Scottish Parliament, 5 November 2024

170 contributions from 29 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is the Rev Dr Graham K Blount.

The Rev Dr Graham K Blount

It is a special and personal privilege for me to be invited back, 25 years after the first time for reflection. Twenty-five years on seems a good time to reflect, and what a day to do it on: a day to remember—to remember a foiled faith-based terrorist attack on a Parliament. That is a disturbing thought for today.

Halfway between Guy Fawkes and today, that Parliament had a major accidental fire. As the Westminster building was rebuilt, there was a competition for artists to submit paintings fit for the new building. One of those has recently gone on display at the national gallery in Edinburgh—it is called “Christ Teacheth Humility”, and it was not accepted for the competition. Officially, they did not like its luscious colours, but I wonder whether its theme did not fit, any more than it might fit in a church pulpit, six feet above contradiction!

There is a lot going on in the painting. Jesus’s followers are embarrassed, having been caught jockeying for position. Some seem uncertain at what their leader is saying; others are so enthusiastic that they might be banging their desks, if they had any. The opposition are horrified at the nonsense that he is talking, and some are hatching a to plot to get rid of him. Clearly, all that did not fit in a Parliament—and anyway, the backdrop has been described as “distinctively Scottish”.

Although the artist’s spotlight is on Jesus, he is pointing not to himself but to a wee child, shifting the focus from himself to someone whom everyone else seems to ignore—a crazy, upside-down way of thinking about who is important.

Humility rightly gets a bad name when it is urged by powerful folk on others to know their place. Here, it is an invitation to get beyond any sense that “we” know best, or that “my” church or “my” party has a monopoly on truth or righteousness. It is an encouragement to listen carefully beyond the loudest voices, beyond those with most to say for themselves. Could those be echoes of the hopes, dreams and visions that we had for this place 25 years ago? I believe that they are still alive here, and outside.

May you, may we—with God—continue to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly.

Oh, and there is one other thing in the picture: a grumpy looking old man on the fringe, more in the “distinctively Scottish” backdrop, seemingly unsure what to make of it all. I am worried that he might be me—ask my granddaughter.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-15226, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Tuesday 5 November 2024—

delete

5.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

4.45 pm Decision Time

Motion agreed to.

Topical Question Time

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I hope I am not a grumpy old man.

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any increased risk to public safety resulting from industrial action by the Scottish Police Federation. (S6T-02168)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Scottish Government greatly values the dedication shown by police officers and, in recognition of that, we have made a very fair offer of a 4.75 per cent pay rise. That above-inflation offer is the same as was awarded to police officers in England and Wales and is the maximum offer affordable, given the severe pressures on public finances. Officers in Scotland have consistently been the best paid in the United Kingdom and our offer would ensure that that remains the case.

I am disappointed that the Scottish Police Federation has asked its members to withdraw good will while the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland continues to progress the claim through its conciliation and arbitration process. In the meantime, I have been assured by the chief constable and by the chair of the Scottish Police Authority that plans are in place to manage the impact of the action.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I hope that the cabinet secretary will forgive me if I am not reassured by the one sentence at the end of her answer that responded to my specific question.

This is a monumental mess of the Scottish National Party’s own making. Morale is at rock bottom in Police Scotland, good will is gone and, starved of resources by the SNP Government, the thin blue line is stretched to breaking point. David Kennedy’s letter of 30 October is a cry of despair on behalf of his members.

The action now being taken by the SPF will see a massive increase in overtime payments and huge gaps in cover. Public safety must always be the primary responsibility of any Government. Does the cabinet secretary accept that this SNP Government is failing in that duty?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I say with respect to Mr Kerr that Scotland remains a safer place today, under this Government, than under any of our predecessors. For the record, we have made a very fair offer of 4.75 per cent.

I point to the fact that this Government has increased investment in policing in every year since 2016 and that that has contributed to a police force that we are all proud of.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Once again, there is not much reassurance on the issue of public safety, given the gaps that there will now be in that very thin blue line. We have the lowest number of front-line police officers since 2007 and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland reported yesterday on the impact of the overall reduction in officer numbers.

That matters. Police officers are leaving the service at the first opportunity, stress-related absence is at an all-time high and shift safety levels are routinely ignored. It is embarrassing that the industrial action by police officers is happening when Scotland is hosting the International Criminal Police Organization—Interpol—in Glasgow.

What will the cabinet secretary do now to fix that mess of the SNP’s own making?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is important to stress to Mr Kerr, and to Parliament, that negotiations continue. Nonetheless, I sought specific reassurances from both the chief constable and the chair of the Scottish Police Authority about what impact the withdrawal of good will would have and how that would be managed.

Thanks to this Government, investment in policing in this financial year has increased by £92 million. That is an increase of in excess of 5 per cent at a time when the consequences of Tory austerity have been very real. I am very pleased to inform Parliament that police numbers are once again rising. That is, of course, thanks to the record level of investment from this Government.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I note the cabinet secretary’s confirmation that the pay claims continue to be progressed through the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland. Will she further explain the two separate processes for police pay and say whether any pay offer will be backdated?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Police officer pay is negotiated through the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland, involving the Scottish Police Authority, Police Scotland and the Scottish Government. Police staff pay negotiations take place through the joint negotiating consultative committee, with the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland negotiating with the trade unions. Those formal structures are important. They provide police officers and staff in Scotland with a collective pay bargaining process and, as I have intimated, that process remains on-going. Once agreement is reached, that is backdated.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I remind members that I am the convener of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group.

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of any potential implications for accessibility, equality and safety for passengers and the public, whether it will permit the reduction in opening hours of ticket offices by ScotRail. (S6T-02170)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

No offices will be closed and there will not be any job losses. ScotRail ticket office opening hours have remained unchanged for over 30 years, but ticket office sales have reduced markedly, from 78 per cent to 14 per cent, over that period. Scottish Rail Holdings and ScotRail have rightly reviewed ticket offices to ensure that they deliver services that meet passenger expectations. The Scottish Government must ensure that ScotRail is deploying its resources in the best interests of passengers. I have considered ScotRail’s proposals carefully and am content with them.

ScotRail’s proposals would see an increase in the hours that ticket offices are open in 12 stations, while there will be a reduction in opening times of less than 60 minutes at 21 stations and a reduction of more than 60 minutes at 33 stations. Making those proposed adjustments to ticket office opening hours will enable the redeployment of some ScotRail staff to provide more and better assistance for passengers—especially disabled passengers. It will also mean that staff are more visible, which will help to deter antisocial behaviour and reduce fare evasion.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary protests that there are no ticket office closures, but ticket offices at 54 stations across Scotland will be closed at parts of the day when they are currently open, although we do not even know where the axe will fall, because the list in the ScotRail press release last week, it now admits, is wrong. Does the cabinet secretary accept that ScotRail has screwed up, not least in applying now-obsolete criteria based on ticket sales alone, when the current procedure for reviewing ticket offices, which is now in force, requires decisions to be based on assistance, safety, security and access? Will she today direct ScotRail to apply the up-to-date tests rather than the defunct ones? Will the cabinet secretary publish the equality impact assessment of the proposed cuts to booking office opening hours?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Particular equality impact assessments have been conducted and they are reflected in the proposals. I hear what the member says about the criteria, but it is important to look at the benefits for safety and, in particular, deterring antisocial behaviour that affects passengers. The visibility of ScotRail staff can help to address that. Trying to provide more dedicated passenger assistance, including for disabled passengers, is also very important as part of the service. The advice from Transport Focus, which represents passengers, has been included. The proposals will go to consultation with unions and affected employees, which will take a period of 12 weeks.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Here are the facts. More than 98 per cent of responses to the consultation oppose the cuts. The Transport Salaried Staffs Association has described ScotRail as

“disingenuous ... putting women and vulnerable passengers at risk.”

The RMT, led by its members on the front line, says that the action is “closure by stealth”.

Does the Cabinet Secretary for Transport not begin to understand that it is a fraud on the travelling public to describe those cuts as “frontline customer service improvements”? Does she not understand how angry people are after cuts to railway maintenance and hikes in fares—and now that station ticket office hours are to be slashed? The Scottish Government is the sole shareholder of ScotRail. Will the cabinet secretary use that shareholder power to intervene?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

There are a number of factual inaccuracies in what Richard Leonard said. He might want to reflect on that, particularly in relation to some of the maintenance budget issues, which I have addressed in the past in a number of letters to a number of MSPs.

The consultation has just started, so Mr Leonard is factually incorrect in referring to a previous consultation. The 12-week period will take us to at least March 2025.

He will reflect that ticket offices are not being used as they were for ticket sales. It is important that we protect staff and their jobs. However, in the consultation that has just started, there will be an opportunity to enable that discussion and dialogue with the employees and the unions to ensure what passengers want and need: more visibility of ScotRail staff, to help them to feel more safe and secure.

I am constantly asked about antisocial behaviour on our railways. The change from having people in ticket offices to their being more visible in our stations and on our trains will be welcomed, particularly by the travelling public.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

ScotRail has stated:

“Where ticket offices see reduced hours, staff will carry out”—

as the cabinet secretary has said—

“other customer supporting duties”,

including

“increased staff visibility”.

What assessment has been made of how the changes can help to increase safety in stations in Scotland?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

ScotRail’s experience is that targeting antisocial behaviour through proactively planning a more visible staff presence at the right locations makes our rail network safer and provides assurance to passengers. ScotRail’s proposed changes in staff deployment will make more than 60 staff actively more available to support passengers in that way. It is estimated that that increased presence will deliver an additional 11.5 million opportunities per year for interactions between staff and passengers. Such interactions help to provide reassurance to passengers and tackle antisocial behaviour.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

In its proposals for Lockerbie station, ScotRail makes the same mistake as it did last time in getting the current opening times of the station wrong. I highlighted that to it at the time, as I did in the chamber to the cabinet secretary’s predecessor. ScotRail also proposes new opening times that make it impossible for staff to sell tickets in time for two of the busiest trains of the day, for the sake of 10 minutes. The proposed new times would also mean that staff would not be there to dispatch some Avanti West Coast services from the station—which, I presume, is a contractual arrangement. Therefore, when the cabinet secretary says that she is content with those proposals, is she really content that ScotRail is misleading the public over the current opening times, and is she content that it has not clearly thought through the proposals for Lockerbie station?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I very much appreciate Colin Smyth’s comments. He knows the detail in relation to Lockerbie station. I am sure that ScotRail will be paying attention to this question, and I expect it to respond to me directly, and to Colin Smyth, to address the points that he has made.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The decision to bring back peak fares has brought back complex, costly and confusing ticketing on ScotRail services. Does the cabinet secretary accept that reducing ticket office hours not only removes passengers’ access to expert ticketing advice in order to get the cheapest tickets but significantly disadvantages disabled passengers who require assistance when travelling on our rail network? What consultation can the cabinet secretary continue with disability rights groups to ensure that those people are not disadvantaged by the changes?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

It is important to reflect that, in particular, access to information points is being rolled out and expanded. That is a requirement from us, to ensure that issues that were raised previously are addressed.

