Chamber and committees

So, you could go north of 80 per cent but not up to 100 per cent. Is that quite a blind measurement? Should we be looking at something a bit more detailed within that, given the nature of the audits?

Organisations are now having to consider what they should move towards in the medium to long term, and they are having to make final decisions on leases. I am interested in what your staff and your trainees think about that. What kind of workplace do they want to work in?

I will move on to the UK’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. We are now aware of the timescale and of the Scottish Government’s concerns about schedule 1 and the list of retained EU laws that are proposed to be revoked. What are your comments on the laws in schedule 1? What is your overall impression of the bill?

Okay—thanks.

My understanding is that, in the past, there has been a memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the Ministry of Defence on a range of areas, most notably environmental compliance, habitats regulations, environmental management and that side of things. Obviously, this strays more into health and safety. It is clear that there is environmental compliance in the Ministry of Defence, but scrutinising that is pretty hard. This is another example of that. Such examples come up from time to time.

Great. I will go back to the points that Phil Raines raised around critical detail, which was a feature of the UK CCC’s comments. Can you give us a bit more explanation? When it comes to the individual policies listed in the climate change plan, will it be really clear what the expected reduction in emissions will be, and what underlying modelling and assumptions have been used? In previous climate change plans it has been almost impossible to see what is going on behind the assumptions, particularly because of the use of the TIMES model. Previous cabinet secretaries have said that it is incredibly complex and they cannot explain it because it is a big computer model.

How clear will the plan be to people looking through it, in particular for sectors that will have to make quite big reductions in emissions and respond to the opportunities around heat and other areas?

It is something of a relief that we are now looking at only nine pieces of legislation in schedule 1 rather than, potentially, 4,000. That would have given this committee quite a job to do, as well as the Government.

The UK Government proposes to revoke the entire national air pollution control programme. What are the Scottish Government’s particular concerns about the loss of that legal air quality framework?

So the plan will just go.

Okay. Am I right that its use will be phased out by 2025 anyway?

It would be useful to get a written response on the corridor review of the A96, because, as I understand it, there are multiple options there, including the completion of a number of bypasses.

I want to take to the skies, cabinet secretary, and ask you about the aviation strategy. How will the aviation strategy dovetail with the climate change plan? I think that the aviation strategy was due earlier this year. We have seen a post-Covid bounceback in aviation and I am sure that the aviation sector would like a bye—it would like to see an increased number of flights and of passengers. How do we square that?