Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Official Report 294KB pdf

---

Climate Change (Mainstreaming Budget Scrutiny)

Agenda item 3 is for members to consider a draft letter to committees regarding our climate change budget mainstreaming process. I refer members to the draft letter and the appendix. I will kick off as the letter is in my name on the committee’s behalf.

We are sending a letter to the other committees, and we want to ask them to consider and respond to it in good time. If we want to make mainstreaming more effective, we need some answers from the committees about their thoughts on our paper, so we should ask for early, considered responses.

To help committees, we should underline the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group II report and send them a pie chart that shows what the sources of climate change are, such as transport, homes and agriculture, to show that a range of committees are affected and that, when we say that they are all climate change committees, they must realise that things under their responsibility are part of that. There has to be some kind of infograph with the letter.

Those are my thoughts about the letter.

I endorse what you say, convener. I think that it would also be useful to have a second pie chart that illustrates the progress—or lack of it—that is being made in the areas that are the source of emissions. There was some useful information in the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change report, which we got last week, that might be adapted. It is important to show the sources of the problem and the progress, or lack of progress, that is being made in those areas.

Okay. That is with regard to the letter.

Are there any comments on the note on the outcomes in the annex, paragraph by paragraph? Do members have anything to say about page 3?

I was pleased to see the point made in paragraph 4 that we believe that, as the Scottish Government states,

“all ministers are climate change ministers”.

However, the note goes on to say:

“all relevant committees have a responsibility to be climate change committees”.

I think that all committees have that responsibility, whatever their remit. That might be open to discussion in this committee.

There might be one or two that should not have that responsibility. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee might be one, because we do not deal with policy. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee might take a similar view. We need to be slightly careful.

You print off paper.

The clerk’s original drafting might be wiser.

If we think that “relevant” should stay in, I can understand why. What is the definition of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee? Is it a subject committee?

Yes. Could we say “all subject committees”?

There is a problem with that because the European and External Relations Committee is not a subject committee; it is a statutory committee. There is a list of committees at the bottom of page 1.

Instead of saying all “relevant” committees, can we not say the “majority” of committees?

Making it say “relevant” would allow the committees that we know fine are relevant to slip out. That is a problem. No offence is meant to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee.

I know that working on letters by committee is difficult, but it is important to get this right. If we indicate the list of committees that we think are relevant, we will have to be careful that we get them all in.

The list of committees is in the footnote at the bottom of page 1 before the letter. Are they all the committees that we would like to address the issue? If we are agreed on that, is the word “relevant” still the relevant word, as our erudite clerks have suggested?

Can we say “all committees as listed” and then list them?

That would be the way to do it. Thank you for that.

Perhaps the list should be a bit more prominent rather than putting it into a footnote.

Yes. We can make sure it is in the annex.

Moving on, page 3 has the big long list of bodies that the relevant committees have to deal with.

Having represented the committee on the public sector climate leaders forum, I would want to see the NGOs that are part of that group added to the list. It is important to highlight them as well as the public sector bodies, and I am not sure that I see bodies such as Scottish Environment LINK and Stop Climate Chaos there.

Wait a minute. Why would we do that? We are trying to get the committees to deal with Government bodies.

They are represented on the PSCLF.

I disagree slightly with Claudia Beamish on that. The purpose of this paragraph on page 3 is simply to highlight to the relevant committees why they are relevant, so it is not necessary to include the NGOs. I understand where Claudia Beamish is coming from, but I do not think that what she is asking for sits within the context of that paragraph.

That is a fair point.

We will move on to page 4 if we are finished with page 3. There are two instances of the word “in” in the first bullet point.

I suggest that we change the word “highlight” to “examine” because that suggests a more inclusive process, and it will be a discussion with the MSPs. It is a small point, but I think that that is more appropriate.

That is in the middle line of bullet point 2. It will say that officials and MSPs will “examine” climate change spending issues.

Do we need “if there is sufficient demand”? Does that not weaken the point?

Let us leave it out and see what happens.

Is there anything to say about bullet points 3 and 4?

I suggest that we “host” rather than “organise” a discussion. I would also change “discuss” to “consider” in the second line to indicate that it is an inclusive process and everyone will be involved.

Are we agreed about that? It strengthens the meaning.

Members indicated agreement.

On the final bullet point, I think that mirroring the European Union reporter approach is a good idea. Claudia Beamish does the job for us outside of this process. We will look to each committee to have someone more than just the officials to be a contact and to raise issues in a fashion that gets good responses. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

If that and the final two paragraphs are all right, we can sign off the letter once it has been amended. Are members happy for it to be sent in my name? You know what is in it and what we have agreed to put into it.

Members indicated agreement.

As agreed at our previous meeting, the committee will take the next item, which is consideration of its work programme, in private.

Before we go into private, I will outline details of the committee’s next meeting, which will be on 23 April, when we take evidence from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Owen Paterson, on a range of rural and environment issues.

10:31 Meeting continued in private until 11:42.