Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can’t move, won’t move. [Laughter.]

I am happy to speak to amendment 62. The climate change legislation relies heavily on the advisory body, the UK Climate Change Committee, which we all recognise provides really invaluable formal advice as well as really invaluable informal advice to Government and this committee. It is fair to say that, over the years that the CCC has been in operation and since the Parliament and Government have engaged with it, there have been issues relating to its capacity and resources and, because of that, with how responsive it has been in providing the advice that is needed at the right time, given changing circumstances.

If we think back to 2023, when the climate change plan was delayed, Chris Stark was vocal in saying that the delay had thrown out the CCC’s work programme as well as the window that was available to it to provide advice for the Scottish Parliament on our emissions reduction progress. In effect, we have been in a position in which the level of advice that the Parliament was expecting has not been available, because of the CCC’s capacity and its work programme.

We were in a similar position with the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, in that the CCC was unable to provide formal advice on the 2030 target because it was still completing its work on the peatland inventory. When we set the targets for 2030 under the 2019 act, we did not have full advice from the CCC. That was not the CCC’s fault; it was to do with its capacity and work programme.

I lodged amendment 62 because the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 provides that, whenever Environmental Standards Scotland produces its annual report, it must communicate a statement to the Parliament on whether it has adequate resources to discharge its responsibilities. We cannot require something similar from the UKCCC because of how it is set up, although I think that it would be preferable if it could publicly talk about any capacity or resources issues that it has. My amendment is competent in that it requires the Scottish Government to report on whether there are capacity issues and to consult the CCC in doing that.

Good morning. Minister, will you explain why a franchising scheme that is approved by a panel is less likely to be subject to legal challenge than one that is approved by a transport authority? That seems to be a key reason why the Government at the time decided to go down this route.

I welcome the fact that Douglas Lumsden has moved the motion to annul, because it has enabled us to have a full debate, discussion and exploration of all the issues, which I felt were lacking at our previous meeting. It is good that we now have the opportunity to do that.

I believe that there is a strong consensus in the committee and in Government and that we want bus franchising to work in this country, but I cannot ignore the evidence that has been presented. We need to have a fair and robust decision on franchising—that is absolutely critical. It seems that we have two options. If the SSI is annulled there will still be a panel, although it will be a decision-making panel that will be appointed by the traffic commissioner. If the SSI goes through, there will still be a panel that is appointed by the traffic commissioner, but there will be additional guidance from the Scottish Government.

Is there evidence that panels reduce the risk?

You said that we are where we are with the legislation, but 2019 was some time ago, and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge with progress on bus franchising around the UK, so there is now a lot more experience. If you were to revisit the provision through a transport act, would you go down the same route? Given what we know about Wales, is this the best route to go down to secure franchising?

My final question is about the guidance that could come on the back of this Scottish statutory instrument. You understand the concerns that have been raised in the petition to Parliament and I am sure that you have read the evidence and know of the experience elsewhere in the UK. What is your response to that? Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and others have a real stake and an interest in seeing this happen. What is your answer to them? How can you deliver reassurance right now through guidance or interpretation of the SSI?

I am trying to help you to find out what the solution is, because I want to see a solution, too. I want franchising to happen as quickly as possible. We are on the same page, but I am struggling to see what the fix is. I am frustrated for you, because a motion has been lodged to annul the regulations.

I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said. I do not think that amendment 62 contains anything that would require the Scottish Government to fully fund the Climate Change Committee. The amendment relates very much to the work that that committee does in relation to Scottish carbon budgets. It is important that the issue is continually raised. If that is done through interministerial forums, so be it. An understanding of our needs, of the issues that are emerging from deliberation on our climate change plan and the budget and of the CCC’s capacity to deliver on that need to be part of an active conversation.

I will consider whether it is worth revisiting amendment 62 ahead of stage 3, but I do not intend to press it at this point. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has, I think, acknowledged that this is an issue. I think that she has acknowledged that—I am not sure. [Interruption.] She has—right, okay.

Yes, but do you see a difference between a public contract where public money goes into, say, a catering service in a school and what happens next door in McDonald’s? What happens next door at McDonald’s is wrapped up in area-based reporting, which is about what happens within the general council area, but there is a direct link to public spend. Our taxpayers’ money goes into supporting public services. Should there be more climate carbon accounting for that? I am trying to understand why it is fine to push that off-limits a bit and say, “It’s a bit too hard. There are difficult decisions to make and it’s all captured by the general carbon reduction within a council area.” That does not feel quite right to me.

Finally, what does that reporting back to Parliament look like? Parliament is being asked to approve or to not stand in the way of your improvement plan that has come in on the back of an improvement notice from ESS—we have to say, “Yes, that is good”, or, “No, we think you need to think again”. If we are broadly saying, “Yes, this is moving absolutely in the right direction”, as I think that it is, what will the reporting back to Parliament look like? There is this unanswered question around scope 3 emissions, and I certainly want to see what progress is being made not in 2027—if we are still here—but in the interim period between, in 2025 and 2026.