Seòmar agus comataidhean

Reflecting on that phrase, “broadly indicative”, do you not think that we need more detail when we are setting the budgets about how Government will meet those targets and carbon reductions, and that there is a danger that what you propose in amendment 53 could be very loose? It could be as loose as a broad pathway that the UK Climate Change Committee is proposing and it will not really enable the committee to get into the guts of whether the targets or the budgets that are being set are the right ones.

Can you explain very simply what the groupings of policies would look like? My concern is that, depending on how things are grouped, such an approach could mask transparency with regard to what policies in certain areas would achieve. As you recognise, that has been the problem with the climate plans the whole time—it has been very difficult to see what individual policies have achieved.

Can’t move, won’t move. [Laughter.]

I welcome the fact that Douglas Lumsden has moved the motion to annul, because it has enabled us to have a full debate, discussion and exploration of all the issues, which I felt were lacking at our previous meeting. It is good that we now have the opportunity to do that.

I believe that there is a strong consensus in the committee and in Government and that we want bus franchising to work in this country, but I cannot ignore the evidence that has been presented. We need to have a fair and robust decision on franchising—that is absolutely critical. It seems that we have two options. If the SSI is annulled there will still be a panel, although it will be a decision-making panel that will be appointed by the traffic commissioner. If the SSI goes through, there will still be a panel that is appointed by the traffic commissioner, but there will be additional guidance from the Scottish Government.

Is there evidence that panels reduce the risk?

You said that we are where we are with the legislation, but 2019 was some time ago, and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge with progress on bus franchising around the UK, so there is now a lot more experience. If you were to revisit the provision through a transport act, would you go down the same route? Given what we know about Wales, is this the best route to go down to secure franchising?

My final question is about the guidance that could come on the back of this Scottish statutory instrument. You understand the concerns that have been raised in the petition to Parliament and I am sure that you have read the evidence and know of the experience elsewhere in the UK. What is your response to that? Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and others have a real stake and an interest in seeing this happen. What is your answer to them? How can you deliver reassurance right now through guidance or interpretation of the SSI?

I am trying to help you to find out what the solution is, because I want to see a solution, too. I want franchising to happen as quickly as possible. We are on the same page, but I am struggling to see what the fix is. I am frustrated for you, because a motion has been lodged to annul the regulations.

Good morning. Minister, will you explain why a franchising scheme that is approved by a panel is less likely to be subject to legal challenge than one that is approved by a transport authority? That seems to be a key reason why the Government at the time decided to go down this route.

No, I am making the point that there is precedent in law for another body—Environmental Standards Scotland—to have to say in its annual reporting whether it has enough resources to discharge its responsibilities. To my mind, it would be useful if we had a requirement for the UK Climate Change Committee to present similar information. At the moment, we do not know whether it has adequate resources to enable it to discharge its responsibilities, so a similar provision would be useful.

I will finish by saying that climate change is complex. The CCC is doing great work, but there is always new and emerging stuff for it to look at, such as blue carbon. It is important for it to be a body that can keep track of the Scottish context. In the past, there have been discussions about whether there should be a separate Scottish CCC, whether it should have an office in Scotland and whether it should be focused on the particular challenges that we are all aware of. That brings in a question of resourcing, which should involve an open discussion because, if our ability to scrutinise is limited by the CCC’s capacity, that is a problem.

I will listen to the intention behind amendments 64, 49 and 50.

I move amendment 62.

No—that is fine. [Laughter.]