³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Sorry to interrupt—

It is not for me to write the financial budget for the Climate Change Committee, but I think that the cabinet secretary was acknowledging the issues around capacity and the need to take that work forward.

I am mindful of the time, but will you take an intervention?

My amendment 6 is similar in many ways to Graham Simpson’s amendment 1. It is about ensuring that there is real transparency in the budget. If we are going to pass a carbon budget, we need to know what the contribution will be from different sectors. When we have set climate targets in the past, that has not been clear, and we need to provide transparency. Amendment 6 would pin the process directly to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, so I gently ask Mr Simpson to withdraw amendment 1 to allow me to move amendment 6, as it is a tighter fit with existing legislation.

On amendment 7, there was a huge sense of loss in Scotland and in the environmental movement when it was decided that it was no longer credible for us to meet the target of a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, because that target represented the hugely important need for action in this decade to tackle climate change and to get on top of the issue. The fact that that target is now not credible and can no longer be met by 2030 is really concerning. It begs the question of when we will get to 75 per cent. People are asking when we will get three quarters of the way to net zero. If we are off track, people need to know by how much we are off track and when we will meet that important milestone.

At stage 1, we had discussions with the cabinet secretary about how the budgets can be interpreted to ensure that the target of 75 per cent can remain and be transparent, so that people can still see the date by which we will meet the target. My amendment 7 would ensure that the aspiration behind the targets of 75 per cent and 90 per cent are still reflected and transparent in the carbon budgets when they are published.

On the other amendments in the group, we have had a big discussion in the committee and the chamber about whether the budget should be aligned to the UK budget or whether it should be a stand-alone Scottish budget. On balance, what is in the bill is the right approach, so I will not support amendment 9. It has almost a ratcheting effect when devolved Administrations bring forward policy innovation. When that is reflected in the climate change plans and set out at the beginning of the parliamentary sessions in Wales and Scotland, it can then be linked into the future development of climate change plans across the UK. I am convinced that that is the right way to go, but I appreciate that there might be different views on that.

I support what Monica Lennon wants to achieve with amendments 28 to 30 and amendment 32. The UK Climate Change Committee publishes advice, which sets out broad pathways, so it is appropriate to act in accordance with that.

I am still not entirely sure what amendment 46 is trying to achieve—I am not sure that Mr Lumsden is either—but I will listen to the cabinet secretary’s views on that.

We will have a debate later about whether a draft plan should be presented at the time of the budget, slightly after the budget or several months after the budget, and amendment 53 is relevant to that issue. Therefore, I ask Mr Simpson to consider not moving amendment 53. However, given that he already has support from the Government, I think that he might move it anyway. We really need to tighten up the woolliness around this matter. I am already thinking about how, if that amendment is passed, we can make the presentation of that information ahead of a budget meaningful. We might need to come back to that at stage 3, because it is far too woolly at the moment, and Mr Simpson knows that.

Good morning. Minister, will you explain why a franchising scheme that is approved by a panel is less likely to be subject to legal challenge than one that is approved by a transport authority? That seems to be a key reason why the Government at the time decided to go down this route.

I welcome the fact that Douglas Lumsden has moved the motion to annul, because it has enabled us to have a full debate, discussion and exploration of all the issues, which I felt were lacking at our previous meeting. It is good that we now have the opportunity to do that.

I believe that there is a strong consensus in the committee and in Government and that we want bus franchising to work in this country, but I cannot ignore the evidence that has been presented. We need to have a fair and robust decision on franchising—that is absolutely critical. It seems that we have two options. If the SSI is annulled there will still be a panel, although it will be a decision-making panel that will be appointed by the traffic commissioner. If the SSI goes through, there will still be a panel that is appointed by the traffic commissioner, but there will be additional guidance from the Scottish Government.

Is there evidence that panels reduce the risk?

You said that we are where we are with the legislation, but 2019 was some time ago, and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge with progress on bus franchising around the UK, so there is now a lot more experience. If you were to revisit the provision through a transport act, would you go down the same route? Given what we know about Wales, is this the best route to go down to secure franchising?

My final question is about the guidance that could come on the back of this Scottish statutory instrument. You understand the concerns that have been raised in the petition to Parliament and I am sure that you have read the evidence and know of the experience elsewhere in the UK. What is your response to that? Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and others have a real stake and an interest in seeing this happen. What is your answer to them? How can you deliver reassurance right now through guidance or interpretation of the SSI?

I am trying to help you to find out what the solution is, because I want to see a solution, too. I want franchising to happen as quickly as possible. We are on the same page, but I am struggling to see what the fix is. I am frustrated for you, because a motion has been lodged to annul the regulations.

I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said. I do not think that amendment 62 contains anything that would require the Scottish Government to fully fund the Climate Change Committee. The amendment relates very much to the work that that committee does in relation to Scottish carbon budgets. It is important that the issue is continually raised. If that is done through interministerial forums, so be it. An understanding of our needs, of the issues that are emerging from deliberation on our climate change plan and the budget and of the CCC’s capacity to deliver on that need to be part of an active conversation.

I will consider whether it is worth revisiting amendment 62 ahead of stage 3, but I do not intend to press it at this point. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has, I think, acknowledged that this is an issue. I think that she has acknowledged that—I am not sure. [Interruption.] She has—right, okay.