Welcome to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee's 22nd meeting of 2019. Before we move on to the first item on the agenda, can I remind everyone to switch off the mobile phones or put them on silent as they may affect the broadcasting system? The first item on the agenda is for the committee to consider amendments to the climate change emissions reductions target Scotland bill at stage 2. It's our second date of considering amendments to the bill. We'll also be joined by other members, Maurice Golden and Liam McArthur, who will be moving their amendments. I'd also like to welcome Rosanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, and her officials, Tom Russen, Bill Manager, Karen Clyde, Deputy Bill Manager, Heather Wortley, the Parliamentary Council Office and Norman Munro from the Scottish Government legal directorate. Good morning to you all, and we should note that officials are not allowed to speak on the record in these proceedings. Before we start consideration of the bill, I can advise that I do intend to suspend the meeting for a comfort break at an appropriate moment in the morning. I call amendment 116, in the name of Mark Ruskell, and that's grouped with amendments 117, 118, 119, 126 and 47. I ask Mark Ruskell to move amendment 116 to speak to all amendments in the group. Thanks very much, convener, and good morning to everybody. I'd like to thank the Government for their assistance with this set of amendments. The purpose is to reinstate section 36 of the Climate Change Act 2009, which deals with what happens when annual targets are not met. Section 362 requires ministers to set out policies and proposals to compensate for excess emissions as soon as reasonably practicable following a missed annual target. The draft bill repealed section 36 without an adequate replacement with plans for missed emissions only being included in the climate change plans. NGOs and a number of stakeholders have raised concerns that this could leave a potential seven-year time lag between a missed target year and the next climate change plan being published. The set of amendments would ensure that ministers report to Parliament on what policies they will introduce to curb excess emissions soon after reporting on the annual target and well before new climate plans are compiled. Would you like to move the amendment? Yes, I would like to move the amendment. Any other members wishing to speak in this? Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, convener. First of all, I'll take this opportunity to briefly recognise and celebrate the fact that yesterday marked the 10-year anniversary of Parliament unanimously agreeing the 2009 act. Over those 10 years, a lot of progress has been made and we've seen emissions almost halved over the long term. Some annual targets have been met, some have been missed and three climate change plans have been brought forward. The current bill builds on the 2009 act's already very strong and world-leading framework and the decisions the committee is making today will obviously be an important part of that. As part of this process, I'm happy to support all of the amendments brought forward by Mark Ruskell in the present group. The bill contained a range of proposals intended to improve the provisions in the 2009 act related to the target framework and reporting on targets. One of those involved replacing section 36 from the 2009 act with an alternative catch-up duty such that Governments must set out how they will compensate for the excess emissions following any missed targets as part of the next climate change plan. However, I am aware that various organisations were unhappy with these proposals and having listened carefully to the concerns, I'm happy to support reinstatement of section 36 via amendment 47. This will ensure that ministers will continue to be required to set out their additional policies and proposals as soon as reasonably practicable after any missed target is reported rather than to a fixed time frame. The remaining amendments in this grouping are sensible measures that will ensure consistency across bill provisions. I also support them. The question is that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 117. The name of Mark Ruskell already debated. Results moved. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Call amendment 118. The name of Mark Ruskell already debated. Results moved. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Call amendment 119. The name of Mark Ruskell. Results moved. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 122 in the name of Mark Ruskell, in a group hall on its own. Mark Ruskell, to move and speak to the amendment 122. Sorry, 122. 122, yes. Thanks, convener. This amendment seeks to improve the reporting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions arising from Scottish consumption of goods and services. The 2009 act established a requirement to produce a report on emissions attributable to Scotland's consumption called Scotland's carbon footprint report, which is also a national performance framework indicator. Crucially, that includes emissions associated with the imports of goods and services from overseas, which are not accounted for in the Scottish greenhouse gas emissions report. Taking a look at the carbon footprint report tells us a slightly different story from reports on our annual targets. For while Scotland's domestic production emissions have been falling, emissions embedded in imported goods and services have been increasing. The Committee on Climate Change's Net Zero report noted this trend and stated that actions that the UK can take to reduce its consumption emissions could be as effective in tackling climate change as actions to reduce territorial emissions. Our consumption emissions have only declined by 8.5% from 1998 to 2014. We're a rich country and our consumption emissions are far higher than those of the poorest countries who stand to lose the most from climate change. We cannot solely focus on only those emissions that arise within our borders but must consider our consumption, the impact that our consumption is having on global greenhouse gas levels. I'm very sympathetic to the words that I hear the member say, but looking in particular at the amendment at sea, state actions taken by Scottish ministers reduce emissions in this area. Does he agree with me that it is rather unfortunate in terms of the Scottish ministers' ability to do that, that we have no control over import duties or excise duties that might be a significant contributor to effective action in controlling the flow of carbon-intensive goods into Scotland? I would agree with a member that, if Scotland had all the powers of a normal country and a normal state, we would have more levers. However, there is also action that we can take on an intra-national basis, a super-national basis, working within the European Union and within the UK as well. In order to better understand what is driving Scotland's consumption emissions and how to tackle them, more useful information needs to be presented in the carbon footprint report. Ministers must also be obliged to act on that information. My amendment 122 requires that report to list the most significant categories of goods and services that are driving the trend in Scottish consumption emissions. By knowing what the main sources are, we can implement policies to curb these emissions. I note that cabinet secretary has often referred to unintended consequences around offshoring of emissions. Again, this is a way for us to get a handle on those potential unintended impacts. This is done in Sweden. We all like Sweden, don't we? Following pressure from NGOs, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency was instructed in 2017 to develop targets and indicators for consumption-based emissions. I advise members to have a look at the Prince project, which they have established. It looks at 59 categories across 48 countries. Food and construction have risen as the main product groups that are the highest level of emissions. However, there are many other product groups that get textiles, chemicals and electronics. Obviously, we import a lot of those products into Scotland as well. My amendment also requires ministers to lay a statement in Parliament alongside the carbon footprint report, bringing greater attention to the area of our emissions and detailing the actions that it can take to reduce these consumption emissions. I have some considerable sympathy with the intentions of Mark Ruskell's amendment 122 for some of the reasons that he himself has outlined. The Scottish Government recognises that the official statistics published on Scotland's carbon footprint provides a valuable complementary measure to the territorial statistics on which targets are based. I do not think that the amendment is necessary, as the code of practice for official statistics means that Government analysts would respond to any expression of user interest for additional specific content to a statistics bulletin in any case. However, I also do not see any harm in placing the additional content requirements on the face of the present act if that provides assurance to Mark Ruskell and others. However, I would like to invite Mark Ruskell to not press the amendment as it stands at this time, as I think that there is scope for this to be improved in advance of stage 3. In particular, I wonder whether adding a timing frequency requirement to the reporting duty would be welcome. I also have concerns, which I would like the opportunity to discuss with Mark Ruskell, that a separate statement in relation to these statistics may be disproportionate. We must bear in mind that international reporting practice is based on territorial rather than consumption-based emissions, and there are very substantial uncertainties around the data and methods involved in the latter. If Mark Ruskell would be prepared to not press the amendment at this time, I would be happy to meet him to discuss these issues further to bring back a similar amendment for stage 3. Mark Ruskell did not actually move your amendment. Do you want to move it? Sorry, I move 1, 2, 2. Did you like the opportunity to wind up and press a withdrawal? Just to briefly say, I welcome that commitment. Clearly, we need to leave no stone unturned in our fight against climate change and consumption emissions are an important part of that picture. I would be very much welcome a discussion on this topic and other topics over the summer to see what we can come forward that is a little bit more elegant for stage 3. I intend not to move the amendment. Sorry, I withdraw the amendment. I call amendment 120 in the name of Mark Ruskell, ready to debate with amendment 110. I should move or not move. So, if you just clarify that again, that's 120. That's not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 121 in the name of Mark Ruskell, ready to debate with amendment 110. Move or not moved? Not moved. I call amendment 123 in the name of Claudia Beamish. I'm ready to debate with amendment 110. Move or not moved? Move, please. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We have a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now? Those against? The result of that is that we have two votes for and five against, therefore it's not agreed to. That's 123, it's not agreed to. I call amendment 124 in the name of Claudia Beamish. I'm ready to debate with amendment 110. Move or not moved? Not moved. I call amendment 125 in the name of Claudia Beamish. I'm ready to debate with amendment 110. Move or not moved? I call amendment 46 in the name of Mark Ruskell, grouped with amendments 78, 82 and 48. I ask Mark Ruskell to move amendment 46 in speed to all amendments in the group. Thank you, I'll move that amendment in my name. Is this group of amendments deals with matters relating to the timing of climate change plans? My amendments 46 and 48 set in legislation a requirement for ministers to publish an updated climate change plan within six months of this bill receiving role ascent. As has already been discussed in this committee and I do welcome the Government's previous assurances to committee members that they will do this, my amendments simply place this requirement into law. I call Cabinet Secretary to speak to amendments 78 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'll firstly set out the two government amendments in the group, both of which are in direct response to recommendations by the committee in its stage 1 report. Amendment 78 increases the minimum number of days that the draft versions of climate change plan must be laid before Parliament from 90 to 120 days. Although the committee has expressed an interest in an open-ended scrutiny period, you heard in your evidence sessions a clear desire from stakeholders that there be a time limit to ensure that the process for climate change plans to quote one panel member does not drift on open-endedly. The bill has introduced already increased the period from 60 to 90 days as 90 days was the most popular date actually suggested in the consultation. However, 120 days was also popular and given the committee's feedback, I think that this represents a sensible compromise that allows a significant and increased period for parliamentary scrutiny but ensures that the process of developing and finalising plans keeps moving. Amendment 82 brings forward the timing of the annual publication of climate change plan monitoring reports so that they now must be laid before the 31st of May of each relevant year. The previous timing requirement was by 31 October. This will give Parliament, the committees and stakeholders further time to consider the monitoring reports as part of the new all-year-round budget process and I hope it satisfies the committee's recommendation. I need to speak to Mark Ruskell's amendments. Turning now to amendments 46 and 48 in relation to the timing of the next climate change plan itself, I strongly urge the committee to reject those as they are entirely impracticable. I listened to what the member had to say and I'm not sure he's aware that the amendment that is currently drafted is calling for a full climate change plan within six months, not simply an updated climate change plan and there may be a bit of an issue around that. The amendments that are currently drafted would require an entire full climate change plan process to be completed within six months of royal assent and obviously that's a significantly different proposition to the committee's recommendation which the Government has accepted for an update to the current plan within that same time period. There are extensive statutory requirements governing a full climate change plan process. A draft version of the plan will need to be laid and scrutinised by Parliament within Mark Ruskell's proposed six-month window. If the amendments that I have brought forward in response to the committee's recommendations on the length of that period are accepted, the scrutiny period will occupy at least four months of that six-month period. This would leave the Government with less than two months to design the plan which is clearly untenable. Several statutory assessment and advisory duties in relation to plans would also be undeliverable on such a timescale. Draft plans are subject to strategic environmental assessment which has statutory minimum timescales attached to it. Amendments I've lodged in response to other committee recommendations which we'll discuss in a later grouping will require the CCC's views are sought on draft plans. It's unclear whether this would be possible within the window offered by these amendments and such a window also seems to leave no effective time for engagement with stakeholders during the period of plan preparation. There's a global climate emergency and what is needed in response is meaningful targeted action. The current climate change plan was published less than 18 months ago following its scrutiny by this and other committees. An updated plan is what the committee called for and what both the First Minister and I have made clear commitments to delivering. Delivering such an update to the timescale will be extraordinarily challenging for the Government, but we are committed to doing so. I recognise that in lodging amendments that go far, far beyond what the committee has recommended, Mark Ruskell may have in the drafting gone far, far, far further than even he intended, but to be absolutely clear to the committee as currently drafted, those amendments pose real risks of resulting in a less effective set of policies and proposals being brought forward over the next year due to the sheer impracticality of the time available to Government. I would urge the committee in the strongest possible terms to resist them, but if I'm correct in that Mark Ruskell hasn't actually intended to do what the amendment has drafted does, I would urge him to withdraw at this stage. I ask Mark Ruskell to wind up and press a withdrawal amendment 46. I shall reflect on those comments and not press the amendments just now. I call amendment 126, in the name of Mark Ruskell, already debated with amendment 116. I ask Mark Ruskell to move. The question is that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 127, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 108. I ask Claudia Beamish to move. Or not move. Not move. Not moved. Okay, hang on a second. I appear to have lost my call. Amendment 128, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 108. Move to or not move. Not move. I call amendment 72, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 57. Thank you. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 129, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 108. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Not move. Not moved. I call amendment 73, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 57. Moved. I call amendment 73A, in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 57. Moved or not moved? Not moved. Okay. So. Yep. I call Cabinet Secretary to press and withdraw amendment 73. Does it press? Those three. The question is that amendment 73, as amended, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 35, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 74, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 138, in the name of Liam McArthur, a group with all amendments as shown in the groupings. I call on Liam McArthur to move amendment 13. I call on Liam McArthur to move amendment 138, to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I'm conscious of the pressures at times. I'll speak to the purpose and case for my own amendments. I might be touched on other amendments in closing. Section 19, of course, details the way climate change plans will be set out. The purpose of a climate change plan is to provide, quote, strategic summary of policies across all sectors of the economy that relate to decarbonisation. As it stands, however, the bill fails to actually require the inclusion of any specific policies, even ones we know will be pivotal going forward. Ambitious targets are not in themselves enough. The targets contained within this bill mean little without ambitious policies to back them up. To date, we've not seen the sort of clear radical initiatives needed to achieve those targets. My amendments seek to get us closer to that point. Amendment 138 would require the climate change plan to include details of how it will encourage the use of low-carbon heat in new buildings. While I appreciate this, it must be combined with a commitment to reducing the energy demands of any given property. It can help to ensure that the plan addresses what the Scottish Renewables described as, quote, the next frontier for emissions reduction. Chris Stark, I think, told this committee that if there is a test of whether we are serious, it is on heating. We have an extraordinarily useful energy system delivering heat to every home in the UK at the moment, and it works extremely well. Sadly, it is based on fossil fuels in the main. It is not going to be easy to change that, but it is necessary that we do so. My amendment isn't overly rigid, recognising that different solutions will be appropriate in different situations, including a mix of existing and future technologies, but it makes clear the intent and indeed the urgency. Amendment 139 makes for a similar provision for district heating in relation to new developments. I appreciate that, in part due to the extent of the reliance on gas within the existing network, the transition to low-carbon alternatives is not straightforward. However, this is an area where other countries have been leading the way for some time now and Scotland needs to up its game. If amendments 138 and 139 pass then future climate change plans will include an assessment of the implementation of those policies. Amendment 148, however, would strengthen this further by requiring the annual progress reports to assess the extent to which low-carbon heating policies have contributed towards climate change targets. Turning to amendments 134 and 149, if heat is the new frontier in our fight to cut emissions transport remains the unfinished frontier. As the cabinet secretary's recent statement to the chamber highlighted, progress in the sector has been poor. Emissions remain broadly in line with 1990 levels and some aspects of government policy look at odds with turning this around. Solutions, of course, will need to be broad-ranging but electrification will be crucial. Amendments 134 would require the climate change plan to set out proposals for public procurement of ULEVs, which to date has been stuck in the slow lane. The public sector should be taking a lead and, while there are laudable examples of where this is happening, including in my own Orkney constituency, this has been patchy and falls well short of where we need to be. Amendments 149 would strengthen accountability in this area, requiring government to report on levels of investment and providing an impetus for increasing this over time. The UK CCC was clear how quickly the shift to ULEVs needs to take place. It also noted the cost, air quality and competitive advantages of an earlier switchover. I note and welcome Maurice Golden's similar amendments in this area that would suggest that my amendments are perhaps more robust and, at that point, I move amendment 138 and look forward to the debate. OK, thank you. I call on Maurice Golden to speak to amendment 100 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I think more generally on this grouping, I'd like to set out the scenarios and really the position from which these amendments sit. So I think you could take the view that there should be within this