Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, October 10, 2024

Official Report 1136KB pdf

---

Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-14836, in the name of Gillian Martin, on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

15:32  

I am grateful for the opportunity to open today’s stage 1 debate and set out the Government’s reason for introducing the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. We have moved at pace on the legislation, so I thank colleagues from across the chamber who have engaged with me in recent weeks to understand our approach and to help me to make the progress that we need. I also thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their scrutiny of the bill to this point and for their support for the general principles of the bill.

In the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) Scotland Act 2019, the Parliament set highly ambitious emissions targets, including a reduction of 75 per cent by 2030. At that time, the independent experts at the Climate Change Committee advised us all that the target was beyond their recommendations and would require extraordinary effort to achieve. We all regret that it has not been possible to find a policy pathway to meet that target and that, in March, the Climate Change Committee advised us that the 2030 target was beyond what could be achieved. The urgency of the legislation is driven by its expert advice. Maintaining our current targets would leave us in the unsustainable position of having targets that we know that we cannot meet and being therefore unable to bring forward a credible climate change plan that can meet our targets.

Although those targets were ambitious, were there suggestions from the Climate Change Committee for how we could meet them?

Of course, there were many such suggestions from the Climate Change Committee. I remember one of them clearly, as it had a bearing on the area that I represent. The committee said that carbon capture, utilisation and storage was a fundamental action that would have to happen for our climate change targets to be met. It is of great regret to me that track status has not been given to the Acorn project and the Scottish cluster, which would probably have taken us further along the line than we are now.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I will make some headway; I will take an intervention from Mr Lumsden at some point.

To those who would argue that we could make it to 75 per cent reductions by 2030, I must strongly state that the scale, range and pace of action would be unjust and unrealistic, and could damage households and our communities in many ways. We must therefore have the courage to accept that, although our ambition was laudable, those targets are unrealistic, and we must find a better way forward that enables us to meet net zero by 2045 and that takes the whole of Scotland with us. We all share that ambition, which I know has led to a real change in the way that climate action is viewed across Government and local government and in wider society. The Government is clear that we must reach a just and fair net zero, and that doing so involves taking a different path: the path that is set out in the bill.

We have learned a great deal since the 2019 act about how our targets system operates and how it might work better. The bill addresses that learning and moves us from linear annual targets to a system of five-year carbon budgets. That is a major and much-needed change in approach. The system introduced through the bill will set a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in Scotland over a five-year period.

The expert advice of the Climate Change Committee is that those carbon budgets better reflect Scotland’s long-term decarbonisation journey, smoothing out the volatility of annual emissions. In contrast, the rigid system of annual targets struggles to account for in-year fluctuations such as harsher winters, or indeed for unexpected global crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic. We also have been learning about the use of carbon budgets in Wales and Northern Ireland as well as further afield. The bill will allow such targets to be set by regulations after we receive Climate Change Committee advice on levels, and it will align our climate change plan timeline with the new system.

I am glad that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee agrees that our new targets framework offers a better and more flexible system for emissions reduction targets than the current approach. The budgets, which are based on the advice of experts, represent our best path towards net zero. As the Parliament is aware, the CCC advice is next expected in spring 2025. From there, we will finalise and publish our draft climate change plan, and I have committed to try to do that by the summer recess next year, if the advice from the CCC is received at the right time. If it is not, I can assure members that we will publish the draft plan as soon as possible, even if that ends up being in recess.

I inform members that, when the CCC advice is received, I will host a round table for my counterparts across the parties that are represented in the Parliament to hear their views directly. It is essential that we work together on behalf of Scotland to decide on the action that we need to take to reach any targets that the Parliament sets.

The bill’s provisions are strictly limited to those that are necessary to develop a carbon budget framework and to enable the next climate change plan to reflect our carbon budgets. We remain steadfast in our statutory goal of achieving net zero by 2045 and in our statutory requirements on annual reporting on emissions and progress.

To be clear, I point out that, while we move from annual targets to five-year carbon budgets, we will maintain an annual reporting cycle. That will include updates on our emissions levels and reviewing the progress of our climate change plan, including developments in each sector of the plan. At the end of each carbon budget period, those reports will state whether Scotland’s carbon budget target for the period has been met. In addition, I can assure colleagues that the existing statutory duties relating to the climate change plan, including the costing of policies, will remain under the bill, and we will continue the approach of not allowing carry over between targets.

We can see from our recent UK-leading achievements in afforestation and the provision of electric charging points, which are at the highest levels in the United Kingdom outside of London, that Scotland continues to lead the way in the journey to net zero. Under this Government, taking resolute action on net zero will not change. Carbon budgets will reinforce our momentum, with an underpinning of credible targets. They will support the Government and our many partners in Scotland’s decarbonisation journey in achieving our continued aims and actions.

Scotland continues to be at the forefront of climate action. I truly believe that the people of Scotland share a drive to achieve net zero ambitions and to protect future generations. We have already taken great strides in decarbonisation, from the rise of renewables in our energy sector—with renewable electricity capacity having grown from 6.7GW in 2013 to 15.6GW in 2024—to the provision of concessionary bus travel, which benefits nearly half the population, and carbon sequestration through peatland restoration and tree planting. We need to go a lot further, however—and we know that.

The next steps will not be easy, and there are difficult choices that we must address collectively. Let us not forget that, thanks to the progress that we have already made, Scotland is already halfway to net zero and continues to be ahead of the UK in delivering long-term emissions reductions. It remains the case that there are infrastructural and reserved policy choices that must also be made by the UK Government to assist devolved nations in their net zero journey, not least in heat decarbonisation and carbon capture and storage.

I go back to the point that the cabinet secretary made about carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Is she really trying to tell us that, if the Acorn project had been given the go ahead, we would have been able to meet our 75 per cent target, and that we would have had a climate change plan before us already?

As Mr Lumsden knows, carbon capture and storage has been developed in the north-east over many years, and funding has been taken away from it by subsequent Conservative Governments. I am not entirely sure that the Acorn project could have been up and running and capturing carbon by 2030, but we would have known that the project would have been in train. Given that it is one of the most mature propositions for carbon capture and storage and that Storegga has been working on it for some time, I think that it was the most ready to go out of all the CCUS projects across the UK. In his heart of hearts, I think that Mr Lumsden agrees with me.

It is clear from the Government’s engagement over the summer and the NZET Committee’s evidence sessions on the bill that there is consensus from stakeholders, communities, experts and MSPs. We need to move fast to ensure that Scotland has credible targets and a credible climate change plan as soon as possible. The bill is the first essential step in that process. It will set us on a new path, while ensuring that our system is solid and credible. I urge members to support its passage through stage 1 and beyond.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill.

I call Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

15:42  

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. In April this year, the Scottish Government announced new legislation to repeal a statutory net zero target that it accepted that it could not meet. With that, it announced a new approach to setting out and monitoring emissions reduction targets, in the form of five-year carbon budgets. The committee stood ready to consider the bill, but there was an unacceptable delay, because the bill was not introduced until 5 September. I accept that the bill is narrowly drawn, but it is technically quite complex. The short time that was available for scrutiny should, and could, have been avoided.

I place on record my thanks to committee members and all the clerks for their work to secure evidence from as many experts as we could and for giving the Parliament some food for thought in our stage 1 report. The report also uses the responses to our pre-legislative call for views during the summer. I thank members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their work on the bill. I am extremely grateful, as is the NZET Committee, to all those who gave evidence, and especially to those who attended our meetings, often with little and sometimes no notice.

The catalyst for the bill is the Scottish Government’s recognition that the 2030 net zero targets cannot now be met. That is a matter of regret. In removing those targets, the bill will sweep away all other percentage-based annual targets. There are some drawbacks to that, as they provided clear and accessible ways of communicating ambition and progress to the public.

However, we heard that there are benefits from switching to carbon budgeting, which provides a more flexible approach to setting emissions reduction targets. We largely welcome the way in which that has been delivered in the bill, including the retention of an advisory role for the independent Climate Change Committee. However, given that the 75 per cent and 90 per cent interim targets remain important milestones on the path to net zero, to lose them completely feels as though we are going backwards.

We recommended having those targets translated, as it were, into the new system, with a revised schedule for hitting them. I note what looks to be a cautious acceptance of that proposal in the acting cabinet secretary’s response to our report.

The timing and sequencing of key events under the new system was a major theme of our evidence taking. In our report, we tried to balance two important considerations—urgency and scrutiny. We all agreed on the pressing need for a new climate change plan to get our net zero progress back on track. However, speed must not come at the expense of parliamentary consideration and, with it, the chance to hear from stakeholders and the wider public.

We suggest that the solution is for the Parliament to be able to consider the proposed carbon budgets and draft climate change plan at the same time, which takes into account the fundamental interconnectedness of targets and plans. The acting cabinet secretary’s response on that recommendation is equivocal, but I welcome her commitment to provide the Parliament with more information about how the proposed carbon budgets target fits into the net zero pathway, to help us to make an informed choice when we consider the regulations.

Another issue that we discussed was whether Scottish carbon budgets should align with UK carbon budgets, which are also for five years. Alignment seems neater, and it may enable more effective cross-Government working. There was a question, however, as to whether it would slow us down if we were to wait for the UK carbon budget in 2027 before setting a carbon budget ourselves. The committee could not reach a common position on alignment, but we agreed that the discussion should continue, and we asked the Scottish Government to show more of its working on why it had come down against UK alignment. The acting cabinet secretary has responded, and we can reflect further on that issue as we go forward to stage 2. I look forward to being personally convinced that her proposals are the right ones.

