Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sorry—are you asking about the SNIB’s role or that of the oil and gas industry?

That is absolutely right. I add that we cannot pretend that we know and can track with absolute certainty everything that will happen from now until 2045. Therefore, as with much of the climate change work and much of the portfolio, we have to be willing to adapt, to treat plans as iterative and to learn as we do, because that is the challenge of making policy over 20 or 25 years.

Mr Smyth asked whether we will monitor what is in the plan now and whether that will change. Yes, we intend to monitor, and Andy McCall set out how we will do that. However, we also have to realise that we must have scope for adaptation over the next 20 or 25 years, up to 2045.

That is an important question, and I sympathise completely with it.

Again, it comes back to the fact that we are seeking change quickly. Organisations of a certain size are able to absorb that and keep up to date with it, whereas others of a different size are not as well placed to focus on the issues outside their own bottom line and keeping in business. Liam Middleton mentioned a lot of the pressures that are bearing down on the cost of doing business just now, and we absolutely recognise that.

There is a need for us to be clear, however, that the big emitters in the cluster are the ones that require our focus, first and foremost. They are the big industry businesses and the big emitters, and we should not underestimate their task of having to drive down emissions in the way that is required of them. That is not to say, however, that SMEs will not play an important part in the process, because they will do.

You touched on that when you said that the supply chain is a key element. There are two touch points that are important for SMEs in the plan. First, as we decarbonise the big industry, the supply chains that are connected with those industries will be vital to small and medium-sized enterprises, and we must engage with them on that.

The other point is that smaller businesses that are proximate to the cluster are stakeholders in the development of the vision, and they should also be part of the planning.

He is a really key part of GFIB, which is why we were hoping that he could come.

And it is a new forum, so it is probably not surprising that you are wondering what it is and how it works. It is quite a novel approach.

Again, I agree with much of what you have said, Mr MacDonald. The UK Government’s comments that you have just read out make it clear that Acorn and Scotland are uniquely well placed to lead the way on CCUS on skills, capacity and existing infrastructure. That is why the decision on track 1 was inexplicable; I am using that word deliberately, because I do not understand—and I am not alone in not understanding—why that did not come to pass.

However, we must welcome progress as and when it arises, so the UK Government’s indication that Acorn can be part of track 2 is good. I and my colleague Neil Gray are both seeking clarity on exactly when that process will close. We want it to close in short order so that we in Scotland can get on with what we ought to have been doing before now.

That is a really good question. I do not have the figure to hand, but I would be more than happy to go away, look at the EY analysis and perhaps come back to the committee on the matter. I wonder, though, whether Liam Middleton wants to add anything to that.

Please be assured that all that you have mentioned—the speed at which things happen and the speed at which things change—was taken into account when we considered ESS’s recommendations. However, we reached the same conclusion that we reached when considering the best monitoring period for CAFS2, which was that five years was an appropriate period to give us the opportunity to implement the changes, to see their implications and to monitor them.

I do not know whether Andrew Taylor can add anything helpful to that. That is how we made the assessment.

In response to your specific question about the triggering of a review, I would point out that, as a result of the updates to the guidance that we have made following ESS’s recommendations, a significant change of circumstances in an air quality management area will trigger an automatic review of the air quality action plan to ensure that it remains able to achieve compliance in

“as short a time as possible”,

per the recommendations of ESS.

Absolutely. I am really enthusiastic about the low-emission zones. I mentioned that I oversee the ministerial working board for CAFS2. There is no doubt that, in the past six months, our focus has been on responding to ESS, but alongside that, one of the more significant developments has been working with local authorities to have the LEZs designed and implemented. I am absolutely thrilled about that.

To go back to your question about continual improvement, I see the way in which we have designed LEZs as being an example of that. Unlike in some clean air zones down south, we have designed the LEZs in such a way that it is not an option to pay to enter. We have not treated the LEZs as a revenue-raising opportunity. We have designed them in such a way that they will robustly disincentivise driving into the areas in question. There will be a penalty, which will accumulate every time the individual comes in. That is an example of how we have designed the LEZs to be stretching and ambitious, and to bring about constant improvement.

I think that you mentioned local exemptions. We have some national exemptions that are built in, including for blue badge holders. We have a figure for how many people have applied for such an exemption so far. Local authorities have the discretion to make local exemptions to respond to their own requirements, which I think is the right way to do it.

With regard to buses, a huge amount of work has already been done to prepare for LEZs, especially, as you can imagine, in Glasgow. The bus emission abatement retrofit fund has already awarded £21 million of grants to enable more than 1,200 buses and coaches to reduce their emissions by retrofitting the Euro 6 exhaust system. We can already see how, through the funding that we have supported and the framework for LEZs, the preparation for the policy has already driven improvements, which the implementation of it will continue to drive.