Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 04 Dec 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Official Report 259KB pdf

---

Climate Change Bill

Item 3 is the legislative consent memorandum on the Climate Change Bill. I welcome Stewart Stevenson, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, and his officials Philip Wright, Elizabeth Baird and Rosemary Whaley. I apologise for the fact that we are beginning this item a few minutes late. I invite the minister to make an opening statement.

Thank you. There has been much publicity about the evidence on climate change. The Stern review confirms the seriousness of the threat to the global economy and makes a compelling case for action. Stern's message is reinforced by the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which issued the clearest warning yet of the impact that humankind is having on the world's climate.

Today, we are discussing Scotland's and the UK's contribution to global efforts to tackle climate change, just as the United Nations climate change conference gets under way. Scotland is not the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, but it has a key leadership role to play and it has the opportunity to take advantage of the major economic benefits that will flow from moving to a low-carbon economy. I believe that Parliament is alive to the need for action and, I am sure, to the economic opportunities.

The UK Climate Change Bill was introduced to the House of Lords on 14 November and had its second reading on 27 November. The draft bill was, of course, published in March as a set of principles for action. However, it did not set out the roles of the various Administrations in the UK. The bill has now been developed in more detail and we have firmed up the role of the devolved Administrations.

The bill provides statutory emissions reduction targets and a supporting framework. At this stage, the targets are expressed in relation to carbon dioxide, but the bill provides scope to add other greenhouse gases to the targets at a later date.

I turn to the main features in relation to Scotland. The secretary of state carries the duty to achieve targets, but he will look to all Administrations, including our own, to contribute. Because the secretary of state carries that duty, he also has the power to amend the targets and to set and amend the carbon budgets. The bill requires him to consult the devolved Administrations—we shall usually have three months to give our views—and he must make a statement on how he has taken our views into account.

The committee on climate change will be appointed jointly by the four Administrations in the UK. It will advise all of us, not only the secretary of state, on the UK target. Another important feature is that the bill enables the devolved Administrations to seek, if we wish, the committee's advice on any targets of our own.

The bill provides powers to all four Administrations to establish trading schemes related to greenhouse gas emissions. We can establish separate or joint schemes as appropriate. The bill also ensures that we shall have a joint UK-wide assessment of the impacts of climate change, but it leaves it to us to decide how we adapt to climate change risks in Scotland.

The legislative consent memorandum is unusual in its extent. The key elements of the bill's climate change framework are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, so far as they apply to Scotland, but the purpose of the bill is to introduce a shared framework for the UK as a whole, which is not within our competence.

Climate change is a global challenge. We need to co-operate with other countries, and it makes sense for Scotland to work with the rest of the UK on the Climate Change Bill. The bill recognises Scotland as a partner in the venture, but it does not stop us having our own ambitions and promoting our own bill in due course.

None of us knows in detail all the actions that we shall need to take to achieve the 2050 targets, but setting ourselves the challenge is the right thing to do. In recent years, work has been done to curb emissions. We must build on that foundation through new policies and technological developments so that we get a tighter grip on emissions and move Scotland—and the UK—down the pathway to a low-carbon economy. I therefore ask the committee to support Scotland's participation in the bill and to agree to the legislative consent motion.

I thank the minister for his opening remarks. You have given us some detail about the aspects of the bill that relate to Scotland and how Scotland fits within the bill as it stands. How much input did the Scottish Government have in drawing up the bill? We have an interest in ensuring that it sets a framework that will work well with the separate plans that will be progressed in Scotland.

The Scottish Government and civil servants have had considerable input. Indeed, Elizabeth Baird has been working exclusively on it for a considerable period. At ministerial level, ministers from all four Administrations met before the summer recess to discuss our joint way forward. We found that there was consensus that we wanted to and had to work together.

What has happened since the draft bill was produced in the early part of the year and the bill was introduced in the middle of November reflects the substantial engagement that took place between my civil servants and civil servants in London and elsewhere and, of course, political engagement between ministers.

