Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful. My final question might be rhetorical, or you can write back to the committee or update us at a future date. The portal sounds great, but when people are phoning up and asking for advice, details and information, the easy reply for busy staff might in the future be to say, “It’s all in the portal—just go to the portal.” You could lose a bit of human contact. I am not trying to create a problem that is not there, but it is self-evident that “It’s all in the portal” would be a pithy thing for a busy person on the telephone in an office to say in reply. Of course, the portal should be the first port of call, but it should not be the default over human contact.

I have a brief question. It was positive that you confirmed that the appellant can request telephone, videoconference or in-person meetings. Do you anticipate that there will be longer waits for an appellant who requests an in-person hearing? By definition, getting folk on the telephone or on the computer will be speedier than getting them all in the same venue. I appreciate that there may be a slightly longer wait for an in-person hearing, but I would like to make sure that it is not a prolonged wait. That could marshal people into making a choice that was not really what they would have wanted, just so that the matter can be disposed of more speedily. Can you give me any reassurance on that?

I appreciate that and that arranging an in-person sitting will take longer. It will be important to make sure that the appellant can make an informed choice and that you monitor how long it takes to get an in-person sitting. I do not think that we should have targets for targets’ sake, but, if the system is resourced appropriately, the wait should be reasonable and not prolonged. However, I suppose that, at the moment, it is just too early to work that out.

That is reasonable. Thank you.

The cabinet secretary has spoken about a four-nations approach. We need to work together in this area. I am conscious that the committee is here to scrutinise the Scottish Government, but does the Climate Change Committee map such policy divergence, or differences in the pace or tone of policy? Is there anything that sits in one place that we can use to analyse the interaction between UK policy and Scottish policy to see what the impact has been on Scotland meeting its targets, so that, as a committee, we can get a better idea of where we are?

Before you expand on that, I point out that I agree that Scotland needs to do better. That is self-evident and undeniable, but, as I am relatively new to this committee, I want to know how we can map out stuff about how Scotland and the rest of the UK interact.

That was helpful. I know that the proposed bill will also introduce obligations with regard to energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, ahead of those in the social sector. The private rented sector obligations are to be introduced by 2028, I think, because that sector has a much longer path to travel to make properties energy efficient.

All those things will theoretically be a nuisance, at the very least, or have a financial implication for the owner or purchaser of a property, or the owner of a business who is privately renting. We are all politicians round this table, and we know that, as soon as interest groups raise concerns, politicians’ commitment to net zero can sometimes melt away, for political convenience.

That was very helpful. Thank you.

Indeed. That was a nice segue.

Of course, the Scottish Government does not work in a policy vacuum. In January—I double checked this during Jackie Dunbar’s line of questioning—The Guardian reported that global car manufacturers had lobbied the UK Government. Just before that, the UK Government moved its target for ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035. Can you say a bit about the extent to which UK Government policy levers might compromise some of the ambitions that we have here in Scotland in relation to cars, given that we do not operate in a policy vacuum?