Chamber and committees

It is a very small number. Philip Raines might be able to help me on that. East Renfrewshire Council was the one that came back and said, “We’ve done this exercise, but we don’t know how much it can influence what we’re doing.” Philip Raines might have more information. I do not have a list.

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.

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.

Well, we are nine weeks into the new UK Government, and the conversations that I have had, which have been mainly on energy, have been really positive. We have not had any disagreements. I am keen to find out from the UK Government what it is doing in other spaces. I would like to know what it is doing on heat in buildings, what its plans are for the gas grid and what it might be looking at on aviation, et cetera, and the targets there, because that will make a difference.

It is early days, but I am having conversations with the UK Government every week.

I guess that the legal lever is the fact that if we do not correct our action year on year, we will come up against the five-year carbon budget and the section 36 requirement. In terms of parliamentary scrutiny, if we are missing targets or if the annual reports show that we are not taking the action that we are supposed to take, we will have to commit to accelerated action. I will bring in Phil Raines—no, Norman Munro. Can I bring in the lawyer? [Laughter.]

Thank you, Mr Doris. I appreciate that there is a requirement to set those carbon budgets 12 years in advance. It is our intention to introduce regulations next year that will set at least the first three budgets, which will cover the period up to 2040.

I heard evidence from your stakeholders that it is really important to give a long-term view, because a lot of the actions that must be taken in order to get us to net zero need long-term certainty around policy direction. The regulations will cover the period up to 2040.

I will use the latest advice from the CCC and align with the period for the next climate change plan. It will be essential that we set out those pathways to 2040 at least. With my officials, I will consider what that looks like and the regulations that are required in order to get those in place.

Phil, I do not know whether you want to add anything to that, but that is my understanding.

It would be hugely irresponsible of any Government to do that—

Let me take that point away, and I will look at the evidence that you got earlier as well. Obviously, we look at other UK Parliaments; they have been working with five-year carbon budgets for some time, while we have not. We could maybe do an analysis of the situation that you describe—where that has happened and it has been an issue. You are right that, if you have a Government that cares about reaching those targets and taking that action, it will act responsibly, and the reports that we have every year will prompt it to take action. If you have a Government that does not act responsibly, how do you hold it to account? That is a fair point.

If I could correct you, there will be a report every year. Two reports will be produced—on our reduction of greenhouse gases in the baseline and on how we are meeting the climate change plan—every single year.

With regard to what has happened—digging into the figures, what they mean and why this happened—I hope that it will be okay if I bring in Phil Raines, who has been working on the matter and who told me about it.