I have, indeed. As the cabinet secretary said, the CCC recommendations on targets were set out in its advice report. As I understand it, the letter from the CCC secretariat explores how expectations around future inventory revisions will be factored into its advice, but the letter does not in any way change that advice, upon which the Scottish Government has acted. On the substantive question whether we follow the CCC’s advice, I defer entirely to the cabinet secretary.
On what I understand is being suggested as a potential alternative, I further observe that the Scottish Government is certainly of the view that it is important that targets offer clear and stable signals and are not changed more than is necessary. When we were preparing the bill, we heard a lot from stakeholders, especially businesses, about the importance of the signalling function of targets. To our mind, it is important that we use the best available evidence now in setting the targets. The CCC has been clear in its advice that it considers the best evidence to be the inventory as it now stands, plus the factors that we know will come into play in the next couple of years.
For example, we know as a matter of certainty—in so far as anything around the inventory can be certain—that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wetlands supplement, which is the peatland provisions, will be implemented within the next three years, because the UK Government has made international commitments. It has published a substantial scientific report on the implications, in numerical terms, for the inventory, of that implementation.
The CCC has reflected those expectations in its advice on the targets. As Chris Stark said to the committee on 14 May, in terms of all the targets, the CCC has offered us the best assessment of the evidence as it now stands. The Scottish Government’s view is to follow that best assessment. Does that help?