Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will ask about a couple of areas that have not been covered yet and, perhaps, a few wrap-up questions from last week’s evidence.

I will ask first about transport, which we have not talked about. Many public sector bodies are now considering the provision of office accommodation, transport and a different work-life balance post pandemic. What impact is that having?

Related to that and to the climate target is the Government’s target for a 20 per cent reduction in vehicle mileage. How do we reduce that mileage?

For essential travel, how are we progressing with the procurement of electric vehicles and decarbonising the travel that is required?

I do not know who to direct that to, but I see that Lorna Jarvie is nodding her head.

So it is not just about a single yearly budget conversation; it is more about a transformative change in organisations.

I welcome the balance sheet. It is a world first. The committee in the previous session spent a lot of time looking at the impact of nitrogen on climate change, air quality and water quality, so it is great to see that step coming through the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 and into law.

I want to ask about the application of the regulations. I understand that it is early days and that this is a world-leading approach, but how will the balance sheet and the action plan that is associated with it be used by regional land use partnerships and river basin management plans in the practical management of nitrogen? Previously in Scotland, we have had nitrate vulnerable zones, so there have been attempts to manage nitrogen in areas where we have particular problems in relation to air pollution and water pollution. How will this approach change the way in which practical land managers at regional and local levels go about their work? How will it inform their work and the options that are available to them?

Thank you.

I am sorry, convener, but I have one more question, and I think that George Tarvit wanted to come in.

Finally, where do you see regulation in terms of driving the innovation that can create a healthy market? Clearly, as regulatory innovation comes in, business and industry have to think about how they adapt to that and that can create a lot of economic growth and innovation. Essentially it is about creating a level playing field, but it is also about how you ensure that there is a space there for innovative regulation to drive that innovative market.

I am sorry—it was not a brief question at all.

Specifically on the deposit return scheme, if that scheme was amended, would it come within the scope of your remit?

I want to return to the topic of policy coherence, on which I have a question for Lewis Ryder-Jones. You diplomatically talked about a company in Fife. I think that you were talking about Raytheon UK and the account management that Scottish Enterprise was supplying for that arms company. Do you think that significant policy coherence issues still exist? We have talked about successes, but we have not talked about where there are some real tensions. You are working on and have been inputting into the wellbeing and sustainable development bill that is coming forward. Do you see a role for, say, a future generations commission providing some of the governance on sustainable development going forward?

I have a brief question for Mark Majewsky Anderson. You mention in your submission the need to support new EU-based foundations. We have left the EU, but do you have examples of policy areas on which we can focus and should be focusing and developing new initiatives? Should we be looking to join existing EU foundations, as well as foundations that can work outside the EU?