Mr. Jonathan Church:

I thank the Senator for the question. To pick up briefly on the previous question, I would highlight the importance of the planning provisions for driving progress now to keep it on track to meeting carbon budgets. That is what has fallen short in the UK Act. There has not been this course correction each year where even though we have seen the projected emissions in the UK consistently below where they will need to be to meet our fourth carbon budget, there has not been enough traction from the committee on climate change, or from the Bill itself, to clearly require government to put better plans in place. We have seen a bit of an evolution from the UK 2008 Act where there is not that emphasis on seeing the projected emissions, asking whether they are enough, and then remedying the plans that need remedying. We see more of an emphasis on that in Finland's 2015 Act and Sweden's 2018 Act. I am not as familiar with the Danish Act, which is new this year, but my understanding is that Denmark's new climate Act, which again is a second generation Act, focuses on the need to be demanding when it comes to the quality of those plans. Are we on course or not? If not, something needs to be done that year. My understanding is that if the plan is not amended, the parliament can have a say on whether more needs to be done. That is the important area on which the current Bill could focus much more. It is to have clarity about whether we are on track and making the necessary changes early to ensure we do not worry about meeting those budgets in due course.