grouping no amendments with respect to the climate change plan, because that would be deemed as too prescriptive and too onerous on this Scottish Government and future Scottish Governments. You could take the other view that anything can be included because that will then bind this and future Scottish Government to a variety of different tactics. Our view is probably a bit more nuanced and within the middle of those two views in the sense that I think where there are existing commitments and existing targets, the amendments that feed in and help those targets, existing targets to be met, then they should be willing to be considered and in terms of specific wording around that, that's something that can be looked at, but the generality would be amendments that facilitate existing and pre-existing commitments, then they should be considered and should be in scope. With regard to that conscious of time as well, amendment 100 seeks to ensure that Scottish ministers must include the public procurement of electric vehicles within the climate change plan. I think that that makes a lot of sense, given the existing commitment for electric vehicles from the Scottish Government on amendment 130, which again promotes electric vehicle charging stations within tenements and those properties. That's recognising a weakness in our current infrastructure and looking to solve that. Amendment 137 again covers the requirement of the agricultural sector to receive support for more measures which would again help us meet our targets. Amendment 131 again recognises that we are going to have to look at different ways through technology development, through R&D, that will improve our overall academic backdrop and the ability to deliver more sustainable energy and suggest a sustainable energy innovation centre. Finally, the final amendment that I have set out, amendment 132 sets out requirements within the climate change plan for Scottish ministers to increase funding for energy efficiency measures, which again is something that I feel will help to meet existing targets and are not a deviation or too prescriptive on the current Scottish ministers or any future ones. Can you move amendment 100? I would like to move amendment 100. Collin, Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 140 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I have tried to keep my remarks brief. I do want to speak to one or two other amendments in addition to my own. I will speak to my colleague David Stewart's probing amendment today as he is unable to be here as he is at a funeral. This amendment is to put a target in to tackle transport emissions by banning fossil fuel cars and vans from city centres by 2030. This sounds radical, but it is actually quite a well-established idea in individual cities across the world. It could be a significant intervention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve quality and go further than the transport bill's LEZ section. Transport emissions, as we know, are on the increase and, namely, road transport is the biggest source of these emissions. Poor air quality hits the most vulnerable. The hardest, the oldest, the youngest and those with co-morbidity of other health conditions. There are also issues of socio-economic bias and I'm not going to go into more detail on that, but David Stewart would welcome comment from the Cabinet Secretary on how the issue of road transport emissions is being considered in this bill and within the plan. I now move to Mark Ruskell's amendment 136. I will support that amendment today. As members may know, I've had an interest in bettering our understanding protection of an enhancement of blue carbon for some time. Our environment's ability to sequester carbon is a key requirement in our achieving net zero by 2045. Blue carbon should be receiving a lot more focus given its significant potential for impact on our emissions targets if there is appropriate and sustainable management. In 2011, there was an SNH commissioned report which I wouldn't have highlighted if Mark had come before me, but I do think it's important to highlight at this stage where Scotland's marine sediments alone equate to 52 per cent of Scotland's 2011 carbon emissions. Unlike many other marine and terrestrial habitats, marine sediments can look up carbon for many thousands of years. We've had two info boxes with reference to blue carbon possibilities in the last two climate change plans. The first particularly also supported by Minister Paul Wheelhouse. At its simplest, we have abundant seagrass and kelp beds around our coasts. The time for action is in the next plan and successive ones in the same way that peat research then action was developed. That would send a clear signal of the importance of blue carbon and I ask members to support it today. The amendment on land use I've brought forward to establish a new duty on ministers to set out policies and proposals for the creation of regional land use partnerships and frameworks within one year of Royal Ascent, seeking to strengthen the mandate of the land use strategy and facilitate its delivery on the ground. The land use strategy was well-leading when first published in 2011, recognising the important role land can play in climate mitigation and adaptation. Since the strategy was revised in 2016, little progress has been made. Although there have been two pilot schemes, there has not been a rollout of regional land use frameworks. However, one of the challenges with the current legislation is that no duty to deliver the policies and proposals in the land use strategy exists only the duty to produce and revise the strategy. As a result, in my view, it has been sidelined and overlooked despite the crucial role it could play in addressing the climate emergency and shaping future rural policy. The CTC has highlighted the key role that land use will play in greenhouse gas removal. Regional frameworks could provide a mechanism to deliver this and it would also aid the targeting of future rural support to activities and areas which contribute most to our climate ambitions. Regional land use frameworks should identify opportunities to prioritise land use and management practices which optimise greenhouse gas emission removal. The Scottish Government's plan for rural funding transition, stability and simplicity runs to 2024 and I feel this fits well with it. We need to act fast, to meaningfully and usefully contribute to this transition. I have listened to Maurice Golden's comments and I'm not going to go into detail on those because of time. Although I could, but I won't. In terms of Mark Ruskell's other amendment on fracking, members will know well there is a strong mandate for this amendment as the Parliament has agreed to prohibit fracking in Scotland. I've been joining campaigners across Scotland for a number of years now, pushing for this Government and considering all the pathways to block these damaging techniques and give peace of mind to communities for once and for all. I urge a Cabinet Secretary to clear up her Government's intentions and be absolutely crystal clear, given that we are currently on the third Government public consultation on fracking and the fourth, if you consider my member's bill. Certainly this amendment by Mark Ruskell would further indicate that the Scottish Government's determination to prohibit onshore fracking here in Scotland by enshrining the commitment to address this in each climate change plan as we progress. Fracking is not a transition fuel and we should take every opportunity to say no for the sustainable future of our communities' industries and the jobs that they will bring without inappropriate, destructive distraction of this industry and, of course, for the future of our very planet. In terms of my two amendments to Mark's amendment 49, which I support, but again I'm not going to go into details of Mark's amendment, which he will be highlighting himself. I have put in amendment 49A and 49B 49A on carbon sequestration. The climate change bill has legislated for a target of net zero, as we know, and the net part of this is fundamentally important if we are to reach these targets. The UK Committee on Climate Change in its advice on net zero states it is confident Scotland could feasibly achieve this higher target than the rest of the UK due to its greater sequestration capabilities specifically. With increasing global recognition of the need for carbon reduction from land use activities, this addition to Mark's 49 offers, in my view, a relatively straightforward and cost-effective opportunity to address the issue in the public interest. The process of carbon sequestration will, of course, also contribute significantly to our biodiversity targets and to the tackling of flood mitigation. This committee has often discussed the complexities of reducing farming sector emissions at a greater speed with only 1.9 per cent decrease between 2016 and 2017. This holistic approach, I believe, is right. Sequestration of carbon is a very important part of farmers' roles in the future as custodians of our land, and I'm aware farmers can feel like their hard work in sequestration often goes unrecognised. It is essential that this is rectified and that we all understand the significant contributions that can be made. In terms of agroforestry for 49B, it has proven to make a significant contribution to addressing the challenges of climate change. Agroforestry can be implemented in a number of ways, of course. However, it is important to note that approaches can be designed in a way that benefits trade-off between food provision, sorry, that prevents trade-off between food provision and other ecosystem services. Trees can be planted along riverbanks, hedges of fields, rows can be planted among arable crops on separate parcels of land integrated with livestock and woodland pasture systems. Among co-benefits beyond the sequestration of carbon are shelter for more extreme temperatures such as shade, sunshades in summer and wind and rain and snow breaks in winter, which are valuable for our beasts. Browsing the low branches and overhangs of tall native hedges provide a range of nutrients and minerals. Last week, I visited Whitmore Organics near La Mancha to see an inspiring and successful range of methods for myself, accompanied by owner Pete Ritchie and supported by the Woodland Trust. I'm clear that by adding agroforestry in Mark's amendment list, this will focus minds on the value of this method. Excuse me, nearly finished. Support is needed for percentage capital payments design of advice, planting advice and at least partial funding through a scheme. In the climate and environment emergency, we all have a responsibility to contribute as best we can. John Scott speaks to amendment 101. Thank you, convener, and I want to declare an interest as a farmer and as a landowner in the first instance in this regard. Amendment 101 is a probing amendment that seeks to create a new class of land that will identify and group types of land that have a particularly beneficial effect on climate change mitigation. In time, I would expect it to create perhaps a hierarchy of land capability both for existing storage of carbon and active sequestration. Pete Boggs would be at the top of the hierarchy working through to deep peat, to forestry, to landscapes capable of renewable energy production through to grasslands