Seòmar agus comataidhean

You mentioned that you have a seat on the board of some of the companies that you are investing in. I know that other fund managers do that. For example, Baillie Gifford has a direct relationship with the portfolio companies that it invests in through its positive change programme. Of the seven investments that you have made so far, with which companies do you have board representation?

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.

The member mentions Denmark. Will she accept that there are many public energy companies in Denmark at a municipal level that are owned by the local community and that supply heat to local people? That could be a model for Scotland—having not just one energy company but multiple such companies.

I will focus my brief comments on the global emergency that gets the least attention: the nature emergency. It is a real supertanker of a crisis—it first has to be slowed down and then turned around, while all the while climate change is accelerating many of the catastrophic global biodiversity declines. The full restoration of nature cannot happen overnight; it will require changes that unravel centuries of exploitation and degradation. Traditions will need to be challenged and transitions will need to be just.

We need a clear vision that is backed up by legally binding targets, resources and new partnerships that are committed to delivering change on the ground. For years, meaningful action on the nature emergency has, for many Governments, been in the too-difficult-to-do box. Vested interests have resisted change; reforms have been slow or non-existent; agencies have often been too cautious; and the status quo has won out time and time again.

Change is long overdue, but the agreement between Green MSPs and the Scottish Government marks a fresh starting point for the regeneration and recovery of nature. Setting those legally binding nature targets will be critical in driving the change further and faster, and they must reach across every area of Government policy, from agriculture to fisheries, to planning and beyond. Ahead of the environment bill that is coming to Parliament, it is critical that the boots on the ground start delivering today. There should be no delay in the action that is needed. The nature restoration fund that the Greens secured in the budget earlier this year is already making a big difference, and will be dramatically expanded with multiyear funding. The demand is there for projects at a landscape scale that can truly deliver.

In the summer, I visited RSPB Insh Marshes, on the Spey, and I was blown away by the diversity of the wildlife there. I was also struck by how reserves such as Insh Marshes can be strengthened if they are part of much larger networks of linked habitats across catchments and regions. Regional land use partnerships have a key role in that regard, and they need to be rolled out further. Yes, they need to be guided by local decision making, but they also need crystal-clear objectives to enable them to deliver on national targets for climate and nature. Growing those nature networks will be critical. With initiatives from pollinator superhighways to farm woodland corridors, we can join up fragmented habitats and embed them in the national planning framework.

The commitment in the agreement to deliver 10 per cent of our seas as highly protected marine areas, removing all damaging activities, will be significant. However, there remains a wider problem with the inshore, which needs to be tackled. Capping activities that damage the seabed within 3 nautical miles of the shore is a step in the right direction, but if the evidence shows that that is not effective, the exclusion of dredging and trawling must be an option in the future.

Marine protected areas must be meaningful. They will not deliver as mere lines on a map; they must come with strong plans for management and enforcement. Aquaculture needs major reform to address the multitude of environmental and animal welfare problems that are associated with it. The Griggs review, which will come to the Parliament soon, must deliver reforms that address the concerns that many coastal communities have with the current regulatory and planning framework. There will be a need to apply just transition principles. For example, conversations with the scallop dredging sector about its future need to start now, and farms in the uplands must be supported to deliver—

Farms in the uplands must be supported to deliver the changes in land use that are needed to tackle the climate and nature emergencies while keeping people on the land.

The Green-Scottish Government agreement provides the right vision and concrete actions to restore the environment. I look forward to the Government hitting the ground running.

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.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what its position is on the proposed timetable changes set out by ScotRail in its fit for the future consultation. (S6O-00158)