Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am mindful of the time, but will you take an intervention?

My amendment 6 is similar in many ways to Graham Simpson’s amendment 1. It is about ensuring that there is real transparency in the budget. If we are going to pass a carbon budget, we need to know what the contribution will be from different sectors. When we have set climate targets in the past, that has not been clear, and we need to provide transparency. Amendment 6 would pin the process directly to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, so I gently ask Mr Simpson to withdraw amendment 1 to allow me to move amendment 6, as it is a tighter fit with existing legislation.

On amendment 7, there was a huge sense of loss in Scotland and in the environmental movement when it was decided that it was no longer credible for us to meet the target of a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, because that target represented the hugely important need for action in this decade to tackle climate change and to get on top of the issue. The fact that that target is now not credible and can no longer be met by 2030 is really concerning. It begs the question of when we will get to 75 per cent. People are asking when we will get three quarters of the way to net zero. If we are off track, people need to know by how much we are off track and when we will meet that important milestone.

At stage 1, we had discussions with the cabinet secretary about how the budgets can be interpreted to ensure that the target of 75 per cent can remain and be transparent, so that people can still see the date by which we will meet the target. My amendment 7 would ensure that the aspiration behind the targets of 75 per cent and 90 per cent are still reflected and transparent in the carbon budgets when they are published.

On the other amendments in the group, we have had a big discussion in the committee and the chamber about whether the budget should be aligned to the UK budget or whether it should be a stand-alone Scottish budget. On balance, what is in the bill is the right approach, so I will not support amendment 9. It has almost a ratcheting effect when devolved Administrations bring forward policy innovation. When that is reflected in the climate change plans and set out at the beginning of the parliamentary sessions in Wales and Scotland, it can then be linked into the future development of climate change plans across the UK. I am convinced that that is the right way to go, but I appreciate that there might be different views on that.

I support what Monica Lennon wants to achieve with amendments 28 to 30 and amendment 32. The UK Climate Change Committee publishes advice, which sets out broad pathways, so it is appropriate to act in accordance with that.

I am still not entirely sure what amendment 46 is trying to achieve—I am not sure that Mr Lumsden is either—but I will listen to the cabinet secretary’s views on that.

We will have a debate later about whether a draft plan should be presented at the time of the budget, slightly after the budget or several months after the budget, and amendment 53 is relevant to that issue. Therefore, I ask Mr Simpson to consider not moving amendment 53. However, given that he already has support from the Government, I think that he might move it anyway. We really need to tighten up the woolliness around this matter. I am already thinking about how, if that amendment is passed, we can make the presentation of that information ahead of a budget meaningful. We might need to come back to that at stage 3, because it is far too woolly at the moment, and Mr Simpson knows that.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I am happy to speak to amendment 62. The climate change legislation relies heavily on the advisory body, the UK Climate Change Committee, which we all recognise provides really invaluable formal advice as well as really invaluable informal advice to Government and this committee. It is fair to say that, over the years that the CCC has been in operation and since the Parliament and Government have engaged with it, there have been issues relating to its capacity and resources and, because of that, with how responsive it has been in providing the advice that is needed at the right time, given changing circumstances.

If we think back to 2023, when the climate change plan was delayed, Chris Stark was vocal in saying that the delay had thrown out the CCC’s work programme as well as the window that was available to it to provide advice for the Scottish Parliament on our emissions reduction progress. In effect, we have been in a position in which the level of advice that the Parliament was expecting has not been available, because of the CCC’s capacity and its work programme.

We were in a similar position with the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, in that the CCC was unable to provide formal advice on the 2030 target because it was still completing its work on the peatland inventory. When we set the targets for 2030 under the 2019 act, we did not have full advice from the CCC. That was not the CCC’s fault; it was to do with its capacity and work programme.

I lodged amendment 62 because the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 provides that, whenever Environmental Standards Scotland produces its annual report, it must communicate a statement to the Parliament on whether it has adequate resources to discharge its responsibilities. We cannot require something similar from the UKCCC because of how it is set up, although I think that it would be preferable if it could publicly talk about any capacity or resources issues that it has. My amendment is competent in that it requires the Scottish Government to report on whether there are capacity issues and to consult the CCC in doing that.

How is that different from what we have at the moment?

I am happy to do so. Amendment 13 is about improving the section 36 process for catch-up reports. The committee took evidence on how inadequate the two most recent catch-up reports were. They were late, very thin on detail and often just reflected existing policy and the existing ambition of the Scottish Government. We took evidence from Environmental Standards Scotland about the poor quality of those section 36 reports.

Therefore, I think that it is important to put into the bill a framework that ensures that, when we miss a target and there is a need for a catch-up report, the report comes back within six months and is meaningful and not just a restatement of existing policies that are required under section 35 as part of the climate change plan. The report should correct course and show how the Government will get back on track with targets.

I urge members to consider voting for amendment 13, because it involves a stronger approach. If there is consensus between the Government and Mr Golden on amendment 48, I would be concerned about whether Mr Golden’s proposed provisions would just lead to a restatement of existing policies and whether catch-up reports on the back of that would be meaningful.

Monica Lennon’s amendment 57 emphasises the six-month issue, but I think that that is better wrapped up into what I propose in amendment 13.

On Douglas Lumsden’s amendments 38, 39 and 40, it is appropriate that annual reports trigger some form of corrective action, which I am happy to support. I am also happy to support Graham Simpson’s amendment 23, which is about forecasting and looking ahead to circumstances in which a target might be missed. That seems sensible.

We cannot have catch-up reports of inadequate quality, from wherever in legislation they originate, come to Parliament in the way that the most recent reports did. There needs to be more of a framework around the process. If amendment 48 is agreed to, I will be looking to put more conditions in the process at stage 3 so that what we get back is meaningful and enables Parliament to consider a proper plan for course correction in the event of a missed target.

Sorry to interrupt—

It has been useful to understand the timescale for the appointment of the panel. However, regardless of whether we annul, we will still have a panel in place, and I am not convinced that having guidance for the appointment of that panel will change the fundamentally flawed system that was put in place by the 2019 act. I do not think that the guidance will make much difference. We have heard today that it will not make a difference to the timescale that SPT is using in working out its proposal.

The Government keeps trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. I appreciate that the issues of the complexity, difficulty and risk of having a panel were not foreseen when the bill was going through Parliament some time ago, but the Government should now rapidly reflect on those concerns and bring forward a system that offers genuine certainty while being fair and robust.

We heard evidence from an adviser to the Welsh Government, who suggested that Scotland might become a backward-facing outlier because of its commitment to the panel system. I do not think any of us want to go there. That was not foreseen during the passage of the bill in 2019, but that is where we are now. We must look at experiences elsewhere in these islands, and across Europe, to see what works in getting franchising over the line, reducing the risk to transport authorities and getting a fair decision. I struggle to see how having a panel, with or without guidance, will achieve that, because it will not fundamentally change the system that we have.

It is regrettable that we are where we are today, and that should give the Government pause for thought. I fear that we will go down a route that will not get franchising over the line and, because of that, I am prepared to support Mr Lumsden’s motion to annul.

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.

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