 Welcome back and welcome also to Lee McArthur MSP who has joined us. I call amendment 52 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments shown in the groupings and I remind members that amendment 95 preempts amendment 54 in this group. I ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment 52 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you convener, this group of amendments relate to the fair and safe Scottish emissions budget. Section 5 of the bill sets out the target setting criteria which ministers must request the relevant body, and that is of course the CCC, to have regard to when providing its advice on targets and which ministers must take into account when modifying the net zero emissions target year or an interim target percentage figure. One of the criteria is the objective of not exceeding the fair and safe Scottish emissions budget. The bill mirrors the definition of the fair and safe Scottish emissions budget found in the 2009 act. That definition is the aggregate amount of net Scottish emissions for the period 2010 to 2050 as recommended by the relevant body as being consistent with Scotland contributing appropriately to the stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. I've listened to calls from both stakeholders and the committee to align that definition more closely with the Paris agreement. I've therefore brought forward amendment 54, which directly links the definition of the budget to the Paris agreement global temperature aim, set out in article 2.1 of that agreement, of holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. I've also brought forward amendment 55, which requires ministers to seek regular updates at least every five years from the CCC to the appropriate level of the budget. The budget is not at the discretion of ministers, it is solely determined by the independent expert advice of the CCC. Additionally, amendment 70 requires annual reports on emissions reduction targets to include information on the current level of the fair and safe Scottish emissions budget, and to set out alongside that the cumulative level of net Scottish emissions since 2010. Finally, amendments 52 and 85 are consequential to ensure that the new definition is applied throughout the updated act. Claudia Beamish lodged amendments 95, 96, 98 and 99, which also relate to the fair and safe emissions budget. In particular, the first of those proposes an alternative redefinition of the budget. The remainder are largely parallel to the Government amendments in the group. I recognise the well-meaning intent of those amendments, however, a respect of amendments to the definition of the budget cannot both be agreed at this time. The essential difference between those is that amendment 54 includes the full wording of the Paris agreement global temperature aim, whereas Claudia Beamish's amendment 95 refers to that aim in a general sense and also makes reference to certain of the UNFCCC principles in relation to how a Scottish share of the global budget should be determined. There are also some further more technical but not unsubstantive differences between the two sets of amendments. For example, my amendment 55 specifically requires the CCC to be asked to set out a new budget if the current one is no longer appropriate, whereas Claudia Beamish's amendment 98 does not specify what should happen in this situation. As I said in the debate on earlier groupings, I would be happy to work with Claudia Beamish towards a sensible and effective way of reflecting considerations of climate justice and international development in the bill for stage 3. In particular, I would be happy for this work to find a suitable way to reflect the UNFCCC principles, as well as the wording of the Paris agreement temperature goal in the definition of the fair and safe emissions budget. On that basis, I urge Claudia Beamish not to press any of her amendments in this group at the time and for members to support the Government amendments. Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 95 and other amendments in the group. I'm just slightly confused if I could seek clarification from the cabinet secretary in relation to my amendment 95 and the cabinet secretary's amendment 54, because they seem to be mutually exclusive, so I'm not quite sure how I would have the offer from her of working over the summer if I considered we're drawing. I think that what I'm suggesting is that the Government amendments go through just now and that we have a conversation about what will then be within the amended bill and a conversation about whether or not there's another amendment at stage 3 that could perhaps make Claudia Beamish a little happier about what is being proposed. Right, thank you for that clarification through the convener. I suppose it's difficult for me to withdraw 95 at this stage in spite of the offer of discussions over the summer because they do mirror each other and I would have thought that it might be more appropriate if I may suggest with respect that 54 might be withdrawn as well, so there could be a substantive conversation, but I'll highlight my amendment some and we'll take it from there. Those amendments in my name strengthen the commitment to a fair and safe Scottish emissions budget established by the 2009 act and a term that was recognised at stage 1 by committee and government as important. Those amendments are supported by Stock Climate Care Scotland. Amendment 95 improves the definition of the fair and safe emissions budget, amending it to read and I will quote it, the aggregate rather than agreeable amount of net zero emissions as recommended by the relevant body has been consistent with Scotland's share of the global emissions budget that accords with the United Nations framework convention on climate change principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities to limit global temperature rises to the agreed goals of the UN climate agreements. This better reflects the fair part as the existing definition only in the previous bill only really considers the safe part, preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Amendment 96 clarifies the meaning of global emissions budget as calculated by the respected IPCC. Amendment 98 adds the fair and safe emissions budget to those things that are the relevant body that the CCC should consider in their regular advice. Amendment 99 is about making sure that there is regular reporting via the CCC on how Scotland is doing against this fair and safe budget. I do welcome the cabinet secretary's amendment 70, adding to reference to reporting on emissions reductions. I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement at stage one to be open to further discussion on this definition and the Government's more general statement that it is, I quote, absolutely central. Amendment 54 is an improvement on the current drafting with its mention of 1.5. I do not consider that the cabinet secretary's definition goes far enough and enshrining the commitment to recognise and act in accordance with our historic contribution to climate change by acting faster than developing nations. I just want to highlight that I did have a very positive conversation with some of either members of extension rebellion or I don't think it is a formal organised membership group as I came in this morning, and they have highlighted in what they handed to me that we, and that is a global we, we face floods, wildfires, extreme weather, crop failure, mass migration and the breakdown of society. That is not in any sense from what I understand, from what has been reported to me by Skiath and a number of groups such as Action Aid in any way in exaggeration. There is even, as I saw in my newsfeed this week, a village in Wales, which in the next 20 years will have to actually be moved away from the coast. As we know, those things are happening here as well, and we may not be defining those as what comes from this leaflet, which is mass migration, but there will be migration and there will be very serious consequences, not only in the global south but here in Scotland and indeed in Trump's United States, sadly. I urge members to support my definition in amendment 95, which addresses our fair share of global emissions. I was going to say that I will vote for the cabinet secretary's amendment 54, if mine falls, but I would welcome further discussion on a wide range of amendments ahead of stage 3, and I am interested in what other members have to say before I make my final decision. Thank you. Are there any other members who would like to speak to this? No. I ask the cabinet secretary to wind up. I hope that I will be, whatever happens here today, I hope that we will be able to have a conversation about that further down the line. I just want to reiterate, though, that the committee has called for global temperature numbers on the face of the bill. Amendment 54, the Government amendment, does that, but Claudia Beamish's amendment 95 does not. From the perspective of what the committee was looking for, the Government amendment fulfills that request in a way that Claudia Beamish's amendment does not. I ask committee members to be consistent with their request at an earlier part of their proceedings. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Call amendment 53, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated by the amendment 51. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Call amendment 95, in the name of Claudia Beamish. Already debated by the amendment 52. I remind members that, if amendment 95 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 54. I ask Claudia Beamish whether she wants to move or not move. I will move. It's moved. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We have a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment? That's amendment 95 to raise their hands now. And those against? Okay. The result of that vote is total votes for amendment 95 to against 5. It's not agreed. I call amendment 54, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated by the amendment 52. I will move. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We have a division. Can I ask those in favour of amendment 54 to raise their hands now? And those against? And those wishing to abstain? No, yes. The results of that vote are... We have 4. The amendment is 6. And total abstention is 1. So the amendment is agreed. I call amendment 96, in the name of Claudia Beamish. Already debated with amendment 52. I wish to move or not move. Not move. The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 15, 55 and 56, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move. Move done a lot. Does any member object a single question that has been put on amendments 15, 55 and 56? Don't. The question is that amendments 15, 55 and 56 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 57, in the name of the cabinet secretary. A group with amendments is shown in the groupings, as the cabinet secretary to move amendment 57 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I have lodged amendments 57, 72, 73, 74 and 77 in response to the committee's stage 1 report recommendation that a defined set of chapter headings for climate change plans aligned to international emissions classifications should be set out in the legislation. Amendment 73 defines this set of chapter headings based on the chapters of the national communications submitted by annually to the UN framework convention on climate change. The list is as follows. Energy supply, transport, including international aviation and shipping, business and industrial processes, residential and public in relation to building in those sectors, waste management, land use, land use change and forestry and agriculture. In essence, this list replaces the much simpler fourfold list of sectors set out in the 2009 act of energy efficiency, energy generation, land use and transport. Amendment 77 allows ministers to modify the list of sectors introduced by amendment 73 by regulations under the affirmative procedure. That is so that they can be updated to reflect any changes in the international emissions classifications in the future. To ensure that any such changes remain consistent with those classifications, a limitation is placed on the power such that any proposed modification must be consistent with international carbon reporting practice. That is the term used in the 2009 act and bill to refer to greenhouse gas inventories and emissions classifications. Amendment 72 amends section 35 subsection 2 subsection B, which previously set out that ministers should structure climate change plans around such chapters and topics as they consider appropriate. The amendment ensures that substantive plan chapters must be included on each of the sectors set out in the list in amendment 73. Other chapters may also be included on such other sectors and topics as ministers consider appropriate. Similarly, amendment 74 means that the plan must set out the respective contributions made by the sectors in the list introduced by amendment 73. A further consequence of those amendments is that the associated sector by sector climate change plan monitoring reports will follow the same structure. Amendment 57 is a linked amendment to new section 2C, which sets out provisions in relation to seeking advice from the relevant body, that is the Committee on Climate Change. Again, as recommended by the committee, this duty is amended so that ministers must seek the views of the CCC of the respective contributions towards meeting targets from each of the sectors in the list introduced by amendment 73. That will ensure that CCC advice is provided on a comparable structure to that used in climate change plans and also their associated monitoring reports. The approach of defining a set of plan chapter headings directly aligned to international emissions classification schemes is in response to the request of the committee. That is why I would ask Liam McArthur to not press amendment 73A. Whilst I am sure that that is well intentioned, the proposed change would deviate from the UNFCCC national communication categories and create issues of consistency. If it is pressed, I urge the committee to reject it, as it is contrary to its technical recommendations. I also invite Maurice Golden not to press amendment 109, and if it is pressed that the committee rejects it, amendment 109 would allow sectors to be added to the current fourfold list by regulations. In my view, such a power would be rendered entirely unnecessary by the Government amendments in this group. The list of sectors on the face of the legislation as introduced by amendment 73 is comprehensive. It covers all currently reported Scottish emissions. Amendment 77 means that the list can also be updated by regulations if needed in the future. Under those circumstances, I do not really see what the provision of amendment 109 would meaningfully add to the legislation, so I move amendment 57. I ask Maurice Golden to speak to amendment 109, and other amendments in the group. Thank you. Amendment 109 is relatively minor and technical, and the purpose is to allow Scottish ministers by regulation to add additional sectors to the bill for the purpose of seeking advice. It was developed in response to the committee's stage 1 recommendations, and ultimately provides, in a small way, a degree of flexibility going forward. Thank you. I ask Liam McArthur to speak to amendment 73A, and other amendments in the group. Thank you. I listened with interest to the cabinet secretary's explanation of her amendments. My amendment 73A is an adjustment to her amendment, setting out the list of sectors in broadly general and generic terms. The intention of my amendment would be to make certain that low-carbon heat is properly taken into account. I think that Scottish renewables quite rightly described renewable heat as, quote, the next frontier for emissions reduction and new industrial opportunities, and certainly for any climate change plan to be credible. It will need to properly take account of the contribution of low-carbon heat. That is what my amendment is trying to ensure happens, but I listened with interest to what the cabinet secretary has to say. I am inclined not to move it at this stage, but perhaps I have further discussions with her about whether or not there is any adjustment to the amendments that she is moving. I head to stage 3. Thank you. Claudia Beamish, do you want to speak? Yes, please. Thank you, convener. I think that it is very important that the list is as it is, as it is clearly recognised more widely than only in Scotland. I am pleased to see that the cabinet secretary has an amendment to say that things can be added to. While I am completely aware that textiles are part of an industrial process, that would be something within one of the categories that we would be focusing on in the future, but goodness knows, we do not know in 20 years exactly what other categories there might be, which are discrete categories, so I am supportive of that. I will leave it at that. I do not want to say too much more. I am happy always to have further conversations, and I will be happy to speak to Liam McArthur about some specifics around his. Obviously, Maurice Golden in a sense is coming from the same place that we are anyway, so I do not think that we are a million miles away. If he wants to have a conversation about it, then I am happy to do that as well. However, what we have brought forward is a pretty comprehensive update to what the 2009 act had, and Claudia Beamish makes a very good point about us not being able to predict. We do not have a crystal ball, and we do not know what some of the key issues might become in 10, 15 or 20 years' time. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are. And call amendment 109, in the name of Maurice Golden. Already debated with amendment 57. Maurice Golden, would you like to move or not move? Withdraw. Okay. Anyone object to that? It's not moved. I call amendment 58, in the name of Liam McArthur, group with amendment 59. Would you like to move that amendment or not move it? Can I speak to it first as well? You can, of course you can. I'll do both, I think. Thanks, convener. The group of amendments 58, 59 would require ministers to seek regular advice from the Committee on Climate Change regarding the so-called aviation multiplier. The aviation multiplier reflects and seeks to address the fact that fossil fuel emissions, especially known CO2 emissions, are known to have a greater impact when emitted at higher altitudes. It obviously has a bearing in the most pronounced way on emissions from aviation. We need to ensure that this bill draws on the most up-to-date leading-edge science when assessing how emissions contribute to global warming. While the 2009 climate act already allows for an aviation multiplier to date, that has been set at one, but we know that aviation emissions have a greater impact at altitude than they do closer to the earth's surface. Scientific understanding of those issues is now such that ministers should have confidence in using the multiplier to reflect that fact. Amendment 58 ensures that the level of the aviation multiplier is based on the most up-to-date independent expert advice, while amendment 59 introduces a duty on the Scottish ministers to set an aviation multiplier based on that advice or explain the reasons why they have opted not to do so. That does not seem to be an unreasonable proposition and will allow decisions to be based on best evidence and science going forward. I certainly will. Just for clarification, he is talking about advice on the multiplier. Is that advice from the UK climate change committee? Is that it? It would be from the climate change. It would be. It is not yet available. I welcome the point from Stuart Stevenson. It is in the sense of future proofing as best we can. Obviously, the provision was set in the 2009 act, but for understandable reasons there was perhaps a reluctance on ministers to use it in the absence of the scientific advice that we need to underpin it. I conclude by thanking WWF Scotland for the support that they have provided for this amendment. I also thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for the constructive engagement on the issue. I look forward to hearing comments from other colleagues and move amendment 58. Thank you very much. Mark Ruskell would like to speak to this. Yes, thanks, convener. I would like to support this amendment. It was an area where we took a little bit of evidence and there was some discussion in committee around our stage 1 report and how to incorporate this issue into the body of the report. I think that it is one of the great uncertainties in terms of how we go forward and tackle our transport missions. It is concerning, but I know that there is also emerging science on this, and it is an area that interests the CCC. We need to see that best scientific evidence is factored into the way that we set targets and the way that we plan for this sector. I am very supportive of this. It would be remiss if we were to not address this critical issue in the context of this bill. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The inclusion of a fair share of the emissions from international aviation and shipping within our targets is one of the reasons why Scotland has a toughest climate change target framework in the world. To date, the only other country that I am aware of as having joined us in doing this is Wales, although that has been by recent announcements, so it has not actually happened yet in terms of the practicalities. I note that the UK Government's recent statutory instrument to set a net zero emissions target does not add such emissions to UK targets in spite of the CCC advising that this be done. Returning to Scotland, I am conscious that some stakeholders are keen to ensure that there is regular review of the technical methods by which emissions from international aviation are calculated for the purpose of reporting progress to targets. I am happy to support amendments 58 and 59, which will ensure that there is a strong evidence-based basis, based on regular independent expert advice from the CCC for the way in which those calculations occur. I am a way ahead of myself. I would like to ask Liam McArthur. He would like to wind up an impressor withdrawal as amendment 58. I am conscious of the pressures of time on the committee, so I thank the cabinet secretary and Stuart Stevenson for their interventions and confirm that I am pressing amendment 58. I can ask the question. Is amendment 58 agreed to? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 97 in the name of Angus MacDonald, group with amendment 106. Angus MacDonald asked you to move amendment 97 and speak to both amendments in the group. Okay, thanks. Convener, amendment 97 seeks to see the importance of the 1.5-degree temperature target appear on the face of the bill and backs up what the stage 1 report stated that, and I quote, the environment and social impacts of the difference between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees are very significant. The report goes on to say, the committee recommends the bill include an explicit reference to the temperature targets are seeking to achieve. The committee recommends that this should be 1.5 degrees. This amendment helps to highlight the importance of ensuring warming does not exceed 1.5 degrees in line with international evidence. However, it is worth stressing that it is of particular relevance to our natural environment as well, where an overshoot scenario that would see temperatures exceed 1.5 degrees and then fall would create irreversible damage to biodiversity. As I pointed out during the world environment debate last week, we need to find solutions to both the climate and nature crises. Having the 1.5-degree centigrade recognised on the face of the bill helps with this, particularly as environmental NGOs are extremely concerned about the overshoot scenario in which emissions surpass this and then climb down. The overshoot, though, will have already caused irreversible damage to our wildlife. With your indulgence, it is worth pointing out that WWF Scotland has run a petition in support of this amendment, with 2,165 people signing it in a short space of time, so there is clearly public support to put 1.5 degrees on the face of the bill. I am happy to move. Any other members would like to speak to amendment 97? I do not know what comments I made about 1.5 degrees earlier on, but I think that Mr Macdonald raised a hugely important point about the overshoot scenario. I think that I heard cabinet secretary in stage 1 evidence rule out the overshoot scenario. The overshoot scenario is something that we are actively trying to avoid. If we are actively trying to avoid it, let us make sure that is on the face of the bill. I am just a little puzzled, convener. Are we going to hear about amendment 106? Maurice Golden appeared to have left the committee, so he has given up his chance to speak to amendment 106. It has not been moved yet, so hopefully I will come back and make a decision on whether or not he wants to move it. If we may just ask you to speak to amendment 97 by Angus Macdonald. I will obviously discuss amendment 97 lodged by Angus Macdonald. The Government's approach