Chamber and committees

The proposal that we have worked on with Maurice Golden is already strengthening the action that the Government must take to introduce catch-up policy interventions if targets look like they are being missed. Again, there would be robust in-time data—not data that is two years old—to react to.

I will certainly reflect on the criticism that Mark Ruskell and others have put forward about the material in those reports and I will speak to my colleagues about how we can have more comprehensive reports. However, the section 35B-type report would have that critical in-time data rather than out-of-date data from two years ago—that in the section 36 report—which means that it would be a more useful report than some of the other proposals.

I have pretty much come to the end. I urge Graham Simpson not to press amendment 23 and instead to support amendment 48—

Amendments 38, 39 and 40 from Douglas Lumsden and amendment 48 in the name of Maurice Golden are all concerned with requiring the Scottish Government to report to Parliament when it has become clear that emissions are not on track to stay within a carbon budget. I agree that there should be a specific trigger for ministers to report to Parliament should it become clear that the Government is off track. However, I have said previously that I do not think that that trigger should be linked to annual emissions reporting. That is for a very good reason, which is that annual emissions reporting would have a two-year time lag. A “dynamic response”—Sarah Boyack’s words, which I wish that I had used—would be better if it had real-time data. That is why I have worked with members on the amendments to ensure that there is a better alternative to a section 36 report.

The requirement would be far more effective if it was linked to annual progress plans under section 35B. Linking that requirement to those reports makes more sense because they contain the most up-to-date information on progress in decarbonisation and policy actions, not data from two years previous. That is what amendment 48 in the name of Maurice Golden does. I was glad to work with him on the amendment and explain the rationale for that. I urge members to support it and to reject amendments 38, 39 and 40. Amendment 48 does what they would require, but better. “Dynamic” is the word that I will continue to use in relation to that.

With regard to amendment 13, I accept that a more specific time frame for the laying of a section 36 report in Parliament would be reasonable, but I have concerns about the other elements of the amendment. There is a certain amount of ambiguity relating to the requirement for additional policies and proposals to be included in the report. The Scottish Government’s existing position is that policies and proposals introduced through the section 36 report are additional to those in the climate change plan, whether they are new, strengthened or enhanced policies. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment because of the ambiguity that would be put in by that requirement.

I have said that I am content with a more specific timescale being set for section 36 reports, so I am pleased that I have been able to work with Monica Lennon on amendment 57. It sets the deadline for laying a section 36 report at six months from the date when the corresponding section 33 report is laid. I urge Mark Ruskell not to press amendment 13 and instead to support amendment 57.

Amendment 23 is from Graham Simpson. I say to him that his original view on amendment 48 was right: it is a better amendment. It provides better action compared with the alternatives. There is already a monitoring framework for climate change plans, which includes monitoring risks to delivery. Therefore, with the other provisions in the bill, there would be three annual reports on Scotland’s decarbonisation progress. There would be annual reports on greenhouse gas emissions, annual climate change plan monitoring reports, which would include an assessment of policy implementation, and annual requests to the CCC for a Scottish progress report. That is three monitoring and evaluation points and associated reports.

As we have discussed, Maurice Golden’s amendment 48 requires that if, when preparing a section 35B report, ministers assess that the progress is off track, they must explain why that is the case and what they intend to do to ensure that the target is met. Therefore, I think that what has been proposed in amendment 48 covers the bases.

Yes. My final point is that, if it were to be agreed to, there would be a duplication of the information that is already in the three reports that I mentioned.

I agree with your assessment. We are setting out a five-year carbon budget for the reason that we have given, which is that it takes into account fluctuations across the five-year process. Having single-year targets would completely take away from that approach and the nuances around it, which the CCC has given the advice on.

NDCs are set by the UK Government, and there is still the notional 68 per cent for the whole UK with regard to emissions. Therefore, amendments 15 and 16 would cloud the clarity that a five-year carbon budget provides. In effect, they would mean having two different systems at the same time.

Given that Mr Harvie has said that it is not only about the emissions impact of, say, the construction of something but about the long-term impact, that obviously gets a little bit more complicated.

I understand the intention of the amendment, because Parliament would like a deeper analysis of the carbon impact of Government spend. I have set out how the Government has moved in these areas, and I am hopeful that the pilot that is about to complete will provide a lot more of that information. I need to have a discussion with Mr Harvie about what more he would want that can practically be delivered. That is my main point.

