Seòmar agus comataidhean

My last question is about aviation. We are talking about complementary strategies. The Government’s current aviation strategy seems to be about increasing aviation, although there was a recent recognition that aviation development needs to drop in order for us to meet the transport carbon targets. What is your advice on the approach that any new strategy needs to adopt? Where should we focus on to reduce emissions? Of course, there are all the unicorn fuels for aircraft but, given the severity of the situation that you laid out at the beginning, I am not convinced that we are going to get there through that alone.

Thank you. Back to you, convener.

I will move on to questions about transport. The Scottish Government has a challenging trajectory on that. It is dependent on a lot of behavioural change. Are the right tools in the box at the moment? Do you have advice on how the Government should approach demand management, for example, as a tool to nail the 20 per cent reduction in vehicle mileage?

One element of the issue is capital investment in infrastructure. We have the strategic transport projects review coming up in the new year. In the past, the CCC has perhaps been a little reluctant to offer advice to Governments about road building. Where are you on that now? Given the state of the emergency and the challenge that you have laid out in meeting the 2030 targets, how has your thinking evolved over time on capital investment in road infrastructure, induced demand and where we should draw the line on some of that?

Finally, as a member organisation trade body, you have engaged with Europe a lot over the years. What does that engagement look like now? Are there lessons to learn from other regions across Europe? I am thinking in particular about the Nordic regions and how they align their markets effectively, given the complications. Norway is outside the EU and Sweden is in it, so there will be issues around trade in food, livestock and other products. Are there any examples from your international experience about how alignment of market regulation can work between countries that are sitting in very different constitutional arrangements, as we are, in post-Brexit UK?

Thank you. I would love to have another hour on that topic.

It has been a really interesting session. I was struck by what Martin Johnson said about the fit for 55 energy and climate package, and Dr Stein talked about the work on hydrogen, as well. I would like to unpack that a little bit more because it is obviously a big strategic priority and I imagine that it will dominate the work of the Copenhagen office. What do you see as the main work strands to come out of that? Do you see Scotland as being currently aligned with the EU agenda or are there differences in approach? I would like to start with Martin Johnson on that question.

Time is getting on, but I have a further question, which is on the COP presidency. Earlier, Martin Johnson touched on the preparatory work that he was involved in for COP. We still have some time left in the COP presidency before it is handed over next year. I am interested in what that workstream looks like at the moment.

Yes, but if your starting point is about high welfare standards for animals, does it matter on which stretch of water or roads the animals are being transported? This is about the length of journey time.

I understand the geographic case, and you have pointed to the need to increase supply chain development, mobile abattoirs and maybe local branding, including in the islands. There are other ways to crack the issue. I understand the argument that your members put forward. However, in this context, a challenge and different perspective is coming from NFUS. How might you use the internal market act and perhaps the common frameworks to challenge those rules, if that is something that you want to challenge?

You described a triangle in which there is alignment with the EU, alignment with the UK and Scottish regulations, too. I am again being provocative, but do you not have an advantage in that you can argue for alignment in some areas and for divergence in other areas? Does the triangle not enable you to pick and choose?

You make a particular argument about glyphosate. I do not want to get into the details of the pros and cons of that as an option. In a way, you are able to move around the different regulatory frameworks and position yourselves and your members. You can point to where there are high standards and where there is alignment, but you can also point out what aspects you do not agree with. Are there advantages to that, or are you still trying to get used to the landscape that you are in now, which is quite fluid, with the common frameworks not really working properly yet?