Chamber and committees

On the point about behaviour change, which is always an important and interesting issue, does the member recognise that it is very difficult for people in Scotland to shift away from cars and to use public transport when there are big areas in our country where there are no buses to get on or where buses do not come when people need them? The situation has been really deteriorating, and we have discussed it a lot in committee. Bus deserts are emerging in Scotland, even though people have a bus pass if they are under 22 or over 60. Does the member agree that we need to get serious about that?

It is important that we do not leave Parliament today having given the impression that this is just too difficult. It was not the targets that were the problem; it was the lack of action. The cabinet secretary has had a lot of compliments today on her approach, as she has been very open to colleagues.

However, what lessons has the Scottish Government learned? If we are to make the progress that we need to make, we need to see leadership and collective action across Government. I note that the First Minister is now in his seat. Can we get a few words of comfort that the Government has learned lessons? The fact that we are here today has to be a wake-up call.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and Mark Ruskell for their comments. I hope that colleagues now understand what happened at stage 2 and agree that we have now got to a better place.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

In the spirit of consensus, I advise that Scottish Labour, too, will support amendments 3 and 4. Graham Simpson was uncharacteristically woolly at stage 2, and I am glad that the wording is to be sorted out through amendment 3.

I agree with Mark Ruskell on the need for amendment 4. Scottish Labour strongly agrees that such a mechanism will provide a useful yardstick for monitoring how well we are doing on reducing carbon emissions. The key reason for our supporting it is the importance of the public having understanding, and amendment 4 will improve transparency.

Scottish Labour will also support amendments 6, 11 and 12. The amendments align with our aims to increase parliamentary oversight, to improve transparency and, as Mark Ruskell mentioned, to get the extra detail that we felt was perhaps going to be lacking otherwise. We will therefore support the amendments.

At stage 2, we were a little unsure about the wording of Patrick Harvie’s proposal, so we appreciate the further work that has been done since last week. For that reason, we are content to support amendment 13.

Douglas Lumsden asked a fair question about the definition of a major capital project. It is a question that we had, too, but I think that the wording of the amendment is reasonable. There will be proposals in the plan. The principle behind the amendment is welcome and we can support it.

Nevertheless, we are still not fully persuaded by the proposed amendments.

When we discussed the issue with the Government last week, there was a willingness on its part to go away and look at what Patrick Harvie is trying to achieve to see whether something can be done. I will listen to what the cabinet secretary has to say in a moment.

As Patrick Harvie probably knows, we are not yet fully persuaded. However, I would be interested to know whether there are other measures outwith the bill that the Government could look at that would help to achieve those aims. Patrick Harvie makes an important point about the important connection between the fiscal budget and the carbon budget. As he knows, Scottish Labour members would agree with anything that will improve scrutiny and alignment, but in this case, I am not convinced. Given the fact that he has lodged two different amendments on the same issue, I am not sure that he is fully convinced either, but I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

I will speak to and move amendment 1, and I will speak to the other two amendments in the group.

At stage 2, Scottish Labour felt that it was important to amend the bill to require the Scottish Government to act in accordance with the advice that it received from the Climate Change Committee. For that reason, I lodged four amendments to achieve that aim, which were approved by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. However, after stage 2 was complete, I discussed with the Scottish Government whether that was the best approach. Helpfully, we received a swift letter from the Climate Change Committee, which had clearly been paying attention. It explained that it is not its intention to set policy for the Parliament or Government, and that it is important that it maintains its role as an advisory body. Scottish Labour reflected on that position, and we agree with that.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for meeting me and Sarah Boyack last week to try to find a form of words that would achieve a compromise while still trying to strengthen the bill, which is what members from across the Parliament have wanted all along.

The effect of amendment 1 is quite simple. It deletes the part of the stage 2 amendment that talks about—I have lost my train of thought; I have too many scribbles on my sheet of paper—the Government acting in accordance with the advice from the relevant body, which would have bound the Scottish Government to take the advice, and instead inserts:

“take into account the most up-to-date advice they have received from the relevant body.”

In this case, that is the Climate Change Committee. I hope that that makes sense to colleagues, and I am grateful to the Government for its co-operation.

There is not much to say on the other two amendments in the group, but we believe that amendment 2, in the cabinet secretary’s name, is necessary because, at stage 2, an amendment passed that referenced provisions in another amendment from Mark Ruskell that was ultimately not passed at stage 2, so amendment 2 is an attempt to simplify and tidy that up.

Amendment 5, in the name of Mark Ruskell, aims to provide a super-affirmative procedure for carbon budget regulations, which he raised at stage 2. At stage 2, I worked with the cabinet secretary to introduce a pre-laying procedure for future carbon budgets, which mirrors procedure that is already in law in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. I understand Mark Ruskell’s aims, and we support the principle behind them, but we feel that in practice, the bill as amended at stage 2 provides a sufficient balance between scrutiny and timely action due to the new procedure under new section A5 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, so we will not support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 5.

I move amendment 1.

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?