Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, cabinet secretary. We heard some of that in the earlier evidence session. There is lots to follow up on, but I believe that my colleagues will pick up on that in due course, convener.

That is helpful. I have a final question. We get advice from the UK Climate Change Committee, but it does not give policy advice. It may give advice on setting carbon budgets, but it has no say over financial budgets for the Parliament. I was pleased to hear of the constructive, non-partisan approach that you and Mr Miliband have taken, with the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together. Does it include discussions over the long-term capital and revenue investment that will be required at both a UK and a Scottish level to deliver the UK climate change plan and our devolved climate change plan? Budgets matter, and it would be nice to get both Governments into a space where they are not arguing about, but agreeing, the public finances that are required to deploy those plans appropriately and ensure that they are properly resourced.

I will come in briefly. I get the desirability of having that line of sight to 2045 with three carbon budgets, and of having a longer-term delivery plan, but should Government embrace the uncertainty, if you like, because Governments have no idea what capital budgets will look like in, for example, year 6 to year 10 or year 11 to year 15? They have no idea what technological advancements there will be, so should we expect the second or third climate change plans, if produced up front, and the carbon budgets, to change as a matter of course over time, and should Government embrace that uncertainty but give a line of sight to 2045 nevertheless? I hope that that makes sense.

Yes, I was looking at the legislation on my phone, convener.

First, though, I will respond to Douglas Lumsden’s questions to Thomas Muinzer. Douglas made a reasonable point—although I do not necessarily agree with it—in suggesting that the bill could be narrower and that we could remove all targets altogether. My concern is that that would leave a vacuum. We should get the carbon targets entrenched in law and then have a discussion about the scrutiny of the statutory instrument that will deliver those five-year carbon budgets. I do not know whether Dr Muinzer wants to comment on that. Would you rather have the carbon targets entrenched in law, or remove the current set of targets?

I am sorry for sounding like a legislative geek here, but do other witnesses have a view on whether to use the affirmative or the super-affirmative process? One gives greater scrutiny and time for consideration but builds in a bit of delay. Do other witnesses want to comment on that before we move on to the next line of questioning? Neil, do you have a view on that?

My apologies, Monica. I should put on the record, given that we keep talking about spring advice from the UK Climate Change Committee, that spring is a pretty broad window. It is 20 March 2025 to 21 June 2025. We should perhaps put that on the record, given that we keep talking euphemistically about getting all of that information in the spring.

The Climate Change Committee set out last week that Scotland should pass three carbon budgets at once, taking us up to 2040, and that future budgets after that should be set 12 years in advance. I get the significant risks and uncertainties with doing that, and I will explore some of those in a moment. The bill does not really spell out how many carbon budgets we would secure should the legislation be passed, so a bit of clarity on that point would perhaps be quite helpful.

In effect, we can expect to see three five-year budgets all set at the one time, next year, and a climate change plan running to 2040. For clarity, cabinet secretary, after that—in five years’ time—would a future Government set the next carbon budget 12 years out? I assume that, as the UK Government has done, a future Government would revise its assumptions for the 10 years that are already set but for which the time has not yet elapsed.

That is helpful, because the bill takes the power to set the five-year carbon budgets and a level of scrutiny is dictated within what is a framework bill. My colleague Monica Lennon alluded to that in earlier questioning. It is called an affirmative instrument, and it means that we suspect that, at some point next year—which brings us back to the timescale uncertainty, I suppose—the Scottish Government will lay a draft statutory instrument that will outline the five-year carbon budgets and there will be a 40-day period in which this place and others can scrutinise it.

There is another way of doing it, which is a super-affirmative procedure. That would have the Government lay draft regulations, consult on them for 60 to 90 days, reflect on what this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee say, and then lodge the final five-year carbon budgets for Parliament to take a decision on. Do the witnesses believe that moving from an affirmative procedure to a super-affirmative procedure would afford the proper level of parliamentary and wider civic scrutiny of the process of setting five-year carbon budgets? Various witnesses might have views on that. Shall we take Dr Muinzer again in the first instance?

Mike Robinson and Neil Langhorn said that we should get the carbon budgets out there, following the UK Climate Change Committee’s advice, and that we should get the delivery plan—the action plan—in train as quickly as possible, given the urgency of the situation. I am conscious that if, as I am arguing, the super-affirmative process were used, that would add another three months to the time period, which could result in a delay in setting the five-year carbon budgets and the delivery plan. Something has got to give somewhere. Do you have any reflections to offer on that, Mr Robinson?

I am not sure whether any of our witnesses online would like to comment.