Chamber and committees

Chris, you do not have to make a separate address to each of those people or groups of people.

Thank you. Before we move to questions, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of a farming partnership that produces quality beef, which might create problems as far as methane is concerned. I want to make that clear at the beginning just in case that comes up in the conversations this morning.

The dust is still settling following the statement that the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero and Energy made last week. We heard that new legislation will be introduced to replace the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The committee does not yet know what that legislation will be or what the timeframe for it will be. Your warnings about making sure that proper targets and a pathway with policies are included are pertinent, but we will see how things develop in the coming weeks.

My first question to Chris Stark is probably an easy one. I would guess that, by last year, a lot of politicians were hearing that it was not possible for Scotland to reach the 2030 target. When did it become clear to you that there was no way that the Government could reach its 2030 target?

Jackie Dunbar will ask the next questions.

Before Bob Doris uses that answer as a segue into his next questions, I will bring in the deputy convener, who is keen to ask a question about transport.

I call Douglas Lumsden.

I am going to ask the last question, if I may, but I am not sure how I am going to phrase it, having just been told that I am nuts—or, indeed, all politicians are.

This is what I am trying to see from the committee’s point of view: we are going to get new legislation to amend the 2019 act, and you are suggesting that it will be based on carbon budgets rather than climate change plan targets. In other words, one approach will be scrapped, to be replaced by the other. However, when the people’s panel reported back to us just last week, I think, they said that we are not hearing enough information or detail from the Government. Should we as a committee expect the amendment legislation to set out the first carbon budget figures? After all, if we have to scrutinise legislation, knowing that there will be changes and that something is going to be brought forward in future, that is going to be a really hard sell to all of those people who have written to us—and, let me tell you, there are lots and lots and lots of them, Chris.

I just think that it is going to be quite difficult for us to take evidence on a bill that makes changes to a system that at least had some certainty—even if you considered it unachievable—with the promise of jam in the future, if we do not know what those figures are. You have already told us today that carbon budgets will have a fairly soft landing in the first couple of years. That might well be a real concern, and I guess that it will be interesting to see how the Parliament deals with it.

I cannot comment on that, and I am sad to say that Chris Stark will not be able to do so here, either, as this is his last week. Chris, I think that you said that you finish on Friday and start a new job on Monday. I do not know whether that is a case of no peace for the wicked or whether you are just keeping your options open as far as work is concerned, but we wish you the best of luck. You have always been a candid friend to the committee, telling us things that we might not have liked to hear. I am very grateful for that, and I am grateful that we have had this extra opportunity to speak to you.

As for Keith Bell, having heard that your appointment has been extended until April next year, Keith, I am not going to say goodbye to you, as I think that there is a very good chance that we will see you in future. It might be for the year-end assessment—or maybe before that, depending on what happens.

He might well follow your line, Chris, and decide that he wants out, because all politicians are nuts.

I thank the witnesses very much. We will now move into private session.

On the mechanics of the unexpected happening unexpectedly, if I remember rightly, the EMB changed the rules during Covid to allow MSPs to remain in post right up until the day prior to the election, so that, if there was a crisis, we could come back and sit. If it is down to MSPs to make the decision, I point out that, if something happens once the Parliament has been dissolved, there will be no MSPs, but there will be ministers and cabinet secretaries, because they stay in post. How do we get around that? Does some thought need to be given to that issue? I am slightly concerned that the decision would sit with the Government, as it would be the only body with people still in their positions, and those of us who might have a different opinion would not be heard, because we would not exist.

I will push back slightly on that. I absolutely agree that MSPs remaining in post might present difficulties. My fear is about how votes would be weighted in an advisory committee. If the votes were weighted as they are in the Parliamentary Bureau, the decision would purely be down to the Government, so, if the Government had an absolute majority, the advisory committee would be a waste of time. Personally, I favour an outside organisation taking control, as Toby James sort of suggested. I will push you slightly to give an answer and then come back to Alistair Clark.