Consultation on Proposals for A Scottish Climate Change Bill: Analysis of Responses

SECTION 4: REPORTING AND SCRUTINY FRAMEWORK

4.1 This section presents the findings relating to the questions on the reporting and scrutiny framework in Section 7 of the consultation document (questions 13-22) and any other relevant issues.

Reporting by Scottish Ministers

13. Should the Scottish Ministers be required to report on any other issues related to climate change in addition to the requirements already set out? If so, what and how often?

4.2 The consultation document identified the Scottish Government's proposals on issues upon which the Scottish Ministers should report annually to the Scottish Parliament (paragraph 7.2 of the consultation document) as being:

The net Scottish emissions for each gas.
Identification of the methods used to calculate these amounts.
Whether any of the amounts are an increase or decrease compared to the previous year.

4.3 The document also suggested issues on which the Scottish Ministers could be required to report at least once in every emissions budget period (paragraph 7.4 of the consultation document), as follows:

Proposals and policies that the Government has for meeting future emissions reduction targets and budgets.
The emissions credited or debited from the Scottish emissions budget for the reporting period.
The Government's objectives relating to adaptation to climate change and its proposals and policies for meeting those objectives.

4.4 At paragraphs 7.6 and 7.7 the consultation document suggested a range of other possible reporting requirements, such as:

The effect of specific policies on emissions internationally.
Full reporting of policies (including "embedded" emissions).
Forecast emissions.
An assessment of the impacts and risks of current emissions levels.
An assessment of the effectiveness of current and / or planned policies.
A measure of the energy efficiency of domestic and non-domestic buildings in the public and private sectors.
The capacity of Scotland's renewable energy sector.
Emissions produced by the "Scottish element" of international aviation and shipping.
A measure of energy / carbon consumption in Scotland such as carbon footprint.

4.5 The question of whether Scottish Ministers should be required to report on any other issues in addition to the requirements already set out was addressed in 137 responses, with organisations more likely than individuals to provide a view. The event hosted by the Scottish Government involved a detailed discussion of reporting issues, the need for reporting, and the nature and content of reports. While almost all of the respondents who addressed this issue believed that there should be additional requirements, it was clear that some of these responses focused on the general need for the Scottish Ministers to report. It was not always clear, however, whether respondents considered there to be a need for reporting requirements which were additional to only those proposed in paragraph 7.2, or whether they believed that there should be requirements additional to those suggested both at 7.2 and in paragraphs 7.4-7.7. Their more detailed comments, however, provided an indication of the types of issues which respondents believed should be included.

4.6 Overall, it was evident that there was a very high level of support for a requirement upon the Scottish Ministers to report, for a number of reasons. These included: the need for openness and transparency; accountability; increased understanding; measurement of progress; and to inform the cross-cutting agenda and future planning and actions. Some respondents made specific comments on the reasons why they believed that additional issues should be added to the reporting requirements, and these included to:

Provide a more holistic view of climate change or a more complete picture.
Assess and demonstrate progress and performance fully, and highlight new policies or actions which may be required.
Reflect the seriousness with which the issue is viewed in the level of detail in the reports (including the annual reports).
Provide the necessary links to scientific evidence.
Capture activities not directly related to GHG emissions, but which contribute to the overall processes involved.
Increase awareness and promote action.
Strengthen the Bill.

4.7 Most of those who addressed this question provided information about the types of issues which they considered should be included in the reporting requirements. As noted, some reiterated the need for those highlighted at paragraph 7.2 of the consultation document. A small number also made general suggestions, such as that reports should be as "all-encompassing" as possible or cover any matters of relevance to climate change, for example:

"Scottish Ministers should report on ALL issues relevant to climate change, otherwise the whole picture will not be seen". (Individual)

4.8 Others commented more specifically on the suggestions made in subsequent paragraphs (7.4 - 7.7) of the consultation document, and several suggested that all, or almost all of the options set out should be included or would be beneficial. Only a very small number stated that it may not be necessary to report on all of these issues. Where specific reference was made to the need to include the issues in paragraphs 7.4 - 7.7 of the consultation document, most issues were raised at some stage and they will not all be reiterated here. Some, however (including one campaign text), included additional details for particular issues, and those identified related to:

Emissions for each gas (with additional suggestions that these should include: gross and net; source and end-user; actual and traded; increases and decreases; any use of international credits or borrowing; and that they should include cumulative total emissions, sometimes linked to a perceived need for a cumulative budget).
Adaptation objectives, proposals and policies (with additional suggestions including: measures required and undertaken; progress and the impact of actions; progress towards the Scottish Biodiversity Action Plan; infrastructure developments; land use; issues for wildlife and forestry; protection of carbon sinks; condition of key sites; results of Strategic Environmental Assessment [ SEA] monitoring; estimates for carbon sinks and the contribution this has made; and progress against the forthcoming Scottish Adaptation Strategy ²⁴ and relevant performance indicators. It was suggested that this information should be provided in the overall context of consideration of sustainability issues).
Forecast emissions (along with information on deviations from current budgets, any actions needed to keep emissions within budget, and longer term projections).
An assessment of the impacts and risks of current emission levels (with additional suggestions including that this should cover the impact of climate change on a wide range of issues, such as the environment, health and socio-economic factors).
A measure of the energy efficiency of domestic and non-domestic buildings in the public and private sectors (with the additional suggestions: that these two issues should be reported separately; that there should be a measure of the energy efficiency of transportation; that changes to electricity generation and fuel use should be reported; that progress and proposals for increasing efficiency should be highlighted; and that a measure of emissions reductions more generally should be included).
The capacity of Scotland's renewable energy sector (with additional suggestions that this should include: the number of installed technologies and the nature of these; productivity; and how this translates to emissions savings for the whole electricity generating sector).
A measure of energy / carbon consumption in Scotland (amongst the issues mentioned most frequently), as well as the implications of Scottish activities internationally; and "embedded" emissions (with both the "carbon footprint" and "ecological footprint" suggested, and additional suggestions that this should include gross and net figures and explicit demand information).

