Division number 6
For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Allan, Alasdair, Brocklebank, Ted, Brown, Gavin, Brown, Keith, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Campbell, Aileen, Carlaw, Jackson, Coffey, Willie, Constance, Angela, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Don, Nigel, Doris, Bob, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Finnie, Ross, FitzPatrick, Joe, Fraser, Murdo, Gibson, Kenneth, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Christopher, Harvie, Patrick, Hepburn, Jamie, Hume, Jim, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Kidd, Bill, Lamont, John, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Stewart, McArthur, Liam, McGrigor, Jamie, McInnes, Alison, McKee, Ian, McKelvie, Christina, McLaughlin, Anne, McLetchie, David, McMillan, Stuart, Milne, Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Munro, John Farquhar, Neil, Alex, O'Donnell, Hugh, Paterson, Gil, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Robison, Shona, Rumbles, Mike, Salmond, Alex, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elizabeth, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Somerville, Shirley-Anne, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, John, Thompson, Dave, Tolson, Jim, Watt, Maureen, Welsh, Andrew, White, Sandra, Wilson, Bill, Wilson, John
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Claire, Baker, Richard, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Margaret, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Foulkes, George, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Charlie, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Jamieson, Cathy, Kelly, James, Kerr, Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Ken, Martin, Paul, McAveety, Mr Frank, McConnell, Jack, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Mulligan, Mary, Oldfather, Irene, Park, John, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Stewart, David, Whitefield, Karen, Whitton, David
During the passage of the bill, we have heard a lot about the need to take early action to tackle climate change. We have already taken such action by agreeing to certain amendments this morning. However, we must also consider the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that we will produce between now and 2050.
I very much welcomed the amendment that was lodged by Cathy Peattie at stage 2 to place a duty on ministers to report on cumulative emissions. As a result, the bill contained—for the first time—a duty on cumulative emissions. The amendment
I am keen for the bill to be even more ambitious, and I want to build on Cathy Peattie's good work. That is why I have lodged amendments 102, 105 and 116, which will oblige the Scottish ministers to request and consider advice from the UK Committee on Climate Change on what the cumulative amount of net Scottish emissions should be for Scotland for the duration of the effect of the bill. Scottish ministers should be obliged to request such information each time they set annual targets, so that we can obtain advice at the earliest opportunity.
Of course, it will not be enough simply to request advice; ministers will have to act on it. The amendments cover that point too. Once available, that information will prove to be a significant factor in determining the level of future annual targets, and will focus the minds of future Administrations on their obligations for the years right up until 2050.
The amendments in the name of Alison McInnes are along the same lines and, indeed, take us a step further. They are a welcome addition to the amendments in my name, and I urge the chamber to support them as well.
I move amendment 102.
I will support the amendments in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville. They are a good start, but I hope that the chamber will also agree to amendments 103 and 104, in my name, which further define and enhance the role that a cumulative emissions budget would play.
I reassure the chamber that the amendments are not overly prescriptive. They do not set an arbitrary budget. They call for the best scientific evidence that is available to direct the Government with regard to what an appropriate total would be. Already this morning, there has been much emphasis on the idea of using the best scientific evidence that is available. In doing so, we will strengthen the fundamental target-setting role of the bill and move from a basis of doing what we know that we can do to doing what we need to do.
Unfortunately, because of the way in which the groupings of amendments have worked out, I feel as though I am repeating myself when I address the chamber this morning. However, as I have already said, when we set targets, it is impossible to examine the interim target, the annual targets and the cumulative targets in isolation; they are all, ultimately, stepping stones and tools along the course to the 80 per cent target—we cannot have one without the others. That is especially the case when we consider the question of cumulative emissions. I cannot emphasise enough that, for
I cannot put it more simply than this: if we do not calculate an overall emissions budget based entirely on science and not on the addition of point-in-time targets, we simply cannot know whether those targets are right and we cannot know whether our annual targets will have the desired impact.
The amendments in the names of Shirley-Anne Somerville and Alison McInnes are concerned with Scotland's cumulative emissions over the period from 2010 to 2050. I recognise the widespread desire for the bill to acknowledge the issue of Scotland's cumulative emissions. I believe that the amendments in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville provide a way for cumulative emissions to be incorporated in the bill in a way that is sufficiently flexible not to interfere with the emissions reduction trajectory that will be published in line with the batches of annual targets that ministers must set. I am therefore content to accept amendments 102, 105 and 116.
We have considered the amendments in the name of Alison McInnes. Although, from a technical point of view, we would have preferred some aspects of the amendments to be drafted differently—there might be some small practical difficulties with them—they basically express policy positions that we wish to pursue, so we are happy to commend them to the chamber as well.
This is an important section. It ensures that we approach our early action with an eye to 2050 in a way that ensures that we do not emit more than our fair share in the years to come. As Alison McInnes has said, the section ties the two parts of our efforts together. It ensures that, when we set our annual targets, we focus on our cumulative and total emissions up to 2050. I urge the chamber to support all the amendments in the group.
Amendment 102 agreed to.
[Amendments 103 and 104 moved—[Alison McInnes]—and agreed to.]