Seòmar agus comataidhean

Why has it not been updated before now?

Thank you for that and for the interesting and sobering report. I should say that I am not particularly thrilled by the introduction of acronyms such as LULUCF, which means land use, land use change and forestry, although it is clearly important. As you have just pointed out, there is a disproportionate cost to Scotland compared to the cost to the rest of the UK. In paragraph 21 of the report, you point out that the cost in Scotland per person per year of the investment in mitigation is £207, whereas in the rest of the UK it is £149, which is a £58 difference. However, you point out that £54 of that £58 is simply because of land use, land use change and forestry.

Given that that is a huge additional burden to fall on Scotland over many years, should consideration be given to the devolved settlement through the block grant to take that into account?

I have one more question before I open it up to colleagues around the table. When can we expect an updated financial memorandum with more accurate costings?

But that would be unacceptable to the committee, so when can we have it?

Yes, indeed. There is 43 per cent public share in Scotland, which is quite a lot.

Colleagues want to come in, so I will ask a final question, which is regarding the offshore energy industry. Forty-three per cent of UK oil and gas jobs are located in Scotland, so what challenges does that present for moving to a just transition and net zero?

Definitions are also important. You have said:

“The UK and Scottish Governments should articulate their plans on how to achieve net zero and what level of public spending will be required.”

You go on to say:

“We recommend that spend on mitigation and adaptation be identifiable in budget documentation and outturn so that spending plans can be linked to delivered spending.”

How do we define what is spent on climate mitigation? There is a temptation for people to say that a job is a green job when it may be somewhat more tenuous to another eye, for example. Do you think that there must be agreement between Scotland and the UK on the language that is used, so that they are not talking about different things when looking at those aspects?

Is it disproportionate?

Have you no other sources of information? You were clearly aware of it. I thought that there would at least have been an inflationary uplift over the past 18 months, even given your caveat about submissions from Police Scotland and others.

Thank you very much. That has concluded questions from the committee, but I have one or two more.

You seem to have more or less accepted Police Scotland’s figures now that it has provided them. What level of interrogation of those figures has the bill team undertaken?

I have to say, though, that I am frankly astonished that it seems that it was only when the committee’s call for evidence went out that you realised that there was a need to review the figures, and yet we still ended up with figures from September 2022.

We talked about the process document—the bill handbook—being a living document. However, surely, a financial memorandum should be a living document up until it is presented to the committee in an updated form. If you know that the figures are inaccurate, the fact that you come here with something that bears no resemblance to the actual figures shows a real misunderstanding of the role of the committee, the processes of the Parliament and, indeed, the timescale in which scrutiny has to take place. Do you accept that?