply has to cease. However, if people have to then connect to the mains, in some cases that will be impossible, in other cases it will be extremely expensive. I think that we need more information about this. I mean, I was told that the minister wasn't responding to this, but as she has responsibility for the water supplies, she now knows the questions that will be asked and perhaps we could get information on them. We'll write to the minister about this particularly. Christiane Allard. Thank you, convener. I'm delighted that the committee is going to decide to write to the minister about it. Particularly on the redden, I think there should be a little reassurance maybe from the minister about the decision that the threshold will not be faced as Scottish Water asked for it to be. I'm particularly concerned about the North East of Scotland, where we could have an issue. I would love to hear more about guidance to local authorities, especially about the effect that it could have on implementing this directive. Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener. It was on the public sector duties, if that's all right. We'll come to that in a minute. No more on the water one just now. We'll write to the minister about these points. On the second item, the public bodies duties reporting requirements. We've got a question from Claudia Beamish and Sarah Boyack. Right. Thank you, convener. It was in relation to the financial effects and I was quite surprised to see that in the business and regulatory impact assessment that it says, and I quote, no significant additional financial impact is foreseen as most of these bodies already have, already report broadly equivalent information on a voluntary basis. From the evidence that we've taken previously in this committee and from representing the committee as an observer on the public sector climate leaders forum, as I say, I was surprised by this because some of the public sector listed bodies are much further down the road on this reporting than others. I think that the cost of catching up might have some significant implications and also I think that the cost of the peer assessment to make sure, as we heard in committee previously when we were taking evidence on this, that the cost of that could well be somewhat onerous, particularly on some of the smaller bodies that are listed. I would like those points raised, please. Sarah Boyack. Thank you very much, convener. It was just really to follow on from that point. There clearly have been a lot of lessons learned from the voluntary efforts of those public sector agencies that have started to address this issue and having been to one of the public sector climate leaders forums on behalf of the committee to substitute for Claudia. Also, the evidence session that we had ourselves struck me was that there is a lot of best practice, the challenges that are making that standard practice, right across the public sector. There is a particular challenge about organisations transport footprint, one of the key groups that was giving evidence to us, but a lot of them have very big staffing opportunities to change how staff don't just deliver a service but get to work. I think that it came up from a couple of the witnesses that we had. The police, for example, did not really see how that would affect them, but there were other big organisations, particularly public sector local authorities, where thousands of staff arriving every day and the carbon footprint will be quite substantial. Learning the lessons from those organisations that have put in place transformative policies that have worked and how you bring up the rear to get the best impact from them would be an important lesson to be communicated and leadership issues to be learned from that. Is the committee agreed that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to those instruments? Are we agreed? We will write to the minister about those points. The third item of business is to take oral evidence on the upcoming Paris 2015 UN climate change conference COP 21. I welcome the minister and the Scottish Government officials to the meeting. Good morning. Aileen McLeod, Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, John Ireland, Deputy Director of Low Carbon Economy, Division and Gavin Barry, the head of international low-carbon team. Minister, would you like to make an opening statement? Good morning, convener, and I would like to thank the committee for inviting me along this morning to outline the Scottish Government's position ahead of the upcoming UN framework convention on climate change COP 21 in Paris that is convening later this month. We hope very much that treaty agreed during COP 21 will be a big step forward in the fight against climate change and over the course of this year. I have communicated a clear message that the international community will need to match Scotland's strong ambition and action by building on the COP 21 outcome in the years ahead. Unchecked, the greenhouse gases could warm the planet by over four degrees Celsius and you want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change falling on the world's poorest and most vulnerable people. At an event hosted by the US consulate in Edinburgh and WWF Scotland last week, attended by young leaders from the 2050 climate group, the new US principal officer in Scotland, Susan Wilson, set out President Obama's very strong commitment to the climate change agenda. Francis, a new consul general in Scotland, Emmanuel Cocher, spoke about how a changing approach by the US and China has now put a climate treaty within reach. Scotland is strongly supporting UK, EU, UNFCCC, the US and French efforts to secure an ambitious, comprehensive, robust, transparent, credible and durable international climate agreement. Over 150 countries, covering around 90 per cent of global emissions, have made new climate pledges. This is indeed a huge step forward from the coverage of the Kyoto protocol. The pledges may limit Earth's warming to around or below three degrees Celsius and the international energy agency called the pledges unprecedented, impressive and remarkable. On the draft treaty text, the French climate change ambassador, Laurent Dubiana, said that, while much work remains, the text is a good basis for negotiations. It is certainly a good start, but we will need to work hard to raise ambitions even further. There are still big issues to be resolved at the COP21, five yearly reviews of global ambition to deliver the two degrees Celsius goal, the central issue of climate finance for developing countries and a long-term goal to provide certainty about the global transition to low-carbon. I will also attend the COP21 on the UK delegation. The First Minister is extremely keen to attend, and we are looking at suitable opportunities. Scottish Civic Society will also be represented. The eco congregations are taking the climate justice baton, which has been travelling around Scotland, and our 2050 group of young people are holding an event on 4 December and the 2020 group on 10 December. There is no doubt that, in international terms, Scotland has a very strong story to tell. We have cut our emissions by 38.4 per cent since 1990. We have delivered against our target of 500 megawatts of community renewables five years early and against our target for a 13 per cent reduction in energy consumption seven years early. To help mitigate the impact of climate change on those who have done least to contribute to it, but are most affected by it, we are supporting developing countries to meet the challenges of climate change, with £3.8 million from our international development fund since 2012 for community energy projects in Malawi, and £6 million from our innovative climate justice fund for 11 water adaptation projects in Malawi, Zambia, Tain, and Tain. When I met Christiana Fugueris, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC in July at the World Summit to Climate and Territories, she has strongly praised the work that Scotland has done in this area and has since stated that we are shining example for other countries. We have been extremely keen to promote the shining example to the international community. Over the past year, Scotland has become a member of the compact of states and regions, an international reporting platform representing 12.5 per cent of global GDP and over 325 million people worldwide, which demonstrates the collective impact of sub-national governments. I also signed up to the Under 2 MOU, an initiative