Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful, thank you.

More than a little.

The situation is comparable to whether one is in the room as a politician or a civil servant. Very often we are in the room, but we have a lesser status or less opportunity to influence discussion.

At the same time, in the EU, there is a kind of move away from the idea that accession is just a binary, in or out process, and the idea is that there is more of a graduated change for countries that seek EU membership to gradually integrate. Even though I might wish that we—Scotland or the UK—become a re-accession country one day, whether or not that happens, I presume that there is space for a level of integration that will address some of the issues that we are discussing today that is comparable to that which the EU now explores with countries that are seeking membership. Am I going too far there?

Does Professor Collins want to add anything?

Are there any other views?

For obvious reasons, there has been a lot of discussion about EU member states. One comment was made about non-EU member states, and the idea that we are now in the position that they are in with regard to trying to work with the EU.

I wonder if that could be drawn out a little bit more. Are we now in exactly the same position as other non-EU member states that want to work with EU jurisdictions? Do those non-EU member states that have a high level of economic relationship with Europe have in place similar arrangements to what is in the TCA? Have those arrangements developed over time? If we are looking for the TCA, or whatever develops out of it, to be deepened and enriched over time, can any lessons be drawn from other countries that are outside the EU and that have some of the same issues around the lack of freedom of movement and the impact that that has on services? Have those countries found solutions?

As Monica Lennon suggested, the spending proposals in each year’s finance budget are not the only factor, but they are a very major factor in whether the Scottish Government’s intended policy priorities, which are designed to deliver on a carbon budget, will be met. If we set out those policies and then fail to fund them, we can have no confidence at all that we are giving ourselves even a reasonable chance of meeting what is set out in the carbon budget.

The principle is to give Parliament the greatest level of independently informed analysis of what the Government is asking us to approve every year when we pass a finance budget. Will it be able to adequately fund the climate change policies that have been set out? Will it give us a chance of meeting the carbon budget?

That form of words was suggested by parliamentary draftspeople. My understanding and intention, as I expressed it to them, was that the phrase would apply to a body such as the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I understand that that would be captured by the proposed form of words.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response and other members for their contributions to the discussion. I am tempted to press amendment 27, partly to gauge the level of support for it on the committee. I may not have done enough to persuade people on this precise amendment, but I would like to get a sense of whether I have. If I have not, I will perhaps explore lodging something else at stage 3.

However, if the committee is convinced that an amendment is needed to place additional requirements in the bill at this point, if it were to agree to the amendment, the onus would be on the Government, if it wanted to refine the provision, to convince the majority of Parliament of the need for a change. I would prefer to at least put the question to the committee now, so I press amendment 27.

Good morning. As a non-member of the committee, I will speak to my own amendment and leave members of the committee to comment on the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 60 is not grouped with amendment 17, which will come up later, but it touches on a similar issue, and in some ways the amendments should be seen together. They relate to how we examine the carbon impact, or the climate impact, of major capital projects.

Amendment 17 relates to the climate change plan, and amendment 60 raises the same issue in relation to the report that the Government will publish on carbon budgets. Obviously, some major capital projects for pieces of infrastructure that the Government is proposing will be contentious, while others will not be. That will be true regardless of whether those are high-carbon or low-carbon pieces of infrastructure. However, that judgment must be made on the basis of a full, proper assessment of the likely impact of capital projects.

For some projects that the Government continues to support, it has agreed that there need to be carbon assessments. For example, Government policy on the A96 has committed to a carbon assessment and climate compatibility assessment.

Regardless of whether anyone supports or opposes particular projects, we should reach those decisions and judgments on the basis of proper assessments. I think that it is unreasonable that we are still in a position in which we do not have a clear legislative basis for requiring those assessments. I suggest that even the Government recognises that the status quo is not ideal, and I understand that it is working on how it would regard the application of a net zero test for such decisions.

My amendments 60 and 17 seek to find a way for the Parliament to be able to reach a view on infrastructure and capital projects on the basis of a full assessment of the impacts that they would have on carbon budgets or the ability to deliver a climate change plan. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and to finding out whether it would be open to the amendments that I have proposed, or whether it has an alternative approach to how the issues can be addressed in the legislation before we reach stage 3.

I move amendment 60.