Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. We need to discuss whether the information that is provided as part of the joint budget review and the information that will be in the roll-out of the approach that is taken to Scottish Government spending generally would be sufficient for Parliament to carry out enhanced scrutiny.

There is room for manoeuvre on amendment 27 but, as it stands, the biggest issue is the practicality of delivering on what is in the amendment, as it is almost impossible to achieve. I am happy to discuss the amendment with Patrick Harvie ahead of stage 3.

We have worked with Graham Simpson on amendment 53 and we support it, but I am afraid that I cannot support the other amendments in the group. I will go through them in turn.

I will take together amendments 1, 6 and 53. The legal effect of Graham Simpson’s amendment 1 is unclear to me. My strong view is that it would not be appropriate to mandate sector-level emissions targets, because it is important to keep the balance of effort of each sector under regular review.

We know from experience that there will be significant change in our exact decarbonisation pathway over the long term. New technologies will come online, the cost of measuring different sectors will change over time, and we will need flexibility to take account of possible job and just transition impacts. That is one reason why we all support the bill’s proposals to move to carbon budgets. We need to retain the flexibility to decarbonise in the right way and at the right time and to adjust and adapt our approach in line with a just transition. That is why the CCC has not advised adopting sector-level legal targets.

To the extent that Graham Simpson’s concerns are about having more of an indication of the implications of our proposed budget at the time of considering proposals, I am pleased that we have been able to work together on amendment 53. I have spoken with a number of members about the types of information on the various pathway options that we would be happy to give to the committee and in a statement ahead of deliberating secondary legislation.

Amendment 53 requires an indicative statement on those implications to be set out in the statement that accompanies the draft regulations. That is the right way to provide Parliament with the information that it needs and it will vastly improve scrutiny of the secondary legislation. I am happy to have worked with Graham Simpson on that amendment.

Because amendment 1 seeks to encode sectoral targets in law, I ask Graham Simpson not to press it. On the basis that I support Mr Simpson’s amendment 53, I do not support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 6, which covers much of the same ground.

On the alignment of the timing of the carbon budgets, I ask the committee not to support Mr Simpson’s amendments 3 and 9. I have considered the option of aligning with UK carbon budgets, but I remain of the view that the approach in the bill as introduced is preferable, for the reasons that I stated in my response at stage 1. I will not go over that ground. Mark Ruskell’s contribution was helpful; we have elections at different times, and he made a good point about setting out intentions at the start of a parliamentary session.

Having different time envelopes for carbon budgets does not mean that the Governments across the United Kingdom will not work together. We have always had a four-nations approach to climate change—just two weeks ago, I had a four-nations meeting with all my counterparts across the other Governments.

I turn to Monica Lennon’s amendments 28, 29, 30 and 32. The bill already requires the Scottish Government to receive the CCC’s advice before introducing regulations to set carbon budgets. As drafted, the bill also requires that, when the Government decides not to follow the CCC’s advice to the letter, it must explain the reasons why. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament receive informed and well-judged advice from experts across several policy areas, but that advice rightly informs—not dictates—what Parliament does and the judgments that it makes. My interpretation—and that of my officials—is that Monica Lennon’s amendments would cut to the quick of Parliament’s essential role in making decisions when the Government had set out whether it had accepted the advice, which I do not necessarily think is her intention.

I understand what Maurice Golden is trying to achieve with his amendments, but I will set out why they are unnecessary and could lead to confusing legislation. Amendment 2 is about preventing an unused carbon budget for one period from being carried over to the next period, but the bill already does not allow for that. Budgets will be set by regulations on the basis of expert advice following close parliamentary scrutiny, and it will be possible to increase them only by making new regulations—again, on the basis of expert advice following close parliamentary scrutiny.

There is, very deliberately, no equivalent to section 17 of the UK Climate Change Act 2008, which allows the UK Government to choose to carry over part of the budget. We have done that on purpose, for the reasons that Maurice Golden and I agree on. I therefore do not think that amendment 2 would achieve anything, except perhaps creating an avenue for litigation over whether expert advice or the Parliament’s decision to increase a budget was somehow tainted by consideration of whether a previous budget would be met.

