I will not answer on that particular point, because I do not know for sure what that scrutiny is. I would need to get back to the committee. We can have a discussion about that—maybe that is an area in which we can improve.

I want to talk about the practicalities of the independent review and what Mr Harvie is suggesting. The tight timescales for publishing the budget would not allow time for an independent review. Obviously, there is a window between the UK budget being announced and the Scottish budget being finalised. In practicality, the current carbon assessment work that is associated with the budget would be finalised only about 48 hours before the budget is announced in Parliament and published. That is the timescale that we are working with. I do not see where we would have time for an independent review of that work. Even if the information could be shared with Parliament, when would that independent review take place?

As I said at the outset, I understand the sentiment behind requiring more information, and I would like to work with Mr Harvie on how we can strengthen that.

I am sorry to end on a negative note, but the Government cannot support amendment 21. Sorry, I mean amendment 51—it has been a long day.

Amendment 51 would make all ancillary regulations, no matter how minor, subject to the affirmative procedure. Even something as simple as swapping the words “Scottish carbon budget target” for “interim target” in an SSI would take up more parliamentary time, including in committee.

Section 5 follows the standard model that has been used for all ancillary powers for several years, with the affirmative procedure applying to regulations that modify primary legislation and the negative procedure applying to everything else. That long-settled approach respects the balance between the importance of parliamentary oversight and the proper use of parliamentary time. It is also the approach that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has endorsed generally, as well as specifically in relation to this bill, as that committee outlined in paragraph 47 of its stage 1 report.

I urge the committee not to support amendment 51.

Yes, and I am happy to write to the committee about any conversations that I have on that at the IMG or directly with the Climate Change Committee.

We have just had a group of amendments on the monitoring and evaluation reports that will be required if we slip back. Our first carbon budget, if it is set next year, will take us to 2030, which means that you will have a report at the end of that carbon budget by 2030.

Convener, I am happy to hand back to you.

The four nations are represented at the interministerial group, where the Climate Change Committee’s capacity, the funding arrangements and the advice that all four nations need to move forward to net zero are discussed regularly. The IMG’s most recent meeting was two weeks ago, when that particular issue did not come up.

The CCC has a new chief executive officer, whom I have not yet met. Capacity issues are the sort of thing that she will bring to all four nations as we have those deliberations. I stress that that discussion takes place between all four Governments; each plays its part and each commits to funding its appropriate part. I am not saying that the Scottish Government is doing all the heavy lifting. All four nations do the heavy lifting by taking their equal responsibility for funding the CCC.

I do not want to get into detail on the example that you have given but, in effect, you have underlined what Monica Lennon said. There are a lot of moving parts in how something is financed. A project as large as the one that you discussed would probably not be solely financed by central Government or local government, as private investment and housing associations might also be involved. What you have outlined shows some of the difficulties with this.

It has been useful to have the debate, but I cannot support the amendment at the moment. I urge the committee not to support it; its aims are not achievable, because of the way in which the amendment is set out. Also, quite a lot of work has been done and is about to be completed, and it is possible that the committee will be content when it sees that that work has made the difference to the information that is available.

Amendment 27 has two aspects—namely, information on the expenditure that is being directed at carbon budgets in annual financial budgets, and an independent review of such information.

I completely understand why Patrick Harvie has lodged an amendment that requires greater information on the emissions that are associated with spend—I understand the arguments for that. However, the climate change plan is already required to provide cost estimates for the policies that are included in that plan, and the Government publishes a statutory carbon assessment of the budget—I think that Patrick Harvie mentioned that—which is required by section 94 of the 2009 act.

Subsequent to that happening, I will outline some of the things that the Government is doing to give more information in this space. The joint budget review by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament is improving transparency on the budget and climate change funding, with a new taxonomy on climate change spending.

The Scottish Government, separately, is just about to complete our pilot of the net zero assessment, with a view to rolling out that approach in 2025 across all new significant Scottish Government spending decisions. That will provide greater visibility of the areas that contribute to emissions and it will aid the decision-making process.

The joint budget review and the net zero assessment are already providing significant improvements but, in particular, by the time we get to the end of the pilot, which will be rolled out in 2025, that will have made all the difference.

I have finished.

I will.

The proposal that we have worked on with Maurice Golden is already strengthening the action that the Government must take to introduce catch-up policy interventions if targets look like they are being missed. Again, there would be robust in-time data—not data that is two years old—to react to.

I will certainly reflect on the criticism that Mark Ruskell and others have put forward about the material in those reports and I will speak to my colleagues about how we can have more comprehensive reports. However, the section 35B-type report would have that critical in-time data rather than out-of-date data from two years ago—that in the section 36 report—which means that it would be a more useful report than some of the other proposals.