Chamber and committees

Hands have gone up, and the order was Mike Buckley, Professor Hall and then Professor Portes.

That is helpful, thank you.

Does Professor Collins want to add anything?

Are there any other views?

For obvious reasons, there has been a lot of discussion about EU member states. One comment was made about non-EU member states, and the idea that we are now in the position that they are in with regard to trying to work with the EU.

I wonder if that could be drawn out a little bit more. Are we now in exactly the same position as other non-EU member states that want to work with EU jurisdictions? Do those non-EU member states that have a high level of economic relationship with Europe have in place similar arrangements to what is in the TCA? Have those arrangements developed over time? If we are looking for the TCA, or whatever develops out of it, to be deepened and enriched over time, can any lessons be drawn from other countries that are outside the EU and that have some of the same issues around the lack of freedom of movement and the impact that that has on services? Have those countries found solutions?

The situation is comparable to whether one is in the room as a politician or a civil servant. Very often we are in the room, but we have a lesser status or less opportunity to influence discussion.

At the same time, in the EU, there is a kind of move away from the idea that accession is just a binary, in or out process, and the idea is that there is more of a graduated change for countries that seek EU membership to gradually integrate. Even though I might wish that we—Scotland or the UK—become a re-accession country one day, whether or not that happens, I presume that there is space for a level of integration that will address some of the issues that we are discussing today that is comparable to that which the EU now explores with countries that are seeking membership. Am I going too far there?

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response and other members for their contributions to the discussion. I am tempted to press amendment 27, partly to gauge the level of support for it on the committee. I may not have done enough to persuade people on this precise amendment, but I would like to get a sense of whether I have. If I have not, I will perhaps explore lodging something else at stage 3.

However, if the committee is convinced that an amendment is needed to place additional requirements in the bill at this point, if it were to agree to the amendment, the onus would be on the Government, if it wanted to refine the provision, to convince the majority of Parliament of the need for a change. I would prefer to at least put the question to the committee now, so I press amendment 27.

Good morning. As a non-member of the committee, I will speak to my own amendment and leave members of the committee to comment on the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 60 is not grouped with amendment 17, which will come up later, but it touches on a similar issue, and in some ways the amendments should be seen together. They relate to how we examine the carbon impact, or the climate impact, of major capital projects.

Amendment 17 relates to the climate change plan, and amendment 60 raises the same issue in relation to the report that the Government will publish on carbon budgets. Obviously, some major capital projects for pieces of infrastructure that the Government is proposing will be contentious, while others will not be. That will be true regardless of whether those are high-carbon or low-carbon pieces of infrastructure. However, that judgment must be made on the basis of a full, proper assessment of the likely impact of capital projects.

For some projects that the Government continues to support, it has agreed that there need to be carbon assessments. For example, Government policy on the A96 has committed to a carbon assessment and climate compatibility assessment.

Regardless of whether anyone supports or opposes particular projects, we should reach those decisions and judgments on the basis of proper assessments. I think that it is unreasonable that we are still in a position in which we do not have a clear legislative basis for requiring those assessments. I suggest that even the Government recognises that the status quo is not ideal, and I understand that it is working on how it would regard the application of a net zero test for such decisions.

My amendments 60 and 17 seek to find a way for the Parliament to be able to reach a view on infrastructure and capital projects on the basis of a full assessment of the impacts that they would have on carbon budgets or the ability to deliver a climate change plan. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and to finding out whether it would be open to the amendments that I have proposed, or whether it has an alternative approach to how the issues can be addressed in the legislation before we reach stage 3.

I move amendment 60.

I will comment on the specific issues that were raised in relation to amendment 17 when we reach group 9, but they are connected to amendment 60. When framing the amendments, I was seeking to explore the relevance either to the report on carbon budgets or to the climate change plan. Given the cabinet secretary’s comments, I am happy to explore whether there is an alternative that can gain agreement before stage 3. I hope that that discussion will be fruitful; if not, I reserve the option to return with an amendment at stage 3. For the time being, I ask to withdraw amendment 60.

Amendment 60, by agreement, withdrawn.

We are coming to the end of stage 2, so I promise not to keep the committee very long, but I would like to go back to the debates in 2009 on the first climate change legislation. As it happens, the amendment sessions took place in this room and I was sitting where you are, convener.

One of the arguments that I made in relation to that legislation was that there needed to be a clear connection between climate targets, as we were framing them then—we would now call them carbon budgets—and the Scottish Government’s financial budget that we pass every year in relation to the money that is spent on investments and public services. Members agreed with that argument, which led to an amendment that became section 94 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. It was acknowledged then, including by the Government, that that was a first stab at a methodology for connecting climate targets with the Government’s spending plans.

I do not think that the methodology has ever been perfect. I am not suggesting that it has not been refined and improved to some extent, but it has always placed a bit too much emphasis on the most direct connections relating to the emissions that are generated by the spending of money, rather than on the effect that spending has on the economy and the emissions that will be generated as a result.

I am seeking to expand section 94 of the 2009 act as it will now apply to the carbon budgets instead of the climate targets that existed previously. Amendment 27 seeks to retain the requirement for a statement that sets out

“the direct and indirect impact on greenhouse gas emissions of the activities to be funded by virtue of the proposals”—

in other words, the financial budget. However, the amendment would add two elements. One is about

“the financial resources being made available ... to ensure that the Scottish carbon budget target for”

a particular period

“will be met.”

What would be needed is not just an assessment of the budget but a specific statement on how the measures to meet the carbon budget would be funded.

The other change, which is probably the more significant one, would be the requirement for some independent scrutiny of the statement about the connection between the carbon budget and the financial budget. I am not casting aspersions on the current Government or any Government since 2009, but it is reasonable for the Parliament to expect that the Government’s assessment of the connection between spending and emissions will be independently scrutinised. The body that the Government identifies for that role might be, for example, the Scottish Fiscal Commission or another existing body; I am not suggesting the creation of something new. However, a politically independent body should be given the responsibility of scrutinising what the Government is saying about a really important question: if the Government is setting carbon budgets and laying out a climate change plan, is the action that is necessary to meet those budgets and is the action that is set out in the plan going to be funded? We need to scrutinise that for every year’s financial budget.