managed for sequestration of carbon. It would allow this type of land to be targeted for attention or support by government when using public money for the delivery of public goods. Such a classification might also attract a new type of investor into land in Scotland, pension funds, for example, who might wish to hold and maintain land with the ability to store or sequester carbon to offset other less-carbon friendly assets in their portfolio. Private finance for the delivery of natural capital is a concept supporting by the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation, Crown of States Scotland, HIE, Scottish Water and Virgin Money, and already has a name as the Scottish Conservation Finance Project. The £1 billion challenge to deliver on such a concept was launched at the Royal Society in London on 28 February 2019. The probing amendment essentially gives a name to the type of land that many are agreed needs to be supported. Thank you. Matt Ruskell spoke to amendment 136 and other amendments in the group. Right. Thanks, convener. Yes, I'd like to move 136 and speak to 135 and 49 and other amendments. I think to pick up on Maurice Golden's comments there, I think perhaps all of these amendments deal with a number of weaknesses that exist within the climate change plan at the moment and they're attempting to put in place effectively policy frameworks to drive progress and in some areas to break new ground as well. That comes to my amendment 136 on blue carbon. I recognise a lot of the leadership that Claudia Beamish has demonstrated on this area. We needed to take a leap of faith on blue carbon, but I think the evidence base is now building up very strongly on it. My amendment seeks to increase the requirement on ministers to consider the role marine carbon stores such as kelp forests and salt marshes have on reducing Scotland's emissions. Now these features not only process and store atmospheric carbon, but they also play a physical role in helping us adapt to the effects of climate change such as sea level rise and the buffering of coastlines during storm events. The recently reviewed climate change plan refers to blue carbon in brief and indicates that evidence on which action could be based is lacking, but I welcome that the Scottish Government has set up a blue carbon forum and is prioritising research in this field, but it is important this research does then translate into meaningful policy action when the time is right. So my amendment would require ministers to state their policies and proposals for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through good management of blue carbon features in marine areas. Turning to 135 on unconventional oil and gas. The debate around fracking in recent years is familiar to all of us. I'm not going to reopen arguments here today on how we could spend weeks on it. And especially given that the Government has announced, let's call it an indefinite moratorium on fracking and coal bed methane extraction in Scotland. Now that's prohibition moratorium. Let's be careful which words we use. It takes the form of statements in the national planning framework and the energy strategy that rule out the development of operations in Scotland. My amendment 135 would require a similar statement to be included in the climate change plan, ensuring that Scotland's opposition to fracking is embedded across the Government's full suite of policy. I think it's important that there is a reference to unconventional oil and gas within the climate change plan given that much of the context for the Scottish Government's policy position on this has come out of concerns around climate change and, in particular, fugitive emissions and other issues associated with that. There was detailed scientific studies and work done on that, so I think it's appropriate, given the science base behind the Government's position, that it's reflected in some way in the climate change plans. If I could turn to 49 on what I'm calling a whole-farm action plan, this really requires Government to produce a whole-farm action plan that's separate to but embedded in the main climate change plan. Members are well aware of the discussions and the evidence that we've had on this. I appreciate John Scott's amendment as well. The system used to calculate Scotland's climate change emissions does separate agriculture from land use. It means that farming often gets credited with emissions from agriculture but not the positive sequestering effect of good land management and forestry, for example, which also takes place on our farms. The plan that will be required under my amendment brings these two areas together for the first time and gives a net figure for the impact our farms have as a whole on climate change. It will then require there to be a plan to be laid out for how emissions reductions from our farms will progress, and I think taking account of a range of areas. My intention with this is to bring forward a framework. It would be very tempting to say, oh, you've got to have a target for this, you've got to have a target for that. The framework I've put out here will be familiar to many members. There's research, of knowledge transfer and advice, of land management accreditation and nutrient resource budgeting. I don't want to put forward today exact policy prescriptions now into this bill that have to stay there forever. What I want to ensure is that there's really good joined up action being taken by government to bring together these elements together in a plan, a sector plan, if you like, which is focused on agriculture from being, perhaps at the moment, one of the problems we have with climate change to one of the strong solutions. In terms of John Scott's amendment 101, I think it's very similar. We're obviously almost on the same page here. I don't believe, though, that putting a requirement into the climate change plan really does it. I think there are elements that are already in the climate change plan that could be described as addressing this area of whole farm emissions, but that clearly doesn't meet a lot of the concerns that we've had in committee about the joined up nature of the policies that we need. I think a separate plan needs to be built out from the main climate change plan that really goes into the detail of how we're joining up this work. I'm happy to accept 49A and 49B highlighting the importance of sequestration, highlighting the importance of agroforestry, which is massively underlooked in terms of climate change, but also how we make agricultural systems more resilient in the face of climate change and the impacts. In terms of John Scott's amendment on creating a separate kind of land category, the sort of idea of mitigation land, I mean, I know he's very keen on that and I think there is a lot of merits in what he talks about, but that would be a bit concerned about unintended consequences. Effectively, if we create a kind of climate change set-aside, there could be impacts there in terms of biodiversity. And I think part of the solution to this is about integrating land management, so integrating carbon sequestration, for example, into the way that we graze pasture through mob grazing techniques, for example, isn't about setting aside land and saying we can't grow anything on that anymore because that's your climate change bit. It is about ensuring that agricultural management as a whole delivers that carbon sequestration. And there may be, you know, scope to have peat bogs and particular habitats that are set-aside as climate sequestration, but I think it's more integrated, it's more holistic to use John's word in stage one debate, and that's what we're trying to get out of this. I think, oh yeah, just very briefly, Cavena, just in terms of the other amendments, I think heat is the big issue. It was a huge issue in 2009, and there was a particular amendment that was put in to the 2009 act to require a heat target. I don't think we've seen enough progress on the result of that. I think the industry at the time believed that a target around heat was going to be enough to drive things. I don't think that that's happened at the sufficient level that it should have done. So I think getting more specificity and focus at the moment through this bill is required, because we didn't get as much progress as we thought. Again, the focus on electric vehicles or ultra-low-emission vehicles, we've got to move quickly in a very short period of time on this, and there are big issues. So I think, again, a welcome focus on that would be beneficial within this bill. That's me. John Scott, let's speak to amendment 102. Thank you, convener. I should have spoken to this earlier, forgive me. Amendment 102, the intention behind this amendment, is to give recognition now and in the future to farmers and land managers who are taking a whole-farm or whole-holdings approach to climate change and greenhouse gas reductions. Currently farmers, crofters and estate owners get little or no credit for maintaining or restoring peat bogs or planting trees in terms of agriculture's contribution to climate change. That needs to be better understood and recognised, perhaps by a scheme running in parallel with existing IPCC measurement practices. The amendment would also allow for the delivery of funding public or private to support and enhance and indeed record all the different measures that a farmer takes as a business owner or manager or an estate owner or manager and be given recognition for these varied actions, which will demonstrate just how much farmers are part of the solution to this climate change challenge. This amendment is in response to recommendation 405 and 406 in the stage 1 report. To speak, I made amendment 49 and Mark Ruskell's amendment. Of course, I agree with the sentiment. I feel that it's rather too prescriptive and introduces a central approach that we weren't in favour of previously. We will not be supporting amendment 49, but I agree notwithstanding that in future it probably needs to be addressed and probably in a way similar to what Mark Ruskell proposes. Thank you. Stuart Stevenson would like to speak to these amendments. Thank you very much. I'm going to speak briefly to two of the amendments. First of all, 1, 3, 6, in the name of Mark Ruskell. I'm just not entirely clear that it can cover some of the things that we want to cover. In particular, it talks about 4B, protection enhancement of areas within the Scottish Marine and the appropriate long-term storage of carbon. Now, I would assume that would include things such as pipelines and drilling platforms, because, of course, you need to drill new holes into the geology if you're going to put carbon dioxide or carbonic acid down into the rocks. However, there appears to be a specific retention of power in schedule 5D2C that relates to offshore installations and pipelines, which means that we may not be able to legislate if that's the intention. I'm not clear that it is or is not the intention. That's just a retentacle point. The other point, which may simply reflect inefficiency in my reading, I'm not sure that I know what carbon means in legal terms. In the 2009 act, we've got carbon units, which actually includes all the greenhouse gases in its definition, not simply carbon dioxide. We have carbon dioxide, which is self-defining, and we have carbon accounting, which again is not simply its carbon, it