Chamber and committees

Are you reporting against those measures annually or every three years? Is that just set as an ambition?

That would be useful, thank you. How about Triodos?

In some respects, I appreciate that I was being unfair in asking that, but, on legislators’ understanding of the transition, you have correctly identified that interim moves could be claimed to be greenwashing. A classic example is to say that zero waste is going to landfill, when 50 per cent might be incinerated and ultimately end up in landfill. You have correctly highlighted some of the transitional points that businesses might go through in scoping out the various options.

My final question is this: how would you help legislators to understand the transitional steps from your perspective, and the complexity that you have highlighted? John Ferguson did not have a chance to answer the previous question, so do you want to come in here?

I draw the attention of the panel to the fact that I am an ambassador of the all-party parliamentary group for fair business banking, which took part in the bankers for net zero work that has been mentioned.

Some say that there is a paradox between the endless drive for profit and the drive to reach net zero. Arguably, that is nowhere more evident than in our financial system. I want to ask the bankers, first of all, about the banks reaching net zero. Have your pension schemes set targets for when they will reach net zero and do you measure that? I see that Fraser Sime is nodding, so I ask him to respond first, then Simon Crichton.

Following on from that, I have a couple more questions for Fraser Sime and Simon Crichton before I bring David Ovens in on a general question. How, specifically, have your banks changed their measures—the balanced-business scorecard or whatever—in order to put net zero and not just profit at the top?

For my last question—I am aware that I need to leave time for other members to get in—I would like to bring in David Ovens. It is about risk appetite generally. Do you perceive that sustainable businesses are treated differently from a risk perspective, given that they are often new, innovative and smaller? What is your perception of risk appetite across the finance sector?

In that respect, I was surprised to see that the Bank of Scotland, or Lloyds Group, had not participated in bankers for net zero, given that that initiative will be presented at COP26. What was the thinking on that? I note that Handelsbanken and Triodos are in it, as is Barclays, which is one of the very large banks. What was the rationale for your not participating?

I want to quickly bring in Simon Crichton on the question that I asked about how, specifically, his bank has changed its measures to ensure that net zero is on or near the top, alongside profit, given the paradox that I described earlier.

The presidency of the United Nations Security Council is currently held by Ireland. Four of the 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council have populations smaller than Scotland’s, as have 77 member countries of the United Nations. Small and medium-sized countries matter on the global stage—in particular, when it comes to leading progressive and humanitarian values rather than parading military might, so I very much welcome the Government’s motion.

In this modern but troubled world, Scotland needs to find her own voice. We also need to give voice to those who are most in need but are too often not heard, so I am particularly pleased to see the programme for government’s emphasis on women and girls. Whether it be to address state-sponsored violence against women and girls in the likes of Afghanistan or the responsibility that is placed on mothers to rebuild families and communities in many parts of our conflict-ridden world, it is right that women and girls be supported and placed centre stage.

Simon Coveney, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs said recently that

“When women participate fully and equally in peace processes, those peace processes last.”

I therefore also welcome the £500,000 fund for local organisations in international development partner countries to take forward work to ensure that women and girls are safe, equal and respected.

The motion also condemns the UK Government’s cut in the aid budget from 0.7 per cent to 0.5 per cent of gross national income. I agree, but I would go further, because in reality it is much worse than a cut to 0.5 per cent. We now know that the Treasury plans to use accounting tricks in this month’s spending review to squeeze the aid budget by yet more billions of pounds.

The BBC reports that charities that operate on the front line have already condemned such moves. Romilly Greenhill, the UK director of ONE, the global campaign against poverty, has said that

“It’s incredibly worrying that UK aid looks set to be cut again, through accounting trickery by the Treasury.

The chancellor looks set to count the sharing of surplus vaccine doses, a new injection of cost-free foreign exchange reserves and the cancellation of debts that haven’t been repaid for decades as part of the aid budget.”

In effect, the UK Government plans to commit considerably less than 0.5 per cent of GNI to foreign aid. While it is shackled to this declining UK state, Scotland’s options are regrettably limited.

There is much to be welcomed in the Scottish Government’s approach, including the expansion of our residential fellowship programme to train women to take on leadership roles in mitigating the effect of climate change, for example.

Until Scotland becomes independent and takes her own seat at the United Nations, a frankly mean-spirited UK will constrain our actions and influence. One thing that we can all do is use our voice to speak up on behalf of those who are most in need in this troubled world. That is what I intend to continue to do.

As the much-respected Centre on Constitutional Change at the University of Edinburgh has made abundantly clear, the referral of the bills to the Supreme Court by the UK law officers was as much a political decision as a legal one. They were under no duty to refer. Their decision was political.

The effect of the ruling on the UNCRC bill is to deny a range of rights to Scottish children. Although the Scottish Government may now reluctantly seek to amend the legislation to make it compliant, can the cabinet secretary confirm that every effort will be made to ensure that the children of Scotland do not lose out due to the political actions of the UK Government?