4.9 As well as these areas from the consultation document, some respondents identified additional issues (or aspects of issues) which they felt should be covered in Ministerial reporting, and these included:

Explicit information about whether, and how, the targets are being met, including details of the actual actions taken and the nature of work across a wide range of areas, the progress made and the impact or consequences of work, including achievements.
Any reasons for failure to meet the target, along with remedial and planned work.
Any changes made to aspects of the targets, the basis of the decision and the reasons for this.
Progress towards meeting allocated budgets, and warnings of any insufficient banking or periods of heavy borrowing.
Progress against commitments in an emissions reduction plan, or as part of an energy efficiency strategy.
Progress on carbon budgeting, the provision of carbon accounts and budget reports on a regular basis, or the requirement to accompany every budget and spending review with an account of the carbon impact of spending plans.
Financial costs, programme expenditure, the use of grants and projected costs of measures.
Sectoral issues, such as emissions, patterns and other issues by sector, including the public sector, agriculture, transport (e.g. road vehicles, shipping and aviation), and construction and building (sometimes relating to a perceived need for sectoral targets).
Key indicators of climate change globally (e.g. CO ₂, temperature etc.), and comparative international approaches to tackling this.
Scotland's contribution to supporting developing countries with adapting to the effects of climate change.
Carbon trends, intensity, and all significant aspects of "Scotland's carbon balance sheet".
Economic, social and demographic factors (e.g. opportunities and encouragement to businesses; costs to consumers; and the impact on competitiveness).
Education and information, as well as activity and progress in awareness and behavioural change.
Scientific research, technology developments and opportunities and best practice.

One respondent suggested that a mechanism could be included within the Bill which would enable additional issues to be added at a later date.

4.10 A number of respondents also identified that there should be a duty upon Ministers to report on the emissions implications of any significant Ministerial decisions, policy proposals or new spending plans. Similarly, it was suggested that there should be an immediate duty to report the consequences for relevant emissions of all Ministerial decisions, policy initiatives, programmes or spending plans that could be expected to have an impact on emissions in Scotland or internationally (or which constituted significant decisions). It was also argued that Ministers should be required to provide an explanation to Parliament for any decision to allow increases in emissions, or a level of emissions incompatible with budgets and targets identified in a Strategic Environmental Assessment.

4.11 While the main focus of responses to this question was upon whether, or on what the Scottish Ministers should be required to report, some comments were made on the frequency of reporting, and there was a general preference for annual reporting of most issues wherever possible. Comments were, however, varied, and it was not possible to map requirements to definitive timescales. While, for example, some stated that the issues at 7.7 of the consultation document should be reported annually, a small number suggested more frequent reporting (e.g. of budget issues) while others believed that some issues could be reported on a less frequent basis (e.g. aligned to a budget period or parliamentary cycle), or could involve detailed reporting on a longer cycle, with annual updates (or in one case, an update after 2_ years). A number suggested that explicit progress against the target and sectoral issues should be reported annually, and this sometimes related to a perceived need for annual targets.

Parliamentary scrutiny

14. Is a process of Parliamentary scrutiny the appropriate way of holding the Scottish Government to account if targets or budgets are not met?

4.12 A total of 133 responses addressed this question with organisations again more likely than individuals to do so. This issue was discussed at all of the events, where the balance of comments reflected the general pattern of views outlined below. Overall, amongst respondents who expressed a view, there was a very high level of agreement that a process of Parliamentary scrutiny is the appropriate way of holding the Scottish Government to account if targets or budgets are not met. Almost all respondents agreed that this process has a role to play, although many believed that the process would not be sufficient without being supported through additional arrangements.

4.13 The main reasons given for supporting the process of Parliamentary scrutiny related to views that:

This is an appropriate part of the democratic process.
The issue is of national importance, and Parliamentary scrutiny reflects this and provides high profile emphasis.
The process provides democratic authority and credibility internationally.
It is transparent and puts information in the public domain.
It provides an appropriate method of tracking Ministers' accountability, including enabling continuing action across administrations.
The political consequences of failing to deliver, and the importance of Ministerial credibility, coupled with a robust reporting framework, should help to promote action.

A small number of respondents noted that there were no other obvious means of undertaking this.

4.14 Just under half of those who accepted that the process of Parliamentary scrutiny was appropriate (including one campaign text) suggested that this would not be sufficient in itself, or would need to be supported by other arrangements. As one respondent stated, for example:

"Parliamentary scrutiny is an essential component, but must be matched by strong incentives and effective sanctions to ensure that targets are met, and any failures to meet targets are corrected through restorative action." ( NGO)

4.15 The issues raised most frequently in this context were the perceived need for additional independent scrutiny, and the need for sanctions or other means of enforcement or accountability. In terms of additional, independent scrutiny, the most frequent suggestions related to the involvement of another body, such as an independent committee, an existing body or, in a small number of cases, another new body ²⁵. Other suggestions included additional scrutiny by a range of stakeholders (which might also involve the UK Government or international bodies, NGOs, data and policy analysts, businesses and wider public scrutiny).

4.16 In terms of the need for sanctions or other means of enforcement or accountability, some respondents emphasised the importance of these arrangements in order to give confidence that targets would be achieved and failure to deliver would be corrected, as well as to enhance credibility. In this context, some emphasised the need for mandatory targets or additional (e.g. annual) targets, or for Ministers to come forward with new policies to compensate for any shortfall in the event of failure to meet a target or budget, whatever the cause.

4.17 Suggestions for sanctions or other means of enforcement or accountability included:

Financial penalties or budget sanctions (which could be re-cycled to fund other developments).
Opportunity for legal challenge in court.
Judicial review.
Establishment of a call-in mechanism for new plans, programmes or strategies that would increase greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. so that a Minister would have to justify approval of such a plan programme or strategy to Parliament in advance of giving it the go-ahead).

A small number of respondents suggested that there should be a point at which "jobs should be on the line".

4.18 Some respondents highlighted the difficulties of enforcement of any duties imposed in the Bill, or identified some problems with sanctions. It was argued by some that it was more important to prevent breaches of targets, or that the use of sanctions or legal measures should be a last resort. Some expressed specific concerns that financial penalties might leave insufficient funding to carry out essential work to address climate change.

