³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

It does.

My follow-up question relates to the climate change people’s panel. Its members were not big on long-winded policies and strategies—they wanted policy to be short, simple and easy to understand. That is similar to what the First Minister has said about having more concrete actions and fewer lengthy strategies.

What the people’s panel has said, therefore, chimes with the First Minister’s intention in that regard. In the light of that, what consideration have you given to adopting policy in that way to make it as easy as possible for all of us to do what we need to do to meet our climate change commitments? I am thinking of bite-sized chunks and policies that are easy to action, rather than referencing strategies and policy documents with long-winded narratives. People with busy lives want the answers or options put in front of them in bite-sized chunks that they can act on. That was a call from the people’s panel. Are you considering that?

When additional duties, responsibilities and accountabilities are placed on public bodies, the answer that we get from the Government all the time is that existing resources will suffice to cover those. Saying that is, therefore, not an unexpected step, but how will the Scottish Government ensure that the body is sufficiently funded going forward? What monitoring process is in place to make sure that there will be no additional burdens? We have been given reassurances that there will not be, but will there be on-going monitoring of the funds of the organisation and would it approach the Government if it felt that it needed additional resource?

Like Jackie Dunbar, I have been listening intently. I am wondering whether the relationship with enforcement is not so much about the amount of the fine as about having effective enforcement in the first place. If someone throws something out of a car window knowing that they could be fined £80, they are pretty unlikely to do it. Likewise at £500. However, if they throw something out of the window thinking that they will not be detected, the size of the fine might not be the underlying deterrent. The deterrent is that you may be caught and a fine may be levied. What is your consideration of that point?

This is really just for clarity. I am sure that you are not suggesting that we should employ more police officers simply to have a force for detecting people throwing litter out of car windows. There may be other uses for police resources.

I apologise, convener. I was just—

I have a comment, convener, which I think it is appropriate for me to make at this stage. I am not remotely seeking to undermine your role as convener. You mentioned how the committee feels about the evidence that we have heard, and we will convene in private to discuss and reflect on that. I would not want a narrative to be given in public as regards what the committee considers our position to be before we finish the evidence session and then come to a considered view as a committee. I think that it is appropriate to put that on the record, because we are in danger of painting a narrative that not all of us will share.

Yes, they are.

My question follows on from Monica Lennon’s question about one-stop shops being able to advise home owners on what they can do. I will take a slight segue: as part of the committee’s post-legislative scrutiny work and efforts on deliberative democracy, we convened a people’s panel to make some recommendations about how we could do more on climate action and climate change.

One of the things that the panel wanted to see in relation to climate action was a one-stop shop for members of the public—not just home owners—to go to for advice on what they can do to make a real difference on climate change. I am conscious that £4.3 million was available for climate action hubs last year; it is £5.5 million this year. I have just checked this on my phone: that is £450,000 for Glasgow alone. I was a wee bit unaware of Glasgow’s hub, but I will go and find out more about it, now that I am more aware of it.

How do we ensure that we get value for money for that spend? How do we ensure that the hub is well connected in every community? There is no point spending close to half a million pounds in Glasgow if communities are not aware of the hub’s existence. I sit on this committee, but I was not aware of it—although that is remiss of me, of course.

Kersti, could I roll something else into that, as a follow-up question, rather than coming in again later? For me, not as an MSP but just as a citizen of Glasgow, if I am at a local sports centre or health centre—or wherever I go—that is where I want the information made available to me. It is a matter of ensuring that climate action hubs are accessible to as many people as possible, and that information goes to the people, rather than have people go to the information.

There is also the issue of longer-term funding, but that is probably a question for the cabinet secretary rather than for you, Kersti. The people’s panel was hoping for a longer-term commitment to allow the hubs to develop their networks and expertise.

Okay—thank you.

My question has been mostly answered, but it gives me an opportunity to use an acronym that I was not aware existed until preparing for today’s meeting: LULUCF—land use, land-use change and forestry.

The cabinet secretary alluded to the Fiscal Commission’s report. That states that it is 40 per cent per person more expensive to meet our climate obligations in Scotland because of the nature of our landscape. That is where a bit of partnership working with the UK Government is perhaps needed so that we—that is, Scotland but also the wider UK—can do everything that we need to. Have there been any discussions in relation to that to date? If Scotland does reforesting and peatland restoration well, will that help the UK to meet its overall climate change targets? Is that a joint endeavour?