Have specific changes been brought about as a result of that engagement?

Let me have a look, because I have the specific answer to that.

Would it help if I gave the detail?

Yes.

You will appreciate that the bill contains a considerable amount of detail that was not in the draft bill, as it did not set out the roles of the devolved Administrations. For example, on setting carbon budgets, amending carbon budgets and potentially amending the targets, the draft bill said nothing about Scotland. There is now provision for the Scottish ministers and the other devolved Administrations to be closely involved in all those decisions. The secretary of state is under an obligation in the bill to consult the devolved Administrations and to publish an account of how he has taken account of our ministers' views.

Another example of where something has changed is the committee on climate change. Now, in addition to the committee advising all the UK Administrations on the UK target, the bill will make provision, as the minister said, for advice to be sought in relation to our Scottish targets and our particular Scottish interests. Indeed, we have fleshed out how Scotland relates to other aspects of the bill.

When we agree to a legislative consent motion and give permission to Westminster—if permission is needed—to legislate on devolved areas, we pass to the other Parliament not only the responsibility for passing the legislation but also the job of scrutinising the legislation. How confident are you that the parliamentary scrutiny at Westminster will take account of the specific Scottish issues or issues relating to the other devolved areas? I have spoken to Westminster parliamentarians who have been involved in the legislative process and who are surprised to learn that there will be a separate Scottish bill or that we need to agree to a legislative consent motion at all. That is rather worrying, given the changes that might be made during the process.

The Westminster parliamentarians whom I have met in connection with a variety of subjects have not been surprised about that or lacked knowledge about Scotland's higher ambitions or our plans to legislate for ourselves.

The more important and substantive point relates to how we deal with changes that might be made as the bill goes through the parliamentary process at Westminster—of course, if no changes are made, there will be little point in scrutiny. On our own recognisance, we will keep track of changes. If substantial changes are made that affect our interests, we will get involved in the process again to ensure that the bill is consistent with our objectives.

The provisions of the bill are, largely, enabling, and in certain cases they represent a transfer of powers to us. In so far as the bill touches on our interests and places what we do in a UK context—which it has to, because the Government in Westminster is responsible for meeting international targets—we must ensure that we play our part in meeting the targets. The part that we play in Scotland will be distinct from the part that the other devolved Administrations play.

Elizabeth Baird has passed me a note, but I am not sure that I can read it.

It has been explained that there is to be a concordat between various Governments. What stage is that work at? Is there a draft that we can see? If not, when will one be available?

There is no draft as yet.

Do you know when one will be available?

No. It is worth making the point that our consultation on the Scottish bill is expected around the turn of the year. There will be a period of engagement with civic Scotland and the people of Scotland on our bill and we will bring it forward later next year. Until we have established the shape of our bill, the relationship between what we are doing and the UK bill will be undetermined.

We should focus on the fact that this is one of the areas in which there is huge encouragement from Westminster for us to make the kind of progress that we want to make. Our 80 per cent target makes us a vital link in the chain that will enable the UK to meet its targets, whatever they turn out to be. I do not think that in this policy area there will be any divergence in what we try to do. There is great good will across all the Administrations and a preparedness to work together. The existence of a concordat is merely a formalisation of something that, in any event, we will agree on quite vigorously.

It is interesting to reflect that the arrival of nationalists in Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has sharpened the focus on climate change. I am glad to see that they are taking it seriously by proposing to set up the climate change committee, which sounds like a very good clearing house. However, the climate change strategy that has been adopted in Scotland sets the Scottish share of carbon reductions at a million tonnes by 2010. How does that fit in with the plans that we are hearing about? Why should the Scottish Parliament agree to a legislative consent motion that allows for legislation that is not as stringent or ambitious as that proposed by the Scottish Government?

No single country in the world can deal with climate change on its own. We wish to co-operate with the other countries within the United Kingdom, just as the United Kingdom is part of a wider European strategy for climate change. This week, we have a rather large number of people in Bali who are considering what will follow Kyoto. Co-operation is required, and the UK bill provides the framework for co-operation within the United Kingdom.