The bill does not touch directly on the content of climate change plans. However, stage 1 was an opportunity to take stock on the issue, and the need for more detail and more flesh on the bones was a recurring theme in our evidence. We heard that plans should set out estimates for the actual emissions reductions that are envisaged from specific policies and proposals. We recommended that the Scottish Government should work with the Scottish Fiscal Commission on the information on costs and benefits that is to be provided in the climate change plans. The Government must provide more robust information on costing, which links back to the Scottish budget, as Parliament needs to be able to assess whether the Government has put in the money to match its ambitions.

Another issue that we considered concerned section 36 reports in the context of the new carbon budgeting system. Those reports are triggered when the Scottish Government needs to take corrective action in relation to missed targets. We did not think that it was right that only one report could be triggered during the five-year lifetime of a carbon budget—that felt too infrequent. It looks, from the acting cabinet secretary’s response, that she is in part agreement on that and accepts the need for more clarity on the trigger point under the new approach and on how early that should happen. We will wait and see what emerges at stage 2.

I turn to the policy memorandum and the financial memorandum. They were short on detail—indeed, they were just short. The Government’s view is that the bill is a technical bill that does not change the destination—namely, to reach net zero by 2045—and that the bill changes only how we measure how we are getting there. I get that argument, but I put it on the record that there needs to be consideration of the cost to and impact on people who are now having to push harder and faster to keep the 2045 goal in sight. I also note that the Finance and Public Administration Committee felt that there is a general issue with the level of detail in financial memorandums, and this is one example.

To sum up, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that Parliament should agree to the general principles of the bill at stage 1, but it is also a time for some reflection and indeed regret. If we pass the bill, we will say goodbye to a 2030 target that experts told us was tough but achievable. Action has not kept pace with ambition, and the Scottish Government must therefore now take back the initiative and focus on the nuts and bolts of net zero delivery through the bill.

I call Douglas Lumsden to open on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

15:49  

I thank the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for keeping all committee members together during the production of the report. I especially thank the clerks for this excellent report, which was turned around quickly to give us the opportunity to discuss it today.

The committee has taken as much time as possible to consider the legislation, but I think that we all agree that more time is required to discuss this important issue. We also need to reflect on why we are here today.

We know that the Scottish Government has failed to meet its climate change targets, to address the challenges that we are facing and to set out a clear plan on how, together, we can achieve net zero. The committee pulls no punches in its remarks on the matter, stating that action so far on reaching our ambitious climate change emissions reduction targets “has been inadequate”; that the pace that has been forced on the parliamentary process of the legislation is “unsatisfactory”; and that we have done our best to listen to as wide a cross-section as we can in the time that was given to us.

Parliamentary scrutiny should not be the loser in the Scottish National Party Government’s mismanagement of our climate change goals. I understand that the Scottish Government is keen to be seen to be doing something quickly on the matter, but that does not mean that it can charge ahead unchecked and without the adequate scrutiny and assistance from experts. The issue is too important, too big and too vital—its significance is too great—to rush through without adequate thought or thorough examination.

I will focus my remarks on three key areas that have been highlighted by the committee. The first is an issue that was raised repeatedly with the committee during our deliberations. Many of those who gave their time to respond to the committee mentioned the importance of alignment between what is happening here and what is happening in Westminster. It is concerning that there is nothing in the policy memorandum on alignment, and I ask the cabinet secretary to clarify, if she can, why that is the case.

The committee has made very clear recommendations on the matter and asks that the Government sets out its thinking on alignment with the UK carbon budgets, what evidence it gathered and whether alignment would delay the Scottish Government’s working on new and improved plans to deliver net zero.

I welcome the Scottish Government response to the committee report, including its detailed response on that question. It would be helpful if the committee could look at the matter again in light of that response. I remain concerned about the lack of alignment, but I am happy to take additional time to consider the question as part of the bill process.

I gave comprehensive reasoning for that. If there is any information that you need that you believe is not in the response, you need only ask. There are pros and cons of both approaches—we fully agree on that. We have landed on the five-year carbon budget, starting from next year, for good reason. However, if there is anything else that Mr Lumsden needs to know, he should let me know.

Always speak through the chair.

I note that I welcomed the cabinet secretary’s response, but it would have been good to have had that clarity prior to our working on our report and gathering evidence, so that we could hear the thoughts of other stakeholders on the Scottish Government’s thinking.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will.

I advise members that we have some time in hand.

I am grateful to Douglas Lumsden, a fellow member of the committee.

On the point about alignment, it is fair to say that the committee struggled with some of the evidence, because we did not get strong views one way or the other. The CCC would prefer Scottish and UK carbon budgets to align, but it also said that it could “work either way”. As well as hearing more of the Government’s analysis, does Douglas Lumsden agree that it would be good for the committee to take more external advice on that at stage 2?

Absolutely. It is good that we have heard a view from the Scottish Government, but it would have been good to hear the thoughts of members of other organisations on that view when speaking to them in committee.

The second key issue is reporting. It is regrettable that the bill will permit only one section 36 report to be published at the end of each five-year carbon budget period. Such an important issue requires careful monitoring and reporting, and there should be much more opportunity for that in the bill. It is vitally important to the future of Scotland for us to get this right, and I know that the committee is committed to working with the Government to ensure that the bill achieves what we all want it to achieve.

I note the cabinet secretary’s response on the issue of the section 36 report and the lack of a trigger point in the five-year period. I hope that, as the bill progresses, a statutory solution can be found.

Another issue is the financial memorandum. Like most financial memoranda from this devolved Government, it is weak. Again, it seems that we will be asked to sign up to legislation with no real idea of its overall cost. Having scrutinised the bill’s financial memorandum, the Finance and Public Audit Committee highlighted its previous advice, and asked whether all costs or benefits, except those of a genuinely marginal nature, have been quantified, including those that are likely to arise from secondary legislation. Everyone can agree that we have seen no costs for the associated secondary legislation, and we will get that only once we are a lot further down the road. That is wrong.

Will Douglas Lumsden give way?

I will.

I thank my fellow committee member for giving way. Does Mr Lumsden agree that, given that, when five-year carbon budgets are set, we will get 15 years’ worth of them at the same time, and a 15-year climate change plan, it is not credible to have a detailed costing of spend in year 5, year 10 and year 15? Some of the technologies for reducing emissions do not even exist yet.

It might not have a detailed costing, but the Government should be able to give a ballpark figure on how much things will cost. As I said, we would be signing up to legislation with no real idea of what the true cost of that will be. We heard from local authorities that they are concerned about costs and about what funding will be made available to them as we ask them to change to enable the Scottish Government to meet its targets.

I am concerned that this new legislation will mean nothing if the devolved Government does not follow it up with actions. I am worried that the net zero and energy budget has been cut by £23.4 million. The Scottish Government is set to miss four of its six recycling targets and has failed to achieve its key climate target for nine out of the past 13 years. Its record is not great, and there is so much to be done.

I have to mention the much-delayed climate change plan. We should have had that a long time ago. It is shameful that the SNP Government has got itself into this situation. People are looking for clarity, including on the direction of travel—we should have had that clarity long before now. The Government needs to commit to a date on which the new plan will be released. I am fed up with the SNP Government fobbing us off when it comes to plans and strategy.

As I said in committee, we can provide clarity on when the climate change plan will be given in draft to the committee. I set out in a letter to the committee about the timeline for the CCC’s advice and what that will mean in terms of a draft coming to the committee. The member already has that information and that commitment from me.

What I heard earlier was that the cabinet secretary would endeavour to bring forward the plan before recess next summer. I do not see that as a real commitment.

As I said, I am fed up with the SNP Government fobbing us off when it comes to plans and strategies. The energy strategy is a prime example. We have been told for months now that it is imminent, but there is still no sign of it. Maybe the cabinet secretary can intervene again—right now—and tell us when that will be released. [Interruption.]

Cabinet secretary, do you have an intervention to make?

Yes. The energy strategy and just transition plan is in its final draft and simply has to go through the Cabinet.

I think that we heard that last week, and maybe the week before. I am looking for an answer. We want to know the date on which the energy strategy will be published. People are looking for clarity, and we do not get that from this SNP Government.

It is vital that we get this right for Scotland and for future generations. We need a clear plan, which is measurable and achievable, for how we will achieve net zero by 2045. We need to be able to hold the Government to account when targets are missed or we fall short. We cannot rush through this process without adequate time to consider the implications and impact of legislation on our communities and businesses across Scotland. We cannot rush through actions that will have adverse effects on our rural communities. As Scottish Land & Estates says:

“the pursuit of net-zero must not result in rural businesses and communities being negatively impacted by urban-focussed policies.”

That is vital.

We have to work with our partners across the UK to ensure that our plan is aligned across the country. We cannot achieve that alone. It must be done in partnership with business, local authorities and communities across Scotland and the UK. I hope that the Scottish Government accepts the committee’s recommendations and makes changes to the bill, as I think that there is a genuine will across all parties to make the legislation work for the whole of Scotland.

15:59  

I thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for its excellent report and those who fed in their concerns and judgments to the committee, especially given the incredibly short timescale.

Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 1, but we are hugely disappointed that we have ended up needing it. We have had poor environmental leadership over the 17 years of the SNP’s time in Government, which has meant that we have lost the opportunity to be a world leader on climate action. Our Parliament’s targets were ambitious and were celebrated for being bold, but the Scottish Government’s action has not matched the ambition in either of the climate acts.

My intervention is perfectly timed, as there is quite a lot of time left on the clock for Sarah Boyack to speak. Might you want to use that time to say what you would have done differently in the past years?

Always speak through the chair, please.

Sorry.

I used to be a lecturer, so I could take at least an hour to answer Mr Macpherson. We have talked about things we would have done. We would have agreed with so many of the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations about action.

We have missed nine out of 13 annual targets and the bill is being rushed through Parliament because of a failure to do the heavy lifting on the policies and their implementation. That is what I want to focus on.

One only needs to turn on the news and to see storm Milton battering the south-east of America to realise that the climate emergency is a “now” issue. We could be debating the matter any week of the year, and people would be facing another climate challenge and extreme weather in the world.

It is happening closer to home, too—record temperatures, extreme rain, sea level rises and forest fires are impacting our urban and rural communities. We need action across Scotland, and we need to address the issue now.

One action that could be taken across the whole of the UK—given that it has a 2050 target for net zero and that the Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments have targets as well—would be adjusting the electricity price so that we could use our renewable electricity to heat our homes in a way that is not punitive for householders. Does the member agree that reform is needed there?

We need so much action, not just to ensure that the affordable electricity that we are now producing benefits communities—which could happen through community and co-operative ownership, too—but also to make our houses more energy efficient in the first place, so that people are not wasting heat and power in urban and rural communities. We should all be considering the Winser report. There is also NESO—the National Energy System Operator—the launch of which the minister was at last night. We need to do a lot of work together.

It is a “now” issue. I have appreciated working with Gillian Martin, who has shown a willingness to collaborate on the bill. However, everything cannot rely on the cabinet secretary and her colleague. This must be a cross-Government issue: it needs all departments—transport, planning, business, housing and rural affairs. I worry that it is just seen as a climate issue, yet it cannot be just the work of the energy and climate change directorate.

Take transport, for instance. One of the Government’s bold new strategies is to explore integrated ticketing—a policy from 2012. The Scottish Government aims for a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres, but that is a goal from 2020, which still has no clear strategy.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

If the Minister for Transport was as invested in net zero as the cabinet secretary, there is no way that we would have seen the reinstatement of peak fares or the massively overcrowded and underserved train routes in Scotland.

The third highest emitting sector in Scotland is buildings, and although the UK Climate Change Committee commended plans for the heat in buildings bill—

Will the member take an intervention?

Well, unless the colleague who is intervening can give me a date for the bill—[Laughter.] I see that is Lorna Slater, who will not have the date for the heat in buildings bill.

We need detail on the timing soon; the bill is still not in front of us, which means that there is no confidence from investors and businesses who are absolutely vital. The bill will not only benefit businesses but will make our homes and public sector buildings warm, and affordable to heat and power.

There is also a need to support food, farming and land so that decarbonisation happens there as well. It is not a niche issue: it affects every day of our lives and the lives of all our constituents.

We will support the bill, but we will work on a cross-party basis to amend it. We do not agree with the Government on everything but we will work to lodge amendments that will work for us in order to increase the transparency and scrutiny that we need from the bill.

I would request from the cabinet secretary an interim update that is separate from the legal targets just to make sure that the Parliament knows what action is being taken now. The last update on action was the so-called policy package when the targets were dropped, and that was in April—by the time that we get the new climate change plan next summer, it will have been well over a year since that update.

We cannot afford to lose momentum and I hope that the cabinet secretary will commit to giving a statement between now and the climate change plan at least to let us know what actions are being taken and what outcomes are expected, to enable the whole of Parliament to engage on this issue, because we will disagree with each other but we also have to come together.

We support the introduction of carbon budgets, but the fact that we have to have this bill shows that there has been a failure. We need a whole-Government approach and the First Minister and his entire cabinet need to take the issue seriously every day. If they do not do that, we are not going to make the change that we urgently need. Scotland, our constituents, and our planet, cannot afford that, so let us get on with it.

I call Mark Ruskell to open on behalf of the Scottish Greens.

16:06  

It is clear that this climate bill must result in a reset of climate ambition. However, to achieve that, there must be a level of honesty about what getting to net zero actually means and what choices must be made.

Yes, the 2030 target was ambitious—it was on the edge of what the UK Climate Change Committee believed was achievable—but it was also necessary that this Parliament reflected what climate science demanded. Last week, Jim Skea, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said:

“We are potentially headed towards 3°C of global warming by 2100 if we carry on with the policies we have at the moment”.

Colleagues know that a rise of 3°C would be utterly devastating for all life on this planet.

Just six years ago, at the time that we set the 2030 target, Jim Skea said:

“Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes”.

Unprecedented changes were what young people around the world were demanding on the streets at the time that we set the 2030 target. They demanded that we keep 1.5°C alive; they demanded that we listen to the scientists and that we make the changes that remain so necessary today.

However, those unprecedented changes were not put forward by Government. The climate plan that came out in 2019 largely fudged the issue; it did not spell out the emissions reductions that could be achieved. Dozens of recommendations made by parliamentary committees to improve the plan were ignored, as were warnings from the Climate Change Committee to ramp up delivery. Quite simply, it was too little, too late.

It was obvious at the start of this session of Parliament that the 2030 target was starting to slip beyond reach. As this bill looks to reset how targets are measured and as plans are made, we cannot ignore the need for Government to take seriously the need for unprecedented action to tackle the climate emergency.

Action is what Greens need to see alongside this bill if we are to give the bill our full support. We are still waiting for a new energy strategy with a clear presumption against new oil and gas; we are still waiting for the plan to reduce car dependency; we are still waiting for more climate-compatible options for improving the A96; and we are still waiting for a decisive shift in subsidy to help farmers cut climate pollution.

Decisions on those policies and many more will either lock in or lock out climate pollution in the years ahead, but clarity is needed right now.

I am interested to hear Mark Ruskell outline some specific ideas that he thinks could help to reduce carbon emissions.

I have just read out a list of specific ideas that will help Scotland to reduce its climate emissions.

If Mr Simpson wants to go for a full dualling of the A96, I suspect that that will result in enormous amounts of carbon emissions that will be locked in for decades ahead. I say to Mr Simpson and to other members in the chamber—if this Parliament wants to make such decisions, we have to live with the consequences; if we go for high-carbon infrastructure, it has a consequence, so we need to measure it and understand it. If members want to trade that off against emission reductions somewhere else in the economy, they can make that decision, but we have to operate within our carbon budget. I think that that is implicit within this bill.

The bill does not alter climate ambition, which will come through the setting of a carbon budget next year. However, it does offer the opportunity to learn lessons from the past five years, especially through the need to link action plans with financial budgets and the new carbon budgets. Aligning a five-year carbon budget with a clear and costed plan will, I hope, deliver honest and transparent consideration of what is actually needed on the ground to get to net zero. The evidence that was presented on that by the Scottish Fiscal Commission was important and I hope that the Government will consider giving it a formal role in the process.

Will the member take an intervention?

If there is time in hand, I will certainly take the cabinet secretary’s intervention.

I will be brief. Does Mark Ruskell appreciate that it will not be Government money alone that will take us to net zero? Private investment must be encouraged in setting out the direction of travel. Only with private investment and other layers of Government leveraging in money will we all be able to get to net zero.

Absolutely, but the role of public investment in levering in responsible private investment is absolutely critical. We have seen that with the excellent work of my colleague Patrick Harvie on the heat in buildings strategy, which has a hybrid model of public and private investment to deliver that change. Cabinet secretary, it is the plans that we need to see.

Five-year carbon budgets linked to action are broadly welcome, but, if budgets are being blown, meaningful corrective action is important. We recently received two section 36 reports in the Parliament that were meant to spell out the action that the Government is taking to make up for missed climate targets. However, they did not offer new actions and they did not explain how restated policies would get us back on track. Clearly, the new legislation must put more of a requirement on such reports to spell out—urgently—how course correction could be achieved and to include the financial cost.

How we take the whole of society on this journey is really important. Scotland’s first climate assembly, which was mandated under the 2019 act, delivered much-needed and very honest conversations and made some critical recommendations to the Government, some of which were taken on and others that were not. I believe that the Government should consider embedding that approach to public participation in the new climate change bill.

Once again, we stand on the brink of disaster. The climate change bill will help us to learn lessons and will make improvements, but it will not move us to safety. That can come only from the Government redoubling its commitment to the unprecedented action that is demanded by the science, and it must deliver that alongside the bill.

16:12  

I, too, thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. It is hardly a secret that the timeframe in which the committee and the Parliament have been asked to carry out our scrutiny role on the bill could generously be described as suboptimal. However, with the help of those who have given evidence to the committee, the committee has discharged its duties well and deserves credit.

I will come on to the bill and the committee’s findings shortly. First, like other members, I will reflect on how we find ourselves in this deeply regrettable position and, importantly, how it should inform the approach as we go forward, which will be essential if we are to have any hope of meeting our net zero ambitions.

I was one of those who were intimately involved in shaping the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019—Mark Ruskell was another colleague who was involved at that time. Indeed, I can lay claim to having also had a hand in passing similar legislation a decade earlier.

Back in 2019, in a Parliament of minorities, consideration of the bill was a genuinely cross-party endeavour, which, I think, will be required in this instance. On the question of the interim target for 2030, my former Labour colleague Claudia Beamish and I lodged the amendment on the figure of 75 per cent, which was eventually adopted. That was a compromise. The minister at the time, Roseanna Cunningham, argued strongly for a lower target, which, as it happens, still looks unlikely to be met. Green colleagues were intent on going for 80 per cent, which was a figure that seemed to have been plucked out of thin air at the last minute in an attempt to appear more radical. There appeared to be little concern about how an 80 per cent target might be achieved or that any conceivable pathway to meeting it would result in a just transition being comprehensively bypassed.

Looking back on that target, I accept that it seems that it would have been incredibly difficult to achieve, but that target was arrived at in the context of a debate about the climate science. As I said earlier, scientists such as Jim Skea said that even a 75 per cent target would give us only a chance of keeping global warming to 1.5°C. It was a debate about the science. I agree with Liam McArthur that we should also have had a debate about how we would get to the targets and what that would mean for society. I hope that that can now come through the new budgeting process.

I certainly agree with Mark Ruskell’s final point, but I note that, in his speech, he said that the target in the 2019 bill was on the edge of what was achievable. In other words, what he was arguing for at the time was, in essence, over the edge of what was achievable. Therefore, the 75 per cent target was finally agreed. It is true that the minister made clear her misgivings and that the UK Climate Change Committee agreed that it would be a stretching target.

However, the UKCCC also agreed that the 75 per cent target was achievable, subject to appropriate actions being taken by both the Scottish Government and the UK Government. That is the end of the bargain that has not been upheld. Despite repeated and consistent warnings from the UKCCC that detailed action plans that mapped out a route to achieving our interim target were needed, the Scottish Government paid no heed and failed to deliver.

The blame, of course, always lay elsewhere. The fact that shortcomings were pointed to in the workplace car parking charge or the infamous bottle return scheme was evidence, according to ministers, that it was all Opposition parties’ fault or Westminster’s. Seldom was responsibility acknowledged, accepted and acted on by the Scottish ministers, either before or after the Bute house agreement. At the same time, we had Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf trotting the globe, lecturing leaders of other countries on Scotland’s world-leading record on tackling climate change. None of those leaders had the heart to point out that the only time that the Scottish Government had met its emissions reduction targets was thanks to the shutdown that was caused by Covid.

Whatever approach is taken, we need less hubris and hype and more of a focused, detailed, painstaking and consistent commitment to action. In that respect, as Sarah Boyack did, I acknowledge the approach that has been taken by the cabinet secretary and her officials. Most of what I have described thus far predates Gillian Martin’s taking up her present post, and I genuinely welcome the collaborative approach that she has taken in order to build consensus and rebuild trust. Even the ridiculous timeframe for considering the bill before us was something that she inherited.

On the subject of the bill and the committee’s stage 1 findings, I agree that a framework that is based on carbon budgeting is an appropriate way to proceed at this stage. It provides necessary flexibility and allows for the corrective action that Mark Ruskell mentioned in his speech. However, the committee is right to highlight the need for the Government to find a way of translating the 75 per cent target and, indeed, the 90 per cent target for 2040 into the new system of carbon budgets.

Similarly, Scottish Liberal Democrats support the five-year period that is proposed for each carbon budget and note the debate about whether that needs to be aligned with UK budget cycles. I am relatively relaxed about that. I can see the pros and cons in both proposals, and I will be interested to see where the committee goes at stage 2. However, any alignment cannot be allowed to delay plans for reaching net zero.

The final point that I want to make is about transparency and scrutiny. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill is a framework bill, and much of the detail will come forward in due course. Given the significance of that detail and the fact that we are where we are precisely because of the absence of detailed action plans, it is imperative that the Government adopts an open-book approach to the options that are being considered. That can aid scrutiny by this Parliament but, just as important, it can provide an opportunity for stakeholders—businesses, local government, the third sector and others—to have their say in shaping the decisions that are taken, which will affect them directly and which we will often rely on them to deliver.

The bill is a reflection of failures. We cannot afford to find ourselves in this position again. We need to move past what Chris Stark, the former head of the UKCCC, described as the “sugar-rush phase” of target setting and on to the serious business of developing detailed plans for delivering on our collective net zero commitments. Having been involved in passing two previous climate change bills, I hope that, when it comes to delivery, it will be a case of third time lucky. In that hope, Scottish Liberal Democrats will vote in favour of the bill at decision time.

We move to the open debate.

16:19  

I am delighted to take part in this debate as a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and to talk about our stage 1 report on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill.

First, I thank the clerks for all their hard work in completing the stage 1 report so quickly and the witnesses who give up their valuable time to respond to the call for views, to write to the committee and to attend meetings to give evidence. I also, of course, thank my fellow committee members for the way in which the process was conducted.

Scrutinising the bill has reminded me that what is exciting and what is important are not always the same thing in politics. Some folk might not think that changing how we set emissions reduction targets is exciting, but that is important work and this is an important bill.

The first recommendation in the committee’s report includes a line that I will repeat, because it goes straight to the principle of the bill:

“The Committee accepts that a framework based on carbon budgeting is a better and more flexible system for setting targets for emission reductions than the current approach.”

The move to carbon budgets is the crux of the bill, which proposes a shift from annual and interim targets to a more flexible and effective carbon budgeting system. I absolutely agree with that statement.

The system that we are looking to replace can end up with annual targets being missed or achieved because of how cold or mild a winter we have, and it can leave our nation’s progress being judged purely in the light of the politics of the day in this chamber, rather than being based on science, evidence and the advice that is given by experts.

That said, and as the report notes, the current concept of emissions reductions and the associated targets are simpler to understand. It is much easier to say what our carbon emissions were in 1990 and what they are in 2024 than it is to talk about remaining carbon budgets. However, using carbon budgets allows for an averaging out of our carbon footprint, so that we will not exceed our target in a year with a mild winter but then miss it completely the following year if the whole winter is pure baltic.

I highlight that there is still a credible path towards achieving the biggest target of all: reaching net zero by 2045. I remind folk that we talk about “net zero”, not “zero”, carbon emissions, because carbon can be captured as well as emitted. Our planet, mainly because of carbon sinks such as our oceans, our rainforests and other woodland, can remove some CO₂ from our atmosphere.

Over and above that, there is some scope for engineered processes, and I would not be doing my job as a north-east MSP if I did not mention the Acorn project, which, by 2030, could result in up to 10 million tonnes of CO₂ being captured every year, safeguarding thousands of jobs and contributing billions of pounds to the economy in the process. I am still amazed that the project was not awarded track 1 status by the previous UK Government, and I was even more amazed that, when the UK’s new Labour Government announced £22 billion of carbon capture funding last week, the Acorn project did not even get a mention.

Will the member accept an intervention?

Will the member accept an intervention?

I will take an intervention.

From whom are you taking the intervention?

I saw only Mr Lumsden.

That was a good choice.

The Scottish Government committed £80 million for carbon capture, utilisation and storage. How much of that money has actually been spent?

That is a question for the Scottish Government, but if only the previous UK Government had given the same amount of money for a just transition, we might be in a better place.

It is all well and good to talk about targets, but giving the Acorn project the go-ahead would have been a huge step towards meeting those targets, however they are measured. We will not reach net zero without investment.

The bill has been expedited, and some have said that the Scottish Government could have done more, but I fail to see how. The cabinet secretary announced on 18 April that the bill would be brought to the Parliament before the summer recess. However, just five weeks later, a UK election was called and we entered purdah, which shortened the period that we had for scrutiny. That seems to have been a matter of some contention, but if Opposition members want to water down the restrictions of purdah, I guess that it could make the next election really interesting.

As we consider Scotland’s journey to net zero, I remind everyone that it is a global challenge and that many folk around the world are looking to Scotland to see what we are doing. I am pleased that the committee supports the bill’s general principles. We need to get on with it, get the bill in place, get to our targets and get to net zero.

16:25  

I begin on a note of agreement. I welcome the fact that the bill will introduce carbon budgeting. I agree with the cabinet secretary that carbon budgets can provide a more reliable framework for progress on reducing emissions, which begs the question why the Scottish Government has waited so long to introduce them. I am also pleased that there will still be annual reporting on emissions reductions, even if the emissions targets are being ditched. However, if carbon budgets are to be more effective, we need them to be aligned with the wider UK carbon budget. That is common sense. We must also have a robust reporting regime. We want this bill to work, which is why we will lodge amendments on those matters. I hope that the Scottish Government will work with us on them.

On reporting, the Scottish Government has consistently struggled with emissions targets—I will return to that issue later—and we need to ensure that that pattern is not repeated with carbon budgets. That is why we need increased scrutiny and parliamentary statements if there is a failure to meet the carbon budget. Ministers should be required to explain the reason for the failure and set out what they will do to get back on track. Not only is there practical value in those measures, but I believe that they would help to create a better sense of ministerial accountability, which would go some way towards restoring public trust in the Government’s commitment on climate change.

For similar reasons, I am also looking to strengthen the bill’s approach to interim targets. The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has noted its regret that the 2030 and 2040 emissions targets are being ditched. I would go further and say that that causes further damage to the Scottish Government’s already tarnished record on climate change. We need to restore a sense of urgency and commitment to climate action, which is why I want to see interim targets for 2030 and 2040. The principle of having a target is recognised by the Scottish Government—namely, the net zero target for 2045.