has been to link the bill provisions to the Paris agreement temperature goal. I do recognise that, since the publication of the IPCC's special report last year, there has quite rightly been a great focus on the element of that goal relating to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees rise above pre-industrial levels. The amendment means that ministers must ask for the views of the relevant body—that is the CCC—about the extent that Scotland's targets are consistent with global efforts to keep global average temperature changes to 1.5 degrees. I can understand Angus Macdonald's reasons for bringing this forward, and I am content to support it in principle. I do have some minor concerns about its drafting and how this request would sit in the current framework. For example, it uses somewhat different wording to the Paris agreement itself. I would ask Angus Macdonald not to press the amendment in its current form today, but I would be very happy to work with him on a slightly refined one for stage 3. Now that Maurice Golden has come back, I would like to give him the opportunity because I am a very nice person to speak to amendment 106. I have always thought that you were a very nice person, convener. You said that through wetted teeth. No, not at all. This is again a relatively minor technical amendment that proposes that Scottish ministers must, by regulations, define the word achievable. I think that that will again provide clarity within the bill. The cabinet secretary now likes to respond to amendment 106. I am interested in Maurice Golden's characterisation of this as minor and technical, but nevertheless I am urging members to reject it. That is for similar reasons to amendment 105 that I discussed earlier in relation to requiring ministers to legislate to define terms. Amendment 106 is seeking to require such a definition of the term achievable. As well as being unnecessary, I consider amendment 106 potentially damaging to the function of the legislation. I set out my reasons why in my response to the committee's stage 1 report, I explained that the term achievable is used in the particular context of seeking independent expert advice with regards to a range of specified criteria. In particular, the relevant body, that is the CCC, is requested to make their independent expert assessment on the earliest achievable date for net zero emissions with regard to the list of statutory target setting criteria. Any attempt to further define that term would unduly constrain the role of the CCC as independent advisers. I would strongly urge members not to support this amendment on the grounds that it is both unnecessary and potentially detrimental to the independent advisory role of the CCC. Thank you. Claudia Beamish would like to speak. Thank you, convener. I understand the intention of this amendment by Maurice Golden. However, I agree with the cabinet secretary. Further, I would like to say that as there is a clear definition of achievable, which the CCC works to, that there may be some confusion. What is achievable tomorrow is not the same as what is achievable in five years, and I would be worried that the use of this term in this way might possibly risk limiting innovation. Thank you. I ask Angus MacDonald to wind up and to press or withdraw his amendment. Okay, thanks. I had come in this morning determined to press this amendment no matter what. However, given the cabinet secretary's commitment to look at the wording in advance of stage 3, I am happy to withdraw the amendment to allow further work on it. However, it remains imperative that one and a half degrees is on the face of the bill. Okay, thank you. Angus MacDonald seeks to withdraw this amendment. Does anyone object to that? Any member object? Nope. I call amendment 98, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 52. Claudia Beamish would like to move or not move. I call amendment 99, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 52. Claudia Beamish would like to move or not move. I call amendment 16, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 106, in the name of Maurice Golden, already debated with amendment 97. Would you like to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. The question is then that section 6 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. And the question is that section 7 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 59, in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 58. Would you like to move or not? Are I missing something? Excuse me. It appears that I have a page missing. Apology. Call amendment 17, 18 and 19, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, all previously debated with amendment 1. Moved on blocks. Any member would object to a single question that has been put on amendment 17 to 19. The question is that amendment 17 to 19, I agree to, are we all agreed? Now on to calling amendment 59, in the name of Liam McArthur, ready debated with amendment 58. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to, are we all agreed? And the question is that section 8 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 20, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 1. Is that moved? Yes, moved. Sorry. Thank you. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 40, in the name of Mark Ruskell, ready debated with amendment 1. Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 41, in the name of Mark Ruskell. Not moved. I call amendment 21, in the name of the cabinet secretary. You've got a promotion there, Mark Ruskell. Thank you. That's moved. The question is then that amendment 21 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Do we have a division? Yes. Okay, can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now? And those against? And those wishing to abstain? Okay, so amendment 21, we have six votes, four and one abstention. So that amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 42, in the name of Mark Ruskell, already debated with amendment 1. Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 22, in the name of the cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 23, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 43, in the name of Mark Ruskell. Moved. Not moved. I call amendment 24, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Thank you. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We have a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now? Those against? And those wishing to abstain? Okay, the result of that vote on amendment 24. Six votes for and one abstention is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 44, in the name of Mark Ruskell, already debated with amendment 1. Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 25, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 1. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We have a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now? Those against? Raise their hands now. And those wishing to abstain? Okay, the result of the vote on amendment 25 is that we have six votes for and one abstention is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 26, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 1. Moved. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 45, in the name of Mark Ruskell, already debated with amendment 1. Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 27, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 28, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Moved. Thank you. I call amendment 28A, in the name of Mark Ruskell, already debated. Moved or not moved? Not moved. Not moved. That's the cabinet secretary to press or withdraw amendment 28. Sorry, that's if it's amended. Apologies. Moved. The question is that the amendment 28 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. That we've got a division. Those in favour of amendment 28 raise your hands. Those against amendment 28. And those wishing to abstain. Okay, the result of amendment 28. We have six votes, four and one abstention. It's therefore agreed to. I call amendments 29, 30 and 31. All in the name of the cabinet secretary. Moved or not. Does any member object to a single question? Been put in amendment 29 to 31. The question is that amendments 29 to 31 are agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. The question is that section 9 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Call amendment 60 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments 61, 62, 63 and 66. I ask cabinet secretary to move amendment 60 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Section 10 of the bill specified annual targets for the purpose of reporting for 2017 of a 52.4 per cent reduction, for 2018 of a 54 per cent reduction and for 2019 of a 55 per cent reduction. Those targets were included in the bill to allow the transition to the new target framework of percentage targets based on actual emissions to occur as soon as possible after the bill is passed. Those targets include years that have already passed due to the two-year lag in the availability of emissions statistics upon which target outcomes are assessed. As such, they were only ever for the purposes of reporting. As members are aware, emissions statistics covering 2017 were published last week and reporting on the annual target for that year occurred under 2009 act arrangements. I made a statement to the chamber on these matters last Wednesday. Due to the extension of the bill timetable since introduction, it is now necessary to remove the updated percentage from target form target for 2017. If that does not occur, a situation will arise where Parliament is asked to vote at stage 3 on the level of a target for which the outcome is already known. That would clearly be nonsensical. So amendments 60 and 61 remove the annual target for the purpose of reporting for 2017 from the bill. The related amendments 62, 63 and 66 are to ensure consistency with this change in other areas of the bill. There is no change to the targets for the purpose of reporting for 2018 and 2019, and I would expect the more transparent bill reporting regime to be in place in time for reporting on the 2018 target next June. I move amendment 60. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 61. In the name of the cabinet secretary. It was debated. Thank you. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. And the question is that section 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Does he say 11? He said 7. I said 7. He did say 7. It's been a long morning. The question is that section 7, 11, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I do apologise. We are agreed. I call amendment 110 in the name of Mark Ruskell, group with amendments 112, 120, 121, 123, 124 and 125. I ask Mark Ruskell to move amendment 110 and speak to all amendments in the group. Right. Thanks very much, convener. I think that this is an absolutely critical area in relation to how we're going to meet climate targets going forward, how we analyse our budgeting, how we ensure that government moves forward together in meeting targets. I think that we've taken a fair amount of evidence of this at stage 1, and indeed over the last couple of years we've had evidence of how important the budget is in terms of meeting our climate targets and how important it is that we don't lock in emissions for generations to come through inappropriate infrastructure spending in particular. I'd like to applaud the Government. I think that the Government has agreed, for example, on the last budget deal to increase the percentage of infrastructure investment being directed towards low-carbon infrastructure each year in the annual budgets for this session of Parliament. I think that that's a welcome move forward. However, amendment 110 on the low-carbon infrastructure target strengthens, attempts to strengthen that commitment by placing it in legislation, ensuring that future Governments follow this approach to making long-term changes to the direction of Scotland's infrastructure investment. Taken together with Claudia Beamish's amendment 124, this would help to make low-carbon projects the priority for Government. In 2015, Scotland's low-carbon infrastructure task force suggested that around 70 per cent of Scottish infrastructure budget should be directed to low-carbon projects based on international research findings. The amendment requires Ministers to set a target for low-carbon infrastructure investment. It doesn't specify exactly what that target should be, but it's clear now that the consensus—and I would suggest perhaps even within Government as well—is that we need to be moving forward on this, we need to be working towards a target. The amendment also asks Ministers to devise a methodology for doing that. I'm aware that the current high-to-low-carbon methodology that's been discussed previously in this committee has been considered a little bit too simplistic. So my amendment requires a more robust method to be developed by Government and then adopted. In terms of amendment 112, reporting on emissions in Scottish public bodies budgets, it's clear that if we're to meet the targets in this bill, one of the main challenges that we're going to face is holding the public sector to account. What this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that non-departmental public bodies, executive agencies and the like, move forward in investing in low-carbon infrastructure and indeed ensure that their revenue spending is in line with the objectives of this bill as well. These organisations clearly have a pivotal role to play. Their budgets require ministerial approval. We need to know how budget decisions at Scottish Government level affect our carbon emissions as per both my amendment 120 and Claudia's amendment 123. But we also need to apply that same logic to organisations identified by this amendment, which would help to support those Government objectives. If we want a proper response to climate emergency, then no part of the Scottish public sector can be exempt. I think that we heard some interesting evidence in committee as well, particularly from public bodies such as the NHS, about how they're starting to move carbon accounting and thinking much more centre stage now. There is also the opportunity to reduce costs here as well. Those savings can be then reinvested back into front-line public services. So we improve the quality of public services by cutting some of the waste out. Certainly, through my experience as a councillor and a sterling councillor, I pushed very hard to see investment in low-energy lighting infrastructure. That saved the council hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, money that could then be reinvested back into front-line public services. In terms of the 120 predicted net emissions in the Scottish budget, this amendment adds additional requirements to the information presented in the carbon assessment, which accompanies the annual budget. Under section 94 of the 2009 act, the Government was required to report annually on the indirect emissions from government spending. At the time, that was considered to be what was described as second round emissions. An example of that would be the emissions that could arise from an increase in cars going across a bridge, but it could also be the savings from investment in insulation in a housing stock. However, in practice, the meaning has been lost since the 2009 act. What my amendment requires is that spending lines in the budget down to level 2 report on forecasted emissions that will arise in future financial years from spending in the financial year under consideration. We need to get to grips with this. It's important that we don't lock in emissions for generations to come. Lastly, convener, amendment number 121. Attempts to give us a better understanding about the carbon emissions associated with the budget, and attempts to split emissions between capital and revenue spending. The carbon assessment that accompanies a budget document does not break down whether the emissions arise from capital or revenue spending. My amendment requires that, for each portfolio, the level of emissions from capital and revenue spending are reported. That does tie in with amendment 110 on low-carbon infrastructure. If we can see the bulk of the emissions arise from capital spending, we will know that changes need to be made to our infrastructure investment, which can also help to facilitate the huge changes in behavioural change that we need to see if we are to meet the objectives of this bill. That's me. Thank you. You need to move for your amendment. I would like to move, yes, 110. What is 110? Oh, I'll just 110. Yes, thank you. Claudia Beamish, let's speak to amendment 123, another amendment in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 123 is designed to allow Parliament to conduct better scrutiny of the Scottish