The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—Scottish Parliament bill 51A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage 3 proceedings. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 1—Scottish carbon budgets
We move to group 1. Amendment 1, in the name of Monica Lennon, is grouped with amendments 2 and 5. I call Monica Lennon to speak to and move amendment 1 and to speak to the other amendments in the group.
I will speak to and move amendment 1, and I will speak to the other two amendments in the group.
At stage 2, Scottish Labour felt that it was important to amend the bill to require the Scottish Government to act in accordance with the advice that it received from the Climate Change Committee. For that reason, I lodged four amendments to achieve that aim, which were approved by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. However, after stage 2 was complete, I discussed with the Scottish Government whether that was the best approach. Helpfully, we received a swift letter from the Climate Change Committee, which had clearly been paying attention. It explained that it is not its intention to set policy for the Parliament or Government, and that it is important that it maintains its role as an advisory body. Scottish Labour reflected on that position, and we agree with that.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for meeting me and Sarah Boyack last week to try to find a form of words that would achieve a compromise while still trying to strengthen the bill, which is what members from across the Parliament have wanted all along.
The effect of amendment 1 is quite simple. It deletes the part of the stage 2 amendment that talks about—I have lost my train of thought; I have too many scribbles on my sheet of paper—the Government acting in accordance with the advice from the relevant body, which would have bound the Scottish Government to take the advice, and instead inserts:
“take into account the most up-to-date advice they have received from the relevant body.”
In this case, that is the Climate Change Committee. I hope that that makes sense to colleagues, and I am grateful to the Government for its co-operation.
There is not much to say on the other two amendments in the group, but we believe that amendment 2, in the cabinet secretary’s name, is necessary because, at stage 2, an amendment passed that referenced provisions in another amendment from Mark Ruskell that was ultimately not passed at stage 2, so amendment 2 is an attempt to simplify and tidy that up.
Amendment 5, in the name of Mark Ruskell, aims to provide a super-affirmative procedure for carbon budget regulations, which he raised at stage 2. At stage 2, I worked with the cabinet secretary to introduce a pre-laying procedure for future carbon budgets, which mirrors procedure that is already in law in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. I understand Mark Ruskell’s aims, and we support the principle behind them, but we feel that in practice, the bill as amended at stage 2 provides a sufficient balance between scrutiny and timely action due to the new procedure under new section A5 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, so we will not support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 5.
I move amendment 1.
I am pleased to begin in the spirit of collegiality that has been a feature of progress of the bill. I thank everyone who has taken advantage of my pledge to have an open door with regard to hearing what they want from the bill and has engaged with me in working together to achieve consensus. That was shown ahead of stage 2 and over the past week ahead of stage 3. I am pleased that there is agreement with the other parties on the vast majority of the amendments.
I have worked with Monica Lennon on amendment 1 in the group, and I hope that it will be supported by all members. I understood Ms Lennon’s desire at stage 2 to ensure that the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee’s advice is given proper respect when we set our carbon budgets, but, as Ms Lennon said, the CCC has written to make clear that it does not want to be put in the position of determining, rather than advising elected representatives on, what levels to set carbon budgets at. I am grateful to Monica Lennon for her willingness to work with me and my officials to find a balanced amendment that emphasises the crucial role of the CCC without placing that panel of experts in an uncomfortable position.
The phrasing of amendment 1 aligns the language in this section to the equivalent provisions in the UK, Welsh and Northern Ireland legislation. It emphasises the importance of the CCC’s advice while allowing the final decisions to be made by the Scottish Parliament, thus ensuring democratic accountability. It is a sensible and balanced approach, and I urge members to support it.
Amendment 2, in my name, and amendment 5, in Mark Ruskell’s name, are alternatives to one another. I urge members to support amendment 2 and not to agree to amendment 5. At stage 2, there were alternative amendments providing for enhanced scrutiny of carbon budget-setting regulations after the first regulations. I supported Monica Lennon’s amendment, as did the committee, which means that budget-setting regulations will be subject to the robust enhanced scrutiny process that is set out in section 97 of the 2009 act for other types of regulations under the act. That is the right additional scrutiny process for budget-setting regulations.