The point about making sure that more staff are available to help people with disabilities on and off our trains is important. The fact that only one hour’s notice is required in Scotland, compared with two hours’ notice in the rest of the UK, is a reflection of how important such issues are to us. The reason that the number of access points is being expanded is precisely to ensure that ticketing information is available.

However, the proposals have to reflect the changes in passengers’ behaviours, such as when they choose to travel, when they choose to buy their ticket and how they propose to purchase that ticket. As we all know, that is increasingly being done digitally.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Can the cabinet secretary guarantee that the changes, if they go ahead, will increase the staff presence and visibility at stations? When office hours have been reduced previously, that has not been the case. I am concerned that the cabinet secretary says that she is content with the proposals when so many concerns are being raised by members from across the chamber.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The proposals have just been announced and we are now going into a period of consultation with the affected staff. The individual points and the reflections of members can be relayed during that consultation. The Transport Focus feedback on the previous consultation has been important in reflecting concerns.

Access to information is critical, but circumstances have changed. It would be odd for any organisation not to change its processes in line with that, particularly if it did not reflect on changes in passenger behaviour, activity and travel times to reflect the reality. Our point is that there has to be redeployment for visibility and accessibility, which cannot necessarily happen if somebody has to stay in a ticket office for extended hours.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes topical questions.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-15206, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on a stage 3 timetable for the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 45 minutes

Groups 4 to 6: 1 hour and 20 minutes.—[Jamie Hepburn.]

Motion agreed to.

Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—Scottish Parliament bill 51A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage 3 proceedings. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 1—Scottish carbon budgets

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to group 1. Amendment 1, in the name of Monica Lennon, is grouped with amendments 2 and 5. I call Monica Lennon to speak to and move amendment 1 and to speak to the other amendments in the group.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I will speak to and move amendment 1, and I will speak to the other two amendments in the group.

At stage 2, Scottish Labour felt that it was important to amend the bill to require the Scottish Government to act in accordance with the advice that it received from the Climate Change Committee. For that reason, I lodged four amendments to achieve that aim, which were approved by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. However, after stage 2 was complete, I discussed with the Scottish Government whether that was the best approach. Helpfully, we received a swift letter from the Climate Change Committee, which had clearly been paying attention. It explained that it is not its intention to set policy for the Parliament or Government, and that it is important that it maintains its role as an advisory body. Scottish Labour reflected on that position, and we agree with that.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for meeting me and Sarah Boyack last week to try to find a form of words that would achieve a compromise while still trying to strengthen the bill, which is what members from across the Parliament have wanted all along.

The effect of amendment 1 is quite simple. It deletes the part of the stage 2 amendment that talks about—I have lost my train of thought; I have too many scribbles on my sheet of paper—the Government acting in accordance with the advice from the relevant body, which would have bound the Scottish Government to take the advice, and instead inserts:

“take into account the most up-to-date advice they have received from the relevant body.”

In this case, that is the Climate Change Committee. I hope that that makes sense to colleagues, and I am grateful to the Government for its co-operation.

There is not much to say on the other two amendments in the group, but we believe that amendment 2, in the cabinet secretary’s name, is necessary because, at stage 2, an amendment passed that referenced provisions in another amendment from Mark Ruskell that was ultimately not passed at stage 2, so amendment 2 is an attempt to simplify and tidy that up.

Amendment 5, in the name of Mark Ruskell, aims to provide a super-affirmative procedure for carbon budget regulations, which he raised at stage 2. At stage 2, I worked with the cabinet secretary to introduce a pre-laying procedure for future carbon budgets, which mirrors procedure that is already in law in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. I understand Mark Ruskell’s aims, and we support the principle behind them, but we feel that in practice, the bill as amended at stage 2 provides a sufficient balance between scrutiny and timely action due to the new procedure under new section A5 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, so we will not support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 5.

I move amendment 1.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am pleased to begin in the spirit of collegiality that has been a feature of progress of the bill. I thank everyone who has taken advantage of my pledge to have an open door with regard to hearing what they want from the bill and has engaged with me in working together to achieve consensus. That was shown ahead of stage 2 and over the past week ahead of stage 3. I am pleased that there is agreement with the other parties on the vast majority of the amendments.

I have worked with Monica Lennon on amendment 1 in the group, and I hope that it will be supported by all members. I understood Ms Lennon’s desire at stage 2 to ensure that the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee’s advice is given proper respect when we set our carbon budgets, but, as Ms Lennon said, the CCC has written to make clear that it does not want to be put in the position of determining, rather than advising elected representatives on, what levels to set carbon budgets at. I am grateful to Monica Lennon for her willingness to work with me and my officials to find a balanced amendment that emphasises the crucial role of the CCC without placing that panel of experts in an uncomfortable position.

The phrasing of amendment 1 aligns the language in this section to the equivalent provisions in the UK, Welsh and Northern Ireland legislation. It emphasises the importance of the CCC’s advice while allowing the final decisions to be made by the Scottish Parliament, thus ensuring democratic accountability. It is a sensible and balanced approach, and I urge members to support it.

Amendment 2, in my name, and amendment 5, in Mark Ruskell’s name, are alternatives to one another. I urge members to support amendment 2 and not to agree to amendment 5. At stage 2, there were alternative amendments providing for enhanced scrutiny of carbon budget-setting regulations after the first regulations. I supported Monica Lennon’s amendment, as did the committee, which means that budget-setting regulations will be subject to the robust enhanced scrutiny process that is set out in section 97 of the 2009 act for other types of regulations under the act. That is the right additional scrutiny process for budget-setting regulations.

The other pair of amendments on the subject were from Mark Ruskell. Confusingly, one of the pair was agreed to but the other was not, leaving the bill cross-referring to new section A4A, which does not exist. My amendment 2 is a tidying-up amendment to remove what is now an erroneous reference.

Amendment 5, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is basically the same as the amendment that the committee did not agree to at stage 2. Again, it seeks to insert a section A4A, which was cross-referred to.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that what was agreed by the committee in Monica Lennon’s stage 2 amendment is in effect a super-affirmative process that will follow the pre-laying procedure that we already have in the bill?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As a result of my amendment in this group, what we are doing is more of a tidying-up exercise. Of those two amendments, one did not get passed, whereas the other one effectively takes forward the will of the committee. As I say, it is a tidying-up exercise on my part.

Like the committee at stage 2, I do not support inserting section A4A into the 2009 act. The bill as it emerged from stage 2 is in the right place when it comes to enhanced scrutiny. I hope that that answers Mark Ruskell’s point. As the bill stands, section 97 of the 2009 act will require engagement before draft regulations are laid for the approval of the Parliament, on a wider and more thorough on-going basis than proposed new section A4A would do.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We all agree on the importance of scrutiny of carbon budgets, and of committees having enough time to do that. We all agree that, ordinarily, it would be important to go through a super-affirmative procedure. There is obviously a rush to get the first carbon budget approved but, ordinarily, committees would be taking time to gather evidence and to consider whether the budget is adequate. At stage 2, I effectively introduced a super-affirmative process into the bill, which would have enabled committees to consider a pre-laid carbon budget for 120 days. As has now been clarified, Monica Lennon has proposed a slightly different amendment, which would enable committees to take 90 days to consider the carbon budget.

I am content with where we have got to. We have heard a clarification from the cabinet secretary. I will not be moving amendment 5; I will accept the cabinet secretary’s amendment 2. That will tidy up where we have got to at stage 3.

On amendment 1, I accept that the UK CCC is an advisory body, but it is not an elected Parliament. It is this elected Parliament, ultimately, that needs to make decisions on targets. I am happy to accept that the wording is now better at stage 3.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and Mark Ruskell for their comments. I hope that colleagues now understand what happened at stage 2 and agree that we have now got to a better place.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 2 is on setting Scottish carbon budgets: explanatory statement. Amendment 3, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendment 4.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I have one, simple, amendment in the group, which takes out one word: “broadly”. The bill reads:

“A statement under subsection (5) must also set out, in broadly indicative terms, the proposals and policies in relation to each of the sectors mentioned in section 35(3)”.

It then goes on a bit.

The wording is the result of an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I and other members felt that the phrase “broadly indicative” was rather woolly, so the happy compromise that I reached with the cabinet secretary was to take out the word “broadly”—and, broadly, that is where I will leave it.

I move amendment 3.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 4 requires ministers to indicate in which carbon budget period Scotland will achieve a 75 per cent cut and a 90 per cent cut in emissions. Members will be aware that those figures represent the percentage cuts to emissions that were attached to the 2030 and 2040 targets in our climate legislation. The bill removes those targets and replaces them with a mechanism to set carbon budgets.

Members will recognise that there was considerable dismay earlier this year when the Government finally admitted that the target of a 75 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 was beyond reach. This is the moment when those targets are being removed from legislation.

I am pleased to have worked with the cabinet secretary to ensure that, in the forthcoming climate plans, there will be public transparency, so that we will be able to see when Scotland will meet the 75 per cent target and get three quarters of the way to net zero. We will also be able to see the date for meeting the target of a 90 per cent reduction in emissions. That is important for public transparency. This is not about setting up a shadow set of targets to run alongside the budget. It is important that the public and stakeholders can see how far on or off track we are on the original and important targets that were set.

I welcome amendment 3, which tightens up the language that Graham Simpson sought to introduce at stage 2. It will also ensure that we get more detail on the policies that the Government intends to introduce whenever the draft carbon budget is presented to Parliament.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will be brief. I am pleased to have worked with Graham Simpson and Mark Ruskell on both the amendments in group 2. I will support amendments 3 and 4, and I encourage other members to do the same.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

In the spirit of consensus, I advise that Scottish Labour, too, will support amendments 3 and 4. Graham Simpson was uncharacteristically woolly at stage 2, and I am glad that the wording is to be sorted out through amendment 3.

I agree with Mark Ruskell on the need for amendment 4. Scottish Labour strongly agrees that such a mechanism will provide a useful yardstick for monitoring how well we are doing on reducing carbon emissions. The key reason for our supporting it is the importance of the public having understanding, and amendment 4 will improve transparency.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Does the cabinet secretary wish to respond to Ms Lennon’s comments?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have no more to say on that, Presiding Officer.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Graham Simpson to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or seek to withdraw amendment 3.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I will press amendment 3. As everybody seems to be happy with that, I will be happy to leave it there.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Section 2—Replacement of annual and interim targets with budget targets

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 3 is on anticipating and responding to failures and anticipated failures to meet emissions reduction targets. Amendment 6, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, is grouped with amendments 11 and 12.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Like Monica Lennon with her amendment 1, I find myself in a position where I had a win at stage 2, when I got some amendments in, but I am unpicking some of them at stage 3. My stage 2 amendments sought to put a timetable in place for the committee and the Parliament. However, following discussions with the cabinet secretary, we felt that that would tie not the Government’s hands but Parliament’s. We therefore looked for a better way of achieving our aim. I am happy to have worked with the cabinet secretary to lodge amendments 6 and 12, which work together.