Although the bill contains some items that are peculiarly and specifically English and do not apply to us—they are in the bill because there is nowhere else for them—it enables and empowers the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament. We in Scotland have to legislate, for example, for our adaptation strategy, because conditions in Scotland are different from those in other countries in the United Kingdom. Scotland is more rural, there is greater sparsity in certain areas, and the profiles of our transport network and our energy generation are different. We need to take initiatives that relate to specific Scottish conditions. This enabling bill at United Kingdom level is a good example of partnership working, as it leaves us the space to do the things that we need to do.

It also, of course, does things that we cannot do, for example in relation to local government. Local government exercises a series of powers that stem from the powers of the Scottish Parliament and relate to devolved matters, but it also exercises powers that are derived from UK legislation and reserved powers. Without a framework that covers both those strands, we would be unable to create for local government a comprehensive working environment that covers its responsibilities that are derived from both Administrations. A whole series of examples shows how bringing everything together will help us to drive forward on the common goals that I hope we share.

I welcome that co-operation, and I hope that the committee will be able to explore more of it soon. It would not allow Scotland to have to bear greater than its share in order for the UK to reach its 60 per cent reductions target—or would it?

The UK bill does not set targets for Scotland—it sets targets for the UK. It is a matter of trust and co-operation. We will set our own targets. We have said that we will consult on a target of 80 per cent. The UK Government is pleased that we believe that it is possible to achieve that target in Scotland. That is, in part, why the UK Government wants to ensure that we have the powers to enable us to carry out carbon mitigation and carbon sequestration, and to stop generating carbon in Scotland—because it will help the UK to meet its international obligations. You are correct that Westminster is not setting targets that apply in Scotland, but the secretary of state is responsible for UK numbers and will work with us to ensure that we make our contribution.

Can you say anything more about how different targets from the different Administrations have been factored into the UK bill delivery mechanisms?

I will expand on the minister's point. Although the bill sets the overall target level, it does not specify what the individual countries will have to contribute. That needs to be worked out, because we all want to do our bit.

You asked how that factors into the delivery mechanisms. You will appreciate that the bill is very much about setting a framework. It foreshadows programmes and policies that will be the delivery mechanisms—when we address those we will get into the detail of exactly how we move towards the targets. As the minister said, because the UK bill is an enabling bill, we can take forward our mechanisms in Scotland. We can make our decisions here about the right things to do to meet the targets, which, in so far as they require legislation, could be in the Scottish bill.

The five-year carbon budgets do not fit well with the Scottish electoral cycle. How will political accountability for emissions reductions be ensured?

Not unreasonably, we are moving on to discussing what the Scottish bill will say. We envisage that there will be an annual progress update and that ministers will be accountable to Parliament—to this committee or any other committee of the Parliament. If progress deviates from the line that is going to get us to our 2050 targets, ministers will have to demonstrate what measures will be taken to ensure that we catch up if we are falling behind, or set out how we will bank overachievement—if I can use that term—for future periods. The UK bill makes some reference to that in the UK context. We expect there to be something similar in the Scottish bill. However, until we get the Scottish bill, I am giving a projection of what I expect, rather than a commitment to what will happen.

We will keep those questions on the table.

Indeed.

I want to pursue a couple of questions about targets. If there is to be an annual reporting mechanism at both levels of Government, is there an expectation that the reports will coincide, or will they be made at different times of year? If the reports will be made at different times of year, in what way will we in Scotland be able to separate out the different responsibilities that different levels of Government are exercising, or failing to exercise?

The straight answer is that I do not know whether the reports will coincide. However, you make the useful point that it will almost certainly be beneficial if they do coincide, or, at the very least, cover the same time period, so that there is a degree of comparability. If, per misadventure, the UK Parliament reported during a Scottish Parliament recess, there would be practical difficulties. I take on board the point that the reports should cover the same calendar period so that we can see how one Government is supporting the other, or is failing to do so.