The other pair of amendments on the subject were from Mark Ruskell. Confusingly, one of the pair was agreed to but the other was not, leaving the bill cross-referring to new section A4A, which does not exist. My amendment 2 is a tidying-up amendment to remove what is now an erroneous reference.
Amendment 5, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is basically the same as the amendment that the committee did not agree to at stage 2. Again, it seeks to insert a section A4A, which was cross-referred to.
Will the cabinet secretary confirm that what was agreed by the committee in Monica Lennon’s stage 2 amendment is in effect a super-affirmative process that will follow the pre-laying procedure that we already have in the bill?
14:30
As a result of my amendment in this group, what we are doing is more of a tidying-up exercise. Of those two amendments, one did not get passed, whereas the other one effectively takes forward the will of the committee. As I say, it is a tidying-up exercise on my part.
Like the committee at stage 2, I do not support inserting section A4A into the 2009 act. The bill as it emerged from stage 2 is in the right place when it comes to enhanced scrutiny. I hope that that answers Mark Ruskell’s point. As the bill stands, section 97 of the 2009 act will require engagement before draft regulations are laid for the approval of the Parliament, on a wider and more thorough on-going basis than proposed new section A4A would do.
We all agree on the importance of scrutiny of carbon budgets, and of committees having enough time to do that. We all agree that, ordinarily, it would be important to go through a super-affirmative procedure. There is obviously a rush to get the first carbon budget approved but, ordinarily, committees would be taking time to gather evidence and to consider whether the budget is adequate. At stage 2, I effectively introduced a super-affirmative process into the bill, which would have enabled committees to consider a pre-laid carbon budget for 120 days. As has now been clarified, Monica Lennon has proposed a slightly different amendment, which would enable committees to take 90 days to consider the carbon budget.
I am content with where we have got to. We have heard a clarification from the cabinet secretary. I will not be moving amendment 5; I will accept the cabinet secretary’s amendment 2. That will tidy up where we have got to at stage 3.
On amendment 1, I accept that the UK CCC is an advisory body, but it is not an elected Parliament. It is this elected Parliament, ultimately, that needs to make decisions on targets. I am happy to accept that the wording is now better at stage 3.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and Mark Ruskell for their comments. I hope that colleagues now understand what happened at stage 2 and agree that we have now got to a better place.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.
Group 2 is on setting Scottish carbon budgets: explanatory statement. Amendment 3, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendment 4.
I have one, simple, amendment in the group, which takes out one word: “broadly”. The bill reads:
“A statement under subsection (5) must also set out, in broadly indicative terms, the proposals and policies in relation to each of the sectors mentioned in section 35(3)”.
It then goes on a bit.
The wording is the result of an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I and other members felt that the phrase “broadly indicative” was rather woolly, so the happy compromise that I reached with the cabinet secretary was to take out the word “broadly”—and, broadly, that is where I will leave it.
I move amendment 3.
Amendment 4 requires ministers to indicate in which carbon budget period Scotland will achieve a 75 per cent cut and a 90 per cent cut in emissions. Members will be aware that those figures represent the percentage cuts to emissions that were attached to the 2030 and 2040 targets in our climate legislation. The bill removes those targets and replaces them with a mechanism to set carbon budgets.
Members will recognise that there was considerable dismay earlier this year when the Government finally admitted that the target of a 75 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 was beyond reach. This is the moment when those targets are being removed from legislation.
I am pleased to have worked with the cabinet secretary to ensure that, in the forthcoming climate plans, there will be public transparency, so that we will be able to see when Scotland will meet the 75 per cent target and get three quarters of the way to net zero. We will also be able to see the date for meeting the target of a 90 per cent reduction in emissions. That is important for public transparency. This is not about setting up a shadow set of targets to run alongside the budget. It is important that the public and stakeholders can see how far on or off track we are on the original and important targets that were set.
I welcome amendment 3, which tightens up the language that Graham Simpson sought to introduce at stage 2. It will also ensure that we get more detail on the policies that the Government intends to introduce whenever the draft carbon budget is presented to Parliament.
I will be brief. I am pleased to have worked with Graham Simpson and Mark Ruskell on both the amendments in group 2. I will support amendments 3 and 4, and I encourage other members to do the same.
