Seòmar agus comataidhean

You also cannot bind any post-2026 Government anyway. I am conscious that, even after an election, legislation tends to get pushed back as committees are established and priorities are set. That is helpful, thank you.

However, that legislative change would not happen before the end of 2026.

I am conscious that that matter is not necessarily entirely within your portfolio responsibilities. However, like any good Government, you would always want to learn lessons from experience and build on those. I have no doubt that, if the Government felt that there was a more appropriate mechanism in the future, it would want to introduce that.

I have no problem with taking further evidence on the issue, but my overarching concern is that if we were to annul these regulations, there would be no pathway for bus franchising. If the view is that the existing and, indeed, additional safeguard that was put into the legislation at the time is not enough—that is, the provision relating to the traffic commissioner, which was put in because of an issue with regional transport planning authorities doing this on their own and whether they would get it right—the only recourse that we will have will be to primary legislation in order to legislate for something different.

I am just mindful of that issue. There needs to be a pathway for bus franchising, which I am a fan of—indeed, that is why it was in the legislation. If there were a motion to annul and the committee were to agree it, there is a risk that we would have no pathway to franchising in Scotland. From my understanding of what we have heard, primary legislation would then be required, which I suspect would put things back by years.

Thank you, convener, and apologies for missing the start of the evidence.

I am trying to get a clearer understanding of the dynamics of the situation, which a number of you have referred to in your evidence. Clearly, there will be changes. When you are planning anything over a five-year period, you build in a range of risks into that five-year process, and there are a range of assumptions that you have to make. Of course, those assumptions could prove to be wrong, for a variety of reasons, and some of the risk that you may attach to some of those assumptions may eventually prove to be wrong, too. As climate science develops in terms of its own intelligence and understanding of what is happening, you have to take account of that. Technology can play a role, and there will be a degree to which the public sector and the private sector take up some of the finances that are required to meet this challenge.

I will explain what it is that I am trying to understand from your comments so far. In setting a five-year carbon budget, whether it is aligned with the UK or not, and in then producing a climate change plan alongside that, the biggest elephant in the room is probably the finance that is required to deliver those things. What do you think should happen if the Scottish Government sets a five-year carbon budget and sets out its climate change plan but then finds that decisions that are taken elsewhere—for example, a cut to capital expenditure by the UK Government—have a direct impact on the delivery of its carbon budget and on delivering its climate change plan? How do you think the process should work so that the Scottish Government could come back and point out that a 9 per cent cut to its capital budget has a direct impact on its ability to fund some of the programmes that would deliver on its carbon budget? How do you think the Scottish Government should go about saying, “Hold on—we need to take a step back now,” having set a budget for five years, so that it can revise it as a result of a decision made elsewhere in the UK that has a direct impact?

I suspect that Cornilius Chikwama is probably the person I am directing my question to the most here. Can you give a sense of how we achieve clarity and clear direction, which we heard about earlier, on how we are going to achieve our targets but also, as our colleagues from local government have said, how that will be financed?

That is helpful. Section 36 in the existing legislation is basically a catch-up plan for a gap that has opened up. For example, if we were meant to get to 60 per cent but we are at 55 per cent, the Government is legally obliged to show how to close the gap that has started to open.

I am conscious that, in earlier exchanges, there was a discussion on the dynamic nature of the reporting mechanism and the monitoring of it, which is critical to ensuring that the Government is on course. Is there a need for us not necessarily to have the section 36 provision as it stands in the existing legislation but to ensure that there is a mechanism whereby, if it starts to become obvious that a gap is opening up, the Government is legally obliged to bring forward clear plans on how it will close that gap? The danger is that, the longer you leave it, the greater the gap becomes over time. Should we not look at some form of mechanism in the bill to require the Government to do that?

Yes, if they wish; however, my impression from their earlier comments is that they think that there should be something in the bill to deal with the issue but are not sure what it should be.

I want to pick up on the issue of the section 36 report, which gets triggered at the point when the data on our overall sectoral emissions levels comes out and we see whether we have achieved what we said that we would achieve. If we miss our target, a section 36 report is required.

The bill will remove any requirement for a Government to do anything in the five-year period to revise either its budget or its climate change plan if it becomes very evident that it will not achieve the sectoral reductions that it was looking for. I understand the focus on delivery—the climate change plan is critical to achieving that—and I also recognise and understand the time lag in getting the data on carbon in our sectoral emissions and our national emissions. However, it would be good to get clarity on whether the bill should contain some statutory requirement on the Government and ministers to take corrective action when it becomes apparent that they will not achieve their intended targets through the carbon budget and the climate change plan or make the reductions that they had intended, and to produce a plan that demonstrates the action that needs to be taken to address the gap that might be starting to open up.

I understand the plan with regard to policy implementation and taking things forward, and I understand the time lag in the data, but I am trying to get clarity on whether we should wait until the end of the five-year carbon budget period or whether there should be a requirement on ministers to take action when it becomes apparent what is happening. In year 2, we could have a panel in front of us saying, “It’s very clear that the Government will not achieve what it intended to”, but there would be no statutory requirement on that Government to bring forward a corrective budget or plan to address the gap. Should there be?

Thank you, convener, and apologies for missing the start of the evidence.

I am trying to get a clearer understanding of the dynamics of the situation, which a number of you have referred to in your evidence. Clearly, there will be changes. When you are planning anything over a five-year period, you build in a range of risks into that five-year process, and there are a range of assumptions that you have to make. Of course, those assumptions could prove to be wrong, for a variety of reasons, and some of the risk that you may attach to some of those assumptions may eventually prove to be wrong, too. As climate science develops in terms of its own intelligence and understanding of what is happening, you have to take account of that. Technology can play a role, and there will be a degree to which the public sector and the private sector take up some of the finances that are required to meet this challenge.

I will explain what it is that I am trying to understand from your comments so far. In setting a five-year carbon budget, whether it is aligned with the UK or not, and in then producing a climate change plan alongside that, the biggest elephant in the room is probably the finance that is required to deliver those things. What do you think should happen if the Scottish Government sets a five-year carbon budget and sets out its climate change plan but then finds that decisions that are taken elsewhere—for example, a cut to capital expenditure by the UK Government—have a direct impact on the delivery of its carbon budget and on delivering its climate change plan? How do you think the process should work so that the Scottish Government could come back and point out that a 9 per cent cut to its capital budget has a direct impact on its ability to fund some of the programmes that would deliver on its carbon budget? How do you think the Scottish Government should go about saying, “Hold on—we need to take a step back now,” having set a budget for five years, so that it can revise it as a result of a decision made elsewhere in the UK that has a direct impact?

I suspect that Cornilius Chikwama is probably the person I am directing my question to the most here. Can you give a sense of how we achieve clarity and clear direction, which we heard about earlier, on how we are going to achieve our targets but also, as our colleagues from local government have said, how that will be financed?

We have touched on it.