Official Report 181KB pdf
Our main item of business today is an evidence session with the Sustainable Development Commission Scotland. Joining us are Maf Smith, its director, and Phil Matthews, its senior policy adviser. I welcome them to committee again.
We are a UK non-departmental public body that reports directly to each of the four Governments. We have an office in each of the four administrations. I lead the office in Scotland, which has two commissioners. The Scottish Government gave us our remit, and we report directly to the First Minister in providing sustainable development scrutiny and advisory services.
Do your relationships with the two Governments vary? Have they changed over time?
In how the SDC perceives them?
Yes.
We have a different relationship with each of the four Governments and different tasks under each Administration. For example, we have a scrutiny role in Scotland and an equivalent watchdog role for the UK Government but no similar role in Wales or Northern Ireland. As a result, the work for each of the four Governments is different. In Scotland, we have developed a good and strong relationship with the Government that gives us open access. There is an understanding across Government of our relationship and the need for our scrutiny role. We consider our role to be important; the Scottish Government also recognises its importance.
How effective has the relationship been? How has the SDC brought that sustainable development scrutiny to bear on the Scottish Government? What impact has there been on its performance, legislative programme or indicators of success?
There are two sides to that. In our scrutiny role, we track the Government's delivery based on its performance figures. We do not do our own research into progress; we use the set of indicators that the Government provides. We can provide commentary and identify areas in which improvement is needed.
In general, are you satisfied with the Government's response to the SDC's recommendations, analyses and critiques? Can we be satisfied that in general your recommendations are implemented? We will talk about specifics later.
The overall response is positive, in that the Government recognises that Scotland has further to travel on its journey towards sustainable development, but we are frustrated by the scale of work and the pace of change in Government. There is a significant mismatch in that regard—that was a key theme of our second assessment. Although many Government commitments, policies and frameworks acknowledge and try to tackle the issue, we do not think that the gap is narrowing quickly.
You mentioned the SDC's interaction with the civil service. Is there also regular interaction at Cabinet level? What is the nature of such interaction?
There is regular interaction, the nature of which depends on the issue. For example, last week we met Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, to talk about a range of issues, including our recent report "Prosperity without growth? The transition to a sustainable economy". We also talked about our second assessment and the progress of discussions with the Government on issues that we highlighted, and we outlined the next steps in the third assessment. We have good access to cabinet secretaries, so we can provide information to Cabinet when we need to do so.
The SDC runs two programmes on behalf of Government: it provides the secretariat to the Scottish sustainable development forum and it co-ordinates the climate challenge fund. Is there a conflict between your roles? Does carrying out programmes on behalf of Government impinge on your ability to criticise or challenge its actions?
No, we do not believe so. In setting up that work, we have been very clear that it should not impinge on our ability to challenge. We have been very clear with the Government about the separation of our roles, both of which are important because they help to feed information back to the Government to strengthen policy making and delivery.
In the dim and distant past, "sustainable economic growth" simply meant growth that could be sustained year on year. Obviously, the term now has a different meaning. What do you mean by sustainable economic growth?
In our assessment, we said that the Government's overall purpose of sustainable economic growth could be compatible with sustainable development but there are clear tensions so the issue depends on how the Government delivers on that purpose. The Government has recognised those tensions. For us, sustainable development—by which we would measure sustainable economic growth—is about a society that lives within its environmental limits and tackles social inequities. Those two objectives are achieved through using three tools: economic growth, sound science and good governance.
Does the Scottish Government agree with your interpretation of sustainable economic growth, or is there a difference of opinion?
It is worth mentioning that we forwarded our recent UK report "Prosperity without growth?" to the Scottish Government. In response, the Scottish Government said that it believes that it is meeting the challenges and that it is aware of the environmental limits and social inequalities. It must be said that we are not so sure. From the indicators that have been set, it is clear that Scotland is not living within its environmental limits and has not yet tackled long-standing inequalities. Although economic growth can bring benefits, there are clear downsides to it and, if we do not tackle them head on, Scotland cannot be judged to be sustainable. The performance framework recognises that and is clear about the tensions, but a large-scale shift is needed if those tensions are to be tackled. We do not see that level of intervention and change.
