The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 3918 contributions
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2023
Richard Leonard
That is very helpful, Mr McQueen.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2023
Richard Leonard
Forgive me but, again for my benefit, is that work in progress?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 14 September 2023
Richard Leonard
Have those streams advanced by 50 per cent or 100 per cent?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 7 September 2023
Richard Leonard
The principal item on our agenda is consideration of the Audit Scotland report “How the Scottish Government is set up to deliver climate change goals: Governance and risk management arrangements for net zero targets and adaptation outcomes”—I might just use the shorter title for the remainder of the meeting.
We are pleased to welcome three witnesses from the Scottish Government to give us evidence on the report. Alongside Roy Brannen, who is the director general net zero, is Kersti Berge, who is the director of energy and climate change. They are joined by Phil Raines, who is the deputy director for domestic climate change.
We have a number of questions to ask but, before we get to them, I ask you to make a short opening statement, Mr Brannen.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 7 September 2023
Richard Leonard
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Brannen. That sets out some helpful parameters that will guide us in asking our questions.
I ask the deputy convener, Sharon Dowey, to get us under way with some opening questions.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 7 September 2023
Richard Leonard
We have a final couple of questions, which Willie Coffey will put.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 7 September 2023
Richard Leonard
Can I bring this back to something that you do have control of? You mentioned in response to Colin Beattie’s questions earlier that—partly, I presume, in the light of the Audit Scotland report—you had reviewed the governance arrangements and the balance of responsibility with regard to what was there formerly. That was described during the audit as the “engine room”—Mr Raines’s committee, the deputy director network—and you said that there has now been a shift very much towards what you keep referring to as the GCE board, which I presume is the global climate emergency board, if I understand it correctly.
Two things arise from that for the committee. First, can you send us a copy of the new governance structure as it is now constituted? Secondly—and it appears to me that you would have control over this—I understood from the answer to the direct question that the implication of that change in governance structure was that you will not be publishing the minutes of the deputy director network. Will you be publishing the minutes of the GCE board?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 7 September 2023
Richard Leonard
Thank you very much indeed. I take the opportunity to place on record my thanks to Craig Hoy for the contribution that he made to the work of the committee over the past two years.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 7 September 2023
Richard Leonard
Under item 2, members of the committee are invited to agree whether or not to take business in private. Do members agree to take items 4, 5 and 6 in private?
Members indicated agreement.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 7 September 2023
Richard Leonard
Mr Brannen, you mentioned taxonomy, which is the classification of spending into categories of high, medium and low carbon impact and so on, is it not? Mr Raines, you mentioned the Fraser of Allander Institute. In some of its commentary, the Fraser of Allander Institute is quite critical of your taxonomy. It says:
“These classifications are very broad. For example, all health spending is classified as neutral spending, regardless of the underlying activity. This risks misclassifying high-emission activities as beneficial, or carbon-reduction activities as harmful. It is not known what emissions impact a spend classified as ‘high’, ‘low’, or ‘neutral’ emissions actually has.”
That is a fairly fundamental criticism of the model that you are using. It says:
“Both the high-level carbon assessment and taxonomy carbon assessment of the capital budget methodologies are, in our view, unable to provide an adequate level of scrutiny and transparency.”
How do you respond to that?