Seòmar agus comataidhean

The expectation from our discussion with Forestry and Land Scotland is that the 16,500 hectare target can be managed within the budget settlement that we have provided.

Yes. The £15 million is within that budget and is for the purposes of the pilot specifically; it would cost more than that to remove peak fares across the whole network. Before arriving at a policy decision about whether we work to remove peak fares across the network, we are looking at the cost of that and whether there is budget allocation to provide for it.

Railway patronage has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, and neither has the farebox income, which is why we are having to put in additional investment in order to help to support ScotRail and the Caledonian sleeper service. There is budget allocation in the £1.4 billion to achieve that. Network Rail’s fixed rail network charges have increased, which adds to the cost base and has an additional cost impact; there is budget allocation within the £1.4 billion to meet that. There is also provision in the budget to continue with enhancements, such as the Levenmouth rail link project between Thornton and Leven.

However, given the capital constraints that we are facing, there will not necessarily be the same level of enhancements and expansion of the rail network in future that some people might wish to see; we do not have the capital provision to do that. We believe that the budget allocation is sufficient in order to meet what we have to do in the next financial year. However, we are having to deal with a significant number of inflationary pressures from the cost base and the fixed access charges from Network Rail, too.

It is important to correct something that you said. We have reduced services across the United Kingdom because of reduced demand. There is no point in running empty trains that are not utilised. We have not chosen to reduce services; we have done so because of a lack of demand.

Pre-pandemic, we were going through a process of ramping up services—we were delivering more services per day than we had historically, the rail network was being expanded and service frequency was being increased—but we had to ramp that down during the pandemic. However, patronage has not returned to normal levels, and there is no point in running what are often referred to as ghost trains, which are trains that no-one is on. Those trains would have brought in revenue prior to the pandemic, but now they do not.

He is employed by Network Rail and he is on the board of ScotRail because Network Rail is the major infrastructure provider to ScotRail. He works for and is employed by Network Rail, not by ScotRail.

We are going into a phase in which Covid support for bus operators is coming to an end. We have been engaging with the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK to identify the new bus support mechanism, which will replace the bus service operators grant, in order to deliver a model that is sustainable for the bus service operators and that also works for the taxpayer. That work is currently on-going; I do not think that it has been concluded, but I reassure you that we are engaging with the industry around how we shape that new scheme to manage the transition from the previous BSOG system to a new funding model.

We are getting into the space of negotiations with the finance secretary on whether there will be new funding for it. Right now, it is absorbed in our existing funding, within the climate change and energy side of Government, because, as you know, it is working on a shadow basis at present.

We have the strategic board in place. Over the course of this year, it will be setting out clearly the actions that we need to take in order to create the dedicated body. Once we have a fuller understanding of what exactly that structure will be like, we will be in a position to look at how we finance it. Whether that will be a combination of new funding and existing funding or whether it will come from existing funding will be determined once we get to that point. However, at present, the funding is being met from our existing budgets.

I am pleased to give evidence to the committee in support of the draft affirmative instrument to amend the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Order 2020. This spring, the United Kingdom emissions trading scheme authority, which is formed of the four UK Administrations, consulted on proposals to further develop the UK ETS, aligning the scheme with our ambitious net zero targets. The authority is still considering the consultation responses regarding proposals on tightening the cap and expanding the scope. We will publish a joint Government response in due course.

However, some of the operational and technical changes to the UK ETS need to come into force by 2023 and therefore the authority published an early joint Government response covering those amendments to the scheme. Together, the amendments will support the proper function of the ETS.

The amendments are contained in the draft affirmative instrument that the committee is considering today and in a negative instrument to be laid later in November. Today’s affirmative instrument will allow flights from Great Britain to Switzerland to be in scope of the UK ETS. That expansion of the scope will be extended to include Northern Ireland at a later date. Switzerland has already amended its ETS to include flights from Switzerland to the UK. The affirmative instrument will ensure a fully reciprocal arrangement that supports our climate objectives.

The instrument also makes minor amendments to the allocation of free allowances in the ETS to reflect the inclusion of the flights within the scheme. The other members of the authority are also going through a similar scrutiny process in their respective Parliaments to ensure that the legislation is consistent across all Administrations.

Ahead of publishing the final Government response to the consultation, we expect the UK ETS authority to publish the common framework agreement setting out how the four Administrations work together to deliver the UK ETS. I will be happy to provide more details on those issues once those have been published.

I am happy to respond to any questions on the affirmative instrument that the committee may have.

The effects have been very small. To some extent it will not make a significant difference. It is worth keeping in mind that, when we were covered by the European Union ETS, those flights were included. The order is simply covering a gap that was left when the UK ETS was introduced. Given that there are only a small number of flights between Scotland and Switzerland, and indeed between Switzerland and the UK as a whole, the overall impact is very small. However, I cannot give you specific data on that.

If I recall correctly, the challenge around that is that we had intended to respond to the committee’s report with our work on developing a new marine plan. That work was paused and delayed, which meant that we were not able to provide a full response. I am more than happy to ensure that we look at providing that response as part of our work to develop the new marine plan.

The details of the bill are still to be published and I do not want to pre-empt what must be agreed through Government and published. However, grouse management is a key aspect of the bill, as is how to balance it with biodiversity challenges. I hope that it will help to provide a more modern framework for grouse management and how that balances with the need to tackle biodiversity loss.