Mr. Jonathan Church:

I agree that there are a lot of optics around the Bill. I would love to see elements tightened up. I will try and be more specific and helpful as I have spoken quite generally, and give some examples. Take section 4 where the climate action plan is developed. My opening statement noted that its approval is subject to such modifications as the Government considers appropriate. That allows too much leeway. It is perfectly possible for each climate action plan to deviate from targets from the start. At the very least, if the Government wants to deviate from the plan proposed by the Minister, it should require a justification, maybe in concert with the advisory council. That is something more like the UK Act where a carbon budget is proposed and if it is not followed, the Government must account for why that is the case. Otherwise there is a risk that the carbon budgets and plans become too unmoored from the ultimate objective.

Section 4(13) features a potentially important duty for Ministers in the performance of their duties to have regard to the climate action plan and strategy. I would love to see stronger wording because the duty to have regard is very weak, as I am sure others have noted. It could be satisfied by a tick box for a Minister to say "Yes, I have had regard, but I choose not to act in compliance with it on this occasion". Stronger language, whether a duty to act in compliance with the plan or strategy or work compatibly with the strategy, could go a long way to strengthening things.

Sections 12 and 14 concern the annual review and report by the advisory council and any subsequent evidence given to the joint committee. As I noted, there is some emphasis on projections and some emphasis in section 14(1)(b) on whether there has been an increase or decrease in emissions based on the agency's reports. I would tighten up this section so that the Government must show how its projected emissions compare with the projected emissions required for meeting carbon budgets. Then, if there is a deviation, the Government must at least account for why that deviation is there and, at best, amend the Government's plans to satisfy that flight path to the carbon budgets. I can provide the committee with the kind of wording that might do that. It is the kind of wording that newer laws that the Governments in Sweden, Finland and Denmark have started to use with the importance of correcting for the gap between projected emissions and the emissions that are needed.