Chamber and committees

I have been listening intently to what Mr Lumsden said. He said that the intent of the amendment is to comply with the devolution settlement. It is worth noting that the internal market act was not part of the devolution settlement—it is reasonable to put that on the record. Given that we are talking about being in a reflective mood, and that Mr Simpson has been reflective in real time in committee today, I wonder whether Mr Lumsden might reflect that amendment 87 is not actually required.

Yes, and I will be very brief, convener.

As Mr Ruskell has said, common frameworks exist, and they work to a greater or lesser extent, depending, sometimes, on the political context. However, it is reasonable to say that, with good will on both sides—that is, the Scottish and UK Governments—and with common sense, we could get there, even though I would rather that there was no internal market act. I am not sure that either amendment lends itself to promoting the better use of the common frameworks, or, indeed, to good will or common sense, and quite frankly, they might not be required. That is my view.

I also point out that, in evidence, the third sector told us that—and I will go back and check whether the quote is accurate—the internal market act could have a chilling effect on environmental endeavours towards net zero and climate action. Indeed, some in the sector have called for a more general exemption in relation to those environmental endeavours.

My final comment is relevant to the comments that we have heard so far from members in this debate and to the amendments at hand. The committee heard that there had been no engagement in relation to the common frameworks, but we were of the view—a majority view, anyway—that, because this was a framework bill, it would be at the point of co-production and putting together the details of what would come later that the common frameworks would kick in and that such engagement was not really appropriate at the earlier stage. I think that that was lost a little bit in the earlier exchange.

I appreciate the offer to work constructively ahead of stage 3. Reading my amendment, I see that it imposes a direct requirement on Government—it says “must”, not “may”. However, the point is that perhaps there needs to be a bit of future-proofing of this legislation, because we cannot predict what the outcome of that pan-UK agreement will be. I am keen to monitor the impact on companies in Scotland that are operating at the EU level when that EU directive goes live, so I am keen to meet to talk a little more about that ahead of stage 3.

I will listen carefully to the case that colleagues make for their amendments but will restrict myself to speaking to amendment 197, which would introduce provisions for scope 3 emissions reporting for large companies. I emphasise that I see it as a probing amendment. I am cognisant of two factors in that regard. There may be more, but I am cognisant of two in particular: first, the potential burdens on business, and, secondly, the UK reporting landscape on emissions.

Company emissions can be classified into scope 1, which is direct emissions from an owned or controlled source; scope 2, which is indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy; or scope 3, which is all indirect emissions that are not included in scope 2 that occur within the reporting company ’s value chain.

Some of the largest companies that operate in the UK are already required to report their scope 1 and scope 2 emissions under the Government’s streamlined energy and carbon reporting framework. The greenhouse gas protocol is an internationally recognised standard for reporting scope 3 emissions. I point out that the protocol gives detailed guidance on how compliance can be achieved, but it admits that it is a complex area.

From June 2024, large companies operating in the European Union will be required to obtain, monitor and report their scope 3 emissions under the EU corporate sustainability due diligence directive. That was referred to during an earlier grouping of amendments. I note that that EU directive has a proportionality clause, which stresses:

“The burden on companies stemming from compliance costs, has been adapted to the size, resources available, and the risk profile.”

It goes on to talk about commensurate measures, so the feeling is that that is a balanced directive.

Amendment 197 would create a provision in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill for mandatory scope 3 emissions reporting for large companies that operate in Scotland. That would be a meaningful step towards businesses beginning to take responsibility for the environmental impacts in their supply chains and would allow Scotland to keep pace with EU policy, as the minister and Mr Ruskell mentioned.

Our stage 1 report stated:

“The Committee believes there are a number of other characteristics desirable in a circular economy and recommends the Scottish Government consider the proposals made by stakeholders to include reference to international impact and environmental impact.”

Amendment 197 is an attempt to address that recommendation.

I acknowledge that, in 2023, the UK Government issued a call for evidence on the benefits, costs and practices of scope 3 emissions reporting. Those findings will be of significant value when drafting future regulations under my amendment if it is approved. The minister also referred to the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, which is going through the UK Parliament, and I acknowledge that there could be crossover with that.

Given all of that, I acknowledge that there could be a pan-UK approach to scope 3 reporting. However, the clear direction of travel is towards proportionate scope 3 reporting that is not unduly burdensome to business. In a few months’ time, businesses that operate in Scotland but also operate within the EU will have to comply with the EU obligations on that anyway. As we progress the matter in a Scottish context, the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill could be a way to secure such reporting.

I will listen with interest to the minister’s views when she responds to the comments that I have made.

That is helpful, but I wonder whether, in order to get the safe and secure transition and transfer of cases that we keep talking about, the issue needs to be looked at afresh, which Marilyn Howard was talking about. Is this one of the things that you would like the Government to look at afresh once that transfer has happened?

I do not want to put words into your mouth, Mr Stachura, but would it be self-evident that some conditions will endure for a longer period of time than the two or six months to qualify?

I was struck by Debbie Horne’s comments about human rights-based budgeting. I get the point that she makes. I am the convener of the cross-party group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions and the CPG on palliative and end-of-life care. Demands on budgets are such that the people who are affected by those issues would also demand human rights-based budgeting to fulfil their expectation that their human rights will be met. I appreciate what Ms Horne says, but it can be quite simplistic to look at it in that way.

From a budgeting point of view, £580 million is clearly eye-watering and simply not affordable, even though it would be positive to introduce a mobility component. If £20 million was available to improve the lives of older people, how would Ms Horne or Mr Stachura spend it? That would bring to life how we prioritise budgets in the Parliament.

My understanding of the child disability payment is that the qualifying period is not a simple three months but three months with an expectation that the condition will endure for a further nine months. Does that cast a bit more doubt on the Scottish Government’s cost assumptions of £21 million?

Those were really helpful comments from both witnesses. Thank you.

That is helpful. Adam Stachura?