Meeting of the Parliament 24 March 2026 [Draft]
We have taken on the recommendations of a number of committees, particularly on the monitoring and evaluation approach, in the final plan. We need to ensure that we are clear about where delivery is on track and where further action is needed, but also about areas that might be slipping. I set out in my statement some of the ways of doing that. It is covered in one of the annexes, which has been significantly improved in terms of the detail. In the climate change plan, we also set out greater detail on our methodology in order to provide greater transparency on the key assumptions and dependencies.
However, Sarah Boyack is absolutely right, and that is where constructive criticism comes in—constructive criticism that recognises all the things in the plan that we need to do. It is absolutely right that we are scrutinised on the delivery of that. That delivery will also be the job of the Parliament in the next session, and it will have to done on a cross-party basis. The nature of that debate must involve the type of constructive criticism that we have just heard from Sarah Boyack, who asked whether we can do more and whether we can give more detail. We have given more detail in the final plan. We have announced a new levy on private jet usage, introduced a new £2 bus fare cap pilot in Shetland and the Western Isles, and we have also boosted our proposed pace of heat network connections.
The fundamental criticisms that came back about the draft plan were about how we measure deliverability. That will be a job for the Parliament in the next session, but it is also about delivering on the plans when they come to the Parliament. Cross-party support will be required in order to deliver on the actions. Unfortunately, that has been sadly lacking in recent years.