Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a couple of follow-up questions. First, I am interested in where you draw the line in relation to exclusions and ethical screening. For example, Eilidh Mactaggart mentioned munitions companies. If a munitions company wanted to diversify into using some of its military hardware for a technical application to do with climate change or whatever, would that be within your scope for investment?

Another example might be forestry. The investments that are taking place are massively welcome, but how far do you go in screening how they are used in marketing? For example, Shell might say, “Come and fill up your car at this petrol station with our petrol and diesel—it’s fine because, for every tank of fuel you buy from us, we are investing in another five trees.”

In thinking about those secondary ethical considerations, I am interested in where you draw the line in your governance with regard to those companies.

It would be useful if the committee could get that information in a list.

Good morning. I will ask about the UK Government’s engagement in the beyond oil and gas alliance. That initiative is being led by the Danish Government but it seems to be building up a head of steam: Germany, Iceland, Costa Rica, Belize, Portugal, Netherlands, Ireland and New Zealand are all engaging in the work of the alliance. What conversations have there been with the Danish Government about that? How do you intend to engage in the conversation that will be launched at COP26 in Glasgow?

Coming back to the points that have been made about how UK oil and gas policy might be evolving, particularly with regard to alignment with the Paris agreement, I wonder whether the policy of maximum economic recovery actually puts the oil and gas companies in quite a difficult position. If I were on the board of Shell—which I am not, by the way—I would be faced with, on one hand, a Dutch court ruling telling us that the company has to reduce by 45 per cent its emissions not just from production but from the sale of all fossil fuels and, on the other, the legal obligation that we would have under UK law to extract every single drop from the reserves if we had a licence, under maximum economic recovery. Can you see the difficulty in making the transition under the current policy of maximum economic recovery? If so, how do you see that policy changing over time?

That suggests that there will be some need for oil and gas, going forward. However, do you acknowledge that that is not the same as maximum economic recovery? That is not the same as there being 20 billion barrels of oil and gas in the North Sea; there might be somewhere south of 6 billion barrels.

Has an attempt been made to engage the UK Government on the substantive policy area? If so, what was the reaction? Why are we now looking at a policy that the UK Government produced without any Scottish Government involvement?

Moving on to something a wee bit different, I know that you share responsibility for biodiversity with Mairi Gougeon, but perhaps that should be a priority across the whole of Government in the way that climate change is becoming a priority. I acknowledge that this stuff is difficult, but the stark reality is that we failed to meet 11 of the 20 Aichi targets that were set for 2020. There might be more of a need for a just transition in some of these areas than in other sectors, and I think that you have already alluded to agriculture, fisheries and the marine environment as areas where we need a step change.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this issue, given that you have part of the brief and have a minister working with you on it. What do you see as not only the challenges but the opportunities? How do we ensure that biodiversity is as mainstreamed as climate change is becoming across Government policy, whether it be in farming, the planning system, energy or whatever?

I am interested to know whether active policy work was under way in the Scottish Government.

You will know that European policy development is taking place and that the European Commission is to propose a directive on sustainable corporate governance this month or next month. Why is co-ordination not happening? Why is there no common framework on this policy and many others? Has a conversation taken place about the issue, given that both Governments know that the European Commission is looking to make progress on it? That is in line with the Scottish Government’s policy and with what the UK Government wants to progress on. Between the two Governments and the European Commission, there is a need for co-ordinated progress. [Interruption.] Why is there a breakdown in communication—is it the microphones?

Going back to an issue that I have just mentioned, I think it inevitable that a just transition will be needed in some sectors such as inshore fisheries, scallop dredging—potentially—and some of the trawling sectors if those inshore activities are incompatible with biodiversity targets. That will have to result in a conversation about where we go next, how the industry transitions and whether there is a need for financial support packages or whatever.

I realise that that is perhaps more Ms Gougeon’s area, but there are similar issues around how we manage a just transition, whether we are talking about oil and gas or agriculture and fisheries. Where do you see that sitting in Government? Is it your part of Government that leads the thinking around the just transition process and governance, or is Richard Lochhead having those conversations?