Under your definition, is the Government moving closer to or further away from sustainability?
In many respects, it is too early to tell. The latest data that we had for our second assessment were on Scottish performance one year in. It is too early to tell whether, as a result of a new Government focus and direction, some of the indicator sets will shift in a positive way. We will track that across the second, third and fourth assessments.
Do you feel that the Government can appropriately reconcile the competing demands of the requirement for economic growth and its commitment to sustainability?
Yes, if it is honest and up front about the tensions and challenges. In the report, we identify that that means that the Government must be clear about what it does not do. Governments like to focus attention on what they are doing, but Governments are always making decisions to not do things, too. Limited resources are key in that regard.
Do you feel that you have the ability to assist Government rather more as time goes by?
We hope so, yes. Devices such as the carbon balance sheet and carbon assessment tools are helpful, but they will not solve the issue by themselves. The tools provide information for the Government, and we see our role as helping the Government to decide how to act once it has that information.
I am interested in indicators and the criteria around them. You spoke about ensuring that the right tools are available. How will we know whether the Government has the tools to be able to take things forward? How can you monitor whether it is doing that?
As Maf Smith said, we do not do our own independent monitoring, but we have appraised the Government's indicators in the national performance framework. Our analysis is set out in our second assessment.
You seem to be describing two different approaches, and I am not sure which one you are saying that the Government is taking. On one hand, your report argues that the Government needs to define more clearly how the sustainability of growth is going to be measured. You have said that some encouraging progress is being made but that it needs to be more substantial. On the other hand, "Prosperity without growth?" presupposes not that there should be no growth but that we should regard other aspects of life, such as health and so on, as more important. Those approaches seem to me to be different, as one measures the sustainability of growth and one focuses on different priorities. Which of them is the Government taking, and is it the right one?
The Government's approach is mixed, and we identified some confusion on its part. That relates to what I said earlier about Government's purpose. We believe that the important part of the Government's purpose is to create opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, and the way in which it has chosen to do that is through sustainable economic growth. The national performance framework, therefore, is measuring whether Scotland is flourishing. "Flourishing" is obviously a qualitative term, so it needs to be nailed down, and the Government attempts to do that via a range of indicators.
"Prosperity without growth?" argues that the amount of decoupling that would be required to meet those long-term climate change objectives while making growth sustainable is absolute. We will need not only to stop each unit of economic activity contributing to climate change but to ensure that each unit of economic activity takes carbon out of the system. Is that feasible?
It is technically feasible, but it is a huge stretch and a long way from where we are now. The issue about decoupling is that the proponents of the role of economic growth as currently structured argue that we can become more efficient at taking carbon out of the system, so that, for every unit of growth, we have less of an impact. However, there is limited evidence that that is happening: the report considered resource commodities and the resource use per unit of economic growth and found that, in many respects, there is increasing intensification rather than decoupling.
Will you outline the five thematic challenges for Government that are discussed in the second review? We have talked a little about the recommendations that you follow up on in your second report. How did your assessment of the Government's progress lead you to those five challenges? Under each of those headings, where is progress needed most urgently in the short and medium term?
The first of the five challenges is the one that we have just been discussing, which is the perceived tension between growth based on gross domestic product and the Government's social and environmental objectives. The second key area in which we think action is needed is in the development of an effective climate change bill. Obviously, this committee has been heavily involved in considering the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill in recent months.
Are you looking for progress on any specific issues under each of those headings?
A lot has happened since our report was published. The Climate Change (Scotland) Bill has been published and the stage 1 process is complete. One of the key aspects that we identified, which follows the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change recommendations, was the need to set a clear interim target, and a large target by 2020. We are pleased that there is movement on that, certainly in terms of the political debate and the debate in this committee. That issue is clearly recognised, and—like the committee, I am sure—we are waiting to see how the Government responds.