The other amendment in the group is Mark Ruskell’s amendment 11. Its changes to wording would add to the bill, so I will be happy to support it.

I move amendment 6.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 11 seeks to tighten up the language from an amendment by Maurice Golden that was agreed to at stage 2. That amendment required ministers to set out their response to failing to meet a carbon budget. I agree that that is needed and I sought to make a similar change at stage 2 to a different part of the bill. I accept the Government’s preference for achieving the intention through section 35B reports; there is a strong logic behind doing so.

Amendment 11 adds to the text from Maurice Golden that was accepted; it adds that ministers’ reports must set out the policy changes that will be made in response to a carbon budget not being met. That will ensure that ministers set out more detail about how they will respond and the changes that will be implemented using the most up-to-date data on Scotland’s emissions reduction.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for constructive discussions on the issue. I think that the amendment improves the bill’s transparency and it will improve committee scrutiny and public awareness.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government supports all three amendments in the group. Amendments 6 and 12 from Douglas Lumsden revisit the effect of two of his stage 2 amendments, as he said. I am grateful that he has been willing to work with me to do that. I entirely appreciate the intention behind his stage 2 amendments, which was to ensure that Parliament promptly and properly scrutinises emissions reports. However, as I said at stage 2, I do not think that it is right to, in effect, involve the courts in policing how Parliament undertakes scrutiny and allocates its time. Amendments 6 and 12 fix that issue.

I support amendment 12, which places a duty on Government to seek to make a statement in Parliament about an emissions report or to send copies of such reports directly to the relevant committee conveners.

Mark Ruskell’s amendment 11 strengthens the provision that I worked with Maurice Golden to develop at stage 2 by adding another level of detail to reports under section 35B of the 2009 act, which I feel would be beneficial. As such, I am happy to support all the amendments in the group, and I urge all members to do the same.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Scottish Labour will also support amendments 6, 11 and 12. The amendments align with our aims to increase parliamentary oversight, to improve transparency and, as Mark Ruskell mentioned, to get the extra detail that we felt was perhaps going to be lacking otherwise. We will therefore support the amendments.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Cabinet secretary, would you like to respond?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

No, thank you.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Douglas Lumsden to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 6.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have nothing to add other than to confirm that I will press amendment 6.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Section 3—Next climate change plan to follow setting of budgets

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 4 is on the climate change plan: deadline and procedure. Amendment 7, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 8 to 10.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The amendments in this group are focused on the procedure for producing climate change plans. I thank Labour and Green MSPs, in particular, for their collaborative approaches to the development of these amendments.

Amendment 7, in my name, fixes an error in an amendment that I worked with Sarah Boyack on at stage 2. I apologise again to Ms Boyack for that error, and I am grateful for her co-operation in working with me to fix it. Ms Boyack cannot be here today, so I have lodged the correcting amendment.

The correction is simply to ensure that the deadline for producing a draft of the first climate change plan is two months from the setting of Scottish carbon budgets, rather than that being the deadline for the final version of the plan, which would not be possible because of the length of the scrutiny period that the law requires in relation to the draft plan.

With amendment 7, I am also taking the opportunity to firm up the deadline for the final version of the first climate change plan so that it has to be laid before Parliament within a fixed period from the end of the scrutiny period in relation to the draft plan. The fixed period is 90 days, but half of those days must be days on which the Parliament is not in recess or dissolved.

My amendments 9 and 10 are minor technical amendments that I mentioned at stage 2 I would lodge to tidy up some of the provisions that were added by amendments from Mark Ruskell that I supported. Amendment 9 simply removes words that cross-refer to section 9(1)(d) of the 2009 act in a way that risked creating ambiguity about whether the extra consultative step would need to be taken if the timings did not quite line up correctly with the process that is described in that section. The Government is clear that the additional step should be taken in those cases, and that removing the words at the start of the provision will make that clear.

Amendment 10 is another minor fix, to tidy up grammatical errors.

I am happy to support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 8. Of course, the Government would consult on its policies and proposals for the climate change plan anyway, so I am content with that being formalised.

I urge colleagues across the chamber to support all the amendments in the group.

I move amendment 7.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 8 would require ministers to set out in a statement to Parliament their plans for holding public consultations on future climate change plans. I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2. I thank the cabinet secretary for continuing that discussion with me ahead of stage 3.

It is absolutely clear that the Government must lead a national conversation on the transition that we as a society need to make. We also need to respond to public concerns and accept the public’s challenge to go further.

A range of approaches have been tried, including deliberative democratic approaches, citizens panels and citizens assemblies. Ultimately, it will be for the Scottish Government to decide how it wishes to engage with the public on the tricky, difficult and challenging decisions that need to be made. It is important that we get social licence from the public to make those changes. Involving people directly and as early as possible in those conversations is really important.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments about my colleague Sarah Boyack. We had good discussions last week, and Sarah Boyack appreciated the cabinet secretary’s willingness to fix some of the oversights at stage 2. It is good to have that sorted.

On Mark Ruskell’s amendment 8, which we support—in fact, we support all the amendments in the group—we had a good discussion on the intention behind his amendment at stage 2, only a week ago. We understood and supported the principle, and amendment 8 gets the right balance.

This is an opportunity to remind the chamber that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has heard strongly from the climate change people’s panel that the public want to be involved and consulted in a very dynamic way. A raft of recommendations are sitting with the Government. However, those are not just for the Government to reflect on; they are for other public bodies to reflect on, too.

Amendment 8 is important. Indeed, anything that reminds us that we need to take the public with us on that journey and get the best ideas from as many people in Scotland as possible can only be a good thing.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I do not have anything else to say.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

After section 3B

Amendment 8 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Section 3C—Preparation of climate change plan: further consultation

Amendments 9 and 10 moved—[Gillian Martin]—and agreed to.

Section 3E—Report on proposals and policies where targets at risk of not being met

Amendment 11 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Section 3G—Annual progress reports on climate change plan: further procedure

Amendment 12 moved—[Douglas Lumsden]—and agreed to.

After section 3G

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 5 is on assessing the impact of major capital projects. Amendment 13, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is the only amendment in the group.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

At stage 2, I lodged an amendment on the emissions impact of major capital projects. I explored a number of ways in which that issue could be fitted into the new legislative framework, and whether it should align with the carbon budget report, the climate action plan and various other points in the cycle.

I think that it was understood and accepted that there needs to be some way of ensuring that the Government reports on an assessment of the impact of major capital projects—on some of which the Greens will disagree with others in the chamber. There will be major capital projects that others make the case are compatible with our climate ambitions but which Greens would criticise. We can have that debate in an informed way only if those projects are properly and rigorously assessed and we have the information available to us in order to make those judgments.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank Patrick Harvie for taking an intervention. There are a couple of points on which I seek clarification. He referred to major capital projects. When would a capital project become a major capital project? Is there already a definition of that? Are we talking about capital projects that are owned by the Government or would that include the private sector?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I was about to come to the specific framing of the new amendment and the changes that have been made since stage 2, but I will address those points now.

I worked with the Government and listened to its response to the arguments that I put at stage 2. It suggested a form of words for amendment 13, which, as Mr Lumsden will see, includes placing in brackets the words

“as defined in the plan”

in reference to the impact of major capital projects. Therefore, it is the plan itself that will define what is considered to be a major capital project, and it will be for the Government to make that assessment. The plan must be presented to Parliament, so Parliament will scrutinise the judgments that the Government made in reaching that definition.

We have a clear example of the gap in the information. A climate compatibility assessment has been conducted of a major transport project that the Government continues to promote and which Greens continue to criticise—the dualling of the A96. That assessment is with ministers and has not been published. How on earth are we to be able to make informed judgments about future capital projects and their compatibility with climate plans in the absence of such assessments?

I am grateful that the Government has seen fit to support an amendment to fill that gap in the information, and I hope that amendment 13 will have the support of the chamber.

I move amendment 13.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Monica Lennon.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

At stage 2, we were a little unsure about the wording of Patrick Harvie’s proposal, so we appreciate the further work that has been done since last week. For that reason, we are content to support amendment 13.

Douglas Lumsden asked a fair question about the definition of a major capital project. It is a question that we had, too, but I think that the wording of the amendment is reasonable. There will be proposals in the plan. The principle behind the amendment is welcome and we can support it.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We do not feel that we can support amendment 13. There is still a little woolliness with regard to what might constitute a capital project in the future. It is still not clear whether that would always include the private sector. I also heard the reference to the A96, and one of my fears about amendment 13 is that it might be used to stop projects such as the dualling of the A96 and the A9.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I was pleased to work with Patrick Harvie on amendment 13. I support the requirement for the Scottish Government to set out in its climate change plan the definition of major capital projects and how they will be treated. That has given Parliament more information, which is the right thing to do.

The reports that we produce under section 33 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 at the end of each carbon budget period will require to set out details of assessments that are carried out on that basis during the budget period that is covered by the report.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Patrick Harvie to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 13.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I have no additional comments to make. I wish to press the amendment.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division. As this is the first division, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the division on amendment 13. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I lost my connection, but I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr McKee. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Clark. I will ensure that that is recorded.

I can advise you that your vote had already been registered.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Burgess. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app, but I would have voted against—no. [ Interruption .]

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Matheson. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Sorry, Presiding Officer—I would have voted yes. [Interruption.]

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Matheson.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My connection dropped, but I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Thomson. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you clarify whether Michael Matheson’s vote was a yes or a no? Originally, I heard him say no, and I would like to know whether members can change their vote.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That is not a point of order, Mr Lumsden, but I confirm that I accepted Mr Matheson’s clarification that he voted yes.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I lost connection to the app, but I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Minto. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 81, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 6 is on financial resources to meet emissions reductions targets. Amendment 14, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is grouped with amendment 15.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am glad that everyone is logged in in time for this last group—although, on this occasion, I do not think that it will do me much good.

I want to take members back to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. In the passage of the bill that became that first climate act, 15 years ago, I moved an amendment making the case that we needed a degree of scrutiny of the Government’s budget—not of the carbon budget that we are discussing at the moment, but of the annual finance budget, which, I argued, needed to be scrutinised through a climate lens. There is a good degree of consensus that we need proper and robust scrutiny of everything that the Government does under the heading of climate action, including the climate change plan and so on. In addition to that, however, I feel that we need to bring a climate lens to our scrutiny of all Government action, including all Government spending.

I therefore moved an amendment at that point, and the committee and the Government at the time agreed that there needed to be a carbon assessment of the budget every year. We were debating that at a time when no one had ever done it—no one, in any country, had ever conducted a carbon assessment of their budget. It was a piece of work that was about innovation and creating a new methodology, and we all acknowledged at the time that the methodology would change, evolve and grow over time and that we would learn by doing.