promoted by the state of California, aimed at catalyzing action ahead of the COP. Whatever the outcome in Paris is, I think a clear signal from the COP21 conference will be boosted by strong action from the many non-state actors, devolved state, regional governments, cities, businesses and the public, which we hope will bring the two-degree Celsius goal within the COP. As a Government and Scotland, we will be doing everything that we possibly can to promote a positive outcome. I am keen to take a strong message to Paris with me from this committee and from the Parliament, and I am happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. I think that there is quite a lot of questions that we would like to start off with Mike Russell on the floor, followed up by Sarah Boyack. Thank you very much, minister. I think that the entire committee supports and wishes you well when you go to Paris. I think that it is important that a Scotland's voice is heard in this matter. I wonder if you can talk us through the range of contacts that you will be seeking to make in Paris, the exemplar status that I know you want Scotland to have in terms of its actions so far, and perhaps some of the lessons that you think Scotland can also learn from the others who are there. Finally, if that were not enough, the outcomes that you want to see achieved at the end of the Paris process and how they will affect Scotland? While the Scottish ministers attend as part of the UK Government delegation, negotiations are led on by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. My role and the role of other devolved ministers is to assist the UK in outreach activities, promoting the key role that Scotland plays as a devolved administration in promoting high ambition, the role of devolved other state and regional governments and the championing of climate justice.  I also met Sir David King, the UK special representative on climate change and a variety of international NGOs such as the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance, the World Resources Institute, Friends of the Earth, WWF and obviously an Oxfam as well. Earlier this year, at the World Summit of Climate and Territories in Lyong in July, which was a very important stepping stone event that was held by the French Government and the Rhone Alps regions, I was also introduced to the French president from Sois-Holland. I met Christiana Fugueres, the head of the UNFCCC, as well as other states, regions and devolved ministers, as well as the Welsh minister Carl Sargent. I have also met the EU climate change commissioner, Kennedy, and the EU environment commissioner, Bella, at the environment councils in June and September, as well as at the EU green growth meeting in Brussels in September. As I said before, during 2015, in Scotland, we have committed to the under 2 MOU and the compact of states and regions so that we have the long-term climate targets and we will report to the international community and the UN on progress. That is also in addition to the fact that myself and my other ministerial colleagues have also met the French Europe minister, the president of Mexico, the Japanese trade minister, energy environment ministers from Ireland, the Canadian minister, the climate group states and regions ministers and ambassadors from the US, France, Norway, Poland and Quebec. I take on some of your other points. I am going to bring in Gavin Barry to give us some more detail around some of the areas that we will be pushing hard on in the COP 21. In terms of Scotland's narrative, the minister outlined it in an opening statement. By international standards, Scotland's 38 per cent cut in emissions puts us in the world-leading category. We are also generating almost half of our electricity demand from renewables. The minister mentioned about delivering early on a couple of our targets on community renewables and on energy consumption. In the context of Paris, we think that the concept of being able to deliver earlier over, deliver against targets is going to be very important because we know that the Paris pledges, as things stand, will only take us to around 3 degrees C. It is very important to be able to signpost at Paris examples of where countries have overcommitted. This echoes the EU's main message, which is that they expect to over-deliver against their 2020 target, which was a 20 per cent cut in emissions and they expect to do 24 or 25 per cent for 2020. Scotland's narrative tries to echo and target some of the big messages that will be coming out of Paris. As the minister said, it is very important to be able to demonstrate that we are working to support developing countries. Our two main narratives about climate justice fund, which was funded by HydroNation and the international development funding for renewable energy as part of the UN sustainable energy for all initiative, are also very important. Many of us are quite proud of the ambition and the targets that came through from the 2009 act. You are right, minister, to highlight the fact that it is the right thing to do that will benefit other countries in terms of climate justice. Economic and social benefits, particularly for vulnerable countries. The idea about stabilising economies and enabling food production will benefit us as a country in Scotland. The other main issue in terms of leadership is the lessons for other countries about how we have got on translating ambition into action. It is clear that there have been ambitious targets. It would be good to highlight what we think the early winds have been but also not to ignore what have been the harder areas. It goes back to your point about robust, transparent and durable targets. Will you include in the narrative what things have been easier and harder and how you are working around them? In that context, it would be useful to put on record why it has been harder to meet the early targets because of the change in methodology and what you intend to do to catch up on the 17.5 million tonnes of excess emissions. To put on record why it will be easier to meet the 2020 target, as I understand it, because of the construction of the way that the emissions targets are set. That would be helpful to a lot of stakeholders. I will bring in John Island in a minute. In terms of the progress that we have been making towards our 42 per cent target, I think that I should be quite clear that the revisions to the inventory have not made it easier to achieve the 42 per cent target. Remains is challenging, as it was, when it was first set by the Parliament. My analysts have presented the main causes and impacts of the revisions in the publication Scottish Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2013 key revisions since 2008, which is also available on the Scottish Government's website. As I made clear in my statement to the Parliament of 27 October, we will make up for excess cumulative emissions through our third report on proposals and policies. Producing a credible package of measures to make up the shortfall from previous annual targets and to get back on track to meet future annual targets will take time. We are doing this as soon as is reasonably practical, as required by the act, which will be when we publish the draft third report on policies and proposals, which will be before the end of 2016. At this stage, it is too early to say how quickly the excess emissions will be compensated, but it is our aim where possible to overachieve against future annual targets to recover the difference by which the earlier targets were missed. The stuff is in big documents, but that is not transparent to most people. It is to explain it in human terms what that actually means so that it is on the record and people get that. I totally agree about our ambition, but it is about communicating to others how we do this and when you set targets, how you monitor them and the challenge of being transparent and to pull people in about the benefits. I think that the two things go together, particularly in the context of your opening remarks. In terms of transparency, we are absolutely right in saying that we produce a lot of technical narrative here, which is available on the Government website. It is partly in response to the act, partly in what Government statisticians do. I think that the basic story behind the revisions, which explains why it was difficult to meet our first batch of annual targets, is probably quite straightforward. The baseline has shifted upwards, and most of that revision hasn't