Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I was minded not to move amendment 23, but, having heard the comments so far, I think that I will when we get to it. I was not going to press it because I thought that there was some overlap with Mr Golden’s amendment 48, which would require ministers to take additional measures if they are off track in meeting a carbon budget, similar to Douglas Lumsden’s amendments 38, 39 and 40. However, having heard Mr Ruskell speak, I am minded to move my amendment 23, which is about monitoring and evaluation. If there is an issue with it, that could be dealt with at stage 3.

That is a useful intervention. I do not like woolly wording, as Mr Ruskell knows. I definitely do not like loose wording in legislation, and there is a risk that the suggested wording could be seen as being that. However, in the spirit of compromise with which I have approached the process thus far, I have accepted that, at that stage, it will not be possible for the Government to set out in definitive terms the proposals and policies that will be in the next climate change plan, given that they need to be finalised once the carbon budgets are set.

I note that, during the stage 1 debate, Ms Martin made the point that it would not be advisable to publish, in her words, a “draft of a draft” of the climate change plan. Amendment 53 represents a balance between ensuring the availability of the information that the Parliament needs to conduct scrutiny and the Scottish Government’s need to finalise the policies to meet carbon budgets once they have been set.

If the committee is minded to support amendment 53, I invite it to take the view that Mark Ruskell’s amendments 6 and 7 are not required.

Finally, amendment 9 seeks to align carbon budgets with those of the rest of the UK for the reasons that I have set out. I will wait to hear from Ms Lennon. Mr Whittle is not with us, but I understand that Mr Lumsden is speaking for him today, so I will also wait to hear his contributions.

I move amendment 1.

Thank you very much, convener. It has been a very full and interesting discussion so far.

Minister, the key question, which has been raised already, is basically what will happen if the regulation is annulled today. From what I have heard, given the timescale and where SPT is at, at the moment, it seems that there is time to introduce fairly minor primary legislation to change the system while SPT carries on with its consideration of franchising. Is that correct?

No, that is okay. There does not have to be a panel.

I will not, but I understand the amendment. Mr Lumsden will speak to it.

Absolutely.

Amendment 45 would require the Scottish ministers to lay draft regulations to set carbon budgets within three months of receiving advice on Scottish carbon budget levels from the CCC. The amendment speaks to a recommendation in the committee’s stage 1 report, in which the committee highlighted the need

“to specify a maximum”

amount of time that could

“elapse between receipt of the advice”

from the relevant body

“and the laying of draft regulations to set”

the first carbon

“budgets.”

This is another amendment on which I have worked with the Government. I originally said that the maximum time should be two months, but we settled on three months. I do not think that that four-week difference is worth quibbling about. I am happy with the amendment and the compromise, and I ask the committee to support it.

In relation to Mark Ruskell’s amendments 5 and 59, I am fully supportive of any extra scrutiny that the use of the super-affirmative procedure would provide. That is important, so I urge the committee to support amendments 5 and 59.