In the spirit of consensus, I advise that Scottish Labour, too, will support amendments 3 and 4. Graham Simpson was uncharacteristically woolly at stage 2, and I am glad that the wording is to be sorted out through amendment 3.
I agree with Mark Ruskell on the need for amendment 4. Scottish Labour strongly agrees that such a mechanism will provide a useful yardstick for monitoring how well we are doing on reducing carbon emissions. The key reason for our supporting it is the importance of the public having understanding, and amendment 4 will improve transparency.
Does the cabinet secretary wish to respond to Ms Lennon’s comments?
I have no more to say on that, Presiding Officer.
I call Graham Simpson to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or seek to withdraw amendment 3.
I will press amendment 3. As everybody seems to be happy with that, I will be happy to leave it there.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 5 not moved.
Section 2—Replacement of annual and interim targets with budget targets
Group 3 is on anticipating and responding to failures and anticipated failures to meet emissions reduction targets. Amendment 6, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, is grouped with amendments 11 and 12.
Like Monica Lennon with her amendment 1, I find myself in a position where I had a win at stage 2, when I got some amendments in, but I am unpicking some of them at stage 3. My stage 2 amendments sought to put a timetable in place for the committee and the Parliament. However, following discussions with the cabinet secretary, we felt that that would tie not the Government’s hands but Parliament’s. We therefore looked for a better way of achieving our aim. I am happy to have worked with the cabinet secretary to lodge amendments 6 and 12, which work together.
The other amendment in the group is Mark Ruskell’s amendment 11. Its changes to wording would add to the bill, so I will be happy to support it.
I move amendment 6.
Amendment 11 seeks to tighten up the language from an amendment by Maurice Golden that was agreed to at stage 2. That amendment required ministers to set out their response to failing to meet a carbon budget. I agree that that is needed and I sought to make a similar change at stage 2 to a different part of the bill. I accept the Government’s preference for achieving the intention through section 35B reports; there is a strong logic behind doing so.
Amendment 11 adds to the text from Maurice Golden that was accepted; it adds that ministers’ reports must set out the policy changes that will be made in response to a carbon budget not being met. That will ensure that ministers set out more detail about how they will respond and the changes that will be implemented using the most up-to-date data on Scotland’s emissions reduction.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for constructive discussions on the issue. I think that the amendment improves the bill’s transparency and it will improve committee scrutiny and public awareness.
The Scottish Government supports all three amendments in the group. Amendments 6 and 12 from Douglas Lumsden revisit the effect of two of his stage 2 amendments, as he said. I am grateful that he has been willing to work with me to do that. I entirely appreciate the intention behind his stage 2 amendments, which was to ensure that Parliament promptly and properly scrutinises emissions reports. However, as I said at stage 2, I do not think that it is right to, in effect, involve the courts in policing how Parliament undertakes scrutiny and allocates its time. Amendments 6 and 12 fix that issue.
I support amendment 12, which places a duty on Government to seek to make a statement in Parliament about an emissions report or to send copies of such reports directly to the relevant committee conveners.
Mark Ruskell’s amendment 11 strengthens the provision that I worked with Maurice Golden to develop at stage 2 by adding another level of detail to reports under section 35B of the 2009 act, which I feel would be beneficial. As such, I am happy to support all the amendments in the group, and I urge all members to do the same.
Scottish Labour will also support amendments 6, 11 and 12. The amendments align with our aims to increase parliamentary oversight, to improve transparency and, as Mark Ruskell mentioned, to get the extra detail that we felt was perhaps going to be lacking otherwise. We will therefore support the amendments.
Cabinet secretary, would you like to respond?
No, thank you.
I call Douglas Lumsden to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 6.
I have nothing to add other than to confirm that I will press amendment 6.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Section 3—Next climate change plan to follow setting of budgets
Group 4 is on the climate change plan: deadline and procedure. Amendment 7, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 8 to 10.
The amendments in this group are focused on the procedure for producing climate change plans. I thank Labour and Green MSPs, in particular, for their collaborative approaches to the development of these amendments.
Amendment 7, in my name, fixes an error in an amendment that I worked with Sarah Boyack on at stage 2. I apologise again to Ms Boyack for that error, and I am grateful for her co-operation in working with me to fix it. Ms Boyack cannot be here today, so I have lodged the correcting amendment.