affected the trend. Mr Ireland, could you move your microphone over towards you? Sorry, my apologies. I was just saying that the basic story here is that as we've learnt more and more about emissions and had better measurement, obviously the baseline has moved upwards and all the subsequent data has followed that. It's a very simple story about learning more, improving the quality of the data. The trend really hasn't been altered by the revisions, so the lines have moved upwards, but the trend and the difficulty of hitting the percentage reduction targets hasn't changed. There's one exception to that, which is very much around the potency of methane. The science has improved. We understand now that methane is much more potent as greenhouse gas, and that has resulted in a re-weighting of methane in the measurement. The Scottish Government has been very clear about its ambition to reduce emissions of methane from waste. It's been successful in doing so, and that has resulted in a slightly different set of revisions in waste. However, the basic story is that, as we've learnt more, the data has just moved upwards. That's made hitting the annual targets much, much harder. That, in essence, is why the Scottish Government has missed those annual targets. I agree that statistically it's quite a complex story, but I think that there is transparency there as well. That's the first time I've really heard it in language that I think would be really accessible. I think that's important, because it then lets us think about, where are the challenges of tackling methane? How does that affect different sectors, whether it's agriculture, whether it's energy, whether it's transport? That's quite useful in terms of concentrating on the mind. My sense is that we need to be able to tell our story, and it can't just be where the best, because there are challenges that come from being ambitious, and that will help other countries. I'm actually quite pleased to hear that. I think that's really useful. I still would like to know a little bit more, obviously, earlier than this time next year about how we're going to meet up the gap, but I think that the minister is not able to answer that today. I'll just keep that on, keep asking our future dates. The only thing that I was going to come back to, convener, is to say that that's something, obviously, in terms of how we are meeting that abatement gap, will be set out in the rules on our report on the policies and measures of RPP3. When we have set ourselves extremely stretching annual targets on that pathway to that 42 per cent reduction by 2020, in all the international engagements that we have undertaken, we have been extremely open and honest about the challenges that we face in achieving the reductions that climate science tells us are necessary. Graham is on a supplementary to that, and so is Claudia, I think. I hear what you say about incorporating those measures and scrutinising them as part of RPP3, but wait 2016, early 2017 is a long way off, and those are important matters. Why couldn't this committee, or even the wider Parliament, be afforded the opportunity to consider any such measures before then, even on an interim or updating basis? We could not, for example, provide greater detail in the policies that were set out by LL this year, such as the commitment to make energy efficiency a national infrastructure priority. We might get an idea on the anticipated emissions impact to those policies that you announced and the timescales for delivery. In an indication of what further policies might be required, it may indeed already be being worked up by the Government. In terms of the development of the RPP3, that is under way across the Scottish Government. RPP3 will obviously focus on how we are going to deliver those world-leading climate change targets, but we also need to have advice from our advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, before we can legislate or finalise the RPP. That is scheduled for March next year. In terms of bearing our climate change in the budget, at the moment, we are unable to pre-empt discussion on the budget and the infrastructure investment plan. Work is certainly under way at the moment to consider how climate change can be prioritised in our spending review and in the infrastructure investment plan. We will work closely with the committee and the Parliament to agree a Scottish budget process for the years that will take us into account. I accept all those points, Minister, but is there scope between now and the end of 2016 for you to be in a position to update the committee on progress that is being made? Will you give us a steer on the direction of travel in all those areas? Please join me at 10.55 for a commemoration service in the Garden of Lobby, where all building users will be invited to observe two-minute silence of remembrance for those who have suffered and done in the service of the country. We will be having a recess at 10.02. We have another five minutes. Claudia Beamish. Sorry, I was just going to respond to that point about the sort of intimate opportunity. One of the difficulties in producing an RPP is the way in which it all hangs together. It's not just sort of you can do one thing in transport, in isolation to say something over here on infrastructure. The whole thing hangs together, so part of the process involves taking that very holistic look at Scotland as a low-carbon country, so that does make it difficult to sort of make piecemeal announcements. There are quite a lot of staging steps in this process, though, at which you will have an opportunity to both input and to sort of see the direction of travel. Currently, the Committee on Climate Change is taking evidence. There has been a call for evidence, which will be used to produce the advice to the Scottish Government about future targets and also the sustainability of current targets. That call for evidence is particularly important, and I would encourage everyone to respond to that. That evidence will be published in March, and that's a very good opportunity for people to see the lay of the land and the advice from our independent advisers. Of course, during the process of constructing RPP 3, there will be lots of opportunities for dialogue, again in which things will start to emerge. I accept that point, but I presume that when the measures that were announced in June of this year were drawn up, they were drawn up with a broad understanding or anticipation of the impact that they might have towards meeting the shortfall. What I'm trying to get at is that we must have an idea of how far those are liable to take us and therefore what additional measures might be required. That's what I'm getting at here. To what timescales would they deliver? In terms of the measures that we have brought forward, they will be in the budget. At the moment, we cannot pre-empt the budget discussions, because we are still waiting to hear from the spending review, which will be announced with a chance on 25 November. In terms of the RPP 3 process, I'm keen to have that process as widely as possible, so there will be opportunities for the Parliament and the committees to be engaging with that process as well. We are still in a very early stage of our engagement plans with the RPP 3, but we are keen to make sure that the Parliament and the committees are fully engaged with that process. Claudia Cymru is supplementary on those points, which we can finish in the next couple of minutes. Thank you convener. Good morning minister and two officials as well. Quite a lot of what I wanted to raise has been covered, which is reassuring, because I can't speak for the committee, but my perception of things has been that through the RPP 2 process and scrutiny of the budget and encouraging other committees to look very carefully at the implications of their policies in relation to climate change that this committee has taken a strong lead. A lot of what you have raised now minister are things that I understand that we can't talk about. You can't share with us anything in the detail of how the budget is developing, that there are issues around the fact that the RPP 3 will be in the next session of the Parliament and a whole range of issues. In terms of the leadership that we want to focus on going back to your opening remarks in Paris, I think that there are issues that we could share in terms of, for instance, the sectors where there has been heavy emissions such as agriculture and housing and transport, which we could share