Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will you clarify whether you are able to work across sectors and not exclusively in the private sector? Are you able to work with public companies and social enterprises? We have great examples of public companies delivering heat, such as Aberdeen Heat & Power, and I know that local councils are interested in that space of delivering heat networks and local heat to communities. Can they get support from enterprise agencies to do that or are there restrictions on the agencies’ remits? Are you working across sectors?

I was struck by Andy McDonald’s earlier comments about the challenge with heat decarbonisation. It is enormously challenging: 1,000,000 homes will have to be decarbonised by 2030 in order to meet Government targets. Perhaps you can give us a bit more background on how you see the skills gap in heat decarbonisation being filled.

In addition, I would like to know more about the relationship between the enterprise agencies and the new public energy agency that will be launched. How will delivery work, in that regard? How will we develop supply chains and deliver at a scale that has never previously been seen in Scotland?

My next question is for SOSE and HIE. There is a commitment in the co-operation agreement between my party and the Scottish Government to develop at least one national park by the end of this parliamentary session. What are your perspectives on that? Can we learn any lessons from the existing national parks on the job opportunities that might come from that?

Will you work with campaigns in the south of Scotland to develop a prospectus for a national park, or is that outwith your remit?

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.