The correction is simply to ensure that the deadline for producing a draft of the first climate change plan is two months from the setting of Scottish carbon budgets, rather than that being the deadline for the final version of the plan, which would not be possible because of the length of the scrutiny period that the law requires in relation to the draft plan.
With amendment 7, I am also taking the opportunity to firm up the deadline for the final version of the first climate change plan so that it has to be laid before Parliament within a fixed period from the end of the scrutiny period in relation to the draft plan. The fixed period is 90 days, but half of those days must be days on which the Parliament is not in recess or dissolved.
My amendments 9 and 10 are minor technical amendments that I mentioned at stage 2 I would lodge to tidy up some of the provisions that were added by amendments from Mark Ruskell that I supported. Amendment 9 simply removes words that cross-refer to section 9(1)(d) of the 2009 act in a way that risked creating ambiguity about whether the extra consultative step would need to be taken if the timings did not quite line up correctly with the process that is described in that section. The Government is clear that the additional step should be taken in those cases, and that removing the words at the start of the provision will make that clear.
Amendment 10 is another minor fix, to tidy up grammatical errors.
I am happy to support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 8. Of course, the Government would consult on its policies and proposals for the climate change plan anyway, so I am content with that being formalised.
I urge colleagues across the chamber to support all the amendments in the group.
I move amendment 7.
14:45
Amendment 8 would require ministers to set out in a statement to Parliament their plans for holding public consultations on future climate change plans. I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2. I thank the cabinet secretary for continuing that discussion with me ahead of stage 3.
It is absolutely clear that the Government must lead a national conversation on the transition that we as a society need to make. We also need to respond to public concerns and accept the public’s challenge to go further.
A range of approaches have been tried, including deliberative democratic approaches, citizens panels and citizens assemblies. Ultimately, it will be for the Scottish Government to decide how it wishes to engage with the public on the tricky, difficult and challenging decisions that need to be made. It is important that we get social licence from the public to make those changes. Involving people directly and as early as possible in those conversations is really important.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments about my colleague Sarah Boyack. We had good discussions last week, and Sarah Boyack appreciated the cabinet secretary’s willingness to fix some of the oversights at stage 2. It is good to have that sorted.
On Mark Ruskell’s amendment 8, which we support—in fact, we support all the amendments in the group—we had a good discussion on the intention behind his amendment at stage 2, only a week ago. We understood and supported the principle, and amendment 8 gets the right balance.
This is an opportunity to remind the chamber that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has heard strongly from the climate change people’s panel that the public want to be involved and consulted in a very dynamic way. A raft of recommendations are sitting with the Government. However, those are not just for the Government to reflect on; they are for other public bodies to reflect on, too.
Amendment 8 is important. Indeed, anything that reminds us that we need to take the public with us on that journey and get the best ideas from as many people in Scotland as possible can only be a good thing.
I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up.
I do not have anything else to say.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
After section 3B
Amendment 8 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.
Section 3C—Preparation of climate change plan: further consultation
Amendments 9 and 10 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.
Section 3E—Report on proposals and policies where targets at risk of not being met
Amendment 11 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.
Section 3G—Annual progress reports on climate change plan: further procedure
Amendment 12 moved—[Douglas Lumsden]—and agreed to.
After section 3G
Group 5 is on assessing the impact of major capital projects. Amendment 13, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is the only amendment in the group.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment on the emissions impact of major capital projects. I explored a number of ways in which that issue could be fitted into the new legislative framework, and whether it should align with the carbon budget report, the climate action plan and various other points in the cycle.
I think that it was understood and accepted that there needs to be some way of ensuring that the Government reports on an assessment of the impact of major capital projects—on some of which the Greens will disagree with others in the chamber. There will be major capital projects that others make the case are compatible with our climate ambitions but which Greens would criticise. We can have that debate in an informed way only if those projects are properly and rigorously assessed and we have the information available to us in order to make those judgments.
I thank Patrick Harvie for taking an intervention. There are a couple of points on which I seek clarification. He referred to major capital projects. When would a capital project become a major capital project? Is there already a definition of that? Are we talking about capital projects that are owned by the Government or would that include the private sector?
I was about to come to the specific framing of the new amendment and the changes that have been made since stage 2, but I will address those points now.
