Chamber and committees

I welcome the fact that Douglas Lumsden has moved the motion to annul, because it has enabled us to have a full debate, discussion and exploration of all the issues, which I felt were lacking at our previous meeting. It is good that we now have the opportunity to do that.

I believe that there is a strong consensus in the committee and in Government and that we want bus franchising to work in this country, but I cannot ignore the evidence that has been presented. We need to have a fair and robust decision on franchising—that is absolutely critical. It seems that we have two options. If the SSI is annulled there will still be a panel, although it will be a decision-making panel that will be appointed by the traffic commissioner. If the SSI goes through, there will still be a panel that is appointed by the traffic commissioner, but there will be additional guidance from the Scottish Government.

Is there evidence that panels reduce the risk?

You said that we are where we are with the legislation, but 2019 was some time ago, and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge with progress on bus franchising around the UK, so there is now a lot more experience. If you were to revisit the provision through a transport act, would you go down the same route? Given what we know about Wales, is this the best route to go down to secure franchising?

My final question is about the guidance that could come on the back of this Scottish statutory instrument. You understand the concerns that have been raised in the petition to Parliament and I am sure that you have read the evidence and know of the experience elsewhere in the UK. What is your response to that? Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and others have a real stake and an interest in seeing this happen. What is your answer to them? How can you deliver reassurance right now through guidance or interpretation of the SSI?

I am trying to help you to find out what the solution is, because I want to see a solution, too. I want franchising to happen as quickly as possible. We are on the same page, but I am struggling to see what the fix is. I am frustrated for you, because a motion has been lodged to annul the regulations.

Good morning. Minister, will you explain why a franchising scheme that is approved by a panel is less likely to be subject to legal challenge than one that is approved by a transport authority? That seems to be a key reason why the Government at the time decided to go down this route.

No, I am making the point that there is precedent in law for another body—Environmental Standards Scotland—to have to say in its annual reporting whether it has enough resources to discharge its responsibilities. To my mind, it would be useful if we had a requirement for the UK Climate Change Committee to present similar information. At the moment, we do not know whether it has adequate resources to enable it to discharge its responsibilities, so a similar provision would be useful.

I will finish by saying that climate change is complex. The CCC is doing great work, but there is always new and emerging stuff for it to look at, such as blue carbon. It is important for it to be a body that can keep track of the Scottish context. In the past, there have been discussions about whether there should be a separate Scottish CCC, whether it should have an office in Scotland and whether it should be focused on the particular challenges that we are all aware of. That brings in a question of resourcing, which should involve an open discussion because, if our ability to scrutinise is limited by the CCC’s capacity, that is a problem.

I will listen to the intention behind amendments 64, 49 and 50.

I move amendment 62.

No—that is fine. [Laughter.]

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I will briefly mention amendment 20 before coming on to amendment 19. I thank the cabinet secretary for the engagement on amendment 20. To follow on from our discussion about the capacity and function of the CCC, it is important that the Scottish Government can take advice from other bodies. We heard in evidence that that is reflected in the Northern Irish legislation. I am grateful for the discussion with the Government on that.

I will speak to amendment 19, although I cannot press it to a vote, because the Presiding Officer’s view is that it would trigger the need for a financial resolution to the bill. That is disappointing, because clearly the Government has a budget for public engagement. It is also, I hope, committed to consultation on climate change plans and is continuing to reflect on the importance of participative democratic processes and the work of the climate assembly, which came on the back of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. That assembly was very valuable in bringing forward thinking on diet, travel and how we heat our homes, and I am sure that it was valuable for the Government in considering how to develop policy. Of course, citizens assemblies are only one way of doing that. Our committee commissioned a people’s panel on the public engagement aspects of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which was also very valuable.

I do not want to be prescriptive. It is for the Government to reflect on the importance of involving the public and people who are outside politics but who nevertheless will have a view on the big behaviour changes that we need to make as a society to tackle climate change. That is important to drive forward a social licence for some of the huge changes that we will need in our society if we are to get anywhere close to meeting our climate targets. I ask the cabinet secretary to follow up on this conversation between now and stage 3 to see how we can bake into the bill an important role for public engagement to ensure that future Governments are really committed to that kind of work.

I briefly turn to amendments 25 and 26 and other options in this space. As Sarah Boyack said, we have already talked about the statement that will come alongside the budgets and the effect of Graham Simpson’s amendment 53 in that regard. We need more certainty about how the Government intends to meet the climate budget and what is required across society to get the emissions reductions. My amendment 26 seeks to have an interim plan six months after the bill is introduced, but I do not feel that that is necessary right now, so I will not move it. However, I will press amendment 25 to the vote. There is an interplay between setting a carbon budget and setting a plan. In an ideal world, we would have a clear climate plan at the same time as the budget so that the Government is open, transparent and honest about the kinds of changes that will be needed to meet the targets.

We heard in evidence that the approach needs to go beyond the broad pathways that the Climate Change Committee will bring forward. There needs to be a marrying up of the carbon budget with the action that is needed to tackle climate change. When we are scrutinising the carbon budgets, it is important that we get as much certainty as possible about what will have to be done to meet those budgets.

However, I am not convinced that what we approved through Graham Simpson’s amendment 53 really does that. To go back to our initial discussion, I note that it is still quite woolly. We will need more detail next spring when the carbon budgets come forward. We need to have a clear analysis of what is needed to meet the budgets and of whether the Government is preparing and planning and has the finance in place to achieve that.

I will move amendment 25. In an ideal world, we should be moving a plan forward at the same time as we move a budget forward. I will not move amendment 26. I will hold on to amendment 19, but I will move amendment 20.

Could the cabinet secretary reflect a bit on the evidence that we had from Environment Standards Scotland that there is deep concern about the quality and depth of information in the catch-up reports that came on the back of section 36? Beyond what Mr Golden has put forward as a new framework, what is the Government doing to reflect on that and improve the reports? Many people were quite shocked by how thin those reports were and by the fact that they did not really bring new action to the table.