In Parliament

The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee of the Scottish Parliament (which I sit on) has unanimously backed the general principles of a new bill aimed at achieving net zero emissions by 2045.

Despite a condensed scrutiny period, the committee emphasized that the level of scrutiny was not compromised, thanks to an effective pre-publication call for evidence and testimony from 15 witnesses across 14 organizations. Reflecting on the ambitious targets set in 2019, the committee acknowledged that while well-intentioned, some targets may not have been credible. Moving forward, the committee stressed the importance of working with evidence rather than engaging in bidding wars over targets.

The committee highlighted the need for policy actions and associated costings to ensure effective scrutiny and delivery of net zero targets. They called for an open and honest debate about the just transition and the sufficiency of UK Government budgets and policy frameworks in supporting Scotland's net zero goals.

The Scottish Government has expressed openness to reviewing existing provisions on costings and has provided additional reassurances and reporting in response to the committee's stage 1 report.

The commitment to achieving net zero by 2045 remains firm, with a focus on ensuring that the route map is both credible and realistic.

Full text of my speech

As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I thank the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and all the witnesses who gave evidence—and fellow committee members for their efforts in meeting a challenging timescale for completing our stage 1 scrutiny.

Although it was far from ideal, I stress that a condensed period of scrutiny does not mean a compromised level of scrutiny. I will point to two factors. The first is the effectiveness of our committee’s pre-publication call for evidence in drawing out key issues. I commend the convener for his key role in that. Secondly, we heard from 15 witnesses across 14 organisations and groups, not including the cabinet secretary and her officials. The scrutiny was condensed but robust.

However, I believe that the exercise has been quite sobering, not just for the Scottish Government—we have to be honest about that—but for the Parliament as a whole. When we reflect on the revised targets from 2019—earlier today, I reread the stage 3 debate on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill—we may just need to acknowledge that, although those might have been at the outer reaches of what was achievable, they were earnest, well intentioned and ambitious. However, with hindsight—which is always 20:20 vision, of course—I am not sure that they were that credible. During the passage of that legislation, an 80 per cent target was suggested, then a 77 per cent target, and we landed on 75 per cent. The Scottish Government suggested 70 per cent, which was based on the advice of the UK Climate Change Committee. It said that 70 per cent was the prudent target, but the Parliament went for 75 per cent. Whatever we do in this place from here on in, let us never again get into a bidding war over what targets are credible for achieving net zero. Let us work with and follow the evidence.

The commitment to achieving net zero by 2045 remains firm across all political parties. In getting there, we must retain the ambition but also ensure that the route map is credible and realistic. Notwithstanding the recommendations made in the committee’s report, I believe that the bill and, with it, our nation’s pivot to a five-year carbon budgeting process is a key part—although not the only part—of ensuring that we build credibility into our 2045 target. That is why the committee was unanimous in backing the general principles of the bill.

I turn to the recommendations made in our report. Recommendation 5 asks the Scottish Government to

“consider laying a draft”

of the climate change plan

“at the same time as it lays regulations setting out carbon budget targets”.

The key word is “consider”, which is one that the committee chose. It would be desirable also to allow maximum scrutiny of carbon budgets. However, we heard that that could be challenging and have practical implications, given that the Scottish Government remains clear in its view that such budgets must be set in law before a draft statutory climate change plan is published. I find that frustrating but, on balance, probably realistic. However, I welcome the Scottish Government’s response that it will reflect further on that and, at the very least, will consider what detailed information on the development of plans can be provided at the point where carbon budgets are introduced to Parliament.

I want to be clear about one point, though. I hope that members will allow me to follow this line of logic. In one respect, none of that matters. Carbon budgets are a recasting of targets. It will be actions—not targets—that deliver net zero. All roads lead to on-the-ground delivery of actions and targets in the climate change plan. That reality very much sits at the heart of our committee’s recommendations at paragraphs 4 and 11 of the executive summary. The committee was clear that we need not only policy actions but associated costings to allow a laser-like focus on scrutiny and delivery, which is an important point.

I add that the Parliament must come together to work out exactly what level of detail we would accept on the costings and benefits that can be drawn up, to give credibility not only to the Government but to Parliament, and to give confidence in our climate change plans. The Scottish Government agrees, and its response outlines existing provisions on the costings for previous climate change plans. That said, I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government was open to reviewing the position to see what more can be done.

We have heard from Sarah Boyack that more can be done, and I agree with her. I know that our committee will follow the issues with great interest. For my part, I add that it is about not only the costs of the actions to deliver net zero for Government but the costs across all sectors of the Scottish economy and all aspects of our way of life. It is not simply about budgets in this place; it will also require significant private sector investment. Should we forecast that investment, there will be cost implications for businesses, households and workers—we should not pretend that there will not be.

That leads me on to the just transition. We need an open, on-going and honest debate about that. Likewise, we in Scotland’s Parliament need the political courage and non-partisan environment that will allow us to be just as open and honest about whether the UK Government budgets and the consequentials that flow here, and the wider pan-UK policy frameworks, are sufficient to help Scotland to deliver net zero. Calling that out and questioning it is not a blame game; it is about coming together in a non-partisan way to help to deliver net zero.

 I do not necessarily support alignment with UK carbon budgets. I also welcome the additional reassurances and reporting that the Scottish Government has given in response to our stage 1 report. I thank the committee for all its work on what I think is a splendid piece of scrutiny.