We have been discussing public duties with regard to procurement, fuel poverty and many other matters. What wider discussions have you had on such duties and on how we can encourage Government and local government to take on issues such as fuel poverty?
Although we are not part of Audit Scotland, we sit within its offices and feel that the audit function is very important in appraising public sector performance. We are having discussions with Audit Scotland; indeed, I sat in on an audit of sustainable development in a local authority and afterwards engaged with and gave feedback to the auditors. More recently, with the extension to all public sector bodies of the best-value duty, which includes sustainable development, we have discussed with Audit Scotland colleagues how we can most effectively frame and deliver on that duty and report on it in the organisation's audit reports.
So Audit Scotland's audit work is vital in this respect.
Yes. Sustainable development has to be underpinned by duties, which is one of the reasons why we support the introduction of the climate change duty. However, interpretation is also important. Although sustainable development is clearly written into the supporting legislation for the best-value duty, so far there has been no radical change in the way in which local authorities and other public bodies deliver services sustainably. It is a combination of underpinning practice and engaging with the audit process.
With the possible public duty in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, Audit Scotland will have to look not only at how public bodies deliver in that respect but at the financial value associated with best value. Alongside that, the Scottish Government will be asking bodies to help it to deliver on its targets. Given that financial value is one of the considerations, someone will have to decide where the balance lies between spending more to decrease carbon emissions and spending less but increasing them. We feel that that should be decided by the Auditor General and Audit Scotland in their reports to Parliament and Government. After all, public bodies cannot be told two different things. We have to find some way of dealing with that.
That is helpful. Thank you.
In your review of the recommendations in the first assessment, you highlight the huge scale of the challenge that we face in moving Scotland to a sustainable economy and the fact that the current rate of progress is insufficient. You have explained some of that just now. I would like to focus on the problems that we face in supporting sustainable energy and meeting fuel poverty needs. There can be contradictions as well as win-wins from renewable energy, in particular. How should the Government try to bring those two policy objectives together?
There are contradictions. If we look at future energy challenges, we are not looking at scenarios in which the cost of energy is falling, because of increasing commodity costs—say, for gas and oil, but also the relative costs of renewables, particularly offshore renewables. In the short and medium term, offshore wind, wave and tidal energies are expensive technologies, although the costs will fall as we get better at them, as we learn and as the penetration of the market increases. There is a clear benefit in the development and use of those technologies, but that has costs for Scotland.
It is a complex subject. Energy efficiency is high on the list of things that could be done straightforwardly. I note that you say in your review of recommendations to the Government that the Council of Economic Advisers
Yes. We will write to the Council of Economic Advisers with our latest report—"Prosperity without growth? The transition to a sustainable economy"—highlighting the key aspects that we think are relevant to the council's remit. On the economic tensions between fuel poverty as a cost and the energy generation opportunity, those two areas must be brought together and there must be clarity—that would be worth doing.
It strikes me that much of the "Five Challenges for Government" section in your review of progress by the Scottish Government is about process. You talk about what progress has been made in improving the processes, clarifying them and setting a timetable for implementation. Our report on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill focused on the lack of push for early action; it was not just about the process of early action but about the lack of substance in early action. Did you feel that it was inappropriate for you to start talking about that? Given that your report is supposed to be a review of progress by the Scottish Government, that seems a big omission. I would have thought that it would have figured in the list of challenges.
It is partly about the timing of our second assessment and where the Government was in its programme at that point. We focused on processes and the structure of the Government because how Government is organised is important for its ability to respond to, and deal with, the challenges that it faces. Given that the current Government's organisation is very different from that of the previous Administration, we thought that it was important to look at that.
In what way is it different?
The performance framework is new, as is the move towards a set of indicators and outcomes, and the removal of departments in the Government. Those aspects have the potential to change, for good or bad, the way in which Government operates, so we wanted to review whether they would help the Government's work.