with other countries or offer to share, if they are interested of course, as to how we can take things forward. I wonder whether we might be able to have as much information in this committee as soon as possible so that we can consider that for our legacy paper. We will have to answer this in about 20 minutes' time. We resumed the meeting just now. It was a question from Claudia Beamish, who is going to pray C very quickly. Minister, as you will recall, I was highlighting the concerns about the challenges with heavy emitters such as transport and agriculture and housing and how we can share those concerns if other countries are interested to support them. Also, the issue of how the committee is keen to have updates as soon as possible on the issues in relation to the budget and on-going work on the RPP 3 so that we can include our response in our legacy paper. On the last two points that Claudia Beamish has raised, I am very happy to make sure that we are keeping the committee up-to-date. I will post a spending review when we have a better idea about the budget. The Deputy First Minister set out yesterday that the Scotland budget will be around 16 December. On the last point that you raised, Claudia Beamish, what are the heavy emitters and the possibilities of, if other countries are interested in sharing the challenges? We all acknowledge that that has been difficult for us and I am sure that it is for other countries as well from what I understand. I am going to ask Gavin Barry to answer some of that question but also to pick up on the point that you raised on the RPP 3. Obviously, we are very keen, as I said earlier, to make sure that this committee is particularly well plugged into that and we are very keen to be working with you around that. On the fact that we have the good story to tell so that we have produced a pamphlet, we have been using that in a lot of our international engagements. If I hand over to Gavin Barry to talk you through that. We have tried to design a version of Scotland's narrative, our story and the lessons coming out of Scotland, specifically for the international community. One that complements EU messaging and UK messaging. We have been told for many years by the commission that it is very important to have messages for businesses. We have a very strong set of evidence in Scotland about the economic value of the low-carbon economy. When the minister met Christiana Fogueras in July, she was very interested in the sector-by-sector approach, breaking it down, the challenge that Scotland had faced sector by sector and being able to present that. It is often, for other countries, a question of key industries and, quite often, energy-intensive industries. What we have done is designed a series of case studies about what is drawn from Scotland and there are things that people recognise about Scotland. We have a very good set of stories about Glasgow and about the Sustainable Glasgow project and about the Commonwealth Games, about the sustainability of major events in general. Glasgow is working with the Green Investment Bank, which is a key priority of both the Scottish and UK Governments, on LEDs and a green transport strategy. We have the whisky industry, where there are many good examples of sustainability. Carbon capture and storage is another area in which we support the... We are very strongly in favour of carbon capture and storage and that supports the UK narrative as well. Sustainable transport, hydrogen buses and Aberdeen would be a good example to point to there. We have also been looking at good news stories about energy efficiency in historic buildings. Finally, our support for developing countries, as I mentioned before, is climate justice. Scotland lights up the Malawi initiative, which is in addition to the climate justice fund itself and sustainable energy for all. We are trying to break down the Scottish story into sector by sector to show how each of our sectors has faced certain challenges and managed to overcome them. We think that that is a development of the narrative that will help other countries. We can get a copy of that, minister. We are updating it for Paris this week, so it will be a new version, hopefully, by the end of the week or next week. As the observer on the climate leaders forum on the public sector just asked the minister about the contribution of the public sector and how that is going to be reflected, which I hope it will be as it is a very positive message in many ways. Again, there are challenges being faced by a whole range of organisations. The good progress has been made to address the climate change, but we know that there is still more to do. People of Scotland will expect our public sector to lead by example, but the new legislation requires our listed public bodies to annually report on compliance with their climate change duties. It will also encourage continuous improvement and further engage our public sector leaders in the climate change agenda more generally. We want to encourage our stakeholders to comply with the public bodies duties and to encourage sustainability, resilience and greater emissions and cost reductions. Sarah Boyack raised how the Government will let Parliament know about the measures that it will take to make up for the excess emissions. From what the minister said, this is going to be left to RPP3. Is the Government not under a duty under the Climate Change Act to let Parliament know what steps it is going to take when it has missed its targets under section 36 of the Climate Change Act, which asks it to produce a separate report on what mitigating steps it will take? I do not see a separate report under section 36 as being RPP3. Producing a credible package of proposals and policies to make up that shortfall was total 17.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent from previous annual targets and to get back on track to meet future annual targets. That will take time and that is why it is our intention that the RPP3 will set out the proposals and policies in detail to compensate in future years for the excess emissions from the previous annual targets. That work is under way at the moment and it is planned that we will lay a draft of the RPP3 for scrutiny by the Parliament towards the end of next year. In light of the revisions to the Scottish Greenhouse Gas Emission data, we are, as I said before, awaiting advice from the Committee on Climate Change, which is due in March next year. We are also awaiting delivery of our new times model in December this month, which will help to inform our policy development around that. I am sorry, convener, but under the Climate Change Act, the Government is under a duty, under the section that it is in, to provide a separate report laying out what mitigating steps it will take to address excess emissions. Why is it not doing that? We have said that we will do that as soon as is reasonable and practical. RPP3 is your answer to that. RPP3 is where we will set out in terms of how we are going to compensate and do the abatement. I will hand over to John Ireland to give us some more detail around that. The act that you are absolutely correct requires us to lay reports as soon as is practically possible. For the reasons that I outlined earlier, the sensible way of doing this is to do it holistically, considering the whole of Scotland's contribution. That is best done as an RPP3 process. The act does not require separate reports. It requires us to make those things as clear as possible as soon as is reasonably practical. That is what RPP3 will be doing. To clarify that, you are saying that RPP3 constitutes action under section 36 of the climate change act. I am pleased to have it on the record. Sarah Boyack. I am equally pleased to have it on the record. I suppose that the question is that this year's annual target not being met was not the first annual target. I hope that you get the disappointment from some of us that we have known that there are challenges. Waiting until the end of 2016 is quite a long time to wait, given that we have missed the first four annual targets. Even some sense of early actions, given that we have a budget that, as you say, the minister is coming out with in the next month. I understand why you would not want to do piecemeal initiatives. But surely we now know what the big hitter issues are in terms of housing, transport, agriculture and forestry. It is not really going to take rocket science to work out what needs to be done. I think that it is really important