is in effect carbon equivalence accounting and includes all the greenhouse gases. I know what is trying to be said. I'm just not absolutely sure that the use of the word carbon is sufficiently precise, because I think what we are looking at storage in the Scottish Marine area is carbon dioxide, or in its liquid form, carbonic acid, rather than other greenhouse gases, which are probably not suitable for storing in that area. I also strongly support the whole idea of storing carbon dioxide, I decent to add, in case you're down. Now, just a couple of words on amendment 49, again in Mark Rusko's name. Members have heard me before. I'm strongly in favour of sectoral plans, but strongly against sectoral targets. I kind of feel that, in some ways, we are kind of sneaking up on sector plans, sector targets, by the way this amendment is constructed. For example, I do not know at this moment if we need to do anything in agriculture. Now, instinctively and logically, I feel we do, but scientifically I don't know that we need to do anything, because we might, extreme view, be able to do all that is required to get to a carbon neutral Scotland by doing it all in energy. I simply don't know. I'm kind of reluctant to travel with this. I'll just say one little more thing. Mark Rusko used the word, the importance of research and advice, which I agree with, I give way. I'm just wondering if Mr Stevenson could point out anywhere within the amendment 49 where it requires ministers to reduce targets. I do agree that targets may be necessary, but surely it's the actions that underpin any targets are important, and that's why I didn't seek to establish yet more targets in here, because it could be right that agriculture is indeed making a wonderful contribution and we therefore don't need to put in place a target to drive further action. For the avoidance of doubt, I was saying it was approaching in its way being a target. I recognise it is not directly a target, but it is so prescriptive in the advance of our having the scientific advice that would inform us that I feel reluctant. Anyway, I'll leave it at that, thank you. Thank you, convener, and of necessity this will take a few moments. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the amendments in this group reflect very well-intentioned desires to see particular policy priorities reflected in the next climate change plan. However, I am firmly of the view that placing such requirements on the face of primary legislation is the wrong approach. The purpose of climate change plans is to set out across all sectors of the economy an overall package of policies and proposals for meeting future targets. The development of this overall package represents a key function of Scottish ministers. The Parliament already has substantial input into this process through scrutiny of a draft version of the plan. The amendments that I have lodged in response to committee recommendations, which we will debate in a later grouping, will also make more transparent the role of independent expert advice from the CCC in plan process. It is absolutely right that Parliament and the CCC have a strong role, but it is also necessary, given the strategic and cross portfolio nature of plans, that ministers are able to freely consider the full range of policy options available to them in setting out an overall package that works best for the climate and the people of Scotland. The amendments in this group would have the effect of prescribing a set of certain policy areas that must be set out in all future plans. That would significantly restrict the process for preparing plans, making it unwieldy and less effective. It also raises fundamental questions including of a legal nature of whether there is, then, a hierarchy of policy options with those chosen now to be on the face of the act, taking precedence over all others that aren't. Climate change plans are statutory in nature and their content requirements are subject to legal interpretation. By placing one set of particular policies on the face of the bill now, this could well be taken to imply that ministers must give priority to those matters over others, regardless of changing circumstances, expert advice or, indeed, changing priorities from a future Parliament. That could lead to a situation where ministers are compelled to prepare future plans that provide neither the most beneficial nor the most cost effective overall package of measures. Placing one particular set of policies on the face of the act could also pose the risk of making unclear signals. Although I'm sure this is not members' intention, I worry that stakeholders, including businesses, might interpret such a legislative step as a signal that all other policy options are less favoured by the Parliament or even in the extreme case that no other options will be needed in order to make future targets. Such unintended signalling could undermine the message currently being sent by the Government that in light of the global climate emergency conditions need to be kept under review to see where more can be done. In considering those risks, I would also invite members to reflect that the proposed amendments will bind the content of all future climate change plans from now until the 2040s, not just the update to the current plan that will be prepared immediately following the bill. I appreciate that there are entirely legitimate particular interests at this time in support for electric vehicles, energy efficiency and low-carbon heat, as reflected in amendments 134, 138 and 139 from Liam McArthur, amendments 100, 130 and 132 from Maurice Golden and amendment 140 from David Stewart. I can assure members that policies and proposals on all of these matters will feature in the updated plan. However, it is not unreasonable to suppose that other priorities and key issues will have emerged by the time of the next plan in five years' time or certainly by the time of the one after that. The present amendments may be overly restrictive in the context of the long-term nature of the statutory framework on climate change. They carry the risk that future ministers and parliaments during the 2020s, 2030s and 2040s will be compelled to focus their efforts on matters that are no longer pressing at the expense of those that are. By placing this list on the face of primary legislation, the list of priorities would be difficult to update or amend. In light of these general points, I would urge members to not press— Yes, of course. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking intervention. Surely, from my perspective, the reason for not going for targets, to be open about it, there's been quite a lot of encouragement to do from people beyond the parliament and organisations beyond the parliament is for the very reason that things should be more fluid than that. But I think the contribution of all the areas— although I didn't mention Liam McArthur's issue around heat previously— all those areas are things where, frankly, we are pretty dismal on and we are far behind the curve to use Liam's example again on what's happening in Europe, on renewable district heating, for instance. My understanding of the purpose of these is to set down markers and to focus minds in government and to send messages to industry and all that. Nobody's saying that these have to be done. Nobody has put forward a target for any sectors. But what has to happen if these are accepted today and are very much still hope they will be, cabinet secretary, is that they will have to be considered. If in 2040 we're so brilliant on district heating or we found other methods of heating that we don't need to do that any more, then they'll be considered and it can be quite straightforwardly justified that it's not necessary. However, that is where we are and that is where I think we need to be. That's not what would happen to primary legislation. I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here of the purpose of primary legislation and the effect of primary legislation. I think that that's really important. You say that in 2040 we could choose to just say that's already done and we don't have to develop that in the climate change plan because it's been so good. That's not what the legislation would say. The legislation would say that you had to even in those circumstances. That's the difficulty of the reality of primary legislation as opposed to anything else. I go back to winding up my comments on the generality of this group and reiterating that there is that risk that future ministers, 2020s, 2030s and 2040s will be compelled by law to focus those efforts on matters that may no longer be pressing at the expense of those that are or might become pressing or we may not be able to anticipate at this point. By placing this list on the face of primary legislation the list of priorities would be difficult to update or amend and in light of these general points I would urge members to not press any of their respective amendments in this group. Whilst it is these general points that has guided my approach to responding to this grouping I'd also like to offer further remarks on aspects of certain amendments. Most of my comments are on those amendments relating to land use matters and I will begin there. I'm sympathetic to the underlying intention of Claudia Beamish's amendment 133 in relation to regional land use partnerships and frameworks to support better land use decisions. I do however have particular concerns about both the practical implications and the timing requirements set out in the amendment as they do not reflect current uncertainties around EU exit. The Scottish Government remains committed to the vision, objectives and principles of the second land use strategy 2016 to 2021 getting the best from our land. We are making progress on a number of its policies and proposals including through publishing the world's first land rights and responsibilities statement in September 2017 and publishing Scotland's forestry strategy. In part because of the critical relationship we see between land use and our ability to meet our climate change targets which we all accept the government has just established a new directorate to drive forward development of integrated sustainable land use policy. Crucially the land use strategy was published just before the 2016 EU exit referendum. It is important that we take stock of the land use strategy proposals including those to encourage regional land use partnerships and frameworks to identify actions which will best contribute to the strategies vision previous land use strategy pilot projects in the borders and Aberdeenshire demonstrated that there is no one size fits all approach to developing regional land use frameworks or partnerships. It is therefore not clear that legislating for a regional land use approach will achieve better outcomes. It is essential to allow sufficient time to consider and test the implications of a regional land use approach for local communities and the development of future rural policy after any EU exit. Introducing a timescale for publishing policies and proposals on regional land use partnerships and frameworks within one year royal assent would not create space for the considered approach that is needed. In relation to Mark Ruskell's amendment 49 to require an additional whole farm action plan, I have concerns in terms of this