Government's budget proposals and to require the Scottish Government to take account more directly of carbon impact when preparing those budgets. The existing section 94, the 2009 act, is a looser requirement than the one that this amendment would place on Scottish ministers, although the detailed tables that the Scottish Government publishes as part of the carbon assessment do go somewhat in the direction beyond the requirements in that section. This amendment would make three changes. First, it would put on a statutory footing the requirement to set out the carbon impact of budget proposals down to level 2 detail. Second, it would require ministers to show how each budget line has changed since the previous year information that's not currently provided by the Scottish Government's carbon assessment. Finally, it requires ministers to set out how these changes help Scotland meet or exceed the target set elsewhere in this legislation. If we want to be a world leader in practice, as well as in aspiration, we need to go beyond having the targets and we need the mechanisms by which we can meet them and be seen to meet them. The use of financial resources in any one year will clearly be hugely important in our emissions reductions progress, and this amendment increases scrutiny on that process for any future Government and will truly bring climate change out of a silo and into all portfolios in my view. Amendment 124 is designed to improve the scrutiny of infrastructure investment plans and their relation to our climate change targets. It places duty on ministers to lay before Parliament a document setting out direct and indirect emissions from those infrastructure investments and how they are consistent with our climate change targets. I stress its indirect emissions as well. It also adds the option for ministers to, by regulation, appoint a person who can carry out this assessment on their behalf as some independence may be beneficial and sophisticated methodologies may be required. It is just an option. Scotland's low-carbon infrastructure task force, convened by WWF in 2015, found that to be compatible with global low-carbon investment scenario, which is aligned with the goal of keeping global warming below two degrees would require a minimum of 72 per cent of public infrastructure investment to be directed into low carbon. I stress that we are now looking for 1.5. In the Scottish Government's direct infrastructure investments in its 2018-19 budget, it found that, whilst the proportion of spending on low-carbon infrastructure was increasing year on year as committed to low-carbon investment, still only accounted for 29 per cent of the Scottish Government's total capital spend. Current levels of investment in low-carbon infrastructure fall short in my view of meeting current climate change requirements, let alone the more exacting targets that will be set in the climate change bill currently before this Parliament. At stage 2 of the planning bill, I raised these themes and was pleased to hear the Minister for Planning suggest the climate change bill as an alternative place for innovative ideas like this. This amendment means that infrastructure projects will properly be scrutinised against our emissions reduction targets, focusing minds on infrastructure that will serve us well into a net zero future. Scrutiny of the alignment of the Scottish Government's infrastructure plans in relation to climate change targets needs to be improved, and I urge members to support this amendment. In terms of my amendments, 1.25 continues this level of scrutiny to the introduction of bills and laying of the Scottish statutory instruments. It requires an estimate of the emissions resulting from any one bill or SSI in its first five years since Rollerscent, and how the bill contributes to meeting or exceeding the climate change reduction targets. I would like to speak in support of Mark Ruskell's amendment 1.10, and also his amendment 1.12. I particularly want to focus on this, having represented the Racky Committee as it was in the previous Parliament in relation to what was then the Public Sector Leaders group or forum, and public bodies fundamentally do make strong, fundamental contributions, and the public sector duties, as we know, are already mandatory, but this would clearly set out and give guidance on how the use of resources would help or hinder. In terms of 1.21, a revenue is important, as well as capital spend. Thank you, Stuart Stevenson. I would like to speak to those amendments. Thank you, convener. I am not particularly engaging in the policy issues and, once again, just focusing on how they are constructed. Mark Ruskell's amendment 1.10, at 8.181A, the phrase low-carbon projects, is used. I guess I know what that means, but I am not sure that the legal system does. I think that we need to see where the definition is. It may well be that there is a definition somewhere that I have not seen, but it does not take you anywhere if it is not defined. When I move to 1.20, at 3.1B, international carbon reporting practice, I really do not know what that means. It may mean that there is a sideways reference to the international inventories, which are clear and unambiguous and defined, but I am not sure that international carbon reporting practice is something that is defined. In accounting, we have the international financial reporting standard. I do not think that we have anything that has the same degree of objectivity and certainty in relation to that. I have a wee issue about that. I have bigger issues in 1.21 and 1.23, where references are made to the indirect impact of greenhouse gas emissions. I simply do not know what that is supposed to mean, but it seems to me that that is likely to carry with it a substantial risk of double counting. What it can only be saying is that we should include in a portfolio area effects that arise as a result of action in portfolio area A that occur in portfolio area B, where they should properly be reported, and thus they are reported in both portfolio area A and B. I think that there is a danger unless I am misunderstanding what is implied in talking about indirect impacts. I see an analogue with second-level effects and third-level effects in economic terms. For example, when the fishing fleet in the north-east of Scotland shrunk, the third-level effect was half the butcher's closed. That is an example of a second or arguably third-level effect. On statutory instruments, it is worth considering how many statutory instruments we progress. That is in 1.25. When I was a minister, I was responsible for 132 statutory instruments, some of them very substantial and some of breathtaking triviality, but we are forcing perhaps something on a great corpus of statutory instruments that really have just no effect whatsoever. The way in which the amendments are constructed is unduly onerous, we might consider. If we are saying statutory instruments, I wonder if we should include the 11 other types of instruments such as acts of sedent, which might have an impact here. I am not sure about the definition. John Scott would like to speak to those amendments. I support amendments 112 and 124. The principles are in that public bodies should assess how the use of resources contributes to emissions and targets. It does not necessarily bind amendments, but we will focus our attention on the use of resources to reduce emissions. There may be a more elegant way of delivering the same thing. I am not entirely sure from the foregoing if the language in the drafting is as it might be, but I think that the principles are what's supporting. I am sympathetic to amendments 112 and 124 from Mark Ruskell and Claudia Beamish, given the importance of infrastructure decisions in relation to tackling climate change. There are, however, limitations to the current methodologies for assessing the impact of infrastructure spend and decisions on emissions. My concern with amendment 110, as it is currently drafted, is that annual percentage of spend does not provide an accurate reflection of investment profile, does not capture the full range of low-carbon infrastructure investment and does not reflect the private sector investment that will be required. The current methodology is a very blunt tool that categorises broad areas of spend to be low, neutral or high in terms of carbon impact. Any investment in roads is categorised as high, regardless of any detail, such as how well the