Chamber and committees

I am sorry for sounding like a legislative geek here, but do other witnesses have a view on whether to use the affirmative or the super-affirmative process? One gives greater scrutiny and time for consideration but builds in a bit of delay. Do other witnesses want to comment on that before we move on to the next line of questioning? Neil, do you have a view on that?

My apologies, Monica. I should put on the record, given that we keep talking about spring advice from the UK Climate Change Committee, that spring is a pretty broad window. It is 20 March 2025 to 21 June 2025. We should perhaps put that on the record, given that we keep talking euphemistically about getting all of that information in the spring.

The Climate Change Committee set out last week that Scotland should pass three carbon budgets at once, taking us up to 2040, and that future budgets after that should be set 12 years in advance. I get the significant risks and uncertainties with doing that, and I will explore some of those in a moment. The bill does not really spell out how many carbon budgets we would secure should the legislation be passed, so a bit of clarity on that point would perhaps be quite helpful.

In effect, we can expect to see three five-year budgets all set at the one time, next year, and a climate change plan running to 2040. For clarity, cabinet secretary, after that—in five years’ time—would a future Government set the next carbon budget 12 years out? I assume that, as the UK Government has done, a future Government would revise its assumptions for the 10 years that are already set but for which the time has not yet elapsed.

That is helpful, because the bill takes the power to set the five-year carbon budgets and a level of scrutiny is dictated within what is a framework bill. My colleague Monica Lennon alluded to that in earlier questioning. It is called an affirmative instrument, and it means that we suspect that, at some point next year—which brings us back to the timescale uncertainty, I suppose—the Scottish Government will lay a draft statutory instrument that will outline the five-year carbon budgets and there will be a 40-day period in which this place and others can scrutinise it.

There is another way of doing it, which is a super-affirmative procedure. That would have the Government lay draft regulations, consult on them for 60 to 90 days, reflect on what this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee say, and then lodge the final five-year carbon budgets for Parliament to take a decision on. Do the witnesses believe that moving from an affirmative procedure to a super-affirmative procedure would afford the proper level of parliamentary and wider civic scrutiny of the process of setting five-year carbon budgets? Various witnesses might have views on that. Shall we take Dr Muinzer again in the first instance?

Mike Robinson and Neil Langhorn said that we should get the carbon budgets out there, following the UK Climate Change Committee’s advice, and that we should get the delivery plan—the action plan—in train as quickly as possible, given the urgency of the situation. I am conscious that if, as I am arguing, the super-affirmative process were used, that would add another three months to the time period, which could result in a delay in setting the five-year carbon budgets and the delivery plan. Something has got to give somewhere. Do you have any reflections to offer on that, Mr Robinson?

I am not sure whether any of our witnesses online would like to comment.

That was helpful, cabinet secretary. I have no further questions, convener, but I think that that response neatly finishes things up by landing us back at the need for a line of sight to 2045, to give the private sector certainty and policy direction and to allow it to feel confident enough to invest the huge sums required to meet net zero.

That is helpful—thank you.

Thanks, Judith. That was commendably concise, and I appreciate that.

I thank both our witnesses for supporting our pre-budget scrutiny this morning.

The committee has heard a lot about the need for greater flexibility in funding. Of course organisations would like more money, but we know the climate that we are in and, even without more money, greater flexibility would help voluntary organisations. We have heard about more money for core costs and about how a small percentage of the money from grants could be put into reserves for future resilience. We have heard about unrestricted funds and more general flexibilities, and how money can be spent to meet outcomes.

Any reflections that our witnesses have on those matters or on other potential flexibilities would be welcome, including any benefits or potential drawbacks. We will start with Lynn.