Chamber and committees

I understand—I am grateful for that answer. Unless Louise Marix Evans has anything to add, I will hand back to the convener.

I will throw a question to David Hammond first. You quoted the COSLA submission earlier in relation to the financial pressures that local authorities face. You picked up that

“net-zero has a price tag which is not being currently met.”

I will ask a similar question to the one that I asked the earlier panel. What impact will the public pay settlements, the recent Scottish Government spending cuts and inflationary pressures have on local authorities’ ability to deliver on their net zero ambitions? Given what we heard earlier—the submission states that there is a

“lack of flexibility of funding”—

what can be done?

I will bring in Stephen Smellie shortly, as he might want to address the first question, but I will stick with Andrew Burns for now.

Given the financial situation that we have heard so much about, what impact do you foresee the pay increases, the Scottish Government’s spending cuts and the current inflationary pressures having on local authorities’ ability to deliver on their net zero ambitions? Given how councils are funded, what can they do about it?

That was helpful—thank you. If Susan Davies wants to pick up on the point about conditions for success and monitoring, she can by all means do so, but I am moving on to a slightly different topic.

You heard me ask about funding sources. We got some pretty big numbers from the previous panel. Do you have views on whether the consultation deals with funding realistically and on the sources from which we can get funding?

That was interesting—thank you. Let me move on to Calum Duncan—finally. If you want to contribute to the conversation that we have just had, by all means do so, but my question is on a slightly different matter. The national marine plan was reviewed in spring 2021, as was required. Ministers are now required to decide whether to amend or replace the current plan, which I understand has not been amended or updated since 2015. Do you take a view on what should be done? In its submission, the Marine Conservation Society said that the biodiversity strategy should be aligned with the marine plan and other such policies.

I am very grateful for your response. Bruce Wilson, would you like to talk about funding?

It was a long, but very useful, response. If NatureScot is watching this session, and it has data on return on investment, I am sure that the committee would be pleased to see it.

Before I hand back to the convener, Susie Saunders may want to add briefly to what Dr Walton said.

I am grateful for that answer. I put the same question to Bruce Wilson.

Thank you. My first question is for Professor Morgera and then for Bruce Wilson, who referred specifically in his submission to the limitations of previous strategies in relation to governance and accountability. There is a section in the strategy on conditions for success, one of which is that there be an independent body

“to monitor and report on progress”,

alongside

“An improved monitoring framework”.

However, the section does not go on to say anything about what those conditions might look like. What are your views on what is currently in place and on what the best solutions for monitoring and reporting might be?

I will throw the next question to Dr Walton, if you have wrapped up your answer on that question.

I also have a follow-up question. The conditions for success contain a bit about funding, but no real thoughts on the sources of such funding, bar a reference to agricultural subsidies. Bruce Wilson’s submission says that funding is not on the scale that is required, and Dr Walton made the same point in his opening remarks. I will come first to Dr Walton and then to Bruce Wilson. Will you give the committee an idea of the scale of funding that is required? Is the consultation realistic on that aspect? What would you expect to see in a delivery plan, as regards funding?