Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is useful. I was told that it had been awarded without a tender, so it would be useful to have some detailed feedback on that.

To raise awareness of change, you have to bring everyone with you, and it is about ensuring that all the skills of the SEPA staff are used. I want to flag that, given that I am the sub for Monica Lennon, quite a lot of concerns have been raised with me about that in advance of today’s meeting. That was not weeks ago; rather, people immediately got in touch when they clocked that I would be here today and would have the chance to ask those questions, to make you aware that some staff are concerned about losing opportunities.

What research is the Government doing to identify the gaps? It goes back to the point that Douglas Lumsden made about the 47 per cent cut to the network support grant. Do we not need a more joined-up approach?

It is a geographic issue, and it is also about people on low incomes and the combination of people who should be benefiting. We need to think about what that will look like. Have you got feedback from bus companies about more cuts that will be made to services, or do we just have to wait and see what happens?

Okay. I was hoping that you would tell us that, by next year, you would have done research, looking at the areas where more investment is needed and thinking about partnership approaches so that we could see the services delivered.

Thank you for enabling me to come back and give feedback. It is quite some time since the petition was discussed, but we still have an accountability problem, which our constituents are experiencing daily.

I am disappointed that we have not seen progress on the voluntary code and that we are still reliant on the current legislative framework. Constituents continue to get in touch with me with new cases—I am not just hearing from constituents who have already reported their problems.

The current framework is not user friendly. The First-tier Tribunal is slow and can be daunting, and people have to make a huge amount of investment in order to use it. There is concern that some firms have been found to have failed in their duty on multiple occasions, and yet, in the process, no questions are asked about their being factors. The challenge of relying on the sheriff court means that legal representation is required, which is expensive and is on top of the bills that people are already paying. Fundamentally, it comes down to a lack of independent scrutiny and accountability, and no control over rising costs. At the end of the day, the factors can do what they want.

There is no incentive to seek best value. One issue that has been raised is that factors might be linked to developers who have developed a project. That is another accountability gap. Although consumer rights are referred to in the legislation, they are not implemented, and that is a major issue that still needs to be addressed.

The last time that I spoke to the committee, I gave examples of costs. Since then, representatives have made the point to me that quarterly fees in Edinburgh have gone from £300 to £800. That is a huge increase.

For a lot of our constituents, it is really a now issue. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister for Housing offered us a round-table meeting. We have seen the Competition and Markets Authority report, but we have not yet had action. I am very concerned that we have not seen any actual progress since the committee last took evidence on the petition.

I very much welcome that commitment by the committee and I look forward to hearing when the meeting will happen.

There are important amendments in this group. I particularly want to support amendment 57 from Monica Lennon, which she just outlined. It is about the principles of scrutiny and transparency, and we have to learn the lessons on how we got here. There is an issue about the Government monitoring and identifying where failure has happened in nine of the last few targets. It is important that in future we do not avoid scrutinising where failure is coming down the track, so that we get action, strengthen the responses and get a dynamic response to future challenges. Amendments 38, 39, 48 and 57 in this group are really important for strengthening the legislation.

I have just corrected myself, convener.

I thank Monica Lennon for setting the record straight on amendments 55 and 58. I amended my draft notes incorrectly. The amendments are about trying to improve the legislation. We have talked about that again and again.

It is very important for us that there is discussion with colleagues after today, in advance of next week’s stage 3 debate. Getting the cabinet secretary’s commitment on Mark Ruskell’s amendment 20 is really important, because we want to maximise consultation and certainty, and to improve the legislation. We want to be able to talk to third sector organisations, businesses, environmental experts and our constituents so that we do not fail to meet future climate targets. I welcome the fact that Graham Simpson supported my amendment 55 and the work that I have done with the acting cabinet secretary to ensure that we get this.

Amendment 55 agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

The timescale for the introduction of a budget is tight. Presumably, there would be opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of that budget to include the wider environmental and climate impacts.

Convener, I welcome the fact that you have told us not to edit our comments to be too succinct. That is a key issue—we need to make sure that we scrutinise the legislation, because it has happened so quickly. Also, I agree with Graham Simpson—which is most unusual for me—that the committee report is excellent; it has helped us to focus on which amendments to support.

I particularly support Monica Lennon’s amendments in the group. This is our chance to scrutinise and strengthen the bill and, on occasion, to get more clarity from the Scottish Government, and Monica’s amendments would strengthen the commitment to adhere to the CCC’s recommendations. That actually encapsulates a lot of what the other amendments in the group would do. It is about strengthening the carbon budgeting process so that it is robust and informed by expertise, with as much transparency and accountability to the Scottish Parliament as possible.

Graham Simpson’s principle of having a statement is important, as it would mean that the whole Parliament was involved. Monica Lennon’s amendments 29 and 32 would require the Scottish Government to “act in accordance” with existing guidance and not just to be “consistent” with it, to make sure that any action that is taken is informed and impactful. That is really important, and I want to engage in the discussion on that.

In addition to thanking the committee, I thank Stop Climate Chaos Scotland. The timescale has been tight, and it is really important to get its perspective on the amendments. I prefer Monica Lennon’s amendments, although I know that there are alternatives in front of the committee. Brian Whittle’s amendment 46, for example, is too prescriptive, because the scheme has to span a variety of budgets—four budgets over 20 years—and so needs to be sufficiently flexible while providing accountability to Parliament.

I just have those few comments at this point, convener.