This was considered short by many witnesses.iiiNet Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, Official Report, 19 November 2024, cols 28-30; Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, Official Report, 3 December 2024, col 24; Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, Official Report, 28 January 2025, col 22 Plans of 10 or 20 years were suggested as more appropriate but with some highlighting that while the plans should look further ahead, they should be required to be updated if there are changes.iiiNet Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, Official Report, 19 November 2024, col 28; Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, Official Report, 3 December 2024, col 24 On this basis Peter Peacock stated he was “less worried about whether it is a 10- year plan or a 15 or 20-year plan than I am about having proper monitoring, whatever the length of time”.iiiNet Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, Official Report, 3 December 2024, col 24 Hamish Trench (SLC) commented that the plan should look longer term but considered 5 years “a reasonable timescale for a review period”.iNet Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, Official Report, 11 June 2024, col 14
In her evidence to the Committee the Cabinet Secretary highlighted that it would be important to ensure longer term plans did not become out of date.iiiNet Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, Official Report, 18 February 2025, col 17 She indicated she was “keen to hear whether the committee has any particular recommendations” but did feel that the existing proposal struck the right balance.