road supports ultra-low emission vehicles or how a new road could reduce journey length and thus emissions. Similarly, all investment in schools and hospitals is categorised as neutral, so if we build an energy-efficient and low-carbon school or hospital, carefully designed to use only renewable energy and to encourage and enable low-carbon behaviours, while that would be important investment for a net zero country, it would not be recognised as low-carbon infrastructure spend. I would be very concerned if the current approach was put into primary legislation, as doing so would prevent us from developing a more sophisticated and more helpful methodology that is needed to address those shortcomings. For the same reason, amendment 124 concerns me. Work is needed to develop a suitable methodology for assessing the impact of infrastructure spend and decisions on climate change. It is important for the long-term outcomes that we are all trying to achieve that this can be properly done. To be clear, I wholeheartedly agree that the links between infrastructure decisions and greenhouse gas emissions need to be carefully analysed and understood. I would like to invite Mark Ruskell and Claudia Beamish to not press amendments 110 and 124 at this time and to work with the Government to bring back an amendment at stage 3, which will more effectively deliver the outcomes sought. With regard to amendment 112, again, I am very sympathetic. Public bodies have a vital role to play in responding to the global climate emergency and I am content in principle with the proposal that ministers should be satisfied that public bodies are contributing to reduced emissions prior to agreeing resources. I would like to take the opportunity to work with Mark Ruskell to refine the wording and bring back an amendment at stage 3. My intention here is to ensure that the final agreed wording is proportionate to the differing remits, needs and scales of our public bodies and, crucially, drives the delivery of positive action and outcomes that we expect from all of our public bodies. Amendments 120, 121 and 123 all seek to improve upon the current requirements of section 94 of the current act. Again, I am sympathetic to the desire to improve that section. The carbon assessment of the budget is produced every year but, to the best of my understanding, is not used by the Parliament in its scrutiny process. The reason for this relates to amendments to the bill in 2008 being made without a sufficient understanding of what information exists in relation to both budgets and emission projections. I guess that it is a kind of caution retail. It is quite simply not possible to produce a carbon assessment of the budget that would achieve all of the aims sought here. The proposed amendments will not change that fact. Endeavouring to produce documents as required by those amendments would pose a wholly disproportionate administrative burden on the Scottish Government, and it is extremely unlikely that the resulting documents would be of value. I therefore strongly urge Mark Ruskell and Claudia Beamish not to push those amendments. Should that be agreeable to the committee, the Scottish Government would be willing to commit to working with the Parliament and stakeholders to review the current processes and outputs around budget information as it relates to climate change. Such a review would aim to identify feasible steps to deliver meaningful improvements in cross-portfolio processes and transparency. The review would also need to cover the role of the climate change plan monitoring reports, so should the committee wish to pursue that course, I would also like to ask that Mark Ruskell would not press amendment 147 when that arises in a later grouping. Just to be clear, what I am offering here—this has been discussed with the finance minister—is a review of the current processes and outputs. Amendment 125 from Claudia Beamish would require ministers to assess the impact of any legislation on greenhouse gas emissions. In the context of a global climate emergency, that is exactly what we should be doing. I would, however, point out that a legislative requirement already exists. The Environmental Assessment Scotland Act 2005 requires that any policy or proposal that is likely to have a significant environmental impact should be subject to a strategic environmental assessment, and that those assessments should, where relevant, include elements that are likely to impact on climate change. It is right that only those policies likely to have a climate impact are subject to assessment. The aspect of amendment 125 that concerns me the most is that every piece of legislation, including those that could not feasibly have any emissions impact, would require this additional piece of bureaucracy. I suspect that that was not the intention of Claudia Beamish. Instead of creating additional bureaucracy and overlapping legislative requirements, I would like to offer instead that the Scottish Government reviews the way environmental assessments address climate issues, particularly the communication of those impacts, building on guidance that was produced by SEPA in 2010, which looked very closely at climatic factors in strategic environmental assessments. Improving our existing processes and making existing statutory requirements work better would be a preferable way to ensure proper consideration is given to climate change across all of Government, and I would be happy to work with the member on that. I would like to give the opportunity for Matt Ruskell to wind up and press or withdraw his amendment. Thanks, convener. I think that that was a very positive exchange all round. I think that everybody in this committee and the cabinet secretary is agreeing that we should be aligning the objectives of this bill with our financial plans and spending. I think that that is a really big step forward for this Parliament. Of course, the question is in the detail, the how and the methodologies, and I did acknowledge in my opening comments that there are issues around the methodology of high-neutral, low-carbon assessment at the moment, and that is why my amendment has put forward, keeps the development of that methodology open. Stuart Stevenson again welcomed my new shy of the analysis. Of course, as the member who put forward the bill in 2009, he will be aware that it has not really met the intended effect of that. What we have with the carbon assessment is much more focused on the upstream, the carbon impact of the supply chain through spending, rather than the downstream effects, if we want to call it downstream, rather than the second round effects of usage of infrastructure and spending as it comes through. We have to find a way to get better at this. We have to find a way of getting better at forecasting what the impact is going to be of our budget decisions. We do this through infrastructure projects. We do it through environmental impact assessment the whole time, so we should be applying this much more now to our budgets. On that basis, I am happy to continue the discussion over the summer. I appreciate the engagement of Derek McIlness as well. I still believe that there is a need to fix what did not work in the 2009 act in this bill. There may be things outside of legislation that could be committed to that I would be interested in discussing. I would like to take up the cabinet secretary's offer to enter into those discussions and, hopefully, with Ms Beamish as well, if she is around over the summer. On that note, are you going to withdraw your amendment? I would like to withdraw on block. I will just withdraw on block 110. Any member who objects to that? We can move on to amendment 111, in the name of Alexander Burnett, who joins us. Good morning, in a group of its own. I ask Alexander Burnett to move and speak to amendment 111. Thank you, convener, and I note members to my register of interests regarding housing. I have been liaising with many organisations and constituents regarding the Climate Change Bill, and I am pleased to be here today submitting this amendment, which seeks to improve housing emissions across Scotland. Members will be aware that I have been working for many months now to improve homes across Scotland to at least an EPCC banding by 2030. Stop Climate Chaos Scotland has long supported this target for improving the energy efficiency of all existing homes by 2030. By increasing the scale and pace of Scotland's domestic