to await for the latest advice from the Committee on Climate Change, which takes on board developments in science and the advice to the UK Government for their carbon budget. It is important to have a good technical understanding of where the abatement can best come from. That requires that advice, but it also requires the new model that we have talked about on previous occasions. I think that this timetable makes sense in those terms. We are not really expecting any new policies in the sense that we know what the big areas are and we have known what they are since we passed the Climate Change Act. I am surprised that we need to wait for the detail on methane to be doing the sensible things on active travel, transport and warmer homes. Methane is just one part of it. The really important thing is where you can push to reduce abatement in the future and get on to a credible path. That requires that advice from the CCC. The Committee on Climate Change is keen to work with us on that as well. That was one of the points that they made quite clear in their Scottish Progress report that was published back in March. Minister, I take it that there could well be further revisions to the way in which we measure these things. We are aware of the fact that methane has been mentioned, but when the act was passed in 2009, were we aware that there were going to be many revisions? It is before my time too, so I do not know the exact answer to that question. We can certainly go back and have a look at that. It is something that we can explore. We are very happy for the committee to write us around that. We know that the climate science data is always improving. That is the point that I want to raise. Do we anticipate further revisions? I think that we probably do. In which case, do not we need to be trying to get ahead of the targets rather than be catching up with them if we anticipate that it will become increasingly challenging? Yes, absolutely. I would take that point by green day. That is what we did through the RPP2. I think that we can pass on to a question on a more general sort on the wider question from Jim Hume. It is following on. Good morning, minister and officials. It is following on from that. Just like to echo, I do not think that it is reasonable to use the term reasonably practical to not report on the section 36 obligations. We will just leave that to a side because the minister has addressed that point. It is not before my time that I was there when the 2009 act went through and did vote, which was not the unanimous vote, but did vote for the annual targets to be measured annually from the start of the enactment of that bill. We have missed those targets year after year, four years in a row. There was cold weather was blamed at the beginning and then, of course, there has been some change in how you measure it. Obviously, we do not want to have the most ambitious targets that will never be met. I also mentioned the annual targets. Gavin Barry mentioned renewable energy. Of course, renewable energy is only about 15 per cent of energy use. We are providing heat to something just over 52 per cent just for interest sake. With that in mind, I wonder if the minister could inform me. I am sure that she is very much for climate change improvements, but her other departments of the Scottish Government, do they climate change proof all the decisions making when decisions are made in investments in other portfolios of government? Is that something that is done regularly with all decisions or is it not? As part and parcel of the budget process, we also produce the carbon assessment from other Government departments. They are doing that as part and parcel of the budget process. In that case, Graham Day, you have got to add on to this. We are exploring things that the Scottish Government has control over, but there are also issues that you do not and certainly won't. I want to raise the issue of the events of the last few days in which, if I read correctly, the UK Government's environment department has accepted a 30 per cent budget cut going forward, which will undoubtedly impact on the UK Government's performance in climate change terms. I also wonder what impact we anticipate that might have on Scotland's situation with the consequentials, Barnett, etc. That is probably something that we will have to come back to the committee on. At the moment, we have to wait and see what comes out from the UK Government's spending review when that is published on 25 November. I take it in a general sense that we anticipate bad news, or do we? I wouldn't want to pre-empt what the UK Government is going to say on 25 November, given what some of the announcements that we have heard in terms of the budgetary cuts from DEFRA were talking about a 30 per cent cut. I would assume so. I wonder if the minister could tell me what correspondence you have had or discussions with Amber Rudd, who is going to be leading the UK delegation. On the question, first of all, of her admission that she allegedly misled Parliament about renewable energy being on course, although there seems to be a 25 per cent shortfall, and how much that is down to the decisions of the previous coalition Government and this Government in following through in the reduction in support for renewable energy? Over the course of the year, I have met the UK Secretary of State, Amber Rudd, at Environment Councils in June and September. We have also corresponded on the UK negotiating position and through a joint letter as well with the Welsh Minister where we requested a UK endorsement of the under 2 memorandum understanding, which we are a part of. Obviously, in terms of some of the changes that have been made by the UK Government on energy policy, I think that the moment they have been, to say the least, extremely unhelpful, they will make it harder for us to build a low-carbon energy system that the UK and Scotland need at exactly the time when we should be accelerating our actions now. We know that, since June, we have seen the announcement of the early closure of the renewables obligation for onshore wind developments. There has been the proposed privatisation of the investment bank and changes to vehicle exercise duty, the removal of pre-accuritation for the feed-in tariff, which is a few weeks ago the announcement on the removal of tax relief for community energy projects, and alongside the continuing uncertainty on the renewable heat incentive and the contract for difference now. Jacqueline McLeod, who is the chief scientist of the UN's environment programme, has highlighted how disappointing it is to see the UK drawing subsidies at a time when, worldwide, we are seeing a move very much towards investing in renewable energy. We have been extremely disappointed around some of those announcements because the UK Government's own impact assessment of its plans to close the renewables obligation early considered that that decision could increase UK climate emissions by up to 63 million tonnes. It seems also that the eco-scheme has been withdrawn, also something that was signalled during the previous Government, the coalition Government between the Liberals and the Tory Party, and that now the Tory Party in government has removed many of those things more rapidly than was expected. How does this leave the Scottish Government's situation with regard to the way in which the ambitions for COP 21 can be met? You have given us some answers to that, but does the question of energy efficiency and the reduction in home warmth schemes add to the problems that we face in a country that is colder and wetter? I will hand over to Joanne. The minister made clear in her announcements in June the importance of energy efficiency and the work that the Scottish Government was doing, and again, a lot of that can't be preempted. I think that the obvious point that you are making is that all those UK policy reversals and all those around the Green Deal as well do make this much, much more difficult for the Scottish Government to act upon. Okay, thank you. Dave Thomson. Thank you very much, convener. Morning, minister and officials. In terms of reaching targets, I'm going to be maybe a wee bit more practical and possibly even parochial. I first drove an electric vehicle over 50 years ago when I was 15 years old. I was a baker's delivery van and there wasn't much traffic on the roads and lossy in these days, so it was quite safe, even though it was probably illegal at that time. It was early morning, and now I've just ordered