I do not want to be picky, but you say that you are reviewing progress and identifying challenges for the Government. The first challenge in your list of five challenges is that the Government should articulate what it is doing. The second challenge is for the Government to deliver the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill—worthy though that might be, it does not necessarily deliver any action. The third challenge is to "recognise" the scale of the fuel poverty problem. Somebody could say to you, "Well, I thought that you were supposed to be measuring progress on sustainability rather than the arrangement of the deckchairs around Government achieving progress towards sustainability." It seems to me that too much of your review is about the mechanics of government and policy making—who consults whom and all that stuff—and not enough of it is about examining what is happening.
We made our third recommendation, on fuel poverty, because the Government was due to report soon after we finalised our review and we knew that we would need to review what it had said. We knew that it was making progress, but we were concerned that it was not doing enough. That is why we were not able to make specific recommendations. Our third recommendation amounts to a commitment to follow through on fuel poverty and further review progress.
You say that a lot of the debate is about the process in the Government. You also say that you can see from the science that a 3 per cent annual cut in carbon emissions is needed. That leaves a big area in the middle—what practical measures are being taken? The same point could apply to any Government. Do you not view your role as being to identify what progress has been made in policy on, say, the four areas that are identified in the committee's report—energy efficiency, energy generation, transport and land use? That would enable you to identify the challenges in a fairly concrete way. It seems to me that the challenges that you identify are all about process—they are about technicalities to do with how the Government works rather than about what the Government is delivering.
I will add to what Maf Smith said. The report that we are discussing is our second assessment, but it is our first assessment of the current Administration. Given the lead time to publication, it focuses on the first nine months to one year of the Administration's work. At that stage, it was hard to see what the outcomes were, so it is essentially a benchmark report. Given the changes, it is important to look at governance. Any large organisation needs to have the right corporate structures in place to ensure delivery. In the report, we state clearly that, although corporate governance, in itself, will not necessarily deliver the outcomes that one desires, it is an important aspect of the framework and of taking sustainable development seriously.
Before we move on, I want to clarify something. You said that your report is the second assessment but the first assessment of the current Government. Are we talking about a continuing process or a cycle that you intend will be a regular routine during each Government's term in office?
The current process is set out in a memorandum of understanding that we have agreed with the Government. That takes us up to the fourth assessment, which will be a strategic one. We expect that a review will then take place, which will be with a new Administration and a new Government programme. We will discuss with the new Administration, whatever its political make-up, how our scrutiny review remit should be fulfilled and we will consider what it is best to review.
Is there not a danger in that process that issues might fall between the cracks during the change of Governments?
No, because we consider long-term trends. There are published data sets that show long-term trends. In our second assessment, we considered the Government's indicator set, but we tested that by using wider indicators to find out whether the Government's indicators give an accurate picture and do not distort the picture by, for example, presenting one positive aspect when more negative things are happening behind the scenes. We will continue to do that. It is easier to track progress if the indicator sets do not change, but it is in Governments' gift to change them. Governments want to consider their monitoring and evaluation processes and how they judge progress. We will advise Governments on that, but it is their decision. If a future Administration were to change how it tracks progress, we would continue to test that against wider indicator sets to find out where the long-term trends are going.
That is perhaps an issue for the committee to bear in mind in our longer-term thinking. There has been discussion about committee scrutiny changing from one parliamentary session to the next.
I will explore transport issues. Your second annual review shows that transport is the worst performing area. Car use is up, congestion is getting worse and air passenger numbers are up, although rail and bus passenger numbers are up, too. Why are the trends going in the wrong direction and what needs to be done about that? More people are travelling on public transport, but congestion has not reduced.
