Chamber and committees

Amendment 27 has two aspects—namely, information on the expenditure that is being directed at carbon budgets in annual financial budgets, and an independent review of such information.

I completely understand why Patrick Harvie has lodged an amendment that requires greater information on the emissions that are associated with spend—I understand the arguments for that. However, the climate change plan is already required to provide cost estimates for the policies that are included in that plan, and the Government publishes a statutory carbon assessment of the budget—I think that Patrick Harvie mentioned that—which is required by section 94 of the 2009 act.

Subsequent to that happening, I will outline some of the things that the Government is doing to give more information in this space. The joint budget review by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament is improving transparency on the budget and climate change funding, with a new taxonomy on climate change spending.

The Scottish Government, separately, is just about to complete our pilot of the net zero assessment, with a view to rolling out that approach in 2025 across all new significant Scottish Government spending decisions. That will provide greater visibility of the areas that contribute to emissions and it will aid the decision-making process.

The joint budget review and the net zero assessment are already providing significant improvements but, in particular, by the time we get to the end of the pilot, which will be rolled out in 2025, that will have made all the difference.

Yes. My final point is that, if it were to be agreed to, there would be a duplication of the information that is already in the three reports that I mentioned.

I have finished.

I will.

The proposal that we have worked on with Maurice Golden is already strengthening the action that the Government must take to introduce catch-up policy interventions if targets look like they are being missed. Again, there would be robust in-time data—not data that is two years old—to react to.

I will certainly reflect on the criticism that Mark Ruskell and others have put forward about the material in those reports and I will speak to my colleagues about how we can have more comprehensive reports. However, the section 35B-type report would have that critical in-time data rather than out-of-date data from two years ago—that in the section 36 report—which means that it would be a more useful report than some of the other proposals.

I have pretty much come to the end. I urge Graham Simpson not to press amendment 23 and instead to support amendment 48—

Amendments 38, 39 and 40 from Douglas Lumsden and amendment 48 in the name of Maurice Golden are all concerned with requiring the Scottish Government to report to Parliament when it has become clear that emissions are not on track to stay within a carbon budget. I agree that there should be a specific trigger for ministers to report to Parliament should it become clear that the Government is off track. However, I have said previously that I do not think that that trigger should be linked to annual emissions reporting. That is for a very good reason, which is that annual emissions reporting would have a two-year time lag. A “dynamic response”—Sarah Boyack’s words, which I wish that I had used—would be better if it had real-time data. That is why I have worked with members on the amendments to ensure that there is a better alternative to a section 36 report.

The requirement would be far more effective if it was linked to annual progress plans under section 35B. Linking that requirement to those reports makes more sense because they contain the most up-to-date information on progress in decarbonisation and policy actions, not data from two years previous. That is what amendment 48 in the name of Maurice Golden does. I was glad to work with him on the amendment and explain the rationale for that. I urge members to support it and to reject amendments 38, 39 and 40. Amendment 48 does what they would require, but better. “Dynamic” is the word that I will continue to use in relation to that.

With regard to amendment 13, I accept that a more specific time frame for the laying of a section 36 report in Parliament would be reasonable, but I have concerns about the other elements of the amendment. There is a certain amount of ambiguity relating to the requirement for additional policies and proposals to be included in the report. The Scottish Government’s existing position is that policies and proposals introduced through the section 36 report are additional to those in the climate change plan, whether they are new, strengthened or enhanced policies. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment because of the ambiguity that would be put in by that requirement.

I have said that I am content with a more specific timescale being set for section 36 reports, so I am pleased that I have been able to work with Monica Lennon on amendment 57. It sets the deadline for laying a section 36 report at six months from the date when the corresponding section 33 report is laid. I urge Mark Ruskell not to press amendment 13 and instead to support amendment 57.

Amendment 23 is from Graham Simpson. I say to him that his original view on amendment 48 was right: it is a better amendment. It provides better action compared with the alternatives. There is already a monitoring framework for climate change plans, which includes monitoring risks to delivery. Therefore, with the other provisions in the bill, there would be three annual reports on Scotland’s decarbonisation progress. There would be annual reports on greenhouse gas emissions, annual climate change plan monitoring reports, which would include an assessment of policy implementation, and annual requests to the CCC for a Scottish progress report. That is three monitoring and evaluation points and associated reports.

As we have discussed, Maurice Golden’s amendment 48 requires that if, when preparing a section 35B report, ministers assess that the progress is off track, they must explain why that is the case and what they intend to do to ensure that the target is met. Therefore, I think that what has been proposed in amendment 48 covers the bases.

