Chamber and committees

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?

Good morning, and thank you, convener. The only matter that I wish to draw to colleagues’ attention is that I hold an honorary fellowship from the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation.

Thank you, convener. It is just a brief supplementary to follow up on Douglas Lumsden’s question about section 36 reports. If a section 36 report can only be made after a five-year carbon budget has been implemented, what happens in the intervening years if, for example, the annual figures that we receive each year demonstrate that insufficient progress has been made? Where is the legal lever to require the Government to take corrective action to get progress towards those targets back on track if there is no section 36 report until the end of the five-year period?

Okay. If the principle is that it is a continuing duty, why would you wait until the end of the five-year carbon budget period to introduce corrective action, in the way in which you would with a section 36 report?

You could.

I want to come on to the issue of five-year carbon budgeting, but before I do so, it would be helpful to get some clarification on the climate change plan. Is my understanding correct that the climate change plan that will be published by the Government will be the final climate change plan and that there will be no consultation or engagement? Or, after you have received advice from the CCC, will there be an external-to-Government engagement programme in order to develop a draft climate change plan that will be shared publicly?

I will turn to the written evidence that was provided by Catherine Higham and Alina Averchenkova in response to the question about carbon budgeting. In particular, you set out the advantages of a five-year carbon budgeting process, which can assist the short-term and long-term direction of travel in tackling climate change, and how such a process provides greater flexibility. You talk about the need for regular reporting to give transparency on, and accountability for, exactly what progress has been made in the five-year period. What would an annual or regular reporting mechanism look like in the course of a five-year carbon budgeting process? Although it is in Catherine’s and Alina’s written evidence, I am happy to hear from the other witnesses, too.