energy efficiency programmes, it would see climate emissions cut from homes more quickly and give proper effect to the 2050 designation of energy efficiency as a national infrastructure project. The Scottish Government's energy efficiency Scotland route map sets an all-homes target for 2040, but we believe that a timeline could be more efficient in our aim to reduce carbon emissions. In the fuel poverty bill, we managed to successfully introduce interim targets before 2040. The Scottish Government is currently consulting on an earlier target date, as the Parliament has already voted in favour of my amendment, which agreed to a 2030 target date. Emerging evidence from the existing homes alliance suggests that an accelerated programme can be delivered in response to the climate emergency if firms in the supply chain are given a clear direction and support to expand their skills base. Whilst the wording of the amendment does not immediately reflect the EPCC objective, I understand that an amendment of this nature would be technically out of scope of the bill. As you will note in the stage 1 report, WWF Scotland, Unison Scotland, Stop Climate Care Scotland and the existing homes alliance were among the organisations to call for an objective of supporting all homes to reach at least an EPCC standard in their evidence. Today, I encourage MSPs to vote for my amendment and to require the Scottish Government to return at stage 3 with more appropriate wording for giving Scotland's energy efficiency Scotland programme a legislative basis. I move amendment 1 in my name. I am in favour of sectoral plans, but I am strongly opposed to sectoral targets. That is because, to make the fastest progress towards our overall targets, we must choose actions that give us the quickest, most effective returns for the effort that we make. If we start to set sectoral targets, we prioritise one sector over another, there is a very real risk that we legislate to say that we must take action in housing when the opportunity that is in front of us at a particular time may be to deliver a much bigger benefit for the same expenditure or the same effort in another sector, such as for the sake of argument transport. That is why targets by sector actually make things worse, not better, but they need plans. It is worth saying that I absolutely support what is trying to be achieved here and that housing is and buildings more generally are one of the areas where there is significant potential for greenhouse gas emissions. Having said that, the EPCC banding system is very poor, particularly for many rural dwellings, where it is not, for example, possible to put in some of the things that the tick list that requires to achieve EPCC banding. The housing in which I live, which has walls that are a couple of feet thick and provide the most ferociously effective insulation both to the outside weather and to the loss of heat within the house, none the less, because they cannot meet the tick list that EPCC requires, means that we will never achieve the required banding. We need something that actually measures the actual efficiency of houses rather than simply relying on a tick list boxing. That is a broader issue, not really one that we should directly be solving here, but my key point is plans, strong plans, resource plans, targets by sector, no. Claudia Beamish Oh, thank you. I didn't realise that I was going to get a chance to speak again. I'm not quite sure about the point— Amendment 111. Amendment 111. Amendment 111. Amendment 111. Oh, no. Wait, wait, okay. Okay. I was hoping to speak on— Wait, wait, wait, wait. To respond on my amendments, but I don't know if I get that opportunity. It's not been called at the moment, but you don't want to speak on 1-1-1. Okay, thank you. Sorry. Cabinet Secretary. Can I ensure, Alexander Burnett, that the Scottish Government is taking forward plans to set ambitious and realistic targets for improving the energy efficiency of all Scottish buildings and to tackle fuel poverty? Through the Energy Efficient Scotland group map, we've set out a clear framework of standards, and by 2040 Energy Efficient Scotland will have transformed our buildings so that they are warmer, greener and more efficient. I cannot, however, support amendment 111 from Alexander Burnett and urge the committee to reject it. The Scottish Government set out in detail, as part of its response to the committee's stage 1 report, the reasons why setting sector-specific emissions targets is not desirable. I will summarise those reasons briefly now. The existing statutory framework of economy-wide emissions reduction targets provide the necessary flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, in particular, as new technologies develop. As we cannot predict accurately the costs, advances or timescales for all the technologies that may be involved, sectoral targets could result in the cost of reaching climate change targets being greater than they might be with more flexibility in terms of the contribution of each sector. It is therefore important to keep the balance of sectoral effort under regular review. The packages of policies and proposals across all sectors, including housing, set out at least every five years through statutory climate change plans, provides the right place to do this. As noted by the committee in its report, the bill has already added a sector-by-sector approach to the annual monitoring of delivery of climate change plans. I have committed to updating the current climate change plan within six months of the bill receiving royal assent. We are now looking across our whole range of responsibilities to make sure that we continue with the policies that are working and increase action where necessary. Setting sector-specific emissions targets would necessarily pose challenges in terms of how effort and emissions reductions are classified between sectors. Many measures are cut across sectors. For example, energy efficiency measures will contribute to reducing emissions from energy supply, residential and public sector buildings. There are multiple interconnections between sectors, and we would be concerned that sector targets could make those substantially more difficult to factor in to the potential detriment of overall success. What is most important is that all of Scotland pulls together to tackle this crucial global issue. I also note that the present amendment proposes an emissions target only for the housing sector, which would amount to singling out this one sector for additional duties. It is not clear why that should be done. Buildings represent a significant source of emissions in Scotland, but not the largest. I also note that the fuel poverty bill has passed stage 3 setting a target date of 2040 to eradicate fuel poverty. The current amendment carries the risk of leading to potentially contradictory statutory targets across the two pieces of legislation. For all those reasons, I urge the committee to reject this amendment. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I would like to give Alexander Burnett the opportunity to wind up and to press a withdrawal amendment 111. Thank you, convener. I thank the Labour Party and the Green Party for their previous support on similar amendments around the EUPCs and on similar amendments in the fuel poverty bill. In response to the cabinet secretary and to Stuart Stevenson, I welcome their support for planning in general and their recognition of the importance of the sector. I also recognise Stuart Stevenson's criticism of the EUPC system, although it is not part of this amendment. However, I hope that everybody will see that this amendment is a minimum to improvements and not a cap. I will be happy to support it accordingly. I move it in my name. You are pressing. The question, then, is that amendment 111 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? No. Okay, so we have a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now? And those against? Those against? Okay, the result of that division for amendment 111 is total votes four is three. Total votes against is four. The amendment is disagreed to. I call amendments 32, 33, 62 and 34, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. Moved on block. Any member object to the question being put on block? Nope. The question is that amendments 32, 33, 62 and 34 all agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. We are going to suspend briefly for 15 minutes.