Chamber and committees

You said that we are where we are with the legislation, but 2019 was some time ago, and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge with progress on bus franchising around the UK, so there is now a lot more experience. If you were to revisit the provision through a transport act, would you go down the same route? Given what we know about Wales, is this the best route to go down to secure franchising?

My final question is about the guidance that could come on the back of this Scottish statutory instrument. You understand the concerns that have been raised in the petition to Parliament and I am sure that you have read the evidence and know of the experience elsewhere in the UK. What is your response to that? Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and others have a real stake and an interest in seeing this happen. What is your answer to them? How can you deliver reassurance right now through guidance or interpretation of the SSI?

I am trying to help you to find out what the solution is, because I want to see a solution, too. I want franchising to happen as quickly as possible. We are on the same page, but I am struggling to see what the fix is. I am frustrated for you, because a motion has been lodged to annul the regulations.

I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said. I do not think that amendment 62 contains anything that would require the Scottish Government to fully fund the Climate Change Committee. The amendment relates very much to the work that that committee does in relation to Scottish carbon budgets. It is important that the issue is continually raised. If that is done through interministerial forums, so be it. An understanding of our needs, of the issues that are emerging from deliberation on our climate change plan and the budget and of the CCC’s capacity to deliver on that need to be part of an active conversation.

I will consider whether it is worth revisiting amendment 62 ahead of stage 3, but I do not intend to press it at this point. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has, I think, acknowledged that this is an issue. I think that she has acknowledged that—I am not sure. [Interruption.] She has—right, okay.

Yes, but do you see a difference between a public contract where public money goes into, say, a catering service in a school and what happens next door in McDonald’s? What happens next door at McDonald’s is wrapped up in area-based reporting, which is about what happens within the general council area, but there is a direct link to public spend. Our taxpayers’ money goes into supporting public services. Should there be more climate carbon accounting for that? I am trying to understand why it is fine to push that off-limits a bit and say, “It’s a bit too hard. There are difficult decisions to make and it’s all captured by the general carbon reduction within a council area.” That does not feel quite right to me.

Finally, what does that reporting back to Parliament look like? Parliament is being asked to approve or to not stand in the way of your improvement plan that has come in on the back of an improvement notice from ESS—we have to say, “Yes, that is good”, or, “No, we think you need to think again”. If we are broadly saying, “Yes, this is moving absolutely in the right direction”, as I think that it is, what will the reporting back to Parliament look like? There is this unanswered question around scope 3 emissions, and I certainly want to see what progress is being made not in 2027—if we are still here—but in the interim period between, in 2025 and 2026.

Yes. I was having a look at the different areas of scope 3 emissions. The Government has categorised some of those as being really hard to bottom out and, if I understand it correctly, further work has been scheduled for that.

One of the groups is operation of franchises. How hard is it to work out the emissions from a franchise? This committee has discussed bus franchises. Surely it would be relatively easy for a council to work out how the operation of a bus service over time and the vehicles that would be used would contribute towards climate change, through the amount of fuel that would be used and the number of services that would be run. I want your reflection on that, because it did not strike me as an area where it would be particularly challenging to understand what the climate impact would be. If councils are making decisions on franchises without really understanding the climate impact, that is a bit concerning. I will take everybody who wants to answer that, starting with Clare Wharmby.

I presume that there is a conversation about local procurement. We quite often see in the press councils being challenged about why they are air-freighting chicken from Thailand or wherever and there is an active conversation about local procurement of ingredients. I understand the challenge of going down to the n^th degree, but my point is that surely carbon is not being prioritised in procurement.

Okay, that is fine.

The other issue is about local councils and the ability of householders and businesses to connect to an EV charge point at their home or business the car or van that is sitting outside on a public highway. There are planning issues around cables crossing footways, but I know of a number of local authorities that have effectively provided a derogation to enable certain types of guttering to be put on to the footway to enable homeowners and businesses to charge at home using a more attractive, cheaper tariff. Is there any progress with councils on adopting more enlightened planning rules to enable people to use those more attractive tariffs?

Okay, that is fine. Where we have got to with this is that there is a question about where you draw the line. You could go down to the nth degree but there is perhaps a point where that information does not add as much value in some areas as in other areas.

You have worked within the spirit of the ESS recommendation, you have adopted most of the recommendations, but there is still a question around the sticky scope 3 emissions. I am interested in how much progress you can make in bottoming out that question between 2025 and 2027 and what you can report back to Parliament.

It is clear that some areas—such as bus franchises, which you mentioned—look pretty easy to bottom out in terms of scope 3 emissions. I will add another one, a favourite of mine: road maintenance. I see that Andrew Mortimer is looking at me as I say that, but I think that, with road maintenance, it is fairly easy to understand the data around aggregates and some of the reporting in that sector. Getting verified data in that area that can be included in scope 3 reporting might be low-hanging fruit for councils, and might be easier than, say, doing so in the area of catering, where you have to try to add up all the ingredients, take account of all the suppliers and so on.

I am interested in how much progress we can expect to see in the areas that you think are a bit too hard right now and we need to go back and think again about. Are there some obvious areas that councils are not reporting on at the moment, such as road maintenance? The data around road maintenance is there, and it is quite a big area of carbon emissions and public spend. It would not be too hard to report on that area, and there probably would be some value in having an understanding of the scope 3 emissions, as that could form part of the decision making.

Right—but it is challenging.