4.19 A number of respondents identified the possibility of the establishment of a "Climate Fund" or similar (additional to existing funds), whereby any sanctions imposed for missing targets could provide funding for mitigation and / or adaptation in developing countries and / or in Scotland. One respondent suggested that "we should spend at least as much on this as we spend on building roads". While it was acknowledged that the detailed nature of this would require further consideration, some in-depth suggestions were made within some of the responses.

4.20 A small number of respondents believed that Parliamentary scrutiny was not the appropriate way of holding the Scottish Government to account. A very small number of these respondents criticised the actual Parliamentary scrutiny process. The most common view expressed was that scrutiny should be undertaken by an independent body, with appropriate powers. Similarly, a small number of potential drawbacks of Parliamentary scrutiny were identified at two of the events, including: the potential impact of making some issues public; the potential danger of overlooking regional issues; and the demands of information and measurement, which might slow progress (although these concerns did not indicate overall disagreement with Parliamentary scrutiny).

4.21 It was clear from responses to this question that, while there was overall support for Parliamentary scrutiny, a number of respondents identified a role for an independent body in, for example: providing advice about the reporting process; presenting a report to the Scottish Parliament (with the Government providing a response); and in the scrutiny of progress. These issues are explored further in the responses to questions 15-21 below.

Advice to the Scottish Government

15. What should be the primary source of advice to the Scottish Government for setting emissions targets or budgets and why? Options include: the proposed UK Committee on Climate Change, a new Scottish Committee on Climate Change, an existing public body in Scotland, or the Scottish Government itself²⁶.

16. If it were to be an existing Scottish public body, which public body is most suited to carrying out this task and why?

4.22 A total of 160 responses included comments on the primary source of advice to the Scottish Government for setting emissions targets, or the reasons for the choice. There was no detailed discussion of this issue at the events. Among the responses, the majority (slightly over half of all of those which addressed the issue) favoured the use of the proposed UK Committee on Climate Change. Slightly under a third favoured a new Scottish Committee on Climate Change and a very small number identified that this role should be undertaken by an existing public body in Scotland or another body. Some additional respondents suggested that an existing public body or other experts should have some level of involvement, along with the preferred Committee, in the provision of additional advice to the Scottish Government, or in the input of Scottish issues to the UK Committee. Overall, public sector respondents were more likely to favour the UK Committee, while NGOs were more likely to suggest the establishment of a Scottish Committee (or Commission - see 4.28). Individuals were more evenly divided on this issue.

4.23 Where the preference was for the proposed UK Committee as the primary source of advice, the reasons given included:

The international / global nature of climate change.
The existing expertise, capacity and resources within this Committee.
The assumption that there will be sufficient knowledge within the Committee of issues in Scotland.
The independence of the Committee.
The inclusion of activities in, consideration of, and advice to devolved administrations within the remit of the UK Committee.
The need to avoid duplication of work and costs, and the need to work together.
The need for a consistent approach to the factual basis of decisions (seen to be important, for example, for businesses working across the UK and as a means of sharing best practice) and the opportunity for comparison.
The costs of development of a new body, and the need to avoid a new quango.
A lack of appropriate knowledge, expertise and sufficient independence from Government within existing public bodies.
A lack of capacity (resources and / or mix of skills) within existing public bodies.

4.24 Some of those who favoured the UK Committee approach identified that this should be the option adopted in the first instance, but that this should be an interim measure. For example:

"As an interim arrangement use the UK Committee on Climate Change but look to set up a Scottish Committee". (Public sector respondent)

4.25 Some suggested that the Bill should allow for the creation of a new Scottish Committee at a later stage (for example, if distinct, unmet requirements were identified or if it became apparent that the UK Committee did not have sufficient expertise, capacity or resources to carry out the work required from a Scottish perspective). A number emphasised the need to evaluate and review the operation of the UK Committee at some stage, in order to determine whether a Scottish Committee was necessary. It was also proposed that this review should be conducted independently of the Scottish Government (and some identified issues which the review should take into account). A small number suggested that there could be a Scottish Sub-Committee along with the UK Committee, or that a Scottish and UK Committee could both have a role in the process (sometimes with advice from others). Some identified a perceived need for clear mechanisms through which to ensure that the Scottish dimension would be fed into the Committee's considerations.

4.26 Where there was support for a new Scottish Committee on Climate Change, the reason which was given most frequently related to the need to ensure that particular matters relating to Scotland (and areas of Scotland) were effectively addressed, and the view that this would not necessarily be achieved adequately through the use of the UK Committee. Within this, respondents identified differences in Scotland which were seen to necessitate a separate committee, in terms of issues such as: size; political and legal systems; geography; rurality; distance from the rest of Europe; land type and land use; housing stock; population density; potential for renewables; and overall approach (e.g. potentially to targets, gases to be measured etc.).

4.27 Other reasons given to support the need for a new Scottish Committee included:

The need for a Committee independent of the Scottish Government.
The opportunity to maximise action as a devolved power to address Scottish issues.
Improved credibility for the climate change process in Scotland.
A better chain of communication between scientists, policy makers and others.
Greater depth of analysis.
A lack of capacity in the UK Committee to provide Scotland-specific advice, and the view that it would be too focused on UK emissions.

4.28 Closely linked to the suggestions for a Scottish Committee were suggestions from a small number of respondents (largely NGOs) that the Bill should require the establishment of a Scottish "Commission", for many of the same reasons. Detailed suggestions about the model, the potential role of the Commission and the issues on which it could provide advice were given in these responses.

4.29 A number of those who favoured a new Scottish Committee or Commission highlighted a perceived need for this body to work closely with, or have clear links to the UK Committee. For example:

"As the Bill is concerned with Scotland a Scottish Committee drawing on sufficient expertise in climate change issues would be most appropriate. However, linkages would still be needed to the proposed UK Committee reflecting the global nature of climate change." (Public sector respondent)

One respondent also suggested that it should collaborate with similar bodies Europe-wide.