Although I think that the methodology has improved and that it still adds some value, what has always been missing is independent scrutiny of the Government’s budget in climate terms, which is what I have sought to propose, both today and at stage 2 of this bill. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to which the Government and others—quite reasonably—objected on the grounds of timescale—that is, that it would not be possible for Parliament to independently scrutinise the Government’s budget in climate terms in the short time available between the UK Government passing a budget, the Scottish Government introducing a budget, and then Parliament passing it.

What I am suggesting now is that, instead of that scrutiny taking place within the budget process, we set a later date within each financial year, which we align with the end of May or the period just before the summer recess. That is the timescale within which the Government has an agreement that, in normal circumstances, it will present the medium-term financial strategy. That is not to say that the document specified in my amendments should form part of that medium-term financial strategy; it will be looking at one year’s budget and asking whether it adequately funds the action necessary to be compatible with the carbon budget.

However, climate action works over a longer timescale, and so does the Government’s medium-term financial strategy. At that moment—at that fiscal event, if we like—the Parliament will be asking all those longer-term questions, such as whether we are heading in the right direction and whether we are going to achieve what we are setting out to do.

The key issue is that we are missing the independent nature of financial scrutiny. The Scottish Fiscal Commission—which I would consider to be the appropriate body to carry out that independent assessment—gave evidence to the committee at stage 1 of this bill. Graeme Roy said:

“Nothing in the annual fiscal budget says, for example, what we are spending on net zero, so how can you have a bill that says what our ambition is and what progress we are making on the targets, if you are not able to trace that through to whether the Government’s spending action is consistent with that? Is it overachieving, overambitious or underachieving? That is one piece of the jigsaw that has been missing.”

And it remains missing.

Parliament’s scrutiny, of both the budget and wider climate action, would be stronger and better informed if this aspect of the budget was subject to independent scrutiny, in the same way that other aspects of the Government’s fiscal policy are subject to independent scrutiny. We pass tax resolutions through Parliament, but the Government’s tax policy is first assessed by a body with the appropriate fiscal expertise—the Scottish Fiscal Commission—to tell us whether that tax policy will generate the revenue that the Government expects it to. We, as a Parliament, would not be in a position to make those decisions in a well-informed way if it were not for that independent scrutiny, and I am seeking to add that to the bill with regard to the connection between the fiscal budget and the carbon budget.

I expect that the Government will argue that that would imply somehow that it is only the Scottish Government’s budget that is relevant to the investment in spending that we need in order to comply with the carbon budget. Of course it is not: every level of Government—the UK Government, the Scottish Government and local government—has a role to play, as does private investment, both by companies and by individuals and households, in redirecting our entire economy towards our net zero ambition.

As a Parliament, however, we have a responsibility to scrutinise the Government’s budget as it presents it, and that scrutiny needs to be well informed with regard to the alignment between what the Government says that it wants to achieve on climate action and the contribution that it is making to achieve compliance with the carbon budget.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am following what Patrick Harvie is saying. On that basis, would he also expect local government, when it is setting a budget, to have regard to the Scottish Government’s carbon budget?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I would urge local authorities to do so, but we are passing legislation in the Parliament, and I am suggesting that we consider our responsibilities as a Parliament in the decisions that we make.

We do not scrutinise and pass or reject local government budgets—it is for councils to do that. Our job is to scrutinise and pass or reject the Scottish Government’s budget, and that task will be better informed if we require the Scottish Government to have independent scrutiny brought to bear by a body with the appropriate fiscal expertise. In that respect, I have in mind the Scottish Fiscal Commission, and I think that what I am suggesting is very much in line with the evidence that the SFC itself gave at stage 1.

I look forward to hearing what the Government has to say. I do not expect that it will support my proposal at present, but I hope that it recognises that, as Graeme Roy said, a

“piece of the jigsaw ... has been missing.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 10 September 2024; c 12.]

If what I am proposing is not the solution, I would be interested to know from the Government what it thinks that the solution is.

I move amendment 14.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to Patrick Harvie—I think that he will recognise that Scottish Labour members tried to be open minded at stage 2, and asked him some questions in order to get some clarity. However, although we are sympathetic to his aims in lodging amendments 14 and 15, which I think are alternatives to each other—is that correct?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Yes.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Nevertheless, we are still not fully persuaded by the proposed amendments.

When we discussed the issue with the Government last week, there was a willingness on its part to go away and look at what Patrick Harvie is trying to achieve to see whether something can be done. I will listen to what the cabinet secretary has to say in a moment.

As Patrick Harvie probably knows, we are not yet fully persuaded. However, I would be interested to know whether there are other measures outwith the bill that the Government could look at that would help to achieve those aims. Patrick Harvie makes an important point about the important connection between the fiscal budget and the carbon budget. As he knows, Scottish Labour members would agree with anything that will improve scrutiny and alignment, but in this case, I am not convinced. Given the fact that he has lodged two different amendments on the same issue, I am not sure that he is fully convinced either, but I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am grateful to the member for reminding me that I should have been clear in my opening remarks: I am aiming at alignment with the medium-term financial strategy, but that document has not been produced every year, so I am offering two alternatives. One amendment refers specifically to alignment with that strategy, while the other sets a specific date rather than referring to the strategy.

My preference would be for the first of the amendments that we are going to vote on, but either option would be viable to enable the Parliament to have before it the information that it needs, and in time for in-year budget revisions to address the concerns that are raised.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to Patrick Harvie for that further clarification. I repeat my point: Scottish Labour members are still not persuaded. I am happy to listen to what the cabinet secretary says, but I think that it is unlikely that we can support amendment 14.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I think that Patrick Harvie is doing Parliament a service by lodging his amendments, although he will not be surprised to hear that I will not support them. Towards the end of his contribution, he made the point that there are lots of moving parts in relation to the financial contribution that is needed to meet our net zero commitments, which include not just the Scottish Government budget but the UK Government, local authorities, private sector investment, businesses and consumers, who will have to bear a burden.

I am unsure whether amendment 14 is intended to get some independent scrutiny to ensure that the Scottish Government will, through its fiscal budget, provide the entirety of the contribution that is needed to meet its net zero commitments. The moving parts mean that if private sector investment increases, the Scottish Government might be able to decrease its contribution, and if the UK Government meets its responsibilities, more money might be in play for the Scottish Government to meet its net zero commitments.

I am not sure how amendment 14 fulfils the role that Mr Harvie wants it to, but there is merit in having this conversation in Parliament.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I hope that Bob Doris recognises that, in any one financial year—because I am suggesting that we examine each year’s fiscal budget in isolation—we will be very aware of the context. We will know what UK Government policy is and what kind of changes have been made in the investment that is being brought to bear by the private sector, which needs to play a role in reaching net zero. We already have to consider each year’s fiscal budget on its own terms, in the wider context of how the rest of our economy is shaping up, and the connection with climate and with our emissions trajectory is no different.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I take Mr Harvie’s points on board, but he is talking about one year’s budget, whereas if this legislation is passed, the Scottish Government will produce three five-year carbon budgets over a 15-year period. That goes far beyond one year and those budgets will be predicated on what private investment might look like in five or 10 years’ time. Boiling that down to one year’s financial budget when the moving parts include UK Government investment, what businesses and the private sector will pay and what local authorities and consumers will pay is not the way forward.

I will finish here. I have made this contribution because I think that it is important for the Scottish Government be clear about any gap in funding to meet our net zero ambitions. That gap is not necessarily down to the Scottish Government, but could be down to the UK and Scottish Governments, local authorities, private sector investment, consumers, businesses and many others. We must identify what the gap may be, and it will not always be the responsibility of the Scottish Government.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I listened to Mr Harvie with interest, and I have also discussed this issue with him. I agree with Bob Doris that it is important to discuss this, because it is important to give as much information as possible about any funding gaps and about any assessment of how the Government spends its money.

I said at stage 2 that a pilot piece of work is being done to look at how Scottish Government spending relates to our net zero ambitions and to the carbon emissions associated with those. That work is in train, but I agree that there may be more work to do in designing and implementing a process that will provide meaningful information about how Government spending decisions support us in meeting our emissions reduction targets. I do not think that tying that process down in legislation is the right way to do it. We need to see how the pilot is rolled out and to assess how effective it has been.

I am open to further discussion of those issues with Patrick Harvie and with committee members. However, as we all know, budget processes are established and complicated, so there are some fundamental problems with his amendments.

First, we know that funding for policies to deliver on our carbon budgets will come from across our economy—including from the private sector—and not only from the Scottish Government. Bob Doris has made that crucial point, and Monica Lennon made it at stage 2, but it is not reflected in Mr Harvie’s amendments. Amendment 14 refers to

“the financial resources being made available”

but, as drafted, it is unclear whose financial resources are being referred to, which would mean that any such document could only partially set out the resources required to meet our carbon budgets.

The formulation of amendment 14 is such that it calls for the provision of information about the resources that are needed to ensure that a carbon budget target is met, with a medium-term financial strategy covering at least five years. That may seem to make sense, because carbon budgets will typically cover five-year periods, but the amendment also says that the information is to be provided only in relation to the financial year in which the report is laid before Parliament, rather than requiring information about the resources that will be needed throughout the whole period that is covered by the strategy. That is confusing and I think that it would result in even less understanding of the resourcing of emission reductions. However, there is work to be done, and I am happy to do it.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

rose—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Patrick Harvie to wind up and press or seek to withdraw amendment 14.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I thought that I was intervening, Presiding Officer.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Oh. I call Patrick Harvie to intervene, then.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Thank you.

I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Clearly, we disagree on some points, given the objections that she raises. However, she talked about the pilot, and I would like to know whether she is in a position to give an explicit commitment that the work that the Government is developing will be subject to external independent scrutiny, whether that is by a body such as the Scottish Fiscal Commission or another independent body with the appropriate expertise. There will be circumstances where the Government marking its own homework, if you like, will be appropriate, and other circumstances where it will not be. There will be situations where parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate and places where it becomes a bit of a political football. To my mind, that independent scrutiny is the critical missing piece of the puzzle. Is the Government in a position to give an explicit commitment that what it is developing will be subject to independent scrutiny?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I take the point about independent scrutiny of what we are doing. It is a really good point. At the moment, the pilot is an internal process. We want to embed it in the work that we are doing, but the finance secretary and I—she is sitting next to me—have to have a discussion on what would be appropriate in this area. I give Patrick Harvie a commitment that we will look into it, because his point is well made.

Amendment 15 suggests that there should be a statement in each financial year about what resources have been made available in that year to meet the multiyear carbon budget. That is impractical and it could lead to information being presented in a confusing way, as Bob Doris mentioned. I agree that improvement is needed in that area, and I have set out both at stage 2 and today some of the work that the Government is doing. I take Patrick Harvie’s point. This has been a useful debate but, unfortunately, the Government cannot support amendments 14 or 15.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

At the second time of asking, I call Patrick Harvie to wind up and press or seek to withdraw amendment 14.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am grateful to members who contributed to the debate on the group. I am sorry that, as it seems, we are not in a position to change the bill to achieve what I am looking for.

