Seòmar agus comataidhean

That fund does not sit directly in my portfolio; it sits in the finance portfolio. The £20 million is some of the initial allocation to take forward work on developing the action plan that will deliver the transition plan for the north-east and Moray. We have given a commitment to take that forward on a co-production basis, so local stakeholders will be able to shape how the funding is used. Some of the money will initially help to carry out that work. How the money will then be allocated and utilised will be informed by the co-production work and the input from local stakeholders on how that will be shaped. I expect the details of that to be set out in the next financial year.

I recognise that we need to do a significant amount of work to get back on track to meet those targets. They are tough targets—rightly so—and we need to do better to make sure that we achieve them. My colleague Lorna Slater is working hard to ensure that we take forward the right measures to do that. That is why we have made a commitment to develop the waste route map—to ensure that we are clear on the tangible progress that we must make over the next couple of years to get us on track.

You said that the budget for Zero Waste Scotland has been relatively stable. It is 8 per cent higher in this financial year than it was in 2020-21. We have increased our level of expenditure on that area over recent years. Alongside that, we committed £70 million for the recycling improvement fund, of which some £20 million was allocated last year to a number of local authority partners to take forward strategic investments in recycling infrastructure.

It is not just about finance. We also need to see the circular economy as an economic opportunity. We get clear environmental benefits from recycling, but we also need to look at the economic opportunities associated with it. We will do that through the route map that we are looking to develop and our portfolio work on the circular economy. The intended circular economy bill is all about making sure that we seize not just the environmental but the economic benefits that can come from developing and expanding our circular economy overall.

There are two parts to the green jobs fund. Some £50 million has been baselined for our enterprise agencies and some £50 million is held at Government level. We are undertaking work with businesses to set the criteria to ensure that the fund is aligned with needs in the sector. That will allow businesses to start applying for funding in the new financial year.

For the record, convener, that area of policy does not sit in my portfolio; it sits with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy. However, the approach that has been taken is to have two tranches of funding—one run by the enterprise agencies and the other at national Government level.

The work to set the application process criteria is being done through engagement with the business sector, to make sure that the fund aligns with the skills that the sector requires, to help us to deliver more green jobs.

I cannot give you the figures for the enterprise agencies but I would be more than happy to take that question away and to respond in writing to Ms Lennon’s point, if the committee would be content with that.

There is no clear definition of what a green job is. There are competing views on what should be defined as a green job. The Scottish Government is undertaking some work, through engagement with a variety of stakeholders, to try to arrive at a shared, agreed position on what could be classified as a green job. What we classify as a green job might not necessarily reflect what other countries would consider to be a green job, so we need to make sure that we have an inclusive definition. That piece of work is being done just now so that we have that shared and agreed understanding, which will then allow us to understand the progress that we are making in delivering greater numbers of green jobs.

Convener, we are stretching the definition of my portfolio responsibilities here, but I am more than happy to take that question away.

There is a system for agencies to have business continuity and recovery plans in place. I am more than happy to take that question away and come back to the committee with some more detailed written information on that. When I was justice secretary, I was involved in working on the cyberattack on the national health service here in Scotland and across the UK. A number of hospitals and other NHS facilities were targeted, and I remember dealing with the Home Secretary of the time on some of our approaches to tackling those attacks. The role of the NCSC is to identify risks and provide advice and information, and a range of work was carried out off the back of those attacks.

I would be more than happy to come to the committee with more specific details about the internal processes for managing cybersecurity in public agencies.

I hope that we are in the recovery phase, even though we are still in the pandemic. We want our public transport system to recover. The reduction in passenger numbers over the course of the pandemic has had a significant financial impact on the sector, which has resulted in the need for a significant level of financial investment from the Scottish Government to support the sector. Railways are very resource intensive. They are expensive to run. They are fixed assets, and a lot of money had to be provided to sustain and support services even at a reduced level.

In the draft budget, therefore, we have continued to take account of some of the potential impacts of Covid on farebox revenue for both bus and rail. There are risks. We are in the realms of the unknown. Although rail leisure journeys are returning pretty much to pre-pandemic levels—they are probably not quite there, but they are similar—commuter journeys are nowhere near that. In bus travel, there is some level of recovery. It is probably recovering more quickly than rail but, again, it is not back up to pre-pandemic levels.

There are still financial pressures on the public transport network as a result of the loss of farebox revenue. During the course of the financial year, therefore, depending on what recovery in the public transport system and farebox revenue looks like, we may have to flex some of our budget to take account of that.

We are literally in the realms of the unknown, because we do not know how quick and to what extent the recovery will be over the course of the next financial year.

Good morning. I am pleased to give evidence to support the draft affirmative instrument to amend the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020.

The UK emissions trading scheme is a key policy for meeting Scotland’s ambitious emissions targets. The scheme is a cap and trade system that is designed to limit overall emissions in the covered sectors and incentivise cost-effective decarbonisation.

When the scheme was established in January 2021, the legislation dealt exclusively with issues essential to its initiation and continued operation. At the time, ministers from the four Governments agreed to defer implementing some technical and operational aspects that were not immediately essential, with the intention of adding further provisions during the first year of operation. That is the purpose of the affirmative instrument and the negative instrument, which were laid simultaneously in Parliament.

To be clear, the provisions in the affirmative instrument are designed to support the continued smooth operation of the UK ETS and to deliver the existing policy intentions rather than to fundamentally change the way in which it functions or applies in Scotland. In broad terms, the instrument aims to clarify the powers of enforcement that are granted to the regulators—the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, in Scotland’s case—and some of the enforcement actions that are available to them. It also extends enforcement powers to the registry administrator—that is, the Environment Agency.