4.30 Some respondents commented on potential members of the Committee, with suggestions including scientific, technical and policy experts in a range of specific areas. The areas of expertise identified included, for example: natural sciences; technology; economics; finance and accounting; land use; energy; forestry; psychology; social science; ecology; international development; horticulture; engineering; emissions trading; climate science; and climate change policy. It was proposed that representatives could be drawn from, for example: academia and other organisations with specialist expertise; industry; existing relevant bodies, including NGOs and environmental groups; members of the Scottish Government; the wider public sector; and the wider public.

4.31 One respondent stated that, if a Scottish Committee was deemed appropriate, they assumed that this would take the form of an expert-supported Parliamentary Committee, with input from appropriate bodies. One suggested that an independent Committee should be accountable to the Scottish Parliament via the Committee system. Two stated that the Committee should not be dominated by particular commercial interests.

4.32 A very small number of additional suggestions were made about the primary source of advice. One trade and professional organisation argued that there should not be one individual body as the primary source, but that there should be wide consultation, with a joint Government and Industry Committee constituted to provide advice to Ministers. Another suggested that experts on the Committee should each be advised by a shadow stakeholder group. A few respondents advocated the development of an advisory group or panel in Scotland. One respondent suggested that the Westminster Government should be the primary source of advice. A small number stated that the Scottish Government or an existing Parliamentary Committee should itself be the primary source of advice, that it should have a role in this or should identify the appropriate source.

4.33 Only a very small number of respondents believed that the primary source of advice should be an existing public body in Scotland, while many stated at questions 15 or 16 that this role belonged with a Committee or Commission. Several also stated explicitly that this role should not be carried out by an existing public body and a small number of these respondents expressed concerns about the implications of a particular public body undertaking this.

4.34 Some believed, however, that there should be some role (albeit generally not as the primary source of advice) for an existing Scottish public body. The two mentioned most frequently were the Sustainable Development Commission ( SDC) Scotland (largely by public bodies) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency ( SEPA), sometimes in combination, or supported by others.

4.35 In relation to SDC Scotland, the reasons given commonly related to its current role, its links to wider networks, its expertise in sustainable development and skills in communicating complex policy issues to a wide audience. SDC Scotland itself identified a number of areas on which its advice could focus. One respondent suggested that SDC Scotland should be given a clear, discrete role exclusive to Scotland, and a strengthened identity, with its role enhanced to embrace climate change. In relation to SEPA, the reasons given also related largely to its existing duties and responsibilities, and to its expertise in some relevant areas (e.g. emissions trading, the impacts of pollution, environmental heritage and air quality monitoring).

4.36 Very small numbers of respondents envisaged a role in the provision of advice for other bodies, but those mentioned (sometimes by only one respondent) included other public bodies (e.g. Scottish Natural Heritage [ SNH]; Audit Scotland; HM Revenue and Customs); other organisations such as the Royal Society of Edinburgh or the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce; existing partnerships, such as the Scottish Climate Change Impacts Partnership; some named academic or research institutions or specialist consultancies; and some trade and professional organisations.

Monitoring progress

17. Which organisation should be tasked with monitoring the progress of the Scottish Government on reducing emissions and why? Options include: the proposed UK Committee on Climate Change, a new Scottish Committee on Climate Change, an existing public body in Scotland, or the Scottish Government itself²⁷.

18. If it were to be an existing Scottish public body, which public body is most suited to carrying out this task and why?

4.37 A similar, although slightly lower number of responses (143) addressed this question as addressed 15 and 16. The issue of the appropriate organisation to carry out monitoring was, however, discussed at most of the events (while there had been little discussion of the provision of advice). The overall broad pattern of responses was similar to that identified at questions 15 and 16, insofar as the largest number of respondents favoured the proposed UK Committee on Climate Change carrying out this role. There was again, however, a number of respondents who expressed support for the formation of a new Scottish Committee or Commission from the outset, and for this body to carry out the monitoring function. Additionally, many of those who identified such a role for the UK Committee suggested that this should be short term, or alongside the potential for review and creation of a new Scottish Committee at a later stage. These differing views were reflected amongst participants in the events.

4.38 Many of the respondents simply referred back to their responses to question 15, and one noted that questions 17-21 seemed to be asking questions which were variations on the same theme, with respondents not always making a clear distinction between the separate functions being considered at the different questions. Some suggested specifically that the same body should have responsibility for monitoring as was the case for the provision of advice, or reiterated the reasons given for their response to question 15, or restated their view of the way in which this should operate, or of the arrangements that should be made. These issues were discussed in previous questions and will not be detailed again here.

4.39 As in question 15, only a very small number of respondents believed that the monitoring role should be carried out by the Scottish Government, or proposed the use of a Parliamentary Committee, and a small number of these respondents stated that this should be done in association with another body. Some respondents identified specifically the need for this function to be carried out independently of the Scottish Government.

4.40 Again, a small number also referred to other suggestions made at question 15, such as the use of a joint Committee, advisory group or panel, or the inclusion of other types of expert or relevant organisation (e.g. industry watchdogs, other public bodies and organisations), or the use of existing monitoring arrangements. It was also suggested at one of the events that there should also be some international monitoring of progress. Only one respondent stipulated that there was no need for monitoring.

4.41 As at questions 15 and 16, a small number of respondents suggested that an existing public body in Scotland should undertake the monitoring function, while a larger number (albeit still small overall) envisaged some sort of involvement (and specific suggestions were made, for example, at the events hosted by Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government). Overall, a slightly higher proportion of respondents to these questions (although still only around a quarter) considered that an existing public body in Scotland should have a role in monitoring than thought that they should have a role in the provision of advice. Although again, some suggested that this role should be carried out alongside a Committee, a small number of respondents (who favoured the new Committee approach as the primary source of advice) believed that the monitoring function should be separate from the functions of the Committee or should rest specifically with an existing public body in Scotland. Again, however, a number of other respondents reiterated their view that monitoring should not be carried out by an existing public body in Scotland.

4.42 Where there was support for an existing public body in Scotland to monitor progress, three bodies were mentioned most often for this role: SEPA, Audit Scotland (and in one case the National Audit Office), and SDC Scotland, with slight differences to the nature of the monitoring role proposed for each. In all cases, however, the numbers who identified a role for these bodies remained small overall.