I will respond briefly to a couple of the points that have been raised. The spending that is set out in the Scottish Government’s fiscal budget each year is, of course, not the only thing that will contribute to the spending and investment that are necessary to make the transition to net zero and align Scotland’s path with the carbon budget. Many other sources of funding and investment, including the private sector and the UK Government, are critical. However, that situation is not unique to climate; it applies in pretty much every other policy area. If the Government sets an objective in the field of health, for example, its achievement will be partly dependent on health spending and the investment that the Government makes through its budget for the NHS and the necessary services, but it will also be set by a host of other factors that affect public health, from individual behaviour through to the behaviour of corporations, given the goods and products that they sell, and other changes that are happening in our economy. Poverty and inequality will impact directly on health.

That does not mean that we should not set long-term objectives for health in Government policy, and it does not mean that we do not need to scrutinise whether each year’s budget contributes what is necessary to help to keep us on track on Government policies. In that sense, climate is not different from other areas in which we expect to scrutinise the Government’s budget and its ability to deliver on Government policies.

I will press amendment 14 to a vote, simply in order to register the concerns that I have raised. I hope that, in time, the Government will accept the need to close the missing area of scrutiny to fill in what Graeme Roy described as the missing jigsaw piece and to ensure that budgets are subject to independent scrutiny with a climate lens.

I press amendment 14.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry, but I could not get connected. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Choudhury. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 102, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 14 disagreed to.

Amendment 15 not moved.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That ends consideration of the amendments.

As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether or not, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter; therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.

Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a stage 3 debate on motion S6M-15168, in the name of Gillian Martin, on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button, and I call Gillian Martin, Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, to speak to and move the motion.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I open the debate by thanking colleagues from across the parties who have contributed to the bill in the spirit of reaching consensus. Over the past couple of weeks, some who are in the chamber have been in my office as much as they have been in their own. That engagement has paid off, and the bill is better as a result. We have shown that, by working together, we can achieve through discussion the changes that we want to see.

We have worked together because we are all aware that it is only by working together that we can achieve our shared aim of reaching net zero. In the stage 1 debate, I said that we are tremendously lucky that every single party that is represented in the Parliament believes that climate change is a real and present danger to human safety and our environment. That is not the case in every Parliament. There are no climate deniers here, and we should be proud of that.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We need to look at how other countries have put their targets in place and reflect that perhaps the targets that the Scottish Parliament gave us in a bill put us in that position. No other United Kingdom Parliament did that; other Parliaments always gave themselves flexibility. It is a double-edged sword, because we want to show ambition, but that is not enough. We have to take the action that is associated with that ambition. We have to take into account other things that might happen, such as pandemics; we did not see that coming. We have also had inflation and the economic situation, which has had an impact. Things that happen outwith our borders, such as the illegal Russian war with Ukraine, have also had an impact.

Other Governments and Parliaments have not put themselves in that position. I hope that what is in the bill will keep our foot on the pedal with regard to the action, but the climate change plan is where the action really is. It will also not put us in a position where we break the law. We need to reflect on that as a Parliament. Some of the measures in the bill to have more information about when carbon budgets will be agreed will be very helpful in that respect.

I want to go through some of our successes and achievements in reducing our emissions. Our tree planting stats show that we planted 75 per cent of all new woodland trees in the United Kingdom over the past year. We have more than halved the emissions associated with energy in this country, and we have improved our renewable electricity capacity. We have put a raft of policies in place, but the fact is that they are not enough.

Scotland cannot be siloed. We have to work together, not just within the UK but across Europe. The best way forward is always to look at what we can do in the devolved space and what we can do in partnership with other Parliaments and Governments across the UK on the shared things that have an impact on all our ambitions.

I would like everyone in the chamber to bear in mind that we all collectively need to get behind the action that is associated with reaching net zero. That includes working with other Governments, working with our constituents and understanding the fears that they might have around some of the things that they need to do to get to net zero and having a social contract with people on what we need to do to get us there in a just and fair way.

The bill will establish a carbon budget approach to target setting, moving from linear annual targets to a set limit on the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted in Scotland over a five-year period. The expert advice of the Climate Change Committee will be taken into account when we make those decisions in secondary legislation.

That change will help us to account for in-year fluctuations such as harsher winters and support us to put in place strategic and fair long-term plans. The bill will also enable those carbon budgets to be set through secondary legislation, as I said, using the expert advice of the CCC.

If the bill is approved, it will lay the foundations for the next steps that we must take to reach net zero by 2045, and it will present five-year carbon budgets to take us to 2045.

After the bill is passed—and I hope that it will pass—we will urgently seek advice from the CCC on setting the levels of the five-year carbon budgets, and we will introduce regulations. The climate change plan has been worked on throughout the process, because we know that we will have to take decisions on the actions to follow the setting of those carbon budgets.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary—I said “minister” earlier—makes an interesting point, which I reflected on when we debated the first climate legislation. At stage 3 then, we had a competition for the most ambitious amendments that people could make. Every single political party sought to make that bill stronger. There are climate deniers here, but they know that they are not allowed to say so openly, because those opinions are not given the space that they are given in other countries. That every party sought to make the bill stronger did not help us, though—did it? That fact did not keep us on track with the ambition that was set. Would the cabinet secretary like to reflect on why that did not happen?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Patrick Harvie makes a point that I am going to move on to, which is that it is not enough to set targets or to state our ambition. In the way that we have all worked together on the bill, we have to work together on the action that is required. That is a lot more difficult than what we are doing today. Today, we are looking at how we are measuring and how we are taking on advice from the Committee on Climate Change. However, we know that some of the options to reach net zero will be challenging and difficult. Anyone who voted on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill in 2019, which set the very ambitious targets that we missed, needs to reflect on why we missed them and what was not done to achieve them.

I hear the words of Roseanna Cunningham ringing in my ears: she said that it is not enough to set targets, and that we have to vote for the action. More than that, it is incumbent on everyone in the chamber to come forward with their ideas about how we can accelerate action in a way that is just. We have heard comments about where the Government’s spend is. When we make our proposals in the budget, we have to recognise that we have also set very challenging net zero targets. Every time we come to the chamber with measures that will reduce emissions, we need to bear in mind the responsibility that we have to ramp up action. That is my reflection.

I am grateful to members for providing scrutiny and advice under considerable time constraints. I record my appreciation to the committee for facilitating my accelerated timetable for the bill. It was not easy. I thank the clerks, members of the committee and colleagues in the Scottish Parliament information centre who supported members. I am grateful to the many stakeholders and individuals who reacted to that timescale and provided their views and expertise. I also thank my private office staff, who have been a major support to me. My heartfelt thanks go to my bill team—who are sitting at the back of the chamber—for their hard work, support and expertise during the progression of the bill, and for facilitating and helping other members from across the chamber to draft their amendments. I hope that everybody gets a well-deserved rest after today, but not for too long, because we have important work to do on putting our climate change plan together.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

What lessons can the Scottish Government learn from what was, frankly, the timetabling crisis that happened because of the concerns about missing the previous dates that were set into statute, which would have occasioned a potential breach of the law?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I appreciate that you have been very generous in taking interventions, but please bring your remarks to a close.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We have learned a great deal about how our targets system operates and how it might work better, but we must now put that experience into practice.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the committee and the devolved Government, which have worked together to make significant improvements to the bill. There has been true collaboration, and I give credit where credit is due. I commend the Government’s approach to the bill. It has worked with Opposition parties to improve amendments, and—importantly—it has explained and discussed why some amendments were unworkable. I guess that that is why at stage 3 we had only 15 amendments to consider and only two votes.

The bill is now at a point at which the Scottish Conservatives can support it; but, of course, this is just the start, and tough choices will have to be made in the future. More needs to be done to reach net zero, and we will continue to hold the Scottish Government’s feet to the fire on the hugely important issue of climate change and our journey to net zero, because its record in this area has not been great. The devolved Government has failed to meet its climate change targets, it has failed to address the challenges that we are facing, and it has failed to set out a clear plan on how, together, we can achieve net zero.

The stage 1 report by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee did not pull its punches on how the bill needed to be improved, and I, along with fellow committee members, other MSPs and the cabinet secretary, have worked hard to ensure that some of the committee’s concerns have been addressed. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking on board some of those concerns and addressing them in the bill.

I said in the stage 1 debate:

“The issue is too important, too big and too vital—its significance is too great—to rush through without adequate thought or thorough examination.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2024; c 86.]

I still feel that that is the case, and I would have welcomed more time to work with colleagues on the issue. However, we are where we are, and we must move forward.

There have been welcome improvements following stage 2, and it is worth reflecting on some of them. I thank my colleagues Graham Simpson and Maurice Golden for their helpful amendments requiring the Scottish Government to share an indication of what policies and proposals might be included in the next climate change plan, including the requirement for a cost benefit analysis to be published for the period covered by a Scottish carbon budget. Importantly, a further amendment from Maurice Golden requires the Scottish Government to assess whether the carbon budget will be met.

One area where we did not manage to agree was the issue of alignment. The majority of evidence that we heard in committee supported alignment with the UK carbon budget. It was disappointing that the Scottish Government did not go down that road, but I am sure that we can make the arrangements work. I know that Northern Ireland has aligned, but Wales is not doing so, so I fully accept that there were arguments on both sides of that debate.

The amendments that have been agreed through the passage of the bill have strengthened it, particularly on accountability. That is badly needed in the Scottish National Party Government, which has failed Scotland and our green industry in past years. It has failed to achieve its key climate change targets in nine out of 13 years, it is set to fail to reach four out of its six recycling targets for 2025, and it has failed to publish its draft climate change plan.

During the stage 1 debate, I expressed concern that having the new bill

“will mean nothing if the devolved Government does not follow it up with actions.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2024; c 88.]

The energy strategy is a prime example of that.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Does Douglas Lumsden accept that part of that future success will involve having the same kind of approach to our climate change plan as we took with the bill and that all the parties in the Parliament need to come forward with their ideas and collaborate on what a climate change plan will look like?

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I absolutely agree. The way in which the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill has been handled and the approach to the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, for example, have been like chalk and cheese. We have all benefited from that, and we now have a much stronger bill at the end of the process.

As I was saying, the energy strategy is a prime example. We have been told for months that it is imminent, but there is still no sign of it. During the stage 1 debate, I asked the cabinet secretary to intervene and tell us when it would be released. I repeat that invitation now. Can the cabinet secretary tell us when the strategy will be here?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It will go through Cabinet first, but it is imminent. It was only a couple of weeks ago that I said that.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention, but this is the problem. We have been told that the energy strategy is imminent and ready. We were told that it was delayed because of the general election and that it requires Cabinet sign-off, but the Cabinet meets every Tuesday, so what are we still waiting for? The industry is waiting for it—it is waiting for the direction of travel and the certainty—but the strategy instead seems to be being kicked down the road while jobs in the north-east are lost.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the bill as a step on the way, but more should and must be done. We need to see a draft climate change plan as soon as possible after the Climate Change Committee delivers its report, next spring. This party wants there to be a new independent office for net zero, which would work with and scrutinise public bodies and their progress to net zero. We would establish a national centre for green jobs that was based in the north-east, with a manager who lived in the north-east of Scotland. I thought that I would clarify that for our Labour colleagues, who think that GB energy should be based in Aberdeen but managed by someone 350 miles away, in Manchester.

