Chamber and committees

Everything that we do here we do despite our differences. The whole purpose of a Parliament is to bring people together, regardless of what separates us in political, professional or personal terms. That is never more true than at a moment such as this, when we are recognising the loss of someone who made a profound impact over many years.

Every politician, especially those who serve in the highest office, understands the impact on personal and family life. That aspect of the role is a sacrifice for the individual, but it is also a sacrifice for their family and friends, so it is important that the Parliament as a whole recognises the loss that Alex Salmond’s family and friends are experiencing now and that we offer our sincerest condolences.

Especially in the wake of such an unexpected death, it is a moment to begin to acknowledge the impact of the life that has ended. People’s lives and their legacies can be contested and complicated, so this is not a moment for an assessment of the entirety of the man—there will be more appropriate times for that—but we can all acknowledge the scale of Alex Salmond’s impact on Scotland’s politics. The events of the past few years are an important part of his story, but they do not change the fact that Alex Salmond was the political personality who enabled the SNP to advance in its political journey.

When the Parliament first met, 25 years ago, the SNP had just a handful of well-known faces and names in national politics. Suddenly, it was the main Opposition party. Within eight years, it was not only ready to form a Government; it was chosen to do so by the Scottish people. When it did so, Alex Salmond called it what it was. It might seem simple to say it now, but he recognised that the office of First Minister is the highest office in Scottish politics and that the group of people who sit on the front bench of the Parliament, to be held accountable by the representatives of Scotland, are not merely an Administration but a Government. In showing his understanding of that and in giving the right name to this young political landscape, Alex Salmond advanced Scotland’s political journey.

In the early years of the Parliament, the idea of independence was by no means in its infancy. A large minority had consistently supported it, but the case for independence as a viable proposition had barely been developed. Some people will remember Alex Salmond for the phrase

“the dream will never die”,

but, in his time at the forefront of Scottish politics, he did more than most to turn it from a dream into a tangible, imminent choice—something that even its strongest opponents had to recognise as a real choice that Scotland could make work. That legacy endures, and independence remains an undeniably real and imminent choice, there for the taking, if the people will it. [Applause.]

During these debates, various people choose to defy expectations and others confirm them. The Conservatives have played up to their reputation as the pantomime villains of Scottish politics—[Interruption.]—and they have brought a motion to do the same. A few years ago, some of them were determined that Scotland should copy the disastrous mini-budget of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng. Today, it seems that they are equally determined to drag the behaviour in this chamber down to the level of the House of Commons. I very much hope that they fail.

From other parties, we expect a serious debate. The amendments from both the Government and the Labour Party contribute to a more serious debate. In the Government’s amendment, I do not see anything that anyone could disagree with. It recognises the harm done by austerity, which is well understood in every community across the country, and it recognises the harm done by Brexit, which is well understood in every community, particularly in every business, across the country. The amendment refers to the value of using progressive taxation—which I will come on to in a little more detail later—to pay for things such as the Scottish child payment, free prescriptions and ensuring that people can go to university without ending up tens of thousands of pounds in debt for their tuition fees alone, as happens in England.

The amendment also makes the clear point that Opposition parties that contribute to discussions about the budget have a responsibility to at least try to make the sums add up. If they want more spending, they need to recognise the necessity to raise that revenue through taxation.

As for the amendment from the Labour Party, I am sorry that it is abundantly clear that it has entirely abandoned its support for progressive taxation. When Scotland moved to a five-band income tax system, the Labour Party supported and agreed with that change. Now, it no longer supports it—the Labour Party believes that it is wrong that anyone pays more tax in Scotland.

Let us look at the operation—

There is an urgent need for that investment in net zero, and a need for tackling extreme wealth and tax avoidance.

With only four minutes for my speech, I am afraid that I do not have time.

Let us look at the operation of progressive tax in Scotland. Someone who is on £35,000 a year—that is not an exorbitant salary, but it is by no means a low income—pays barely more than £1 a week more in income tax. Those on significantly higher incomes, such as every member of this chamber, pay a fair bit more, and those on extremely high incomes pay their fair share, unlike anywhere else in the rest of the UK. Those on extremely high incomes pay significantly more.

In exchange for all that, we get all those policies that we have chosen to prioritise, whether that is the baby box, free prescriptions, free higher education or the knowledge that we live in a society that has the decency to provide a Scottish child payment to those in need. That is what we all receive from a country that commits to progressive taxation.

Today, we have seen a UK budget that—I will give credit where it is due—begins to change the country’s direction, and some of the ways in which it does so are welcome. I will take the time to study it. However, even the advocates of the Labour Party—their biggest fans—would not suggest that it brings the UK up to the level of investment that we see across the European Union or in the US, through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or that would have existed under the Labour Party’s previous £28 billion green policy investment plan. It still leaves the Scottish Government with the responsibility to fund local services, to invest in net zero, to cut inequality and, as Parliament agreed earlier this month, to use every lever possible at our disposal to do those things, including progressive taxation and new local tax powers.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response and other members for their contributions to the discussion. I am tempted to press amendment 27, partly to gauge the level of support for it on the committee. I may not have done enough to persuade people on this precise amendment, but I would like to get a sense of whether I have. If I have not, I will perhaps explore lodging something else at stage 3.

