Chamber and committees

Thank you for enabling me to come back and give feedback. It is quite some time since the petition was discussed, but we still have an accountability problem, which our constituents are experiencing daily.

I am disappointed that we have not seen progress on the voluntary code and that we are still reliant on the current legislative framework. Constituents continue to get in touch with me with new cases—I am not just hearing from constituents who have already reported their problems.

The current framework is not user friendly. The First-tier Tribunal is slow and can be daunting, and people have to make a huge amount of investment in order to use it. There is concern that some firms have been found to have failed in their duty on multiple occasions, and yet, in the process, no questions are asked about their being factors. The challenge of relying on the sheriff court means that legal representation is required, which is expensive and is on top of the bills that people are already paying. Fundamentally, it comes down to a lack of independent scrutiny and accountability, and no control over rising costs. At the end of the day, the factors can do what they want.

There is no incentive to seek best value. One issue that has been raised is that factors might be linked to developers who have developed a project. That is another accountability gap. Although consumer rights are referred to in the legislation, they are not implemented, and that is a major issue that still needs to be addressed.

The last time that I spoke to the committee, I gave examples of costs. Since then, representatives have made the point to me that quarterly fees in Edinburgh have gone from £300 to £800. That is a huge increase.

For a lot of our constituents, it is really a now issue. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister for Housing offered us a round-table meeting. We have seen the Competition and Markets Authority report, but we have not yet had action. I am very concerned that we have not seen any actual progress since the committee last took evidence on the petition.

I very much welcome that commitment by the committee and I look forward to hearing when the meeting will happen.

The timescale for the introduction of a budget is tight. Presumably, there would be opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of that budget to include the wider environmental and climate impacts.

Convener, I welcome the fact that you have told us not to edit our comments to be too succinct. That is a key issue—we need to make sure that we scrutinise the legislation, because it has happened so quickly. Also, I agree with Graham Simpson—which is most unusual for me—that the committee report is excellent; it has helped us to focus on which amendments to support.

I particularly support Monica Lennon’s amendments in the group. This is our chance to scrutinise and strengthen the bill and, on occasion, to get more clarity from the Scottish Government, and Monica’s amendments would strengthen the commitment to adhere to the CCC’s recommendations. That actually encapsulates a lot of what the other amendments in the group would do. It is about strengthening the carbon budgeting process so that it is robust and informed by expertise, with as much transparency and accountability to the Scottish Parliament as possible.

Graham Simpson’s principle of having a statement is important, as it would mean that the whole Parliament was involved. Monica Lennon’s amendments 29 and 32 would require the Scottish Government to “act in accordance” with existing guidance and not just to be “consistent” with it, to make sure that any action that is taken is informed and impactful. That is really important, and I want to engage in the discussion on that.

In addition to thanking the committee, I thank Stop Climate Chaos Scotland. The timescale has been tight, and it is really important to get its perspective on the amendments. I prefer Monica Lennon’s amendments, although I know that there are alternatives in front of the committee. Brian Whittle’s amendment 46, for example, is too prescriptive, because the scheme has to span a variety of budgets—four budgets over 20 years—and so needs to be sufficiently flexible while providing accountability to Parliament.

I just have those few comments at this point, convener.

The aim of my amendment 55 is simple: it is to place a timescale of two months on publication of a draft climate change plan and all future plans. I want the change to be made as a way of stopping this Government, or any future Governments, from kicking the plan into the long grass.

I have said from the start of the process that the priority should be action, but it does not feel like we have had enough of that so far. Two months is a reasonable timeframe for a draft plan to come before Parliament, and it allows flexibility for when the UK Climate Change Committee will publish its guidance.

Due to the swift process and timescale for submitting the amendments, amendment 55—should colleagues support it today—will need to be amended at stage 3, because it is vital that the timescale applies only to the draft climate change plan. I have discussed the issue with the cabinet secretary. I am grateful to her for her assurances that she will lodge an appropriate amendment at stage 3, so that we achieve and realise in practice the intention behind the amendment, as it is currently drafted. I say in advance that Scottish Labour will support that amendment when the cabinet secretary lodges it.

My amendment is preferable to Maurice Golden’s amendment 21. His amendment is restricted to the first climate change plan, and it is important that we have a longer-term approach rather than one that deals just with the first plan. I hope that the Scottish Government will honour its commitment to publish the next plan quickly.