The Scottish Conservatives want to continue Scotland’s role at the forefront of energy. We, of course, support a transition for our oil and gas sector, not the cliff edge that it is facing under the devolved Scottish Government and Labour at Westminster.

We support the bill as a step along the way, but more must be done to bring us to net zero. Difficult choices lie ahead.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am pleased to speak on behalf of Scottish Labour. Before I turn to the bill and the amendments that we have just agreed to, which are, in large part, technical, it is important to put on record our sympathy for the hundreds of people in Spain whose lives have been devastated by the current emergency—the dead, the missing, the families left behind and the front-line workers who are risking their lives to save others. Our thoughts are with them. The scenes that we have seen in recent days have been, frankly, unbelievable and really difficult to witness.

As we conduct the debate, we should all be reminded that the climate emergency is not something that is happening far away. It is not a tomorrow problem but a right-now one. It is also a matter of life and death. I am pleased that we have the chance to discuss our shared passions for how we tackle the climate and nature emergencies, but we currently have real-time reminders that we cannot just talk about them—we need action. It is not a shortage of ideas that has brought us to where we are on the bill. Across the Parliament, members are passionate about addressing the climate and nature emergencies, but we need bold and radical action that has finance behind it.

Like other members, Scottish Labour colleagues are frustrated that we are at this point today. We would much rather be discussing the climate change plan and all the other exciting projects that we need to see. We know that not all of those will be easy or plain sailing—there will be debate about the action that needs to be taken—but that is where we need to get to. Scottish Labour has been clear that our approach to the bill would be based on being constructive and trying to find consensus. The bill was narrow in scope for good reason. We lodged amendments that were aimed at strengthening and improving it, and we managed to do that. We have worked with other colleagues on their amendments. Even when we could not support those, we always sought to find some common ground.

However, from the briefings that members received in advance of the debate, it is clear that stakeholders, including WWF Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland and the Stop Climate Chaos Scotland organisation share our frustration. People are a bit fed up and they really want to see progress being made.

Scottish Labour will continue to work with the Scottish Government. Without wishing to embarrass the cabinet secretary too much, I would like to say that it has been refreshing to work with Gillian Martin and her officials. I think that I am more familiar with her office’s cushions and interior than I am with my own, because we have all been in and out of there so often in recent weeks—it is as though it has had a revolving door. We are all a bit exhausted, because committee and other colleagues have worked really hard around the clock. It is important to recognise the efforts of Government officials and Parliament staff. It is not ideal to have to work at such pace; we want to have proper time to consider proposals and ideas. However, in getting to where we are today, following the stage 2 and stage 3 processes, we have arrived at a good place. I hope that we will continue to have dialogue and try to find consensus and common ground.

I hear what other members say about the issues that remain unknown—the bills, strategies and plans that we have still to see—not all of which sit with the cabinet secretary. That is a hint to the Government that those need to take absolutely top priority. That is why we need progress on a heat in buildings bill, the final energy strategy and just transition plan, and an action plan to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent by the end of the decade, as well as support for our rural communities.

The opportunity is huge. If we get the action right and make progress, the gains will be not just for the environment but for our economy and our communities. The bill is an environmental, economic and social imperative. As I said at the start of my remarks, it is a matter of life and death for people and the planet.

We support the bill at stage 3, and I look forward to working with the Government and colleagues in the months ahead.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

First, I pay genuine tribute to Monica Lennon for making the choice to open her speech by recognising what we mean when we use jargon phrases such as “the climate emergency”. This is here and now, and it is life and death. Monica Lennon was quite right to remind us of that.

Throughout this afternoon’s proceedings, I have been struck by—and a bit upset by—the extraordinary gulf between the atmosphere in the chamber today and the atmosphere when we debated the Scottish Parliament’s first climate change bill 15 years ago. Back then, there was a huge demonstration outside the building, showing the anger and urgency, but also the optimism and determination of a host of civil society organisations, which came together in Scotland as a climate movement that was more powerful than any political party or the Government at that time. That is what forced every political party in the Parliament into what I described earlier: a race to lodge more ambitious, more constructive and bolder amendments to strengthen the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill during its passage, which is why we ended up with ambitious climate targets—well, those original climate targets felt ambitious at the time.

The atmosphere in the chamber today—when, for the most part, we have been simply nodding through technical amendments to a piece of framework legislation—tells us something about how we really feel about the bill. I think that we are a bit embarrassed by it, and I think that we should be a bit embarrassed by the need for it.

The first two climate change acts were statements of bold ambition, but the bill is an admission of failure. We need to own up to that and own it collectively, because that failure is largely a result of political choices that have been made. Even 15 years ago, when we were debating the first bold set of targets and racing for amendments to strengthen the bill, the Government was equally happy to celebrate a road-building programme; there was legislation to block or unravel road-pricing legislation that had been set in the first session of the Scottish Parliament; and a host of other policy choices were not being made in a way that was consistent with the bold ambition on climate targets.

Shifting from one legislative framework to another, what do we have in the bill? There are the multiyear carbon budgets, which is fine. I accept that the intention behind annual targets and achieving annual accountability to make it more likely that the Government would stick to a plan did not work—so, multiyear budgets? Fine. The bill includes accountability. It is not perfect, particularly in relation to the budget issues that I raised earlier.

However, the problem is not what is in the bill but what is missing at the moment, and that is the context of urgent policy action. I do not expect a full climate change plan right now, but I expect urgency. However, the assessment of the A96 is stalled and sitting on ministers’ desks unpublished; the energy strategy and just transition plan are stalled, too; there is a 20 per cent car kilometre reduction target, but nothing is happening on that; progress on rail fares and nature restoration is in reverse; and, this week, we find out that the Government is confirming significant job cuts in the heat in buildings programme—yet, without that programme, there is no credible climate change plan, and there cannot be one.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Is there time in hand, Presiding Officer?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member can come in briefly.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I need to clarify that there will not be cuts to Home Energy Scotland; that programme is continuing.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

We will certainly explore that, as the Government’s quote in response to The Scotsman article seemed to suggest otherwise.

The fundamental question is this: how are we to have any confidence in a new framework? It is not enough simply to pass the framework, just as it was not enough to pass the original framework and the original climate targets. We need to have confidence that we will not wait for Climate Change Committee advice, the carbon budgets or the climate change plan, but will take action now on the issues that are already stalled. It is only by doing that that we will have confidence that the new framework will be effective. If it is not effective, I fear that we will be in a repeating cycle, and we simply do not have time to waste.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I apologise to Patrick Harvie for having to briefly step out at the very start of his speech.

Like others, I commend members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, witnesses, clerks and others for the work that they carried out in a truncated timeframe. Since the stage 1 debate, we have seen an impressive and fairly intensive amount of work carried out in a collaborative way, and I include the collaborative tenor and tone of the debate on the amendments this afternoon. I welcome that and I, too, acknowledge the part that the cabinet secretary has played. I would not suggest that I have spent more time in her office than I have in mine, but during our last meeting, she gave me the wrong office number, so she was clearly trying to divert me to one of her colleagues. Nevertheless, that collaborative approach is very much to be welcomed.

As Monica Lennon said, we are dealing with an issue in the here and now, so where do we go from here? A bit of context is necessary. To my mind, there has been a bit of historical revisionism. That has been less the case in today’s debate, and I exclude the cabinet secretary from my comment, as her candour on the matter has been pretty exemplary.

However, there has been a suggestion that Parliament set up the Government to fail. Yes, the targets that were set in the previous legislation were challenging, but the UKCCC made it clear that they were achievable. Indeed, former First Ministers and ministers were very quick to talk about the world-leading climate change legislation that had been passed by the Scottish Parliament and pioneered by the Scottish Government. There were no caveats; no one was saying that we had no idea how we were going to achieve the targets.

Patrick Harvie and the cabinet secretary were right: target setting has always been the easy bit. I think that it was Chris Stark who referred to it as the “sugar rush” phase. Chris Stark headed a UKCCC that was clear that the targets were stretching but achievable, subject to appropriate actions being taken by the Scottish and UK Governments and others. However, the UKCCC repeatedly and consistently warned about the lack of action plans. It was not that Parliament rejected those action plans but that the UKCCC never saw the action plans as credible. The blame invariably lay elsewhere, and we have to move away from that approach. Again, I acknowledge the way in which the cabinet secretary has gone about piloting this important legislation through Parliament.

I turn to the bill. The carbon budgeting framework is an appropriate way forward. I am more relaxed about the lack of alignment with the UK budget, recognising that, as most members did, there are pros and cons in different approaches. The flexibility that is provided is one that we can take advantage of, but it requires us to have a laser-like focus on the climate change plan and on the other actions that will lead to the delivery of those ambitions.

My final point is about transparency and scrutiny. The detail is absolutely integral to any chance that we have of hitting the targets, and that has been the weakness up until now. The detail will be vital not only for Parliament’s scrutiny role, but for stakeholders outwith this building, who have a role and involvement in that process. Mark Ruskell made important points about consensus when speaking to his amendments earlier.

However, that we have the bill is a reflection of failure, and we cannot afford to find ourselves in that position. The handling of the bill gives cause for optimism, but all the speakers in the debate so far have acknowledged that the hard work and tough decisions are yet to come. Scottish Liberal Democrats are committed to playing our part in that process, and we look forward to voting in support of the bill at decision time this evening.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate with speeches of around four minutes. I call Michael Matheson.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Like a number of speakers in the debate so far, I would prefer that this piece of legislation was not required—I suspect that that is also the cabinet secretary’s view. However, we have reached a point where, as the Climate Change Committee said, our 2030 target is no longer achievable within the existing timeframe and with the policy options that are available to us.

This legislation gives us a good opportunity to reset the framework that will drive us forward to achieving our net zero target by 2045. The carbon budgeting method that has been set out has been enhanced by the scrutiny of Parliament and is in a stronger place now than it was when it was introduced. It gives us a better and stronger framework to ensure that there is greater stability with regard to how we manage the process of achieving our net zero targets.

One of the problems with the target levels that we had set in bill was that they did not give much scope for flexibility or some of the variations that will inevitably occur over a particular timeframe. However, I agree with Patrick Harvie that the key issue in that regard will be not so much the framework itself but the policy options that we pursue to ensure that we deliver on the framework that is set out in the bill. As I said in the stage 1 debate, the low-hanging fruit is well and truly gone. We are now in a position where we will have to make very significant and challenging decisions to ensure that we can deliver what the legislation is intended to achieve.