We have worked with Graham Simpson on amendment 53 and we support it, but I am afraid that I cannot support the other amendments in the group. I will go through them in turn.

I will take together amendments 1, 6 and 53. The legal effect of Graham Simpson’s amendment 1 is unclear to me. My strong view is that it would not be appropriate to mandate sector-level emissions targets, because it is important to keep the balance of effort of each sector under regular review.

We know from experience that there will be significant change in our exact decarbonisation pathway over the long term. New technologies will come online, the cost of measuring different sectors will change over time, and we will need flexibility to take account of possible job and just transition impacts. That is one reason why we all support the bill’s proposals to move to carbon budgets. We need to retain the flexibility to decarbonise in the right way and at the right time and to adjust and adapt our approach in line with a just transition. That is why the CCC has not advised adopting sector-level legal targets.

To the extent that Graham Simpson’s concerns are about having more of an indication of the implications of our proposed budget at the time of considering proposals, I am pleased that we have been able to work together on amendment 53. I have spoken with a number of members about the types of information on the various pathway options that we would be happy to give to the committee and in a statement ahead of deliberating secondary legislation.

Amendment 53 requires an indicative statement on those implications to be set out in the statement that accompanies the draft regulations. That is the right way to provide Parliament with the information that it needs and it will vastly improve scrutiny of the secondary legislation. I am happy to have worked with Graham Simpson on that amendment.

Because amendment 1 seeks to encode sectoral targets in law, I ask Graham Simpson not to press it. On the basis that I support Mr Simpson’s amendment 53, I do not support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 6, which covers much of the same ground.

On the alignment of the timing of the carbon budgets, I ask the committee not to support Mr Simpson’s amendments 3 and 9. I have considered the option of aligning with UK carbon budgets, but I remain of the view that the approach in the bill as introduced is preferable, for the reasons that I stated in my response at stage 1. I will not go over that ground. Mark Ruskell’s contribution was helpful; we have elections at different times, and he made a good point about setting out intentions at the start of a parliamentary session.

Having different time envelopes for carbon budgets does not mean that the Governments across the United Kingdom will not work together. We have always had a four-nations approach to climate change—just two weeks ago, I had a four-nations meeting with all my counterparts across the other Governments.

I turn to Monica Lennon’s amendments 28, 29, 30 and 32. The bill already requires the Scottish Government to receive the CCC’s advice before introducing regulations to set carbon budgets. As drafted, the bill also requires that, when the Government decides not to follow the CCC’s advice to the letter, it must explain the reasons why. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament receive informed and well-judged advice from experts across several policy areas, but that advice rightly informs—not dictates—what Parliament does and the judgments that it makes. My interpretation—and that of my officials—is that Monica Lennon’s amendments would cut to the quick of Parliament’s essential role in making decisions when the Government had set out whether it had accepted the advice, which I do not necessarily think is her intention.

I understand what Maurice Golden is trying to achieve with his amendments, but I will set out why they are unnecessary and could lead to confusing legislation. Amendment 2 is about preventing an unused carbon budget for one period from being carried over to the next period, but the bill already does not allow for that. Budgets will be set by regulations on the basis of expert advice following close parliamentary scrutiny, and it will be possible to increase them only by making new regulations—again, on the basis of expert advice following close parliamentary scrutiny.

There is, very deliberately, no equivalent to section 17 of the UK Climate Change Act 2008, which allows the UK Government to choose to carry over part of the budget. We have done that on purpose, for the reasons that Maurice Golden and I agree on. I therefore do not think that amendment 2 would achieve anything, except perhaps creating an avenue for litigation over whether expert advice or the Parliament’s decision to increase a budget was somehow tainted by consideration of whether a previous budget would be met.

Similarly, amendment 10 tries to address an issue that does not exist in Scottish climate change legislation. The concern seems to be that regulations under section 13 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 could somehow allow carbon credits—units that are purchased on the international carbon exchange—to be used to reduce the net Scottish emissions account in more than one period. However, sections 13 and 13A are very clear that regulations can provide for units to be credited only in respect of a specific period, so amendment 10 is also unnecessary. It is not at all clear what “period” and “next period” mean.

Therefore, with respect, I urge Maurice Golden not to press amendment 2 or move amendment 10, and I ask the committee not to support those amendments if they are pressed.

I have come to the end of my remarks, but it is up to the convener.