Chamber and committees

My in-laws, who have sadly passed away, were never online. I do not know how they managed, but, somehow, they got by, and there must be a number of people in that position. Mr Beattie mentioned that earlier. People either do not want to be online or just cannot get online. For council services, it is really important that you cater for those people.

I press the minister for the third time on what he thinks about mid-market rent properties. Does he think that they should be exempt from rent controls or not? If he thinks that they should be exempt, why can we not do that at stage 2?

Will the member take an intervention?

When the minister speaks, he might claim that voting to annul the instrument will bring work on franchising to a halt or will take us back to square 1. That would be completely wrong.

Earlier today, I spoke to Valerie Davidson, the chief executive of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, who told me that nothing that it is doing will change. It will continue to work on the strategy. It will not be in a position to decide whether it wants to pursue franchising until late next year. If it decides to go ahead, it could be 2027 before a panel—the issue here is about establishing a panel—would be handed anything. Does Mr Lumsden agree that that would allow us ample time to amend the legislation or to find another solution, so that we could have a workable and democratically accountable system?

To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made towards securing a long-term future for Ferguson Marine. (S6O-03852)

The Deputy First Minister will be aware that Ferguson Marine is in the running for the small vessel replacement programme, which is good news, but what happens if the yard does not win any of that work? Is there a plan B? Is Ferguson Marine in line for any other contracts? What is the plan to return it to the private sector?

First, I assure the committee that I will keep my remarks as brief as possible. I know that we are up against the clock, but that should not preclude a proper debate. Nevertheless, I will try to truncate what I was going to say.

Amendment 1 states:

“A budget for a period must set out the proportion of the budget that is to be attributed to emissions from each of the following sectors”

and lists transport, energy consumption, land use, aviation and shipping as those sectors.

The committee took evidence on that when it produced its excellent stage 1 report on the bill, so I do not need to rehearse the arguments for it. The amendment is pretty straightforward; I do not need to explain it any further.

On my amendment 3, there may be differing views. It proposes full alignment with United Kingdom carbon budgets as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. There was debate around that at stage 1—I remember that there were some very healthy contributions. There will be different views in the committee. My view—indeed, it was the view of the majority of respondents to the committee’s call for evidence—is that there should be alignment.

Amendment 53 came about as a result of some very good collaborative working with the cabinet secretary and her officials, which I found refreshing. Under the current provisions in the bill, ministers will be required to make a statement to Parliament setting out the extent to which each of the proposed carbon budgets takes into account the target-setting criteria and whether each budget is consistent with the latest advice from the UK Climate Change Committee. Following discussion at committee and during the stage 1 debate about the further information that Parliament might require to conduct scrutiny on the budgets, the amendment adds to the information that must be included in that statement.

Amendment 53 would also require ministers to share an indication of the policies and proposals that would likely be included in the next climate change plan, should regulations be approved. As I said, I have discussed it with the Government and, having had that discussion, I understand that it will be possible to publish that information only in “broadly indicative” terms. Members will have seen that that phrase appears in the amendment and they might think, “Why is Graham Simpson including such a woolly phrase in one of his amendments? That’s not his style.” It is not. However, I am accepting the wording in the spirit of compromise.

I will be brief. We have had a useful discussion. I have to agree with those who have commented on Brian Whittle’s amendment 46; I, too, am a bit confused by it, and perhaps Mr Lumsden might be minded not to press it. Mr Whittle can come back with something at stage 3.

I find it disappointing that, in the group of amendments, the cabinet secretary appears to be supporting only the amendment—which, granted, is in my name—that she had a hand in. It is disappointing that she is supporting nothing else, and I think that she could have worked with other members; perhaps she has.

Amendment 1, in my name, is similar to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 6. However, I have already invited members to reject amendment 6, so I ask members to accept amendment 1.

I will leave it there, convener.

This is just to assist me as I deliberate over my amendment 23. I agree that Maurice Golden’s amendment 48 is very good, so does the cabinet secretary think that my amendment 23 introduces an element of duplication?

I was minded not to move amendment 23, but, having heard the comments so far, I think that I will when we get to it. I was not going to press it because I thought that there was some overlap with Mr Golden’s amendment 48, which would require ministers to take additional measures if they are off track in meeting a carbon budget, similar to Douglas Lumsden’s amendments 38, 39 and 40. However, having heard Mr Ruskell speak, I am minded to move my amendment 23, which is about monitoring and evaluation. If there is an issue with it, that could be dealt with at stage 3.