I believe that, across the chamber, there is a consensus on the need for us to achieve net zero. Certainly, the majority of members agree that it is imperative that we achieve net zero, given the impact that climate change is now having on our environment. We can see that impact in some parts of the world just now, including in Spain, which Monica Lennon referred to. Therefore, it is critical that we continue to move at pace in those areas.

There are a couple of really important areas that we need to focus on as we move forward. In order to achieve net zero here in Scotland—and within the timeframe that we have set—the areas of investment that will be necessary to make that happen will require fiscal stability. That will require the UK Government to continue to invest in net zero in order to allow capital investment to be made here in Scotland in the areas that will help us to achieve net zero. For example, one of our big emitters is energy in housing. We require public and private capital to address that, and the UK Government’s approach will be critically important to achieving that. We will need joint working between Governments and fiscal stability to allow long-term planning to be implemented and taken forward effectively.

Another big area of change is behaviour change. Monica Lennon referred to a 20 per cent reduction in car journeys, and behaviour change will be needed to achieve that target. That will require a change in how we use things such as road tax. Will we shift away from fuel duty and road tax, which are based on carbon emissions, to a system that is based on road tolls? Some would argue that that is the approach that we should take, because that will have an impact on people’s behaviour. However, agreement across the UK would be required to make that work effectively. Although we might say that that is the right thing to do in Scotland, it might be difficult to achieve that because the UK Government is not prepared to pursue that.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

On the point about behaviour change, which is always an important and interesting issue, does the member recognise that it is very difficult for people in Scotland to shift away from cars and to use public transport when there are big areas in our country where there are no buses to get on or where buses do not come when people need them? The situation has been really deteriorating, and we have discussed it a lot in committee. Bus deserts are emerging in Scotland, even though people have a bus pass if they are under 22 or over 60. Does the member agree that we need to get serious about that?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I do not disagree with that. However, I am saying that we will require political leadership across the UK to achieve some of the targets. It will require us to make decisions that, at times, prove not to be popular. Right across the Scottish Parliament chamber, at local authority level and at UK level, we will require the right political leadership to ensure that the policies that will deliver the outcomes that we need can be delivered. That will require us all to work collectively.

I believe that the bill is in a stronger position now than it was when it entered Parliament, and that the framework that the Government has set out in the bill will deliver net zero by 2045, with the right policies alongside it to achieve that.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Graham Simpson, who joins us remotely.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I hope to make a brief contribution—which, I know, will be popular with members.

Today, we are being asked to pass a bill that would not have been necessary if the Government had done its job. Patrick Harvie called it an embarrassment and “an admission of failure”, and he was right about that. We are being asked to dig the Government out of a legislative hole. As WWF has said,

“The need for this Bill is frustrating but it makes the best of a bad situation—we need to see action from government that will put our climate and nature ambitions back on track.”

We have the bill because the Government failed to meet legally binding climate change targets or to produce a draft climate change plan by the end of this month, despite having promised to have it ready more than a year ago. That is why the bill has been rushed through. The Government was unable to abide by the law, so it has had to change the law.

Members are well aware of the background, so I do not need to go over it, but we have had a series of missed targets. Friends of the Earth Scotland said in its briefing:

“The 2030 target set by the 2019 Climate Change Act was ambitious but completely achievable.”

It went on to say:

“The need to amend the targets now is solely down to Scottish Government inaction”,

and it is right about that. The briefing went on to call for

“urgent and radical action taken now or the 2045 target will not be met.”

Like others, I welcome the constructive approach that the cabinet secretary has taken in working with us and others at stages 2 and 3. I suspect that Douglas Lumsden and I have not been in her office quite as often as Monica Lennon has, but we are superefficient. I have to say that I agree with Douglas Lumsden that the approach was in marked contrast to our experience during the passage of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. This bill is better for that collaboration.

We have had a number of amendments at stages 2 and 3, which I think have improved the bill, but the test will be whether it makes any difference at all to people’s lives. We do not know, because that requires plans and policies that are missing. We need to see the heat in buildings bill and, as others have said, a plan to cut car miles, if that is still the Government’s ambition—if it is not, the Government should just stop pretending that it is. None of this will be easy. Let us hope that there is more collaboration when it comes to doing the hard stuff.

I am happy to support the bill.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the stage 3 debate. I welcome the work of the committee and the amendments to the bill, which I believe have strengthened it. However, it is more than disappointing that we are having this debate today and that the targets that were previously set in law will not be achieved. The cabinet secretary made her case very reasonably, but we have to accept that we will all suffer as a result of the failures to take action not just here in Scotland but across the UK and, indeed, the world.

As Monica Lennon said, we need only look at the dreadful scenes in Valencia this week to see the potential consequences of our failure to act. Although it might be hard to draw direct links between climate change and individual events, extreme weather events will become more common and more disruptive to our daily lives. As they do so, as we are already seeing, it will become clear that it is not just about isolated weather events that cause so much damage but about the on-going effect of a new climate on our interconnected world.

Climate change is not just a shocking event elsewhere but a global process that will affect us all, from disasters to everyday increases in the price of food and disruption to supply chains. It is therefore very difficult to put a financial cost on what climate change means.

We need to take action in many areas, including by reducing our reliance on oil and gas, which requires serious work. Therefore, it is very disappointing that the Government has missed nine out of its 13 targets, including eight in the past 12 years. We need to recognise that many environmental activists are angry and shocked by the decision to move away from the targets that were set. However, as politicians, we need to accept that those targets were simply not going to be met and that there has been a lack of ambition across our political institutions and a failure to grapple with the magnitude of the crisis that we face. As Patrick Harvie said, we are going backwards in many policy areas, and we are simply not taking many of the actions that are required to meet the targets that we discuss in the chamber.

I will support the bill, as it recognises where we are, but I hope that it will be a starting point in taking more of the real action that is needed and in seeing the depth of the climate crisis for what it is: a process that requires us to change how we organise our society. From how we transport goods and produce energy to which food we eat and how we travel, there is a need for fundamental change to how we manage emissions and the economy more broadly if we are to have a liveable planet. Climate change is not just happening in other countries; it affects us all. In the Parliament, we need to work collectively, across the parties, to show leadership and to match the warm words of politicians and the Government with action.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to closing speeches.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I join other members in thanking the clerks, SPICe and the witnesses, who helped us to deal with what has been an incredibly rushed parliamentary process for the bill. I also thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their constructive engagement, over the past couple of weeks in particular, as we tried to make sense of the amendments that we could lodge in the time that we had available.

We are five years on from the Parliament’s declaration of a climate emergency and 15 years on from the setting of those first important targets. However, there has been a failure to take early action to meet those targets. The cabinet secretary is right to say that there is consensus in the Parliament on the importance of tackling climate change and on the targets, but there has not been consensus on the importance of taking immediate action to tackle the crisis. That is what we need to build as we go forward. In this debate, there has been the beginning of an understanding of our failure in not taking action, but we need to move forward in that regard.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Will Mark Ruskell give way on that point?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Unfortunately, I am really stuck for time.

Importantly, the bill does not erase the 2045 net zero target, which remains the north star and what we are aiming for. However, by removing the 2030 and 2040 targets, the bill makes the pathway to net zero a lot steeper. There has been a failure to take the early action that could have ensured that we were on a smoother pathway to 2045. That action has not been taken, so we will not meet the target of a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. I agree with Katy Clark that the fact that the opportunity to take early action was not taken has left many people shocked and angry. It is going to get a lot harder, and action is going to have to ramp up.

This is a narrow technical bill that, in effect, provides Parliament with a stronger role. With carbon budgets, we will get a better opportunity to scrutinise, and we will get better sight of what policies the Government will bring forward to back up its budget early on. There will be a climate change plan that will, finally, follow the budget pretty quickly, and there will be more public engagement on the back of that. If the Government fails to meet targets, there will be better catch-up reports, with more detail. There will also be a stronger link to CCC advice.

All of those are good things in relation to the Parliament’s job of scrutinising the Scottish Government, but there are still elements missing. It is disappointing that Patrick Harvie’s amendments on financial budgets were not agreed to, because we heard great evidence on that from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, and it is clear that there is a critical role for independent scrutiny.

As Michael Matheson said, we need to get into a position of fiscal stability between the Governments. There needs to be a serious, central commitment to delivering on climate change ambition, which needs to be funded by all Governments. What we have—what the cabinet secretary talked about—is a commitment to a net zero test. That is important for the Government’s own internal thinking about financial budgets, but we need to see independent scrutiny.

Many members have reflected on the failure of policy. We have continually seen one step forward and then two steps backward on climate policy. We are looking for the energy strategy just transition plan to come out soon and for it to deal with some of the contradictions, such as the fact that carbon capture and storage is still an uncertain technology, and that Peterhead power station will lock us in to using gas for decades to come. We need certainty on the A96. We need an ambitious heat in buildings strategy. We need road traffic demand management, which—I agree with Michael Matheson—needs to include road tolling and pricing: we need an honest conversation about that.

I am sure that the bill will pass at decision time, and members may be tempted to applaud that. The Greens will not be applauding—we will be abstaining on the motion to pass the bill, because it is an admission of failure. The only way forward is to double down on the action that is desperately needed to tackle the emergency, and we all have a responsibility to do that in the years ahead.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

It is a pleasure to close on behalf of Scottish Labour at the end of interesting stage 3 proceedings and an interesting stage 3 debate.

I thank the committee, clerks and all those who have supported the advocates and politicians with regard to timetabling of the bill. I also thank my colleague Sarah Boyack, who apologises for being unable to be here due to a commitment that could not be moved.

I will spend the short time that I have looking at how we got here, not over the long term—the past decade or so—but at the timetabling of the legislation and, in particular, the expectations that were placed on this Parliament and the net zero committee by the Scottish Government.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response to my intervention at the beginning of the debate. It gives an insight into the challenge of perception by the Scottish Government and the Parliament. Before I deal with that, however, I put on record my thanks to the cabinet secretary for the sea change in approach to members of this Parliament—both members of the Scottish Government’s own party and members of other parties across the chamber—and for the open-door approach that was taken.

A cynical person might have said that that was in part due to the timetabling, but I would like to think that the experience has shown that, with an openness to the cross-party ideas, solutions and strategies that exist in this Parliament, we can, if not necessarily reach consensus, improve legislation by taking both sides’ points of view into account and seeing the challenges. There is a way through.

In this case, the bill has had to be expedited because of the timetabling. Nonetheless, to echo the view of most members around the chamber, we now have a much better bill than we began with, and while it is clear that some members are unable to fully support the bill, they will not object to it.

I think that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament can learn, from the experience of the past six or seven weeks, that there is a different way of doing policy. To echo contributions from members around the chamber, this narrow bill is just the start. It is, to a certain degree, a measure of the failure of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. Nonetheless, it shows what we can do by opening up the issues and having the discussions. In considering the climate plan that needs to be brought forward, there will be opportunities to reach consensus across the chamber.