As you say, in our sustainability analysis, transport across the board was the least well performing area. There is a combination of reasons for that. Transport infrastructure provision is one fundamental aspect. That is not merely to do with the current Administration, as it goes back many decades. We have had a transport policy of large investment in roads, much less investment in rail and virtually no investment in walking and cycling, which are the most sustainable forms of transport but which are often overlooked. The planning system has neglected those forms of transport, too. Out-of-town sprawl has meant that goods and services are not near people. There are wider macroeconomic issues, such as the relative costs of public versus private transport and housing costs. Many people come over the Forth bridge every morning because they simply cannot afford to live in an area of Edinburgh that they would like to live in. The issues are as wide as that.
I have a question about active travel. There is at least anecdotal evidence of an increase in the number of people using or buying bikes. Has that filtered through to your analysis?
Not yet. The indicators on the way in which people travel and the modal split do not show significant trends in that direction. However, we look at national data, so there might have been a switch in certain locations, but that has not made a difference in the national data on how people travel.
That is interesting, because Halfords, which is a leading purveyor of bicycles, says that it is delivering market share growth, and local bicycle shops tell me that more people are using bicycles. Given all the publicity about there not being enough active travel, I would have thought that you would be able to measure changes as they happen. I suspect that it is not just about the recession.
We can certainly consider the issue, but the data that we have do not show a measurable difference. That might be because we are witnessing the start of a longer-term trend. Data from Government monitoring of how people travel to work and for leisure do not show significant changes in relation to active travel.
The data in the second assessment—our most recent analysis—are more than a year old, but our third assessment report, which will be published towards the end of the year, will contain more up-to-date data. We will certainly comment on trends that are identified.
I will be most interested in that.
Perhaps people are buying bicycles to use when we get more good weather.
National trends might depend on the part of the country that people are in. Some places get good weather.
I am sure that we will cross-reference with the Met Office.
Cathy Peattie asked why trends are in the wrong direction and what needs to be done about that. You answered the first part of her question, but I do not think that you addressed the second part, other than in general terms.
Some of that work is on-going. For example, we committed to scrutinising the strategic transport projects review, which was published just after our second assessment was published. That scrutiny is on-going. The STPR is a lens through which we can consider wider transport policy and what is and is not happening in Scotland.
Only two projects are committed to in the STPR, so that will be rather difficult.
In the second assessment we highlighted that spending on public transport and active travel is stable, which means that it has fallen in real terms. We are not witnessing a switch in Government spending towards more sustainable options. At the macro, budget level, Government needs to do more.
That takes me back to my previous question. Your answer ends up being about process. If you were going to list five significant challenges, I think that one of them would be changing transport policy. However, even in responding to a specific transport question, your emphasis seems to be on process rather than the substance of policy or the pattern of expenditure.
Our challenge to Government on infrastructure is very much about transport. It acknowledges not only that transport expenditure is important—as Maf Smith said and you recognised—but that the planning framework that is set in place is an issue. Addressing that is a much longer-term objective and not something that can be done overnight. The planning framework is the reason why we cannot achieve the levels of cycling that countries such as the Netherlands can; we do not have the infrastructure to enable us to achieve it. Transport is at the heart of the recommendation to the Government on infrastructure, but it puts transport within the wider planning context.
It would be useful to know a bit more about the scrutiny that you will undertake of the strategic transport projects review. You have identified a move backwards from sustainable development; it would be useful to understand the scale of that retreat. The committee is well aware that there has been a large shift and that the lion's share of transport spending is now on car transport, not public transport, which is disappointing. When will you report on the STPR and what dialogue have you had with the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change about the issues that you have identified?
We have not yet had dialogue at ministerial level. We are having meetings with senior civil servants in Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government on emerging concerns about the STPR and what it says about wider transport policy. We have a meeting planned for this week, at which we will outline some of our concerns and get feedback. We will set out what we say about the facts, what the trends show and what the Government says and we hope to work out whether we disagree on the facts or how things are done.
Your review says that transport appraisal tools have been revised. It has always been a moot question whether the Scottish transport appraisal guidance system favours sustainable transport. Have you given that any thought?