What was the second part of your question?

You have answered it by implication. The point was, if the reporting time or the time periods that are covered vary, that will impact on our ability to determine which level of Government is working or not working in achieving the targets.

You are quite correct. However, not all of what happens in Scotland is the Scottish Government's responsibility. Therefore, having a consolidated report would be useful. It might be useful to hear from Philip Wright on this point.

There is a practical issue with reporting. At UK level, reporting will be done on a UK basis. The greenhouse gas emissions inventory is produced for the UK, which has to submit the information for United Nations purposes. The next part of the process is to disaggregate the inventory down to the individual countries of the UK—there will be an inventory for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That tends to be done sequentially. From a practical point of view, there is a delay of a few months before we have separate Scottish information on our performance on emissions compared with that of the UK.

Would it be expected to cover the same period?

Yes.

Indeed, that is already done. Now that I remember, the disaggregation report was published about three weeks ago.

My final question on targets is about what they should include. Rob Gibson mentioned the difference between the 60 per cent target that is currently proposed at the UK level—albeit that may change—and the 80 per cent target that is being talked about for Scotland. There is also a question about the inclusion of emissions from aviation and shipping, which many people outside Government are calling for, as well as other detailed questions about what the targets will or should include. Are there reasons why the targets should include those emissions at both levels or, if we agree to the LCM and the UK Government decides not to include aviation and shipping emissions, could Scotland be more ambitious?

That is precisely why we have to work with our Westminster colleagues, as aviation is a reserved matter. We have written to the UK Government supporting its moves to ensure that aviation is included in European trading and not excluded from it, as appeared to be the case at one stage.

We also need to have a robust understanding of where the cost of an individual flight will be booked. International discussion on that is on-going. Will it be the plane's country of registration, the country where its fuel is bought, the country from which it departs or the country in which it arrives? Significant issues are still under discussion, but there is at least consensus that aviation needs to be inside the tent.

We have shipping services that are wholly within Scottish boundaries and with which we can deal. On the other hand, we also have international shipping that connects to Belgium, for example, and might connect to other destinations. In general, consideration of how shipping will be dealt with internationally is at a much earlier stage.

I take the point about whether and how aviation and shipping emissions will be included in the trading mechanism. However, if we agree to the LCM but the UK Government legislates in a way that does not include aviation and shipping in its targets, will that preclude the Scottish Parliament from passing legislation that includes such emissions?

We can operate only within our legislative competence. Aviation is outside that competence and the LCM does not change that. However—to be helpful—the committee on climate change is likely to be the forum at which such questions will be addressed. I indicated that work still needs to be done on aviation and that the work on shipping is less developed. Those will be issues for that committee.

The bill is a framework. Substantial amounts of secondary legislation will be introduced under it, and I do not think that there will be any particular difficulty in ensuring that Scottish interests in aviation and shipping are reflected in what the UK Government does. For example, we have an issue in relation to our lifeline aviation services. We must ensure that any regime that is introduced to address aviation's contribution to climate change does not attack the viability of those services in a way that is difficult to deal with. After all, those services are, by and large, of a different character from much other aviation, because they use turboprop planes, which have a different consumption profile and fly at a lower altitude, therefore they damage the atmosphere less. It is about not only CO2 but the whole basket of greenhouse gases, although the UK bill deals only with CO2.

The minister will be delighted to know that the next question comes from a man with an interest in turboprops.

I thought that I was the only anorak in the room—

I beg your pardon. I have skipped over Rob Gibson's questions. I will come back to you in a few moments. I am so sorry.

No, I have asked my questions on targets and carbon budgets. I think that we are making progress.

I am doubly corrected.

What is the minister's view on the suggestion that has been made in some quarters that there should be a Scottish committee on climate change? Our committee has picked up some thoughts from the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has expressed concern about the lack of dedicated representation on the UK-wide committee. What is the Scottish Government's view on how to ensure that the interests of all devolved areas are covered effectively?

