On numbers, I might have to turn to my officials, but what happened was that we were able to use money from ScotWind for climate action not just in my portfolio, but in portfolios that are associated with climate action, such as Mairi Gougeon’s portfolio.

I have been passed a note of the numbers. In finance and local government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has asked for funding to respond to the climate emergency, and £70 million was associated with that.

That is an important point, because the Government has to make lots of considerations about what it spends. Climate change is one of the Government’s four priorities, but it is not the only priority. If something that we did to reduce emissions had the knock-on effect of child poverty rising, we clearly would not want to do that, so we have to take everything in the round. You mentioned road safety. The dualling of the A9 is a road safety measure that has been taken because of the catalogue of serious accidents that have taken place on that road. You would not want to look only at the climate taxonomy; everything has to be taken in context, as you rightly point out.

We have to look at that every year. We always have to take into account what we are asking our public bodies to do and whether they are well resourced to do it.

Both Governments have a responsibility for the future of Mossmorran. The budget line is not in my portfolio because it is not strictly energy related, but the budget lines for the just transition and the project willow spend are in my portfolio because the refinery is in the energy space.

A lot of work has been done across Scottish Enterprise as a result of the work that has been done on all the many projects—more than 100—that have made representations in relation to Grangemouth. Some are not suitable for the Grangemouth complex, so we always look at other areas of Scotland where they could be deployed and supported.

It is the economy budget that has the £3 million, and there are various fora in which that is being discussed, as you have just said. The Deputy First Minister is leading on that. However, I take your point. There are two Governments involved, and, if I can put it bluntly, there has to be a look at the reasons why ExxonMobil made the decision that it did, including its commentary on the fiscal set-up that prompted that decision.

Do you want me to leave?

My officials will be able to instruct you on what reassurances we have had from the UK Government on this. With regard to the second amending instrument that I have spoken to, I have said that a great deal of work still needs to be done in that regard, and that is why there have been delays. Anyone who was here when we exited the EU would have had concerns, certainly when it came to this area of policy, that any transition away from the EU REACH arrangements was going to be highly complex.

Did we think that it would take this amount of time? I do not think that we would have thought that it would have taken nearly 10 years, although, given the REACH arrangements and the need for a mirroring system at UK level, we always knew that this was going to be extremely complex. That said, I am convinced that, as long as the EU arrangements are in place up to the point at which we have a UK REACH system, there will be no danger of any diminution of standards associated with the chemicals.

Yes, I am.

We have had all the information that we need. You are right that the HSE has not published the consultation responses. We have been going via DEFRA to get all our questions answered about these statutory instruments. We have said that one of the things—

That was very helpful. My biggest concern is that it might be portrayed as showing the Government having to front up all the costs associated with climate action, when, in fact, a lot of the proposals and policies in the climate change plan will create economic activity and investment that will overtake any kind of Government action and lead to a market that will drive down emissions while creating new sectors and economic growth.

An awful lot more work needs to be done on estimating the preventative spend related to climate action and emissions reduction, particularly in the area of health. For example, the cost of air pollution to people’s health, UK-wide, is estimated at £27 billion, and it accounts for 30,000 deaths a year, according to the Royal College of Physicians. There is a lot of information, analysis and data out there, but it changes. Indeed, Mr Stewart made the fundamental point that one of the inherent difficulties in arriving at a cost estimate associated with climate action is the cost of electricity. At the moment, it is very high; we are told that it will come down in the future, but we do not know when and by how much. A lot of that is estimated.

That said, I do take on board the point that you have made, Mr Doris—indeed, the point that everyone has made, including the deputy convener. Can we provide more information on the modelling that we used to show how we arrived at the figure? I think that we can. Do we have to be careful about what goes into the public domain with regard to internal Government processes, thinking about the compulsion that we have in law in that respect? I think that, if we provide that information, it will have to come with a little bit of a health warning about how accurate the figures are and how accurate they will be over a 15-year period.

Sorry—the same as what? The same one as the approach taken by the Climate Change Committee?