Chamber and committees

I appreciate the need to balance the requirement for urgency with the need to provide for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny, which is why I was pleased to work with Monica Lennon and Graham Simpson on amendments 52, 54 and 45. However, I urge the committee not to support amendments 5, 59 and 37.

Amendment 52 responds directly to the recommendation in the stage 1 report that the statement accompanying the draft carbon budget regulations should be published on the day on which those regulations are laid before Parliament.

Mark Ruskell’s amendments 5 and 59 and Monica Lennon’s amendment 54 concern the parliamentary scrutiny of regulations that set carbon budgets other than the first set of such regulations. Amendment 54 adopts an extended scrutiny procedure that is already found in the 2009 act. As that represents a more balanced and proportionate approach than that for which Mark Ruskell’s amendments provide, I urge members to support amendment 54 in preference to amendments 5 and 59. I would have understood the need for extended parliamentary scrutiny, but given that we have just agreed to act in accordance with the Climate Change Committee’s advice, regardless of that scrutiny, it is a bit confusing to provide for extended scrutiny in the way that Mark Ruskell seeks to do.

Monica Lennon’s amendment 37 and Graham Simpson’s amendment 45 set a timescale for producing the first draft regulations to set carbon budgets. I cannot support amendment 37, because the period for which it provides starts on the day of royal assent, which fails to take into account the fact that, legally, the Government cannot go ahead with budget proposals without having received the CCC’s advice. Amendment 45 recognises that by setting a three-month deadline for the laying of regulations. As that period starts with the receipt of the CCC’s advice, the provision is competent and definitive.

I urge the committee to support amendment 45 and to reject amendment 37.

If Mark Ruskell was asking a question, I am happy to answer.

I appreciate the intention behind amendment 62, which Mark Ruskell lodged, on the broader point of ensuring that the Climate Change Committee is resourced. That was raised in the committee’s stage 1 report. Of course, the CCC is a vital partner and the Government is committed to ensuring that it has the resources and information that it needs.

However, I must emphasise that the Climate Change Committee is jointly funded by the four nations of the UK, and there are funding arrangements and mechanisms in place that make that work. Amendment 62 would make only the Scottish Government legally responsible for plugging any shortfall—however that arose—in relation to one aspect of the committee’s functions. Making one partner legally responsible for funding a narrow aspect of a body’s work is not how the arrangement works, and nor is it how it should work. I urge the committee to reject amendment 62, because the funding and capacity of the Climate Change Committee are a matter of joint deliberation between the four Governments across the UK.

Amendments 64, 49 and 50, in the name of Brian Whittle, seek to prevent the Scottish Government and this Parliament from deciding that various functions under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 should be carried out by a body other than the UK Climate Change Committee or a successor body set up by the UK Government. The Scottish Government has no intention of anyone other than the UK Climate Change Committee carrying out such functions. However, when it passed the bill that became the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, Parliament decided to provide a mechanism for another body to be appointed, should it ever be deemed appropriate. That included allowing for a specific Scottish climate change committee to be set up, and Parliament reaffirmed that decision in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019.

There was no discussion at stage 1 of this bill about reversing those decisions of the Parliament, and I see no reason why the committee should be called to do that today. That question was not posed in the committee’s evidence-taking process.

Yes.

The Scottish Government cannot support the amendments in the group. On Patrick Harvie’s amendment 60, I am mindful of the need to avoid too many requirements for the assessment of major capital projects, especially when it would provide limited value output. Patrick Harvie’s amendment 17, which is in group 9, also deals with emissions in relation to major capital projects. I will come to it, but that group seems to be the better place for such a requirement and I am happy to work with him on that. I ask him not to press amendment 60 and to work with me ahead of stage 3 on refining amendment 17, so that we can support the proposal.

I cannot support amendments 61 and 63, mainly because I do not think that it is appropriate for the legal system to police how the Parliament undertakes scrutiny. I do not think that this is his intention, but Douglas Lumsden’s proposed amendments would create duties on the Parliament and mandate what it is required to do in relation to reports from the Government under sections 33, 34A and 35B of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. That would mean that parliamentary procedure may be subject to review by the courts if, for any reason, the Parliament was unable to fulfil the duties that are proposed by the amendments. I warn members against supporting amendments 61 and 63 for those reasons. Both amendments would require a committee of the Parliament to report on Government reports within a fixed timescale, and the law would be broken if those timescales were not complied with.

When the Government lays a report before the Parliament that is shared with relevant committees and made available to all MSPs, it should be for the lead committee to decide when and for how long it wants to scrutinise and respond to any such report—that should not be set out in law.

I am also concerned that it would be impossible for ministers to comply with what is set out in amendment 61. It would impose a deadline for a report to be laid more than four months prior to the end of a parliamentary session, whereas greenhouse gas statistics are published in June each year. For the amendment to be workable, the timing of the reports under sections 33 and 34A of the 2009 act would also need to be amended. Amendment 63 has similar timescale challenges. I urge the committee to reject amendments 61 and 63 for those reasons.