We engaged with that question quite early on in our Administration. After discussions with the UK Government, we took the view that we would have our own direct access to the UK committee so that we could ask our own questions and get our own answers. We will wait and see whether that works for us. We are not precluded from establishing a Scottish committee if that is the right thing to do, but a committee that covers a bigger geographical area and has greater responsibility will be more attractive for the experts to participate in. Such a committee creates the opportunity—but not the certainty—that it will be better able than a committee that draws on a narrower base of people and which might lack breadth. At this stage, we do not know. In a spirit of co-operation between Westminster and the Scottish Government, we think that it is certainly worth looking at participating in the UK Government committee. We expect to participate in it for several years before considering whether we need a separate Scottish committee.

I will not get wound up about the issue at this stage, as I do not think that it is fundamental. If people in Scotland feel that our having a UK committee might prevent them from contributing to the formation of Government policy, I will certainly be happy to hear from them to ensure that, by other means, we can cross-check what we get from the UK Government committee. I suspect that the UK Government committee will probably be a sustainable way forward, but nothing in the bill that has been introduced in the Westminster Parliament precludes our ability to set up our own committee if we judge that to be the right response.

My final question is probably a variation of my first question. Obviously, I do not need to give any lectures to the minister about different, distinctively Scottish issues such as our different approach to land management and our large amounts of renewable energy resources, which are due not least to the good work of Tom Johnston in the 1940s, but that is perhaps another story for another day. What expert advice is available to the Government to reflect Scotland's distinctiveness from England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

We can draw on quite a wide range of expertise, especially for issues such as land use on which there is a disproportionate interest in Scotland's contribution. For example, we have the centre for ecology and hydrology—on the south side of Edinburgh—which also advises the UK Government on land use-related issues. We also have access to the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute. Scotland has a whole range of research providers and research institutes that we can draw on. The Government is looking to develop and strengthen the networks that exist to ensure that we identify and have access to as wide a range of expertise as we require.

I have a follow-up question. We have received comment about the fact that the make-up of the climate change committee will not include any environmental expertise. Will the minister comment on that? Schedule 1 to the bill sets out who will participate in the committee, but it makes no mention of environmental expertise.

Schedule 1 contains a list but it is certainly not intended to be exhaustive. I would be very surprised if such interests were not reflected in the final composition of the committee. Indeed—this relates to David Stewart's question—paragraph 1(3)(d) of schedule 1 provides that the committee must reflect the geographical diversity and different needs of the countries of the UK. Perhaps this is an object lesson in the dangers of putting lists in primary legislation. I have spoken about that in the past.

The bill provides for national authorities jointly to give guidance to the committee on climate change on matters that it should take into account when exercising its functions. Why does the guidance in most cases require to be jointly issued by all the national authorities? Would it not make sense for functions relating to matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament to be guided primarily by you?

The guidance does not have to be joint. Any joint arrangements among the countries of the United Kingdom would be entirely voluntary.

I want to ask about emissions trading and the opportunities that might arise. The bill contains little prescription on how emissions trading will be used. No reason has been given for why enabling different trading schemes in different parts of the UK might be appropriate. Why is that?

We are creating a framework that is to last until 2050, so it is important that we do not second-guess what the world will look like in 2030 or 2040. I suspect that no one here could credibly claim to know that.

Leaving matters open so that the different Administrations can establish their own trading schemes, and empowering us to do that, has been done with an eye to the future. We do not necessarily think that we will establish our own scheme in the short term. The provision is there to maintain future flexibility, so that there is no need to revisit the primary legislation if circumstances dictated that we needed a separate trading scheme.

Clearly, there could be advantages in having a separate scheme in certain conditions, but equally there could be disadvantages, because a smaller market for trading might have a bigger range of buying and selling prices. At this stage, it is not clear what the balance will be.

We also have to take account of what Europe might end up doing with emissions trading. That will influence the UK's ability to construct schemes of its own.

As with much of the bill, flexibility has been left in, so that we can determine what we want to do in future.

