Chamber and committees

We have covered thresholds in some depth, convener, so I was going to move on from that.

Can I just wrap up on the criteria?

Linda Gillespie said at the start of the meeting that the bill focuses less on urban areas, which takes us to the issue of local place plans. I can imagine having a local land management plan for the estates surrounding a village and a local place plan for the village. That plan might or might not incorporate land that is owned by a local estate and it might be relevant for housing. Some of those issues were highlighted in the committee’s trip to highland Perthshire. It feels as if that could start to get a bit messy and that we need some clarity about where democratic influence lies. Do you have any thoughts about how to bring those things together?

On land management plans, I am interested in getting your views on what good consultation actually looks like. As Jon Hollingdale has pointed out, we already have forest strategies; there is also a forest licensing process that communities input to and there are local place plans.

Is there good practice when it comes to meaningful consultation in which communities feel that they are actually participating in decisions, instead of just being asked, “What do you think of this?”

Is there a risk that the bill will set up a tick-box exercise? How can we make the process appropriate, meaningful and participative, so that communities actually feel that their objectives are being met?

It is not for me to write the financial budget for the Climate Change Committee, but I think that the cabinet secretary was acknowledging the issues around capacity and the need to take that work forward.

I am mindful of the time, but will you take an intervention?

My amendment 6 is similar in many ways to Graham Simpson’s amendment 1. It is about ensuring that there is real transparency in the budget. If we are going to pass a carbon budget, we need to know what the contribution will be from different sectors. When we have set climate targets in the past, that has not been clear, and we need to provide transparency. Amendment 6 would pin the process directly to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, so I gently ask Mr Simpson to withdraw amendment 1 to allow me to move amendment 6, as it is a tighter fit with existing legislation.

On amendment 7, there was a huge sense of loss in Scotland and in the environmental movement when it was decided that it was no longer credible for us to meet the target of a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, because that target represented the hugely important need for action in this decade to tackle climate change and to get on top of the issue. The fact that that target is now not credible and can no longer be met by 2030 is really concerning. It begs the question of when we will get to 75 per cent. People are asking when we will get three quarters of the way to net zero. If we are off track, people need to know by how much we are off track and when we will meet that important milestone.

At stage 1, we had discussions with the cabinet secretary about how the budgets can be interpreted to ensure that the target of 75 per cent can remain and be transparent, so that people can still see the date by which we will meet the target. My amendment 7 would ensure that the aspiration behind the targets of 75 per cent and 90 per cent are still reflected and transparent in the carbon budgets when they are published.

On the other amendments in the group, we have had a big discussion in the committee and the chamber about whether the budget should be aligned to the UK budget or whether it should be a stand-alone Scottish budget. On balance, what is in the bill is the right approach, so I will not support amendment 9. It has almost a ratcheting effect when devolved Administrations bring forward policy innovation. When that is reflected in the climate change plans and set out at the beginning of the parliamentary sessions in Wales and Scotland, it can then be linked into the future development of climate change plans across the UK. I am convinced that that is the right way to go, but I appreciate that there might be different views on that.

I support what Monica Lennon wants to achieve with amendments 28 to 30 and amendment 32. The UK Climate Change Committee publishes advice, which sets out broad pathways, so it is appropriate to act in accordance with that.

I am still not entirely sure what amendment 46 is trying to achieve—I am not sure that Mr Lumsden is either—but I will listen to the cabinet secretary’s views on that.

We will have a debate later about whether a draft plan should be presented at the time of the budget, slightly after the budget or several months after the budget, and amendment 53 is relevant to that issue. Therefore, I ask Mr Simpson to consider not moving amendment 53. However, given that he already has support from the Government, I think that he might move it anyway. We really need to tighten up the woolliness around this matter. I am already thinking about how, if that amendment is passed, we can make the presentation of that information ahead of a budget meaningful. We might need to come back to that at stage 3, because it is far too woolly at the moment, and Mr Simpson knows that.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I am happy to speak to amendment 62. The climate change legislation relies heavily on the advisory body, the UK Climate Change Committee, which we all recognise provides really invaluable formal advice as well as really invaluable informal advice to Government and this committee. It is fair to say that, over the years that the CCC has been in operation and since the Parliament and Government have engaged with it, there have been issues relating to its capacity and resources and, because of that, with how responsive it has been in providing the advice that is needed at the right time, given changing circumstances.

If we think back to 2023, when the climate change plan was delayed, Chris Stark was vocal in saying that the delay had thrown out the CCC’s work programme as well as the window that was available to it to provide advice for the Scottish Parliament on our emissions reduction progress. In effect, we have been in a position in which the level of advice that the Parliament was expecting has not been available, because of the CCC’s capacity and its work programme.

We were in a similar position with the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, in that the CCC was unable to provide formal advice on the 2030 target because it was still completing its work on the peatland inventory. When we set the targets for 2030 under the 2019 act, we did not have full advice from the CCC. That was not the CCC’s fault; it was to do with its capacity and work programme.

I lodged amendment 62 because the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 provides that, whenever Environmental Standards Scotland produces its annual report, it must communicate a statement to the Parliament on whether it has adequate resources to discharge its responsibilities. We cannot require something similar from the UKCCC because of how it is set up, although I think that it would be preferable if it could publicly talk about any capacity or resources issues that it has. My amendment is competent in that it requires the Scottish Government to report on whether there are capacity issues and to consult the CCC in doing that.

How is that different from what we have at the moment?