Chamber and committees

Absolutely. It is good that we have heard a view from the Scottish Government, but it would have been good to hear the thoughts of members of other organisations on that view when speaking to them in committee.

The second key issue is reporting. It is regrettable that the bill will permit only one section 36 report to be published at the end of each five-year carbon budget period. Such an important issue requires careful monitoring and reporting, and there should be much more opportunity for that in the bill. It is vitally important to the future of Scotland for us to get this right, and I know that the committee is committed to working with the Government to ensure that the bill achieves what we all want it to achieve.

I note the cabinet secretary’s response on the issue of the section 36 report and the lack of a trigger point in the five-year period. I hope that, as the bill progresses, a statutory solution can be found.

Another issue is the financial memorandum. Like most financial memoranda from this devolved Government, it is weak. Again, it seems that we will be asked to sign up to legislation with no real idea of its overall cost. Having scrutinised the bill’s financial memorandum, the Finance and Public Audit Committee highlighted its previous advice, and asked whether all costs or benefits, except those of a genuinely marginal nature, have been quantified, including those that are likely to arise from secondary legislation. Everyone can agree that we have seen no costs for the associated secondary legislation, and we will get that only once we are a lot further down the road. That is wrong.

It might not have a detailed costing, but the Government should be able to give a ballpark figure on how much things will cost. As I said, we would be signing up to legislation with no real idea of what the true cost of that will be. We heard from local authorities that they are concerned about costs and about what funding will be made available to them as we ask them to change to enable the Scottish Government to meet its targets.

I am concerned that this new legislation will mean nothing if the devolved Government does not follow it up with actions. I am worried that the net zero and energy budget has been cut by £23.4 million. The Scottish Government is set to miss four of its six recycling targets and has failed to achieve its key climate target for nine out of the past 13 years. Its record is not great, and there is so much to be done.

I have to mention the much-delayed climate change plan. We should have had that a long time ago. It is shameful that the SNP Government has got itself into this situation. People are looking for clarity, including on the direction of travel—we should have had that clarity long before now. The Government needs to commit to a date on which the new plan will be released. I am fed up with the SNP Government fobbing us off when it comes to plans and strategy.

What I heard earlier was that the cabinet secretary would endeavour to bring forward the plan before recess next summer. I do not see that as a real commitment.

As I said, I am fed up with the SNP Government fobbing us off when it comes to plans and strategies. The energy strategy is a prime example. We have been told for months now that it is imminent, but there is still no sign of it. Maybe the cabinet secretary can intervene again—right now—and tell us when that will be released. [Interruption.]

I think that we heard that last week, and maybe the week before. I am looking for an answer. We want to know the date on which the energy strategy will be published. People are looking for clarity, and we do not get that from this SNP Government.

It is vital that we get this right for Scotland and for future generations. We need a clear plan, which is measurable and achievable, for how we will achieve net zero by 2045. We need to be able to hold the Government to account when targets are missed or we fall short. We cannot rush through this process without adequate time to consider the implications and impact of legislation on our communities and businesses across Scotland. We cannot rush through actions that will have adverse effects on our rural communities. As Scottish Land & Estates says:

“the pursuit of net-zero must not result in rural businesses and communities being negatively impacted by urban-focussed policies.”

That is vital.

We have to work with our partners across the UK to ensure that our plan is aligned across the country. We cannot achieve that alone. It must be done in partnership with business, local authorities and communities across Scotland and the UK. I hope that the Scottish Government accepts the committee’s recommendations and makes changes to the bill, as I think that there is a genuine will across all parties to make the legislation work for the whole of Scotland.

Absolutely. It is good that we have heard a view from the Scottish Government, but it would have been good to hear the thoughts of members of other organisations on that view when speaking to them in committee.

The second key issue is reporting. It is regrettable that the bill will permit only one section 36 report to be published at the end of each five-year carbon budget period. Such an important issue requires careful monitoring and reporting, and there should be much more opportunity for that in the bill. It is vitally important to the future of Scotland for us to get this right, and I know that the committee is committed to working with the Government to ensure that the bill achieves what we all want it to achieve.

I note the cabinet secretary’s response on the issue of the section 36 report and the lack of a trigger point in the five-year period. I hope that, as the bill progresses, a statutory solution can be found.

Another issue is the financial memorandum. Like most financial memoranda from this devolved Government, it is weak. Again, it seems that we will be asked to sign up to legislation with no real idea of its overall cost. Having scrutinised the bill’s financial memorandum, the Finance and Public Administration Committee highlighted its previous advice, and asked whether all costs or benefits, except those of a genuinely marginal nature, have been quantified, including those that are likely to arise from secondary legislation. Everyone can agree that we have seen no costs for the associated secondary legislation, and we will get that only once we are a lot further down the road. That is wrong.

I go back to the point that the cabinet secretary made about carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Is she really trying to tell us that, if the Acorn project had been given the go-ahead, we would have been able to meet our 75 per cent target, and that we would have had a climate change plan before us already?

I will.

That was a good choice.

The Scottish Government committed £80 million for carbon capture, utilisation and storage. How much of that money has actually been spent?

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I thank the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for keeping all committee members together during the production of the report. I especially thank the clerks for this excellent report, which was turned around quickly to give us the opportunity to discuss it today.

The committee has taken as much time as possible to consider the legislation, but I think that we all agree that more time is required to discuss this important issue. We also need to reflect on why we are here today.

We know that the Scottish Government has failed to meet its climate change targets, to address the challenges that we are facing and to set out a clear plan on how, together, we can achieve net zero. The committee pulls no punches in its remarks on the matter, stating that action so far on reaching our ambitious climate change emissions reduction targets “has been inadequate”; that the pace that has been forced on the parliamentary process of the legislation is “unsatisfactory”; and that we have done our best to listen to as wide a cross-section as we can in the time that was given to us.

Parliamentary scrutiny should not be the loser in the Scottish National Party Government’s mismanagement of our climate change goals. I understand that the Scottish Government is keen to be seen to be doing something quickly on the matter, but that does not mean that it can charge ahead unchecked and without the adequate scrutiny and assistance from experts. The issue is too important, too big and too vital—its significance is too great—to rush through without adequate thought or thorough examination.

I will focus my remarks on three key areas that have been highlighted by the committee. The first is an issue that was raised repeatedly with the committee during our deliberations. Many of those who gave their time to respond to the committee mentioned the importance of alignment between what is happening here and what is happening in Westminster. It is concerning that there is nothing in the policy memorandum on alignment, and I ask the cabinet secretary to clarify, if she can, why that is the case.

The committee has made very clear recommendations on the matter and asks that the Government sets out its thinking on alignment with the UK carbon budgets, what evidence it gathered and whether alignment would delay the Scottish Government’s working on new and improved plans to deliver net zero.

I welcome the Scottish Government response to the committee report, including its detailed response on that question. It would be helpful if the committee could look at the matter again in light of that response. I remain concerned about the lack of alignment, but I am happy to take additional time to consider the question as part of the bill process.