Seòmar agus comataidhean

This group of amendments presents the committee—and, indeed, Parliament—with a significant challenge with regard to monitoring and reporting under the bill. Five years ago to the day, the Scottish Government and SNP committee members, excluding Jackie Dunbar, voted for what is set out in amendment 15. As we configure the carbon budgets, how on earth do we ensure that, in five years’ time, the Scottish Government does not look back and say, “Actually, do we want to change the methodology again? What we said five years ago does not apply any more”? If that happens, we will not achieve net zero. The closer we get to 2045, the more significant that challenge becomes.

Essentially, amendment 15 is a challenge to members who were in Parliament in the previous session either to stick to the principles that were applied five years ago or to ditch them. If they ditch those principles, that presents a challenge for Parliament in how we ensure scrutiny of the bill.

Amendments 2 and 10 state that the bill should not permit any carry-forward mechanism. The bill has no explicit provision to permit such a mechanism, and the Scottish Government has previously indicated that it has no intention of seeking to undertake any carry-forwards, but the bill does not explicitly prohibit them, so it could be possible for a future Government to change that practice and, in fact, utilise carry-forwards. My amendments would codify existing Scottish Government practices, and I look forward to the committee’s support on that basis.

I move amendment 2.

I think that any technical changes could be incorporated at stage 3 so, on that basis, I will press amendment 2.

Amendment not moved, convener.

The amendments in the group are similar but could be considered differently. Ultimately, the Scottish Government has accepted the principle of having targets—notably, the net zero target for 2045—so my rationale is that interim targets would be helpful. I accept that carbon budgets are a more useful methodology than annual targets, but key interim targets on the road to net zero fit well alongside that.

Amendment 15 includes the 68 per cent target, which was not devised by me. I was not involved at all in the configuration of that target—in fact, it is the Scottish Government’s target for 2030. It is based on the Scottish Government’s assessment five years ago, and it should still be applicable now, unless the rationale in 2019 was flawed or the progress since 2019 has been poor—or both. Any member of the Scottish National Party must support amendment 15 or they are voting against themselves—it is very simple.

I accept that the 2040 target is a more interesting one, but the balance between having carbon budgets and having a target is very useful.

I move amendment 15.

?It is an interesting suggestion and, indeed, the work that has been carried out to highlight it to relevant authorities has been useful. However, we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the committee’s report on participation considered a similar recommendation and concluded that

“We do not support the recommendation for a question time which is part of formal Parliamentary business, as we think it raises too many difficulties both of practice and principle”.

Further work needs to be carried out on the petition to understand how the voucher scheme is working—or not, as the case may be. It may be down to access to broadband. Even if someone can pay for a service, if they cannot actually get that service, it is slightly irrelevant that they can get a voucher for it.

We should write to the Scottish Government to ask whether, in the light of the low uptake of vouchers, it believes that the Scottish broadband voucher scheme is an adequate approach to providing connections to properties in rural Scotland.

We have done some work on the petition and, ultimately, from the evidence that you have just highlighted, we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that Police Scotland already has powers to address any unlawful behaviour that may arise in the vicinity of migrant accommodation as a result of protest activity.

I agree. We have done an extensive piece of work looking at the issue, and it is valid to have conducted that. Unfortunately, we have reached the end of the road and, therefore, we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that consideration has been given to appoint island residents to the boards of public organisations that are responsible for delivering lifeline services to island communities, and that the Scottish Government has stated:

“regardless of what other skills may be required, applicants are asked to demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of how lifeline services affect our island communities.”

As a final follow-up, should we write to regional health boards to ask what options for support and reimbursement are available to community healthcare staff who are required to use their personal vehicle as part of their role?