Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a general sense that, if the monitoring and on-going evaluation are correct and transparent, there should be no surprises in the reports that come from the Climate Change Committee every two years. Transparency, along with clear, dynamic and on-going monitoring, will help to reduce the need for big set-piece reports that tell us every now and again to do something, and we should be able to take corrective action at an earlier stage. That is the general sense that I am getting from the evidence that we have heard today and from what you are saying.

Thank you.

It was touched on by Bob Doris. It was that the Climate Change Committee suggested—if I am reflecting it correctly—that it would probably look to report on progress twice during the period of a five-year carbon budget. That was in the correspondence that the Scottish Government received from it in May.

I want to get witnesses’ views on the Climate Change Committee’s current plan for reporting on progress against the Government’s carbon budget and climate change plan. Is it sufficiently frequent or should reporting be more frequent than every two years or twice during the five-year period? Do you have a view on that?

So, in your view, if we set a five-year carbon budget and there are external factors that have a direct impact on that, there should be a clear reporting mechanism for the Scottish Government to identify the factors that are impacting on the delivery of the budget and quantify the impact that those factors are having on the budget in trying to achieve the objectives.

That is helpful, because my impression was that the published climate change plan would be a final document.

However, there will be an external consultation exercise on a draft climate change plan, which the committee will be able to engage with.

The main point that I want to come to is on five-year carbon budgeting. The committee has had written and oral evidence about the pros and cons of moving to five-year carbon budgets. One of the concerns around the five-year carbon budget process is the risk that we could go through a five-year period before we come to a point where we realise that we are not making sufficient progress and have failed to achieve what we intended to in that five-year period, because we have moved away from annual targets.

Some other jurisdictions have put in place a mechanism that allows on-going scrutiny and accountability around progress that has been made during the five-year period of the carbon budget. What are the Scottish Government’s plans to put in place, with the carbon budgets, a process that allows us to have a clear line of sight on the progress that has been made in individual policy areas? Once the carbon budget is in place, how do you intend to facilitate that on an on-going basis?

That is helpful. Given that carbon budgeting will require greater buy-in from individual portfolios and greater budget allocations in order to meet their sectoral responsibility, do you envisage a process in the annual reporting that will allow us to see the progress that has been made in individual portfolios against the target that they should be looking to achieve?

You could, though. That is the point. You may say that you will not do that, but you could. Potentially, developments could accumulate over five years if there is not a legal obligation to take clear corrective action to get things back on course in the way in which section 36 requires.

I am not arguing that point. I am making a point about the legal corrective action that you are obliged to undertake at the moment. Where good-faith actors are seeking to achieve those targets, they will obviously take that work forward. From the Parliament’s point of view, should someone—or a Government—not be a good-faith actor in pursuing those targets, there is no legal lever to require them to take the corrective action.

I am just posing a question. I understand, from the evidence that we received earlier, that in Germany, if it is clear, for two successive years, that a gap is opening up, there is a requirement for the Government to bring forward its equivalent of a section 36 report in order to show what corrective action it is taking. That does not need to happen every year; potentially, within a five-year carbon budget, that would happen a maximum of twice. Is there a need for a legal framework that forces corrective action when it is clear that not enough is being done? Is there a need for a provision in the legislation that would help to facilitate that and give Parliament reassurance?