Yes. We need to discuss whether the information that is provided as part of the joint budget review and the information that will be in the roll-out of the approach that is taken to Scottish Government spending generally would be sufficient for Parliament to carry out enhanced scrutiny.

There is room for manoeuvre on amendment 27 but, as it stands, the biggest issue is the practicality of delivering on what is in the amendment, as it is almost impossible to achieve. I am happy to discuss the amendment with Patrick Harvie ahead of stage 3.

We have worked with Graham Simpson on amendment 53 and we support it, but I am afraid that I cannot support the other amendments in the group. I will go through them in turn.

I will take together amendments 1, 6 and 53. The legal effect of Graham Simpson’s amendment 1 is unclear to me. My strong view is that it would not be appropriate to mandate sector-level emissions targets, because it is important to keep the balance of effort of each sector under regular review.

We know from experience that there will be significant change in our exact decarbonisation pathway over the long term. New technologies will come online, the cost of measuring different sectors will change over time, and we will need flexibility to take account of possible job and just transition impacts. That is one reason why we all support the bill’s proposals to move to carbon budgets. We need to retain the flexibility to decarbonise in the right way and at the right time and to adjust and adapt our approach in line with a just transition. That is why the CCC has not advised adopting sector-level legal targets.

To the extent that Graham Simpson’s concerns are about having more of an indication of the implications of our proposed budget at the time of considering proposals, I am pleased that we have been able to work together on amendment 53. I have spoken with a number of members about the types of information on the various pathway options that we would be happy to give to the committee and in a statement ahead of deliberating secondary legislation.

Amendment 53 requires an indicative statement on those implications to be set out in the statement that accompanies the draft regulations. That is the right way to provide Parliament with the information that it needs and it will vastly improve scrutiny of the secondary legislation. I am happy to have worked with Graham Simpson on that amendment.

Because amendment 1 seeks to encode sectoral targets in law, I ask Graham Simpson not to press it. On the basis that I support Mr Simpson’s amendment 53, I do not support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 6, which covers much of the same ground.

On the alignment of the timing of the carbon budgets, I ask the committee not to support Mr Simpson’s amendments 3 and 9. I have considered the option of aligning with UK carbon budgets, but I remain of the view that the approach in the bill as introduced is preferable, for the reasons that I stated in my response at stage 1. I will not go over that ground. Mark Ruskell’s contribution was helpful; we have elections at different times, and he made a good point about setting out intentions at the start of a parliamentary session.

Having different time envelopes for carbon budgets does not mean that the Governments across the United Kingdom will not work together. We have always had a four-nations approach to climate change—just two weeks ago, I had a four-nations meeting with all my counterparts across the other Governments.

I turn to Monica Lennon’s amendments 28, 29, 30 and 32. The bill already requires the Scottish Government to receive the CCC’s advice before introducing regulations to set carbon budgets. As drafted, the bill also requires that, when the Government decides not to follow the CCC’s advice to the letter, it must explain the reasons why. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament receive informed and well-judged advice from experts across several policy areas, but that advice rightly informs—not dictates—what Parliament does and the judgments that it makes. My interpretation—and that of my officials—is that Monica Lennon’s amendments would cut to the quick of Parliament’s essential role in making decisions when the Government had set out whether it had accepted the advice, which I do not necessarily think is her intention.

I understand what Maurice Golden is trying to achieve with his amendments, but I will set out why they are unnecessary and could lead to confusing legislation. Amendment 2 is about preventing an unused carbon budget for one period from being carried over to the next period, but the bill already does not allow for that. Budgets will be set by regulations on the basis of expert advice following close parliamentary scrutiny, and it will be possible to increase them only by making new regulations—again, on the basis of expert advice following close parliamentary scrutiny.

There is, very deliberately, no equivalent to section 17 of the UK Climate Change Act 2008, which allows the UK Government to choose to carry over part of the budget. We have done that on purpose, for the reasons that Maurice Golden and I agree on. I therefore do not think that amendment 2 would achieve anything, except perhaps creating an avenue for litigation over whether expert advice or the Parliament’s decision to increase a budget was somehow tainted by consideration of whether a previous budget would be met.

Similarly, amendment 10 tries to address an issue that does not exist in Scottish climate change legislation. The concern seems to be that regulations under section 13 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 could somehow allow carbon credits—units that are purchased on the international carbon exchange—to be used to reduce the net Scottish emissions account in more than one period. However, sections 13 and 13A are very clear that regulations can provide for units to be credited only in respect of a specific period, so amendment 10 is also unnecessary. It is not at all clear what “period” and “next period” mean.

Therefore, with respect, I urge Maurice Golden not to press amendment 2 or move amendment 10, and I ask the committee not to support those amendments if they are pressed.

I have come to the end of my remarks, but it is up to the convener.

I am sorry—what did I just agree to there? [Laughter.]