Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee Session 6 Legacy Report

Annexe A sets out a list of key policy issues which we would encourage successor committees to set aside time to scrutinise in the 2026-31 Parliamentary Session.

The Committee's remit has been far too large from the outset, encompassing a diversity of matters in which there is great public interest, and in attempting to deal with this, the Committee has been thinly spread. The remit is also insufficiently cohesive. Overall, this has impacted the Committee's effectiveness, forcing it to be more of a responsive than a strategic, agenda-setting body, in large part focused on getting through government-generated business. This was not the role envisaged for Scottish Parliament committees.

While the precise parameters of committee remits will be for the next Parliament to consider, and there is no one "right" answer, our roving brief in relation to net zero and the environment has given us some insight into potentially effective synergies and what a logical and workable division of responsibilities might look like. It could, for instance, be along these lines:
A committee with responsibility for scrutinising energy policy and the just transition. It would lead on the scrutiny of overall governmental performance in driving net zero, and securing economic and social benefit from it, and in holding to account the minister in the next Scottish Government given that cross-cutting responsibility. It could have a roving brief to inquire into decarbonisation and the just transition in specific sectors outside its direct subject remit but only by agreement with the relevant subject committee, if they had no plans to do so, or lacked time. It would lead on coordinating committees' scrutiny of the next draft Climate Change Plan and have the most direct working relationship with the Climate Change Committee;
A Committee charged with considering environmental policy, rural development policy and rural land use as integrated matters: the interventions and trade-offs we need to achieve the twin goals of addressing the climate and nature crisis on our land and in our waters, and aligning these with other ambitions like having thriving, diversified rural and maritime economies;
A Committee on transport. This is too important, and high-spending, a policy area not to have a dedicated committee. This committee would lead on assessing progress in decarbonising the transport sector but also on the more everyday transport matters that the public care about: fares and ticketing; integrated transport; how our publicly-owned trains and ferries are performing; availability of buses; provision for cyclists; safety on public transport; rural transport needs; etc. This committee could also lead on scrutiny of major Scottish Government-supported public works projects.
Decarbonising heat in homes should rest mainly with the committee charged with scrutinising overall housing policy, as has been the case, in practice if not entirely on paper, for most of this Session.

In their October 2025 " Strengthening Committees' Effectiveness " report, the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee commented that:
"... churn in membership does not help create a sense of collegiate working as committee members need time to get to know each other and build up expertise and understanding; and
"We also agree with the concerns expressed that larger committees present practical issues with meeting management and ensuring there are opportunities to probe more deeply into issues."
We agree with this. We also agree with their view that committees should seek to normally reflect the gender balance of the Parliament, recognising the practical barriers that mean this cannot be done on all committees all the time. The Parliamentary Bureau and party business managers should consider working to avoid allowing significant gender imbalances to persist on a committee for long periods.

We recommend that successor committees hold a business planning day early on in the Session to hear from experts, set out some agreed principles on ways of working, and agree early scrutiny priorities. While it will be for successor committees to determine what works for them, based on our own experience, we think it is important for committees to find time from the outset for substantial inquiries based on carefully considered terms of references, with plenty of time for stakeholders and members of the public to provide their views. We also strongly recommend continuing to create spaces for more informal information-gathering, to ensure committees hear from a diverse range of individuals, by providing more accessible and potentially safer opportunities for people to share their experiences than in formal meetings.

We hope successor committees will be able to build on our international engagement in this Session, discussing practical matters of common interest in relation to green energy, decarbonisation and the environment with counterparts at the Arctic Circle Assembly, Icelandic Parliament and Nordic Council.

We note the use of People’s Panels during Session 6, in which we took part, and invite successor committees to consider whether commissioning a panel would support scrutiny work in specific areas next Session.

The process by which consideration of the draft Climate Change Plan unfolded in this Session was unsatisfactory and lessons should be learned from it. We recommend to our successor committee that it ask the Scottish Government to commit, relatively early, to a timetable for having the next CCP in place, on the clear common understanding that, barring highly unforeseen circumstances, this will be adhered to. Specifically, the Committee should also seek an undertaking early in the next Session that a draft Plan will be laid in sufficient time to allow the Scottish Government to reflect properly on any representations made on the draft (by Scottish Parliament committees or others) before laying a final Plan. As a rough guideline, we suggest the gap be at least 8 weeks. In practice, this means that a draft Plan should be laid by no later than shortly after summer recess 2030. The option of passing amending legislation to ensure that the Scottish Government gives itself adequate "thinking time" should be held in reserve.