4.43 Where respondents identified a role for SEPA in monitoring the progress of the Scottish Government in reducing emissions, the reasons given for this related to: the independence of the organisation; SEPA's existing role (e.g. in relation to administering the Scottish Pollution Release Inventory and the EUETS, and other aspects of its functions); and its existing relevant expertise. Some stated that SEPA's monitoring role should feed into, or be overseen by another body (which some suggested should be the new Committee or a Parliamentary Committee). Some also argued that the monitoring role was distinct from the provision of advice on policy or targets, and was a data gathering task requiring scientific scrutiny. One respondent stated that SEPA should also be mandated to encourage best practice. Some also believed that there may be a requirement for new powers for SEPA to enable the organisation to compile data from sectors such as transport and land use, or for a duty to be placed on all other relevant bodies to co-operate with SEPA or provide the evidence required. It was also suggested that SEPA could call together a new Scottish Committee on Climate Change.

4.44 Where respondents identified a role for Audit Scotland, the reasons for this related to: the impartiality of the organisation and perceived lack of political interference in their work; the existing role and knowledge of the Scottish public sector; and the opportunity for the separation of the functions of target setting and monitoring. Some made comments on the nature of the role, such as providing an independent audit of data collated by the Scottish Government, taking an overview of carbon management in organisations or tracking the effectiveness of public sector spending in delivering emissions reductions. One respondent suggested that it is essential that Audit Scotland's role is to check public sector performance against targets, rather than to set the targets or to collect data on emissions. Another stated that Audit Scotland should have a role if the approach taken in Scotland differs from that in the wider UK. Another proposed that it should have an ombudsman role, giving the public a channel for complaints. A number of respondents believed that there should be a duty upon regulatory bodies, including Audit Scotland and others, to consider climate change as part of their statutory duties. As with SEPA, it was suggested that there may be a need for input or support from other organisations.

4.45 Where respondents identified a monitoring role for SDC Scotland, the reasons for this related to its existing role and expertise in reviewing policy relating to sustainable development, and it was argued that this would ensure that climate change measures were included in sustainable development considerations. SDC Scotland's perceived role, in this case, was sometimes seen to relate to the provision of independent advice about the effectiveness of policy, and overall scrutiny or review (discussed further below). Some suggested that this role should be in combination with, or supported by others (e.g. through gathering other expert views), or should involve input to a body with overall responsibility for oversight. It was also stated that its remit would need to be extended to reflect the role. One respondent, however, considered that it was important that SDC Scotland should retain its general overview of sustainable development and should not become tightly focused on this area of work. Another suggested that SDC Scotland could chair a new Scottish Committee.

Scrutinising policies

19. Should additional independent mechanisms for scrutinising the effectiveness of the Scottish Government's policies in reducing emissions be created by the Bill (in addition to any scrutiny already provided by the Scottish Parliament)²⁸?

20. If so, which organisation is best placed to carry out this function and why? Options include a new Scottish Committee on Climate Change or an existing public body in Scotland.

21. If it were to be an existing Scottish public body, which public body is most suited to carrying out this task and why?

4.46 A total of 119 responses addressed the question of whether additional independent mechanisms for scrutinising the effectiveness of the Scottish Government's policies in reducing emissions should be created by the Bill, with organisations more likely than individuals to comment (although under half of organisations provided a response). This issue was discussed at three of the events. Amongst respondents who provided a view, more than two thirds stated or implied that they believed additional independent mechanisms for scrutiny to be required (including participants at the three events where this was discussed). This links to the finding presented at question 14, where just under half of those who accepted that the process of Parliamentary scrutiny was appropriate suggested that this would not be sufficient in itself, or would need to be supported by other arrangements. Some of these respondents identified (at question 14) a perceived need for additional mechanisms for independent scrutiny.

4.47 When the need for additional independent mechanisms for scrutinising the effectiveness of the Scottish Government's policies in reducing emissions (in addition to any scrutiny already provided by the Scottish Parliament) was explored specifically at question 19, this also provided evidence of considerable support for such mechanisms. This was found amongst respondents of most types (with the limited exception of academic and research institutions, which were evenly split).

4.48 Amongst the reasons given for the perceived need for additional independent mechanisms were that:

Scrutiny (and additional independent scrutiny) are important in providing transparency, accountability and credibility.
Parliamentary scrutiny, while appropriate, is insufficient alone.
Party politics can influence Parliamentary scrutiny.
There are uncertainties about data, which can be subject to manipulation if not scrutinised independently, and such scrutiny brings additional expertise to the process.
Independent scrutiny can help to provide continuity.
Such scrutiny can help to steer action towards a goal, can help to identify problems, and can provide clarity and consistency.
This can also assist with making the information available at community level, beyond Parliamentary debate.

4.49 As was the case at question 14, some respondents also highlighted the need for the Bill to make provision for additional sanctions and enforcement mechanisms, and these will not be reiterated here. The need for the Bill to contain sufficient flexibility to develop additional mechanisms for independent scrutiny in the future, should these be required, was also suggested. For example:

"The Bill should allow for any such mechanisms to be provided in the future if the evidence of implementing the Bill suggests they would be necessary". ( NGO)

4.50 Where respondents stated specifically that there should not be any additional independent mechanisms for scrutiny, some stated that they believed the existing mechanisms to be sufficient. Although some referred directly to Parliamentary scrutiny (or Parliamentary scrutiny supported by input or information from others), it seems from comments that some respondents considered an independent committee ( UK or Scotland) to be an element of the arrangements which they considered sufficient, and that they were commenting on whether there was a need for mechanisms additional to this, rather than additional to the scrutiny provided by the Scottish Parliament alone. Other reasons given why there should not be additional mechanisms included a need to avoid additional bureaucracy, the current availability of sufficient information for wider public scrutiny and the need to focus on other actions more urgently.

