Chamber and committees

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?

No—I do not agree with that. I think that the bill as it is currently drafted, in using the term “have regard to”, is weaker than many of us would like it to be; the evidence that we heard at stage 1 reflects that.

My amendments would strengthen the requirement to act in accordance with CCC advice, but they would provide for a departure where there are “exceptional” circumstances. In my view, that would be a better balance than what is currently in the bill.

I am pleased to have worked with the Scottish Government on amendment 57. The amendment would require the Scottish Government to lay a section 36 report within six months of a target being reported as missed. The amendment would replace the current requirement for such a report to be laid

“As soon as reasonably practical”

after the report that indicated that the target had been missed. Ministers would continue to be required to set out proposals and policies to compensate in future years for excess emissions resulting from any missed target.

I heard what Mark Ruskell said about his amendment 13. I gently suggest to members that, given that I have worked closely with the Government on the issue following stage 1 evidence, they should support my amendment 57 as the alternative.

I do not intend to speak to all the other amendments. I was looking for clarification from Douglas Lumsden in relation to his amendments 39 and 40, because I thought that they were alternatives to each other. I understand the intent behind Graham Simpson’s amendment 23, but I am concerned that it would be too impractical or place too much demand on the Scottish Government, given that we have amendment 48, which would provide a mechanism for ministers to monitor whether the Government is on track to meet a carbon budget and take remedial action when it is off track.

I have no further comments to add.

Okay—I do not want us to get too distracted from the issue at hand today. As a Parliament, we have decisions to make and we want to get the best possible system for franchising, because that is what we want to happen. The issue comes down to the question of time and delay. Although I am sympathetic to the principle behind the motion to annul and what it is trying to achieve, when I saw it, my concern was that it could lead to delays and get in the way of franchising. However, no franchising proposal is sitting on the table right now. Therefore, I am interested to know when the Government expects the first proposal for franchising to reach approval stage. I am trying to understand how much time we have to play with.

You are comfortable that it would be the traffic commissioner regardless of—

Realistically, if the consultation gets under way in the spring of next year, when is the earliest that the strategy could reach the approval stage?

I am grateful—

You have said that the decision on what will happen next is ultimately for the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. Ahead of today’s meeting, have you discussed the matter with the transport secretary, or do you know her view on it?