Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are carrying out a piece of work to consider how we will respond formally to the Climate Change Committee. I had a meeting with it to discuss the challenges that it has rightly put to us in relation to our targets and policy direction. I will give you an example of where we are setting out more detail: the CCC challenged us on the 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres and since then we have published details on how we want to progress that. We will provide a more detailed response to the points that have been raised by the CCC.

The CCC’s updated assessment highlights that, in relation to climate change, we have gone through a process of deciding what the targets should be and setting targets and we are now much more into the delivery phase; this is when we need to take forward the measures that will deliver on the targets that we have set. That involves making difficult decisions and pivoting away from some of the traditional ways in which we have used capital and into areas that were previously not as high a priority. Ring fencing 10 per cent of the transport budget for active travel infrastructure is a good example of that. It is not long ago that investment in active travel infrastructure was in the tens of millions, not the hundreds of millions.

The challenge from the Committee on Climate Change is that it wants to see much more detail on delivery. We are considering that and are looking at how to respond to the points that it makes about providing more detail on how we will deliver those commitments.

You are right that I cannot give you that information off the top of my head. Part of the reason for that is that some of that spending will span other portfolios. There will be elements of Shona Robison’s portfolio that will support our net zero objectives and bring investment into local authorities. I am more than happy to take away your points and see whether we can provide you with more detail, if that would assist the committee with its inquiry and would be useful.

To be clear, are you asking about town centre businesses that are finding it difficult to secure funding to decarbonise their businesses? The heat decarbonisation fund is not only for housing; it is also for non-domestic premises. That might be a route for some businesses in towns and city centres.

A lot of the work that is done on cybersecurity is business as usual for public agencies. It is part of their information technology infrastructure funding. However, the Government does not specifically ring fence budget for a public agency to use for cybersecurity. It is for that public agency to determine what it needs to use from its budget for cybersecurity purposes.

Some work is being done on cybersecurity within, I think, the justice portfolio, through the work that it does with the National Cyber Security Centre. We also do some work through the Scottish Business Resilience Centre, which is based at the University of Stirling, to support businesses in cybersecurity in Scotland. I do not know whether the SBRC gets funding from the Government, but we are certainly a partner.

There is no specific budget line for cybersecurity. It would be part of the wider IT budget lines within any public agency.

You will be aware that, on 13 January or thereabouts, we set out our plan for reducing car kilometres by 20 per cent. That plan included a range of actions that we will take to achieve that aim. One of the most significant areas of investment that will help us to tackle the issue is the provision of active travel infrastructure. I am a big believer in the view that, if you put in the right active travel infrastructure in the right place, people will use it. Experience in other parts of the world bears that out. That is why there has been a significant increase in our investment in active travel. We have committed to deploying 10 per cent of our transport budget on active travel by the end of the current parliamentary session. That will result in more than £300 million a year being invested in active travel infrastructure and programmes, which represents a massive increase over a relatively short period of time.

Active travel infrastructure will make a significant impact in helping to reduce car miles and, in particular, the use of cars for short journeys. I say that not because I think that everyone will just jump on their bikes but because I think that, if we design and develop active travel infrastructure in the right way, it can deliver better communities and better areas for people to live in.

Some of the big active travel infrastructure that has been built in recent years has had a transformational effect on neighbourhoods. A very good example of that, which I often refer to, is the south city way in Glasgow, which I have used regularly. It has brought about a positive transformation in that area. Similarly, Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow has been transformed into a much better, more pleasant place. As well as tackling car use, the development of active travel infrastructure can create better environments and better communities.

There also needs to be better provision of bus services. About 80 per cent of all public transport journeys are by bus. Bus travel is the most flexible and adaptable form of mass transit there is. That is why we committed to the bus priority partnership programme. We want transport by bus to be seen as much more of a priority by creating rapid corridors for buses to use, in order to improve reliability and shorten journey times.

We need to make bus travel more attractive to people. The average speed of a bus on Hope Street in Glasgow is about 4mph, which is ridiculous. Why is that? It is because of congestion and other problems on the road. That leads to buses being seen as unreliable and slow. I think that bus prioritisation, which has already been taken forward in some local authority areas, can make a big difference in making bus travel a much more attractive option.

You mentioned STPR2, in which we have set out some bold ideas and visions. Projects such as the Clyde metro, the development of rapid bus transport up in the north-east and the Edinburgh mass transit programme could all play a big part in supporting people to make the transition from using their car—for short journeys, in particular—to using active travel or public transport.

In addition, as of yesterday, our under-22s are able to travel free on buses. That will help to embed greater use of public transport in the behaviour of our future generation, thereby supporting us to help people to make better use of public transport instead of travelling by car.