4.51 In terms of which organisation was seen to be best placed to carry out these functions, some respondents did not provide additional information, or again reiterated that their views were covered in answers to previous questions. Most again favoured a role for a new UK or Scottish Committee or Commission, with the Bill identifying the requirement or powers for the relevant body to undertake this, or to enable the body to commission independent external scrutiny. A small number of respondents made specific suggestions about this role, including, for example, that the Scottish Government should be required to undertake a policy audit and provide a statutory report to the Committee, or that the Committee itself should produce a country report or similar. It was also suggested that the Scottish Ministers should be required to justify in writing any of their decisions which go against the advice of the Committee.

4.52 A smaller proportion of respondents, however, identified the UK Committee in this scrutiny role than identified a role for this body in the provision of advice or monitoring, but this may partly reflect that only around half as many respondents commented on which organisation is best placed to carry out this function as addressed question 15, and that the UK Committee was not offered as an option in the question. Where reasons for the choices made were given, these tended to reflect the comments made in the preceding questions about the need for, or potential role of these bodies, and they will not be reiterated here. A small number of respondents, however, stipulated specifically that the scrutiny role should remain separate from the role of the Committee.

4.53 Whatever their view of the need for additional independent mechanisms for scrutiny, a number of respondents (many of which were public sector respondents) identified a role in the overall scrutiny process for existing public bodies in Scotland (instead of, or along with, another body). Again, however, some other respondents stated explicitly that these organisations should not have such a role.

4.54 A small number of respondents identified other organisations and stakeholders as having some input to scrutiny, as was the case in responses to previous questions, and some similar types of suggestions were made (as well as the Church of Scotland, suggested by one respondent). Some identified that a range of organisations should be involved in this, or proposed new arrangements (including, for example, a body of experts, a new Commissioner, an independent panel, an Ombudsman or similar, or a new Scottish Climate Change Audit Organisation or Board).

4.55 In relation to question 21, and the identification of which existing public body would be most suited to the task of independent scrutiny, two existing public bodies were mentioned most frequently as having a role to play. These were Audit Scotland and SDC Scotland. A very small number of respondents mentioned a scrutiny role for SEPA.

4.56 Where Audit Scotland was identified as having a role, the reasons focused largely upon its existing role in the scrutiny of Government policy and activities, and the organisation's knowledge and expertise in the public sector. It was suggested that this role could involve carrying out an independent audit of information collated by the Scottish Government, carrying out some of the investigative tasks, or taking an overview of the effectiveness of policies and their implementation by public (and, as one respondent advocated, private) sector organisations. It was also suggested that Audit Scotland could be assisted or supported in the role by other organisations, or might input to a wider scrutiny process.

4.57 Where SDC Scotland was identified as having a role, the reasons for this related largely to its current scrutiny role for the Scottish Government (in assessing and reporting on its delivery on sustainable development) and its expertise. It was argued that this role might involve providing comment on specific issues (relating to the interface between climate change and sustainable development), scrutinising the effectiveness of the supporting framework in delivering the targets, reviewing the advice and information from different parts of Government on the effectiveness of various emissions policies, or feeding into the overall process. It was also considered that support from other bodies or organisations with its role in independent scrutiny might be required.

4.58 In the small number of cases where SEPA was identified as having a potential role in independent scrutiny, this was again linked to its existing role (in terms of monitoring), and tended to be viewed in terms of providing independent information to feed into a wider scrutiny process. One respondent suggested that it may be appropriate to have different scrutiny arrangements for different sectors, with a two-level approach.

Arm's length functions

22. Are there any other functions related to climate change, existing or new, which should be carried out at arm's length from the Scottish Government and why?

4.59 Under a quarter of all responses addressed this issue (69), with organisations more likely to do so than individuals. This issue was not addressed specifically in the events. Of those who did address this issue, the majority believed that there were other functions related to climate change which should be carried out at arm's length from the Scottish Government. Some made comments on the reasons for this, such as the importance of independence (and one respondent expressed the view that some current public bodies were not sufficiently independent); the credibility and weight of expertise from relevant organisations; the scope and seriousness of the issues; the difficult nature of the decisions which need to be made; and the need for continuity which is independent of political changes.

4.60 In terms of the nature of the functions, some respondents did not provide specific details of what these should be, or suggested generally that all advisory, monitoring, scrutiny and accountability mechanisms should be at arm's length, for example:

"We believe that all advisory, monitoring, scrutiny and accountability mechanisms ought to be carried out at a clear arm's length from the Scottish Government." (Trade and Professional organisation)

4.61 A small number of respondents suggested that the issue could be considered in the future. Suggestions included that the Bill could make provision to add arm's length functions or develop new independent mechanisms at a later stage, and that this issue could be an early agenda item for a new Committee, or:

"… should be examined in detail when setting up the new Scottish Climate Change Committee". (Individual)

4.62 Some respondents made general comments stating that many of the actions required would have to be carried out by other authorities and agencies (e.g. local authorities and community planning partnerships), as well as directly by the Scottish Government. One respondent advocated that all regulatory bodies should have a duty to subscribe to the Bill's intentions. Another suggested that, in order to avoid setting up additional bodies, any new functions identified should be carried out by existing bodies. Where more specific areas of work were identified as arm's length functions, these were generally mentioned by small numbers of respondents, but several possible areas were highlighted.

4.63 Some respondents identified research as a function which should be carried out at arm's length. Although some made general comments about the need for this, a number of examples were given of particular issues on which research should be undertaken (at various points in responses to the consultation, whether or not being highlighted specifically as arm's length functions). In this context, suggestions included:

The identification of gaps in research or omissions in approach or efficiency of monitoring.
The accumulation, assessment, collation or reporting of data and inventories.
Lifestyle emissions calculations of different energy sources and electricity generating methods (if used).
Improvements to monitoring and evaluation of emissions and associated reduction.
Aspects of the impact of targets.
Land use change and management, and potential opportunities to diversify land management.
The development of technology.

4.64 Some also suggested organisations which might be involved in such work, such as the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research ( SNIFFER); the Royal Society of Edinburgh ( RSE); an independent group; partnerships of Scottish research groups; the Met Office; or a UK body.

4.65 Some aspects of target-setting and budgeting were also identified by a small number of respondents as possible arm's length functions. For example, it was proposed that targets for the Scottish Government should be set at arm's length. Two NGOs suggested that setting any interest rate for emissions borrowing, as well as exchange rates for international credits should be arm's length functions. The assessment of targets (although perhaps covered in monitoring and scrutiny) was also highlighted.