We have not considered STAG in detail, but we are considering it as part of our forthcoming review. The initial findings are that it is a good tool, in that it gives good information and good quantitative analysis of the different aspects of transport. However, as I said, the issue is what is done with that information. We are interested in how the Government produces good information and we consider whether the information is good, but we want the Government to put STAG into practice and allow it to inform the individual decisions that it takes. We are not yet able to tell you what we feel about the decisions on the projects in the STPR, but that will be part of our scrutiny.
You may be aware that those who wish to develop railways continue to be concerned that the STAG system militates against railways and in favour of roads. Is it not a matter of urgency to review the STAG process?
We are aware of that. We will cover the matter and report on it in our STPR scrutiny. We are looking at how Government uses the STAG process, the way in which the data were presented and how the STPR conclusions were reached.
I understand that there is one set of questions on the metrics, which is on the way in which the different factors are put together. On that basis, projects such as the A8/M8 upgrade or M74 extension score highly in benefit to cost ratio terms and always above rail projects. Rob Gibson made that point.
Your first point was that technical information should form the summary information in the final STAG recommendations. We share that concern, and we are looking into it. The strategic environmental assessment of the STPR and its individual projects is a huge document. The SEA identified positive and negative impacts of the proposed schemes. However, when one gets down to the level of the summary document, in which the 29 projects are addressed, one finds that each is scored on its positive, balanced or negative contribution.
How does that fit with climate change? If we take account of climate change and say that we want to reduce emissions, surely we are pushed back towards the Benthamite position? We cannot have it both ways: we cannot say, "We should be nice," and also say, "We are being driven by climate change." Those are fundamentally contradictory policy approaches that point us in completely opposite directions.
The approaches do not necessarily point us in opposite directions. They might do so, but different ways of delivering the two objectives might allow us to reduce the tensions. In our role, the importance of our scrutiny and advice is that they consider the wider sustainable agenda—how economic, social and environmental policies stack up together and can be delivered jointly. That does not mean that one policy will solve everything. The Government must be more honest about where the tensions are and about what it can and cannot do to tackle climate change or social goods, for example.
The executive summary of the review says:
As far as I know, the Government is not looking further into the issue. We commissioned a report on aviation last year, when the Scottish Government was involved in the stakeholder group with Whitehall, the aviation industry, BAA and all the other stakeholders. We reached the position that is reflected in the executive summary, which neither the Government nor the aviation industry shared. Our view remains that the evidence base does not exist. Assertions are continually made, not just about the environmental impacts of aviation, but about the economic costs and benefits. Some decisions might have clear economic benefits, but we do not have the framework to make that conclusion clearly.
Is anybody working up such a framework and such data?
That is not my area. Much academic research is going on, particularly on aviation emissions and economic appraisal but, as far as I am aware, a consensus is not emerging even in the academic community.
We recommended that the Government should bring together parties to gather evidence, but neither the Scottish Government nor the UK Government has implemented that recommendation.
One organisation that gets off the hook a bit in your report is Scottish Water. That is a surprise because, when Scottish Water gave evidence to us on its annual report, it was well aware that activities in which it is involved have significantly increased their energy consumption and consequently their emissions. Do you have anything to add about Scottish Water? Will that organisation be subject to more scrutiny in years to come?
You ask about the scrutiny of Scottish Water. We have focused on how the Scottish Government has delivered. We have not examined in detail delivery by government bodies such as local authorities, except in relation to how the Scottish Government sets the framework in which those organisations operate. However, in the commission at the UK level, we have in the past examined other bodies. The question is about how we in the Scottish office have prioritised our resources. We could consider, in the future, scrutinising any part of the Scottish Government and the Scottish public policy arena on the issue of sustainable development.
One of the few concrete outcomes to be outlined in the review is that water use per person in Scottish Government buildings has fallen dramatically. Is there anything that you can do to assist the Government in transferring that knowledge to other organisations—public or private—so that they can do likewise?
