Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will comment on the specific issues that were raised in relation to amendment 17 when we reach group 9, but they are connected to amendment 60. When framing the amendments, I was seeking to explore the relevance either to the report on carbon budgets or to the climate change plan. Given the cabinet secretary’s comments, I am happy to explore whether there is an alternative that can gain agreement before stage 3. I hope that that discussion will be fruitful; if not, I reserve the option to return with an amendment at stage 3. For the time being, I ask to withdraw amendment 60.

Amendment 60, by agreement, withdrawn.

We are coming to the end of stage 2, so I promise not to keep the committee very long, but I would like to go back to the debates in 2009 on the first climate change legislation. As it happens, the amendment sessions took place in this room and I was sitting where you are, convener.

One of the arguments that I made in relation to that legislation was that there needed to be a clear connection between climate targets, as we were framing them then—we would now call them carbon budgets—and the Scottish Government’s financial budget that we pass every year in relation to the money that is spent on investments and public services. Members agreed with that argument, which led to an amendment that became section 94 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. It was acknowledged then, including by the Government, that that was a first stab at a methodology for connecting climate targets with the Government’s spending plans.

I do not think that the methodology has ever been perfect. I am not suggesting that it has not been refined and improved to some extent, but it has always placed a bit too much emphasis on the most direct connections relating to the emissions that are generated by the spending of money, rather than on the effect that spending has on the economy and the emissions that will be generated as a result.

I am seeking to expand section 94 of the 2009 act as it will now apply to the carbon budgets instead of the climate targets that existed previously. Amendment 27 seeks to retain the requirement for a statement that sets out

“the direct and indirect impact on greenhouse gas emissions of the activities to be funded by virtue of the proposals”—

in other words, the financial budget. However, the amendment would add two elements. One is about

“the financial resources being made available ... to ensure that the Scottish carbon budget target for”

a particular period

“will be met.”

What would be needed is not just an assessment of the budget but a specific statement on how the measures to meet the carbon budget would be funded.

The other change, which is probably the more significant one, would be the requirement for some independent scrutiny of the statement about the connection between the carbon budget and the financial budget. I am not casting aspersions on the current Government or any Government since 2009, but it is reasonable for the Parliament to expect that the Government’s assessment of the connection between spending and emissions will be independently scrutinised. The body that the Government identifies for that role might be, for example, the Scottish Fiscal Commission or another existing body; I am not suggesting the creation of something new. However, a politically independent body should be given the responsibility of scrutinising what the Government is saying about a really important question: if the Government is setting carbon budgets and laying out a climate change plan, is the action that is necessary to meet those budgets and is the action that is set out in the plan going to be funded? We need to scrutinise that for every year’s financial budget.

Could the cabinet secretary indicate whether it is the Government’s intention and commitment that the work that she is talking about, which is under development, will be subject to independent scrutiny by a body other than the Government, in order to ensure that Parliament’s assessment of it is well informed?

We can make a comparison with other aspects of budget scrutiny. For example, the Government produces equality impact assessments in relation to the budget. No one would suggest that the achievement of equality in our society is solely determined by Scottish Government policies and that it is unaffected by the private sector, the UK Government or other factors, but it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that Parliament should place on the Government that its spending plans are scrutinised in relation to their likely impact on equality. The comparison in this case is simply to require the Government to produce a document that sets out the financial resources that are being made available by virtue of the budget to ensure that the Scottish carbon budget target for the particular period will be met, and to require that that document be independently scrutinised.

I genuinely struggle to accept any suggestion that Parliament’s scrutiny of the finance budget would be weaker for the provision of that document and its independent scrutiny.

I move amendment 27.

Like my amendment 60, amendment 17 addresses the carbon impact of major capital projects. As I indicated earlier, there are two places where a reference to that could be added to the bill, and amendment 17 seeks to add it in one of them.

Given that the cabinet secretary has said that she is willing to work with me to produce an alternative, I do not have much to say about amendment 17 at this point, but I will move it so that the rest of the amendments in the group can be debated. If the cabinet secretary wants to say anything further about any alternative approaches that she has in mind or issues that she wants to explore, I will be happy to discuss them, either now or later.

I move amendment 17.

I do not have anything further to add, convener. I am happy to work with the minister on an alternative, and I therefore seek permission to withdraw amendment 17.

Amendment 17, by agreement, withdrawn.

That is a perfectly fair comment. Indeed, it is not only about the private sector, as we also require the contribution of local government, the UK Government and our entire economy. The point that I am making relates to the annual political process of setting a budget for the Scottish Government as we debate it in Parliament every year. That budget has a substantial impact on our ability to deliver the Scottish Government’s policies and proposals in the climate change plan and thereby its ability to make the greatest contribution that it can to achieving those carbon budgets. Therefore, the finance budget needs to be scrutinised in that way by Parliament, and that scrutiny by Parliament will be most effective and best informed if there has been an independent assessment of what the Government sets out.

Yes—in a moment.

I do not honestly know what the Government’s reaction to the proposal will be and whether it will be open to it, but I genuinely urge the committee, when the Government tells us what it thinks of the argument, to consider the value of applying some independent scrutiny at that stage.

As Monica Lennon suggested, the spending proposals in each year’s finance budget are not the only factor, but they are a very major factor in whether the Scottish Government’s intended policy priorities, which are designed to deliver on a carbon budget, will be met. If we set out those policies and then fail to fund them, we can have no confidence at all that we are giving ourselves even a reasonable chance of meeting what is set out in the carbon budget.

The principle is to give Parliament the greatest level of independently informed analysis of what the Government is asking us to approve every year when we pass a finance budget. Will it be able to adequately fund the climate change policies that have been set out? Will it give us a chance of meeting the carbon budget?

That form of words was suggested by parliamentary draftspeople. My understanding and intention, as I expressed it to them, was that the phrase would apply to a body such as the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I understand that that would be captured by the proposed form of words.