Seòmar agus comataidhean

With regard to meeting their statutory obligations, national parks could vary quite considerably in what they look like. Is a tourism hub foreseen as part of the proposal, similar to the Aviemores and Loch Lomond Shores, or is that not part of the vision? How can the public and local communities assess whether they want something if they do not know what it looks like?

Yes.

This group of amendments presents the committee—and, indeed, Parliament—with a significant challenge with regard to monitoring and reporting under the bill. Five years ago to the day, the Scottish Government and SNP committee members, excluding Jackie Dunbar, voted for what is set out in amendment 15. As we configure the carbon budgets, how on earth do we ensure that, in five years’ time, the Scottish Government does not look back and say, “Actually, do we want to change the methodology again? What we said five years ago does not apply any more”? If that happens, we will not achieve net zero. The closer we get to 2045, the more significant that challenge becomes.

Essentially, amendment 15 is a challenge to members who were in Parliament in the previous session either to stick to the principles that were applied five years ago or to ditch them. If they ditch those principles, that presents a challenge for Parliament in how we ensure scrutiny of the bill.

Amendments 2 and 10 state that the bill should not permit any carry-forward mechanism. The bill has no explicit provision to permit such a mechanism, and the Scottish Government has previously indicated that it has no intention of seeking to undertake any carry-forwards, but the bill does not explicitly prohibit them, so it could be possible for a future Government to change that practice and, in fact, utilise carry-forwards. My amendments would codify existing Scottish Government practices, and I look forward to the committee’s support on that basis.

I move amendment 2.

I think that any technical changes could be incorporated at stage 3 so, on that basis, I will press amendment 2.

The amendments in the group are similar but could be considered differently. Ultimately, the Scottish Government has accepted the principle of having targets—notably, the net zero target for 2045—so my rationale is that interim targets would be helpful. I accept that carbon budgets are a more useful methodology than annual targets, but key interim targets on the road to net zero fit well alongside that.

Amendment 15 includes the 68 per cent target, which was not devised by me. I was not involved at all in the configuration of that target—in fact, it is the Scottish Government’s target for 2030. It is based on the Scottish Government’s assessment five years ago, and it should still be applicable now, unless the rationale in 2019 was flawed or the progress since 2019 has been poor—or both. Any member of the Scottish National Party must support amendment 15 or they are voting against themselves—it is very simple.

I accept that the 2040 target is a more interesting one, but the balance between having carbon budgets and having a target is very useful.

I move amendment 15.

Amendment not moved, convener.

It is a step in the right direction. I am pleased to have worked with the Scottish Government on strengthening reporting and monitoring. I hope that the committee believes that that should be done, and I ask the committee to support the amendment.

My amendment 48 would require ministers to assess, when preparing the report, whether it is more likely than not that the carbon budget will be met for the given period. If the target is more likely not to be met, the amendment would require ministers to explain why that is the case and what they intend to do to ensure that it is met. The amendment would provide another layer of reporting on and monitoring of annual progress towards carbon budget targets through a strengthening of the provision in section 35B of the 2009 act.

I am really interested. Obviously, a previous cabinet secretary is on record as saying that the 68 per cent target is easy but ambitious and possible to achieve. Amendment 15 would just codify the Scottish Government’s policy—it should be really easy to support.