Seòmar agus comataidhean

As no other member wishes to speak, I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up.

Agenda item 2 is stage 2 consideration of the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Shirley-Anne Somerville, joins us. Thank you for coming along, cabinet secretary. You are joined by your officials, and I thank them for coming along, too, but only you can speak at this time.

Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshalled list of amendments, which was published on 6 September, and the groupings of amendments document, which sets out the groups of amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention.

The debate on the group will be concluded by my inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Standing orders give any Scottish minister the right to speak on any amendment. I will therefore invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate just before I call the member to wind up.

Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it or to seek to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee’s agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee immediately moves to a vote on that amendment.

If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.

Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote.

The convener has a personal vote as a committee member and a casting vote in the event of a tie. As the convener is not available, I, as deputy convener, am carrying out that function today. How I use my casting vote is entirely down to my discretion; there are no agreed conventions. However, if I use my casting vote, immediately before doing so, I intend to indicate the basis on which I am using it each time.

The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section of and schedule to the bill, so I will put a question on each at the appropriate point.

With that now all on the record, we move to the consideration of amendments.

Section 1—Childhood assistance

The first group is on childhood assistance. Amendment 15, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 16 to 23 and 7.

I invite Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 5.

Thank you for putting that on the record.

There will be a division.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)

There will be a division.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)

Abstentions

Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 4, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 118 disagreed to.

Amendments 119 to 125 not moved.

Section 8 agreed to.

Before section 9

Amendment 29 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].

That is helpful, because the bill takes the power to set the five-year carbon budgets and a level of scrutiny is dictated within what is a framework bill. My colleague Monica Lennon alluded to that in earlier questioning. It is called an affirmative instrument, and it means that we suspect that, at some point next year—which brings us back to the timescale uncertainty, I suppose—the Scottish Government will lay a draft statutory instrument that will outline the five-year carbon budgets and there will be a 40-day period in which this place and others can scrutinise it.

There is another way of doing it, which is a super-affirmative procedure. That would have the Government lay draft regulations, consult on them for 60 to 90 days, reflect on what this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee say, and then lodge the final five-year carbon budgets for Parliament to take a decision on. Do the witnesses believe that moving from an affirmative procedure to a super-affirmative procedure would afford the proper level of parliamentary and wider civic scrutiny of the process of setting five-year carbon budgets? Various witnesses might have views on that. Shall we take Dr Muinzer again in the first instance?

Mike Robinson and Neil Langhorn said that we should get the carbon budgets out there, following the UK Climate Change Committee’s advice, and that we should get the delivery plan—the action plan—in train as quickly as possible, given the urgency of the situation. I am conscious that if, as I am arguing, the super-affirmative process were used, that would add another three months to the time period, which could result in a delay in setting the five-year carbon budgets and the delivery plan. Something has got to give somewhere. Do you have any reflections to offer on that, Mr Robinson?