The next Parliament, led by our successor committee on net zero scrutiny, will be the first to assess progress in emissions reduction against five-year budgets not annual targets. This may require some changes and there is an opportunity to consider what has emerged as good practice in other UK legislatures where five-year budgets have been the norm. To some extent, a switch to five-year budgeting is about avoiding short-termist thinking about "success" and "failure" in emissions reduction. But it will still be important to know early if policies are going off track.

We suggest the successor committee charged with net zero oversight continue to aim to have set-piece annual check-ins with the Climate Change Committee and Scottish Government to assess progress and any emerging areas of difficulty. Audit Scotland, the Scottish Fiscal Commission and Environmental Standards Scotland are other key bodies. We strongly encourage our successor committee to continue the dialogue about emissions policy we had with them during this Session. Jointly these bodies can provide a realistic take on how the ambitions of government (at all levels) and agencies match up over the longer term to the real-life challenges of delivery.

We also encourage our successor committee on net zero to play an active role early next Session in ensuring "early warning" or performance indicators that can serve as proxies for measuring progress in emissions reduction are in place across all sectors, that they look to be good, measurable indicators, and that there are clear regular reporting mechanisms for them.

We would also strongly encourage successor committees to make space in their work programmes to prioritise sector-specific inquiry work about decarbonisation, and to encourage other subject committees to do so. The best opportunities for such work may come early in the Session, before major legislation is rolled out. This is important work in itself but also good preparation for scrutiny of the next draft Climate Change Plan. The 120 days allocated to the Parliament for draft CCP scrutiny, likely towards the end of next session, is never likely to give committees much opportunity to drill down in depth into the practical detail of delivery in specific sectors. The groundwork must be laid earlier through a rolling programme of inquiry work.

The Parliament has benefited over the years from a strong working relationship with the Climate Change Committee. Our successor committee leading on net zero scrutiny should continue to work on maintaining an effective relationship. As we said in a recent report, it was regrettable the CCC did not consider itself able to provide formal evidence during the period of committee scrutiny of the draft Climate Change Plan. We added (and repeat here) that:
Early in the next Session, the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and the CCC should work together to find a constructive way forward, addressing any perceived or actual barriers to the CCC providing evidence during this crucial period.

It will be for the next Convener's Group to decide whether to continue to deem climate change and net zero to be a cross-cutting strategic priority for committees in the next Session. We think this has been successful in raising the profile and salience of these matters across committees, encouraging cross-committee scrutiny, and improving Members' and committees' access to information and data. It helped create the conditions for an unprecedented level of committee engagement in scrutiny of the draft Climate Change Plan. Whatever CG may formally determine next session, climate change is too big, systemic and multidisciplinary for one committee to cover it effectively. We encourage successor committees and the next CG to work to promote the same level of cross-committee cooperation and communication, and support for net zero scrutiny, as we achieved this session, and to support techniques and approaches to assist Members and committees in their work being continued into the next Session.

We would strongly encourage our successor committee leading on climate change in the next session to ensure that the Parliament plays an effective public role in considering the effectiveness of policies on adaptation to climate change and resilience in the run-up to the laying of a new National Adaptation Plan when the current one ends in 2029. This could include encouraging other committees to play their part in this work. Audit Scotland, ESS and the Scottish Fiscal Commission are again likely to be key partners in this work. There is also the option to commission research on the delivery of specific aspects of this in the run-up to 2029.

We encourage our successor committee to continue to monitor all three strands of the Joint Budget Review over the coming session, and where necessary press for their roll-out. All three have the potential to add value, in terms of understanding whether budget choices are consistent with climate change goals. The strands are at different stages of development, with the climate narrative strand the most developed and Net Zero Assessment the least. The Net Zero Assessment strand is the most significant, in its capacity to improve the mechanics of actual government decision-taking relevant to climate change upstream of determining what specific interventions to make. Only in the coming Parliamentary session will it be possible to begin drawing conclusions about all of this, and only if all three strands continue to be developed and become a mainstream part of budget planning in the manner indicated in the final JBR report.

The Committee would encourage successor committees to be assertive in ensuring they have enough time to consider Bills allocated to them, not only at the outset of scrutiny, but later on in response to developments (for instance, the emergence of a specific problem with the drafting of a key section or imminent publication of a relevant report or study).

In relation to Bills containing framework provisions, we would urge successor committees to press the Scottish Government for reasons as to why important detail is not being set out on the face of the Bill and then to reflect on whether these are satisfactory. Committees should also consider whether especially important and widely-drawn powers in Bills should be made subject to a super-affirmative procedure. Overall, the increased use of framework provisions creates a risk of a "missing middle" in Parliamentary scrutiny: the period between the Bill being passed and subordinate legislation then emerging sometime later as the "finished product" in a policy development process in which the Parliament and its committees may have played little part. We recommend early reflection in the next Parliament on how to respond to this at an institutional level. Committees should also be vigilant in relation to subordinate legislation which itself delegates key detail about its operation to guidance or codes without drafts of these being made available for scrutiny with the instrument. In relation to subordinate legislation generally, committees should, whenever necessary, press the Scottish Government for a consistently good standard of accompanying documentation.

We suggest that in the next Parliamentary session the Parliamentary authorities, led by the Bureau, reflect on whether the deadline on lodging Member's Bills currently set out in Standing Orders guarantees committees sufficient scrutiny time. Whether or not there is any formal change to Standing Orders, we suggest that the Non-Government Bills Unit work with Members with the aim of lodging Members' Bills as early as possible, consistent with producing a well worked-up Bill.

There are serious defects to the process around legislative consent memorandums and motions that, at times, call into question the worth of committee engagement in the process. The most fundamental issue is of amendments triggering the need for consent being lodged so late in the UK Bill process that the lead committee has no time to come to a considered view. This is largely an issue for Westminster and Whitehall to solve and, if this is to happen, it will likely require the Scottish Government and Parliament campaigning together in a non-partisan manner. However, the Scottish Government could do more to help committees by setting out its views earlier, by way of a substantive and reasoned LCM, rather than sitting on the matter until late in the process when its dialogue with the UK Government concludes. If the situation does not improve in the next session, we would encourage successor committees to continue to take this issue up with the Scottish Government, possibly through the Conveners Group.

While the precise parameters of committee remits will be for the next Parliament to consider, and there is no one "right" answer, our roving brief in relation to net zero and the environment has given us some insight into potentially effective synergies and what a logical and workable division of responsibilities might look like. It could, for instance, be along these lines:
A committee with responsibility for scrutinising energy policy and the just transition. It would lead on the scrutiny of overall governmental performance in driving net zero, and securing economic and social benefit from it, and in holding to account the minister in the next Scottish Government given that cross-cutting responsibility. It could have a roving brief to inquire into decarbonisation and the just transition in specific sectors outside its direct subject remit but only by agreement with the relevant subject committee, if they had no plans to do so, or lacked time. It would lead on coordinating committees' scrutiny of the next draft Climate Change Plan and have the most direct working relationship with the Climate Change Committee;
A Committee charged with considering environmental policy, rural development policy and rural land use as integrated matters: the interventions and trade-offs we need to achieve the twin goals of addressing the climate and nature crisis on our land and in our waters, and aligning these with other ambitions like having thriving, diversified rural and maritime economies;
A Committee on transport. This is too important, and high-spending, a policy area not to have a dedicated committee. This committee would lead on assessing progress in decarbonising the transport sector but also on the more everyday transport matters that the public care about: fares and ticketing; integrated transport; how our publicly-owned trains and ferries are performing; availability of buses; provision for cyclists; safety on public transport; rural transport needs, etc. This committee could also lead on scrutiny of major Scottish Government-supported public works projects.
Decarbonising heat in homes should rest mainly with the committee charged with scrutinising overall housing policy, as has been the case, in practice if not entirely on paper, for most of this session.

In their October 2025 " Strengthening Committees' Effectiveness " report, the Standards Procedures and Public Appointment Committee commented that:
"... churn in membership does not help create a sense of collegiate working as committee members need time to get to know each other and build up expertise and understanding; and
"We also agree with the concerns expressed that larger committees present practical issues with meeting management and ensuring there are opportunities to probe more deeply into issues."
We agree with this. We also agree with their view that committees should seek to normally reflect the gender balance of the Parliament, recognising the practical barriers that mean this cannot be done on all committees all the time. The Parliamentary Bureau and party business managers should consider working to avoid allowing significant gender imbalances to persist on a committee for long periods.

The next Parliament, led by our successor committee on net zero, will be the first to assess progress in emissions reduction against five-year budgets not annual targets. This may require some changes and there is an opportunity to consider what has emerged as good practice in other UK legislatures where five-year budgets have been the norm. To some extent, a switch to five-year budgeting is about avoiding short-termist thinking about "success" and "failure" in emissions reduction. But it will still be important to know early if policies are going off track.