Chamber and committees

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—

It is not for me to write the financial budget for the Climate Change Committee, but I think that the cabinet secretary was acknowledging the issues around capacity and the need to take that work forward.

I am mindful of the time, but will you take an intervention?

My amendment 6 is similar in many ways to Graham Simpson’s amendment 1. It is about ensuring that there is real transparency in the budget. If we are going to pass a carbon budget, we need to know what the contribution will be from different sectors. When we have set climate targets in the past, that has not been clear, and we need to provide transparency. Amendment 6 would pin the process directly to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, so I gently ask Mr Simpson to withdraw amendment 1 to allow me to move amendment 6, as it is a tighter fit with existing legislation.

On amendment 7, there was a huge sense of loss in Scotland and in the environmental movement when it was decided that it was no longer credible for us to meet the target of a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, because that target represented the hugely important need for action in this decade to tackle climate change and to get on top of the issue. The fact that that target is now not credible and can no longer be met by 2030 is really concerning. It begs the question of when we will get to 75 per cent. People are asking when we will get three quarters of the way to net zero. If we are off track, people need to know by how much we are off track and when we will meet that important milestone.

At stage 1, we had discussions with the cabinet secretary about how the budgets can be interpreted to ensure that the target of 75 per cent can remain and be transparent, so that people can still see the date by which we will meet the target. My amendment 7 would ensure that the aspiration behind the targets of 75 per cent and 90 per cent are still reflected and transparent in the carbon budgets when they are published.

On the other amendments in the group, we have had a big discussion in the committee and the chamber about whether the budget should be aligned to the UK budget or whether it should be a stand-alone Scottish budget. On balance, what is in the bill is the right approach, so I will not support amendment 9. It has almost a ratcheting effect when devolved Administrations bring forward policy innovation. When that is reflected in the climate change plans and set out at the beginning of the parliamentary sessions in Wales and Scotland, it can then be linked into the future development of climate change plans across the UK. I am convinced that that is the right way to go, but I appreciate that there might be different views on that.

I support what Monica Lennon wants to achieve with amendments 28 to 30 and amendment 32. The UK Climate Change Committee publishes advice, which sets out broad pathways, so it is appropriate to act in accordance with that.

I am still not entirely sure what amendment 46 is trying to achieve—I am not sure that Mr Lumsden is either—but I will listen to the cabinet secretary’s views on that.

We will have a debate later about whether a draft plan should be presented at the time of the budget, slightly after the budget or several months after the budget, and amendment 53 is relevant to that issue. Therefore, I ask Mr Simpson to consider not moving amendment 53. However, given that he already has support from the Government, I think that he might move it anyway. We really need to tighten up the woolliness around this matter. I am already thinking about how, if that amendment is passed, we can make the presentation of that information ahead of a budget meaningful. We might need to come back to that at stage 3, because it is far too woolly at the moment, and Mr Simpson knows that.