���˿���

I presume that the Scottish Government is in contact with Environmental Standards Scotland. We received a letter from it that details particular concerns about what the loss of the national plans might involve, and particularly the removal of the public duty.

Has there been a discussion specifically about the loss of the air quality plan? You said that the UK Government’s position is that it is in the schedule so it is going.

Good morning, everybody. Are we still on track for a November launch date for the climate change plan?

With previous plans, it has been very difficult to understand what is happening in some sectors, as there has been a lack of data and information. It is felt, rightly or wrongly, that, because there is a lack of data on farming and land use, for example, and a lack of clarity as to what individual actions will do to reduce carbon emissions, certain sectors are almost being given a bye or being let off. In other sectors, however, such as transport or heat in buildings, it is very clear what certain actions will do to reduce carbon emissions. How do we bring the data up to a point where we can understand exactly what is happening across different sectors and exactly what the various measures will achieve? There seems to be a bit of fuzziness in some areas around what making a change might result in—people are not exactly sure.

Generally speaking, PFOA is not available in a wider market. There is just the single exemption that we are discussing today, so I will turn to that matter. Is it the case that the Ministry of Defence or defence-related contractors apply for exemptions from environmental regulation? On the face of it, if you are a civil contractor wearing protective clothing, the use of PFOA in that clothing would be banned, whereas if you are working in a defence-related sector or industry, its continued use is allowed. Therefore, there is a bit of divergence between the situation for people who are working in defence-related industries and the situation for people who work in civilian areas, where there is no exemption for that chemical. It might be a minor divergence, but I wonder how those issues are discussed and resolved. Is it something that you just have to accept—that is the decision that the UK Government has made on that—or is there a protocol with the MOD or defence sector more generally around lower or different environmental standards?

I am happy, unless Dan has anything more to say.

Thanks for that.

The last area that I want to ask you about is negative emissions technology—comprising bioenergy carbon capture and storage—BECCS. The Climate Change Committee highlighted the continuing uncertainty around that. Around a year or two years ago, it recommended that there should be a plan B, which is very challenging. How do you respond to that?

I will move to Seona Shand, on a similar theme. Reading your submission, it is obvious that there is a lot of excitement among business about the business opportunities of COP28. I think that you say that it is one of the largest global moments. Business will be trying to make sense of those opportunities in the same way that it did with the Dubai Expo 2020.

In relation to the COP process, at one level, COP26 in Glasgow felt like a big trade show. That is not to diminish the importance of that, as it is clearly served an important function, but it raises questions about credibility in relation to the business sector’s engagement in the COP process. It is about where you draw the line. When I was wandering around COP26 and looking the hundreds of stands that there were in Glasgow, I saw some stands from countries that were clearly stretching it in terms of credibility in terms of the kind of businesses that were being presented, the genuine sustainability of some of the offerings and what the countries were wanting to promote from their own individual sectors.

I wonder how you find that line of credibility within Scotland. Is COP28 an opportunity for everybody to come and present their goods and services? Are there particular key themes where the Scottish Government will say, “Look, this is our contribution in relation to climate change in terms of goods and services”, but there may also be others that are more questionable? I certainly saw some questionable promotion at COP26, which was widely described as “greenwashed” by others.

Okay. That is useful.

I will turn to my last question. We received evidence from Scotland’s International Development Alliance in which it proposed extending the outcomes and indicators for how we measure Scotland’s impact in relation to international work. It took a bit more of a wellbeing economy approach in wanting the inclusion of fossil fuel extraction and export, the arms trade, the socioeconomic impact of supply chains and the material footprint of Scotland’s businesses on the rest of the world.

Do you inherently welcome the emerging consensus around the wellbeing economy and what that means, or is it something that your members might have a concern around?

I will go to Gareth Williams first.

Thank you, convener. In recent weeks, the committee has taken a lot of evidence on what makes a good global citizen. The main theme that has come through has been the importance of Scotland’s role as a climate leader and in taking international action on climate change. Credibility is an important part of that. Do the panellists see any inherent contradiction in that?

Much of your written evidence has included comments about international aviation and, for example, the need to increase the number of international flights, open up new routes and increase visitor numbers. That puts us in complete contradiction as regards the work that we are trying to do to show our climate leadership. Without there being a credible path towards developing sustainable aviation fuels, is there not an inherent acknowledgement there that such business growth and international connectivity through aviation will set us against those climate objectives? I am interested in hearing how you would square those aspects.

I think that Vicki Miller said earlier that we are now seeing in the sector a pivot away from domestic tourism and that VisitScotland is very much going to lean into that, in recognition of the fact that that is where the market is going. In switching away from investing in attracting people to holidays at home and really leaning into the international market, do you acknowledge that there are contradictions and potential credibility issues in there? If so, how would you attempt to square them?

Do you want to start, Vicki?