Chamber and committees

I am sorry—what did I just agree to there? [Laughter.]

Yes. We need to discuss whether the information that is provided as part of the joint budget review and the information that will be in the roll-out of the approach that is taken to Scottish Government spending generally would be sufficient for Parliament to carry out enhanced scrutiny.

There is room for manoeuvre on amendment 27 but, as it stands, the biggest issue is the practicality of delivering on what is in the amendment, as it is almost impossible to achieve. I am happy to discuss the amendment with Patrick Harvie ahead of stage 3.

Yes.

The Scottish Government cannot support the amendments in the group. On Patrick Harvie’s amendment 60, I am mindful of the need to avoid too many requirements for the assessment of major capital projects, especially when it would provide limited value output. Patrick Harvie’s amendment 17, which is in group 9, also deals with emissions in relation to major capital projects. I will come to it, but that group seems to be the better place for such a requirement and I am happy to work with him on that. I ask him not to press amendment 60 and to work with me ahead of stage 3 on refining amendment 17, so that we can support the proposal.

I cannot support amendments 61 and 63, mainly because I do not think that it is appropriate for the legal system to police how the Parliament undertakes scrutiny. I do not think that this is his intention, but Douglas Lumsden’s proposed amendments would create duties on the Parliament and mandate what it is required to do in relation to reports from the Government under sections 33, 34A and 35B of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. That would mean that parliamentary procedure may be subject to review by the courts if, for any reason, the Parliament was unable to fulfil the duties that are proposed by the amendments. I warn members against supporting amendments 61 and 63 for those reasons. Both amendments would require a committee of the Parliament to report on Government reports within a fixed timescale, and the law would be broken if those timescales were not complied with.

When the Government lays a report before the Parliament that is shared with relevant committees and made available to all MSPs, it should be for the lead committee to decide when and for how long it wants to scrutinise and respond to any such report—that should not be set out in law.

I am also concerned that it would be impossible for ministers to comply with what is set out in amendment 61. It would impose a deadline for a report to be laid more than four months prior to the end of a parliamentary session, whereas greenhouse gas statistics are published in June each year. For the amendment to be workable, the timing of the reports under sections 33 and 34A of the 2009 act would also need to be amended. Amendment 63 has similar timescale challenges. I urge the committee to reject amendments 61 and 63 for those reasons.

The Government supports amendments 56 and 21, but it cannot support amendment 18. I have already said that I want to work with Patrick Harvie on the substance of amendment 17, and I am pleased that he is willing not to press it. I recognise the point that he has made and I support the idea that we set out our approach to assessing the emissions that are associated with capital projects, but the amendment as written does not sufficiently define what a “major capital project” is. I think that we can work together ahead of stage 3—indeed, I hope that we can do so—and get something that everyone is comfortable with by that time.

Mark Ruskell’s amendment 18 and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 56 cover similar ground with regard to the breakdown of climate change plans. Sarah Boyack came to me to set out her intention and the approach that she wanted to take, and she worked with the Government to get the wording of her amendment to a place where we are happy to support it. Before I finish my remarks on amendment 56, I note that it better reflects the intentions of quite a few members who came and told me what they wanted to see in the bill. I urge members to support it over amendment 18, because I agree with Sarah Boyack’s approach.

On amendment 21, which relates to the best-practice approach—

It is perhaps for Ms Boyack to speak to her amendment, but what we like about it is that it accepts the principle of your amendment while allowing for policies to be grouped where necessary, which will provide more transparency. The intention is very similar to that of your amendment, Mr Ruskell, but we like the idea of the groupings, which is why we have worked with Sarah Boyack on that. I am sure that she would want to explain why she has taken that approach, but I hope that Mr Ruskell can see that, by voting for Sarah Boyack’s amendment, he will really get what he wants in the bill.

I have come to the end of my remarks, convener. I am happy to support amendment 21.

You got in at the last second there. It is like a power game.

Yes, and I am happy to write to the committee about any conversations that I have on that at the IMG or directly with the Climate Change Committee.

We have just had a group of amendments on the monitoring and evaluation reports that will be required if we slip back. Our first carbon budget, if it is set next year, will take us to 2030, which means that you will have a report at the end of that carbon budget by 2030.

Convener, I am happy to hand back to you.

The four nations are represented at the interministerial group, where the Climate Change Committee’s capacity, the funding arrangements and the advice that all four nations need to move forward to net zero are discussed regularly. The IMG’s most recent meeting was two weeks ago, when that particular issue did not come up.

The CCC has a new chief executive officer, who I have not yet met. Capacity issues are the sort of thing that she will bring to all four nations as we have those deliberations. I stress that that discussion takes place between all four Governments; each plays its part and each commits to funding its appropriate part. I am not saying that the Scottish Government is doing all the heavy lifting. All four nations do the heavy lifting by taking their equal responsibility for funding the CCC.