myself 50 years later an electric vehicle, which I'm hoping to get in December. Now, the range of these vehicles is extending all the time and the batteries are improving all the time, and what I'm told is that in real practical terms, you'll get about 110 miles, although official figures will show you maybe 150. The vehicle are bought on this in Leif from Dixon's in Varnes, but the thing is in the highlands and in rural areas, there aren't that many rapid charging points. Now, there are fast points, but fast points take hours to charge, rapid points you can do it in half an hour to an hour. Also in the highlands, if we're going to tackle climate change and reduce emissions, we've got to deal with transport because there was only a 2.1% reduction in transport emissions and a lot of folk in the highlands have two cars, not because they're particularly wealthy, but because to get anywhere for work or leisure, people need more than one vehicle. So I think it's important that we ensure that folk in the highlands, in particular, but other remote rural areas too, have access to these rapid charging points because that's the biggest problem for the folk who are selling the cars. It's confidence that the public would have that they're going to get to where they want to go. For instance, on the way to Skye, you'll get a rapid point at Drumnodroch. It's just 15 miles from in Burness, where you won't need it then. There is one in Broadford and then there's one in Newig, and I would have to congratulate the Government and Calmark and so on because out of the sort of 10 rapid points across the whole of the highlands and islands, five are at ferry terminals, so that's certainly helping the situation. So I just wonder what plans you have to increase the provision of these rapid points because unless somebody's going to go and spend five or six hours in a town to get a fast charge, and that's how long it takes, they need a rapid charge, which is half an hour to an hour, which is much more realistic. But it costs £20,000, I'm told, to install a rapid charging point. Businesses and small businesses in particular aren't going to be able to afford that. So how do we spread the number of rapid points, not just in the cities where they'll appear naturally, I'm quite sure, but in the remote and rural areas where it's even more important to get folk on to electrical vehicles rather than combustion engines? I think Dave Thompson makes a number of very good points, a number of helpful points as well, as a member representing a very large and remote rural area myself. I absolutely agree, and obviously there are some points in there that I'm very happy to take away in terms of writing to our Minister for Transport, Derek Mackay. But we have invested £11 million in the development of the charge place Scotland network of electric vehicle charge points, which now comprises over 400 units, which equates to about 800 public charging bays, with many more that are being commissioned over the coming months. Obviously work to provide that high-powered rapid charges on strategic routes connecting Scotland's towns and cities as well is also continuing. I'm not sure just how many of these, I mean I would imagine, and from what I understand, if you try to find these things on the web, you'll find that there's a plethora of little dots showing you where the points are in the urban areas. We need to get more into the rural areas because you've got greater distances and although the ranges of these vehicles is increasing and you'll get over 100 miles, a real over 100 miles, some of the smaller vehicles won't do that much, and there's a real disincentive to get anybody in the highlands and islands on to electric vehicles. The cities will take care of themselves in a sense, so what I would be suggesting is that we make sure that these points, and it's the fast points remember, sorry the rapid points, not the fast ones, the rapid points that we need to develop where somebody can stop for a coffee and in half an hour they've got an 80 per cent charge, not six or seven hours later, because that's just not practical. I would just plead with you and the transport minister that the roll-out needs to be focused more in rural areas where there's a greater need, I would suggest. No, I accept that point from Dave Thompson and certainly we are working with our partners to deliver actions from our electric vehicle roadmats switched on Scotland, but I agree in trying to roll that out into more of a rural areas. Can I just ask one final point, convener? Just on that point, yes. Just to follow up, in terms of promotion, I know that there are private organisations involved in supply of these, and I'm not sure there's a proper co-ordinated system promoting where all the different points are. If you go on to some websites they'll just show certain points, they won't show them all. If the minister and others could have a wee look at trying to get a better co-ordination and better advertising of where these rapid points are. You'll have to do that. Graham Day is a short point to add to this. I appreciate, minister, that we're going away from COP 21 and exploring this, but it's an important subject. You undertook to write to the transport minister on behalf of Mr Thompson's points. Can I add to that? The city of Dundee Council has done fantastic work to update both in terms of provision of points and its own vehicle fleet. I'm interested in how that is reflected across the rest of the country, across the other 31 local authorities, because this is about uptake of the transport Scotland-provided support. If it were possible to get some information I think it would be interesting to have that. Yes, and we're more than happy to come back to the committee with some further details about that. I think, as I said before, that we're in a question from Mr Day during the statement on 27 October. There was a survey that was done in 2014 of 433 councils in the UK regarding how many electric vehicles that they had in their fleets. I was at four of the top five, where from Scotland Dundee came top with South Lanarkshire, Glasgow City Council and Fife Council, placing second, third and fifth, respectively, but we're more than happy to come back to the committee with some further detail around that. Now, Sarah Boyack, on this point, is it? It was actually in your previous question, convener. Okay. Then we'll come to Christian Allard and then Claudia Beamish. It was really a follow-up on the point about the threat to renewables and small-scale renewables and heat projects. The ministers just mentioned the fact that she had responded to Graham Day when we had the climate statement. It's really to ask if the minister has been able to take the points that I made about the energy efficiency reduction on council tax that was allowed for in the Climate Change Act, and if she has further plans to promote that. Indeed, what the position is in business rates because my understanding is that the sub-ledge hasn't actually gone through in business rates, but I did note that the Deputy First Minister had recently announced that it would be possible to reduce business rates as part of that programme. Would that enable councils to reduce business rates on the grounds of energy efficiency measures? I think that that would be really helpful. Has she spoken to the energy minister about just how we might head off at the past some of the potential cancellations in terms of community energy projects? I know that there's an underspend in budgets running to millions. Would that be something that could be done with the short-term bridging measure by the environment and the energy department working together? I'm certainly more than happy to raise that with the energy minister. I know that he has also been in contact with the UK Secretary of State Amber Rudd about the various announcements that have been made since June, but I think that I'll get John Ireland to answer some of the more detailed questions. I was just going to say on the council tax point that the low-take-up of that is a very historical factor. I think that it probably reflects the lack of attractiveness of that relative to other incentives. There's going to be a lot of work. There's a lot of work on energy efficiency, domestic energy efficiency under way, and look at the Government's offer around that and that's something that will be announced in due course. We can get the committee some more information on the implications of Mr Swinney's announcements on non-domestic rates and its potential linked energy efficiency. I would be interested because we've not even reached 1,000 houses. I thought that a reasonable uptake in the first year all the environment minister described it as disappointing, but it was down to two last year. There's something about how the offer is actually punted out to people as well because it has been very successful in other parts of the UK. Thank you very much. Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. The draft of the COP 21 argument shows different options for member countries to consider and how ambitious the argument should be. We see that there are options that include 70 to 95% by 2050 for emission reduction, net zero emission by 2050, net zero emissions in the period 2016-18, or net zero emissions by 2100. I just wanted to know from the minister what preferred option that the Scottish Government would like to see adopted in the argument. We would like to see an agreement reached which ensures that the less than two degrees Celsius goal is achieved, that we are strategic about the prospects of that happening. The UN report has identified that the pledges made today are in line with roughly three degrees rise. It will be important that any deal involves a review mechanism which allows us to ratchet up that ambition in the years ahead. Earlier this year, the G7 had also committed to decarbonisation by the end of the century. We have been able to plan our own long-term and adjust transition to a low-carbon economy. We are quite happy to go for the zero emission by 2100. That will be your preferred option. I do not think that we have a preferred option. We see a number of options as being attractive. I do not think that this is about making binding commitments, the Scottish Government making binding commitments on that. One of those, we have done, is to set an 80 per cent greenhouse gas emissions reduction target by 2050. That matches the UK commitment to this period. Claudia Beamish The question I have really fits in with the previous question in terms of what the Scottish Government would like to see as part of the UK Government delegation coming out of the summit. I understand that while 128 of the intended nationally determined contributions so far to the UN show an increasing determination amongst the 156 parties to the convention to take actions of course to reduce emissions, but the global aggregate emissions they represent do not fall within the least cost of two degrees scenarios by 2025 and 2030. That is a real cause for concern. I appreciate that it is difficult at this stage of minister to say as you are part of a broader delegation, but could you make any comment on any further comment on those concerns which come from the synthesis report? We certainly strongly support the UK and the EU's efforts to secure an ambitious, legally binding Paris agreement, which provides that platform to limit the global temperature increase to less than two degrees. Over 150 countries covering almost 90 per cent of the global emissions have made the new pledges for 2030 which may limit us warming to around 2.7 degrees Celsius. As I mentioned in an open statement the pledges that have been made thus far and I think that there are still more that are coming in. I understand this morning we are up at 159. They are already a big step forward curbing that business as usual growth in global emissions and obviously we have the EU pledge which commits member states to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2030. We know that we will need to build on the Paris outcome in the years ahead because a further one third cut in global emissions by 2025 to 2030 could be required for the two degrees Celsius goal and that is why we have been supportive of the EU's objectives for any new treaty to be legally binding including that review mechanism which will allow global ambition to be ratcheted up over time and ensure that we can deliver against the two degrees Celsius goal and obviously that is what we have been trying to push for over the course of this year. We have been regularly calling for countries to match our strong ambition if we are to limit the global temperature increased to less than two degrees Celsius in line with what the climate science tells us as a necessary and also in line with what our international partners have already agreed to do. Right, thank you minister and could I broaden that out slightly because well very broadly actually because one of the issues that's of grave concern to me is the fact that the world's oceans aren't as I understand it taken into account within the summit that you will be attending and in relation to global temperature reductions is obviously very significant a lot of work's being done on that and as Scotland is in my view taking quite a considerable lead in relation to marine issues and climate change. I'm wondering if this isn't the forum, if you could perhaps explore where that experience and knowledge might be taken and how this issue is going to be taken forward globally. Is this in terms of just to clarify the question from Claudia Beamish? Is this in terms of blue carbon? It's in terms of blue carbon, it's in terms of also in terms of what different countries will have to do in terms of protecting their populations against effects of climate change in relation to coastal erosion, in relation to population shift which could be very grave. I mean certainly from our Scottish perspective I mean I think it is obviously possible to conceive I think of future economic activities that are designed primarily to trap and remove carbon from the sea and obviously many of our marine habitats are natural carbon sinks and ensuring that they are adequately protected in the hands I think that will help us to ensure that you continue to actively sequester and store carbon so obviously Scotland's blue carbon potential that you're absolutely right that does require further exploration and that certainly is going to be progressed and considered for inclusion within future rounds of the RPPP. So in terms of global forum is there anything that you minister could get back to us about in terms of where are these issues going to be dealt with globally would be very helpful in parallel with the teresul issues in the summit. We're certainly very happy to come back to the committee with some more detail around that but it's a very good point that Claudia Beamish has made. I think that that rounds up all the questions at the moment. I'd just like to ask you one final one just now. Is there any agreement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on what areas you as minister will be anticipating leading on as part of the UK delegation? I think that as I said at the beginning of session while we do attend as part of the UK Government delegation these negotiations are led on by the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change so my role and the role of other devolved ministers is primarily to assist the UK in outreach activities promoting the key role that Scotland has to play as a devolved administration within the UK in terms of promoting our high ambition and also in the championing of climate justice as well. I'll also bring in Gavin Barry. It's just to say that the expected devolved administration ministers will be on the UK delegation but there will also be other ministers from other UK departments so we're going to have a discussion with the UK team next week about relative respect of ministers programmes because they're likely to be quite a strong ministerial attendance from across Whitehall. It would be useful for us to be kept up to date about any role that they might find for the devolved administration ministers in this given our leading role in climate change. Thank you very much minister for these answers. We'll look forward to some of your well we'll look forward to all of your replies but there are some issues which you're going to reply upon. Thank you very much. We'll just have a short suspension and then we'll continue in public. I indicated and has been tweeted the agenda item 4 has been added with regard to agricultural holdings remedial order 2014 mediation and compensation process. As members are aware we've revised our agenda for this meeting to include an opportunity for the committee to consider an update on the latest information in relation to mediation relating to the case of tenant farmer Andrew Stoddart. I merely want to say before I bring in members that the letter we had on the 7th of