pre-empting on-going data development work in this area and in terms of the general approach of singling out one sector in this case agriculture for more detailed reporting and planning. To be clear, the first of these concerns is not with the principle of trying to provide a better statistical representation of all that farmers do to reduce emissions across their farms including in ways that are not credited to the agriculture sector in the greenhouse gas inventory which, of course, is not an invention of ours it is something to which we are bound. When I wrote to the committee on 2 May and when I gave evidence on 21 May I set out our current position on these matters and I think it may be helpful to do so again. I explained that the Scottish Government is currently exploring alternative methods to provide further estimates of emissions from the wider agriculture sector. I also undertook to report to the committee on potential approaches to reporting and the likely accuracy of estimates as soon as we have progressed the work so that it is sufficiently substantial. I'm happy to reaffirm that the Government is committed to this on-going work and I note that amendment 102 from John Scott reflects a more measured approach to these matters than the one from Mark Ruskell. Agreeing a statutory requirement for what exactly should be reported at this time before the landscape of data availability and quality is even understood runs a high risk of not ending up with the best possible information. The present amendment also seems likely to lead to reporting that substantially duplicates the policy information already set out in the agriculture chapter of the climate change plans albeit in a different format. It is not clear to me why this one sector should be singled out for additional reporting and planning in the way proposed. I urge members to allow current work to develop the evidence base around whole farm emissions reporting to continue and take its course. I assure members that I recognise the importance they place on these matters. Indeed I frequently discuss this in my own speeches and other conversations that I have and indeed to the reduction of emissions from agriculture in general which is also reflected in John Scott's amendment 102 and Morris Golden's amendment 137. I will provide further updates to the committee on the analytical work in this area as soon as possible and I'd also be happy to meet directly with any interested members to discuss these matters in more detail. Remaining with land use matters I'm interested in John Scott's amendment 101 on establishing a new land class related to climate change mitigation. I don't think the present bill is the right place for this in part because I note that existing classifications are not statutory in nature. However, I would be happy to ask my officials to look into the idea further. I would also be happy to meet with John Scott to discuss it further once that work has happened. I'd urge the member not to press the current amendment at this time as it is simply too early to be making decisions on an idea so little explored. I also have sympathy for what I think may be the intentions of Mark Ruskell's amendment 136 on marine carbon storage which I have taken to be in reference to what is commonly known as blue carbon. Whilst the IPCC is in mission reporting guidelines and therefore the Scottish GHG inventory and climate targets do not currently include blue carbon this doesn't mean that it is not important. The Scottish Government recognises the important role of our oceans in mitigating climate change. Indeed, our current climate change plan contains a section setting out on the approach to those matters and if I recall it was a late addition to the final plan because the information had not been available at the point of the draft climate change plan. I can assure Mark Ruskell and other interested members that blue carbon will continue to feature in the updated plan and I'd also be happy to meet with any members to discuss the progress of work to develop the evidence base in this area. If it's brief. Obviously, I've said brief but I need a clarification so I hope that's acceptable to ask for an intervention. On 1.33 in relation to land use which is a very important issue which Environment Link and a number of groups have raised with me the Cabinet Secretary said that the Royal Ascent of one year didn't give time to enable issues to be taken forward and I wonder if she would consider meeting with me to discuss the possibility of making it three to four years for Royal Ascent in order to bring something back at stage three. I'm always happy to continue to have these conversations. I think that the substantial point that I was making is that we're not actually at the stage of having enough information right now to be able to establish a fixed way forward so I'm happy to have that conversation with the member over the intervening couple of months. I want now to turn to Morris Golden's amendment 1.31 on a sustainable energy innovation centre. I'm unclear how this would be expected to interact with the various innovation centres already supporting the renewable energy low-carbon sector in Scotland. If I may make an aside that we usually hear from Conservative members about cutting down on duplication of effort. I just want to list for all members of the committee what the current various innovation centres are. Those include the energy technology partnership, which is directly SG funded, the construction Scotland innovation centre, which gets Scottish funding council and enterprise agency money, the Edinburgh centre for carbon innovation, the centre for energy policy at the University of Strath Clyde, international public policy institute, the industrial biotechnology centre, the oil and gas innovation centre and the Scottish aquaculture innovation centre. It might have been helpful to have understood how and in what way the sustainable energy innovation centre was going to fit into all of that. Again, I would be happy to discuss with the member if he thinks that there is a role genuinely for another one or perhaps a conversation we could have about how that might be reflected. With energy matters, the Scottish Government cannot accept Mark Ruskell's amendment 135 which would require ministers to set out proposals and policies regarding the prohibition of the extraction of on-shore unconventional oil and gas reserves in all future climate change plans. The Scottish Government's preferred policy position is that it does not support on-shore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland. Scottish ministers are entering the final stages of making process on this important issue. The preferred policy position is subject to a statutory strategic environmental assessment and other assessments before any policy can be adopted. In the meantime, it is important to stress that under the terms of the moratorium no local authority can grant planning permission for any proposed fracking or coal bed methane project without advising ministers which then permits ministers to call the application in and Scottish ministers would defer any decision on any planning application that did come forward until the policy making process on their preferred position is completed. The practical effect of the current moratorium and the policy making process which is under way to finalise our position is that no fracking or other unconventional oil and gas activity can take place in Scotland at this time. Thanks. Can the council confirm that the outcome of that preferred policy making process will be reflected in the next climate change plan? I expect it would be. Whatever the current state of it is and I'm actually quite constrained in what I can say about all of this so I've seen no reason but remember that the next the climate change plan subsists for a considerable period of time so all you can do is reflect a current position. I appreciate that amendments 148 and 149 from Liam McArthur who's been waiting patiently to have his amendments addressed relate to requirements for specific content within climate change plan monitoring reports rather than within plans themselves so this is a slightly different aspect. The purpose of the annual monitoring reports is to set out information on progress to delivery across all areas of whatever plan is current at that time so singling out specific policy areas for particular assessment could create the perception that it is less important to monitor progress in other areas and this is back to the issue that I raised right at the start of my comments. I've already assured Liam McArthur that the upcoming update to the current plan will include policies and proposals on both low carbon heat and electric vehicles. I can further assure him that these will then also be monitored using appropriate indicators in the subsequent monitoring reports. To conclude my view is that it is vitally important that the statutory climate change plan process continues to effectively support the delivery of Scotland's ever more challenging climate targets seeking to predetermine the content of future plans by placing particular delivery policies on the face of the act now, runs a risk of leading to a process that is overly restrictive and outcomes that are less cost effective. It also risks creating legal hierarchies among policy options and sending unintended signals that this will result in some options being prioritised at the expense of others. I ask members to allow the effective approach to long term delivery planning established by this Parliament's 2009 act to continue placing one particular set of current delivery priorities however well intentioned to the face of primary legislation risks fundamentally undermining that approach. As such, I reiterate my call for members to not press any of their amendments in this group. As will be clear, if they do still wish to press those, then I will not be able to support them. OK, thank you. Colin Lee MacArthur to take the opportunity to wind up if he wants it and to press or withdraw amendment 138. Thank you, convener. I think there's been a very useful and interesting debate. I mean, I think that root of it is the principle around the balance between prescription and indeed keeping open the necessary flexibility to ensure that the legislation is future proofed. I think there's not necessarily any disagreement in the fact that that balance needs to be got right for a whole host of reasons. I think Mark Ruskell and Maurice Golden both pointed to the need for there to be a policy framework in order to drive forward action and to simply assume that that action will take place is perhaps a little dangerous or naive. I think the only exception to that in relation to the different amendments was in relation to fracking where it was less about enabling and more about underpinning the concern that a number of us have about the state of the current prohibition there. Could I thank both Claudia and Mark for their strong support in relation to my amendments around heat and transport? I think that it's absolutely inconceivable over the duration of the climate change plans going forward that there will need to be any let-up in heat and transport, not least given where we start from. I think there will undoubtedly be a need to continue to keep that under review but in both instances I suspect