Chamber and committees

Like my amendment 60, amendment 17 addresses the carbon impact of major capital projects. As I indicated earlier, there are two places where a reference to that could be added to the bill, and amendment 17 seeks to add it in one of them.

Given that the cabinet secretary has said that she is willing to work with me to produce an alternative, I do not have much to say about amendment 17 at this point, but I will move it so that the rest of the amendments in the group can be debated. If the cabinet secretary wants to say anything further about any alternative approaches that she has in mind or issues that she wants to explore, I will be happy to discuss them, either now or later.

I move amendment 17.

I do not have anything further to add, convener. I am happy to work with the minister on an alternative, and I therefore seek permission to withdraw amendment 17.

Amendment 17, by agreement, withdrawn.

That is a perfectly fair comment. Indeed, it is not only about the private sector, as we also require the contribution of local government, the UK Government and our entire economy. The point that I am making relates to the annual political process of setting a budget for the Scottish Government as we debate it in Parliament every year. That budget has a substantial impact on our ability to deliver the Scottish Government’s policies and proposals in the climate change plan and thereby its ability to make the greatest contribution that it can to achieving those carbon budgets. Therefore, the finance budget needs to be scrutinised in that way by Parliament, and that scrutiny by Parliament will be most effective and best informed if there has been an independent assessment of what the Government sets out.

Yes—in a moment.

I do not honestly know what the Government’s reaction to the proposal will be and whether it will be open to it, but I genuinely urge the committee, when the Government tells us what it thinks of the argument, to consider the value of applying some independent scrutiny at that stage.

Could the cabinet secretary indicate whether it is the Government’s intention and commitment that the work that she is talking about, which is under development, will be subject to independent scrutiny by a body other than the Government, in order to ensure that Parliament’s assessment of it is well informed?

We can make a comparison with other aspects of budget scrutiny. For example, the Government produces equality impact assessments in relation to the budget. No one would suggest that the achievement of equality in our society is solely determined by Scottish Government policies and that it is unaffected by the private sector, the UK Government or other factors, but it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that Parliament should place on the Government that its spending plans are scrutinised in relation to their likely impact on equality. The comparison in this case is simply to require the Government to produce a document that sets out the financial resources that are being made available by virtue of the budget to ensure that the Scottish carbon budget target for the particular period will be met, and to require that that document be independently scrutinised.

I genuinely struggle to accept any suggestion that Parliament’s scrutiny of the finance budget would be weaker for the provision of that document and its independent scrutiny.

I move amendment 27.

That form of words was suggested by parliamentary draftspeople. My understanding and intention, as I expressed it to them, was that the phrase would apply to a body such as the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I understand that that would be captured by the proposed form of words.

As Monica Lennon suggested, the spending proposals in each year’s finance budget are not the only factor, but they are a very major factor in whether the Scottish Government’s intended policy priorities, which are designed to deliver on a carbon budget, will be met. If we set out those policies and then fail to fund them, we can have no confidence at all that we are giving ourselves even a reasonable chance of meeting what is set out in the carbon budget.

The principle is to give Parliament the greatest level of independently informed analysis of what the Government is asking us to approve every year when we pass a finance budget. Will it be able to adequately fund the climate change policies that have been set out? Will it give us a chance of meeting the carbon budget?

Given that Ben Wilson has raised the issue, perhaps I could ask him to confirm one point before I ask Bridget Burns to speak.

Professor Jafry said that we need a clear plan. The energy strategy and just transition plan is currently with the Government and waiting to be published. If the Scottish Government was able to publish the plan before it went to COP29, with it supporting a presumption against new fossil fuel capacity, that would be a symbolic position and an example of soft power, because decisions on such licences are not taken here. That would be within the scope of the Scottish Government’s role at COP29, and it would be an important step in rebuilding and restoring Scotland’s credibility in that area.

That is helpful.

Does Bridget Burns want to add anything?