���˿���

I am not arguing that point. I am making a point about the legal corrective action that you are obliged to undertake at the moment. Where good-faith actors are seeking to achieve those targets, they will obviously take that work forward. From the Parliament’s point of view, should someone—or a Government—not be a good-faith actor in pursuing those targets, there is no legal lever to require them to take the corrective action.

I am just posing a question. I understand, from the evidence that we received earlier, that in Germany, if it is clear, for two successive years, that a gap is opening up, there is a requirement for the Government to bring forward its equivalent of a section 36 report in order to show what corrective action it is taking. That does not need to happen every year; potentially, within a five-year carbon budget, that would happen a maximum of twice. Is there a need for a legal framework that forces corrective action when it is clear that not enough is being done? Is there a need for a provision in the legislation that would help to facilitate that and give Parliament reassurance?

Good morning, and thank you, convener. The only matter that I wish to draw to colleagues’ attention is that I hold an honorary fellowship from the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation.

I want to come on to the issue of five-year carbon budgeting, but before I do so, it would be helpful to get some clarification on the climate change plan. Is my understanding correct that the climate change plan that will be published by the Government will be the final climate change plan and that there will be no consultation or engagement? Or, after you have received advice from the CCC, will there be an external-to-Government engagement programme in order to develop a draft climate change plan that will be shared publicly?

I will turn to the written evidence that was provided by Catherine Higham and Alina Averchenkova in response to the question about carbon budgeting. In particular, you set out the advantages of a five-year carbon budgeting process, which can assist the short-term and long-term direction of travel in tackling climate change, and how such a process provides greater flexibility. You talk about the need for regular reporting to give transparency on, and accountability for, exactly what progress has been made in the five-year period. What would an annual or regular reporting mechanism look like in the course of a five-year carbon budgeting process? Although it is in Catherine’s and Alina’s written evidence, I am happy to hear from the other witnesses, too.

Picking up on your suggestion, given your international experience of instances in which carbon budgeting has been used—whether in other parts of the UK or in other countries beyond it—what processes have been used that have been effective in ensuring that there is on-going, regular reporting of progress that offers the level of transparency that you are looking for while also balancing that against avoiding “creating a culture of failure”—a term you used in your evidence—and avoiding creating undue concern about what progress is being made in a five-year carbon budgeting period?

Absolutely, given the role that some AAs and PAs play and the need for us to have a statutory regulatory process in place. In my opening statement, I said that patient safety lies at the heart of this; it is about accountability for healthcare professionals in their roles and the important role played by PAs and AAs.

You mentioned, for example, the role that anaesthesia assistants can play in the theatre environment. It is important that they are accountable for how they manage that provision. Of course, they do provide those services under medical supervision, but it is important that there are clear lines of accountability and responsibility.

That is all the more reason for having a regulatory environment in which there is statutory regulation of those groups. It is in patients’ interests as well as the wider healthcare system’s interests for those roles to be properly regulated and clearly defined and for there to be clear accountability for any decisions or actions that those professionals take. They should be held to account in the way that other healthcare professionals are.

I have nothing to add.

I move,

That the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recommends that the Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024 [draft] be approved.

The reality is that about £1.3 billion is invested in mental health services. About £290 million of that is central funding from the Scottish Government, and that has increased—in fact, it has doubled since 2020-21. Over the course of the past two to three years alone, we have doubled the level of that investment and maintained it, despite the difficult financial environment in which we are operating. That has allowed a very significant expansion of mental health services in Scotland, and we want to sustain and maintain that. Over the course of the past couple of years, there has been a huge increase in the level of investment that we are putting into mental health services.

Yes, it is part of a long-standing piece of work that we have been taking forward with the UK Government. Back in 2019, the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport signalled agreement with the UK Government that we should introduce legislation to regulate AAs and PAs. However, there were issues around the wider regulatory framework, which was part of that discussion, and with carrying out a significant review of the regulation of healthcare professionals. The view was that trying to do all that at one time would not be effective, because it was too complex, and it was decided to deal with the AA and PA aspect of regulation separately from the wider work on health regulation. That is a separate piece of work, which is why the AA and PA aspect is being dealt with through a standalone order.

Through our medium-term financial framework—I think that we published that in 2022. Is that correct?