I have two issues with that position. The phrase “in accordance” in effect means that the Government must follow the advice—it is binding.

My other issue is that the exceptional circumstances have not been defined, so we do not know what they are. Douglas Lumsden’s intervention hinted at the point that we cannot define what exceptional circumstances are.

As I said, the bill as drafted already requires us to give an explanation when we do not follow CCC advice. The CCC is free to design its approach to its advice, and we will pay close regard to its advice, as the bill sets out.

The CCC’s advice is rightly focused on its assessment of cost-effective and technically feasible emissions reduction pathways. The CCC has been clear that its advice does not and should not take account of other factors, whether they relate to the financial budget that is available to the Government, to policy or to political aspects, such as the type of Government that is in office. The Government’s assessment of the CCC’s advice will depend on the basis on which that Government has been elected.

It is vital to bring our country towards net zero in a way that reflects our commitment to just transition principles. That is Parliament’s responsibility. Although the CCC’s advice is a critical component, it should not be the whole view of how we set our carbon budgets, but I am afraid that that is what Monica Lennon’s amendments would lead to. It would not be appropriate for Parliament to be legally bound to follow the CCC’s advice other than when the law recognised that there were exceptional circumstances. As I said, those circumstances have not been set out. The approach would also cut out Parliament’s role in weighing up the full range of considerations when setting carbon budgets and scrutinising plans.

In relation to the information that Graham Simpson wants the Government to provide, if we were already bound to accept the Climate Change Committee’s advice, what good would all that information be in informing the Parliament’s agreement to the setting of carbon budgets?

That depends on how the vote goes today. If Ms Lennon’s amendments with the phrase “in accordance with” are agreed to, we will have to lodge an amendment to change that wording, because it is so strong and binding. Moreover, it misses out the particularly important scrutiny and decision-making function of not only the Government but the Parliament, to which we report when setting carbon budgets. I hope that every member of the committee will take that into account.

We must preserve the Parliament’s freedom to set carbon budgets at the levels that it considers to be the best for Scotland. Parliament must take account of the CCC’s advice, but we must not allow our judgment to be bound by it—indeed, this committee will play a critical role in deciding the outcome of secondary legislation on carbon budgets.

I will leave it there, convener—I think that I have made my point. I am not at all comfortable with the use of the phrase “in accordance with”, so I cannot support Monica Lennon’s amendments.

I do not have much to say on Brian Whittle’s amendment 46, which duplicates some existing target-setting criteria and modifies others. I find it confusing, because we are already doing quite a lot of what he is asking us to do. He is not here to take questions, but I do not understand what his amendment is trying to achieve, and I hope that the committee will reject it.

I cannot support amendment 7, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which would require the Scottish Government to highlight whether an emissions reduction of 70 per cent or 90 per cent from the baseline was to be achieved over a budget period when draft regulations that set the budget were introduced. That would defeat the bill’s purpose and our decision to move from annual and interim targets to a carbon budget system, as our counterparts across the UK have done.

Amendment 7 would also risk creating confusion about the real targets, so it would not provide the clarity that is needed for the journey to net zero. Its drafting is technically deficient, because it is not clear in respect of what period the reductions that it describes are to be looked for. Baseline figures are annual, but budget periods are not. For those reasons, I urge the committee not to support amendment 7.

That is me, convener.

I was looking at you, convener, to see whether you would let me.

I do not remember Roseanna Cunningham ever saying the word “easy” in relation to meeting such targets, but the UK Government has set a nationally determined contribution target of 68 per cent for 2030. We work with the UK Government when it sets the NDC as to whether we agree with that. In effect, we would still have an NDC for 68 per cent if we were in line with the UK Government on that.

On alignment, one of the reasons why we are moving to a carbon budgeting system is to have the same process as other Governments across the UK have. The Climate Change Committee’s advice is that the carbon budgeting system is the best way forward.

Having single-year targets would not give the clarity that is needed when setting out our carbon budget envelope on the basis that we would be setting targets after we had received up-to-date CCC advice. I urge members to reject the amendments.

I am happy to take an intervention from Monica Lennon.