Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that all the witnesses are making the point that, in some form or other, alignment between UK plans and devolved Administration plans is important. I am thinking about whether there are other ways to cut that.

Under the bill, the plan and the budgets are set at the beginning of a parliamentary session. Obviously, the Westminster Government is on a different timescale, but could there be a point where there is an update or a report in Scotland following the publication of a UK budget or plan? I am thinking about ways in which you could align the dates—you could align them entirely or information from a UK plan could be fed into devolved plans. I do not know. On a practical level, how do you get that kind of alignment? Is it a straight choice about whether to align the dates or not?

No. Are there any other comments?

From the climate science perspective?

To wrap up the conversation, it seems that you are talking about a dynamic reporting situation. Climate science might change within a five-year period; the financial situation for UK devolved Administrations might change dramatically; we might make less progress on our plans than we thought would be possible; and there might also be a UK plan that increases, or does not increase, our ambition.

You already brought up all those circumstances in your evidence. Would they trigger an update report, a rethink or a section 36 report? Do we need some dynamism in reporting and in the updates to plans?

In evidence the other week, we heard about the legislation in Ireland, where the sources of advice and guidance are drawn quite widely. The Northern Ireland Government can take advice from the Republic of Ireland Climate Change Advisory Council and other sources of information as well.

I move on to public engagement. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 contained a requirement to hold a one-off, stand-alone climate assembly. I am interested in hearing from local government colleagues about the linkage between the Scottish Government’s work on behaviour change and support for communities that are driving action on the ground. A reflection on where that currently sits would be useful.

I would also like to hear any wider reflections on whether there is anything else that should be in the bill, or any proposed changes that are currently in it, that could drive more public engagement work with communities. Perhaps Claudia Cowie and Alison Leslie can start with their impressions of how climate action planning is landing in communities. Are we fully utilising the resources of communities in that regard?

We have received evidence from the CCC and other bodies about the timing of the setting of the draft carbon budget and whether the draft plan should be produced alongside that or at a later date. Do you have a view on the timing? Should the two come together? What information should be presented to the Parliament to allow us to set a carbon budget?

We are now in the window for considering that, and it will close soon—in a matter of weeks. Any reflections that the witnesses have, whether in this meeting or in the hours to come, on how we can improve governance at this point would be useful. Jamie Brogan, do you want to come in on that?

Obviously, we are waiting to see the Climate Change Committee’s advice on the first budget next spring. Claudia Cowie and Alison Leslie, do you think that the move to this budgeting process will change anything in relation to your target setting? We understand that councils have their own corporate targets for carbon reduction; some have area-wide reduction targets, too. Has there been any implication that if, say, the budget comes up with an ambition that is less than the current target, you will have to look again at your targets, or will you still be on the same trajectory unless guidance tells you that you need to re-examine things?

Do you think that you will need to revisit your own targets and action planning as a result of what comes out of this bill, which takes more of a budget approach? We are struggling to work out the bill’s practical implications for people who are delivering the targets.

That is a level of detail that will not come out of the bill at the moment. The expectation is for the Climate Change Committee to produce a pathway, which is more high level. Are you saying that there is a need for more detail up front? Obviously, you cannot provide the final plan, but there is a space where there is a need for more detail. Is that what I am getting from the panel? Does anybody want to come back on that point?