Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would it not have been better for the Government to have come to the committee today with a far clearer articulation of what will be in the guidance? I know that preparing it would have put a lot of pressure on the minister and officials, but it would have been better to see the guidance. Then we could have made a judgment about whether it offered some reassurance on the integrity of the panel.

I appreciate the minister giving way. It has been a very challenging session.

You are rolling with it; that is great. I have just one point for clarification. Your official mentioned in the earlier discussion that one more piece of legislation is required to bring in the provisions for franchising. I would like to hear a commitment that that work will continue.

I welcome you saying that, even if you do not need to supply the guidance if the SSI is annulled, you will still work on the guidance and it will still be available for the traffic commissioner.

Some of the concerns that are being raised today come down to the independence of the traffic commissioner and their appointment. The minister will remember that the previous commissioner did an interview that appeared to be quite prejudicial towards franchising. That has really riled people, who want franchising to happen because that is in the public interest. What assurances can you give that the incoming traffic commissioner clearly understands their responsibilities and clearly understands that the policy priority of Government and this Parliament is for franchising to work successfully in Scotland, as is the case in Wales, where there has been a strong public commitment to that?

Could the cabinet secretary reflect a bit on the evidence that we had from Environment Standards Scotland that there is deep concern about the quality and depth of information in the catch-up reports that came on the back of section 36? Beyond what Mr Golden has put forward as a new framework, what is the Government doing to reflect on that and improve the reports? Many people were quite shocked by how thin those reports were and by the fact that they did not really bring new action to the table.

I appreciate your taking the intervention, cabinet secretary. I do not think that you have acknowledged this yet but, when I spoke to amendment 7, I said that many people had seen the target of a 75 per cent reduction by 2030 as hugely important in signifying the early action that we need to take to tackle climate change. How will that sort of thing work with the carbon budget? How easy will it be for somebody to look at where Scotland is and say whether we are on or off track to meet the 2045 date? Is there a way to articulate the budget in terms of the important milestones that people campaigned for on the streets and which this Parliament delivered? All of that is about the changing date for when we might actually meet the targets.

No, I am making the point that there is precedent in law for another body—Environmental Standards Scotland—to have to say in its annual reporting whether it has enough resources to discharge its responsibilities. To my mind, it would be useful if we had a requirement for the UK Climate Change Committee to present similar information. At the moment, we do not know whether it has adequate resources to enable it to discharge its responsibilities, so a similar provision would be useful.

I will finish by saying that climate change is complex. The CCC is doing great work, but there is always new and emerging stuff for it to look at, such as blue carbon. It is important for it to be a body that can keep track of the Scottish context. In the past, there have been discussions about whether there should be a separate Scottish CCC, whether it should have an office in Scotland and whether it should be focused on the particular challenges that we are all aware of. That brings in a question of resourcing, which should involve an open discussion because, if our ability to scrutinise is limited by the CCC’s capacity, that is a problem.

I will listen to the intention behind amendments 64, 49 and 50.

I move amendment 62.

No—that is fine. [Laughter.]

I will briefly mention amendment 20 before coming on to amendment 19. I thank the cabinet secretary for the engagement on amendment 20. To follow on from our discussion about the capacity and function of the CCC, it is important that the Scottish Government can take advice from other bodies. We heard in evidence that that is reflected in the Northern Irish legislation. I am grateful for the discussion with the Government on that.

I will speak to amendment 19, although I cannot press it to a vote, because the Presiding Officer’s view is that it would trigger the need for a financial resolution to the bill. That is disappointing, because clearly the Government has a budget for public engagement. It is also, I hope, committed to consultation on climate change plans and is continuing to reflect on the importance of participative democratic processes and the work of the climate assembly, which came on the back of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. That assembly was very valuable in bringing forward thinking on diet, travel and how we heat our homes, and I am sure that it was valuable for the Government in considering how to develop policy. Of course, citizens assemblies are only one way of doing that. Our committee commissioned a people’s panel on the public engagement aspects of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which was also very valuable.

I do not want to be prescriptive. It is for the Government to reflect on the importance of involving the public and people who are outside politics but who nevertheless will have a view on the big behaviour changes that we need to make as a society to tackle climate change. That is important to drive forward a social licence for some of the huge changes that we will need in our society if we are to get anywhere close to meeting our climate targets. I ask the cabinet secretary to follow up on this conversation between now and stage 3 to see how we can bake into the bill an important role for public engagement to ensure that future Governments are really committed to that kind of work.

I briefly turn to amendments 25 and 26 and other options in this space. As Sarah Boyack said, we have already talked about the statement that will come alongside the budgets and the effect of Graham Simpson’s amendment 53 in that regard. We need more certainty about how the Government intends to meet the climate budget and what is required across society to get the emissions reductions. My amendment 26 seeks to have an interim plan six months after the bill is introduced, but I do not feel that that is necessary right now, so I will not move it. However, I will press amendment 25 to the vote. There is an interplay between setting a carbon budget and setting a plan. In an ideal world, we would have a clear climate plan at the same time as the budget so that the Government is open, transparent and honest about the kinds of changes that will be needed to meet the targets.

We heard in evidence that the approach needs to go beyond the broad pathways that the Climate Change Committee will bring forward. There needs to be a marrying up of the carbon budget with the action that is needed to tackle climate change. When we are scrutinising the carbon budgets, it is important that we get as much certainty as possible about what will have to be done to meet those budgets.

However, I am not convinced that what we approved through Graham Simpson’s amendment 53 really does that. To go back to our initial discussion, I note that it is still quite woolly. We will need more detail next spring when the carbon budgets come forward. We need to have a clear analysis of what is needed to meet the budgets and of whether the Government is preparing and planning and has the finance in place to achieve that.

I will move amendment 25. In an ideal world, we should be moving a plan forward at the same time as we move a budget forward. I will not move amendment 26. I will hold on to amendment 19, but I will move amendment 20.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I have just read out a list of specific ideas that will help Scotland to reduce its climate emissions.

If Mr Simpson wants to go for a full dualling of the A96, I suspect that that will result in enormous amounts of carbon emissions that will be locked in for decades ahead. I say to Mr Simpson and to other members in the chamber—if this Parliament wants to make such decisions, we have to live with the consequences; if we go for high-carbon infrastructure, it has a consequence, so we need to measure it and understand it. If members want to trade that off against emission reductions somewhere else in the economy, they can make that decision, but we have to operate within our carbon budget. I think that that is implicit within this bill.

The bill does not alter climate ambition, which will come through the setting of a carbon budget next year. However, it does offer the opportunity to learn lessons from the past five years, especially through the need to link action plans with financial budgets and the new carbon budgets. Aligning a five-year carbon budget with a clear and costed plan will, I hope, deliver honest and transparent consideration of what is actually needed on the ground to get to net zero. The evidence that was presented on that by the Scottish Fiscal Commission was important and I hope that the Government will consider giving it a formal role in the process.