That is important, because—to echo almost every speaker today—now is the time for action, as we cannot wait any longer. We have strengths in the system in this Parliament, and we should use those to bring forward policy and make plans and decisions that people outside the Parliament can see, contribute to and help to build. When the matter comes back to the Parliament, therefore, we can, while perhaps not quite speaking with one voice, speak with a substantial majority to say that there are very hard decisions that have to be taken but those decisions can be made, and there is strong agreement on what follows.

However, that approach has to come first and foremost from the Scottish Government in its leadership. We have heard examples of where there have been failings over the past decade or so; I could go into that, but there is no value in doing so. There is an opportunity here. Having backed ourselves out of a cul-de-sac, let us look at the roundabout of opportunity that sits in front of us. We can draw on that, and make the future brighter for—as Patrick Harvie said—those many hundreds, nay thousands, of people who turned up a decade and a half ago to celebrate the passage of the 2009 act. Let us re-establish that enthusiasm, not because people are despairing, but because they see an opportunity for a different future.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Edward Mountain to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I advise Mr Mountain that I can continue to be generous, as we still have some time in hand.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer—I fear that you might not need to be so, but your generosity is always gratefully received.

In closing, I note that we need to remind ourselves why we are here today: to discuss a climate change bill that was introduced because we failed to reach our targets. Those targets might have been challenging, but they were achievable, and it is wrong to blame anyone but the Government for failing to meet them.

We came here to discuss a bill that was talked about in May but not released to the committee until September. While I understand that the committee and the clerks, and everyone else, worked very hard to get the bill through the various stages, I say to the cabinet secretary that it would have been helpful if the bill had been released when it was first talked about. That would have meant that further evidence could have been gathered between May and now, which would have allowed the committee to form a more informed opinion.

I, personally, am disappointed that, despite the number of times that the committee asked the Government for information on the bill, it was rebuffed at every turn, but that is where we are. As a committee, we were given a very tight and pressured timescale in which to look at the bill, with stage 2 being discussed only on the Tuesday shortly after recess. Stage 2 amendments were lodged during recess, and stage 3 amendments had to be lodged by last Friday lunchtime. That is hardly an acceptable way to do legislation, and we could have done it in a much more considered way.

At this stage, I find myself perhaps agreeing—well, not perhaps; I agree—with Patrick Harvie. It is a sad day, because we have now accepted that the targets that we as a Parliament have set ourselves will not be achieved. That is sad news, but I believe that there are some benefits. For example, carbon budgeting will give us a better way by which to achieve our net zero targets.

Another reason for sadness is that this Parliament has decided that it is not appropriate to align with the UK on carbon budgets. In my life, experience has taught me that if you try to rush ahead of what everyone else is doing, it invariably means that it will cost you more, as you will be using newer technology, which probably will not last the pace as you require it to do.

In conclusion, I congratulate everyone on working together, which we all have, but we had to do so because this Government was in danger of breaking a law that had been passed by the Scottish Parliament.

We are where we are. I look forward to receiving the climate change plan and the carbon budget when they arrive and hope that the Government will expedite those as soon as it has had advice from the Climate Change Committee and as soon as the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee—if I am still on it—has had time to give further thoughtful consideration to the targets.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call the cabinet secretary, Gillian Martin, to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government. I can continue to be generous with time.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will talk until you tell me to stop, because a lot of points have been made in the debate, and I want to address most of them.

I will not go over what the bill does, because I did that in my opening speech and because we are familiar with what it achieves. It changes the mechanism for setting our carbon budgets and for looking at and assessing the information that is required by the whole Parliament before we make decisions on what goes into our climate change plan and the ambitions that we set.

I have reflected a lot on what we did in 2019, when we set an interim target of a 75 per cent reduction in emissions. That was always the most challenging target. No one likes to fail: I do not like to fail and no one here likes to fail. We wanted to be in a position to reach that 75 per cent target, but a lot of people told us how difficult that would be.

Monica Lennon has just been to Iceland for the Arctic Circle conference, which I went to just after we set those 2019 targets. I was having a bilateral meeting with the then environment minister, who was a climate specialist, and he genuinely nearly fell off his chair when I mentioned our target of achieving a 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. He used some quite fruity language, which I will not put on the record, as he asked, “How are you going to do that?”

I have never forgotten that, but I do not feel that setting a target that people criticise and say that we cannot meet is, in itself, a bad thing. That target accelerated action, even though we have not met it. That is a source of great regret to everyone—would that we had met it. It was always extremely challenging.

Patrick Harvie made a great point that I have heard made by many others: the fact that we have set targets is not enough to allow us to pat ourselves on the back or to go round the world telling people how great we are for doing so. Big deal. We must work collaboratively, within Parliament, on the ways in which we are going to get there. More than that, we must be able to articulate those ways to the people we represent, because none of this is going to be easy or cheap.

Michael Matheson made a point about fiscal sustainability. We talk about decarbonising heat in buildings. Why does the country that produces the most green energy of any of the four nations in the UK—and a great deal more than any country in the European Union—still have most of its homes being heated by gas? That is the case because it is cheaper to heat your home with gas. As someone who is the cabinet secretary for net zero and was the minister for climate action, on being confronted with a situation in which I need to replace my boiler—my house is not suitable for a heat pump—I am told at every turn, when I phone round, that putting in electric heating would be the most ridiculously stupid thing that I could do.

Therefore, we need market reform that recognises that we are a green electricity-producing country, and I am pleased to say that I am having collaborative discussions on that area with the new UK Government. Under our four-nations approach, I regularly meet Huw Irranca-Davies of the Welsh Government, Andrew Muir of the Northern Ireland Assembly and my counterparts in the UK Government. We need to recognise that there has to be fundamental market change and systems change in order to do the big stuff, but the big stuff is expensive stuff, and we must recognise that we are going to have to communicate that to our constituents and get their buy-in for what is necessary.

I do not want to get into any finger pointing. Enough of that goes on in the climate change debate. We are all responsible for the action that is required to deliver on climate change. It is not the responsibility of any one Government or only of local authorities; it is the responsibility of all of us individually and collectively.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

It is important that we do not leave Parliament today having given the impression that this is just too difficult. It was not the targets that were the problem; it was the lack of action. The cabinet secretary has had a lot of compliments today on her approach, as she has been very open to colleagues.

However, what lessons has the Scottish Government learned? If we are to make the progress that we need to make, we need to see leadership and collective action across Government. I note that the First Minister is now in his seat. Can we get a few words of comfort that the Government has learned lessons? The fact that we are here today has to be a wake-up call.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The First Minister has four priorities, and net zero is one of them. It is obviously something that his Government has decided to prioritise.

I was about to go on to say that, at the moment, things are happening to decarbonise the whole of the UK—there are ambitions around that. However, I sense that, when we go out and speak to our constituents, some of the things that are happening can look unpalatable, such as transmission infrastructure developments. We must have a situation in which communities feel that they will get something out of such developments. That is another area in which I am working with the other Governments in the UK to make sure that the communities that are hosting developments and infrastructure for energy in particular feel the benefit of that. That needs fixed.

I will move on to another thing that needs fixed. There can be no one-size-fits-all interventions in this space. In the debate, I heard a lot about car use. I work closely with the transport minister in everything that she does. Indeed, I work closely with a lot of Government ministers, because action on climate change does not sit only in my portfolio. There is no one-size-fits-all approach; what works in Glasgow will not work in New Pitsligo. If I was to drop somebody there and tell them that they could get to their work in Aberdeen by public transport, they would laugh me out of town. There are different approaches. We must recognise that, in some areas, it is not feasible not to use a car, so we need to look at the systems that are available for people to use cars with lower emissions and so on.

I will mention some of the contributions to the debate. I associate myself with Monica Lennon’s comments about Valencia. What happened there could have happened anywhere. It could have been us. It could have happened in any city. Flash floods are a real and present danger, and they are a result of climate change. My heart goes out to the people who are suffering there. We have had forest fires in the Arctic and extreme weather events in this country.

Douglas Lumsden rightly pointed out that a lot of the amendments were about sharing more information so that we all have everything at our fingertips and we can make the necessary decisions.

I understand Patrick Harvie’s frustration, but I again point to the fact that Scotland comprises very different geographical areas and not every intervention will work in Glasgow, Shetland and the northern isles. We need to look at the just transition element that is associated with that.

Michael Matheson said that the policy options that we are pursuing are significant and challenging and that we need to recognise that many of them will need an enormous amount of funding, which cannot come only from Government. We must put more pressure on the people in the private sector who operate in our country, as they have a massive role to play as well.

I will say one thing in response to Graham Simpson. I have enjoyed working with him on the bill, due to his pragmatic approach, but I am not so keen on the finger pointing. I hold my hands up: we have not met the 75 per cent target. However, we cannot keep looking back and apportioning blame, because meeting net zero is the responsibility of each and every member. It is about what we do in our own lives, what we say to our constituents and what we vote for in the chamber. That is the message that I want to leave people with.

When we bring forward our climate change plan and give all the information to people about the potential routes that we can take, some stuff will make members hold their breath and say, “Wow! We can’t do that. How’s that going to go down in my constituency? How’re we going to afford the cost associated with that?”

We will all have to look at the art of the possible. That is the most important thing that comes next. Next time something is brought forward in the chamber, we will all have to remember what was said here today about the ambition being only the ritual, signalling part of the process. The difficult action is what we all need to get behind.

I thank members for their work on the bill.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

rose—

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am just about to wind up, but I will take an intervention if the Presiding Officer lets me do so.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Martin Whitfield.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am grateful to you, Presiding Officer, and to the cabinet secretary.

If the cabinet secretary plans to seek agreement across parties, the work needs to happen in the weeks before she comes to the chamber to make her announcement.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That was pretty much where I was going to end. I have an open-door approach. I appreciate the comments about the lovely cushions in my office; more members can come and see those cushions and spend time in my office to talk about what, collectively, we need to do as a Parliament to get us to net zero in 2045. I look forward to those conversations and suggestions, and to our all taking responsibility for getting to net zero.

I thank all members for their work on the bill. We have done a job of work and have ruined quite a lot of people’s October recess, but we have got there. I thank everyone for their co-operation with me and my team.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes the stage 3 debate on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill.

I am minded to accept a motion without notice that, under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders, decision time be brought forward to now. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move such a motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 11.2.4, Decision Time be brought forward to 4.37 pm.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motion agreed to.

Decision Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There is one question to be put as a result of today’s business. The question is, that motion S6M-15168, in the name of Gillian Martin, on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.

As this is a motion to pass the bill at stage 3, the question must be decided by division. As members have been voting throughout the afternoon, I will allow a moment for them to refresh the voting app before voting.

The vote is closed.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not refresh. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We will ensure that that is recorded.

The Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise (Natalie Don-Innes)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I think that my app froze. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We will ensure that that is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on motion S6M-15168, in the name of Gillian Martin, is: For 105, Against 0, Abstentions 7.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes decision time. We will now move to members’ business.

Members’ business will be published tomorrow, 6 November 2024, as soon as the text is available.