So you are not in a position to envisage what a Scotland-only emissions trading scheme might attempt to achieve.

At this stage, we do not envisage there being a separate Scottish scheme. However, it is useful that the bill provides for that possibility in future.

I am interested in exploring the possible arrangements that you might hold out for in a UK emissions trading scheme. I have expressed the concern that Scottish Government commitments might, in order to achieve higher targets, place a greater economic burden on Scotland's industries and local authorities. You might dispute that, but can you envisage any UK-wide trading mechanism that could allow Scotland—were such an economic disadvantage to be imposed because of higher targets in Scotland—to be compensated for making a disproportionate contribution to the United Kingdom's targets?

I suspect that it will be the other way round. We have a huge reservoir of renewable energy in marine, wind and hydro power—Tom Johnston was mentioned earlier in relation to hydro power—and we will actually support everyone else, rather than being a burden.

I have been out and about talking to business about the Government's plans for climate change legislation; indeed, my second public engagement, which was in late May, was a talk on the subject to the Confederation of British Industry in Edinburgh. I found a roomful of enthusiasts who saw the advantages in Scotland taking the lead in the climate change business, building the skills, creating the products and selling them to the rest of the world. They felt that that far outweighed the burden of having to reduce our own carbon emissions. Time will tell, but I got a very strong sense that the business community saw climate change as much more of an opportunity than a threat. Of course, that is a general statement. Individual aspects of the proposition might need to be examined more closely when we come to them.

The bill appears to give you very wide-ranging powers to define the types of activity that, depending on the emissions produced, can be limited or encouraged under trading schemes. However, why do the papers before us contain so little detail about those powers? Given your previous answer, I would feel more reassured if I knew something about their nature.

As I have said, the UK bill is a framework bill, and the details of any scheme that might be introduced to exercise the available powers will be a matter for discussion when we reach that point. In a sense, we will be unable to answer all the questions that relate to climate change and a timetable leading up to 2050 for a considerable time. Of course, the secondary legislation that will be introduced will give Parliament the opportunity to debate and discuss the subject and to agree or disagree on the direction being taken.

Although the existing EU emissions trading scheme, as implemented in the UK, and the proposed carbon reduction commitment are both trading regimes, they are quite different in character, which means that the regulations for both will look quite different. As it will be quite difficult to capture that different shape in the original primary legislation, we need flexibility in that respect. That said, although the schemes are different, they both have the primary objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

How are the powers likely to be used in Scotland? Moreover, how much thought has been given to commodities such as electricity that have cross-border links between Scotland and England?

We do not envisage introducing a separate Scottish trading scheme. However, your question touches on the important issue of Scotland as a net exporter of electricity, in particular. We would have to carry the carbon cost of generating the electricity, while our friends south of the border would gain the subsequent electrical benefits. That is precisely why trading might form an important element of the strategy to ensure that such matters are properly dealt with. Trading schemes represent a tactical means of allowing us to transfer the carbon cost of generating electricity that people in Northumberland, Cumbria or wherever might be consuming, because, after all, their need for electricity was the reason for the generation in the first place.

Of course, we will also be incentivised in that respect. As long as we are burning fuels to generate electricity, we will wish to sequester the carbon dioxide produced through carbon capture schemes. A range of options has been discussed in relation to coal-generated power and the gas-generated power in Peterhead in my constituency. I hope that we will be able to make progress on that issue as well as on sustainable power generation from exploiting the energy in our oceans and rivers and the air.

Why is the detail of the carbon reduction commitment set out in the bill while other trading schemes are left to regulations under the bill?

What is in the bill is time-limited to 1 January 2011. That has been done simply because the UK Government knows enough to be able to put that detail into the bill, and because putting it into the bill accelerates the date on which the UK Government can move forward. If it had done what I agree would have been more natural in drafting terms and put the detail in secondary legislation, it would have delayed the point at which the legislative power was available.

