Chamber and committees

We need to measure what we can and improve on what we can. We can measure what we can in the categories of scope 3 emissions that I have mentioned—a substantial amount of work has been done with local authorities on that. If we improve on that, we will make a massive difference.

I made a note of what Silke Isbrand, who was on the previous panel, said. She said that local authorities need to use the data in the most effective way to drive down emissions. I think that that is the headline here. We need to use the data in order to drive down emissions. If some of the data is harder to get or inaccurate, it might not drive down emissions.

Yes. The Scottish Climate Intelligence Service, a representative of which was on your earlier panel, is actively working on that. That will be what Ms McAllan was referring to. You will have heard that that service, which is based at the University of Edinburgh, has been set up as the result of a partnership between COSLA, local authorities and the Scottish Government. Right now, the SCIS is working with local authorities to provide them with the methodology that exists to look at their emissions.

The work of the SCIS is absolutely critical. Probably most critical is its work on the short and medium-term gains that can be made and the plans that local authorities will have to put forward. The advice and the expertise of the SCIS are absolutely critical. In the background, we will work with it and many others on the methodology around scope 3 emissions, but that will take a lot more time. Meanwhile, the SCIS is working in real time with local authorities.

Yes.

It was interesting to see that that particular category was developed for high-level reporting on the greenhouse gas emissions of the big franchises that we all know about—Starbucks, Costa and all the fast-food outlets that operate under franchise arrangements. I asked the same question that you ask. I do not think that any local authorities have specifically reported back on the franchises. Philip Raines might have that information.

We are currently in the middle of making an assessment of that, and are working with local authorities around it. We looked at the ESS report and then we organised two workshops with the people in local authorities who were already dealing with the various climate change plans and emissions reductions. Those workshops considered the areas that might be difficult to report on and the areas that could probably be reported on easily—exactly what you are talking about. There was a conversation around assessing how much could be done in that regard.

If we introduced any legislation around scope 3 emissions reporting, it would take effect around about 2026-27, but that would be informed by the on-going conversations that we have with local authorities about the areas in which we can see the benefits of reporting on certain scope 3 emissions and the gaps where they have not been reporting but there has been an assessment and the data probably exists and just needs to be collated.

The Scottish Government wants to keep pace with the EU generally, so we always factor that into our decision making.

It is a very small number. Philip Raines might be able to help me on that. East Renfrewshire Council was the one that came back and said, “We’ve done this exercise, but we don’t know how much it can influence what we’re doing.” Philip Raines might have more information. I do not have a list.

We are proposing a couple of mechanisms. First, as I said in my opening remarks, we will still have annual reporting, which will be important. Instead of annual targets, we will have annual reporting on the progress towards the five-year carbon budget ambition.

The bill will retain our current rhythm of reporting on greenhouse gas emissions and on where we are with the climate change plan and how that has been embedded.

Reports on the climate change plan will be unchanged. When we were taking forward the bill, we were clear that we wanted that aspect to be retained completely as it was in the 2009 and 2019 legislation. Under the 2009 act, ministers are required, each year, to lay before the Scottish Parliament

“a report on each substantive chapter”

of the most recent CCP.

We are also required to lay in Parliament a report on emissions reduction every year, indicating the percentage by which the net Scottish emissions are lower than the baseline. That has happened every year, and it will continue to happen every year—nothing in the bill will change any of that.

Your point about how important that is is not lost on me at all. A five-year carbon budget is not about waiting five years before reporting on it and then saying, “Oh, we have not managed to make progress on that.” Work is also taking place to embed those actions more deeply in every portfolio in Government.

I was listening to your evidence when it was suggested that an approach would be to report on key performance indicators in the climate change plan. I am open to considering anything. Work is under way on our having sectoral envelopes in the climate change plan. Obviously, Ms McAllan or I will be reporting on them every year, once the finalised climate change plan, as consulted on, is available.

That checking in on how we are doing every year, with Parliament scrutinising how we are doing annually, and being able to ask me or Ms McAllan questions on that, is fundamentally important. Perhaps changes will need to be made; things might need to be accelerated or there might be blockers to things happening. Conversely, achievements might have been made in certain sectors due to innovation that we did not anticipate. Whatever the position, we are able to report on which sectors are doing particularly well and which ones perhaps need some other assistance and support.

Let me take that away. Obviously, my officials and I will talk about the trajectory of the timescale. I do not think that we will have a climate change plan available at the same time as the secondary legislation; I just do not think that that is doable. However, we want to make it available as soon as possible after that point.

Yes—hence the need for the targets to be in secondary legislation, as that will give future Governments a chance to assess how far they have come in five years and what needs to change with regard to those targets.

I made the point earlier that, in certain sectors, things might go really far down the road of emissions reduction in a way that we did not expect—there might be some kind of change or something might happen that enables that to be the case. Other areas might not be able to go far enough—the picture might change and might need to be examined flexibly. That is another reason for setting the targets in secondary legislation. It is not just about what the Government does but about future Governments aligning with the 10-year climate change plan and the long-term setting of three budgets to cover the period up to 2040. That will be crucial.