I worked with the Government and listened to its response to the arguments that I put at stage 2. It suggested a form of words for amendment 13, which, as Mr Lumsden will see, includes placing in brackets the words
“as defined in the plan”
in reference to the impact of major capital projects. Therefore, it is the plan itself that will define what is considered to be a major capital project, and it will be for the Government to make that assessment. The plan must be presented to Parliament, so Parliament will scrutinise the judgments that the Government made in reaching that definition.
We have a clear example of the gap in the information. A climate compatibility assessment has been conducted of a major transport project that the Government continues to promote and which Greens continue to criticise—the dualling of the A96. That assessment is with ministers and has not been published. How on earth are we to be able to make informed judgments about future capital projects and their compatibility with climate plans in the absence of such assessments?
I am grateful that the Government has seen fit to support an amendment to fill that gap in the information, and I hope that amendment 13 will have the support of the chamber.
I move amendment 13.
I call Monica Lennon.
At stage 2, we were a little unsure about the wording of Patrick Harvie’s proposal, so we appreciate the further work that has been done since last week. For that reason, we are content to support amendment 13.
Douglas Lumsden asked a fair question about the definition of a major capital project. It is a question that we had, too, but I think that the wording of the amendment is reasonable. There will be proposals in the plan. The principle behind the amendment is welcome and we can support it.
We do not feel that we can support amendment 13. There is still a little woolliness with regard to what might constitute a capital project in the future. It is still not clear whether that would always include the private sector. I also heard the reference to the A96, and one of my fears about amendment 13 is that it might be used to stop projects such as the dualling of the A96 and the A9.
I was pleased to work with Patrick Harvie on amendment 13. I support the requirement for the Scottish Government to set out in its climate change plan the definition of major capital projects and how they will be treated. That has given Parliament more information, which is the right thing to do.
The reports that we produce under section 33 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 at the end of each carbon budget period will require to set out details of assessments that are carried out on that basis during the budget period that is covered by the report.
I call Patrick Harvie to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 13.
I have no additional comments to make. I wish to press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.
14:54 Meeting suspended.
We move to the division on amendment 13. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I lost my connection, but I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr McKee. I will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Clark. I will ensure that that is recorded.
I can advise you that your vote had already been registered.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Burgess. I will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app, but I would have voted against—no. [Interruption.]
Thank you, Mr Matheson. I will ensure that that is recorded.
Sorry, Presiding Officer—I would have voted yes. [Interruption.]
Thank you, Mr Matheson.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My connection dropped, but I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Thomson. I will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you clarify whether Michael Matheson’s vote was a yes or a no? Originally, I heard him say no, and I would like to know whether members can change their vote.
That is not a point of order, Mr Lumsden, but I confirm that I accepted Mr Matheson’s clarification that he voted yes.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I lost connection to the app, but I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Minto. I will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 81, Against 27, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Group 6 is on financial resources to meet emissions reductions targets. Amendment 14, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is grouped with amendment 15.
I am glad that everyone is logged in in time for this last group—although, on this occasion, I do not think that it will do me much good.
I want to take members back to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. In the passage of the bill that became that first climate act, 15 years ago, I moved an amendment making the case that we needed a degree of scrutiny of the Government’s budget—not of the carbon budget that we are discussing at the moment, but of the annual finance budget, which, I argued, needed to be scrutinised through a climate lens. There is a good degree of consensus that we need proper and robust scrutiny of everything that the Government does under the heading of climate action, including the climate change plan and so on. In addition to that, however, I feel that we need to bring a climate lens to our scrutiny of all Government action, including all Government spending.
I therefore moved an amendment at that point, and the committee and the Government at the time agreed that there needed to be a carbon assessment of the budget every year. We were debating that at a time when no one had ever done it—no one, in any country, had ever conducted a carbon assessment of their budget. It was a piece of work that was about innovation and creating a new methodology, and we all acknowledged at the time that the methodology would change, evolve and grow over time and that we would learn by doing.
