Seòmar agus comataidhean

Item 2 is an evidence-taking session on the draft Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (Scottish Carbon Budgets) Amendment Regulations 2025. I will provide some context by saying that, last year, the Parliament agreed to adopt through the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 a new system of carbon budgets to set limits on the total amount of greenhouse gases that Scotland can emit over a specific period. The Government must now, through regulations, establish four five-year carbon budgets to cover the period from 2026 to 2045—the year by which Scotland has committed to reach net zero.

The new system replaces the previous approach of interim and annual targets. As part of it, the four proposed budgets are set out in the draft regulations that are before us, which propose budget levels that are in line with the advice of the Climate Change Committee, the United Kingdom’s independent advisory body on climate issues. In its advice, which was published in May, that committee set out what it described as a “balanced pathway” to meet both the carbon budgets and net zero targets by 2045. Alongside the regulations, the Scottish Government has published a policy statement that sets out in broad terms the policies and proposals that we can expect to see in the forthcoming draft climate change plan.

Today’s evidence session is the first on the draft regulations, and we will begin by hearing from the Climate Change Committee. Next week, we will take evidence from a panel of academics, and we will finish with evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, before considering the motion on the regulations.

Before we go any further, I will make a declaration of interests. As members know, and as I have constantly made clear, I have an interest in a family farm in Moray. I am saying that because I believe that agriculture might come up this morning.

I welcome our witnesses from the Climate Change Committee: Dr James Richardson, chief analyst, and Dr Eoin Devane, head of carbon budgets. Thank you both for attending the meeting. We will move to questions, if we may.

The first questions will come from me, and I will leave it to James Richardson and Eoin Devane to decide who wants to answer. I usually say to people who are giving evidence that, if everyone looks away, I will nominate somebody; however, you are both online, so don’t you dare look away. If you want to answer, raise your hand and I will bring you in.

First, we talk about carbon budgets, but are they budgets that people will understand? Are they like normal budgets, which are estimates of income and expenditure? In other words, do they show what we will save in carbon and what that will cost? Is that how the people of Scotland should view them? Who would like to start?

That would be helpful. People also know that installation costs come up front when their boiler breaks down, and they have to meet them all at once; as a result, they have to carry the interest. Politicians are asking people to sign up to policies, and individuals want to know the price of them. I would love to be in a position to say that I will be better off in 2050, but I suspect that I will not be around to benefit.

With that, we will now have a question from Mark Ruskell and then go to Monica Lennon.

We have got you now.

It is cutting out a bit. Will you start that answer again? It was a bit juddery.

I think that Douglas Lumsden wants to come in on that issue before I move on to Mark Ruskell.

Okay. I have concerns about the principle because I do not think that it is detailed enough. To my mind, it is too blanket and it will drive smaller farmers out of the market because it will incentivise bigger farmers who can spread their costs across more livestock over a larger area. Does that not concern you? It obviously concerns the Scottish Government.

Thank you, Kevin, and thank you for not missing a beat when I came to you when I should have gone to Douglas Lumsden first. Apologies to you and to Douglas. I will come to you in a minute, Douglas, but Monica Lennon has a follow-up question, and I also have one.

I am tempted to ask Eoin Devane how many more battery storage sites that would mean are dotted around Scotland—as well as the size of each of them—but that is maybe too difficult to work out.

I am intrigued about how that will be achieved, because you cannot increase road tax or fuel prices in rural areas without penalising them for it, and you cannot provide them with public transport because there is not the capacity for it, nor is there a wish to have public transport at the moment. How will the Government deliver that wonderful 6 per cent figure for people who live in rural communities?

No, because I am going to come back to Douglas Lumsden, because I cut him off without even introducing him.

Back to you, Douglas. I apologise again; off you go.