4.66 A further area identified related to aspects of environmental work, and issues identified for arm's length consideration included: coping with environmental challenge and threat (which it was suggested could be carried out by academic and agricultural institutions); the possibility of environmental measures; examination of the achievement of environmental standards, in terms of their total impact; and examination of the impact of changes to land use on climate change. One respondent considered that independent advice and scrutiny on adaptation issues could be provided by the UK Adaptation Sub-Committee.

4.67 A small number of respondents identified the production and assessment of a strategic plan as an arm's length function, with the suggestion that this would give such a plan the widest credibility.

4.68 Some additional functions relating to overall reporting and review were identified, and some suggested that reporting should be carried out at arm's length (although this could perhaps be seen to link to the advice, monitoring or scrutiny roles already identified). A small number considered that reviews of implementation of specific policies (e.g. staff transport, energy efficiency, renewables etc.) should be carried out at arm's length. It was also suggested that, while the Scottish Government should provide feedback on progress to stakeholders, additional feedback and independent analysis should also be provided by an arm's length organisation. A review of whether the reporting and scrutiny framework is working satisfactorily was also highlighted as a function which should be carried out by an independent organisation.

4.69 The opportunity for leadership and direction to be provided at arm's length was also identified by a small number of public sector respondents. More specifically, it was suggested that a Scottish Steering Group on Climate Change (comprising high level decision makers from Scottish Government, local authorities, the voluntary sector and the private sector) could provide leadership which could result in a range of actions. It would also provide the opportunity for those involved to bring about change in their own organisations and to enable them to act as "champions" in tackling climate change.

4.70 Additional suggestions relevant to leadership and direction involved the creation of an agency with national status to address energy efficiency, the creation of a forum where national and local policy, practice and targets come together; and the establishment of local task groups involving a range of stakeholders (e.g. under community planning) to suggest and take forward actions. It was also advocated that the work being undertaken through the Sustainable Scotland Network in six areas (leadership, legislation, support programmes, culture change, scrutiny and resources) should be supported. Other groups or networks identified which were also seen to need to be enabled to establish direction and provide guidance were the Climate Change Business Delivery Group and the Scottish Climate Change Impacts Partnership ( SCCIP).

4.71 A number of other suggestions were made for functions which should be carried out at arm's length (although it was not always clear whether these were proposed as actual arm's length functions, or areas in which there may be a need for further scrutiny by an independent body). The suggestions made included:

The provision of independent advice on a range of specific issues (although, again, this may be covered by the overall advice function).
Adaptation assessments.
Identification and evaluation of areas in which there is a need to better relate decision making to the need to minimise emissions (e.g. where it is considered that understanding is not comprehensive, or an integrated approach is needed).
Consideration of major transport developments.
Setting policy on nuclear generation.
Public engagement.
Aspects of public education and information.
Setting carbon tariffs.
Advising on an appropriate interest rate for any borrowing from future budgets.
Advising on an appropriate discount rate for the use of international credits.
Local taxation and the integration of energy / resource efficiency incentives.
Enforcement of any duties upon public sector bodies.
Anything involving compulsion on the general public by the Scottish Government or a local authority.

4.72 In the small number of cases in which respondents did not consider that there were particular additional functions which should be carried out at arm's length from the Scottish Government, the reasons given were that: the Scottish Government should take the lead on these issues; existing functions should be supported and strengthened; and the existing proposals for a new Committee would be adequate.

Other issues relating to the reporting and scrutiny framework

4.73 A number of respondents made additional comments relating to the reporting and scrutiny framework overall. As noted previously, a number of respondents stressed the general importance of clear and robust reporting and scrutiny. Some stressed the link between reporting and scrutiny and the delivery of action against the target. Some stressed that these processes need to be based upon sound scientific advice, and a small number suggested that the processes could be subject to review. The importance of the Bill providing clarity about the overall roles and responsibilities of those involved in reporting and scrutiny, the arrangements and any sanctions or enforcement mechanisms was identified by some respondents.

4.74 Some additional comments focused on aspects of the general nature of reporting requirements, with suggestions including that reports should be clear and unambiguous and set within the overall context of UK, European and international performance. It was also suggested that there could be a process of assessment and review of the reporting and scrutiny requirements, to allow for changing circumstances. A small number of respondents also advocated that there should be an oral statement to Parliament alongside a written report, and the importance of openness and public availability of the information and debate were also identified by some.

4.75 Comments were also made on the nature of Parliamentary arrangements for reporting and scrutiny, with suggestions including: the establishment of a permanent Parliamentary subject Committee; the identification of a member of each existing Committee with specific responsibility for climate change issues; and the identification of overall responsibility for reporting by the Scottish Ministers as resting with the First Minister. It was also argued that the effectiveness of the process will be closely linked to a robust reporting system and, in the view of some respondents, the development of a clear strategy and plans. One respondent noted the apparent lack of a specific duty on Scottish Ministers to achieve the targets and budgets.

4.76 Some of the comments reiterated points made about the measurement of targets, but focused upon measurement in the context of reporting, highlighting issues such as a need for consistent, scientifically-based data and a robust approach. One respondent suggested that the means of assessing emissions should be consistent with international standards and aligned closely to the methodology used by the UK Committee. It was stated that there is perhaps a need for other, or faster forms of data gathering in Scotland to complement the current greenhouse gas emissions inventories, to support reporting and scrutiny. It was also suggested that a common reporting standard would be required, and a common measurement framework. As already noted in Section 2, a number of tools and methods were proposed. One respondent suggested a process of peer review of emissions factors by academics.

4.77 The need for transparency of the different aspects of the reporting and scrutiny framework process overall was emphasised by a number of respondents, along with the importance and potential impact of the involvement of the public and other stakeholders. In this context, some expressed the view that it will be important to ensure that information is made publicly available. It was stated that the information should be clear, authoritative and easy to understand.