requiring the public sector to continue to take the lead and drive forward progress will be essential around blue carbon as well. Some of what we know about that is less perfect than we would like. Stuart Stevenson made some interesting points about clarity in terms of the amendment that's currently before us but nevertheless the notion that this will not play a key part in delivery of our climate change ambitions over the duration of this plan again is inconceivable. I think one of the most interesting debates for me from a personal level was around agriculture and land management. I think it was reassuring to hear the agreement that while agriculture to date has I think been misconstrued and misrepresented as simply part of the problem as opposed to a sector that presents opportunities as well as areas where I think there will need to be progress made and I think the various amendments seek to capture that so in a sense it boils down to whether or not we believe that the action we need to see across these areas can simply be assumed in the way that the bill is currently framed or whether the effort to drive forward that action will be enhanced and buttressed by having some of the amendments proposed by myself and other colleagues and I fall to the fact that I think there is more detail that could usefully put into the bill and on the basis of that I will be moving amendment 138. I call amendment sorry the question is that amendment 138 be agreed to are we agreed? No we're not we have a division can I ask that those in favour of the amendment raise their hands now and those against? Are there any abstentions? No No I call amendment 139 the name of Liam McArthur ready debated with amendment 138 would you like to move the amendment or not move it? The question is that amendment 139 be agreed to are we all agreed? No Okay we have a division can I ask those in favour of the amendment 139 to raise their hands now and those against? No Okay the result of that division for amendment 139 it's 4, 4, 3 against it's therefore agreed to I call amendment 100 in the name of Maurice Golden ready debated with amendment 138 would you like to move amendment 100 or not move it? The question is that amendment 100 be agreed to are we all agreed? No Okay we have a division so amendment 100 raise their hands and those against? Okay the result of that division is for amendment 100 we have 4 votes and against 3 the amendment is therefore agreed to I call amendment 130 in the name of Maurice Golden ready debated with amendment 138 would you like to move that amendment or not move it? It's moved The question then is that amendment 130 be agreed to we have a division those in favour of amendment 130 raise their hands and those against and the result of that division is that we have 4 votes 4 and 3 against the amendment is therefore agreed to I call amendment 134 in the name of Liam McArthur ready debated with amendment 138 would you like to move or not move it? It's moved amendment 134 be agreed to Are we all agreed? No Can I ask those in favour of amendment 134 to raise their hands and those against and the result of that division is that for amendment 134 we have 4 votes and against we have 3 therefore the amendment is agreed to I call amendment 140 in the name of David Stewart but moved by Claudia Beamish so I don't know how that works any members have an objection to that with the drawing I call amendment 101 in the name of John Scott ready debated with amendment 138 I ask John Scott if he wants to move or not move that I call amendment 136 in the name of Mark Ruskell ready debated with amendment 138 It's moved The question then is that amendment 136 be agreed to Are we all agreed? No I've got a division amendment 136 raise their hands and those against the result of that division and 136 is 2 votes 4 and 5 against therefore not agreed to I call amendment 102 in the name of John Scott ready debated with amendment 138 I ask John Scott if he wants to move or not move I call amendment 133 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 138 I ask Claudia Beamish if she wants to move The question then is amendment 133 I'm so sorry I apologise I call amendment 137 in the name of Morris Golden ready debated with amendment 138 Would you like to move or not move The question then is that amendment 137 be agreed to Are we all agreed? We've got a division Can I ask those in favour of amendment 137 to raise their hands and those against and those wishing to abstain The result of that division on amendment 137 is we've got 2 votes 4 3 votes against and 2 abstentions therefore it's not agreed I call amendment 131 in the name of Morris Golden already debated with amendment 138 I ask Morris Golden if he wants to move or not move I call amendment 132 in the name of Morris Golden Would you like to move or not move The question then is amendment 132 be agreed to Are we all agreed? We've got a division I ask those in favour of amendment 132 to raise their hands and those against and those abstaining The result of the division on amendment 132 is 2 votes 4 3 votes against and 2 abstentions therefore it's not agreed to I call amendment 132 in the name of Mark Ruskell already debated with amendment 138 I ask Mark Ruskell if he wants to move or not move The question then is that amendment 135 be agreed to Are we all agreed? We've got a division I ask those in favour of amendment 135 to raise their hands and those against and those abstaining The result of that division on abstention therefore it's disagreed to I call amendment 141 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 113 I ask Claudia Beamish if she wants to move or not move Sorry 141 Sorry is that within this group? Sorry Sorry The question then is not moved I'm confused I'm sorry Okay Okay we're going to take a brief suspension to have a bit of a break after that Marathon 10 minutes 10 minutes please we suspend Okay and we're back I call amendment 76 in the name of John Scott which is grouped with amendments 142 and 147 I ask John Scott to move amendment 76 and speak to all the amendments in the group Thank you Amendment 76 seeks to amend section 19 of the bill which makes provision in relation to climate change plans and seeks to add a requirement that each plan prepared by the Scottish ministers must set out estimates of the costs and benefits associated with the policies in the plan It will also allow both Government and the public the opportunity to better understand the costs and benefits as best they can be calculated and estimated before each new plan is undertaken This amendment responds to recommendation 656 in the report at stage 1 So I move the amendment in my main Okay thank you Apologies I'm way ahead of myself I've got Morris Golden to speak to amendment 142 Another amendments in the group Amendment 142 introduces a requirement for impact assessment within the climate change plan and will require Scottish ministers to consider how proposals and policies set out in the climate change plan affect various groups including island communities and local authorities and I'd like to move amendment 142 Thank you Mark Ruskell speaks to amendment 147 Mark Ruskell My amendment 147 requires the annual progress reports on the climate change plan to include information and level of spending that's been put towards plans, policies and proposals I mean it does pick up on one of the recommendations that was made in our stage 1 report and that was around these annual monitoring reports They are of benefit to the pre-budget scrutiny process but we can't really be as beneficial as the other ones should be without that financial information associated with them I'll hear what the cabinet secretary says I think we've already had discussion last week around budgets and there was an offer of more discussion around budget mechanisms but I think right now I'm inclined to move this one because it's a very obvious improvement that we need to bring forward and at the moment I'm inclined to move it Stuart Stevenson would you like to speak to some of these amendments? Thank you number 76 is so obvious I doubt that Paul will take long deciding to support it I'm not sure that 147 adds anything to it however what I wanted to pick on was Maurice Golden's list I don't know what's meant by indigenous peoples at all in Scotland we have had so many waves of migration over the years I don't know if any of us in Scotland that are indigenous in any meaningful sense and certainly my DNA ancestry suggests an extremely mongrel ancestry for me and I suspect most of us I also don't quite know what migrants means immigrants or ex-emigrants in other words people leaving or people arriving or of course the old convention is you migrated when you were moving within the Commonwealth and you immigrated or emigrated when you were moving into or from the Commonwealth so I'm not entirely clear that I know what migrants is and I wonder where it says persons in vulnerable situations I think I know what that's likely to me but I wondered if whether it actually was trying to say people with protected characteristics or maybe that is an emission from the list but in any event I think the list if we must have it and I'm not clear that we should as a list it perhaps is not the list I feel comfortable with convener cabinet secretary I support John Scott's amendment 76 I know that the committee were keen for that to be greater information about the costs and benefits associated with climate change plans this is a proportional duty that will ensure that the plans are required to set out useful information on estimated costs and benefits of the policies to reduce emissions I have sympathy for the intentions behind Mark Ruskell's amendment 147 which would require annual climate change plan monitoring reports to include assessments of expenditure during delivery of the plan as the committee is aware I've already welcomed through my responses to the committee's reports further engagement with the Parliament on these matters in the debate on the grouping of amendments on budget related matters the Scottish Government made an offer to work with the Parliament and stakeholders to review the current processes and outputs around budget information as it relates to climate change including the roles of both section 94 of the 2009 act and the climate change plan monitoring reports I was happy that Mark Ruskell has accepted this offer of a joint review process and given the importance of that discussion I hope that we will not now press amendment 147 so that that can proceed in the way that would be most helpful finally in this grouping I can't support Maurice Golden's amendment 142 this seeks to require that plans include an assessment of their impacts on a range of groups, communities and organisations whilst I have no doubt that this is well intentioned it would be duplicative of existing impact assessment requirements notably the statutory duties around equalities impact assessments but also children's wellbeing impact assessments socio-economic assessment new islands impact assessment and business and regulatory impact assessments and if I could be just a little mischievous and take the opposite position to the one that my colleague Stuart Stevenson has taken his view is that none of us are Indigenous I would regard us to be the Indigenous people of Scotland and so I'm a little I was a little puzzled by