One of the reasons for that decrease in water use is that the Government has put a lot of effort into how it manages and reports water use, and how it involves the wider staff in that objective. It has also put effort into investment in the building stock. That has taken the Government quite a long time but it is not rocket science. Organisations such as the Carbon Trust provide such advice to businesses around Scotland. The issue is probably how well those advisory services are resourced to help provide access to that advice.
Are you quite sure that the decrease has not come about because people are all drinking bottled water at Victoria Quay?
Yes.
You mentioned climate change a number of times in response to questions. Does the SDC feel that the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill should be strengthened to deliver the changes that are required? If so, which areas do you feel could be strengthened?
We presented evidence to the committee several months ago as part of its climate change inquiry; we welcomed that opportunity. We have reviewed the committee's stage 1 report on the bill, which covers a lot of our concerns. Maf Smith has touched on one of our central points, which is that we need early action—we need a 2020 target. The committee has noted that. We need to start reducing emissions significantly as soon as possible, rather than waiting for the second half of the period up to 2050. As Maf Smith said, we want to see a clear action plan from the Government.
You say in your report that the Scottish Government has not worked quickly enough to reduce emissions. What input have you had to the discussion?
On the overall emissions reductions in Scotland, and the Government's policy response and actions that it has taken?
Yes.
We have had input in a number of ways. We tend to input on a more practical level. For example, we are doing advisory work for the Scottish Government on how it delivers renewable heat. The Scottish Government's target is that by 2020, 11 per cent of Scotland's heat needs will be met from renewable sources. Our work for the Government is twofold. First, we have to work out exactly how much renewable heat is being used, which involves monitoring and measuring up to the end of March 2009. We do not have good data. We have estimates from a number of sources, but not valid data that are trusted and accepted. That is partly because heat as a commodity has not been regulated, certainly not in the same way as transport fuels and electricity are.
Do you find an open door? Is the Government interested in the areas that you are exploring with it? Is it taking on board your recommendations?
In general, yes. The Government is honest in the publication of its data and its strategy about the long-standing problems that Scotland has and the gap between where we are now and where Scotland needs to be. The emphasis in our reflection is on the sustainable development aspects of that. The Government is interested in contributions to that debate. Nevertheless, we prioritise some things more than the Government does, and the advice that we give is not always acted on. It is up to the Government to make the call on what issues it prioritises.
The Climate Change (Scotland) Bill is only one part of the climate change agenda. I want to explore the relationship between the bill and wider Government action to put into practice the long-standing words that ministers of various Administrations have said about putting climate change at the heart of their agenda. Does the bill need to enforce that wider work or are there other ways of ensuring that it happens at the pace for which you have called? I have been surprised before, but it seems likely that the bill will be passed with all-party support, probably with some amendments to strengthen it, yet you and others are still telling us that progress has not been made quickly enough. What needs to change if Governments of whatever political persuasion are to feel that tackling climate change is a priority that they cannot simply ignore when it is difficult?
Many things need to change, none of which would change without the bill. The bill is important; it will create the rationale for long-term action, which will be cemented and implemented.
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth said in Parliament last week that a carbon assessment will be published alongside the budget for the next financial year when it is introduced in the Parliament—as far as I am aware, that is the first time that that has been made explicit. We will not have to consider the carbon assessment after other budget scrutiny has taken place; we will have it alongside the budget, which will inform parliamentary scrutiny of the budget. Should we lock in such a mechanism, so that in future no budget can be introduced without a carbon assessment being carried out and provided to the Parliament?
The first carbon assessment will not be perfect. There will be a learning process, and we must allow scope for assessment tools to evolve. We do not want to lock Government into a bad reporting framework that looks like best practice now but might look ropey in 10 years' time.
It ought to be possible to require Government to publish carbon assessments of its budgets.
Yes, and that would help. I expect that in 10 or 15 years' time, carbon assessment will be a well understood process that informs how Government works, just as comprehensive spending reviews currently inform much Government activity.
