Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful.

To stick with the issue of oil and gas, we have to be realistic about what we can expect the Scottish Government to do. All decisions about exploration and extraction rest with the UK Government and there is very little that the Scottish Government can do to change the use of the existing gas fields in the North Sea or of those still to be exploited. The timeline for deciding how that will be taken forward rests solely with the UK Government.

The fact that that is a declining basin has been recognised and acknowledged for the best part of a decade, if not longer, and the just transition fund for the north-east addresses that. I put it to you that the Scottish Government has already acknowledged that and that some of the work that it is doing is intended to address those issues. However, actually setting a timeline for when we will stop extracting oil and gas from the North Sea is not something that is in the gift of the Scottish Government.

Thanks, convener.

I will pick up on the issue of governance, which was touched on in the earlier part of the meeting. We have discussed the issue of data and being able to track progress, or the lack of it, the need to have clarity on policy and the distinction between targets and other broader aspects. Richard Dixon also touched on the fact that there is no provision for the additional catch-up reports that the Scottish Government had to produce annually under section 36 of the 2009 act, on where it was not making sufficient progress.

I would be grateful for the witnesses’ views on whether the governance arrangements are sufficient or whether they think that there are measures that the Government could take to support the governance process around its draft climate change plan.

I will come to Clare Wharmby first, particularly given that governance aspects will have a role to play in accountability. That could be at different levels of government, with local government being a key part of the delivery mechanism for the climate change plan. Are the governance arrangements sufficient?

That is helpful.

I turn to Graeme Roy. A considerable part of the change that will be needed to meet our climate change targets will require private sector investment. I would be interested to hear your views on this. If there is a lack of clear leadership for and ownership of policy within the Government’s climate change plan, does that run the risk of making it difficult for the private sector to develop a clear understanding of the Government’s priorities and of how firms should target their investment in this area? If there is a lack of clarity, that could have an impact on our economy in the medium to longer term.

I wanted to come in on the back of the response from Richard Dixon, particularly on the issues of air departure tax and oil and gas. I have two points. The first is that there are fiscal challenges regarding arrangements for an air departure tax and the potential impact that it could have on interisland flights. The Scottish Government has now been seeking to get that issue resolved with the Treasury for the best part of a decade, but that has not yet been resolved. Are you taking that into account in highlighting any areas in which you think that there is a lack of leadership?

My second point is the issue of the Scottish Government setting out a timeline or process for reducing our reliance on oil and gas production. How do you expect the Scottish Government to deliver on that when it is not responsible for the licensing of exploration or the extraction of oil and gas in the North Sea?

Richard Dixon mentioned that there is no section 36 report in the process now. What would help or enhance the governance process and the monitoring and tracking of progress, or lack of progress? What positive step could the Government take to change the existing draft plan to make it more transparent and accountable?

If there is a lack of ownership in the governance processes, can that compromise accountability for the progress, or lack of progress, in key areas?

Good morning. Sticking with the theme of infrastructure investment, there is anxiety about the cost of investment that is needed to meet our climate change targets. You heard earlier about the cost of things such as heat pumps and so on. There is a suggestion that we should just ditch the 2045 and 2050 net zero targets but still try to make some progress in tackling climate change.

Is it fair to say that there is a direct correlation between the degree of global warming or climate change and the amount of investment that we must make in adaptation as a result? If so, to what extent do you think that there is the risk that, if we ditch those national targets, we will simply push the costs on to investment in climate adaptation, which we will need to do more of?

So, delaying net zero involves a cost from an adaptation perspective, as investment would have to go into infrastructure.

As you say, there is a need to invest in infrastructure to meet the changes in our climate that we are experiencing. Given the capital investment profile of the Scottish and UK Governments and their infrastructure investment planning, do you see the scale of investment that is necessary to ensure that we have the right infrastructure in place to deal with the climate challenges that we face?

It feels to me that, by and large, a lot of infrastructure investment that takes place to deal with some of these challenges happens because of incidents occurring—we see a flood, so we put in flood-mitigation measures to deal with it.

You mentioned that we do not track that type of investment. The CCC gives independent advice to the Scottish and UK Governments. Are you able to quantify exactly how much either of those Governments is spending on climate adaptation specifically?