I hope that this will be a helpful intervention. I am really interested in everything that Maurice Golden has to say on climate change, because he is very invested in the subject. I would like to know what big interventions he would like to see in the climate change plan that will really move the dial on this.

I will give the cabinet secretary an example that would not cost any money. We need a complete radical reform of public procurement. If we had a series of new frameworks around the circular economy and procurement, with a move from one-off purchases to rental and leasing models, that would help to pump prime the entire wider economy and, ultimately, encourage the third sector to be engaged and businesses to adopt similar approaches. That would be really helpful. I have further suggestions on public sector bodies and their attitude to risk, particularly when they award a contract to a smaller business or third sector organisation. They are sometimes reticent to do that. If we are going to be successful in that space, there is lots of work that we need to do in that regard.

The draft climate change plan has been delayed for far too long, and my concern is that Parliament simply will not have time to properly consider suggestions for amendments. I have already raised that issue with ministers. I want to see a firm commitment in the bill to get the draft published by the summer next year, and I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments on that.

Clearly, there is work to do on carbon budgets and other specific aspects of the bill. However, I turn now to the wider context of the bill, because it is no understatement to say that we cannot afford for it to fail in its objectives. We have seen too much failure already. As much as I have always commended the Scottish Government for showing ambition in tackling climate change, the fact remains that it keeps missing targets. It has failed nine times in the past 13 years. I assure the cabinet secretary that all of that is said constructively. The job of the Opposition is to point out when things are going wrong, and a responsible Government should be able to hold up its hands and admit frankly that to have missed targets nine times is awful.

If the bill is to succeed, we need a change in attitude from the SNP. It needs to be honest about what is going wrong. When it abandoned the 2030 net zero target back in April, it did not mention that it had known seven months before its announcement that it was almost certain to miss the target.

The SNP needs to work constructively. When the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill was going through the Parliament, Opposition members lodged amendments to strengthen it. However, instead of accepting those good-faith proposals, the SNP watered down the bill.

It also needs to back up its words with actions. It cannot claim to lead on climate change, given that it has delayed the next draft climate change plan, with no date in sight, and has cut more than £23 million from the net zero and energy budget.

The bill is an opportunity for the SNP to put those failures behind it, work across Parliament and deliver policy that will ensure that we stay on the road to net zero.

16:31  

As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I thank the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and all the witnesses who gave evidence—and fellow committee members for their efforts in meeting a challenging timescale for completing our stage 1 scrutiny.

Although it was far from ideal, I stress that a condensed period of scrutiny does not mean a compromised level of scrutiny. I will point to two factors. The first is the effectiveness of our committee’s pre-publication call for evidence in drawing out key issues. I commend the convener for his key role in that. Secondly, we heard from 15 witnesses across 14 organisations and groups, not including the cabinet secretary and her officials. The scrutiny was condensed but robust.

However, I believe that the exercise has been quite sobering, not just for the Scottish Government—we have to be honest about that—but for the Parliament as a whole. When we reflect on the revised targets from 2019—earlier today, I reread the stage 3 debate on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill—we may just need to acknowledge that, although those might have been at the outer reaches of what was achievable, they were earnest, well intentioned and ambitious. However, with hindsight—which is always 20:20 vision, of course—I am not sure that they were that credible. During the passage of that legislation, an 80 per cent target was suggested, then a 77 per cent target, and we landed on 75 per cent. The Scottish Government suggested 70 per cent, which was based on the advice of the UK Climate Change Committee. It said that 70 per cent was the prudent target, but the Parliament went for 75 per cent. Whatever we do in this place from here on in, let us never again get into a bidding war over what targets are credible for achieving net zero. Let us work with and follow the evidence.

I am cognisant of the fact that the committee has requested more information ahead of its scrutiny of the secondary legislation. Does Bob Doris agree that an offer from me and my officials to give as much information as possible about potential options for getting to whatever target we put forward will be essential to the committee in making such an informed decision?

Yes, I would appreciate that, and I hope that those will be options for tangible actions on the ground, not abstract policy papers. I would welcome that.

The commitment to achieving net zero by 2045 remains firm across all political parties. In getting there, we must retain the ambition but also ensure that the route map is credible and realistic. Notwithstanding the recommendations made in the committee’s report, I believe that the bill and, with it, our nation’s pivot to a five-year carbon budgeting process is a key part—although not the only part—of ensuring that we build credibility into our 2045 target. That is why the committee was unanimous in backing the general principles of the bill.

I turn to the recommendations made in our report. Recommendation 5 asks the Scottish Government to

“consider laying a draft”

of the climate change plan

“at the same time as it lays regulations setting out carbon budget targets”.

The key word is “consider”, which is one that the committee chose. It would be desirable also to allow maximum scrutiny of carbon budgets. However, we heard that that could be challenging and have practical implications, given that the Scottish Government remains clear in its view that such budgets must be set in law before a draft statutory climate change plan is published. I find that frustrating but, on balance, probably realistic. However, I welcome the Scottish Government’s response that it will reflect further on that and, at the very least, will consider what detailed information on the development of plans can be provided at the point where carbon budgets are introduced to Parliament.

I want to be clear about one point, though. I hope that members will allow me to follow this line of logic. In one respect, none of that matters. Carbon budgets are a recasting of targets. It will be actions—not targets—that deliver net zero. All roads lead to on-the-ground delivery of actions and targets in the climate change plan. That reality very much sits at the heart of our committee’s recommendations at paragraphs 4 and 11 of the executive summary. The committee was clear that we need not only policy actions but associated costings to allow a laser-like focus on scrutiny and delivery, which is an important point.

Will the member take an intervention?

If I have time, Presiding Officer.

If it is brief.

Mr Doris made the important point that the issue involves both expenditure and benefits. Without spending or investing, we miss out, not only on the opportunity of reducing climate emissions but on the other wider economic and social benefits that could come. It is an important recommendation, but it needs to address both aspects. Does the member agree?

I think that I would agree with that. I add that the Parliament must come together to work out exactly what level of detail we would accept on the costings and benefits that can be drawn up, to give credibility not only to the Government but to Parliament, and to give confidence in our climate change plans. The Scottish Government agrees, and its response outlines existing provisions on the costings for previous climate change plans. That said, I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government was open to reviewing the position to see what more can be done.

We have heard from Sarah Boyack that more can be done, and I agree with her. I know that our committee will follow the issues with great interest. For my part, I add that it is about not only the costs of the actions to deliver net zero for Government but the costs across all sectors of the Scottish economy and all aspects of our way of life. It is not simply about budgets in this place; it will also require significant private sector investment. Should we forecast that investment, there will be cost implications for businesses, households and workers—we should not pretend that there will not be.

That leads me on to the just transition. We need an open, on-going and honest debate about that. Likewise, we in Scotland’s Parliament need the political courage and non-partisan environment that will allow us to be just as open and honest about whether the UK Government budgets and the consequentials that flow here, and the wider pan-UK policy frameworks, are sufficient to help Scotland to deliver net zero. Calling that out and questioning it is not a blame game; it is about coming together in a non-partisan way to help to deliver net zero.

Presiding Officer, I will make a couple more brief comments if I have time.

Mr Doris, I think that you should be starting to bring your remarks to a close.

I will merely say that I do not necessarily support alignment with UK carbon budgets. I also welcome the additional reassurances and reporting that the Scottish Government has given in response to our stage 1 report. I thank the committee for all its work on what I think is a splendid piece of scrutiny.

16:40  

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, because although I am not a member of the committee and have not been involved in all the discussions that have been taking place in the Parliament about it, the debate about what targets should be and how we achieve them—which, of course, is the important thing—why we need carbon budgets and why we collectively need to step up to the challenge should be central to what we are all thinking about in this Parliament and beyond. Climate change and the effects of climate change should be at the forefront of our minds.

I accept that there is a political consensus in this Parliament that we need to step up to that challenge, but we also need to be honest with ourselves and admit that none of us has done everything that we should be doing, and we need to do far more than we have done.

We know that the Scottish Government has missed nine out of 13 targets so far and has missed eight in the past 12 years. We know that it failed to produce its climate change plan in late 2023, and I believe that we still have a legal deadline of late November to produce a plan, which is why we are having this debate.

Collectively, we need to agree that we must put in place every available resource to ensure that we do everything that we can to drive down our emissions.

The member suggests that we need to take every available opportunity to drive down our emissions. Does that mean that Labour-led councils in Scotland will implement the workplace parking levy, which would not only raise money to invest in public services but incentivise a reduction in traffic?

I am not going to use my time here today to debate the pros and cons of the parking levy. There are many actions that need to be taken, and the member will be fully aware of the debate that is taking place on that issue.

Political parties in councils up and down Scotland also need to have the discussion that we are having, and we need to provide leadership. The Climate Change Committee deemed that the 2030 target of a 75 per cent reduction was beyond credibility. It also said that the introduction of multiyear budgets would

“provide a more reliable indicator of underlying progress”

and that a five-year period was most appropriate, given that the UK and Welsh Governments are already doing that. I agree that the Parliament and the Scottish Government should consider that, but we need to have a proper discussion of the pros and cons of that. I am not aware of all the arguments on both sides, so I hope that we are able to come back to that and discuss it as a Parliament.

The committee also said that each Scottish budget should be accompanied by a detailed plan, identifying what actions will be needed to achieve the reductions. I hear that Lorna Slater has one specific proposal, but a raft of measures will need to be taken. It is important to lay out what those policies will be, and an evaluation plan will be needed to track indicators to identify whether the deployment of scaling up at pace that is required is taking place.

