Chamber and committees

They are not compelled to do it at the moment.

Yes. Also, we have the Scottish Climate Intelligence Service working with them on their emissions reductions and the data for the things that we ask them to do.

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.

It is absolutely essential. We have seen that, when there is rolling back in climate ambition at UK level, that has an impact. Bob Doris asked an important question about the funding associated with that. When a UK Government puts net zero front and centre of its ambition, that is great news for me, because it means that there will be consequential funding. However, it is also about what is happening in the reserved space. I mentioned energy infrastructure, which is one example of something in the reserved space where there is real scope for activity. There are also regulations. There could be regulations on the types of fuels that are used for aviation or the percentage of sustainable aviation fuel that might be used. The UK Government has lots of levers that could make a material difference to our getting to net zero by 2045.

When Governments at the UK, Welsh and Northern Ireland levels prioritise getting to net zero, not just in the targets that they set and the rhetoric that they use at the United Nations climate change conference of the parties, but in actual policy action and the associated funding, we are all winners. I genuinely feel very positive about the conversations that I have had since I became acting cabinet secretary in this space. Obviously, I would have liked the budget commitment on net zero action that was made pre-election to be retained. We will have to see what comes forward in the UK budget and what that means for our budget in this space but, in terms of the action that needs to be taken to reduce emissions, if all Governments have the same ambition, we will do it.

There are lots of areas of difficulty, because this is difficult.

We have more potential in carbon sequestration. One thing that needs to happen to make a difference on taking carbon out of the atmosphere and out of our systems is a decision on carbon capture, utilisation and storage. I was on the same programme as Michael Shanks on the BBC on Sunday, and I was heartened to hear that he is in agreement with the First Minister that carbon capture and storage needs to get the track status that the previous Government said that it would have, but which it did not get.

The UK Government now seems to be keen that we accelerate that. That will make a big difference for the Acorn Project, in terms of locking carbon into our reservoirs. It will be very good for the whole of Europe, because a lot of European countries do not have the capacity that we have, and it will also be very good for the economy. That is an area where we can make quite a fast, clear difference.

I can only go on what the CCC has said, which is that it will give advice in the spring. I am sure the CCC knows that sooner is better and that the UK Government thinks that, too. It is waiting to see whether the bill is passed and whether it gives advice about a five-year carbon budget. If the bill is passed and gets royal assent in November, the CCC will refine its advice on the basis of our adopting the five-year carbon budget process.

The committee might want more clarity—correct me if I am wrong—on the timescales between getting the CCC advice and secondary legislation, and between the secondary legislation on the targets being passed and the climate change plan. I will go away and we will map that out. I keep coming back to the point that, if the CCC’s advice comes to us at the time that we hope that it will—when it has indicated to us that it will—it is my ambition to have a draft climate change plan out before the summer recess.

I have highlighted some of the risks with splitting this—that is, having two bills, having a super-affirmative process and everything else. That is what potentially puts the timetable for the climate change plan back. We have looked at how we can get a credible and deliverable climate change plan out there as soon as possible, and this is how we will do so. We have a narrow bill that sets the carbon budgeting process mechanism and gets it in statute, and we have advice, secondary legislation on the targets and a draft climate change plan. I want that to happen as quickly as possible, so that the committee and wider Scotland have the time to look at the climate change plan, which is where all the policy discussion will take place and all the action points will be.

Okay, we can do that.

The simple answer is that we would not wait until the end of the five-year period. We would have those reports—

We could, but we will not.