4.78 General comments were also made about the nature and operation of any bodies involved in the provision of advice, monitoring or scrutiny. The importance of their independence, objectivity and expertise was stressed. It was also suggested that there should not be unnecessary duplication or a bureaucratic burden created, and that the processes should not hinder the delivery of action. It was argued that any bodies involved should have sufficient power and status and should be properly resourced, as should the reporting and scrutiny process overall. Some specific concerns were expressed about the current capacity of existing public bodies to undertake additional advice, monitoring or scrutiny functions and some highlighted the potential need to extend their capacity, remit and / or resources if they were to undertake these functions. In some cases, it was also suggested that there may be a need for the development of additional skills amongst staff, or additional staff to fulfil such a role. Some suggestions were also made relating to the procedure for issues relating to membership of any new body (focusing again on the need for independence, transparency and scrutiny).

4.79 The issue of the provision of incentives was also raised in the context of reporting and scrutiny, with the suggestion that these are required alongside the measures explored in this section. Some respondents also identified the links between reporting by the Scottish Ministers, Parliamentary scrutiny, and arrangements for reporting and scrutiny at a local level ²⁹.

Summary of issues: Reporting and Scrutiny Framework

The issues raised about the reporting and scrutiny framework can be summarised as follows:

In relation to question 13, examining whether the Scottish Ministers should be required to report on any other issues related to climate change in addition to the requirements already set out, almost all of the respondents agreed, although it was not always clear which requirements were additional to those in the consultation document. Overall, however, there was a very high level of support for a requirement upon the Scottish Ministers to report, and there was a general preference for annual reporting of most issues wherever possible (although it was not possible to map requirements to definitive timescales).
Most provided information about the types of issues which they considered should be included in reporting requirements. Several suggested that all, or most of the options in paragraphs 7.2 and 7.4 - 7.7 of the consultation document should be included. Some identified additional issues relating to: progress; reasons for failure or change; planned work; costs; sectoral issues; global trends and developments; economic, social and demographic factors; education, information, awareness and behavioural change; and research, technology and best practice. A number advocated a duty on Ministers to report on the emissions implications of any significant Ministerial decisions, policy proposals or new spending plans, or to explain to Parliament any decision to allow emissions incompatible with a Strategic Environmental Assessment.
In relation to question 14, examining whether a process of Parliamentary scrutiny is the appropriate way of holding the Scottish Government to account if targets or budgets are not met, there was a very high level of agreement with this. Almost all agreed that this process has a role to play, although just under half of these respondents suggested that this would not be sufficient in itself, or would need to be supported by other arrangements, and the issues raised most frequently were the perceived need for additional independent scrutiny, and the need for sanctions or other means of enforcement or accountability.
In relation to questions 15 and 16, exploring the primary source of advice to the Scottish Government for setting emissions targets or budgets, slightly over half of those who addressed this issue favoured the use of the proposed UK Committee on Climate Change. Slightly under a third favoured a new Scottish Committee (and some a Scottish Commission on Climate Change).
Many of those who favoured the UK Committee approach identified that this should be adopted in the first instance as an interim measure, or that the Bill should allow for the creation of a new Scottish Committee at a later stage (for example, if distinct, unmet requirements were identified or if it became apparent that the UK Committee did not have sufficient expertise, capacity or resources to carry out the work required from a Scottish perspective).
A very small number of respondents believed that the primary source of advice should be an existing public body in Scotland. Some believed that there should be some role (albeit generally not as the primary source of advice) for an existing Scottish public body. The two mentioned most frequently were SDC Scotland and SEPA, sometimes in combination, or supported by others.
In relation to questions 17 and 18, exploring which organisation should be tasked with monitoring the progress of the Scottish Government on reducing emissions, the largest number of respondents again favoured the proposed UK Committee on Climate Change carrying out this role. A number of other respondents expressed support for the formation of a new Scottish Committee or Commission from the outset, and for this body to carry out the monitoring function. Additionally, many of those who identified a monitoring role for the UK Committee suggested that this should be short term, or alongside the potential for the creation of a new Scottish Committee at a later stage.
Overall, a slightly higher proportion of respondents to these questions (although still only around a quarter) suggested that an existing public body in Scotland should have a role in this function. Three bodies were mentioned relatively frequently for such a role: SEPA, Audit Scotland (and in one case the National Audit Office), and SDC Scotland.
In relation to questions 19-21, exploring whether the Bill should create additional independent mechanisms for scrutinising the effectiveness of the Scottish Government's policies in reducing emissions (in addition to any scrutiny already provided by the Scottish Parliament), more than two thirds of those who expressed a view believed additional independent mechanisms for scrutiny to be required. Some also highlighted the need for the Bill to make provision for additional sanctions and enforcement mechanisms.
In terms of which organisation was seen to be best placed to carry out the scrutiny functions, most again favoured a role for a new UK or Scottish Committee or Commission. Fewer mentioned the UK Committee as being best placed to undertake this role than was the case for advice and monitoring (although this may partly reflect that a lower number of respondents commented on this, and that the UK Committee was not offered as an option in this question). A number of respondents saw a role in the overall scrutiny process for existing public bodies in Scotland (instead of, or along with, another body) and the two mentioned most frequently were Audit Scotland and SDC Scotland.
In relation to question 22, exploring whether there are any other functions related to climate change which should be carried out at arm's length from the Scottish Government, the majority of those who addressed this believed that this was the case.
Although some respondents did not provide specific details of what these should be, or proposed generally that all advisory, monitoring, scrutiny and accountability mechanisms should be at arm's length from the Scottish Government, some suggested more specifically that they should include: research; some aspects of target-setting and budgeting; aspects of environmental work; the production and assessment of a strategic plan; some additional functions relating to overall reporting and review; leadership and direction; and consideration of some specific issues or actions.
A number of respondents made additional comments relating to the reporting and scrutiny framework overall, including issues such as:
- The importance of clear and robust reporting and scrutiny.
- The general nature of reporting requirements.
- The nature of Parliamentary arrangements for reporting and scrutiny.
- Measurement issues.
- The need for transparency.
- The nature and operation of any bodies involved in the provision of advice, monitoring or scrutiny.
- The provision of incentives.

« Previous | Contents | Next »

The Scottish Government

Publications

On this page: