Seòmar agus comataidhean

You say that that could happen. Would it happen, or would there be changes? I am slightly confused because such a system was tried in England, but it did not work and it has been scrapped there. Wales is doing something completely different. I am confused about why we as a committee and a Parliament would approve what we see as a failed process.

Will there be any franchising between now and 2026?

There is a criticism that the panel could potentially delay franchising. Do you accept that?

If the instrument was annulled, what would the Government’s response be? What would its next step be?

Of course.

So—

I can perhaps understand some of the reasons for not accepting the proposal but, for the sake of compromise, is there other wording that might be acceptable to strengthen the bill without tying the Government’s hands?

Amendments 64, 49 and 50 are basically all the same. The Climate Change Committee is named in UK legislation but not in the Scottish legislation. Amendment 64 would specifically name the Climate Change Committee or any successor organisations as the relevant body from which ministers must take advice. We all agree that, in order to be non-partisan, advice on climate change plans and budgets should come from an independent source. The amendments would simply name the Climate Change Committee in the bill.

This last amendment is quite brief. It simply involves making all the regulations under the bill subject to the affirmative procedure. The bill proposes that some regulations be subject to the affirmative and some to the negative procedure. We all agree that climate change is too important an issue not to give supplementary legislation full scrutiny. Making the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure would ensure that they get the scrutiny that they deserve.

I move amendment 51.

I have nothing further to say, and I will not press amendment 38.

Amendment 38, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 39 and 40 not moved.

Amendment 61 moved—[Douglas Lumsden].