November which is on our website from the cabinet secretary Richard Lochhead and addressed to me on your behalf points out that as part of the consideration of these matters in response to the recent representations from stakeholders the cabinet secretary has hosted a number of discussions with a range of interested parties including the STFA to discuss ways to assist Mr Stoddart and that they are exploring these with urgency. Options under consideration include extending the current lease at Causton mains farm the possibility of finding alternative farm land for Mr Stoddart and facilitating renewed negotiations around his weigh-go compensation and the committee will be aware that this is a complicated situation and that discussions between Mr Stoddart and his landlords have been on hold for some time. That's an extract from the letter he sent to us and I think it gives us a fair idea of the cabinet secretary's involvement. I wonder if members had any comments that they wish to make on that just now so that we can convey these to the cabinet secretary. First of all, Claudia Beamish and then Mike Russell. Thank you convener. This is indeed a very complex case which affects both Mr Stoddart and family and the two staff members and also seven, as I understand it, other tenant farmers who fall within this group within the remedial order. I am very relieved that the cabinet secretary has been communicating a great deal with us and I think it's very important that the committee has expected and received very regular updates in this extremely complex case of Mr Stoddart. I happen to be a regionalist MSP and have spent a great deal of time looking at this case and I do not propose today to go into any detail about it except to say that my understanding is that it was an error on the part of the Scottish Parliament that for all the legal niceties and complexities that in my view there is a responsibility which is being recognised by the Scottish Government but that will be for them to say and that it is very, very urgent now in the case of Mr Stoddart to ensure that if he cannot stay in his farm which I very much hope will be able to that the Scottish Government mediation process goes forward but it's not just about Mr Stoddart it is about the other seven as well I don't think it would be helpful for me to say any more than that because it is very complex and I think the negotiations are now at a at a a very forward moving stage if I can put it like that For clarity's sake make sure that what the Cabinet Secretary's letter says in its last paragraph is supporting the mediation between landlords and tenants as his main priority and is pleased to report that the mediators core solutions representing tenants and landlords along with the Government officials are due to meet early this week to agree the remit and timetable for mediation and that in fact there is no time bar on that and that that involves the seven members that you referred to as far as I know which is what we're here to talk about to Snow Mr Stoddart That's very helpful in any of the situations where there are two parties who wish to get involved in the mediation process that is extremely helpful but where there is one or other that is unable or feels unwilling to do that it makes it more complex I think the role of the Scottish Government is very significant here so I'm very pleased that the Cabinet Secretary is taking this forward Thank you for that I've got two other people at the moment Mike Russell and Sarah Boyack have indicated to want to speak Quite clearly this is at a crucial and difficult stage and it would be important that this committee did not do or say anything that affected that but I think the important thing is not only to make sure that justice is done and seen to be done but also to ask if there are implications of this case and the wider cases under the difficulties for the other seven that tells us anything in terms of tenancy and changes that are needed in tenancy and I think the committee needs to at some stage consider two things one is a system that can allow this to happen a system that we wish to continue or do we wish to alter it and secondly I am very conscious of the ping-pong that's been going on which we've all been witnesses to between Mr Stoddart and land agents and spokespeople for a trust but not between Mr Stoddart and whoever is the beneficial owner of that trust and that does say something about the nature of the process that we're engaged in and therefore I think that perhaps we can reflect upon those issues as we go forward and particularly the fact that there's been great debate in this committee about beneficial ownership and knowing who is involved and actually this case is between Mr Stoddart and a trust and agents speaking on behalf of a trust and I don't think that that is something which in the modern Scotland we should be comfortable about indeed Sarah Boyack and if I can follow on precisely in that vein there has been raising these issues for a matter of months now so obviously a very tight timescale for the tenant farmer and his family involved but it does for me it does concentrate the mind on the legislation where we are and have been debating on land reform about how we get the balance right in terms of rights and crucially when we actually come to look at the detail of that bill whether it does what it says on the tin particularly in the light of the last legislation that has been problematic here I think puts quite a big test on us as a committee to make sure we do everything we can to get this right going forward Indeed, Alex Ferguson Thank you, convener, if I may say so I think that Claudia Beamish preceded the situation extremely well and accurately I am pleased that the work that's been done on this committee since we first raised it during the summer recess has led to the actions that have been taken even if they are perhaps in some ways better late than never as we've discussed before I don't think it's helpful to go into details on the particular case at this point in time but I think it is worth putting on the record that as we all know people are moving heaven and earth to try and bring this individual case and others to a conclusion I would just say I understand about the transparency of ownership but it's also putting on the record that the beneficial owners of this trust are well known, it's not as if they're hidden in any way, although I accept that the other points that Mike Russell made but this is not somebody hiding in an offshore situation or something like that I think it's an incredibly difficult situation I really do think that people are working as hard as they can to try to bring about a settlement which frankly is not going to please everybody at the end of the day but a settlement needs to be achieved for everybody's sake and I hope that the efforts that are being made at the moment lead to that settlement in the very near future It's apparent to me that there's a large number of people out there who showed their concern by gathering outside Parliament yesterday and presenting a petition with over 19,000 signatures on it that the whole case is widely concerning to the public but in fact they don't know enough about the details and that the details which we've been able to elicit actually should be informing some of their comment and that I hope that people out there can understand that what this committee has been doing has been one of trying to speed the solutions being found but also to inform people about the processes and that people in the public should understand that the Parliament is totally engaged in this process Continuing to keep an eye on and to support the actions that are being taken by the Cabinet Secretary and the Scottish Government to resolve Mr Stoddart's issue in a suitable, humane and sensible way most certainly should be and we will hope for another update from the Cabinet Secretary in a few days time I think they're coming quicker than we expected and of course there are only a few more than that days left to deal with well thank you very much members for that, I'm glad we were able to bring it up to date as agreed we the final item of business is in private but at the next meeting of the committee on the 18th of November we'll be considering the first draft of our stage 1 report on the land reform Scotland bill that meeting will take place in private starting at 9.30 next Wednesday and I'll close the public part of the meeting and ask the public gallery to be cleared thank you