As Liam McArthur said, there has been a series of failures on this agenda, and more detailed consideration of some of the specifics is something that the Parliament needs to do more regularly.

It has become abundantly clear that, although not enough is being done, there is a will in all political parties in the Parliament to do more. I am, therefore, supportive of the bill, but I agree that far more needs to be done to address the climate emergency, and, in the short time that is available to me, I want to focus on what that means to ordinary people, because this Parliament also has to carefully consider what a just transition means.

Much of the debate has been focused on a just transition for oil and gas workers, who will be at the centre of any move away from fossil fuel usage. I hope that the Scottish Government is working with the new UK Government to ensure that we have a concrete plan for energy transition jobs in Scotland.

Will the member take an intervention?

Yes, I would be happy to—I can imagine what it might concern.

While Katy Clark is making an ask of the Scottish Government around the protection of oil and gas workers in that just transition, my appeal to her would be to ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in her budget, does not muck up the allowance regime, which could lead to job losses amounting to some 30,000, according to Unite the union.

I understand that there is work going on regarding that issue, but I would point out to the member that I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, and I know that Scottish Labour is fighting to ensure that as much as possible is done to make progress as quickly as possible.

Colleagues will be aware that Unite the union has launched its no ban without a plan campaign, which calls for new jobs to be commensurate with current workers’ roles. We need pay protection and training to allow workers to transition to the jobs of the future.

The experience of working people in the past has been of unjust transitions, and they have no reason to believe that it will be different this time. If we allow Grangemouth to close, the situation will be looked at again by working people to see whether warm words have become a reality. In many ways, the closure of Grangemouth is not just about climate change—there are far wider issues there—but we need to build support for the actions that are needed to reduce our carbon emissions. That has cost implications, and such actions need the support of all the community.

We cannot continue with the economy being at the mercy of corporate profiteering, which dramatically increases people’s energy bills. We need to move to a system of greener, cleaner energy at a price that we can all afford, and we need a strategy that gets the support of the whole population for the changes that we need to make. We are seeing the devastating effects of climate change across the world and, increasingly, we are beginning to see that in our own country. We must do more, we must do it collectively, and we cannot wait longer for real action to be taken.

16:47  

Like other members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I offer my thanks to the clerks for managing to decipher the various views that were provided by committee members in the drafting of the stage 1 report. I also thank the witnesses who presented evidence at committee and those who made written submissions to the committee for its drafting of the stage 1 report.

The committee convener is no longer in his seat, but I agree with him that the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill is largely a technical bill, although it has been wedged into what I think is a very complex policy area. At times, it can be challenging for the uninitiated to understand the different parts of the system and the roles that they play in ensuring that we make sufficient progress in tackling the issue of carbon emissions. Potentially, it is one of the most significant bills that the Parliament will pass in this session, because the application of carbon budgeting over a five, 10 or 15-year period has very significant implications for Government spending across a whole range of policy areas. Therefore, although it is short and technical in nature, the bill is an extremely important piece of legislation, particularly given the impact that it can have on policy spending commitments in the next couple of decades and in ensuring that Scotland plays its important part—small though it may be—in tackling the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. In my view, that is the biggest global challenge that we have ever faced.

Noting what we have heard in the course of the debate so far, I acknowledge those who are critical of what is viewed as a lack of progress to date. It would be churlish, however, not to recognise and acknowledge the progress that has been made over the past decade and a half. The cabinet secretary was right to highlight the point that we are more than halfway to achieving our net zero ambitions by 2045.

That is not an effort that has been made only by the Government; it has been made by a whole range of stakeholders, whether they are in the private sector and have worked on the decarbonisation of our energy system, or are in our community groups and have worked to encourage recycling. I think that those efforts have been critical in pushing the circular economy much more effectively in Scotland.

Despite the progress that has been made, there is absolutely no room for complacency. I believe that the bill provides an opportunity for a reset in ensuring that we take what will need to be urgent and sustained action to meet our climate change objectives. I believe that a five-year carbon budgeting process will prove to be more flexible and should help to improve transparency around the progress and approach that the Government is taking. In my view, from my experience in Government for an extended period of time, that measure is critical. The five-year carbon budget—or any climate change plan—are not simply owned by the acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy or the acting Minister for Climate Action. I agree with Sarah Boyack that this area of policy requires collective responsibility right across the Government, in a way that I believe that we have sought to achieve in recent years, and I think that carbon budgeting will assist us in having a much more transparent approach to how different parts of Government are playing their part.

That brings me on to what I think is an important issue, which is the need to ensure that the scrutiny of carbon budgeting and the climate change plan, which will sit alongside that, is robust and effective. The Parliament must be given the opportunity to scrutinise those issues effectively. We should also reflect on how we have arrived at the circumstances that we have found ourselves in, as they relate to the bill. As has been pointed out, the 75 per cent target that was set in 2019 went beyond the target that was recommended by the independent experts on the Committee on Climate Change, who recommended that a target between 65 and 67 per cent would be achievable and would be in line with the goal to reach net zero by 2045. I recognise and accept that the Parliament set a different target from that.

It is important for the Parliament to recognise that setting targets, by and large, is the easy part—the very easy part—because, if we are to achieve those targets, we will have to make policy decisions that will not always be easy. They will require leadership, not just from the Government and from ministers in individual portfolios. It is easy for us to say that we should do a bit more of this and a bit more of that, and to not be specific about exactly what actions we should take. However, if we are serious about achieving those targets, that will require political leadership from across the chamber. Parties will need to step up and make some of those very difficult decisions. Members will need to back policy options that will have an impact and, at the same time, could prove to be controversial. That will require leadership, not just from the Government but from members in the chamber.

I must ask you to conclude, Mr Matheson.

I hope that members will take that opportunity on board.

In relation to section 36 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, I hope that the Government will recognise the need for the legislation to be amended in order to ensure that there is a consistent approach to dealing with any gaps during the course of a five-year carbon budget period. I believe that the legislation, if properly enacted, can make a real difference as we drive forward and strive to meet our climate change targets.

Ben Macpherson is the final speaker in the open debate.

16:54  

As a former member, and still a substitute member, of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I am very pleased to speak in this important debate. I put on record my thanks to, and admiration for, the clerks and the work that they have done in a very pressing timescale to progress the bill to stage 2. I also commend the work of the committee convener and the other members.

The timescale, as Jackie Dunbar mentioned, relates to the question of purdah and the general election. That raises a question as to why the UK Parliament does not have to consider when this Parliament is in an election period—it is only the other way round that there are issues with timetabling, which puts pressure on us.

I move to the bill. We know that, back in the spring, the Climate Change Committee made a public announcement on the challenges around the 2030 target, and the Government has responded with this proposed primary legislation and the changes that are set out therein.

That comes from a position where there has been much progress. Of course, we are all disappointed that the progress has not—because of various factors—been significant enough to meet the 2030 target but, as the cabinet secretary said, we have to be realistic.

That being said, the figures confirm that Scotland is now halfway to net zero, achieving the largest reduction in emissions of any nation in the UK, and decarbonising faster than the European Union 27 average. At the same time, our economy has grown by 67 per cent in real terms, which demonstrates that tackling climate change and growing the economy can go hand in hand—I will come back to that in a minute.

I appreciate the member taking an intervention, because I very much agree that we need to highlight the benefits of tackling climate change, not just for the economy but for people’s homes, transport connectivity and new manufacturing opportunities. Rather than saying, “Here’s a problem that’s difficult to solve,” we should be saying, “Here are the opportunities, and here’s how we could work together.”

That is a brilliant point from Sarah Boyack and I could not agree more; I have said the same on many occasions in the chamber and round the committee table. I refer to the evidence that Chris Stark gave to the committee on 23 April, in which he made that point clearly. If I have time, I will come back to that.

With regard to our success, as well as reducing emissions in order to meet the targets, and as well as the social and economic benefits that Sarah Boyack and others have outlined, we should not forget the technological skills and knowledge development that has taken place over that period. For example, there is the innovation that has happened in my constituency through Nova Innovation, the tidal energy company. It is not only developing engineering solutions and expertise that can be utilised—whether it is in research or in manufacturing product—elsewhere in the world; it is also exporting technology that is reducing emissions elsewhere.

It is not just about Scotland’s impact on reducing emissions here, because we have to be realistic: our contribution to global climate change is very small. If we want to contribute to meeting the wider challenge, it is what we export in terms of expertise, knowledge and technology that will make the biggest impact.

To go back to the bill, one of the main points is the multiyear carbon budgets. Those can provide a more reliable framework for sustained progress in emissions reduction, as volatility is smoothed out over the budget period. That position is reflected by the Climate Change Committee, which has advised that carbon budgets are the most appropriate indicator of underlying progress in emissions reduction. That model is well established and is used by other countries such as France, Japan and Wales.

Carbon budgets will also help in the management and navigation of public opinion and trying to take people with us, and in addressing the political challenges in a competitive democracy when political parties are considering their offers at election time.

As Chris Stark said in an answer to me,

“the point is that there is the idea that something that goes beyond the parliamentary cycle must be done, and that it is the responsibility of Government in each of those parliamentary cycles to keep the show on the road. That is easier with carbon budgets, because you are pointing towards a thing that will go into the next session of Parliament, the one after that, and the one after that. There is then a duty on Government to do the right things in that session.”

In relation to our collective political challenge, five-year carbon budgets should be useful, if we pass this legislation.

We need to take the people with us, which is a challenge and a responsibility for all political parties. As other members, including Sarah Boyack, who intervened on me, have emphasised, and to quote Chris Stark again,

“The benefits to this country of achieving net zero are immense—not just to the climate but in the form of jobs, to the landscape around us, to trade and to a host of social issues. Those reasons, alongside the climate benefits, are why you should want to pursue net zero.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 23 April 2024; c 45, 47.]

Warmer homes, reducing the cost of electricity, cleaner air, more exercise, a better diet and better use of land—all those things are part of it.

I have not heard all the evidence that the committee took at stage 1 but, when the bill was published, I thought that its title should perhaps be the “Net Zero (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill”. I think that that would be a more accurate descriptor and maybe something that the Government could think about.

We move to winding-up speeches.

17:00  

I echo the thanks that other members have put on record to the committee, its clerks and others who have supported a rapid scrutiny process. However, across political parties, there has been a recognition that nobody really wants to be here. Nobody should be proud of the fact that it has been necessary to introduce the bill or for us to consider it.

The first two climate acts that the Parliament debated and passed were statements of ambition; this one is a statement of failure. It is a recognition that we are years behind where we should be on climate and that Scotland has not managed to be the climate leader that we all aspired for it to be.

Back in 2009, when we first set climate targets into law, by taking part in the international process—even as a non-state party—by advocating for concepts such as climate justice and loss and damage, and by building international credibility in its climate position, the Scottish Government tried to do the right thing, but we claimed that credibility and then have failed to earn it since.

It has been recognised that this is a narrow bill, which is part of the problem. It is certainly core to my discomfort that we are debating a narrow technical bill when we should be debating the profound policy change that is required to get us back on track. Prior to Gillian Martin taking over as acting cabinet secretary, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, Màiri McAllan, was wrong to describe this as “a minor legislative amendment”. No—this is a fundamental point in the journey that we have been on.

We have had climate legislation and statutory targets for 15 years. During those 15 years, we have seen inadequate progress towards meeting those targets. If the next 15 years follow the same pattern, it is game over. We can wave goodbye to net zero if the next 15 years see a similar lack of progress. We have a good story to tell on decarbonising electricity, but we pretty much have flatline emissions throughout the rest of the economy, or reductions so meagre as to make no difference.

The new legislative framework must lock in a better trajectory—a better path—for the second half of this journey. That framework will involve multiyear carbon budgets and retain annual reporting and accountability. That is fine—that framework, seen in isolation, can be an improvement. There will still be room for improvement within it, such as by having a degree of politically independent scrutiny to ensure that future climate change plans are adequately funded. At the moment, that scrutiny is political or internal to Government, so there is a role for independent scrutiny there.

There will be a need to ensure pace, because if we see a new CCP come forward only at the tail end of this parliamentary session, there is a danger that we will have gone through the entire session recognising that we are years behind where we should be but with a lack of the acceleration that is necessary. We need to see pace on current action even before we get to a new CCP.

There is a case for debating a sectoral approach to carbon budgets. There is certainly a case for stronger duties on the Government if budgets are breached or look to be off track. I am sure that those and more issues will be debated when we get to the amendment stage.

However, the legislative framework in itself is not enough. Political will and urgency are required. That is the debate that we should be having—not one that is just about how to get the Government out of a legal hole. We all understand why the Government is in that legal hole and why change is necessary. We need to be debating how we got into that hole and how we are going to achieve acceleration of action now and into the future.

The bill could have been combined with policy substance. We know that legislation is required on heat in buildings. Legislation will be required on transport and on much more if we are going to achieve the transformational changes in policy that are required. Had this bill on a framework been combined with that policy substance, it would have given Parliament the opportunity for a much richer debate—one that would have answered part of Michael Matheson’s challenge to those who will the end but do not will the means, which has been a fundamental part of the problem so far.

Green support for the bill cannot be taken for granted. We will abstain at stage 1. Our support for the bill later in the process will be contingent on what action the Scottish Government is willing to put its weight behind. Government action over recent months in too many areas of policy has been in the wrong direction, so the Government has a lot of work to do over the short time before we get to stage 3.

Just this morning, the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee took evidence on climate justice. Our witnesses talked about the danger that Scotland will lose the international credibility that it has won on climate. The bill recognises that Scotland’s credibility is weaker than it should be. It can still be strengthened, if, for example, the Scottish Government publishes, before stage 3, the energy strategy and just transition plan. It would then be able to go to the 29th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP29—with the clear position of a presumption against new oil and gas. Such a step would begin to reclaim the leadership that Scotland aspires to but that has been put in jeopardy.

17:07  

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and to close on behalf of Scottish Labour. As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee—it sounds as if it has been a popular committee in the chamber today—I associate myself with the thanks from the convener and other colleagues to all the clerks, witnesses, stakeholders and other committees that participated in scrutiny of the bill. I also thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their constructive and open engagement with MSPs. I hope that that continues throughout stages 2 and 3.

Today, we have heard constructive contributions from colleagues across the chamber, who told us that the bill is in reasonably good shape but that there is more work to do. Many of the insights and questions that we have put to the Government and to each other are informed by the evidence that the committee took at stage 1, as well as by stakeholders who continue to send us briefings and information. It is important that Government and Parliament continue to listen.

When the committee’s convener, Edward Mountain, made his opening remarks, he set the tone and the theme. At the committee, we were very much in a reflective mood. That is apt in the Parliament’s 25th year, but those of us on the committee, as well as members in the chamber today, have expressed regret that we are in this situation. However, part of the theme has also been a reset, which is a constructive challenge to us all. Katy Clark talked about collective action. I will offer some reflections on the points of agreement that we have heard about.

Douglas Lumsden was correct to say that parliamentary scrutiny should not be the loser. We all want to work at speed—we know that we need to catch up—but we need robust scrutiny. Maurice Golden said that we need a robust reporting regime, and we in Scottish Labour agree with that. That is why I hope that we will continue to work with the Scottish Government at stages 2 and 3 on the recommendations that we have made. Overall, the 21 recommendations in the committee’s report are really important.

I did not hear a lot of disagreement on carbon budgeting. In the committee’s report, we settled on the view that

“a framework based on carbon budgeting is better and a more flexible system for setting targets for emissions reductions than the current approach.”

I am hearing that, across the chamber, we all share ambition. None of us wants missed targets or missed opportunities. We have heard from Labour members and others in the chamber that we want a just transition, because not getting it will put jobs and our communities at risk. Maurice Golden rightly said that we cannot afford more failure.

People have given examples of the policies that they feel frustrated about. Scottish Labour and the Scottish Greens share the frustration around the reinstatement of peak rail fares, which not only is the wrong decision but sends the wrong message to the public. We have heard comments about taking the public with us and giving people certainty and confidence; that decision does not send the right message.

Mark Ruskell set out that we must absolutely root the bill in the science. Parliament has always tried to do that. Where we need to have debate is on the detailed policy measures that we need to take, because the detailed policy pathway has been missing. Scottish Labour is fully committed to working with the Government and others on that point, but we need to get into the detail of the policies that are required.

It was good to hear from colleagues who have been here a bit longer than I have, such as Liam McArthur. I thank him for reminding us of the massive contribution that Claudia Beamish made when she was in Parliament. We heard an exchange between Liam McArthur and Mark Ruskell about what the right targets should have been—let us get into such a detailed discussion and have that passion when we talk about policy and action, because we have a policy vacuum right now, which will not get us very far.

Jackie Dunbar talked about the fact that, in Parliament, things can be exciting or important. Getting to net zero is exciting and important—it is essential. I hope that it will bind us all together.

I do not think that Michael Matheson saw me when I tried to intervene on him, but I am interested in hearing how we knock down the barriers. Sarah Boyack and others talked about the need to work cross-Government, and that is about wider society and local government, too. There are obviously barriers there. When Michael Matheson was Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, he also had a cross-Government role.

We need to learn those lessons fast—

Will the member take an intervention?

I think that I have only a few seconds left, but I will take the intervention.

I apologise that I never noticed that Monica Lennon was seeking to make an intervention during my contribution.

The key thing is that much of the low-hanging fruit around policy areas has gone, which means that we are making difficult decisions about policy options, with things such as the workplace parking levy. If road charging must be introduced, there is a UK aspect to that, alongside road tax. We will have to get into those areas. Is there scope to have the right type of debate to allow that to happen in a way that informs how we meet our climate change targets, rather than makes us take a reactive political position to it?

I ask Monica Lennon to conclude.

We need to get the right national policies, and we also need to empower local decision making. Some policies will work in some local authorities and not so well in others. The message about action was really important.

We heard in committee from Mike Robinson, in his capacity as chair of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, who reminded us that the reason why targets

“are unachievable ... is that there has not been enough action. We have had the declaration of a climate emergency but not a lot else. It has been a failure of action, not a failure of ambition, that has led us to where we are now.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 17 September 2024; c 25.]

We need to bear that in mind. However, we are here to help with the action that is required, and the cabinet secretary has our word on that.

17:14  

I, too, thank the committee for its work. I am not a member of the committee, but I am a regular attendee. As a member of the Scottish Conservatives’ team climate, that will continue. In commenting, parts of what I say will be directly lifted from the committee’s excellent report.

I will try to be as brief as I can, Presiding Officer. It is great when colleagues such as Graham Simpson come to the committee, because it shows the interest in the issue that there is across the Parliament. I hope that he will continue to come to the committee.

Graham Simpson regularly raises the issue of bus travel, and the fact that we have many communities that hardly have a bus to speak of. Does he agree that we need to see more policy, more action and more investment in that and that it is something that should unite the Parliament?

That was a lengthy but welcome intervention. Monica Lennon knows the answer; she knows that I agree with her.

At the heart of this is the Scottish Government’s failure to meet legally binding climate change targets or to produce a draft climate change plan by the end of November, despite having promised to have it ready a year ago. Patrick Harvie was absolutely right when he mentioned that. That sets a worrying precedent, such that if a Government finds itself in a tight spot where it is unable to abide by the law, it just changes the law and, even worse, it expects Parliament to go along with it and to act at a speed that Parliament would not wish to act at, and without the level of robust scrutiny that we would normally wish for.

As the committee said in its report,

“effective Parliamentary scrutiny of targets and plans is a crucial component of overall net zero delivery and should not suffer due to the timing of this Bill’s introduction or the Scottish Government’s understandable wish to re-establish momentum.”

I agree with that.

It is worth setting out, as others have, the legislative landscape that has got us to where we are today. First, we had the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which established the legal framework for setting emissions reduction targets and reporting on progress towards meeting them. That was amended by the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. There was a lot of excitement that year about the climate emergency. That was the year when Nicola Sturgeon declared that there was one, so it must have been true. She said at the time that

“Scotland will live up to our responsibility to tackle it.”

No doubt the international confidence in the former First Minister’s messianic abilities to deliver is what had as-yet-unnamed world leaders queuing up for advice on how to do so.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the 2019 act imposed some pretty tough targets, including an interim target of at least a 75 per cent reduction by 2030, an interim target of at least a 90 per cent reduction by 2040, and a final target of net zero emissions by 2045. We are not going to hit the first target. That is not so surprising, given that the Scottish Government does not seem to have a plan to achieve it. Also, the Government is not going to meet its legal requirement to lay a draft climate change plan by 22 November.

The CCC, which is the independent adviser to Governments in the UK on climate change policy, had been due to produce its annual Scotland progress report in December 2023. In the absence of a climate change plan, that was postponed. The CCC eventually published its report in March this year, and among its conclusions were that

“Scotland missed its 2021 annual legal target. This is the eighth target in the past 12 years that has been missed ... The acceleration required in emissions reduction to meet the 2030 target is now beyond what is credible.”

The CCC went on to say that

“Scotland is therefore lacking a comprehensive strategy that outlines the actions and polices required to achieve the 2030 target.”

Will the member give way?

Do I have time to take an intervention, Presiding Officer?

There is not any extra time to give you.

I am sorry, Mr Doris—I will have to leave that.

That was followed by the Scottish Government announcing on 18 April that there would be a new legislative approach to setting emissions reduction targets. In the statement and in further public communications over the following weeks, other details were confirmed: the 2030 target would be removed; the current system of a net zero target, supported by key interim targets and annual targets, would be replaced by a system of five-yearly carbon budgets; and the ultimate target of achieving net zero in emissions by 2045 would be retained. In the 18 April announcement, the cabinet secretary said that this new legislation would be “expedited”, which was to avoid running into the legal duty to produce the draft climate change plan by this November.

Against that background, it is not surprising that my good friends in the Scottish Green Party have been somewhat miffed by the lack of progress. I do not blame them. However, we are where we are. We have a rather unfortunate bill in front of us, and we must decide what to do about it with very little time.

The bill does not specify how soon after receiving advice from the CCC the Scottish Government must lay regulations setting carbon budgets. That contrasts with the UK Climate Change Act 2008: that matter must be addressed at stage 2. The acting cabinet secretary said that she was considering lodging an amendment to set a timescale between the receipt of that advice and laying regulations. We will do likewise, so we should work together on that.

Another issue is that of our possibly aligning with UK carbon budgets—we have heard about that in the debate—which makes sense. There was no clear agreement in committee on that, but it should be explored at stage 2.

We agree to the general principles of the bill, but there are still improvements that should be made. I look forward to stage 2 and, a week later, to stage 3. That is a bit longer than the Government argued for, which is a happy victory for the Parliament.

17:22  

I thank all colleagues across the chamber for a debate that has been very interesting to listen to and, actually, very consensual.

We are in an unfortunate situation whereby we have missed targets. However, one thing that sets us apart from other Administrations around the world—I hope that this remains the case—is that there is not one party in this Parliament that does not agree that we have to do something to reach net zero by 2045. We are very lucky in that respect, because climate change denial is very real in other parts of the world. I thank everyone for that.

With that in mind, I note that the bill is the springboard for the next 20 years. In effect, it will set the way in which we challenge ourselves to meet targets across consecutive envelopes of five years across the next 20 years, and it is the climate change plans that are associated with the bill that will get us to net zero by 2045. The bill is also the springboard to more progress and action.

I will work with anyone who comes to me with a credible suggestion of something that we can consider putting in the climate change plan, if they think that it will deliver on emissions reduction in a fair and costed way. Yesterday, I was called a little bit naive for wanting to take the politics out of the discussion on climate change. However, I am still hopeful that we can look at climate change as an existential threat that we are facing. As Michael Matheson said, the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss are an existential threat. We must take the politics out of this, get our heads together and make some really serious decisions on what we prioritise with our spend and our actions. We must have conversations with our constituents who are not convinced that net zero is worth doing.

Sarah Boyack rightly repeatedly made the point that although reaching net zero can appear to people to be a very challenging, difficult and negative thing to do, it also represents an opportunity for us to bring people out of poverty, to reduce inequality and to make structural changes to the fabric of society that will give us all better lives. We need to make the decisions on how we do that.

I have another suggestion. I have concerns about the electric vehicle charging roll-out. People with a driveway who get a charger and sign up to a tariff pay 7p a kilowatt hour. However, with private operators of chargers in particular, people often pay 10 times that. People who live in a flat or do not have a driveway pay more. It would be really useful to ensure that that is subject to regulation.

I agree with the member, and I noticed that Fiona Hyslop was nodding as he made that point. I have an electric vehicle and a home EV charger, but if I lived in a flat in Edinburgh, I would not have access to a home charger and I would pay more, because I would have to use a public charger.

I again thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and its clerks. Mr Mountain has occasionally growled at me about the expedited timescale for scrutiny at stage 1, but I appreciate what he and the clerks have done to get the bill to this point.

There has been much mention of the timing of the climate change plan. I sent a letter to the committee in which I outlined that, if I got the advice from the Climate Change Committee by the end of March, I could deliver a draft plan before the summer recess. Along with my officials, I am looking at how we might work on an amendment that could specify a timescale for how many weeks it would be, once that advice has been given, until we could introduce secondary legislation.

We have discussed this issue in committee, but has the cabinet secretary given further consideration to being as open as possible with Parliament about the work that is done on the climate change plan, so that we do not have to wait until the CCC advice is received?

The more the issue is talked about, the more convinced I am that my officials and I must have an open-book approach as much as possible. As I told Monica Lennon in committee, I am not going to put forward a draft of a draft; I would not like to issue something that is unfinished. However, in the spirit of what I said about trying to take the politics out of the situation, in order for all of us to make decisions about whatever the CCC’s advice on targets is, we need to have a big map of all the potential options in all the sectors that could be taken to get us there, and we need to have a grown-up, adult conversation about what that would mean for the people of Scotland, for budgets and for us as a Parliament. That would mean that, if members sign up to the targets, they will have done so having looked at that suite of options and knowing what could be in the climate change plan.

I mentioned the principle of having a statement in Parliament. That would mean that the Government could get the Climate Change Committee’s report and, before every policy action had been signed off, we could at least have a statement from the cabinet secretary about the direction of travel on how the Government might respond. That way, the Government could generate support across the chamber.

I am completely open to that. We must have transparency. We need to have an honest discussion about the choices that are in front of us. Those choices are not only for the Government; they are choices for the Parliament. As I have said, today, we are at the first stage of a bill that will provide for 20 years’ worth of carbon budgets. Over those 20 years, many people with “Net Zero” in their title will be stood where I am standing now.

Sarah Boyack mentioned the cost benefit proposal. We must have the costs that would be associated with certain actions. Many members, including Bob Doris, have made the point that Government money alone will not do it—Government money will need to leverage in private investment. As Maurice Golden said, decisions will have to be made by the people from whom we procure. We need to have a lot more in place to make sure that those as far down the supply chain as possible act in the right way. Consumers and people need to ask of everyone with whom they interact in relation to what they buy and the services that they get what the associated emissions are and what they are doing to drive down their emissions.

A few members mentioned alignment with the UK. There are pros and cons of that approach, but I do not think that there is any settled view on or definitive advantage to alignment. I still want to have a five-year carbon budget, starting from 2025, so that we can have consecutive five-year carbon budgets right up to 2045. I do not want to have a two-year one, then a three-year one, or a seven-year one and a five-year one, ending with a three-year one.

Please conclude, cabinet secretary.

I had so much more to say, but I have taken quite a lot of interventions.

I will end where I started. Once the bill is passed, I will work with anyone on the climate change plan. I thank everyone for their contributions today and hope that everyone will vote for the bill at stage 1.

That concludes the debate on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.