It is purely the UK Government's desire to make rapid progress that caused it to draft the bill in that way. Secondary legislation will be involved, but the drafting is a practical way of accelerating work on carbon reduction. The bill has a sunset clause that comes into effect in just over three years—I am doing the arithmetic quickly.

You will be aware that the Parliament's Subordinate Legislation Committee felt that the LCM is unclear about how proposed regulations for Scotland under the bill, with regard to trading schemes, will interact with future provisions in any Scottish climate change bill. Will you explain how the Scottish Government intends to approach that issue? I understand that we are at an early stage, well before the Scottish bill comes to this committee and goes out for wider consultation, but I am interested in your thinking.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee makes reference to a number of clauses in the UK bill, including clause 36, which provides for different trading schemes. I return to the point that the legislation simply enables the various authorities to respond in the specific way that they may need to respond. It also enables us to exercise powers under the Scottish bill that are granted in the UK bill, which is extremely useful.

We will know how we will exercise those powers when we reach the point of doing so, and we will discover the schemes that may be brought forward when and if we introduce them. However, I repeat that we are not considering a Scottish trading scheme at this stage.

The bill requires the secretary of state to provide the UK Parliament with an assessment of the risks of climate change. That assessment will be sent to the Scottish Government, which will lay it before the Scottish Parliament. Why is it not considered appropriate that a Scotland-specific assessment of the risks of climate change should be published?

The bill refers to powers that the secretary of state can exercise. The bill is limited to reserved powers and does not cover devolved powers. Therefore, it is a courtesy that such an assessment by the secretary of state be provided to us and laid before the Scottish Parliament. Elizabeth Baird may correct me or expand on that, as appropriate.

Shirley Anne-Somerville asked why the risk assessment is UK-wide and why we are not having a specific Scottish assessment. We discussed that as four Administrations and we felt that there was a real benefit in taking a UK-wide look at the impacts of climate change to which we will have to respond and adapt. Within that, there will be some analysis of what is happening in different parts of the UK, so there will be a flavour of what is happening in Scotland, but that will be set in the bigger context. We will then be able to consider that with our partner countries and see how best to adapt.

However, it is for us—not the secretary of state in London—to manage our risks.

If members have no further questions, I thank the minister and his colleagues for joining us and answering questions. I think that the minister will be back with us shortly for another agenda item.

Do you wish me to withdraw just now, convener?

Yes, that would be helpful. We will suspend briefly to allow the minister to leave.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

Do members have any other comments on the LCM? The clerks noted the questions that we raised and the points that we pursued with the minister, but are there any other comments that members would like to make to inform the clerks' work on drawing up a report?

I have an observation on the issue of what we will measure. Obviously, as we heard, we will measure carbon dioxide emissions, but section 19(1)(b) includes

"any other greenhouse gas designated … by … the Secretary of State."

That is an issue for the secretary of state rather than the minister, but it is worth flagging up that an order might come through the parliamentary procedure to include more than just CO2.

I think that the minister mentioned extending the bill to cover other climate change gases.

Methane is of considerable interest to us in Scotland. [Laughter.] We have a large number of cattle, sheep and so on.

We are still in public session. Your comment might be misinterpreted.

Not at all. I am interested in people understanding the differences.

I am happy with the way in which the matter is being dealt with, because it does not preclude our considering issues in our own targets.

A significant amount of what we have been discussing seems relatively vague. As was said often, the bill provides a framework that can be developed later on to cover other things. I am slightly worried that the bill is so vague, but the minister answered our questions appropriately and explained why that is the case. I am prepared to accept the answers that he gave.

I agree. His answers were as reasonable as we can expect. I would like us to convey some concern and state that the Government should continue to take an active interest in the scrutiny process. LCMs are often simple documents, but the one that we are discussing is one of the most extensive LCMs that the Parliament has considered, and the bill that we will ask another Parliament to pass for us is complex. We should ensure that we and the Government take a keen interest in it.

Is that sufficient for the moment?

Members indicated agreement.

The clerks will circulate a draft report based on our comments.

I suspend the meeting again to allow the minister to rejoin us for the next item.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—