Similarly, amendment 10 tries to address an issue that does not exist in Scottish climate change legislation. The concern seems to be that regulations under section 13 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 could somehow allow carbon credits—units that are purchased on the international carbon exchange—to be used to reduce the net Scottish emissions account in more than one period. However, sections 13 and 13A are very clear that regulations can provide for units to be credited only in respect of a specific period, so amendment 10 is also unnecessary. It is not at all clear what “period” and “next period” mean.

Therefore, with respect, I urge Maurice Golden not to press amendment 2 or move amendment 10, and I ask the committee not to support those amendments if they are pressed.

I have come to the end of my remarks, but it is up to the convener.

I am sorry—what did I just agree to there? [Laughter.]

We will not support amendments 15 and 16, because they would set annual targets for 2030 and 2040. The Climate Change Committee has already made it clear that carbon budgets are preferable to a system of single-year targets. That is the approach that all other Governments across the UK take. I cannot support the amendments, because retaining single-year targets alongside carbon budgets would do the opposite of providing the clarity that is needed at this important juncture.

The Government supports amendments 56 and 21, but it cannot support amendment 18. I have already said that I want to work with Patrick Harvie on the substance of amendment 17, and I am pleased that he is willing not to press it. I recognise the point that he has made and I support the idea that we set out our approach to assessing the emissions that are associated with capital projects, but the amendment as written does not sufficiently define what a “major capital project” is. I think that we can work together ahead of stage 3—indeed, I hope that we can do so—and get something that everyone is comfortable with by that time.

Mark Ruskell’s amendment 18 and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 56 cover similar ground with regard to the breakdown of climate change plans. Sarah Boyack came to me to set out her intention and the approach that she wanted to take, and she worked with the Government to get the wording of her amendment to a place where we are happy to support it. Before I finish my remarks on amendment 56, I note that it better reflects the intentions of quite a few members who came and told me what they wanted to see in the bill. I urge members to support it over amendment 18, because I agree with Sarah Boyack’s approach.

On amendment 21, which relates to the best-practice approach—

It is perhaps for Ms Boyack to speak to her amendment, but what we like about it is that it accepts the principle of your amendment while allowing for policies to be grouped where necessary, which will provide more transparency. The intention is very similar to that of your amendment, Mr Ruskell, but we like the idea of the groupings, which is why we have worked with Sarah Boyack on that. I am sure that she would want to explain why she has taken that approach, but I hope that Mr Ruskell can see that, by voting for Sarah Boyack’s amendment, he will really get what he wants in the bill.

I have come to the end of my remarks, convener. I am happy to support amendment 21.

You got in at the last second there. It is like a power game.

I recognise that amendment 19 cannot be voted on today. The Scottish Government supports amendments 20 and 58, but cannot support amendments 22, 25 and 26. I am pleased to have worked with Sarah Boyack on amendment 55, and she has my commitment to lodge a small stage 3 amendment to tighten it up. I appreciate her co-operation with me on that, which has been great.

Amendments 55 and 22 would set different deadlines in relation to the first climate change plan. We have had a bit of debate on that, and amendment 55 is coming out as the preferred option, which I am very pleased about.

To continue on amendments that are linked to when a climate change plan would be produced, I cannot support Mark Ruskell’s amendments 25 and 26, as they would require a preliminary version of the draft climate change plan. My phrase “draft of a draft” has been used quite often. To produce them only to those timetables would sow confusion.

I am very conscious that, while we are engaged in the detail of the work, wider civic Scotland would not want to see an endless stream of drafts and interim plans. The options that have been discussed with Sarah Boyack and Monica Lennon are far preferable. The information that I have said I will produce in relation to amendment 53, which Graham Simpson moved earlier and which was voted on, will help that process.

Amendment 19 calls for

“public consultation to inform ... a climate change plan”.

The Government does and would do that anyway, but I have absolutely no objection at all to that being formalised. I know that we cannot vote on that amendment today, but I would have supported it if its subsection 2 had not been in it—I think that that subsection would require a financial memorandum. I say to Mark Ruskell that we could work with him on something ahead of stage 3.

I have absolutely no difficulty with amendment 20, which will formalise wider engagement on climate change plans with particular groups that the Government is already meeting and collaborating with in the regular course of business. I am very happy to support that amendment. There is a minor technical issue with the way that it refers to section 9 of the 2009 act, so I might come back to amend that at stage 3, but I can discuss that with Mr Ruskell, as we go forward.

Finally, I welcome amendment 58 from Monica Lennon, which would set the timescale for the Government to respond to parliamentary views on the draft climate change plan.