The instrument makes it an offence to intentionally obstruct a regulator in exercising powers of entry; prevents double counting of excess emissions penalties that apply for some operators; and gives the regulator powers to impose civil penalties on operators that fail to return allowances to which they are not entitled.

Finally, although I am unable to go into specifics today, given the on-going discussions with the other Administrations, I am confident that, in the coming months, we will be in a position to publish a joint consultation to explore further policy reforms to the UK ETS as well as the common framework agreement. At that point, I would be more than happy to return to the committee, should it wish me to, in order to discuss the matter in greater detail.

Good morning. I will briefly address in order the instruments that the committee will consider today.

The Scottish international travel regulations had provided that, following arrival in Scotland, day 2 and day 8 Covid-19 tests must be carried out by public providers—that is, by the NHS in Scotland. The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No 17) Regulations 2021 allow those tests to also be supplied by private sector test providers, provided that they are on the United Kingdom Government’s published list of test providers. To get on to the list, providers must self-declare compliance with relevant regulations and Department of Health and Social Care guidance. All providers must work towards and complete full United Kingdom Accreditation Service accreditation. The DHSC removes from the list those who fail to follow the necessary stages of accreditation, those who fail to achieve the required turnaround times for test results, those who are not clear in their pricing, and those who act unethically.

The regulations also provide for a small but significant number of seasonal agricultural workers who are unable to isolate on a named farm due to insufficient accommodation. They allow them to isolate to the same standards as any other amber list arrival in off-farm accommodation organised by their employers.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No 18) Regulations 2021 relate to the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26. I am sure that members are aware that COP26 will bring together countries to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in order to address climate change at an international level. COP26 and the world leaders summit are being held in person because of the complex nature of the negotiations and the need for secure discussions. That requires exemptions to travel restrictions.

The amendments provide for arrangements for and exemptions from self-isolation, managed quarantine, day 2 and day 8 testing requirements and completion of the passenger locator form for persons attending or facilitating COP26 and the COP26 world leaders summit. Exemptions vary for different categories of attendees. More limited exemptions apply for those attending or facilitating COP26 who have not been invited to attend both COP26 and the world leaders summit by the UK Government or who are not granted privileges and immunities in connection with COP26.

Those who have been in a country or a territory that is on the amber list in the 10 days before their arrival in Scotland will not be required to self-isolate. Fully vaccinated persons who have been in a red list country or territory in the 10 days before their arrival in Scotland will be required to undertake five days of managed quarantine rather than 10 days. If they are not vaccinated, they must quarantine for 10 days.

For delegates who must stay in managed isolation, the definition of “authorised vaccine” for these purposes is extended to include any vaccine that has been authorised for use in the country in which it was administered. There is no exemption to the pre-arrival testing requirement to possess a negative result from a qualifying test.

In order for the exemptions for COP26 and the world leaders summit to apply, individuals will be required to provide written confirmation that they will comply with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change code of conduct, which sets out rigorous measures for the events. The code will mitigate the additional public health risks arising from holding in-person events in the UK and the exemptions to travel restrictions.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No 19) Regulations 2021 provide for an exemption from the requirement to enter managed self-isolation for participation in European professional football club fixtures in Scotland. They were made urgently because of players arriving in Glasgow from red list countries for a fixture taking place on Thursday 16 September. There was a risk that home fixtures would be moved abroad to a neutral venue to allow European club players who had played internationals in red list countries in the previous 10 days to participate. That would have caused significant disruption to Scottish clubs and home fans and generated a far higher risk of Covid transmission than the very small number of players travelling to Scotland.

I hope that that is a helpful overview of the regulations that the committee is considering. I would, of course, be happy to respond to any questions that committee members may have.

I will hand you over to Professor Leitch, because he is looking at resolutions to that issue.

Members should keep in mind that, aside from the testing arrangements that we are putting in place for COP26 delegates, the overlying system of restrictions in Scotland—appropriate social distancing, the wearing of masks, good hand hygiene and so on—will continue to apply to any venue holding a fringe event. The numbers of people in venues will be limited in view of the need to maintain social distancing. It is important to recognise that the present layer of restrictions will also apply to COP26 fringe events, and venues that would normally hold larger numbers of people will not be able to do so and will need to manage numbers in a way that supports social distancing, mask wearing and so on.

There are two aspects to that. The first relates to the UK Government’s intention to remove the requirement for pre-departure testing and the second relates to the requirement for day 2 PCR testing. It is important to understand and recognise the importance of both those tests.

The pre-departure test is intended to certify that a traveller is not positive when they get into an aircraft and that they do not have the potential to infect other people on that aircraft. It is an important element in trying to reduce the risk of infecting other individuals. I understand that contact tracing becomes complex when infection takes place in an aircraft.

The PCR testing at day 2 is an important element in our surveillance programme to identify potential variants of concern. If someone is infected, removing the requirement for a PCR test at day 2 potentially compromises significantly our ability to identify variants of concern that are coming into the country and to have them genome sequenced. If we simply go to a lateral flow test, we do not have the same ability to undertake the genomic sequencing as we have with a PCR test.

Given the UK Government’s decision, we have sought further advice, as the First Minister said in her statement to the Parliament on Tuesday. Officials are still providing that advice, and I expect that the First Minister will set out our approach as early as possible—in the next day or so, I hope—in response to the further advice that we have received from clinicians. I will be open with the committee: the clinical advice is that PCR testing pre-departure and at day 2 should remain in place. It plays an important role.

Mr Fraser will be aware that not only the Scottish Government but other devolved nations have raised significant concerns about the approach that the UK Government is taking to the issue. However, we need to recognise the potential impact of continuing with the existing regime, given the UK Government’s action, because people will simply choose to go to airports in England, and its impact on the aviation sector. We are taking those factors into account alongside the clinical advice on the value of pre-departure tests and day 2 PCR testing.