Seòmar agus comataidhean

First, I assure the committee that I will keep my remarks as brief as possible. I know that we are up against the clock, but that should not preclude a proper debate. Nevertheless, I will try to truncate what I was going to say.

Amendment 1 states:

“A budget for a period must set out the proportion of the budget that is to be attributed to emissions from each of the following sectors”

and lists transport, energy consumption, land use, aviation and shipping as those sectors.

The committee took evidence on that when it produced its excellent stage 1 report on the bill, so I do not need to rehearse the arguments for it. The amendment is pretty straightforward; I do not need to explain it any further.

On my amendment 3, there may be differing views. It proposes full alignment with United Kingdom carbon budgets as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. There was debate around that at stage 1—I remember that there were some very healthy contributions. There will be different views in the committee. My view—indeed, it was the view of the majority of respondents to the committee’s call for evidence—is that there should be alignment.

Amendment 53 came about as a result of some very good collaborative working with the cabinet secretary and her officials, which I found refreshing. Under the current provisions in the bill, ministers will be required to make a statement to Parliament setting out the extent to which each of the proposed carbon budgets takes into account the target-setting criteria and whether each budget is consistent with the latest advice from the UK Climate Change Committee. Following discussion at committee and during the stage 1 debate about the further information that Parliament might require to conduct scrutiny on the budgets, the amendment adds to the information that must be included in that statement.

Amendment 53 would also require ministers to share an indication of the policies and proposals that would likely be included in the next climate change plan, should regulations be approved. As I said, I have discussed it with the Government and, having had that discussion, I understand that it will be possible to publish that information only in “broadly indicative” terms. Members will have seen that that phrase appears in the amendment and they might think, “Why is Graham Simpson including such a woolly phrase in one of his amendments? That’s not his style.” It is not. However, I am accepting the wording in the spirit of compromise.

Thank you very much, convener. It has been a very full and interesting discussion so far.

Minister, the key question, which has been raised already, is basically what will happen if the regulation is annulled today. From what I have heard, given the timescale and where SPT is at, at the moment, it seems that there is time to introduce fairly minor primary legislation to change the system while SPT carries on with its consideration of franchising. Is that correct?

No, that is okay. There does not have to be a panel.

I will not, but I understand the amendment. Mr Lumsden will speak to it.

Absolutely.

Amendment 45 would require the Scottish ministers to lay draft regulations to set carbon budgets within three months of receiving advice on Scottish carbon budget levels from the CCC. The amendment speaks to a recommendation in the committee’s stage 1 report, in which the committee highlighted the need

“to specify a maximum”

amount of time that could

“elapse between receipt of the advice”

from the relevant body

“and the laying of draft regulations to set”

the first carbon

“budgets.”

This is another amendment on which I have worked with the Government. I originally said that the maximum time should be two months, but we settled on three months. I do not think that that four-week difference is worth quibbling about. I am happy with the amendment and the compromise, and I ask the committee to support it.

In relation to Mark Ruskell’s amendments 5 and 59, I am fully supportive of any extra scrutiny that the use of the super-affirmative procedure would provide. That is important, so I urge the committee to support amendments 5 and 59.

I want to clarify the last provision in the amendment, which says:

“Ministers must take steps to ensure that the document laid ... has been independently reviewed by a person with appropriate financial expertise.”

Is it Patrick Harvie’s intention that that should be just one individual, or does he mean that it should be a body? If it is a person—an individual—how would we assess what is meant by “appropriate financial expertise”?

Amendment 21 will require that the climate change plan’s costs and benefits assessment is

“broken down by reference to the period covered by a Scottish carbon budget in which those costs and benefits are expected to arise”.

The Scottish Government’s best practice approach already achieves the sentiment of amendment 21, but it has not been codified and it is not a requirement for future Governments. We appreciate the technical challenges in meeting the duty in an efficient way as, for example, some policies may straddle two carbon budget periods, but we think that it is possible to disaggregate that between carbon budget periods.

Given what we have heard already, whatever happens, it will be at least 2026 before anything happens, so there is time to do that.

It is quite all right; it is good to see the minister being passionate about the issue. It just seems to me that, if the motion to annul is passed and the SSI is annulled, the minister has to go away and rethink things. He has the opportunity not to have a panel, if he so chooses.