Chamber and committees

We resume our consideration of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. I am pleased to welcome from the Scottish Government Gillian Martin, the acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy; Philip Raines, deputy director of the domestic climate change division; Amy Hill, climate change legislation team leader; and Norman Munro, a Scottish Government solicitor.

I am sorry that we kept you waiting slightly, cabinet secretary. That is because evidence from the previous panel of witnesses overran. I think that you want to make some brief opening remarks.

I almost follow that. My point is that we were told in April that the bill was ready and, despite the repeated requests that I made on the committee’s behalf in May, June, July, August and early September to get sight of the bill, the bill was not introduced until 5 September, which means that we have to work on an expedited programme and will not have full scrutiny.

I asked the question because I am a great believer that Parliament should be given time to consider matters slowly, rather than at pace and without having a chance to understand them fully. Even if you disagree with that, cabinet secretary, the Climate Change Committee will not produce the required information until early next year, which means that you will produce your carbon budgets as soon as practically possible thereafter. We could have done the process slightly more slowly, to ensure that all the parliamentary procedures and standing orders on timings between stages 1, 2 and 3 and hearing evidence could have been met. I am disappointed that we have not done so, but I will leave things there. I understand your response.

I turn to your use of subordinate legislation to set budget levels, as opposed to putting them in the bill. I understand that approach slightly, but it comes down to the fact that, unless you go for the affirmative procedure, the committee will not have time to consider the carbon budgets. The alternative approach, of going through the normal subordinate legislation process, would give us only a short time to consider them. I think that the Government’s approach is perhaps wrong. Would you consider using the affirmative procedure for setting carbon budgets, to allow the committee time to consider them fully?

I think that the committee had correspondence from the DPLR Committee that said that a super-affirmative procedure might be appropriate, so two committees have said that, which I am sure that you will reflect on.

Thank you.

Yes. It would be helpful if you clarified the timescale, because it seems to be compressed. It seems that, this time next year, we will be in exactly the same position as this year.

Technically, if all those days were used, we would be talking about March 2026. Is that right?

Well, the Parliament has its processes.

Bob Doris has a question. I do not know whether yours or his comes first, Monica.

Perfect. That almost sounded like a yes, though none of us is surprised by your agreement with that.

Mark, I think that you have some questions.

Monica, do you have another question or shall I move on to Douglas Lumsden?