Chamber and committees

I appreciate your taking the intervention, cabinet secretary. I do not think that you have acknowledged this yet but, when I spoke to amendment 7, I said that many people had seen the target of a 75 per cent reduction by 2030 as hugely important in signifying the early action that we need to take to tackle climate change. How will that sort of thing work with the carbon budget? How easy will it be for somebody to look at where Scotland is and say whether we are on or off track to meet the 2045 date? Is there a way to articulate the budget in terms of the important milestones that people campaigned for on the streets and which this Parliament delivered? All of that is about the changing date for when we might actually meet the targets.

No, I am making the point that there is precedent in law for another body—Environmental Standards Scotland—to have to say in its annual reporting whether it has enough resources to discharge its responsibilities. To my mind, it would be useful if we had a requirement for the UK Climate Change Committee to present similar information. At the moment, we do not know whether it has adequate resources to enable it to discharge its responsibilities, so a similar provision would be useful.

I will finish by saying that climate change is complex. The CCC is doing great work, but there is always new and emerging stuff for it to look at, such as blue carbon. It is important for it to be a body that can keep track of the Scottish context. In the past, there have been discussions about whether there should be a separate Scottish CCC, whether it should have an office in Scotland and whether it should be focused on the particular challenges that we are all aware of. That brings in a question of resourcing, which should involve an open discussion because, if our ability to scrutinise is limited by the CCC’s capacity, that is a problem.

I will listen to the intention behind amendments 64, 49 and 50.

I move amendment 62.

No—that is fine. [Laughter.]

I will briefly mention amendment 20 before coming on to amendment 19. I thank the cabinet secretary for the engagement on amendment 20. To follow on from our discussion about the capacity and function of the CCC, it is important that the Scottish Government can take advice from other bodies. We heard in evidence that that is reflected in the Northern Irish legislation. I am grateful for the discussion with the Government on that.

I will speak to amendment 19, although I cannot press it to a vote, because the Presiding Officer’s view is that it would trigger the need for a financial resolution to the bill. That is disappointing, because clearly the Government has a budget for public engagement. It is also, I hope, committed to consultation on climate change plans and is continuing to reflect on the importance of participative democratic processes and the work of the climate assembly, which came on the back of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. That assembly was very valuable in bringing forward thinking on diet, travel and how we heat our homes, and I am sure that it was valuable for the Government in considering how to develop policy. Of course, citizens assemblies are only one way of doing that. Our committee commissioned a people’s panel on the public engagement aspects of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which was also very valuable.

I do not want to be prescriptive. It is for the Government to reflect on the importance of involving the public and people who are outside politics but who nevertheless will have a view on the big behaviour changes that we need to make as a society to tackle climate change. That is important to drive forward a social licence for some of the huge changes that we will need in our society if we are to get anywhere close to meeting our climate targets. I ask the cabinet secretary to follow up on this conversation between now and stage 3 to see how we can bake into the bill an important role for public engagement to ensure that future Governments are really committed to that kind of work.

I briefly turn to amendments 25 and 26 and other options in this space. As Sarah Boyack said, we have already talked about the statement that will come alongside the budgets and the effect of Graham Simpson’s amendment 53 in that regard. We need more certainty about how the Government intends to meet the climate budget and what is required across society to get the emissions reductions. My amendment 26 seeks to have an interim plan six months after the bill is introduced, but I do not feel that that is necessary right now, so I will not move it. However, I will press amendment 25 to the vote. There is an interplay between setting a carbon budget and setting a plan. In an ideal world, we would have a clear climate plan at the same time as the budget so that the Government is open, transparent and honest about the kinds of changes that will be needed to meet the targets.

We heard in evidence that the approach needs to go beyond the broad pathways that the Climate Change Committee will bring forward. There needs to be a marrying up of the carbon budget with the action that is needed to tackle climate change. When we are scrutinising the carbon budgets, it is important that we get as much certainty as possible about what will have to be done to meet those budgets.

However, I am not convinced that what we approved through Graham Simpson’s amendment 53 really does that. To go back to our initial discussion, I note that it is still quite woolly. We will need more detail next spring when the carbon budgets come forward. We need to have a clear analysis of what is needed to meet the budgets and of whether the Government is preparing and planning and has the finance in place to achieve that.

I will move amendment 25. In an ideal world, we should be moving a plan forward at the same time as we move a budget forward. I will not move amendment 26. I will hold on to amendment 19, but I will move amendment 20.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

It has been useful to understand the timescale for the appointment of the panel. However, regardless of whether we annul, we will still have a panel in place, and I am not convinced that having guidance for the appointment of that panel will change the fundamentally flawed system that was put in place by the 2019 act. I do not think that the guidance will make much difference. We have heard today that it will not make a difference to the timescale that SPT is using in working out its proposal.

The Government keeps trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. I appreciate that the issues of the complexity, difficulty and risk of having a panel were not foreseen when the bill was going through Parliament some time ago, but the Government should now rapidly reflect on those concerns and bring forward a system that offers genuine certainty while being fair and robust.

We heard evidence from an adviser to the Welsh Government, who suggested that Scotland might become a backward-facing outlier because of its commitment to the panel system. I do not think any of us want to go there. That was not foreseen during the passage of the bill in 2019, but that is where we are now. We must look at experiences elsewhere in these islands, and across Europe, to see what works in getting franchising over the line, reducing the risk to transport authorities and getting a fair decision. I struggle to see how having a panel, with or without guidance, will achieve that, because it will not fundamentally change the system that we have.

It is regrettable that we are where we are today, and that should give the Government pause for thought. I fear that we will go down a route that will not get franchising over the line and, because of that, I am prepared to support Mr Lumsden’s motion to annul.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

How is that different from what we have at the moment?

I am happy to do so. Amendment 13 is about improving the section 36 process for catch-up reports. The committee took evidence on how inadequate the two most recent catch-up reports were. They were late, very thin on detail and often just reflected existing policy and the existing ambition of the Scottish Government. We took evidence from Environmental Standards Scotland about the poor quality of those section 36 reports.

Therefore, I think that it is important to put into the bill a framework that ensures that, when we miss a target and there is a need for a catch-up report, the report comes back within six months and is meaningful and not just a restatement of existing policies that are required under section 35 as part of the climate change plan. The report should correct course and show how the Government will get back on track with targets.

I urge members to consider voting for amendment 13, because it involves a stronger approach. If there is consensus between the Government and Mr Golden on amendment 48, I would be concerned about whether Mr Golden’s proposed provisions would just lead to a restatement of existing policies and whether catch-up reports on the back of that would be meaningful.

Monica Lennon’s amendment 57 emphasises the six-month issue, but I think that that is better wrapped up into what I propose in amendment 13.

On Douglas Lumsden’s amendments 38, 39 and 40, it is appropriate that annual reports trigger some form of corrective action, which I am happy to support. I am also happy to support Graham Simpson’s amendment 23, which is about forecasting and looking ahead to circumstances in which a target might be missed. That seems sensible.

We cannot have catch-up reports of inadequate quality, from wherever in legislation they originate, come to Parliament in the way that the most recent reports did. There needs to be more of a framework around the process. If amendment 48 is agreed to, I will be looking to put more conditions in the process at stage 3 so that what we get back is meaningful and enables Parliament to consider a proper plan for course correction in the event of a missed target.

Sorry to interrupt—