My amendment 55 is also preferable to the timescale that is set out in Mark Ruskell’s amendment 18. Although that would work for 2025, we must have a long-term approach and require all Governments to implement it.

As to Mark Ruskell’s requirement and suggestion for an interim plan, a ministerial statement would be a preferable approach, which would be enabled under amendment 53, in the name of Graham Simpson. I am inclined to support that, but I am interested to hear what Mark Ruskell says.

Mark Ruskell’s other amendments consider all the different forms of consultation that would feed into the publication of the plan. We are supportive of public consultation, but I note the convener’s comments about the financial implications of amendment 19. I very much support the ambition of the deliberative democratic process of bringing people with Parliament in tackling our climate ambitions. That has to be important. Some of Mark Ruskell’s amendments are a bit too prescriptive for inclusion in the bill, but the issues are important to discuss.

I very much support Monica Lennon’s amendment 55, which is important because it would give us greater parliamentary scrutiny of the climate change plan, thereby addressing the core concerns about inadequate action and lack of transparency on what we have had previously.

I appreciate the overall thrust of the amendments in the group, and I have been very supportive of the cabinet secretary’s willingness to engage not just with me but with other colleagues on the committee. It has been important to have that discussion, given the tight schedule.

We need to get on with tackling the climate emergency. We have had delayed plans, which has led to slow or non-existent action. That has held us back as a country, and it will impact on our constituents, our environment and our economy. The bill is an opportunity for all of us round the table to ensure that that does not happen again.

I move amendment 55.

Thank you, cabinet secretary—I am sorry, I mean convener.

Amendment 56 is vital to ensuring that the next climate change plan is robust. It will place a requirement on the Scottish Government to quantify its anticipated emissions reductions “in measurable terms” and it will put distinct, tangible outcomes into the climate change plan.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her support in relation to wording the amendment to ensure that the outcomes will be measured in terms of groups of policies rather than anticipated emissions per policy. That will enable a crossover between policies where multiple proposals will work together to reduce emissions. The effect will remain the same: in the climate change plan, we should see real actions that we can measure each year to track the impact of each policy so that we get more dynamic and impactful adjustments when the Scottish Government of the day is falling short. The key part of the amendment is the phrase “in measurable terms”, which ties the Scottish Government into making the outcomes more than just hopes and dreams, with things that can be scrutinised each year for efficiency and effectiveness.

I believe that my amendment represents a more effective version of what Mark Ruskell is trying to deliver through his amendment 18. That amendment’s emphasis on making the climate change plan more robust and helpful is right, but I think that, given its measurability aspect, my amendment is better. Moreover, Mr Ruskell’s amendment does not contain the flexibility that we need, which is included in my amendment through the groupings approach.

I very much agree with the sentiment behind Patrick Harvie’s amendment 17. The impact on the climate needs to be considered in major capital projects. Actually, that should be the case for all capital projects, because we should be thinking about the accumulation of impacts, and we can also learn something about best practice from different projects. That said, I would not put that sort of thing in the bill; instead, I hope that we will come back to it when we scrutinise the climate change plan next year. That is a better place to tackle those issues.

I urge the committee to support my amendment 56 so that we write into the bill a requirement to go further than the Scottish Government has previously gone in committing to measurable and impactful actions.

There are important amendments in this group. I particularly want to support amendment 57 from Monica Lennon, which she just outlined. It is about the principles of scrutiny and transparency, and we have to learn the lessons on how we got here. There is an issue about the Government monitoring and identifying where failure has happened in nine of the last few targets. It is important that in future we do not avoid scrutinising where failure is coming down the track, so that we get action, strengthen the responses and get a dynamic response to future challenges. Amendments 38, 39, 48 and 57 in this group are really important for strengthening the legislation.

I have just corrected myself, convener.

I thank Monica Lennon for setting the record straight on amendments 55 and 58. I amended my draft notes incorrectly. The amendments are about trying to improve the legislation. We have talked about that again and again.

It is very important for us that there is discussion with colleagues after today, in advance of next week’s stage 3 debate. Getting the cabinet secretary’s commitment on Mark Ruskell’s amendment 20 is really important, because we want to maximise consultation and certainty, and to improve the legislation. We want to be able to talk to third sector organisations, businesses, environmental experts and our constituents so that we do not fail to meet future climate targets. I welcome the fact that Graham Simpson supported my amendment 55 and the work that I have done with the acting cabinet secretary to ensure that we get this.

Amendment 55 agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Your recommendation would be to amend that section of the bill?