Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that the climate change plan will state the expected emissions reductions for each policy. We recognise that that is good practice, and the UKCCC has been recommending it. My amendment seeks to ensure that climate change plans will include that detail. I do not think that we have ever had that detail up to now, as the Government has said, “This is too difficult to do—it’s too difficult to work it out and we can’t make it that transparent.” Going forward, we absolutely need that transparency, because it could be that some policies deliver unexpectedly large reductions in emissions while others may result in less of a reduction. Amendment 18 seeks to improve scrutiny and transparency, which is important.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I will speak to amendments 5 and 59, and offer some comments on the amendments that have already been discussed. First, I thank Stop Climate Chaos Scotland for its detailed engagement with the bill and its discussion of how it can be improved.

Reflecting on the evidence that we took at stage 1, I think that setting a carbon budget is a very important step. In removing the interim targets and moving over to that process, the Parliament is taking a significant step. I appreciate the timescale issues around the setting of the first carbon budget, but I feel that a super-affirmative instrument is the best way forward for committees to scrutinise budgets, to take evidence from those who are going to deliver carbon reductions, to get the granularity of the discussion about the contributions of sectors, which we have already discussed this morning, and to come to a judgment about whether the carbon budget is adequate or not.

As I said, I recognise the situation that we are in with the first carbon budget and the need to expedite that quickly. Therefore, amendments 5 and 59 do not apply to that first budget, but in future we need to have adequate scrutiny. The kind of situation that we could be in, where the carbon budget is passed through an affirmative instrument and a committee could, in theory, just discuss it in a morning, would be ridiculous. The evidence points to the need for a more thorough super-affirmative process, which is what amendments 5 and 59 put forward. I put that to the committee for a decision today.

It makes sense that the Government should publish how the target-setting criteria are being taken into account, so I welcome what Monica Lennon has put forward in amendment 52.

I will be interested to hear from the cabinet secretary on amendments 37 and 45, both of which would establish a timescale for the introduction of the first carbon budget. Will it be 90 days or three months after the CCC’s advice? My impression is that the Scottish Government already has a lot of advice. It already has advice from the CCC. What will come in the spring next year will be more about the second and third carbon budgets. I am interested in the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on that and in what she considers to be practicable right now, given the advice that the Government already has and how quickly it can bring forward that first carbon budget.

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 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.

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.

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.