Although I think that the methodology has improved and that it still adds some value, what has always been missing is independent scrutiny of the Government’s budget in climate terms, which is what I have sought to propose, both today and at stage 2 of this bill. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to which the Government and others—quite reasonably—objected on the grounds of timescale—that is, that it would not be possible for Parliament to independently scrutinise the Government’s budget in climate terms in the short time available between the UK Government passing a budget, the Scottish Government introducing a budget, and then Parliament passing it.
What I am suggesting now is that, instead of that scrutiny taking place within the budget process, we set a later date within each financial year, which we align with the end of May or the period just before the summer recess. That is the timescale within which the Government has an agreement that, in normal circumstances, it will present the medium-term financial strategy. That is not to say that the document specified in my amendments should form part of that medium-term financial strategy; it will be looking at one year’s budget and asking whether it adequately funds the action necessary to be compatible with the carbon budget.
However, climate action works over a longer timescale, and so does the Government’s medium-term financial strategy. At that moment—at that fiscal event, if we like—the Parliament will be asking all those longer-term questions, such as whether we are heading in the right direction and whether we are going to achieve what we are setting out to do.
The key issue is that we are missing the independent nature of financial scrutiny. The Scottish Fiscal Commission—which I would consider to be the appropriate body to carry out that independent assessment—gave evidence to the committee at stage 1 of this bill. Graeme Roy said:
“Nothing in the annual fiscal budget says, for example, what we are spending on net zero, so how can you have a bill that says what our ambition is and what progress we are making on the targets, if you are not able to trace that through to whether the Government’s spending action is consistent with that? Is it overachieving, overambitious or underachieving? That is one piece of the jigsaw that has been missing.”
And it remains missing.
Parliament’s scrutiny, of both the budget and wider climate action, would be stronger and better informed if this aspect of the budget was subject to independent scrutiny, in the same way that other aspects of the Government’s fiscal policy are subject to independent scrutiny. We pass tax resolutions through Parliament, but the Government’s tax policy is first assessed by a body with the appropriate fiscal expertise—the Scottish Fiscal Commission—to tell us whether that tax policy will generate the revenue that the Government expects it to. We, as a Parliament, would not be in a position to make those decisions in a well-informed way if it were not for that independent scrutiny, and I am seeking to add that to the bill with regard to the connection between the fiscal budget and the carbon budget.
I expect that the Government will argue that that would imply somehow that it is only the Scottish Government’s budget that is relevant to the investment in spending that we need in order to comply with the carbon budget. Of course it is not: every level of Government—the UK Government, the Scottish Government and local government—has a role to play, as does private investment, both by companies and by individuals and households, in redirecting our entire economy towards our net zero ambition.
As a Parliament, however, we have a responsibility to scrutinise the Government’s budget as it presents it, and that scrutiny needs to be well informed with regard to the alignment between what the Government says that it wants to achieve on climate action and the contribution that it is making to achieve compliance with the carbon budget.
I am following what Patrick Harvie is saying. On that basis, would he also expect local government, when it is setting a budget, to have regard to the Scottish Government’s carbon budget?
I would urge local authorities to do so, but we are passing legislation in the Parliament, and I am suggesting that we consider our responsibilities as a Parliament in the decisions that we make.
We do not scrutinise and pass or reject local government budgets—it is for councils to do that. Our job is to scrutinise and pass or reject the Scottish Government’s budget, and that task will be better informed if we require the Scottish Government to have independent scrutiny brought to bear by a body with the appropriate fiscal expertise. In that respect, I have in mind the Scottish Fiscal Commission, and I think that what I am suggesting is very much in line with the evidence that the SFC itself gave at stage 1.
I look forward to hearing what the Government has to say. I do not expect that it will support my proposal at present, but I hope that it recognises that, as Graeme Roy said, a
“piece of the jigsaw ... has been missing.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 10 September 2024; c 12.]
If what I am proposing is not the solution, I would be interested to know from the Government what it thinks that the solution is.
I move amendment 14.
I am grateful to Patrick Harvie—I think that he will recognise that Scottish Labour members tried to be open minded at stage 2, and asked him some questions in order to get some clarity. However, although we are sympathetic to his aims in lodging amendments 14 and 15, which I think are alternatives to each other—is that correct?
Yes.
Nevertheless, we are still not fully persuaded by the proposed amendments.
When we discussed the issue with the Government last week, there was a willingness on its part to go away and look at what Patrick Harvie is trying to achieve to see whether something can be done. I will listen to what the cabinet secretary has to say in a moment.
