Seòmar agus comataidhean

Professor Smith, on that very point, looking to the future, I am keen to know whether some of those mistakes are reversible. I will touch on other questions briefly with regard to what we mean by “biodiversity intactness”, but, helpfully, you raised the very point that I was going to ask about. I will not mention prominent broadcasters who invested in those trees in the 1980s. Are some of those decisions reversible?

I think and I hope that the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—has produced a much deeper and wider public interest in and understanding of some of those issues.

I was certainly shocked by the statistics that suggest that, if we move from 1.5°C to 2° of warming, that 0.5° difference doubles some of the consequences that we are talking about—it makes them twice as difficult, which is a dramatic difference.

Can you or others on the panel give an illustration of the difference between those two possible scenarios that face us if we do not do something in the next 12 months, before the next COP, particularly in relation to the impact on the coastline in Scotland?

This question is probably for Professor Austin, although others might have an interest in it, too.

The issue of rising sea levels presents an existential threat to some parts of the world. A few days ago, I found myself speaking to a politician from Tuvalu who made that very point. However, as was mentioned earlier, it also has an impact on the Scottish coastline. I represent the Western Isles, so I have a particular interest in that. Will you say a bit more about what the trajectory is and what you expect to see—for instance, on the west coast of Scotland—over the next few decades?

I have a question for Ms Douglas. In your written evidence, you say very directly that

“The Act undermines the ability of devolved administrations to legislate to protect and improve public health.”

I am interested in that, and I think that there are many people in the devolved legislatures who would share that concern. For those who do not know about the act or what it does, can you elaborate on why you have that concern about the way in which it might restrict future legislation?

You mentioned some of the potential areas for new legislation around alcohol that it could affect. I do not want to ask you to speak for other organisations that represent health interests, but are there other areas of public health about which the same concerns are being or might be expressed?

I am interested in what you said about—I do not want to put words in your mouth—those changes implying the need to influence action at Westminster more than you would have to do at present. Did you say that that would present a resource issue or that that would be more difficult than influencing Holyrood?

Mr Clancy, you have given a picture of the considerations that have to go through the minds of ministers and others in the Parliament before legislating, and those are more complicated than they were when the Parliament was first re-established.

One of the other considerations is the Northern Ireland protocol. I ask either of the witnesses to say a bit more about the considerations that come into play in relation to that when Scotland acts.

No, that is helpful. I wondered—

I was just going to suggest the same.

Similar concerns were expressed 300 years ago and they are written on the side of the Parliament:

“But naebody's nails can reach the length o’ Lunnon.”

Vhairi Tollan, could you comment briefly on something that the Scottish Crofting Federation said in its submission to the UK Government consultation on its internal market white paper? The submission states that

“we accept the need for an organised internal market but this must be designed and agreed by all four UK administrations, not imposed by one”.

You have touched on those issues. Do you feel that legislatures or organisation such as yours have been involved in the design of the proposals for the internal market?