Seòmar agus comataidhean

I recently got a fibre broadband connection, but that only happened because a bloke turned up in my street and asked me to move my car so that he could get access to a cable for a neighbour. He said, “I just happened to notice that you haven’t got a fibre connection”, so I got it. It probably needs to be better advertised.

Has COSLA done any kind of audit of what services councils are offering online and what they do for people who cannot get online?

The key thing is that people need to know about it.

Has the report been discussed? If so, by who?

It is just to clear up some confusion for me. Lesley Fraser, you said right at the start, in response to the convener, that you accepted all the recommendations in the report, but Mr Huggins said that there had been no meeting to discuss it—well, that is what he said.

Has there been a meeting to discuss it or not?

I want to get to the nub of this. Who is it that has met to decide that you agree with the recommendations in the report?

Mr Wallace, most people have contact with their councils, and councils are now moving more and more to online services. However, there were some comments in the report that I want to put to you.

Exhibit 2, which the deputy convener referred to earlier, says:

“People find it difficult to apply for council tax reductions, as some councils have moved the application process online.”

If people are not online or struggle to use the internet, they find it difficult. The report goes on to say:

“Parents and carers can find it difficult to use digital apps now commonly required to support their child’s education.”

Paragraph 54 says:

“Increased digitalisation of customer services can provide opportunities for people to use self-service options for routine tasks. However poorly planned digital services can disadvantage vulnerable people. Some council services that citizens frequently find difficult to access include: the Blue Badge scheme ... council housing adaptations”

and

“cost of living support and guidance.”

Do you accept all that?

My in-laws, who have sadly passed away, were never online. I do not know how they managed, but, somehow, they got by, and there must be a number of people in that position. Mr Beattie mentioned that earlier. People either do not want to be online or just cannot get online. For council services, it is really important that you cater for those people.

First, I assure the committee that I will keep my remarks as brief as possible. I know that we are up against the clock, but that should not preclude a proper debate. Nevertheless, I will try to truncate what I was going to say.

Amendment 1 states:

“A budget for a period must set out the proportion of the budget that is to be attributed to emissions from each of the following sectors”

and lists transport, energy consumption, land use, aviation and shipping as those sectors.

The committee took evidence on that when it produced its excellent stage 1 report on the bill, so I do not need to rehearse the arguments for it. The amendment is pretty straightforward; I do not need to explain it any further.

On my amendment 3, there may be differing views. It proposes full alignment with United Kingdom carbon budgets as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. There was debate around that at stage 1—I remember that there were some very healthy contributions. There will be different views in the committee. My view—indeed, it was the view of the majority of respondents to the committee’s call for evidence—is that there should be alignment.

Amendment 53 came about as a result of some very good collaborative working with the cabinet secretary and her officials, which I found refreshing. Under the current provisions in the bill, ministers will be required to make a statement to Parliament setting out the extent to which each of the proposed carbon budgets takes into account the target-setting criteria and whether each budget is consistent with the latest advice from the UK Climate Change Committee. Following discussion at committee and during the stage 1 debate about the further information that Parliament might require to conduct scrutiny on the budgets, the amendment adds to the information that must be included in that statement.

Amendment 53 would also require ministers to share an indication of the policies and proposals that would likely be included in the next climate change plan, should regulations be approved. As I said, I have discussed it with the Government and, having had that discussion, I understand that it will be possible to publish that information only in “broadly indicative” terms. Members will have seen that that phrase appears in the amendment and they might think, “Why is Graham Simpson including such a woolly phrase in one of his amendments? That’s not his style.” It is not. However, I am accepting the wording in the spirit of compromise.

I will be brief. We have had a useful discussion. I have to agree with those who have commented on Brian Whittle’s amendment 46; I, too, am a bit confused by it, and perhaps Mr Lumsden might be minded not to press it. Mr Whittle can come back with something at stage 3.

I find it disappointing that, in the group of amendments, the cabinet secretary appears to be supporting only the amendment—which, granted, is in my name—that she had a hand in. It is disappointing that she is supporting nothing else, and I think that she could have worked with other members; perhaps she has.

Amendment 1, in my name, is similar to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 6. However, I have already invited members to reject amendment 6, so I ask members to accept amendment 1.

I will leave it there, convener.

This is just to assist me as I deliberate over my amendment 23. I agree that Maurice Golden’s amendment 48 is very good, so does the cabinet secretary think that my amendment 23 introduces an element of duplication?