Chamber and committees

I am grateful to Patrick Harvie for that further clarification. I repeat my point: Scottish Labour members are still not persuaded. I am happy to listen to what the cabinet secretary says, but I think that it is unlikely that we can support amendment 14.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie sets out the reasonable position that we want to ensure that adequate funding is available for the measures that will make the difference, but does he recognise that not all the financial resources will flow from Government and that we will need investment from the private sector, for example? Will he say something about that? I have a concern that amendment 27 does not fully reflect the reality that not all the finance is Government finance. How does his amendment sit with that?

I have just a question, which you have started to answer already. I am sympathetic to what Maurice Golden is trying to achieve, but I am trying to understand the practical difficulties of having the targets that amendments 15 and 16 would bring in alongside having a carbon budget. It feels as if we are going in different directions here. What would the practical difficulties be?

I have a question on amendment 62, which is in Mark Ruskell’s name. It was helpful that you set out your position, cabinet secretary, but I am sympathetic to his points about ensuring that the UKCCC is adequately resourced and has the correct capacity. I also recognise the need for a four-nations approach.

I do not think that it is Mark Ruskell’s intention that the Scottish Government would do all the heavy lifting in funding terms, but has the Scottish Government had recent discussions with the UK Government and others about resources and capacity? Will you reassure the committee that that will be looked at on an on-going basis, to ensure that there are sufficient resources for the busy work programme?

I will move amendment 58. Sarah Boyack may have misspoken—she said that she would support my amendment 55. I am checking that I have the numbers correct. Sarah’s amendment is 55 and mine is 58. We have that in the Official Report now. It has been a long morning. I agree with my colleague Sarah Boyack’s comments, and I will not bother to repeat those points.

I am pleased to say that I have worked closely with the Scottish Government on amendment 58. It would require that ministers respond to parliamentary scrutiny on the draft climate change plan within three months of any committee report or parliamentary resolution related to the draft plan. I apologise for having the sniffles.

Colleagues will know that section 35A of the 2009 act makes provisions for parliamentary scrutiny of the draft climate change plan, and ministers respond to that scrutiny. However, there is currently no specific timeframe in the 2009 act within which ministers must respond to that parliamentary scrutiny, other than the deadline by which the climate change plan must be finalised. Ministers’ response to parliamentary scrutiny could be included in the statement that accompanies the finalised climate change plan when it is laid in Parliament, or earlier if ministers are taking longer than three months to finalise the plan. Again, I am pleased to have worked with the Government on amendment 58, and I hope that colleagues support it.

I have made it clear that I support amendment 55 in Sarah Boyack’s name. Having listened to Mark Ruskell on his amendment 25, it strikes me that amendment 55 is a better option, as it will give the Scottish Government or the Scottish ministers a bit more space and headroom to produce the climate change plan.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for setting out the Government’s position. I think that the notion of dictating is a bit strong, and that is certainly not the intention of my amendments. However, the advice from the CCC is very important; we have heard that it is broad, expert advice that is based on science. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it would be better to have a presumption in favour of accepting the CCC’s advice, rather than to “have regard to” that advice, which is quite weak wording?

My amendments are not about tying the Government’s hands. That is why they set out that there could be a departure from the CCC’s advice in exceptional circumstances, but reasons would have to be given for that.

I will speak to amendments 52, 54 and 37. I put on record my thanks to the acting cabinet secretary and her officials for their time and willingness, it is fair to say, to work with all members who have an interest in the bill. I am pleased to say that we have worked together on a couple of the amendments that I am about to speak to.

As briefly as I can, perhaps not because of the clock but in the interests of my voice—I have some throat lozenges at the ready—I will explain amendment 52. Amendment 52 will change the timing for the ministerial statement to accompany the laying in Parliament of draft regulations setting carbon budget levels. Ministers must publish a statement to set out how the regulations take account of the target-setting criteria that were established in the 2009 act and the most up-to-date advice that is received from the Climate Change Committee.

The amendment will ensure that ministers must publish the statement

“On the same day as”

the regulations are laid, rather than

“As soon as reasonably practicable after”.

As I said, I have worked with the Government to develop the amendment, and I hope that members support its aims and vote for it. I add that we have had a briefing from Stop Climate Chaos Scotland in support of amendment 52. The briefing states:

“It seems inexplicable that this statement could be laid later than the regulations, potentially as little as a day before (or even after!) Parliament is asked to approve the regulations that the statement supports and explains.”

That speaks in favour of amendment 52.

I have also worked with the Scottish Government on amendment 54. The amendment ensures that draft regulations to set carbon budgets will be subject to pre-laying scrutiny by invoking the procedure that is described in section 97 of the 2009 act. The amendment provides an exemption from the pre-laying procedure for the first such draft regulations. That is in recognition of the need for Parliament to have sufficient time for scrutiny of these important regulations and of the need for urgency at the current juncture, as we all agree on the need for a new climate change plan to be in place as soon as possible. I hope that colleagues support amendment 54.

Amendment 37 is another that deals with timescales. The amendment would require that carbon budget regulations be brought forward within 90 days of royal assent. I hope that that is self-explanatory, but it is important to provide some clarity on that.

I will not speak to the other amendments in the group, but I am happy to listen to colleagues. I note that amendment 5, in the name of Mark Ruskell, appears to be a minor amendment, but it provides for further detail on the statement laid by ministers regarding carbon budgets. I would be minded to support that, but I am happy to listen.

I move amendment 52.

I agree that is important that we are having the debate, and I thank Douglas Lumsden for lodging the motion to annul the regulations in order to allow us to have a fuller debate. To be clear, like others who have spoken in the meeting and organisations such as Get Glasgow Moving that have given their views to committee members, I want to see a fully integrated, affordable and accessible public transport network that better connects to the public. In the face of a climate and nature emergency and cost of living pressures, that has never been more important.

Before the committee went into public session, I was feeling a bit conflicted. I do not want there to be a further delay because we have not made enough progress, but I also do not want to double down on the bad practice that we have seen elsewhere.

We have had the benefit of time to reflect on the legislation, to look at what has happened elsewhere, and to listen carefully to the experts and campaigners who have taken the time to respond to the committee—I am grateful to all of them for doing that. It is clear that they are telling us that the model that we are looking at—which is similar, although not identical, to others that have been used—has been discredited in other parts of the UK. The minister is shaking his head, but the committee has received what I think are credible statements saying, “Don’t do this—it would be a mistake.” I have not heard a response from the Government today that would make me want to put all that aside.

Do we go ahead, taking the chance that we are doubling down on bad practice that does not serve the people of Scotland well, or do we pause and use the time properly in order to make sure that we have the best possible system?

A few of us questioned the minister on the point about delaying. I do not think that by annulling today we are risking any timetable. We have heard that SPT is furthest ahead, but our actions today will not get in the way of the work that it has under way and, as a Parliament, we have time to work on this. For those reasons, and because of the evidence that I have heard today, I will support Douglas Lumsden’s motion.

It is regrettable that, in anticipation of these very legitimate concerns, the Scottish Government has not come to the table and told us clearly what its view is. It is concerning to hear from the Government that it expects bodies such as SPT and other regional transport bodies to come to it. The Government should be much more proactive in reaching out. The submissions are available on the Parliament website and I know that the Government pays attention to them. I would have felt more reassured if it had taken the time to reach out to key stakeholders. It is disappointing that it did not.

I would like to get some clarification. You are suggesting to the committee that there is now a risk in terms of what SPT might or might not do. However, you have been quite clear to the committee today that you have not asked SPT what its position on that is. How can you be confident that annulling the regulations will increase risk?