As Patrick Harvie probably knows, we are not yet fully persuaded. However, I would be interested to know whether there are other measures outwith the bill that the Government could look at that would help to achieve those aims. Patrick Harvie makes an important point about the important connection between the fiscal budget and the carbon budget. As he knows, Scottish Labour members would agree with anything that will improve scrutiny and alignment, but in this case, I am not convinced. Given the fact that he has lodged two different amendments on the same issue, I am not sure that he is fully convinced either, but I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I am grateful to the member for reminding me that I should have been clear in my opening remarks: I am aiming at alignment with the medium-term financial strategy, but that document has not been produced every year, so I am offering two alternatives. One amendment refers specifically to alignment with that strategy, while the other sets a specific date rather than referring to the strategy.
My preference would be for the first of the amendments that we are going to vote on, but either option would be viable to enable the Parliament to have before it the information that it needs, and in time for in-year budget revisions to address the concerns that are raised.
I am grateful to Patrick Harvie for that further clarification. I repeat my point: Scottish Labour members are still not persuaded. I am happy to listen to what the cabinet secretary says, but I think that it is unlikely that we can support amendment 14.
15:15
I think that Patrick Harvie is doing Parliament a service by lodging his amendments, although he will not be surprised to hear that I will not support them. Towards the end of his contribution, he made the point that there are lots of moving parts in relation to the financial contribution that is needed to meet our net zero commitments, which include not just the Scottish Government budget but the UK Government, local authorities, private sector investment, businesses and consumers, who will have to bear a burden.
I am unsure whether amendment 14 is intended to get some independent scrutiny to ensure that the Scottish Government will, through its fiscal budget, provide the entirety of the contribution that is needed to meet its net zero commitments. The moving parts mean that if private sector investment increases, the Scottish Government might be able to decrease its contribution, and if the UK Government meets its responsibilities, more money might be in play for the Scottish Government to meet its net zero commitments.
I am not sure how amendment 14 fulfils the role that Mr Harvie wants it to, but there is merit in having this conversation in Parliament.
I hope that Bob Doris recognises that, in any one financial year—because I am suggesting that we examine each year’s fiscal budget in isolation—we will be very aware of the context. We will know what UK Government policy is and what kind of changes have been made in the investment that is being brought to bear by the private sector, which needs to play a role in reaching net zero. We already have to consider each year’s fiscal budget on its own terms, in the wider context of how the rest of our economy is shaping up, and the connection with climate and with our emissions trajectory is no different.
I take Mr Harvie’s points on board, but he is talking about one year’s budget, whereas if this legislation is passed, the Scottish Government will produce three five-year carbon budgets over a 15-year period. That goes far beyond one year and those budgets will be predicated on what private investment might look like in five or 10 years’ time. Boiling that down to one year’s financial budget when the moving parts include UK Government investment, what businesses and the private sector will pay and what local authorities and consumers will pay is not the way forward.
I will finish here. I have made this contribution because I think that it is important for the Scottish Government be clear about any gap in funding to meet our net zero ambitions. That gap is not necessarily down to the Scottish Government, but could be down to the UK and Scottish Governments, local authorities, private sector investment, consumers, businesses and many others. We must identify what the gap may be, and it will not always be the responsibility of the Scottish Government.
I listened to Mr Harvie with interest, and I have also discussed this issue with him. I agree with Bob Doris that it is important to discuss this, because it is important to give as much information as possible about any funding gaps and about any assessment of how the Government spends its money.
I said at stage 2 that a pilot piece of work is being done to look at how Scottish Government spending relates to our net zero ambitions and to the carbon emissions associated with those. That work is in train, but I agree that there may be more work to do in designing and implementing a process that will provide meaningful information about how Government spending decisions support us in meeting our emissions reduction targets. I do not think that tying that process down in legislation is the right way to do it. We need to see how the pilot is rolled out and to assess how effective it has been.
I am open to further discussion of those issues with Patrick Harvie and with committee members. However, as we all know, budget processes are established and complicated, so there are some fundamental problems with his amendments.
