Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate the intention behind amendment 62, which Mark Ruskell lodged, on the broader point of ensuring that the Climate Change Committee is resourced. That was raised in the committee’s stage 1 report. Of course, the CCC is a vital partner and the Government is committed to ensuring that it has the resources and information that it needs.

However, I must emphasise that the Climate Change Committee is jointly funded by the four nations of the UK, and there are funding arrangements and mechanisms in place that make that work. Amendment 62 would make only the Scottish Government legally responsible for plugging any shortfall—however that arose—in relation to one aspect of the committee’s functions. Making one partner legally responsible for funding a narrow aspect of a body’s work is not how the arrangement works, and nor is it how it should work. I urge the committee to reject amendment 62, because the funding and capacity of the Climate Change Committee are a matter of joint deliberation between the four Governments across the UK.

Amendments 64, 49 and 50, in the name of Brian Whittle, seek to prevent the Scottish Government and this Parliament from deciding that various functions under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 should be carried out by a body other than the UK Climate Change Committee or a successor body set up by the UK Government. The Scottish Government has no intention of anyone other than the UK Climate Change Committee carrying out such functions. However, when it passed the bill that became the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, Parliament decided to provide a mechanism for another body to be appointed, should it ever be deemed appropriate. That included allowing for a specific Scottish climate change committee to be set up, and Parliament reaffirmed that decision in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019.

There was no discussion at stage 1 of this bill about reversing those decisions of the Parliament, and I see no reason why the committee should be called to do that today. That question was not posed in the committee’s evidence-taking process.

I do not want to get into detail on the example that you have given but, in effect, you have underlined what Monica Lennon said. There are a lot of moving parts in how something is financed. A project as large as the one that you discussed would probably not be solely financed by central Government or local government, as private investment and housing associations might also be involved. What you have outlined shows some of the difficulties with this.

It has been useful to have the debate, but I cannot support the amendment at the moment. I urge the committee not to support it; its aims are not achievable, because of the way in which the amendment is set out. Also, quite a lot of work has been done and is about to be completed, and it is possible that the committee will be content when it sees that that work has made the difference to the information that is available.

Amendment 27 has two aspects—namely, information on the expenditure that is being directed at carbon budgets in annual financial budgets, and an independent review of such information.

I completely understand why Patrick Harvie has lodged an amendment that requires greater information on the emissions that are associated with spend—I understand the arguments for that. However, the climate change plan is already required to provide cost estimates for the policies that are included in that plan, and the Government publishes a statutory carbon assessment of the budget—I think that Patrick Harvie mentioned that—which is required by section 94 of the 2009 act.

Subsequent to that happening, I will outline some of the things that the Government is doing to give more information in this space. The joint budget review by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament is improving transparency on the budget and climate change funding, with a new taxonomy on climate change spending.

The Scottish Government, separately, is just about to complete our pilot of the net zero assessment, with a view to rolling out that approach in 2025 across all new significant Scottish Government spending decisions. That will provide greater visibility of the areas that contribute to emissions and it will aid the decision-making process.

The joint budget review and the net zero assessment are already providing significant improvements but, in particular, by the time we get to the end of the pilot, which will be rolled out in 2025, that will have made all the difference.

I have finished.

I will.

The proposal that we have worked on with Maurice Golden is already strengthening the action that the Government must take to introduce catch-up policy interventions if targets look like they are being missed. Again, there would be robust in-time data—not data that is two years old—to react to.

I will certainly reflect on the criticism that Mark Ruskell and others have put forward about the material in those reports and I will speak to my colleagues about how we can have more comprehensive reports. However, the section 35B-type report would have that critical in-time data rather than out-of-date data from two years ago—that in the section 36 report—which means that it would be a more useful report than some of the other proposals.

I have pretty much come to the end. I urge Graham Simpson not to press amendment 23 and instead to support amendment 48—

Amendments 38, 39 and 40 from Douglas Lumsden and amendment 48 in the name of Maurice Golden are all concerned with requiring the Scottish Government to report to Parliament when it has become clear that emissions are not on track to stay within a carbon budget. I agree that there should be a specific trigger for ministers to report to Parliament should it become clear that the Government is off track. However, I have said previously that I do not think that that trigger should be linked to annual emissions reporting. That is for a very good reason, which is that annual emissions reporting would have a two-year time lag. A “dynamic response”—Sarah Boyack’s words, which I wish that I had used—would be better if it had real-time data. That is why I have worked with members on the amendments to ensure that there is a better alternative to a section 36 report.

The requirement would be far more effective if it was linked to annual progress plans under section 35B. Linking that requirement to those reports makes more sense because they contain the most up-to-date information on progress in decarbonisation and policy actions, not data from two years previous. That is what amendment 48 in the name of Maurice Golden does. I was glad to work with him on the amendment and explain the rationale for that. I urge members to support it and to reject amendments 38, 39 and 40. Amendment 48 does what they would require, but better. “Dynamic” is the word that I will continue to use in relation to that.

With regard to amendment 13, I accept that a more specific time frame for the laying of a section 36 report in Parliament would be reasonable, but I have concerns about the other elements of the amendment. There is a certain amount of ambiguity relating to the requirement for additional policies and proposals to be included in the report. The Scottish Government’s existing position is that policies and proposals introduced through the section 36 report are additional to those in the climate change plan, whether they are new, strengthened or enhanced policies. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment because of the ambiguity that would be put in by that requirement.

I have said that I am content with a more specific timescale being set for section 36 reports, so I am pleased that I have been able to work with Monica Lennon on amendment 57. It sets the deadline for laying a section 36 report at six months from the date when the corresponding section 33 report is laid. I urge Mark Ruskell not to press amendment 13 and instead to support amendment 57.

Amendment 23 is from Graham Simpson. I say to him that his original view on amendment 48 was right: it is a better amendment. It provides better action compared with the alternatives. There is already a monitoring framework for climate change plans, which includes monitoring risks to delivery. Therefore, with the other provisions in the bill, there would be three annual reports on Scotland’s decarbonisation progress. There would be annual reports on greenhouse gas emissions, annual climate change plan monitoring reports, which would include an assessment of policy implementation, and annual requests to the CCC for a Scottish progress report. That is three monitoring and evaluation points and associated reports.

As we have discussed, Maurice Golden’s amendment 48 requires that if, when preparing a section 35B report, ministers assess that the progress is off track, they must explain why that is the case and what they intend to do to ensure that the target is met. Therefore, I think that what has been proposed in amendment 48 covers the bases.

Yes. My final point is that, if it were to be agreed to, there would be a duplication of the information that is already in the three reports that I mentioned.

I agree with your assessment. We are setting out a five-year carbon budget for the reason that we have given, which is that it takes into account fluctuations across the five-year process. Having single-year targets would completely take away from that approach and the nuances around it, which the CCC has given the advice on.

NDCs are set by the UK Government, and there is still the notional 68 per cent for the whole UK with regard to emissions. Therefore, amendments 15 and 16 would cloud the clarity that a five-year carbon budget provides. In effect, they would mean having two different systems at the same time.