Chamber and committees

I agree that, if we get that, it is win-win-win across the board.

On a more specific point, you will be aware that the Scottish Government announced around £100 million for the green hydrogen sector and then some of that money was shifted towards the offshore wind supply chain, and the former Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy, Neil Gray, gave his reasons for that. Is it right for the Scottish Government to prioritise support for the offshore wind sector ahead of the potential development of a green hydrogen sector, and where do you think are the best opportunities for economic growth in green industries in Scotland?

That was helpful; thank you.

I need to move on to a question on governance. I am keen to hear how well you think the Government is set up to deliver on its climate policy goals and whether there is anything that should be done differently.

I am mindful of the Auditor General’s report of April last year, “How the Scottish Government is set up to deliver climate change goals”, which is all about governance and risk management arrangements. Chris Stark, in particular, will know the Scottish Government well from his previous roles. Is it a matter of concern that there was no permanent director general for net zero until January last year? We came back to Parliament after the election in May 2021, but no permanent DG for net zero was put in place at the time, and we have had a few years in which that portfolio area has not had a workforce plan. Have some time and some important opportunities been wasted in that period?

I make it clear that I was not picking out one individual. I would just note that in the two key messages in its report, Audit Scotland says:

“The lack of frequent and consistent reporting, alongside gaps in performance monitoring, make it difficult to gain assurance of overall progress.”

It also highlights the lack of a workforce plan and points out that

“Systematic risk management is needed so the Scottish Government can identify the key risks to meeting its climate change goals and take effective action to address them.”

Given what happened last week, people might think that that factor contributed to the situation. Just to give a more balanced view, though, I should say that Audit Scotland told the committee fairly recently that it is happier now.

However, do we need to look back at that period? Is a lesson that we need to learn that we must ensure that local government, other public bodies and everyone else gets their house in order, so that we can have the proper governance that we need?

Thank you. I will hand back to the convener, for the purposes of time.

Hi, everyone; it is nice to see you again. I am an MSP for the Central Scotland region and a member of the committee. I live in Blantyre in South Lanarkshire.

Thank you again, everyone, for your brilliant ideas, and to the 23 members of the climate change people’s panel. I have scribbled down lots of notes, but I will stick to some of the questions that I had planned. One was to come back to the issue of finance and financial support. The panel has called on the Scottish Government to increase financial support to enable people to take action that will help the Government and Scotland to meet our really important climate targets. That includes free bus travel, which has been talked about already.

I am interested to hear what evidence the people’s panel heard about the need for more financial support to help individual people. Karen Shakespeare talked about how a lot of the measures that are discussed are not affordable for everyone, which I think that we all recognise. I am interested to hear more about the evidence and what kind of financial support you think would be useful.

Thank you, Kevin. You make some really important points.

Buses have been mentioned, and one of your recommendations is free bus travel. To make bus travel free for everyone would require a lot of investment and there would be a cost to the public purse. Did you hear evidence on how such a policy would work? Might it achieve savings elsewhere or in the longer term? Did you hear any evidence about how it could be funded—what would work and what would not?

So, we need to build on that best practice and mainstream that work.

I see that David Harrold also has his hand up.

Thank you, Karen. David—

Rather than give a direct answer, I thought that it might be better to build on the important points that Scott Cruickshank has made. There is the issue of financial investment, whether it is heat pumps or something else, but for individual householders, there could be an element of risk, not just about the money but about how we know that we can trust the tradespeople who come into our home and that the work can be properly certified. As well as addressing the issue of financial support, perhaps people can add to that. I hope that the Government is listening and can help us as a committee to answer Scott Cruickshank’s question more directly.

In terms of the financial support, was it mostly about helping individuals or was it also about doing things at a neighbourhood level? I think that you did some work on district heating schemes.