Seòmar agus comataidhean

Basically, my question is this: is this approach going to be mainstreamed in Government by next year?

None of that got us close to the 2030 target, though, did it? Where do we need to accelerate action?

What are those areas?

To be clear, if we move forward into a new system—and we have budgets, and an element of section 36 reporting is still there if we are failing to meet the terms of the budget—do you think that what the Government has presented is adequate?

I will come back to you, Neil Langhorn. To be absolutely clear, is this the way that we are going to continue? Is it appropriate that we continue along this way, or are we looking at having a much more detailed level of information?

Okay. If no one has any other thoughts, I will hand back to the convener.

I am wondering where the big mystery is with the climate change plan. The UK Climate Change Committee has given the Government advice for a number of years. It has set out what the pathway to 2045 looks like. You have had annual advice from the UK CCC. What it will present next spring will not focus primarily on the next climate change plan but on the plans to follow on the route to 2045. What is the gap? What is the big mystery? Surely the Government must have already mapped out the pathway towards the next target and the next budget. It will have a clear idea about what actions are needed in particular sectors, from transport to agriculture to energy. As you say, none of that is a mystery.

Given that this is a living document—a living piece of work in Government—why can it not be shared with the committee ahead of our effectively changing the legislation, ditching the 2030 and 2040 targets and moving to a completely new system of budget setting? Why can that not be revealed? What is the big mystery here?

I have a supplementary question on something else. I was reflecting on the number of carbon budgets that could be proposed, particularly next year, if the bill goes through and we have our first carbon budget. In evidence last week, the CCC suggested that the Government could bring forward three carbon budgets, which would cover a much longer period. Do you have any quick reflections on that? Catherine Higham is nodding.

It is welcome that you are prepared to look at that again, cabinet secretary, because we seem to be in a chicken-and-egg situation. The UK CCC’s clear advice at committee last week was that the draft plan needs to be available at the same time that you are considering a draft budget. Perhaps, with reflection, that was an issue in 2019. We did not have a sense of what a clear plan to get to the 2030 target looked like, but we were still having to set a 2030 target in this Parliament.

I would like a bit more clarity from you about how you see the draft plan working with the carbon budget, because, in an ideal world—this is what the CCC asked Government to do last week—you would bring the two things together. You would have what is achievable and have the necessary budget alongside that. Perhaps those are the two important things; that alignment is critical.

You are saying that the bill is introducing a level of flexibility, which might have some advantages in ramping up programmes and change, but there is nothing to hang things on, ultimately, apart from the 2045 target. There is a risk of failure, unless the action is really pegged down.

Will ESS formally write to the Scottish Government about the adequacy of the section 36 report?