Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will leave it there, convener.

Yes, but after speaking to your neighbours, you would think that you would learn some lessons. From your evidence at question 6, it seems that the Government has no plans to revisit the 2019 act, so I guess that you are not really going to be changing anything.

Thank you, convener—I am sure that Mr Whittle is full of regret for not being here today.

I will speak only to amendment 46, which is intended to bring the wording of the bill more into line with the UK legislation. It would put issues that the carbon budgets must “have regard to” in the text of the bill, which would give the Government a clear direction and—one would hope—the ability to think across portfolios in respect of the climate change plan.

The need for the Government to create climate change plans in a more holistic way was outlined in the CCC’s evidence to the committee. For example, if the Government had given regard to social, economic and fiscal circumstances in creating a heat pump target, that target may have been achievable.

I will not press amendment 38 or move amendments 39 and 40, but I will move amendment 38 so that we can debate the amendments in the group.

I will support amendment 48, because it covers what I was aiming to do with amendments 38, 39 and 40. Amendment 48 lacks timescales and a requirement for a statement to Parliament, so if Maurice Golden’s amendment 48 is agreed to today, I will try to come back with something at stage 3 to improve it further.

I am more than happy to support amendment 13, which would add a timescale.

Amendment 23, in the name of Graham Simpson, on a monitoring plan, seems sensible, as most things from him do. It is about identifying risks so it is the right way forward.

I am happy to support Monica Lennon’s amendment 57, which, again, would add timescales and a deadline to the whole process, which I feel would improve the bill.

I move amendment 38.

Amendments 61 and 63 put timescales in place for when reports would be published. Reports would have to be available to the committee to be considered within 30 days of laying, and debated in the Parliament within 60 days. The amendments also include timescales for reports to be laid 140 days before the end of any parliamentary session, to ensure that the Parliament has the necessary time to scrutinise any report before it is dissolved. My amendments 61 and 63 both perform those functions.

I have nothing more to add. I moved amendment 51 to try to have better scrutiny and I am happy to press it.

Normally, I am in favour of strengthening the wording in legislation. However, is there a danger in this case that policy would almost be enforced on the Parliament by the Climate Change Committee, as opposed to the Scottish Government putting in place policies to meet the carbon budgets?

Thank you.

Looking at the SPT’s trajectory, when would you anticipate a panel being created, whether the SSI is approved or not?

Yes, I intend to move it.