Seòmar agus comataidhean

At the moment, there is no intention for tier 2 to become a larger share of the overall budget. As you have laid it out for the purposes of this conversation, tier 1 prevents things from getting worse. There are conditions in tier 1 to prevent further environmental degradation, but it is not about improvement as such. Tier 2 is about improvement, but what we have in front of us does not give any indication that tier 2 will become a larger share of the overall budget.

That is useful. However, going back to what the convener said, you can see the challenge for us, given that those decisions will all be made at a much later date; they are not what we are looking at now. We are being asked to scrutinise what is in front of us, but the challenge is that what is in front of me does not give me any confidence—because it leaves a blank space in that area—that the current bill and the Government’s financial assumptions around it will contribute towards the statutory climate targets that we already have, never mind the nature targets that we are likely to put into statute, the Government’s policy objectives and so on.

How have you gone about engaging with the Government team that is leading on the development of the climate plan, for example, to make sure that the bill is pointing in the same direction as the statutory climate targets in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 and the plan that is being produced for later this year?

Thank you very much. That was really useful.

That was useful—thank you. You have pointed out that tier 2 has more conditionality around climate, nature restoration and so on. Correct me if I am wrong but, at the moment, the vast majority of funding goes through tier 1, which is largely unconditioned. The tension that has come out in a lot of the evidence that has been submitted to us lies in how to square the circle between the ministerial commitment on no cliff edge, which you have mentioned, and other ministerial commitments for a transformation in agriculture, which is in the vision statement, the statutory targets for climate and emissions reduction and the statutory targets that we will soon have on nature. It is hard for me to square what is in the financial memorandum and the bill with other commitments that ministers have made and other legislative commitments that are already in place. There will not be a significant shift in funding in the short to medium term. Therefore, what is proposed in the bill will not result in a shift towards lower emissions, more restoration of nature and so on, to which the Government has already committed and which the Parliament has already put in law.

I am sorry to cut across you, but you must acknowledge that they do not improve the situation. At the moment, Scotland is a massively ecologically degraded country with a significant net contribution to global climate change. We recognise that something needs to change, so it is not good enough to say that, at the moment, the basic payments are conditioned on not making things much worse. We have all agreed—the Parliament, the Government and the sector—that the status quo is not good enough. The conditions for the basic payments really do not fly, do they?

I understand and entirely share the motivation behind the amendment, but will it lead to duplication? As I understand it, under the current system, victims already have the opportunity to make a victim impact statement before the case is referred to the children’s hearings system. As a result, the panel will already be in possession of it. If I understand correctly, the amendment essentially repeats that process, and I am concerned about the impact on victims of having to recount their trauma repeatedly, after being given the opportunity to do so and given that the panel itself should already be in possession of that statement.

I agree with Willie Rennie on the point of principle that we are not looking for mutually exclusive outcomes here. I am conscious that committee members have received lobbying and briefings from a range of organisations in the field of children’s rights, victims’ rights and so on, some of which ask us to support Willie Rennie’s amendments but, in the case of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, ask us to oppose amendments 122 and 123.

Does Willie Rennie agree that we are not a million miles off a position that is acceptable to the Government, other members on the committee and all key stakeholders, and that there is scope to reach agreement on reporting arrangements ahead of stage 3?

Apologies—I probably should have intervened and posed this point to Roz McCall. I would be grateful if she could address it when summing up. The point applies to amendments 189 and 190 to some extent, too, but I am more interested in amendments 18 and 19.

The Scotland Act 1998 enshrines the prosecutorial independence of the Lord Advocate, which is an important principle, but amendments 18 and 19 seem to undermine or erode that—or at least narrow it. I would be keen for Roz McCall to expand a bit on that point. To me, that raises issues of competence in relation to the Scotland Act 1998 and the principle of the Lord Advocate’s independence, on which there has been a growing debate in the Parliament over the past couple of years.

I was going to ask the same question as Ruth Maguire.

It is a partnership, but it is not a partnership of equals, because, ultimately, the UK Government decides how its money is spent. Regardless of whether it is spending £100 or £100 billion in Scotland, I am interested in your thoughts on the core point, which is that the vast majority of people in Scotland do not think that the UK Government should be the Government that spends money in devolved areas. If the spending is in reserved areas, it is a totally different issue. The core point is that a lot of the money that we are talking about is being spent in devolved areas. Regardless of whether the individual projects are welcome, the vast majority of people do not believe that the UK Government should be making those decisions. They would prefer the UK Government to give the money to the institutions that people in Scotland have decided should make such decisions—either the Scottish Government or local authorities. Why do you think that only a very small minority of people in Scotland believe that the UK Government should spend in devolved areas?