However, if the committee is convinced that an amendment is needed to place additional requirements in the bill at this point, if it were to agree to the amendment, the onus would be on the Government, if it wanted to refine the provision, to convince the majority of Parliament of the need for a change. I would prefer to at least put the question to the committee now, so I press amendment 27.

Good morning. As a non-member of the committee, I will speak to my own amendment and leave members of the committee to comment on the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 60 is not grouped with amendment 17, which will come up later, but it touches on a similar issue, and in some ways the amendments should be seen together. They relate to how we examine the carbon impact, or the climate impact, of major capital projects.

Amendment 17 relates to the climate change plan, and amendment 60 raises the same issue in relation to the report that the Government will publish on carbon budgets. Obviously, some major capital projects for pieces of infrastructure that the Government is proposing will be contentious, while others will not be. That will be true regardless of whether those are high-carbon or low-carbon pieces of infrastructure. However, that judgment must be made on the basis of a full, proper assessment of the likely impact of capital projects.

For some projects that the Government continues to support, it has agreed that there need to be carbon assessments. For example, Government policy on the A96 has committed to a carbon assessment and climate compatibility assessment.

Regardless of whether anyone supports or opposes particular projects, we should reach those decisions and judgments on the basis of proper assessments. I think that it is unreasonable that we are still in a position in which we do not have a clear legislative basis for requiring those assessments. I suggest that even the Government recognises that the status quo is not ideal, and I understand that it is working on how it would regard the application of a net zero test for such decisions.

My amendments 60 and 17 seek to find a way for the Parliament to be able to reach a view on infrastructure and capital projects on the basis of a full assessment of the impacts that they would have on carbon budgets or the ability to deliver a climate change plan. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and to finding out whether it would be open to the amendments that I have proposed, or whether it has an alternative approach to how the issues can be addressed in the legislation before we reach stage 3.

I move amendment 60.

I will comment on the specific issues that were raised in relation to amendment 17 when we reach group 9, but they are connected to amendment 60. When framing the amendments, I was seeking to explore the relevance either to the report on carbon budgets or to the climate change plan. Given the cabinet secretary’s comments, I am happy to explore whether there is an alternative that can gain agreement before stage 3. I hope that that discussion will be fruitful; if not, I reserve the option to return with an amendment at stage 3. For the time being, I ask to withdraw amendment 60.

Amendment 60, by agreement, withdrawn.

We are coming to the end of stage 2, so I promise not to keep the committee very long, but I would like to go back to the debates in 2009 on the first climate change legislation. As it happens, the amendment sessions took place in this room and I was sitting where you are, convener.

One of the arguments that I made in relation to that legislation was that there needed to be a clear connection between climate targets, as we were framing them then—we would now call them carbon budgets—and the Scottish Government’s financial budget that we pass every year in relation to the money that is spent on investments and public services. Members agreed with that argument, which led to an amendment that became section 94 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. It was acknowledged then, including by the Government, that that was a first stab at a methodology for connecting climate targets with the Government’s spending plans.

I do not think that the methodology has ever been perfect. I am not suggesting that it has not been refined and improved to some extent, but it has always placed a bit too much emphasis on the most direct connections relating to the emissions that are generated by the spending of money, rather than on the effect that spending has on the economy and the emissions that will be generated as a result.

I am seeking to expand section 94 of the 2009 act as it will now apply to the carbon budgets instead of the climate targets that existed previously. Amendment 27 seeks to retain the requirement for a statement that sets out

“the direct and indirect impact on greenhouse gas emissions of the activities to be funded by virtue of the proposals”—

in other words, the financial budget. However, the amendment would add two elements. One is about

“the financial resources being made available ... to ensure that the Scottish carbon budget target for”

a particular period

“will be met.”

What would be needed is not just an assessment of the budget but a specific statement on how the measures to meet the carbon budget would be funded.

The other change, which is probably the more significant one, would be the requirement for some independent scrutiny of the statement about the connection between the carbon budget and the financial budget. I am not casting aspersions on the current Government or any Government since 2009, but it is reasonable for the Parliament to expect that the Government’s assessment of the connection between spending and emissions will be independently scrutinised. The body that the Government identifies for that role might be, for example, the Scottish Fiscal Commission or another existing body; I am not suggesting the creation of something new. However, a politically independent body should be given the responsibility of scrutinising what the Government is saying about a really important question: if the Government is setting carbon budgets and laying out a climate change plan, is the action that is necessary to meet those budgets and is the action that is set out in the plan going to be funded? We need to scrutinise that for every year’s financial budget.

Could the cabinet secretary indicate whether it is the Government’s intention and commitment that the work that she is talking about, which is under development, will be subject to independent scrutiny by a body other than the Government, in order to ensure that Parliament’s assessment of it is well informed?

We can make a comparison with other aspects of budget scrutiny. For example, the Government produces equality impact assessments in relation to the budget. No one would suggest that the achievement of equality in our society is solely determined by Scottish Government policies and that it is unaffected by the private sector, the UK Government or other factors, but it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that Parliament should place on the Government that its spending plans are scrutinised in relation to their likely impact on equality. The comparison in this case is simply to require the Government to produce a document that sets out the financial resources that are being made available by virtue of the budget to ensure that the Scottish carbon budget target for the particular period will be met, and to require that that document be independently scrutinised.

I genuinely struggle to accept any suggestion that Parliament’s scrutiny of the finance budget would be weaker for the provision of that document and its independent scrutiny.

I move amendment 27.