First, we know that funding for policies to deliver on our carbon budgets will come from across our economy—including from the private sector—and not only from the Scottish Government. Bob Doris has made that crucial point, and Monica Lennon made it at stage 2, but it is not reflected in Mr Harvie’s amendments. Amendment 14 refers to
“the financial resources being made available”
but, as drafted, it is unclear whose financial resources are being referred to, which would mean that any such document could only partially set out the resources required to meet our carbon budgets.
The formulation of amendment 14 is such that it calls for the provision of information about the resources that are needed to ensure that a carbon budget target is met, with a medium-term financial strategy covering at least five years. That may seem to make sense, because carbon budgets will typically cover five-year periods, but the amendment also says that the information is to be provided only in relation to the financial year in which the report is laid before Parliament, rather than requiring information about the resources that will be needed throughout the whole period that is covered by the strategy. That is confusing and I think that it would result in even less understanding of the resourcing of emission reductions. However, there is work to be done, and I am happy to do it.
rose—
I call Patrick Harvie to wind up and press or seek to withdraw amendment 14.
I thought that I was intervening, Presiding Officer.
Oh. I call Patrick Harvie to intervene, then.
Thank you.
I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Clearly, we disagree on some points, given the objections that she raises. However, she talked about the pilot, and I would like to know whether she is in a position to give an explicit commitment that the work that the Government is developing will be subject to external independent scrutiny, whether that is by a body such as the Scottish Fiscal Commission or another independent body with the appropriate expertise. There will be circumstances where the Government marking its own homework, if you like, will be appropriate, and other circumstances where it will not be. There will be situations where parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate and places where it becomes a bit of a political football. To my mind, that independent scrutiny is the critical missing piece of the puzzle. Is the Government in a position to give an explicit commitment that what it is developing will be subject to independent scrutiny?
I take the point about independent scrutiny of what we are doing. It is a really good point. At the moment, the pilot is an internal process. We want to embed it in the work that we are doing, but the finance secretary and I—she is sitting next to me—have to have a discussion on what would be appropriate in this area. I give Patrick Harvie a commitment that we will look into it, because his point is well made.
Amendment 15 suggests that there should be a statement in each financial year about what resources have been made available in that year to meet the multiyear carbon budget. That is impractical and it could lead to information being presented in a confusing way, as Bob Doris mentioned. I agree that improvement is needed in that area, and I have set out both at stage 2 and today some of the work that the Government is doing. I take Patrick Harvie’s point. This has been a useful debate but, unfortunately, the Government cannot support amendments 14 or 15.
At the second time of asking, I call Patrick Harvie to wind up and press or seek to withdraw amendment 14.
I am grateful to members who contributed to the debate on the group. I am sorry that, as it seems, we are not in a position to change the bill to achieve what I am looking for.
I will respond briefly to a couple of the points that have been raised. The spending that is set out in the Scottish Government’s fiscal budget each year is, of course, not the only thing that will contribute to the spending and investment that are necessary to make the transition to net zero and align Scotland’s path with the carbon budget. Many other sources of funding and investment, including the private sector and the UK Government, are critical. However, that situation is not unique to climate; it applies in pretty much every other policy area. If the Government sets an objective in the field of health, for example, its achievement will be partly dependent on health spending and the investment that the Government makes through its budget for the NHS and the necessary services, but it will also be set by a host of other factors that affect public health, from individual behaviour through to the behaviour of corporations, given the goods and products that they sell, and other changes that are happening in our economy. Poverty and inequality will impact directly on health.
That does not mean that we should not set long-term objectives for health in Government policy, and it does not mean that we do not need to scrutinise whether each year’s budget contributes what is necessary to help to keep us on track on Government policies. In that sense, climate is not different from other areas in which we expect to scrutinise the Government’s budget and its ability to deliver on Government policies.
I will press amendment 14 to a vote, simply in order to register the concerns that I have raised. I hope that, in time, the Government will accept the need to close the missing area of scrutiny to fill in what Graeme Roy described as the missing jigsaw piece and to ensure that budgets are subject to independent scrutiny with a climate lens.
I press amendment 14.
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry, but I could not get connected. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Choudhury. I will make sure that that is recorded.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 102, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
Amendment 15 not moved.
That ends consideration of the amendments.
As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether or not, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter; therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.
There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.