Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have covered thresholds in some depth, convener, so I was going to move on from that.

Can I just wrap up on the criteria?

On land management plans, I am interested in getting your views on what good consultation actually looks like. As Jon Hollingdale has pointed out, we already have forest strategies; there is also a forest licensing process that communities input to and there are local place plans.

Is there good practice when it comes to meaningful consultation in which communities feel that they are actually participating in decisions, instead of just being asked, “What do you think of this?”

Is there a risk that the bill will set up a tick-box exercise? How can we make the process appropriate, meaningful and participative, so that communities actually feel that their objectives are being met?

Unfortunately, I am really stuck for time.

Importantly, the bill does not erase the 2045 net zero target, which remains the north star and what we are aiming for. However, by removing the 2030 and 2040 targets, the bill makes the pathway to net zero a lot steeper. There has been a failure to take the early action that could have ensured that we were on a smoother pathway to 2045. That action has not been taken, so we will not meet the target of a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. I agree with Katy Clark that the fact that the opportunity to take early action was not taken has left many people shocked and angry. It is going to get a lot harder, and action is going to have to ramp up.

This is a narrow technical bill that, in effect, provides Parliament with a stronger role. With carbon budgets, we will get a better opportunity to scrutinise, and we will get better sight of what policies the Government will bring forward to back up its budget early on. There will be a climate change plan that will, finally, follow the budget pretty quickly, and there will be more public engagement on the back of that. If the Government fails to meet targets, there will be better catch-up reports, with more detail. There will also be a stronger link to CCC advice.

All of those are good things in relation to the Parliament’s job of scrutinising the Scottish Government, but there are still elements missing. It is disappointing that Patrick Harvie’s amendments on financial budgets were not agreed to, because we heard great evidence on that from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, and it is clear that there is a critical role for independent scrutiny.

As Michael Matheson said, we need to get into a position of fiscal stability between the Governments. There needs to be a serious, central commitment to delivering on climate change ambition, which needs to be funded by all Governments. What we have—what the cabinet secretary talked about—is a commitment to a net zero test. That is important for the Government’s own internal thinking about financial budgets, but we need to see independent scrutiny.

Many members have reflected on the failure of policy. We have continually seen one step forward and then two steps backward on climate policy. We are looking for the energy strategy just transition plan to come out soon and for it to deal with some of the contradictions, such as the fact that carbon capture and storage is still an uncertain technology, and that Peterhead power station will lock us in to using gas for decades to come. We need certainty on the A96. We need an ambitious heat in buildings strategy. We need road traffic demand management, which—I agree with Michael Matheson—needs to include road tolling and pricing: we need an honest conversation about that.

I am sure that the bill will pass at decision time, and members may be tempted to applaud that. The Greens will not be applauding—we will be abstaining on the motion to pass the bill, because it is an admission of failure. The only way forward is to double down on the action that is desperately needed to tackle the emergency, and we all have a responsibility to do that in the years ahead.

The decision to bring back peak fares has brought back complex, costly and confusing ticketing on ScotRail services. Does the cabinet secretary accept that reducing ticket office hours not only removes passengers’ access to expert ticketing advice in order to get the cheapest tickets but significantly disadvantages disabled passengers who require assistance when travelling on our rail network? What consultation can the cabinet secretary continue with disability rights groups to ensure that those people are not disadvantaged by the changes?

We all agree on the importance of scrutiny of carbon budgets, and of committees having enough time to do that. We all agree that, ordinarily, it would be important to go through a super-affirmative procedure. There is obviously a rush to get the first carbon budget approved but, ordinarily, committees would be taking time to gather evidence and to consider whether the budget is adequate. At stage 2, I effectively introduced a super-affirmative process into the bill, which would have enabled committees to consider a pre-laid carbon budget for 120 days. As has now been clarified, Monica Lennon has proposed a slightly different amendment, which would enable committees to take 90 days to consider the carbon budget.

I am content with where we have got to. We have heard a clarification from the cabinet secretary. I will not be moving amendment 5; I will accept the cabinet secretary’s amendment 2. That will tidy up where we have got to at stage 3.

On amendment 1, I accept that the UK CCC is an advisory body, but it is not an elected Parliament. It is this elected Parliament, ultimately, that needs to make decisions on targets. I am happy to accept that the wording is now better at stage 3.

Amendment 11 seeks to tighten up the language from an amendment by Maurice Golden that was agreed to at stage 2. That amendment required ministers to set out their response to failing to meet a carbon budget. I agree that that is needed and I sought to make a similar change at stage 2 to a different part of the bill. I accept the Government’s preference for achieving the intention through section 35B reports; there is a strong logic behind doing so.

Amendment 11 adds to the text from Maurice Golden that was accepted; it adds that ministers’ reports must set out the policy changes that will be made in response to a carbon budget not being met. That will ensure that ministers set out more detail about how they will respond and the changes that will be implemented using the most up-to-date data on Scotland’s emissions reduction.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for constructive discussions on the issue. I think that the amendment improves the bill’s transparency and it will improve committee scrutiny and public awareness.

I join other members in thanking the clerks, SPICe and the witnesses, who helped us to deal with what has been an incredibly rushed parliamentary process for the bill. I also thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their constructive engagement, over the past couple of weeks in particular, as we tried to make sense of the amendments that we could lodge in the time that we had available.

We are five years on from the Parliament’s declaration of a climate emergency and 15 years on from the setting of those first important targets. However, there has been a failure to take early action to meet those targets. The cabinet secretary is right to say that there is consensus in the Parliament on the importance of tackling climate change and on the targets, but there has not been consensus on the importance of taking immediate action to tackle the crisis. That is what we need to build as we go forward. In this debate, there has been the beginning of an understanding of our failure in not taking action, but we need to move forward in that regard.

Amendment 4 requires ministers to indicate in which carbon budget period Scotland will achieve a 75 per cent cut and a 90 per cent cut in emissions. Members will be aware that those figures represent the percentage cuts to emissions that were attached to the 2030 and 2040 targets in our climate legislation. The bill removes those targets and replaces them with a mechanism to set carbon budgets.

Members will recognise that there was considerable dismay earlier this year when the Government finally admitted that the target of a 75 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 was beyond reach. This is the moment when those targets are being removed from legislation.

I am pleased to have worked with the cabinet secretary to ensure that, in the forthcoming climate plans, there will be public transparency, so that we will be able to see when Scotland will meet the 75 per cent target and get three quarters of the way to net zero. We will also be able to see the date for meeting the target of a 90 per cent reduction in emissions. That is important for public transparency. This is not about setting up a shadow set of targets to run alongside the budget. It is important that the public and stakeholders can see how far on or off track we are on the original and important targets that were set.

I welcome amendment 3, which tightens up the language that Graham Simpson sought to introduce at stage 2. It will also ensure that we get more detail on the policies that the Government intends to introduce whenever the draft carbon budget is presented to Parliament.

Amendment 8 would require ministers to set out in a statement to Parliament their plans for holding public consultations on future climate change plans. I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2. I thank the cabinet secretary for continuing that discussion with me ahead of stage 3.

It is absolutely clear that the Government must lead a national conversation on the transition that we as a society need to make. We also need to respond to public concerns and accept the public’s challenge to go further.

A range of approaches have been tried, including deliberative democratic approaches, citizens panels and citizens assemblies. Ultimately, it will be for the Scottish Government to decide how it wishes to engage with the public on the tricky, difficult and challenging decisions that need to be made. It is important that we get social licence from the public to make those changes. Involving people directly and as early as possible in those conversations is really important.