Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener, and good morning. We know that land and land use are Scotland’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, so do the owners of large landholdings have a responsibility to promote net zero and climate change measures? Should there be obligations on the biggest emitters to reduce their emissions? I put that to all the witnesses, but I will come to Jon Hollingdale first.

I put my question to Jon Hollingdale.

It is helpful to get that on the record.

I want to focus on biodiversity, for a moment. Does the panel have a view on whether sustaining biodiversity is a sufficient requirement, or should the bill require the land management plan to set out how the land is being used to increase biodiversity? Linda Gillespie is definitely looking away, so I am looking again at Josh Doble.

I will press you a little further on that. Do you have a view on how specific the land management plan should be? I know that we do not want to give a long list of particular problems, but I am thinking about management in respect of deer or rhododendron, for example, which were mentioned in a debate in Parliament last week. Is that the kind of detail that you think would be required for the plans to be effective?

Thank you for that.

You made a point about language that could be in the bill. I take your point about the phrase “large land holdings”. Do you want to expand on what you mean when you talk about “significant landholdings”? In the committee, we think about the meaning of words and their definitions.

I see that Linda Gillespie does not wish to comment. That is fine.

I will move on to land management plans. The plans are required to set out how the land is being managed in a way that contributes to achieving net zero, adapting to climate change and increasing or sustaining biodiversity. Is that adequate, or are there other criteria that it might be appropriate to include? Should those be addressed through primary or secondary legislation?

Josh Doble is again maintaining eye contact, so we will go to him.

Patrick Harvie sets out the reasonable position that we want to ensure that adequate funding is available for the measures that will make the difference, but does he recognise that not all the financial resources will flow from Government and that we will need investment from the private sector, for example? Will he say something about that? I have a concern that amendment 27 does not fully reflect the reality that not all the finance is Government finance. How does his amendment sit with that?

I have just a question, which you have started to answer already. I am sympathetic to what Maurice Golden is trying to achieve, but I am trying to understand the practical difficulties of having the targets that amendments 15 and 16 would bring in alongside having a carbon budget. It feels as if we are going in different directions here. What would the practical difficulties be?

I have a question on amendment 62, which is in Mark Ruskell’s name. It was helpful that you set out your position, cabinet secretary, but I am sympathetic to his points about ensuring that the UKCCC is adequately resourced and has the correct capacity. I also recognise the need for a four-nations approach.

I do not think that it is Mark Ruskell’s intention that the Scottish Government would do all the heavy lifting in funding terms, but has the Scottish Government had recent discussions with the UK Government and others about resources and capacity? Will you reassure the committee that that will be looked at on an on-going basis, to ensure that there are sufficient resources for the busy work programme?

I will move amendment 58. Sarah Boyack may have misspoken—she said that she would support my amendment 55. I am checking that I have the numbers correct. Sarah’s amendment is 55 and mine is 58. We have that in the Official Report now. It has been a long morning. I agree with my colleague Sarah Boyack’s comments, and I will not bother to repeat those points.

I am pleased to say that I have worked closely with the Scottish Government on amendment 58. It would require that ministers respond to parliamentary scrutiny on the draft climate change plan within three months of any committee report or parliamentary resolution related to the draft plan. I apologise for having the sniffles.

Colleagues will know that section 35A of the 2009 act makes provisions for parliamentary scrutiny of the draft climate change plan, and ministers respond to that scrutiny. However, there is currently no specific timeframe in the 2009 act within which ministers must respond to that parliamentary scrutiny, other than the deadline by which the climate change plan must be finalised. Ministers’ response to parliamentary scrutiny could be included in the statement that accompanies the finalised climate change plan when it is laid in Parliament, or earlier if ministers are taking longer than three months to finalise the plan. Again, I am pleased to have worked with the Government on amendment 58, and I hope that colleagues support it.

I have made it clear that I support amendment 55 in Sarah Boyack’s name. Having listened to Mark Ruskell on his amendment 25, it strikes me that amendment 55 is a better option, as it will give the Scottish Government or the Scottish ministers a bit more space and headroom to produce the climate change plan.