Yes, and I should say that we did bat around the idea of tabling on Groundhog Day because the findings were so similar to last year, but there was more urgency. We didn't want to wait until the winter to do the report.
As you recall, the deadline for our office, under the new net-zero act, was to release our first report by the end of next month and then to release our second report five years after that. We're already on our second report. We wanted to lead by example by issuing our first report over a year early and our second report much earlier than required under the act. That would be to lead by example and to say that if this is a climate crisis, then we're going to do what Parliament has asked us to do faster rather than slower.
To answer your question directly, though, I would have hoped, by sounding the alarm one year early under the act, that the government would have at least filled the gap between 36% and 40%. As I said last year, it should probably aim a little higher than 40% because of the problems that we've identified in terms of overly ambitious assumptions, double-counting and those sorts of things. I am surprised to see that we're still in the mid-thirties, in terms of a percentage, one year after last year's report. I'm not only surprised but also disappointed.