Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.