Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

In relation to the risk, you will understand that there is concern about the panel model, and there is not good evidence that that kind of system has worked well across the United Kingdom. However, your key argument is that going down the panel route reduces the risk of legal challenge. What evidence do you see for that?

Yes—briefly.

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.]