Chamber and committees

David, do you want to add something?

The sound is better, so I think that we can struggle through.

My question was, are there things that we should be considering putting in the bill to ensure that this committee can scrutinise the budgets not only during the process of their lifespan but before they are set?

I think that the first carbon budget period for Scotland would be from 2026 until 2030, which is the term of the next session of Parliament. Do you think that the carbon budget should align with the parliamentary session, or should it end slightly earlier, so that the Government that has been responsible for implementing it can be held to account before there is an election?

We are really struggling to hear you, in fairness. We are getting about every other word, sadly, so I will end the evidence session. However, when you have had a quick look at the bill—which I am sure you will, subsequent to the meeting—if you find anything in it on which you have not already advised us but think that you should, it would be very helpful if you would do that. I regret that we need to do that rather than continue with this session.

I will now move the meeting into private. I say goodbye and thank you, Philip, but we will hear from you.

I understand that, in the legislation, the delay to the carbon budgets is put down to your report next year and that we will get them some time after that report. There is no specified timetable for the climate change plan, which will just follow on at some stage in the future.

Mark Ruskell is going to push you on that later, but I have a brief question, and a one-word answer is fine. Are you concerned about that or are you happy with it?

Graeme Roy, do you want to add anything to that?

One of my concerns—it would be one for the cabinet secretary to address—is that the carbon budgets will be set by subordinate legislation, which means that scrutiny will be quite limited. That might be of concern to other parliamentarians.

Dr Nurse, I will come back to you if I may. It was flagged up in summer 2023 that the 2030 targets were unattainable and that something needed to happen. It was flagged up that we would get something in April. Scrapping the 2030 targets is also scrapping the 2040 targets. Is that the right thing to do, or will we now be drifting? Do you think that there is a clear path of reduction?

No. You are not getting away that easily. [Laughter.]

I will push you further, then I will go to Mark Ruskell, who has a supplementary question and other questions.

The bill suggests that the plans and reports cover a period of five years. One criticism in the evidence that we took over the summer was exactly the point that you made. Ought the legislation to have a tighter reporting period for carbon budgets, to see whether they are achieving their aims?