Chamber and committees

We will not support amendments 15 and 16, because they would set annual targets for 2030 and 2040. The Climate Change Committee has already made it clear that carbon budgets are preferable to a system of single-year targets. That is the approach that all other Governments across the UK take. I cannot support the amendments, because retaining single-year targets alongside carbon budgets would do the opposite of providing the clarity that is needed at this important juncture.

The Government supports amendments 56 and 21, but it cannot support amendment 18. I have already said that I want to work with Patrick Harvie on the substance of amendment 17, and I am pleased that he is willing not to press it. I recognise the point that he has made and I support the idea that we set out our approach to assessing the emissions that are associated with capital projects, but the amendment as written does not sufficiently define what a “major capital project” is. I think that we can work together ahead of stage 3—indeed, I hope that we can do so—and get something that everyone is comfortable with by that time.

Mark Ruskell’s amendment 18 and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 56 cover similar ground with regard to the breakdown of climate change plans. Sarah Boyack came to me to set out her intention and the approach that she wanted to take, and she worked with the Government to get the wording of her amendment to a place where we are happy to support it. Before I finish my remarks on amendment 56, I note that it better reflects the intentions of quite a few members who came and told me what they wanted to see in the bill. I urge members to support it over amendment 18, because I agree with Sarah Boyack’s approach.

On amendment 21, which relates to the best-practice approach—

It is perhaps for Ms Boyack to speak to her amendment, but what we like about it is that it accepts the principle of your amendment while allowing for policies to be grouped where necessary, which will provide more transparency. The intention is very similar to that of your amendment, Mr Ruskell, but we like the idea of the groupings, which is why we have worked with Sarah Boyack on that. I am sure that she would want to explain why she has taken that approach, but I hope that Mr Ruskell can see that, by voting for Sarah Boyack’s amendment, he will really get what he wants in the bill.

I have come to the end of my remarks, convener. I am happy to support amendment 21.

You got in at the last second there. It is like a power game.

I recognise that amendment 19 cannot be voted on today. The Scottish Government supports amendments 20 and 58, but cannot support amendments 22, 25 and 26. I am pleased to have worked with Sarah Boyack on amendment 55, and she has my commitment to lodge a small stage 3 amendment to tighten it up. I appreciate her co-operation with me on that, which has been great.

Amendments 55 and 22 would set different deadlines in relation to the first climate change plan. We have had a bit of debate on that, and amendment 55 is coming out as the preferred option, which I am very pleased about.

To continue on amendments that are linked to when a climate change plan would be produced, I cannot support Mark Ruskell’s amendments 25 and 26, as they would require a preliminary version of the draft climate change plan. My phrase “draft of a draft” has been used quite often. To produce them only to those timetables would sow confusion.

I am very conscious that, while we are engaged in the detail of the work, wider civic Scotland would not want to see an endless stream of drafts and interim plans. The options that have been discussed with Sarah Boyack and Monica Lennon are far preferable. The information that I have said I will produce in relation to amendment 53, which Graham Simpson moved earlier and which was voted on, will help that process.

Amendment 19 calls for

“public consultation to inform ... a climate change plan”.

The Government does and would do that anyway, but I have absolutely no objection at all to that being formalised. I know that we cannot vote on that amendment today, but I would have supported it if its subsection 2 had not been in it—I think that that subsection would require a financial memorandum. I say to Mark Ruskell that we could work with him on something ahead of stage 3.

I have absolutely no difficulty with amendment 20, which will formalise wider engagement on climate change plans with particular groups that the Government is already meeting and collaborating with in the regular course of business. I am very happy to support that amendment. There is a minor technical issue with the way that it refers to section 9 of the 2009 act, so I might come back to amend that at stage 3, but I can discuss that with Mr Ruskell, as we go forward.

Finally, I welcome amendment 58 from Monica Lennon, which would set the timescale for the Government to respond to parliamentary views on the draft climate change plan.

I will not answer on that particular point, because I do not know for sure what that scrutiny is. I would need to get back to the committee. We can have a discussion about that—maybe that is an area in which we can improve.

I want to talk about the practicalities of the independent review and what Mr Harvie is suggesting. The tight timescales for publishing the budget would not allow time for an independent review. Obviously, there is a window between the UK budget being announced and the Scottish budget being finalised. In practicality, the current carbon assessment work that is associated with the budget would be finalised only about 48 hours before the budget is announced in Parliament and published. That is the timescale that we are working with. I do not see where we would have time for an independent review of that work. Even if the information could be shared with Parliament, when would that independent review take place?

As I said at the outset, I understand the sentiment behind requiring more information, and I would like to work with Mr Harvie on how we can strengthen that.

I am sorry to end on a negative note, but the Government cannot support amendment 21. Sorry, I mean amendment 51—it has been a long day.

Amendment 51 would make all ancillary regulations, no matter how minor, subject to the affirmative procedure. Even something as simple as swapping the words “Scottish carbon budget target” for “interim target” in an SSI would take up more parliamentary time, including in committee.

Section 5 follows the standard model that has been used for all ancillary powers for several years, with the affirmative procedure applying to regulations that modify primary legislation and the negative procedure applying to everything else. That long-settled approach respects the balance between the importance of parliamentary oversight and the proper use of parliamentary time. It is also the approach that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has endorsed generally, as well as specifically in relation to this bill, as that committee outlined in paragraph 47 of its stage 1 report.

I urge the committee not to support amendment 51.

Yes, and I am happy to write to the committee about any conversations that I have on that at the IMG or directly with the Climate Change Committee.

We have just had a group of amendments on the monitoring and evaluation reports that will be required if we slip back. Our first carbon budget, if it is set next year, will take us to 2030, which means that you will have a report at the end of that carbon budget by 2030.

Convener, I am happy to hand back to you.

The four nations are represented at the interministerial group, where the Climate Change Committee’s capacity, the funding arrangements and the advice that all four nations need to move forward to net zero are discussed regularly. The IMG’s most recent meeting was two weeks ago, when that particular issue did not come up.

The CCC has a new chief executive officer, whom I have not yet met. Capacity issues are the sort of thing that she will bring to all four nations as we have those deliberations. I stress that that discussion takes place between all four Governments; each plays its part and each commits to funding its appropriate part. I am not saying that the Scottish Government is doing all the heavy lifting. All four nations do the heavy lifting by taking their equal responsibility for funding the CCC.