Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. I am happy to pass over to other colleagues, convener.

Yes. The petition dates from May, but as we know, islanders are experiencing on-going and serious issues. We can look at the Audit Scotland report, which is a review of the arrangements and learning in relation to the procurement and management of projects. However, we should also ask the minister whether steps are being taken, in advance of the Audit Scotland report’s publication, to improve the current lifeline ferry services.

We need to consider that in advance of the spring and summer seasons. The petitioner was writing in reference to some of the impacts on tourism. We have to ask the minister to look at both the lifeline issues that Collette Stevenson mentioned and the implications for tourism.

We should put similar issues to CalMac. It is good to see that this week CalMac is offering half-price tickets for schools that are taking part in activities on the mainland. That has been a long-standing issue. There might be other practical steps being taken. We need to ensure that those are put on the record and understood.

The minister might want to come back to us in advance of the Audit Scotland report if there is anything that can be announced in relation to the lifeline services, as well as looking forward to the tourism season.

Can you share with us the biggest risks in delivering the fuel poverty strategy?

We have Maggie Simpson only until half past 10. I will bring her back in to comment on the point about the last mile and rail connectivity to the ports, as well as on the point about rail hubs, in particular Mossend. What do you think should be the next developments and what needs to be done to address Richard Ballantyne’s point?

I want to discuss the financing of improvements in interconnectivity between different modes of transport in the supply chain. My first question, which is for Maggie Simpson, is this: what would be desirable in order to improve interconnectivity for freight between rail, air and ports? Are there opportunities to generate additional finance in the area, particularly with the drive towards net zero and given that private finance is looking for greener opportunities in supply chains and other areas? In short, what improvements would you like to be made, and how should they be funded?

Can Robert Windsor give us his perspective on use of finance to improve interconnectivity between rail, air and ports. What would you like to happen, what is viable and practical and who should pay for it?

Saying that you do not know is sometimes a good thing—certainly in politics, as well as for witnesses. I recognise that you are the policy and compliance manager.

I read the British Ports Association report with interest. It makes the case for transport infrastructure and indicates that a fixed link between Northern Ireland and Great Britain would be a

“redundant and irresponsible use of public money”,

and that ports would be able to use that money more effectively. The report quotes possible costs of between £20 billion and £40 billion for the link.

What progress have you made in trying to obtain that level of funding from the UK Government, if it is no longer going to pursue the Northern Ireland fixed link? Where would you like to see investment? If that funding is not available, where will investment come from? Is it possible to consider green finance, particularly if the north-west passage, for example, opened up and was limited to hydrogen or green fuels? Is that kind of thinking within your parameters?

I am very interested in how you want to spend the £40 billion that is no longer available for a fixed link.

I was interested in what you were saying about the maths of the carbon offset not necessarily matching the land that is available globally. That is quite a challenge, and it is interesting from a Scottish perspective. I am conscious of time, but, with the convener’s permission, it would be helpful to get a bit more insight into that point.

Perhaps we can move on from shouting, back to diplomacy. In your answer to Mark Ruskell, you covered some of the issues that I was interested in asking about, but I am particularly interested in the geopolitics of all of this, the challenges that lie ahead with regard to COP27 and what you think needs to happen in that respect.

In your very good submission, Professor Reay, you talk about the importance of just transition and what Scotland can contribute to that, but you also highlight the US-South Africa coal agreement, which I do not think got as much domestic coverage in the United Kingdom as it might have done. Could you unpack that a bit? I also wonder whether the two of you have some reflections on the role of India, China and Russia in what happened at COP26 and, more important, what that might mean going forward.

Lastly, I would like to hear some comments on the UN being the essence of multilateralism. A whole load of parallel multilateralist approaches that are being taken by business, cities, the Under2 Coalition and so on have been highlighted. Perhaps Mike Robinson can talk about the geopolitical issues in that light.

I am interested in the geopolitical challenges ahead of COP27. Other colleagues will talk about domestic aspects that are reflected in Scotland.

I am interested in what Mary Church was saying about climate finance. We know that losses and damages will be huge for the next year, but you made points about climate finance in relation to the sense of realism that the China-India intervention brought. What does that mean now in relation to advancing the phasing out of coal in India? What would need to be realised in terms of the climate finance that we spoke of?

For Teresa, there are the same questions about the geopolitics of the role of China, Russia and India from COP26 and how we go forward. Also, what are your international networks—the global citizenry—telling you as a result of COP26 and the Glasgow pact?