You talked about cultural leadership and the wider public debate about how we live our lives and the choices that have to be made, and the impact of that on politicians at elections and during their terms of office as ministers. The SDC's role relates to Government; you have no public-facing, campaigning, wider lobbying role. Should you have such a role, or should another body that is seen to be neutral and not party political have the role of leading the public debate about culture and society?
We should not have that role. When you asked whether our involvement in the climate challenge fund and the SSDF undermines or cuts across our other roles, I replied that we do not think that it does. However, if more roles were added and our focus moved away from Government, we would be distracted. The current balance of our work is such that we focus and report on what Government is doing.
I was going to ask about the methodologies involved in carbon assessment and in carbon balance sheets for transport, but the convener has asked quite a bit about that. However, perhaps you could cast your minds a little deeper. Do you have any criticisms of the current methodologies?
We have not seen detailed information on the methodologies. Our commissioner is also professor of accounting and sustainable development at the University of St Andrews, and she has inputted to the development of the methodologies, using her professional expertise in quantitative methods and monitoring. She has done a lot of work on appraisal methods. We are giving our perspective on the debate, but as far as I know we have not yet seen details of the methodologies. We hope to see the details as they come through, but I cannot give you our view yet.
You mentioned best value. As part of the best-value process, should any monetary or carbon measures be reported on?
In general, yes. Phil Matthews mentioned the work that we have done on best value. When authorities report on the sustainable aspects of the best-value duty, they tend to report on qualitative measures. However, it is easier to judge progress with quantitative measures. It is within the remit of local government to provide such measures in relation to climate change. Local government already reports on climate change under the single outcome agreements. The framework within which local government must report exists already. The question is how that framework is used and how consistent the scrutiny is. It is important that local government uses the framework to make policy differently, and that central Government takes that information before offering guidance and direction to local government.
The whole issue should be covered by single outcome agreements. Earlier, you spoke about work with Audit Scotland. Are the measures starting to work? Could the single outcome agreements be stronger for local authorities?
Do you mean for reporting on best value?
Yes—best value and climate change emissions.
We have not looked in detail at local reporting on climate change. The Scottish climate change declaration emerged only about two years ago, so the first reports are coming out only now.
I think that we have dealt with single outcome agreements, unless the witnesses feel that there is something to add on the lessons that we can learn.
We have not looked in detail at single outcome agreements, but we are interested in them. The sustainable Scotland network provides support for local authorities, and we have discussed with it learning and information sharing between our organisations. The network sees how things are working on the ground. We are interested in how all the SOAs cumulatively translate into delivery of the national objectives. That is a continuing process, and we hope to be able to give a clearer view of the success or otherwise of SOAs in future assessments.
That would be useful. We will undoubtedly need to learn lessons as the SOAs develop, so it is good that your future reviews will take them into account.
Some aspects relate to how the Parliament runs itself and some relate to how the Parliament fulfils its wider scrutiny and legislative role. It is important that the Parliament and its committees ensure that sustainable development is part of the Government's work. Our organisation has a scrutiny role, but the Parliament, as the body that scrutinises the Scottish Government, can ensure that sustainable development is taking place. There is a duty to do that, but the issue is how that duty is enacted in practice, because there are different ways of doing that. The duty can be either in the remit of each parliamentary committee or in only one committee's remit, with the other committees reporting to it, as in the example of the Equal Opportunities Committee's remit.
Have you been given a timetable for the taking of decisions?
No.
So we need to consider that.
Yes. There has yet to be a decision on the Environment and Rural Development Committee's legacy report to its successor committee and the Parliament.
Are there any issues that you hoped to raise that have not come up in the questions?
No.
I thank both witnesses for the time that they have spent answering questions. We have identified areas for consideration, including your work on the STPR and the third assessment report, which we look forward to and will take an interest in. In addition, I am sure that we can keep members informed about the development of the discussion on parliamentary scrutiny.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation