 Good morning everyone, and welcome to the 10th meeting of the net zero energy and transport committee for 2024. The first item on the agenda is consideration of whether we take item 6 and 7 in private. Item 6 is consideration of the evidence we will hear under item 4 on the climate change government. And item 7 is consideration of draft correspondence. Are we all agreed to take these items in private? We are agreed. Perfect. The next item on the agenda is consideration of a draft statutory instrument, the National Smart Ticketing Advisory Board Public Services Reform Scotland Order 2024. For this session, I'm pleased to welcome Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. I think, Cabinet Secretary, this is the first time that you've appeared in front of this committee in your new role, so congratulations on your appointment. The Cabinet Secretary is joined by George Biel Pratt, the smart policy manager for Transport Scotland and Natalie Milligan, the solicitor for the Scottish Government. Thank you for joining us today. The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means it cannot come into force unless the Parliament approves it. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider a motion for the committee to recommend the instrument being approved. I'll just remind everyone, as I always do, that officials can speak under this item, but not under the debate that follows under the next item. Cabinet Secretary, I think that you want to make a brief opening statement, so the floor is yours as it is. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning, committee. Thank you for inviting me to discuss the addition of the new National Smart Ticketing Advisory Board to the Public Services Reform Scotland Act 2010. The board commenced operation in November 2023 and is a product of the Transport of Scotland Act 2019. It will advise the Scottish ministers on topics including smart ticketing arrangements and national technological standard for smart ticketing and the strategic development of smart ticketing in Scotland. We intend to add the board to schedule 5 of the 2010 act. That would mean that, by order, under section 14 of the act, the Scottish ministers could make any provision that they consider would improve the exercise of the board's functions, having regard to efficiency, effectiveness and economy. Adding the board to schedule 5 of the act is in line with Scottish Government policy and considered best practice for new public bodies. As the board is new, it is not expected that any provision will be needed in the near future to improve the exercise of the board's functions, but this instrument confers a power on the Scottish ministers to make such a provision in the future should it be required. In accordance with section 25 paragraph 4 of the act, the board has been consulted in relation to the proposal to make this order. The consultation took place at the first meeting of the board on 28 November 2023 in person with all members and the chairperson of the board in attendance. As a result of that consultation, the board confirmed that it was content with the proposal and no other representations were received. No changes to the proposal were therefore necessary. Finally, adding the board to the act will have no financial impacts, and so, convener, I'm happy to take any questions from the committee. Thank you, cabinet secretary, and I think that I'm quite certainly relaxed that the board has approved it. I just want to clarify my mind that all the appointments to the board are made by the Scottish Government. There's no one elected to the board. It's totally appointed by the Government, isn't it? Yes, that's correct. The membership obviously has a chairperson. There are operators of different modes. There's transport authorities, so local transport authorities. There's a representation of Margaret Roy there. There's passenger and accessibility representatives and Transport Scotland and some board advisers on voting. That's the membership. Okay, thank you. Just before I open it up to the floor, just on the membership, I mean, if they're all appointed by the Scottish Government, presumably they can be replaced by the Scottish Government if required. And what said, in terms of service, just so I understand that, how long are they people on the board for? So on terms of service, I don't know if George can work you, if you can answer that one. Yes, they're appointed for four years. And can they be reappointed after four years? Depending on their service, there is opportunity to invite them for reappointment, but it's not an assumption that they'll just be reappointed immediately. So they could be reappointed to apply after four years, and then reappointed to apply again. Is there a limit? We'd need to confirm the maximum limit. I'm just intrigued. I'm intrigued today, Cabinet Secretary. It's really important that we have experts from the industry, so we've got the representations from SBT. We've also got Alex Hornby, many of you know him as the group managing director at McGill's. These are people providing their expertise. They also have obviously run organisations. I don't want to put them off their membership by saying they'll be there forever in terms of their commitment. Indeed, what we really want to do is to make sure that the output of the board is timely as well to help us move forward in terms of technology and smart ticketing, and I'm due to make the chair shortly to look at the work programme. Yes, they can be reappointed, but we obviously want to make sure that we can get on with the job of work. They're very keen, and if you haven't read the minutes of the first meeting in November, it might be helpful for our background to see that, to see their enthusiasm and scoping what the challenges are in Scotland to get us into a more operable system, an interoperable system, which is what we all want to see. I'm sure staying on the board forever wouldn't put them off, Cabinet Secretary, but I'm sure they'd enjoy it. I'll thread open to any member of the committee if they've got any questions. I'm just quite keen to know about the role the national smart ticketing advisory board may have strategically in relation to the transport authorities across Scotland, perhaps using some of the good powers within the Transport Act, where the legislation has passed on that and the important legislation is now live, as I understand it. That interoperability of smart ticketing would be essential, I would imagine, if some of the powers within the Transport Act were to be brought forward by regional transport authorities. I'm just considering your question, because regardless of the powers in the act, you'd still be able to have interoperability, and we do already under the current system in many areas. We have integrated tickets in Scotland on a more regional basis, so I suspect that if there are any issues that arise, that's why we've got somebody from a local transport partnership to represent it, and she's also the chair of ACCO, so in terms of that kind of overview of where, because different local authority or different regional transport partnerships will want to do different things. We obviously want to make sure that whatever they do is compatible, there's a sort of compatibility with what makes sense from smart ticketing, but there's 2.5 million people using smart cards through the it's so concessionary scheme and separately anyway, so I don't think that it's a dependability. They don't have oversight, if that's what you're implying, but I suspect that in terms of practical issues, they can provide advice to me if there's any practical issues arise from the implementation of separate bits, obviously, of the Transport of Scotland Act. I suppose I just wanted to check whether there were any barriers that they had to work to overcome to allow some of the provision within that to take place. For example, in Glasgow, for example, I tap on and tap off quite happily. I'm not a driver, so I'm on 20 plus buses a week in first Glasgow. I tap on and tap off quite happily. It's a capped fares day, weekly usage, but there's not that interoperability with other bus services within the city. The technology is there, but that interoperability is not there. It's just whether this national smart ticketing advisory board has a role to play in bringing that in, which would also be required for franchising to take place effectively for that kind of profit sharing. I think that whatever system is with the current system or any other system as provided by the Transport of Scotland Act, you'd want to be able to implement and operate smart ticketing. I don't think that it's strictly there's not an interdependency, but obviously there's a correlation and it makes sense that we optimise and everybody's up for optimising what we can do. In terms of understanding Glasgow, there's a Glasgow Tripper, which was working between different operators and when they started to bring that in, and that was on a mobile basis. Of course, I suppose to reflect that more people, and we know that from research, want to use their mobiles as opposed to a card in terms of how they're using this, so it's just making sure that there's an understanding of common technological basis so that we can develop that so that there's common interoperability whatever the type of operation. That's helpful. Maybe more from my understanding, Cabinet Secretary, rather than a scrutiny roll towards Cabinet Secretary, I find that helpful. I've got one for the question if no one's got any questions. I think Kevin Stewart, when he last attended the committee, said, oh, Monica, I'll go to you first and then ask my question. Monica. Sean, did she hear you? Yeah, I think she's heard us. I think she's waiting to go live. Now she's live. I was waiting to be unmuted. Thank you, convener, and good morning, and welcome to you, Cabinet Secretary, and your new roll. You mentioned the work programme and understand that that has to be approved by Scottish ministers. I just wonder if you can maybe give us a flavour of what you expect to be in that work programme. I think the board meets around six times a year, so just to get an idea of the sort of capacity within the board. I'll just run my next wee question. I just wondered, does the National Smart Ticketing Advisory Board have any input to the fair fairs review, or was it consulted as part of that, just out of interest? So the first meeting of the board was in November at which time we were moving to the end stages of fair fairs, but clearly interoperability of ticketing is a key aspect, so that theme is certainly there, and certainly individuals within the board would have had the opportunity to have an input from their organisations apart from anything else. In terms of the capacity and capability, these are senior people that are operating at the board level. We also have advisers who are specialists in the area, and indeed the chair has been involved in the ticketing systems and procurements previously in this extensive experience on that. I'll be meeting the chair in the next couple of weeks to go through the proposed work plan, because obviously, as you said, that's to come to ministers to improve. Part of that will be, I have to listen to what they are saying, because that's the whole point, is that they want to come forward and this is what needs to be done. I provide ministerial oversight. I'm not a technological expert in ticketing, and that obviously, in terms of that expertise, I expect that to come from the board, and indeed the Transport Scotland members that are part of the support for the board as well will get that provision, and it will be a step as to what changes need. I was quite interested, and George might want to explain a bit more of what he might have to look at. However, the issue, as I said, is that more people want to use mobiles, but cards are interoperable. We've talked about the Glasgow trip being a success. We had, which was on the mobile, which had about fivefold in terms of their uptake on that. Bar codes and QR codes are more of an issue, so it's the technological standards. Obviously, they can advise about the capability of different organisations and their ability to change or adapt. Indeed, if that causes them issues or otherwise. George, do you want to explain a bit more about what we're expecting from the work programme for scope and coverage? Yes, thank you. There are various statutory requirements that the board must advise on. The technological standard for smart ticketing, so as the Cabinet Secretary mentioned, there are no interoperable bar codes yet and QR codes between modes, so that's a key bit of advice. The strategic development of smart ticketing in Scotland as well is a statutory requirement. There are requirements that we expect the board to provide us, but we also want to give them a bit of space for them to determine what they deem as the key issues and key problems that they're hearing from their networks, and we want to invite that challenge from them. There are two elements. There's the bit that we are expecting that's in statute, and there's that slight space for them to tell us, actually, this is what's wrong, this is what needs to happen, this is what you need to do. The Cabinet Secretary will be meeting the chair in a couple of weeks' time to go through that work programme and learn a bit more about the detail of that then. That's great. Thank you. Thanks, Monica. If there's no other questions, I'll get to my question eventually. I'm just looking briefly at the minutes from the initial meeting, and there is something in there about the work programme submission date being the 20th of May, 2024. How is this Parliament and this committee going to be able to see what the work programme is and whether we'll have any opportunity to make any suggestions on what that work programme would be? I think that we need to give the space for the board to do their work, and in terms of their work, it's multi-modal as well. It covers different areas. We've got representatives' experience from ScotRail and also Ferries as well, so it's across that area, so we need to give them space to do that. I'd be quite open to share what we can when we can, so in terms of sharing that, I'll speak to the chair in a couple of weeks, and that's exactly one of the things that I'll be exploring with them, is how and when we can share so that you can keep on top or understand what's happening in terms of that capability. Okay, that'll be helpful. Thank you, Camilla. Now, I really am going to look round the room to make sure that there is no one else before I have my fourth attempt to get my question in. Right, no one else. I'm going. Cabinet Secretary, Kevin Stewart wrote to the committee on the 15th of May last year to confirm the pay rates for the people on the board. I think they were £194 per day for board members and £238 a day for the chairperson. Those that current rates have been reviewed, you may not know the answer and are very happy to take a letter if... Oh, but George does know the answer. Are you happy to answer that? Yes, those rates remain current, yes. Okay, thank you very much. If there's no further questions, we'll move on to the next agenda item, which is a debate on the motion calling for the committee to recommend approval of the draft national smart ticketing advisory board public services reform Scotland order 2024. I remind everyone that any of the cabinet secretary and members can speak in this debate. I'm going to ask the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion. I think, convener, that, as I said at my own remarks, this is a fairly straightforward motion and in terms of the public reform legislation, I think it is that. So, I'm happy just to move the motion. Thank you. Now, I'm going to ask if there's any contribution from members. No contribution. So, I'm assuming the next debate will be very brief. I'm going to ask the cabinet secretary to sum up and respond to the debate that she's heard. That was a very interesting debate. Thank you very much, convener. Thank you very much. So, the question is that motion S6M-12121 in the name of Fianna Hyslaw be approved. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The committee will report on the outcome of this instrument in due course and I invite the committee to delegate authority to me as convener to finalise the report for publication. Are you all happy with that? You are. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Thank you to you and your team and I'm briefly going to suspend the meeting before our next item. Okay, welcome back. Our next item of business is an evidence session with the Auditor General for Scotland. The committee has agreed to hold two evidence sessions on how the Scottish Government is working to address the challenge of climate change to make the Scotland net zero in greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. Audit Scotland produced a report last year called how the Scottish Government is set up to deliver climate change goals. We're delighted to have them here to discuss the main conclusions of that report and other issues to do with the effectiveness of the Scottish Government's arrangements in relation to climate change. I'm very pleased to welcome Stephen Boyle, the Auditor General for Scotland and Rebecca Seidel, the Senior Manager for Audit Scotland. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. Before we go into questions, I believe that Stephen Boyle would like to make a brief opening statement. Many thanks, convener. Good morning, committee. I'm very grateful to the committee for your invitation to join you this morning and update you on our work on climate change, the Scottish Government's governance arrangements, and I'm also very happy to engage with the committee on our more recent report on heat in buildings. Climate change is a priority area of work for me as Auditor General for Scotland. The Scottish Government's aim of reaching net zero emissions by 2045 and the need for action to adapt to the effects of climate change will require huge public and private sector investment. That, of course, is in the context of increasingly challenging fiscal public spending decisions. My role is to examine the public sector's response to climate change, judge whether resources have been used effectively, and to recommend improvements if they are not. That, of course, is a complex policy area, with the causes and consequences of climate change sitting across a range of ministerial portfolios and Scottish Government directorates. That means that clear governance arrangements and plans to support the delivery of climate change goals are hugely important. They can help to support policy development and financial decision making and help to identify risks to delivery. Transparent governance arrangements also help to make sure that different parts of Governments can be held to account on progress. As you mentioned, convener, last year I reported that the Scottish Government's governance and risk management arrangements for climate change had improved since 2019, but that there was still work to do to strengthen them. I made several recommendations to help the Scottish Government to do that. As I mentioned last month, I also reported on the Scottish Government's approach to decarbonising heat in homes. My report highlighted the need for the Scottish Government to set out a clear delivery plan to support large-scale change in how we heat our homes and to carefully consider how to maximise the impact of public spending in this area. My reporting on climate change to date had identified some key themes, including the importance of effective governance and risk management arrangements, the benefits of joined up working across Government, the challenges around workforce capacity and the need for clarity on how public policy and spending will impact on climate goals. I will continue to report on climate change over the coming years, reflecting the importance of the issue and the scale of public spending that is required to address it. I look forward to answering your questions. I am sure that you will comment at the end whether you have enjoyed it or not, but we are delighted to have you. The first question that I guess Stephen is to you is the director general for Natsyria told the Public Audit Committee that he accepted all the recommendations of the Audit Scotland climate governance report. What changes have been made as a result of the findings? Are there any particular areas where no change has been made and change needs to be made? Many thanks for your question, convener. Between us, Rebekah, and I will look to address those questions. There is a broad range of areas that were in our report in terms of what came out in April of last year in the Scottish Government's governance and risk management arrangements to address climate change. One of the first questions that the convener of the Public Audit Committee asks accountable officers when they take evidence following a briefing that my colleagues have given the committee is whether they accept the recommendations. We are very clear that the director general for Netsyria accepted publicly the recommendations. That gives us a route thereafter to track and monitor progress. I can say as much as you would find helpful, convener, about that process and how we look to measure the impact of our work. We are very happy this morning to give the committee a flavour of the progress, which are across a number of different themes. I think that what I might start by saying is that it is clear to us in our engagement with the Scottish Government that we have had following publication is that the Scottish Government has made good progress in addressing many of the recommendations and the themes in our report from April of last year. In my own evidence to the Public Audit Committee, I was also clear to recognise that this is a relatively short space of time since publication. When we look at firstly governance arrangements, risk management that sits alongside it and then some of the transparency of reporting, we are seeing progress across a number of those fronts. I can go into as much detail and I can just put it in a way that you find helpful, convener, but I guess Rebecca and I can go into all of those topics as you see fit. I think that we might be here all day if you entered all of the topics, but I mean you say that the Government has made some good progress in some areas. I guess it would be interesting to know you didn't say all areas, did you? I thought you said some areas. It might be interesting to know some of the areas where further work needs more to be done. Very helpful to do that and perhaps just to clarify. I wouldn't want to give any impression that this is grudging because I think that we have seen quite good progress. The complexity of what is facing the Government and we are at pains not to underestimate that in terms of the challenges to deliver their climate change ambitions. To raise the profile of adaptations, which I think was a feature of our reporting in April, which said that progress towards net zero had more prominence than public policy and public spending requirements to tackle the effects of climate change. On that point, I might be keen to stress that we are seeing more structure, more governance, better risk management around adaptations element of the response to climate change. Risk management, similarly, we are seeing clearer arrangements in place that are flowing through to governance in respect of red amber green ratings on risks that are better defined with timescales managed as well. Perhaps just to address your question directly, convener, about more work to do or perhaps better phrased an area that is really under on-going monitoring. Rebecca might want to say a bit more about this point, which is probably workforce planning. In respect of workforce, we commented in our report that, again, I think there were echoes of this in our heat and buildings report from the past few weeks, is that the net director general net zero department, the directorate of government, had been slower or slower in terms of building up its capacity to tackle the challenges in front of it. We are clearer now that workforce planning is more of a constant activity within the department, but inevitably one that will have to be kept under very close and regular review so that the government is satisfied that it has the right capacity in place to tackle all of the challenges before it. If you are content, there are a pause, maybe invite Rebecca to say a bit more about that one or indeed any of the other areas that we have seen in the past few months. That would be helpful, especially as the committee identified workforce planning as one of the key issues in our report last year regarding local authorities in net zero, so Rebecca, you are up. As the Auditor General said, workforce planning is now an on-going exercise within DG net zero area, so there is a continuous process to map across the commitments under DG net zero, what resources are available and the budget that is available and trying to align those things and prioritise where necessary. These discussions happen at the Global Climate Emergency programme board and where necessary conversations discussions are escalated through to executive team. We have seen much better evidence over the last year of these discussions happening more regularly within the DG net zero area and as part of the new performance monitoring process, the Global Climate Emergency programme board now receives a dashboard on a monthly basis at their meetings and that provides them with oversight of progress against all of the programmes that they oversee and they are responsible for overseeing. As part of that dashboard there are rag ratings of progress and that includes monitoring progress against resources and finance, so that programme board which is really at the centre of the governance arrangements for the climate change programme that is seen on a monthly basis an assessment of where they are at in terms of resourcing and financing the programmes that they are responsible for delivering and where necessary any risks that are related to that are escalated up to the executive team and the executive team also see that dashboard on a quarterly basis so they again have oversight of that. So it feels that they're in a much better place now in terms of having that ongoing oversight of what resources are needed and how they want to prioritise them to be able to deliver the objectives that they're working towards. So it sounds you look like you're fairly relaxed about it but is that a result of your governance framework that you put forward to them to the government and do you think they've responded to that as you would hope them to? So a couple of things in there convener, I think it's probably fair to say that I'm not relaxed about this and I don't think government are either given the scale of challenge that is in front of them to deliver their net zero ambitions. I would characterise it rather that we've seen progress, we've seen an appropriate response to our report. The only slight comment probably to make is that our engagement with government has been engagement so we haven't audited in this wider sense as we do regularly on the back of our reports an impact audit to form a more formal assessment of whether a public body in this case of Scottish Government has responded directly but of all the engagement that we've had with government we are pleased with the response that has taken place since our publication in April. Okay, I understand that you're not relaxed but you think it's going in the right direction but the deputy convener by my first wants to come in with a question. Thanks, convener. Good morning. Just building on your responses to the convener's questions, it was uplifting and helpful to hear that there's good progress and there's good coordination and collaboration within government. There are some really challenging competing priorities on the public sector at the moment that he alluded to in your opening remarks. How are the Scottish Government managing action towards meeting net zero amongst those competing priorities? I think that the framework is now in place in a way that felt that it was still evolving when we reported last year in respect of the Scottish Government's governance arrangements. None of that detracts from the fact that there are competing priorities, there are difficult choices with the fiscal context that the Scottish Government is operating in. Our assessment today compared to last year is that they are better placed to make some of those challenging choices than they may be where. You mentioned yourself that collaboration will be a key component of it, within the risk of stating the obvious. It's very clear that to tackle climate change challenges will require collaboration and effective working across government. One of the features of last year's report was that there were sticking points or gaps in some of the directorate governance arrangements. What I think is helpful today is that it is also set out in some of the correspondence that the Scottish Government has produced is that the structure of governance. The global climate change emergency programme board has a clear reporting route into the cabinet sub-committee for climate emergencies. Seeing that there is an appreciation of the breadth of risks, the way that the Government is operating at civil service level, and the ability to escalate to the cabinet sub-committee is also appropriate. None of that will be straightforward, because I think that the last point that I would make is that ultimately this will come down to policy choice for politicians to determine how best to allocate resources for the future. I will give the Public Order Committee a briefing this Thursday morning on our recent paper for the delivery of the national strategy for economic transformation, of which I think that there are parallels for the arrangements to deliver net zero ambitions. That also has to have an appropriate underpinning of internal governance arrangements and then an escalation route. I think that we have seen that there are clearer processes in place now to make challenging decisions more effectively than we did last year. We had a new First Minister last year and there has been a bit of churn around the cabinet secretaries and ministers. Sometimes it is confusing to know who we are quizzing on subjects just because of the way that roles form. Has that had any effect or are you confident that everything is still moving forward? I do not think that we have seen any direct bearing, convener, through our audit work that changing ministers or ministerial portfolios has interrupted progress. I think that what we have seen, as I mentioned to the deputy convener, is a better clarity around roles and responsibilities within directorates. The departments are better able to make a more informed assessment without any direct bearing of ministerial changes impacting important progress. There might be one or two areas that you are content for me to come back to in terms of transparency of reporting an assessment, but there is no direct bearing on the basis of your question. That is probably the opportunity to come back. I know that I certainly will want to raise at the end heating buildings because it is a subject that causes me concern. I am going to go straight to Monica now because she has got some questions for you. Good morning. I am just looking at the number one key message auditor general in your report that we are discussing this morning. You have mentioned work force plan a couple of times already this morning. I am quite struck in the report that it says that no work force plan had been in place for the director general for net zero area since it had been established in November 2021. I think that going by your report that should have been in place by spring of last year. What is your understanding of that delay? Morning, Ms Lennon. You are absolutely right. That was one of the key features of our report last year that work force planning had not moved quickly enough within the directorate for net zero in the Scottish Government, especially given that the climate emergency had been declared by the former First Minister nearly four years previously. We would have expected to see clearer progress on delivery of work force planning capacity building arrangements within the director general for net zero. I will bring Rebecca in again to reassure the committee. We have seen progress and probably builds on the evidence that the director general gave to the Public Audit Committee in September, which set out that that level of work force planning had improved. That is borne out by our own engagement with the directorate since then, that a work force plan is never a static item or it never should be. I think that, especially with the level of change that is happening in that directorate, it has morphed into more of an on-going process but with the right underpinnings. Rebecca, you can say more about our current understanding. When the director general net zero gave evidence to the Public Audit Committee in September of last year, he described a prioritisation exercise that all of the directorates sitting under his responsibility had undergone, where they looked at what resources were needed to deliver their objectives and had then made a decision about how to prioritise resources available. That saw an increase in teams in some areas. For example, in the team that is delivering on the heat and building strategy in developing a new directorate with responsibility for offshore wind, but that meant moving resources from other areas. This prioritisation exercise was ratified by the executive team. What we have seen since then is that that has not been a one-off exercise, but that is a continual exercise now. I think that it would be fair to say that that happens beyond the DG net zero area as well in terms of continually looking across at the priorities and trying to map available resources to that. I think that the challenge for the Government in this is continually keeping staff resources and budgets under review and ensuring that they are able to deliver on the areas that they choose to prioritise within that. That is really helpful. Before I move on to talk about the climate change plan, I am just trying to understand the baseline here and where we have come from because it appears that we did not have a permanent DG for net zero until January of last year, I believe. There was not only a lack of progress, but there was no workforce plan at all until sometime last year. We obviously hear a lot of witnesses at this committee and workforce planning skills. These are the big themes that come to us. Given what you said or the general about, this has to be a priority for Government tackling climate change. It is an emergency that was declared by the former First Minister. Does it seem a bit strange that there was no permanent DG net zero and no workforce plan until some date in 2023? I think that our assessment in the report from last year was that progress had been slow in creating structures to respond to the climate emergency that the Government stated in 2019. That is now in place as welcome, but it is only a few short months that it has been there. It is reasonable that the director general's position is that workforce planning is kept under regular review. That feels appropriate, Ms Lennon. If I may reflect on some of the evidence that I gave to the Public Audit Committee on heat in buildings, the scale of the challenge that the Government is facing is going to require regular review, assessment, refinement, if necessary, and prioritisation therein of resources necessary to deliver climate ambitions by the mid-2040s. It is not something that the Scottish Government can do on its own, so it is also going to have a workforce plan within the Scottish Government to deliver its ambitions. We are looking externally to ensure that the right skills are in place within the wider economy, whether it is heat pumps or other services that it has skills planning to a satisfactory place across both public and private sectors. For today, we are content that progress has been made and accepting the director general's position to keep us under regular review. That is helpful. You have touched on all the main points that were part of our committee's next zero inquiry, including the collaboration that is required in working with public and private sector partners. Just to try to understand how significant those delays and gaps have been because we want to talk about the climate change plan and to understand what has contributed to the delay of the drafting of that. We have obviously looked at what the Government has been doing over the past wee while, how it is set up, how it organises itself. You have made some strong conclusions in your report with some recommendations that the Government is accepting, so just wonder from your assessment of how Government has been operating to deliver climate change policy. How much of what you have said in your report explains the climate change plan delay, just to get a feel for what really has contributed to that? I think that it is probably not unreasonable to say that these will all be relevant factors together with external influences upon the Government's decision, which is able to make about the timing of when it publishes its climate change plan and, like the committee, assuming that that will be published later this year. It is also not unreasonable to assume that, because there were delays in establishing capacity within the Scottish Government net zero directorate, that that would have had a bearing upon its ability to make the judgments and assessments in the compilation of the climate change plan. From where we are now, they are in a stronger place, with a dedicated director general for net zero building capacity within his team to deliver climate change. The things that we have touched on this morning about is that there are stronger governance risk management arrangements and better collaboration across the Scottish Government directorates to tackle the scale of challenges that is in front of them. Far from a clean bill of health, it is genuine progress from where we were nearly 12 months ago. Ilaron, you mentioned risk management as one of the areas that you have been looking at. Was it delayed to the draft climate change plan recognised as a risk by the Scottish Government? You are right. I will ask Rebecca just to see if we have that detail in front of us in terms of our understanding of the Government's risk register at that point. If we do not have that detail, we can certainly come back to you in writing if we have it. Maybe just before passing to Rebecca, I think that risk management can be a bit of a dry subject. It is not always one that engages, but given the scale of challenge that is in front of the Government, some of the fundamentals of effective practice running of government need to be there. We found that there needed to be improved clarity of risks, clearer actions, timescales and so forth in order to deliver the overall wider policy objective. We have seen progress. Rebecca might want to say a bit more about the performance dashboards, which we think are also another important step forward, as well as addressing your earlier point about the extent of which the climate change plan featured. In answer to your specific question, we do not have the details of the specifics within individual risk registers, but what we have seen is that since we reported in April last year that the Scottish Government programme team oversees the climate change programme that they are now much more active in terms of monitoring and managing risks, we have seen that there are clearer reporting lines from individual risk registers up to the global climate emergency programme board, and also that there are clearer escalation routes, which was one of the issues that we had identified in our report and recommended that escalation routes were clarified. Again, we have seen some progress in terms of how the risk management process is working. It is now much more clearly documented, and I think that people understand that process much better now within the climate change programme. There is monthly reporting on programme risks. Risks escalated to the GC programme board where necessary, and the programme board also do quarterly deep dives on specific risk areas. We are finding that risks are being discussed much more openly and actively now than we have found when we reported towards the start of last year. In terms of some of the specifics around the risks, the programme board is overseeing progress towards the climate change plan, adaptation plan and just transition plans. Although I do not have the specifics given that those are their three broad areas of responsibility, I would anticipate that they would be considering delays to the climate change plan when they are looking at the risks to progress overall. That is helpful. Last question for now, because I have some questions later on if there is time. Just to look forward a little bit, can you say a bit more about the delivery of the next climate change plan? You have identified governance groups in your report, and I wonder where you think responsibility ultimately lies. If there are clear enough lines of sight and responsibility now that those changes in progress have been made? I am not sure. There is terribly much more we can say about the overall responsibility beyond my expectation. That is a statutory requirement for Scottish Government to prepare a climate change plan. We are, of course, awaiting the annual progress update against the climate change plan for the next few weeks, I expect. After the publication of the plan, I think that timescales, if I am right, should be no later than November to allow Parliament to have the opportunity to scrutinise in advance of its publication in early 2025. We await those developments, Ms Lennon. I look forward to seeing perhaps a couple of points that, at the end of the Committee on Climate Change, it has stressed about the scale of the challenge, the transparency of actions and choices that the Scottish Government will make. Stepping back, if I may, I think that the Scottish Government is better placed to deliver against the recommendations that we made in our report, and we would expect thereafter to see that that features in a clear, robust climate change plan, and that results in the necessary actions thereafter. Like I said, the Committee will be tracking closely developments over the next few months. Thanks very much, Monica. As a committee, we are waiting. I think that the last day that can come to us is November for a mid-March publication, so we do not know any more. Just before I go to Douglas, I have a quick question for you, if I may. Last year, when we were told that the climate change plan was being delayed, and it was very much made a point of in Parliament, it was due to changes to the UK-wide policies. But it appears from what you said this morning that it was as much due to the fact that there was insufficient workforce to draw the plan up, but that has now been rectified. If I misunderstood that, is that a correct summation? I certainly would not want to contradict the Government's position, convener, that the interaction of the climate change plan and wider UK Government policies is clearly the stated position. I think that what our report shows is that, in order for the Government to deliver when we published in April of last year, there were a number of steps that they needed to take to have more robust arrangements, whether it was related to the climate change plan or the delivery of climate change goals more widely. As we have touched on already this morning, I am pleased to see some progress in those areas. Okay, I take the point that has been made, and I think that I understand it. Douglas, I think that you got a question. Thanks, convener. It is just in the light of the answers that you have to Monica Lennon, who is thinking about the 2030 emissions targets. Do you think that the Government is in a good place to reach those 2030 targets now? In my evidence to the Public Audit Committee on the Heat and Buildings report, and again, tracking the consultation that is currently happening on the bill for the interim targets, we are not climate scientists, I should say, but what is clear is that those are looking challenging, if possible, and drawing on the work of the CCC in particular, expressing doubt and reservations about whether those 2030 interim targets will now be achieved. Noting the views of others, rather than our own, Mr Lumsden. So, you have not really done any work on those targets, it is just looking at listening to what other people have said, I guess. I think that is a fair assessment. We always, like others in terms of prioritisation, we have to take a view of where we will have best value and most impact on our work. To date, our work on climate change has looked at more overall arrangements. So, first of all, the report from last year, looking at the Scottish Government's governance arrangements to deliver its net zero ambitions, and it is starting through the more recent publication to drill into the specifics of individual policy progress. So, Heat and Buildings was, as we published recently, and then looking to the next phase of our work on climate change, we have got work underway on the progress towards the delivery of the Government's ambitions to reduce car mileage and then also scoping out work on adaptations. So, as I say, that probably feels like the right place for us rather than making an assessment of progress to reducing carbon emissions in itself. But you mentioned transparency earlier, so I guess that the Government are not going to hit those targets, then the sooner they are more open with everyone, the better, I would imagine. There is nothing for us to disagree in that. I think that transparency in both in terms of climate targets, fiscal position, policy priorities and choices therein. Okay, thanks. Douglas, Mark, you want a quick question? Yeah, just on the back of that, I'd be interested in your views about whether you feel Government is making enough progress on systemic change. So, systemic change might not come up in terms of the progress that's made from year to year in terms of meeting an annual carbon reduction, but it might point to increasing capacity, more of a change in the systems, which would deliver progress in the years to come and beyond 2030. And the relevance of that for the 2045 target, because we're looking at big, big systemic changes, is Government on track to turn that super tanker around? Yeah, I mean, I know the committee know this, Mr Ruskell, but the complexity of this cannot be underestimated about what the scale of challenge that is facing both the Scottish Government, wider public bodies, businesses and individuals in terms of the choices that we'll all have to make about how we lead our lives to deliver net zero ambitions. I mean, just looking at a couple of things specifically, go back to the report from April, that was about underpinnings. Did the Scottish Government have the right structure to support its oversight, its decision making, and at that point probably felt that there were gaps. Fast forward 11 months, we've seen appropriate responses, better internal arrangements in place to allow them to facilitate the kind of systemic change that you're referring to. The reason more recent publication on heating homes goes into a bit more detail and some of one of the pillars of the Government's response to climate change. Perhaps to illustrate the scale of where public sector plays its part relative to wider choices, the Scottish Government set aside or planning to spend £1.8 billion over the life of this parliamentary term to decarbonise heat in buildings, whether through a combination of improved insulation in homes or grants, loans to support householders to choose green heating systems. Alongside that, there is a forecast of over £30 billion is required to be spent across businesses and individuals to decarbonise heating systems. The scale of a challenge cannot be underestimated, and I certainly appreciate the committee for doing anything but that. However, I would say that there are stronger aspects of internal arrangements within Government to give them the best chance of making the 2045 target, notwithstanding the challenging policy choices that will need to be made in between times. Jackie, the next question is yours. You have emphasised the need for greater priority to be given to climate change adaptation, planning and risk management. In your statement to the Public Audit Committee, you said that there should be parity between emission reduction and adaptation planning. Is the parity in terms of investment and resources or in terms of the approach taken to risk management? I will bring Rebecca Inn, who said a bit more about the overall progress that we have seen since we reported. One of the key judgments that we made in our report from last year was that Government's focus seemed to be more overt on carbon emission reductions, rather than adaptation planning, dealing with the effects of climate change that are already with us. The revised governance arrangements are clearer now, through one of the climate change programme projects that report into the climate change programme board, that there is now parity between the delivery of the climate change plan alongside adaptations and the third plank of just transition. In the overall scheme of things, the delivery of climate change is a short space of time, a blink of an eye even, but the Government has responded, so we think that that is an appropriate step change. However, there is no doubt that this is going to be really tough. To deliver some of the mitigating effects to address climate change will require significant capital investment. I am just looking at some of the challenges that we have seen in the Scottish Government's budget. Again, the evidence that was given to the Public Order Committee by Government officials last week shows the real strain that is on the capital budget. All of that is going to have to be gathered together in a prioritisation exercise about where adaptation planning and spending sits alongside other aspects of policy priorities, but progress is no doubt in the past 11 months. Rebecca, you can say more. We have started to see adaptation come through much more through the governance and risk management arrangements in the Scottish Government. When we reported, it was unclear the extent to which the GC programme board, which, as I said, is at the centre of governance arrangements for the climate change programme, the extent to which they were considering adaptation within their work, but, since then, the Government has clarified the responsibilities of that programme board, and that adaptation plan, alongside the climate change plan and just transition plans, is one of the three areas of responsibility of that board. We have seen that come through much more clearly in the governance arrangements. We have also seen adaptation being built more into the risk registers of the various programmes that sit under the GC programme board. We, through that, risks around adaptation are being discussed more regularly, monitored and escalated where necessary. I think that the development of the new Scottish National Adaptation Plan and the monitoring and evaluation framework, which will accompany that, will be a huge help in this area as well. I think that we sometimes find that things get more prominent if you can measure them, or if there are targets set against them. I think that the monitoring and evaluation framework will be a huge help in that, and reporting on progress against that will feed into that GC programme board. We would expect to see that adaptation continue to get more prominence. I take it from your response there that you have seen and read the draft Scottish National Adaptation Plan. That was what my next question was going to come on to. Do you say that its contents help to address recommendations from your 2023 report? Given that, should the adaptation be given greater priority? I think that I will probably know the answer to that. I am going to ask you anyway. As we reported last year, we absolutely recognised that adaptation had been almost a poor relation to mitigation for a number of years. I expect that the new National Adaptation Plan will give that more prominence. As I mentioned, the monitoring and evaluation framework that sits alongside that will be really helpful in that way in terms of giving it more visibility. One of the challenges with adaptation is how do you assess progress towards adaptation outcomes? I think that that is a lot more challenging to identify than quantifiable emissions reductions targets, for example. That will be a challenging piece of work, I am sure, but I think that the result of that, and having a robust monitoring and evaluation framework in place for the new adaptation plan, will be an almost help. I want to ask you about the joint budget review work between Parliament and the Scottish Government. We have seen the first strand of that work already delivered. There is now a narrative with the budget around climate. This year we have seen the introduction of a taxonomy, the attempts to classify areas of spend, and there is an annex attached to this year's budget. I want to ask you about that particular piece of work, whether you think that that is meaningful, whether you think that there is room for improvement there, what your assessment is of that. It is really important, consistent with our on-going reporting across a range of different fronts, about the importance of transparency in terms of public spending, delivery of policy and outcomes. Audit Scotland has been reporting for many years about the value of the national performance framework, if I can digress for a second, and the importance of linking spending to outcomes starting from the budget and the associated disclosures. A couple of things I would mention in overall terms is a step forward in terms of the detail of taxonomy down to individual budget lines down to level 4 of the budget. We are mindful of the reporting and analysis that Spice has done in its own report, and there is no reason to question the overall assessment, because there is still some work to do in this area to deliver further enhancements, given the scale of challenge that we have before it. I note that Spice is somewhat direct and critical in the analysis of that progress, but increased taxonomy does not yet go far enough to support Parliament scrutinising its ability to assess the Government's progress in delivering climate change. We would welcome the progress, but in order for the Parliament to effectively scrutinise the scale of challenge that climate change covers, it would be hard-pressed to identify any directorate spend that does not relate to climate change, but there is more work to do in this area. The third area of that work was the net zero test. We understand that the Government is now piloting a net zero test. Do you have any thoughts on the progress of that work, where it is beginning, what the early outcomes of that are, and the prospects for ensuring that the whole of Government is able to apply that test whenever they are making balanced decisions? I will ask Rebecca, since she wants to comment. We have not scoped any audit work around that yet. We are always mindful of where best public audit comes in, as you will know from your work on the Scottish Commission for Public Audit that, historically, audit is a retrospective function. We will come in after many years after the policy area of public spending has been implemented. The profession and our approach have moved with that in recent times. I think that the two reports that I have mentioned already are perhaps good examples of that. I get to the point that, in this little long-term value that we are adding to this Parliament, or the public more generally, especially in a long-term programme like climate change, for us to come in in the mid, the late 2040s and produce a report that says, how did it go as far too late? We are shaping a programme of work, the ones that we have published already. We are going to be doing more on transport, agriculture in due course and, indeed, to Ms Dunbar's point about adaptations about some of the specifics that we will be preparing on that in a couple of years. How and when we position ourselves as something that we keep under close review, but Rebecca may want to say a bit more about that. As the Auditor General said, we haven't done any specific work looking at the implementation of a net zero test in the Scottish Government. However, as we highlighted in our report in April last year, we would be supportive of any process that gives decision makers more information, which will allow them to make informed decisions about how they are prioritised and spend and use of resources. We would be overall supportive of that approach, but we don't have any information on the specifics of it. There might be a point when the net zero test has been piloted in a particular department that would then allow for reflection about how that has perhaps driven certain decisions or improved decision making. Something that, as Rebecca mentioned, we will keep under close review about how and when we can best add value in that. As ever, alongside the Government's own reporting on this, Audit has a part to play, but given the scale of challenge here to support parliamentary scrutiny, public understanding, the Government itself, the individual departments, will want to be absolutely clear about how that is progressing, so under close review. Do you see that net zero test as being an absolutely critical part of how the Government mainstreams climate thinking across all departments? I think that that is a pretty fair assessment that I want to be hard pushed to disagree with about given the scale of challenge. The cross-departmental nature of responding to climate change is one that individual departments and the Government more widely will want to be satisfied on good progress. I think that you've got some questions. I just want to ask about the joint report that was carried out last year along with the National Audit Office, Audit Wales and Northern Ireland Audit Office, around the approaches to achieving net zero across the UK. From your work on that, how do you feel that the UK and Scottish Governments are working together? There's a couple of strands. Before responding directly to your point, it's also about the approach of auditors on that as well. Perhaps referencing the discussion with Mr Ruskell is that, as auditors, we've got to think about where we best deploy our resources and at what point. The profession has shifted away from the retrospective approach. We are, individually as an organisation, Audit Scotland, and the work that Audit Scotland provides to me as Auditor General and to the Accounts Commission for Scotland to audit local government. We have a long-term programme of work on climate change, and that's the same from what we've seen of our colleagues in the other UK and Ireland audit agencies. We engage collaboratively through the UK Ireland Public Audit Forum to make that assessment. On a political level, the point that applies about the Scottish Government internally has to work effectively together across different directorates to deliver climate change, but also at the right points about how to deliver effective intergovernmental relationships between the UK and the Scottish Government. However, we haven't done an audit of how well are the UK and the Scottish Government collaborating to deliver climate change ambitions, but we did make a point in last year's report that the Scottish Government and the UK Government, where relevant, will have to work closely together to deliver their shared ambitions to tackle climate change. We are seeing some of that through the debate on the timescales for heat and buildings. In our report from the last few weeks, for example, there are different timescales that exist between the UK and the Scottish Government to deliver heat and buildings. One of the key points of that, if I may say, is that to successfully transition away from carbon-emitting heating systems to green systems will require significantly more capacity in the electricity grid. So aspects of service delivery, some are resolved, are reserved and some are devolved. That collaboration between Governments will have to happen effectively across multiple different policy initiatives, so one for undoubtedly for the both Governments to keep under closer view. So in terms of, was there any specific actions from that report on where Governments mentioned one, which was the greater need for electricity as we move away from oil and gas? Was there any other specific actions that came from that report on how the Governments are working together? Rebecca May might want to say a bit more, but it's not what we haven't done is drill down into the depth of how both Governments are operating in terms of their shared climate change ambitions. What's also the case, particularly since the UK left the European Union and the implementation of the internal markets bill, is that that also will have to be navigated carefully by both Governments in setting respective policy intent. So there may be more that Rebecca might want to add, but I think it's one for we've made a high-level comment rather than an assessment of how that's operating effectively. I think that the overall message really from the report was about the importance of co-ordination and collaboration across the Governments. Obviously emissions don't really see borders and ultimately to be able to achieve the overarching UK net zero target by 2050, that is going to require collaboration across the Governments and prioritisation of action, that will meet targets both within the devolved nations but also will contribute towards that overarching 2050 target. I think that there are also opportunities for Governments to learn from each other as well. We didn't highlight any specific areas around that, but I think that given that the different emissions make up across the different four nations and their slightly different approaches to achieving net zero, that they might be doing things in slightly different ways, so there's always opportunities to learn from each other as well. So just on that, was there any good practice from some of the other devolved nations on where we could maybe copy in Scotland? We didn't highlight anything specific in the report, as good practice. We just recognised that there are different approaches across the different nations and obviously the order agencies in the other nations are producing reports similar to reports that the Order to General produces in Scotland around the delivery against specific policy areas. Some of those areas were highlighted in the report, but as I say, because they're all taken slightly different approaches, which is appropriate given that there'll be different challenges or different areas for priority within the different devolved nations, so if you look at the highest emitting sectors, it's slightly different across a devolved nation, so it's appropriate that they would perhaps target activity in slightly different areas. My last point is that politics gets in the way and it's often seen as all the four nations are at loggerheads with each other, but underneath that, is there actually quite a good level of working or not? That's a fair assessment, actually, that the engagement that different directors of the Scottish Government are having with primarily their counterparts in Whitehall, but even other parts of the devolved nations is an important feature of their work. The director general next year on his team are probably better placed to give you the specifics of that, but it's certainly something that we observe that is reported through the governance frameworks, risk management disclosures and so forth, so that engagement takes place, yes. Okay, thank you. Thanks, convener. Thank you. Ben, you wanted to ask some thoughts on that. Just briefly, and it follows on from what my colleagues asked, but as the convener alluded to earlier, ministers change in democracy and we have a position where we have an issue of challenge here that requires long-term attention and engagement. The civil service doesn't change at a senior level as much. Is the official engagement in terms of a Government of Workings positive in this place, in this policy area, in your view? I think it probably goes to give an informed view. I think the director general for net zero, the permanent secretary, is maybe better placed to give that assessment. All I've maybe had is that we've not seen anything to the contrary and is reported in governance settings that that engagement is taking place and is helping to inform the Scottish Government's approach. If that weren't the case, I think that we probably would have had visibility of it by now, but there's nothing deputy convener that's come to our attention. That reassuring, thank you. Just before we move off this subject, I'm going to ask about heating buildings. I just want to remind everyone about my register of interests that I have an interest in a farming partnership and also in property lettings. All of that is on the official register. My slight question, Stephen, is that if you're at the cutting edge of technology and you're moving forward faster than anyone else, is there a risk in your mind that it's going to cost you more money and it's going to leave you open to more mistakes and you might have to come back and learn the lessons of what you've done? If you charge ahead, surely you could find yourself out on a limb. Convener, for me, just to clarify, are you referring to individuals or businesses? I'm saying as an individual part of the United Kingdom that if you set targets that are in front of everyone else's targets, I'm asking if you think there'll be a financial risk and a risk of investing in technology that might be unproven? Probably pushes the boundaries of my responsibilities in terms of the ultimate reasonable policy choices. You might know that one of the requirements upon me is that it's not my role to comment on the merits of individual policies and that would include timescales or the delivery of the successful implementation thereafter. What our report points out, whether it's getting buildings or more generally in terms of governance arrangements, is that choices and prioritisations are more likely to be successfully implemented but good governance, risk management arrangements in place and clarity around the fiscal implementation costs associated with those and, in the round, we've seen good progress over the course of the past 11 months. I'm going to leave that there. Bob, you want to come in briefly, if I may ask you to, so I can move on to the rest of the questions. Absolutely, convener. They're really interesting evidence. I've been listening carefully. You mentioned just in the past thing about potential issues in relation to the internal markets act, which I wasn't going to follow up on. I think you know the really interesting point about the nations and regions going at different paces, which may lead to what some may call divergence and others may call taking leadership in relation to tackling some of these issues. So anything you could do to reflect the potential risks because the internal markets act now exists would be helpful to hear you put on the record. I may not get back in. My second question would be in relation to certainty about the capital expenditure requiring the long term. Other committees have always talked about multi-year budgets and certainty in investment. If nations and regions go at different paces and Westminster sets different capital budgets with relevant barren consequentials, is that a significant risk of delivering on net zero ambitions? One on the internal markets act, I suppose, is one about long-term certainty in capital investment that will be required. Thanks, Mr Daws. I was happy to touch on both those points, I think. If I may, and I'm not sure if the committee have this to hand, in our heat and buildings report, for example, right at the back of the report, we set out at exhibit 11 of the paper just the contrasting timescales that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government are operating to in terms of the heat and building strategy in the UK Government, the heat and building strategy. It's all within 12, 24 months of one another. The point that we make in the report is that aspects of this policy delivery, some are reserved and other elements devolved, but with the implementation of the internal markets act that's going to require careful navigation by both Governments to deliver successfully for the citizens that they are responsible for. For the Scottish Government, progress towards interim targets in 2030 and thereafter to successful delivery of their climate ambitions by the mid-2040s. We're noting effectively that that's all going to have to be navigated carefully together with the interdependencies that we've just done in discussion with Mr Lumsden, especially as it relates to the capacity of the UK grid that's going to require careful and effective relationships on both sides. On the capital requirements, there's no doubt significant and potentially vast sums of capital investment is going to be required to deliver climate ambitions, whether that is adaptations or investment to transition away from carbon emitting systems to green systems. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the scale of investment is significant and potentially some of the current changes are important as well. So £1.8 billion set aside over the course of this Parliament to deliver low-carbon systems relative to an estimate of over £30 billion to deliver the programme. The point about the estimate is important as well because the longer you go out, the less certainty you have about how much expenditure will be required. On the upside, we can expect new technology to reduce the cost of investment that's required, as we've seen over generations, technology when it's first brought in is very expensive, and then as people adopt the technology, it adapts, the price falls. So I think there's not an unreasonable assumption that that may also be the case with heating systems as well. But looking at the current investment that's required, there are constraints on the Scottish Government's capital budget. Again, the director-general for the Scottish Exchequer set that out quite clearly for the Public Audit Committee in her evidence last week that the UK Government budget brought around £300 million of revenue, resource Barnett consequentials, but not capital Barnett consequentials. There are also now newer constraints on the financial transactions budget that might have been a source to deliver some of the investment that's required across climate change ambitions. Those are all matters of policy between the UK and the Scottish Government, but what is clear is that it's all going to have to be reflected in quite a clear plan, and a plan that's kept under a very close review to align with the interim targets and the longer-term ambitions. Monica, we're back to you again for the next lot of questions. Great, thank you, convener. I want to pick up on local government, and we know that some councils have set net zero targets that are even more ambitious than the Scottish Government's. Just to ask from your work on Scottish climate governance arrangements and on the Scottish Council's approach to addressing climate change, are you able to give any comment on how well placed our councils are to meet their net zero ambitions? What I might do, Ms Lennon, is probably just pass to Rebecca for your line of questioning, because, just for the committee's awareness, my responsibilities don't extend into local authorities in Scotland. They fall under the responsibility of the Accounts Commission, but Rebecca can answer your question. We, Old at Scotland, published a briefing for the Accounts Commission at the end of 2022, which provided an overview of councils' approach to addressing climate change. What we found in that was absolutely that there was quite a lot of variation between councils as to when they had set net zero targets for quite big variations in terms of the timescales as to when they wanted to achieve net zero. There's also variation in terms of what councils include within the scope of those targets as well, and sometimes even within the definitions of some of the targets. We highlighted a lack of consistency across targets setting across councils. What we also reported in that briefing was that there's quite a significant gap in some cases between the ambitious targets that have been set and the planned actions to reach that final target date. We called for more transparency over how councils intended to reach net zero, what they're a more detailed pathway essentially to reaching net zero, and also to be more transparent about what the challenges were going to be in achieving that. We absolutely wouldn't call on any public bodies to be less ambitious. Ambition is great in this area, but there needs to be more transparency about how people intend to meet their targets and what any challenges will be in getting there. We called on, in that briefing in the Accounts Commission, also called on councils to put climate change considerations at the heart of their strategic decision making, so to start building that into policy and financial planning and decision making. We identified some of the challenges around doing that. For example, a lack of resources in councils and a lot of councils to focus on climate change, potentially a lack of skills and capacity, and a lack of resources in councils. I think that the committee will be aware that when it comes to making decisions and prioritising resources, one of the challenges around climate change is that some of the targets and ambitions seem so far off at the moment, 21 years until the net zero target for example. That can make prioritising climate change sometimes quite challenging. Councils were experiencing that first hand when they were having to make more short-term decisions over how they would prioritise their resources. To go back to your original question around the targets, there is absolutely variation there, and there will be some big challenges in meeting those targets. Councils just need to provide more detailed pathways about how they want to get there and be transparent about the challenges in getting there as well. Thank you, Rebecca, so I appreciate different councils, different targets, different situations, but how confident are you that Scotland's councils can meet their net zero ambitions? Are these targets realistic? So we haven't done work to look at that. We know that councils are part of their public bodies reporting duties that report annually on their emissions targets and that's Sustainable Scotland Network collate those targets. We haven't done any work as Audit Scotland or the Accounts Commission to assess how realistic those targets are or what progress councils are making towards them. I want to ask about the Scottish climate intelligence service or unit that our committee recommended, because I believe that it's starting to come into effect. Given that we've spent a lot of time today looking at the Scottish Government's role and the need for good governance and leadership, in your view, what more could and should the Scottish Government do to support the whole government to meet these collective ambitions to deliver on our net zero and climate obligations? It's a very broad question in terms of the role of the Scottish Government. I think that we've seen that the Scottish Government is both delivering climate change responsibilities itself and then playing a wider role in ensuring the successful implementation of Scotland's ambitions to meet net zero targets by the mid-2040s. I think that probably what I'm not in a position to do today, Ms Lennon, is to say that the Government should be doing this or that more to support councils. I'd maybe just recognise, and if I may touch on probably the two previous reports, but particularly heat and buildings, that the scale of challenge is not one that the Scottish Government itself can tackle. It is going to require effective engagement with businesses, with individuals and other public bodies to deliver what's required and what's facing us over the next two decades. The point that came up in the briefing that I gave to the Public Audit Committee is particularly around skills. There is a transition to skills planning to support net zero ambitions and that that gives confidence to businesses, a recognition of the opportunity that exists in the market. However, that's led through the Scottish Government and its engagement that it has with businesses. Then looking also at individuals, the individuals have the confidence to make the right investment, to get the right advice from the Government that councils are also supported. It's probably a risk of restating the fairly obvious that it's hugely complex and it's going to require all parts of Government, Scottish Government, local Government and the UK Government working effectively together to make the change that's necessary. I think that what would be helpful for me is just to get a better understanding of where that balance of responsibility should lie between the Scottish Government's role, the role of local government and all the other partners in between that point about confidence is really well made but to build confidence we have to build certainty and right now a lot of people feel very uncertain about the policy direction. I know the convener will come in on heating buildings so I'll leave that alone for now but perhaps it's maybe one for Rebecca to just return to the Scottish Climate Intelligence Service. I think we've had an update from COSLA recently that that is now up and running. Is that something that you could give us any more lights on? Probably not on the specifics of the service itself but I think one of the things that the Accounts Commission called for in their briefing was better collaboration so would the councils and partners but also between councils to share learning to realise economies of scale just to work better together and that we also identified that that collaboration would allow for more consistency potentially around target setting or being able to make more informed decisions when setting targets and I think that the climate intelligence service will help support some of that so it's a really welcome development. Are there any really good examples of collaboration that you can point to? Obviously at a high level there's the Verity House agreement but in practice where are we seeing really good collaborative approaches emerging between local and Scottish government? If I may, you're all you each looking at each other to find out who doesn't want to answer it. Who would like to answer it? I think what we maybe need to do convener is come back to the committee in writing on that point rather than thinking on our feet to give you good examples of that if that would help. Okay so neither again to answer it now but we'll get a written correspondence afterwards. Monica, I hope you're satisfied with that answer because I'd like to go to Mark Ruskell for some questions. Yeah thanks. I wanted to build on that point actually from Monica Leonard about where the balance of responsibilities should be and if we could turn to you know the issue of heat and buildings so local authorities have been tasked with devising these local heat and energy efficiency strategies that no doubt will identify where there's opportunities for you know mass retrofitting certain housing stock or establishing district heating schemes or whatever. Do you think that that well firstly is that is that working do you think do you think that the governance around that the progress that's being made around that is actually working will actually drive some investor certainty and is that the right kind of balance of responsibilities between local government on the ground identifying streets identifying opportunities and national government setting more of a kind of regulatory framework for investment and an oval strategy. I think I've realised there are policy choices in that you probably don't want to comment on but in terms of kind of a framework for for dividing kind of action and responsibilities whether that works or not. I think you're right in terms of it ultimately this is a policy choice about the structure of implementation of one specifically on heat and buildings. There are contrasts I think with our earlier report that in overall terms the governance around heat and buildings started in a stronger place but that doesn't give enough confidence yet that this is going to be a successful strategy implementation. You know there are a lot of moving parts in terms of heat and buildings as well with the current consultation on the bill which will change to an extent some of the timescales and some of the targets if it's implemented but the confidence point is and clarity of responsibilities is so important because as I mentioned again I apologize for laboring the point is that the Scottish Government themselves cannot successfully deliver this policy it has to work effectively with as you mentioned local government but also individuals and businesses and that was certainly the assessment that we made in the report that there is a way to go that there is a clarity of intent about policy that individuals are clear on what their responsibilities are whether it's through the changes coming from the act in terms of obligations on householders around low carbon systems or earlier investment that individuals want to make people need that clarity so we are awaiting the changes through the consultation on the act Mr Ruskell but we're not we're not flagging any concerns at the current point about the relationship between local government and the Scottish government in terms of implementation but rather this is a wider challenge to deliver the successful policy ambitions. I can ask about the role of government support for individual householders as well I don't know if you've got reflections on how energy savings trusts, how energy scotland are operating at the moment, their effectiveness, their capacity given the scale of the challenge that we have. I guess there's a couple of things, we didn't audit the energy savings trust or to form a view about how effective they were in supporting individuals on allocating public funds. What we did do though I think it's important to emphasise is that reflecting if I may retrospectively is that the Scottish government's approach to reducing the carbon emission of dwellings going back to the start of 2010s clearly as I'm sure the committee is familiar with was about improving the insulation standards in Scottish homes and to all intents and purposes it kind of got there, an effective work was done by the energy savings trusts and others to improve the quality of insulation of Scotland's homes. That's clearly welcome but I think probably what we to slightly balance is that that again felt more of the focus rather than the investment and implementation of lower carbon systems so progress on the one hand but more to do with the strand of the rest of this decade about low carbonisation. I also want to ask you just about the role of impartial information for people making choices whether that's businesses or individuals and I was just reading the letter from the regulatory review group on heat buildings which came out at the weekend and there's a point in here with it that's saying that there is an opportunity for public misunderstanding if it's conflicting messaging coming in from a variety of sources including the media. So I'm just just wondering about your thoughts about how how government can show as a clarity of message here given that there's often speculation in the media or there may even be vested interests that are arguing against particular policies because it conflicts against their own businesses. It's quite can be quite confusing and difficult for the public to get that genuinely impartial kind of view about what the best options might be for them. It's such an important point isn't it that there will be many conflicting sources of information for the public which will undoubtedly be a hugely significant investment for many households to make to transition away from, I think as we sit in our report, for a vast majority of people gas boilers to low carbon systems and even the extent of understanding about tariffs, the unit price of gas relative to electricity, what service options there are for people as well will all be about, you know, we'll inform the choices that they'll make to transition either through choice or through regulatory requirements. In our heat and buildings report we talk about, this is one of the key pillars that the government has emphasised that its success hinges now upon as improving public awareness access to information, reliable and impartial information and noting that the government published its engagement strategy in December, just December past the implementation of the heat and buildings strategy. We recognise that the government understands the importance of getting this right. It's quite early days, I would say, since the strategy was published and our own report was published so that there's a recognition of the need to get this done properly supported by, I think, what we're saying is risk management arrangements that are now further developed, governance alongside that, but it's not one that we can give a clear assessment of yet, Mr Moscow. It's clearly on the risk register that public awareness impartial information is something that needs to be worked on. Thank you. Just looking round to see if there are any other questions. Stephen, you've made a comment on the fact that heat and buildings is a huge problem. I've heard the figure nine billion trotted around to get properties up to the required standard, which doesn't seem unreasonable. I mean, I did a brief calculation on the social housing in Highland and estimated that we're probably talking of a bill of 300 million. Well, if it's nine billion for social housing across Scotland, we're probably talking about an interest on that alone of 630 million a year without paying back anything. It is a huge cost and the savings per house may be £400 in an electricity bill a year. And you've talked about gas, but not everyone has gas. We certainly don't have it across the Highlands. So I'm concerned that we're not really the people out there don't understand the size of the problem. Do you share that concern and do you share the concern that, because of the huge money involved, it might be difficult to get people in a costly living crisis to buy into these targets? We're all really relevant factors, convener, and just perhaps to illustrate with some numbers if it's helpful. So there are two and a half million homes in Scotland and over two million of those are on mains gas supply. But, as you mentioned, that's not the case for remote and rural areas, whether it's caller gas or oil-powered heating systems. Transitioning to low-carbon systems will require effective engagement with the private sector. That individuals have confidence. The people have clarity about the price of the investment and also what it's going to cost to run the new system. A couple of other things that may be relevant is that the Government hasn't specified a particular model of heating system that is going to work for all providers. So clearly in a detached house in an urban area, a heat pump or an air source heat pump might be the most likely. Then, before mentioning remote properties, much of Scotland's housing stock is tenemental, and to find the right system for those properties is also going to require really careful consideration whether that's district heating systems rather than air source heat pumps will also have to be considered. Then, there are also options about enhanced electrical storage or modern electrical storage systems are all options, but the scale of investment will be huge. There's no question of that. As I've mentioned already this morning, that £1.8 billion set aside for a combination of grants, loans and on-going insulation activity over this parliamentary term, but it contrasts hugely significantly with over £30 billion to be spent to deliver clean heating systems in Scotland. I think that that's going to have to be a hugely complex project that's going to require many strands. I think that our assessment is that Government understands those strands and what needs to do in a complex environment with changing regulations, changing timescales, effective engagement with the UK Government, the Scottish Government and local authorities. It will require careful management, but the foundations of that building upon the response to last year's report in terms of risk management and governance, etc, is moving in the right direction. I hear that. My concern is that when you look at some of the remote houses across Scotland, there are no district heating systems because the house is the district. Most of them are probably 30 to 40 years old and are going to cost £40,000 in, I think, a broad-bush generalisation for a two-bedroom house to convert to electricity heating. I'm not sure where people are going to get that money from and I'm not sure if they don't see the benefits, which may only result in a small saving, that they're going to buy into this. My question to you is it's all right auditing the figures and looking at the figures, but are we going to get the results? Do you think that we can get the results and are the Government on track to get the results that they need? So a couple of things to mention, convener. I'm not going to give a prediction as to whether the Government is going to meet this at this stage. I think that it's too soon, given the number of variables that are in place and the complexity of the challenge to meet, to see with any certainty at this time, given the skill of the programme that this will be met. But in terms of the impact on individuals or groups in society, I think it is fair to recognise that the Scottish Government's proposals do recognise that we aren't. We don't all have access to the same resource to meet these challenges and that just transition in terms of both fuel poverty and giving people access to the right level of grants and loans is part of their thinking. Just Transition is one of the pillars of the Government's approach. Rightly so, if I may say, looking at the scale of change that we've seen, as you mentioned, cost of living challenges, we set out to highlight the correct numbers. Exhibit three of our recent paper. 24 per cent of Scotland's population was experienced in fuel poverty in 2019, and that number has jumped to 35 per cent last year. It might just illustrate the complexity, the challenge to be met, to transition to low-carbon heating systems, while people are experiencing real challenges in household incomes. It's reassuring, I would say, and hopefully the committee will see that this is part of the Government's thinking and is factored into their transition approach. I'm glad you're reassured. I don't see any other questions around the room, so Stephen Rebecca, on the other side, he thanked very much. We are going to push on because we have a couple more items to do in public before we go into private session rather than delay. So if I could ask you, you're free to go, if that's the right expression, and I'm just going to push straight on with the committee. Our next agenda item is consideration of two negatives instruments, the packaging waste data reporting Scotland amendment regulations 2024, and the ethical standards in public life Scotland Act 2020 codes of conduct for members of certain Scottish public authorities amendment order 2024. I swear these titles get longer every time. The instruments are laid under the negative procedure, which means that their provisions will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul them. No motions to annul have been lodged on these instruments. Let's consider the packaging waste data reporting Scotland amendment regulation 2024. As the CART's paper explains, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has drawn the instrument to our attention on the general reporting group on the basis that the explanatory note was too brief. The Scottish Government has responded to this feedback by providing a revised explanatory note for this instrument, which has been included by the clerks in the papers for this item. Do any members have any comments on the instrument? Just while you're thinking about that, I think it'd be worthwhile putting on record that some of the quality of the explanatory notes and policy notes from the Scottish Government varies considerably. Some of them are extremely good, and on occasion the committee has felt that it is not being provided with all the information that it requires. I wonder if we should make that comment to the Scottish Government but say that we don't wish to make any recommendations in relation to that instrument. Would we be happy Bob on that? I'm really sure that I talk. What we're really doing is drawing attention to the good work of the DPLR committee in the Scottish Parliament, so that's what we're doing in reporting on this, and absolutely we should do that. That committee's done their job very well. Okay, thank you, and we'll make sure that's reflected in the comments. Let's turn to the second instrument, the ethical standards in part. Sorry, I've got to expressly say that. Does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument but note the comments that have been made? We are agreed. Thank you. Now let's turn to the second instrument, the ethical standards in public life Scotland Act 2000, codes of conduct for members, have certain Scottish public authorities amendment order 2024. Do any members have any comments on this? If there's no comments, I'm going to invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. That concludes our public meeting, and we'll now go into private session. Thank you.