Seòmar agus comataidhean

I found that exchange relevant to understanding how we scrutinise the issue as a committee and as a Parliament.

I mentioned modelling. My set question has a wee bit about modelling, so I will ask it. Annex 3 of the draft plan sets out that there was a

“bottom-up”

approach to analysis, using

“various analytical models and estimation approaches appropriate to each context.”

Most people will have glazed over at that sentence. Without really knowing what it means in practice, although I have just read it out, I ask whether, in your view, there has been transparent communication of the data sources and methods that have been used in the analysis? Good luck to whoever takes that first.

I will stick with you, Professor Roy. My next question is about risks and uncertainties vis-à-vis interdependencies with other policies, including those of the UK Government. You have talked about how the climate change plan talks to the UK budget that we are about to have. The Scottish Government does not yet know the numbers that will underpin its budget, as that relies on a UK Government decision—and that is just for one budget, whereas there will be multiple budgets, spending reviews and changes of Government, looking way out to 2040—and probably just in the next five years, frankly, in the shorter term.

Does the plan set out those interdependencies sufficiently well? I really do not mean to be political in saying this, but we must be matter of fact about building risks into those interdependencies in a clear and transparent way.

I am happy with that, convener, but—and I say this with complete respect and courtesy—as long as the wording of the letter does not recount the comments that you have made as the factual position. They might very well be the factual position, convener, but we have not taken evidence on the issue. If the letter were to talk about a suggestion being made, highlight some of the matters that you have drawn to the committee’s attention and then ask for a response, that would seem reasonable. We could also just refer the cabinet secretary to the Official Report and ask for a comment on that.

Okay. I appreciate that, convener. I do not intend to try to block the policy intent here, and I appreciate that that might mean our having to part ways in relation to how we cast our vote. However, that is no reason to ignore the individual concerns that you have raised, convener, which we could take up in correspondence with the Scottish Government.

I had a supplementary, but Mr Stewart has interrogated quite well a lot of the questions that I wanted to ask. Mr Stewart in part quoted Dr Dixon’s point about the numbers being understandably “vague”. I think that that was what you said, Dr Dixon, but you prefaced that by saying that “any mature observer” would surely realise that the numbers would be understandably vague. One of the issues that the Government has—be it the Scottish Government, the United Kingdom Government or others—is that a lot of observers are not mature and they might want to wilfully mislead people about net zero.

Dr Dixon, do you think that the Government is nervous that, if it makes predictions out to 2040 on something that is not an exact science, the numbers will invariably eventually be proven to be wrong, because life gets in the way of modelling work, and that is why the Government is not showing its workings, as the convener would say? Do you understand the Government’s reticence? How would you respond to that? How do we ensure that there is a cross-party, cross-Government view that we need to call out those who are not mature observers?

I had finished, but I wanted to give Clare Wharmby the opportunity to respond—although she may not wish to come in.

I will not follow up on that, Mr Dixon, but you make an important point. Your point clearly highlights the interdependence aspect, because mapping out those plans will require real, serious, proper and mature partnership work between the UK and Scottish Governments. That is helpful to put on the record.

Good morning, and welcome to the 30th meeting in 2025 of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have received apologies from Collette Stevenson and Michael Marra.

Our first item of business is to decide whether to take items 3 and 4 in private. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

I understand and appreciate that, but I just wondered whether you had an example of a public body saying that it was working on sustainable development in what it does, whereas your view was that what it was doing was actually contrary to the definition in the bill. I am genuinely not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think that what you are saying is that it is more about pushing the issue up the political agenda than about the definition itself.

Of course. I am not known for speaking quietly—[Interruption.] There is no need to laugh at that, Mr Stewart, thank you very much.

It was pointed out to me that the policy memorandum refers to the definition of “sustainable development” as an overarching definition. I am wondering what that would apply to. Would it apply to individual public bodies, which would have to have due regard to it, or would it apply to all public policy and to every piece of legislation that goes through the Parliament? What is meant by “overarching”?