that as well because I wasn't I couldn't really work out what that would mean the point made by Stuart Stevenson about migrants is well taken it's also not there isn't any time bracketed around it nor is it in any way specific to to groups of migrants and I just flag up that for 16 years of my life I was a migrant I just didn't happen to be a migrant in this country so you know there are just one or two issues around language and this is more to do with the necessity to be absolutely clear on the face of legislation what exactly it is that you're discussing and there may be some other issues in and around that as well but for the reasons that I've I've already flagged up with a variety of existing impact assessments that are already required I don't regard this amendment as at all necessary it would add a further administrative burden to the process of preparing climate change plans even leaving aside some of the question marks over some of the categories with very little if any added value as a result so I'd urge the member not to press this amendment and if he does for the committee to reject it thank you I'd like to give John Scott the opportunity to wind up and press a withdrawal amendments I'm grateful to the cabinet secretary's consideration of the need for cost and benefits analysis and this was much discussed at the committee and I'll move him in my name thank you the question then is that amendment 76 be agreed to are we all agreed we are I call amendment 75 in the name of the cabinet secretary are we thank you the question then is that amendment 75 be agreed yes I call amendment 142 in the name of Morris Golden are we debated by the amendment 76 would Morris Golden like to move or not move the amendment not moved I call amendment 103 in the name of Claudia Beamish are we debated by the amendment 91 would you like to move or not move that I'd like to move it please the question then is that amendment 103 be agreed to we all agreed on the provision can I ask all those in favour of 103 amendment 103 raise their hands now and those against and we don't have any abstentions the results of that amendment 103 we have two votes four or five against is therefore disagreed to I call amendment 143 in the name of Claudia Beamish are we already debated with amendment 113 Claudia would you like to move or not move that moved the question then is that amendment 143 be agreed to are we all agreed we've got a division so all those in favour of amendment 143 raise their hands and those against okay the result of the vote on amendment 143 we have two votes four or five against is therefore disagreed to I call amendment 77 in the name of the cabinet secretary the question then is amendment 77 be agreed to are we all agreed we are I call amendment 49 in the name of Mark Ruskell already debated with amendment 138 Mark would you like to move or not move it's moved I call amendment 49A in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 138 Claudia would you like to move or not move the question is amendment 49A be agreed to are we all agreed right we have a division on this those in favour of amendment 49A raise their hands and those against okay so 49A results are two votes four or five against therefore disagreed to call amendment 49B in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 138 would you like to move or not move the question then is amendment 49B be agreed to are we all agreed no we have a division those that are in favour of 49B raise their hands those who are against the result of 49B amendment is two votes four or five against therefore disagreed to I would like to ask Mark Ruskell who would you like to press or withdraw amendment 49 the question is that amendment 49 be agreed to are we all agreed we have a division those who are for amendment 49 raise their hands and those against in the result of the vote on amendment 49 are two votes four or five against it is disagreed to call amendment 78 in the name of the cabinet secretary thank you the question is that amendment 78 be agreed to are we agreed we are amendment 79 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments 80, 81 and 84 I ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment 79 and speak to all the amendments in the group thank you convener these amendments bring clarity and transparency to the role of independent expert advice from the relevant body that is the CCC in the preparation of climate change plans they represent a sensible and proportionate response to the recommendations in the committee's stage 1 report the CCC provides its views on any draft climate change plan through its annual reports on Scottish progress in reducing emissions which are provided for under section 9 of the 2009 act the current legislation also already requires that ministers must have regard to any representations, resolutions or reports from parliament on the draft plan in addition ministers must publish a statement alongside the final version of the plan detailing these representations, resolutions and reports and any change made in response to them the present amendments build on these arrangements amendment 84 formally inserts into section 9 of the 2009 act a duty on ministers to request the views of the CCC on any draft climate change plan laid in the previous 12 months given that the CCC's independent progress reports are themselves annual but not tied to any fixed date within the year this will ensure that the CCC is requested to promptly set out its views on each new draft plan amendment 79 then requires ministers to have regard to any views on a draft plan from the CCC before laying the final version of that plan before parliament amendment 80 ensures that ministers must set out the detail of any views received from the CCC in the statement accompanying the final plan amendment 81 ensures that ministers must set out any changes they have made in response to the CCC's views in that statement in a similar manner to what is already required in response to any representation resolutions and reports from the parliament these amendments serve to make the independent advisory role of the CCC in the climate change plan process clearer they will ensure that the views of the CCC on delivery planning are sought and taken into account in an effective proportionate and transparent manner and I move amendment 79 thank you the question then is that amendment 79 be agreed to we are I call amendment 144 in the name of Claudia Beamish which has already been debated with amendment 113 Claudia Beamish would you like to move or not move? move please the question is that amendment 144 be agreed to are we all agreed no got a division those who are in favour of amendment 144 raised their hands and those who are against we have no abstentions the result of the vote on amendment 144 or 2 votes for 5 against is disagreed to I call amendment 80 in the name of the cabinet secretary the question is that amendment 80 be agreed to are we all agreed we are I call amendment 81 in the name of the cabinet secretary the question is that amendment 81 be agreed to are we all agreed I call amendment 145 in the name of Mark Ruskell already debated with amendment 113 would you like to move or not move? not moved I call amendment 146 in the name of Mark Ruskell not moved amendment 147 not moved I call amendment 148 in the name of Liam McArthur I believe that Liam McArthur has delegated his responsibility to Mark Ruskell not moved on Liam McArthur's behalf okay and amendment 149 not moved I call amendment 150 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 113 Claudia, is it moved or not moved? I'll move please the question is that amendment 150 be agreed to are we all agreed no those who favour of amendment 150 raise their hands and those against the result of the vote on 150 are 2 votes for 5 or 5 against it's disagreed to I call amendment 82 in the name of the cabinet secretary the question is that amendment 82 be agreed to are we all agreed yes I call amendment 151 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 113 would you like to move or not move? not moved the question is that amendment 151 be agreed to are we agreed amendment 151 raise their hands and those against no abstentions the result of the vote in the amendment 151 are 2 votes for 5 against it's therefore disagreed to I call amendment 83 in the name of the cabinet secretary the question is that amendment 83 be agreed to are we all agreed yes I call amendment 84 in the name of the cabinet secretary the question is that amendment 84 be agreed to are we all agreed yes and the question is that section 19 be agreed to are we all agreed yes I call amendment 152 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 108 Claudia would you like to move or not move? the question is that amendment 152 in the name of Claudia Beamish be agreed to are we all agreed no I beg your pardon the question is that amendment 152 be agreed to are we all agreed yes thank you I call amendment 153 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 108 I hope I've got it right not moved it's not moved I call amendments 36, 85 86 and 37 all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously anyone having an objection to them been moved on block the question is that amendments 35, 86 and 37 are agreed to are we all agreed yes and the question is that section 20 be agreed to are we all agreed yes the question is that section 21 be agreed to are we all agreed I call amendment 38 in the name of the cabinet secretary the question is that amendment 38 be agreed to are we all agreed yes and I call amendment 87 in the name the question is that amendment 87 be agreed to are we agreed yes I call amendment 47 in the name of Mark Ruskell already debated and that's moved the question is amendment 47 be agreed to are we all agreed no I'll say that again the question is that amendment 47 be agreed to are we all agreed yes we are right we are here just check more places I call amendment 88 to 90 all in the name of the cabinet secretary and invite cabinet secretary to move on block anyone object to them being moved on block no the question is that amendments 88 to 90 are agreed to are we all agreed yes and the question is that the schedule be agreed to are we all agreed yes the question is that sections 22 and 23 be agreed to are we all agreed and I call amendment 48 in the name of Mark Ruskell moved thank you the question is that amendment 48 be agreed are we all agreed there's division therefore those who are in favour of amendment 48 raise their hands and those against the results of amendment 48 we've got 2, 4 and 5 against disagreed to the question is that section 24 be agreed to are we agreed the question is that section 25 be agreed to are we all agreed we are and I call amendment 50 in the name of Stuart Stevenson that's moved the question is that amendment 50 be agreed to are we all agreed yes we agreed and I call amendment 154 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 113 to move the amendment 154 it's not moved okay and the question is that the long title be agreed to are we all agreed we are that in end stage 2 of consideration of the bill and that concludes the committee's business and public today the next meeting of the committee will take place on the 3rd of September could I ask that the public gallery is cleared of continuing the meeting in private dimension thank you