I would expect local authorities to have a good understanding of their housing stock, as should social housing providers in general. They will have knowledge of which housing has had retrofit energy improvements, whether through the area-based heating schemes or other schemes. Therefore, they should have a certain level of data. The issue might be that there is data that some of the private sector investors are unable to access or get an understanding of, rather than that there are no data there. I will take that point away to check for you, convener.

The second issue is about scale. I have discussed that issue with potential private investors, who have said that they need scale in order to make the capital investment that they believe is necessary to make delivering a programme financially viable.

Alongside the finance task force that I mentioned earlier, we are looking at what we need to put in place in order to lever in some of that private sector investment. That might involve bringing together some of our cities to form alliances or partnerships to put forward joint proposals that would give the sector the scale that it is looking for. In my previous portfolio, when I was the minister who was responsible for cities, we discussed that possibility. For example, we could have an Edinburgh and Dundee partnership or a Glasgow and Aberdeen partnership, which could take a shared prospectus to the private sector to see whether the proposal was of a scale that the sector could deliver on.

That is a reasonable challenge from the private sector. The issue has been raised with us, and the finance task force can consider it. We then need to think about how we can create the right partnerships to assist with that.

My final point is that some social housing providers might have only a couple of hundred houses, so they do not have the scale to get the level of private sector investment that they are looking for. They might get public sector investment, but not necessarily private sector investment. Therefore, we need to bring some of those providers together, so that we can offer proposals on a scale that will attract private sector investment. Given the scale of what we have to achieve, the public energy agency can support us in that role in the years ahead.

I do not think that we need the agency for the purpose of getting the data—local authorities should be able to draw that data together. However, if there is a lack of data, I will take that away and consider why that is the case, what needs to be put in place in order to improve the quality of that data, and whether resource needs to be provided to allow local authorities and social housing providers to deliver that.

I might be wrong, but I would like to think that social housing providers, such as housing associations, will be in a different situation compared with local authorities, because their housing stock is often at a smaller level. Therefore, they will have a much more detailed understanding of the improvements that they have already carried out.

I will take those points away and try to find out why there is a lack of data and what can be done to improve the situation.

I agree with your point. The danger is that we wait for the public energy agency to get up to full tilt so that it can co-ordinate some of that work, and we lose time while investors are looking to make an investment just now, provided that they can get access to the right data. We need to take on that challenge. I am happy to take the point away to get more of a detailed understanding of the issue and consider what we can do to address it.

We have taken that forward through negotiations with the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the UN, to create a pathway for registered delegates to COP26 or the world leaders summit to attend in-person negotiations and meetings. From the regulations, you will be aware that those who are travelling from high-risk countries—which are classed as red-list countries—still have much more stringent restrictions. Those who are unvaccinated will have to go into managed quarantine for 10 days, just as any other individual would have to, and then, as part of that, go through the normal testing regime on days 2 and 8. If those who have travelled from or have been in a red-list country in the past 10 days are vaccinated, they will be able to reduce their managed quarantine period to five days but will be required to have PCR tests over that period.

For those travelling from non-red-list countries, there is still a requirement for pre-departure testing, the completion of a passenger locator form, and day 2 testing, as well as daily lateral flow tests as part of the code of practice that has been put in place by the UN to try to minimise risk. The two Governments and the UN have tried to collaborate on finding a mechanism that manages the high-risk elements as best we can through managed quarantine and testing while also managing the broader risk through pre-departure, day 2 and daily lateral flow testing for delegates attending COP26.

Moreover, those arrangements are restricted to registered COP26 delegates. If you are not a registered delegate or if you have not been invited by the UK Government to attend the conference, the measures will not apply. Where things have been relaxed, it is only for registered delegates or invited participants. We have to try and strike a balance.

It is difficult for me to easily give you information on the balance of risks; all I can say is that we are trying to manage the whole thing in a planned way that helps minimise those risks. We know that, for example, vaccination, regular testing, early identification of positive cases and managed quarantine help to reduce risk, and we have put in place a range of measures to mitigate the risk of people having the virus while reducing the potential importation of the virus.

Last week, some changes were made that extend the number of countries that will qualify for the vaccination programme and for people’s entry into Scotland and the UK. I am aware that there are issues relating to vaccines that are provided in other countries for which there are travel restrictions. However, I suspect that Professor Jason Leitch is better placed to give members a more detailed clinical understanding of why that is the case and what action is being taken to address the issue.

The G7 event was much smaller in scale than COP26, and it involved a much smaller number of individuals. Some aspects of what we have agreed to put in place for COP26, such as the testing regime and restrictions, are there so that we can facilitate an in-person COP to take place—because we recognise the significance of the event—while trying to mitigate some of the risks. I would not say that we have drawn directly on the lessons from the G7, because it was very different in nature and scale, as COP26 is significantly larger. I assure you that we have tried to strike a balance in allowing COP26 to take place in person while mitigating the risks that are associated with such a large number of people coming together over a relatively limited period.