 Welcome to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee's 21st meeting of 2019. Before we move to the first item in the agenda, I remind everyone to either switch off their mobile phone or put them in silent as they may affect the broadcasting system. The first item on the agenda is to consider a proposal by the Scottish Government to consent to the UK Government legislating using the powers under the act in relation to the following UK statutory instrument proposal. That is the Environment and Rural Affairs amendment EU-rexec regulations 2019. Do members have any comments in relation to this instrument? You don't know. Are you agreed that we don't want to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument? Agreed. Thank you. The second item on the agenda is for the committee to consider amendments to the climate change emissions reduction target, Scotland Bill at stage 2. I'd like to welcome other members who will be joining us today. We have Miles Golden with us and we probably will at one point see Liam McArthur and Alexander Burnett and there will be amendments from Dave Stewart, which we are going to be spoken to by Claudia Beamish. I'd also like to welcome Rosanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform and her officials, Tom Russon, Bill Manager, Eleanor Stanley, Deputy Bill Manager, Heather Wortley, Parliamentary Council Office and Norman Munro, who is from the Scottish Government legal directive. Good morning to you all. We should note that officials are not allowed to speak on the record in these proceedings. Members might find it helpful to have a reminder of the process. Everyone should have a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshaled list of amendments, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be disposed of in the groupings. There will be one debate for each group of amendments. I'll call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in the group. I'll then call on any other members who have lodged amendments in that group to speak to their amendments, as well as any other members in the group, but not at that time to move their amendments. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who want to speak on them should indicate to me or the clerks and we'll make sure that you're called. If the cabinet secretary has not already spoken on the group, I will invite her to contribute to the debate just before we move to the winding-up speech. There might be times when I'll allow for a little bit more flexibility for members to come back on points, but given the amount of amendments that we have in front of us, if members could be mindful of time, we want to get through everything, so I'll ask everyone to be mindful of that. I've already been in touch with members to suggest the duration of their speaking time. The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on the group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to vote or to withdraw it. If the member wishes to press it, I'll put the question on the amendment. If the member wishes to withdraw it, I will check whether any other member objects, and if any other member objects, the amendment is not withdrawn and the committee must immediately move to vote on it. If any member does not wish to move their amendment when it's called, they should say not moved, and they should do so audibly. The other member present may move such an amendment, however, if no one moves the amendment, I'll immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting on any division is by a show of hands, and it's important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed to each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. I hope that that is clear to everyone. Before we start consideration of the bill, I can advise that I intend to suspend the meeting for a comfort break, or maybe two comfort breaks at appropriate points, probably around about 11 o'clock, and then, because we are sitting late until 2 o'clock at 12.30 to allow members to have a little break. We move on to the marshaled list of amendments. Before we come to our first amendment, I should mention that, at introduction, the Presiding Officer determined that a financial resolution was not required for this bill, and under rule 9.12.6C, the Presiding Officer has determined that the costs associated with amendments 113 and 114 would exceed the current threshold for a bill to require a financial resolution. In terms of stage 2 proceedings, amendments 113 and 114 may be debated, but may not be agreed to the absence of a financial resolution. I also want to say at the outset that, in terms of voting, if we have a tied vote on any of the amendments, I, as convener, will vote in the same way that I voted on the original vote, so that members are clear, and I will be consistent on that throughout the process. Amendment 91, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is a group with amendments 104, 93, 103 and 50. I ask Claudia Beamish to move amendment 91 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, at the start of an important and long process. Good morning to the cabinet secretary and those with her, and to those members who are not on the committee as well. My amendments in this group are deeply significant, in my view, in ensuring that this Parliament produces an act that fully delivers on climate justice and that holds Scotland to a standard that we can be proud of when we consider justice for our workers and for our standing in the global community and our responsibility to generations still to come. Those amendments are strongly supported by Stock Climate Care Scotland. Climate justice is, of course, about recognising that climate change affects those who have done the least to contribute to the problem, first and worst. The First Amendment lists six principles with further definition given to the justice transition principles. Those principles come from the work of the Mary Robinson Climate Justice Foundation, set up by the former Irish president and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Amendment 91 creates a new section setting out the climate justice principles that would require Scottish ministers and the relevant body, namely the UKCCC, to have regard to those principles as they carry out their functions under the act. Those are setting targets and preparing the climate change plan. Amendment 93 adds principles to the target setting criteria, and Amendment 103 specifies when preparing the plan. The principles include protection of human rights, respect for international development goals when setting domestic policy, proportionate action due to historic commissions, equitable share of costs and benefits here and abroad, transparent democratic climate decision making, challenging gender inequality, intergenerational justice and the promotion of the justice transition. That is further explained as fair and sustainable jobs, protecting affected workers and communities, social justice and equitable share of costs and benefits and union worker and employer engagement. I do not believe that any politician in this modern Parliament should have difficulty with these principles. The Mary Robinson Foundation states that they are, I quote, rooted in the frameworks of international and regional human rights law and do not require the breaking of any new ground on the part of those who ought in the name of climate justice to be willing to take them on. I will now briefly sum up. Unabated or rampant climate change would create and exacerbate terrible inequality here and across the world. It is right that this bill looks to set ambitious and globally responsible net zero target, but those principles must be at the forefront of our minds when carrying out the functions of the bill. It would seem an important signal as Scotland's understanding of our moral obligation to act on climate change in a just and fair way proceeds. I hope that members will vote for these amendments today and truly set out Scotland as a world leader in conscientious climate action. I remind the committee members that the principles of climate and intergenerational justice were noted in the committee's S1 report. You want to move the amendment? Yes, please. I will move the amendment. Thank you. I will now call on Maurice Golden to speak to amendment 1. There are four other amendments in the group. The purpose of this is to ensure in the interests of transparency that on the face of the bill we have clear objectives in terms of the function in which we are trying to ensure with respect to the act. I think that the four parts that I have suggested helped to do that are four indications that we could all agree with. I think that it is helpful if they are put on the face of the bill. Do you want to move the amendment? No, sorry? No, not yet. Thank you. I have Stuart Stevenson to speak to amendment 50 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My amendment is probably the simplest that we will consider today, and although we debate it in the first group, we will vote on it at the very end of stage 2. Does not actually change the legal effect of the bill at all, but it does give a context that is important to our legislation and could influence interpretation of the courts. It is also something that I would wish to see every other signatory to the Paris agreement to incorporate in their statutes. It simply states that we are not acting alone. It says that we will carry our share of the heavy lifting that is demanded by the climate emergency. It recognises the duty to our successes and that we are repaying a debt created by our predecessors. In relation to Claudia Beamish's amendment 91, I think that there are some difficulties in the drafting. I have no difficulty in confirming that I support the principles that are articulated in her amendment just for clarity. First, at 2B, it constrains the actions of what the relevant body can do. That is a UK climate change committee, which was established under part 2 of the UK's 2008 climate change act. I am uncertain that we have the powers to legally direct the UK climate change committee. It is probably ultra-various to do so. In any event, the drafting does not limit the effect of this change to the UK climate change committee's advice to Scottish ministers, but it is more broadly drawn and would seem to cover advice that it will give to all administrations. However, the 2008 act does say that, at section 41, the powers to give guidance, the national authorities—that includes ourselves—may give the committee guidance as to the matters that it is to take into account. Does the member wish to intervene? Just for the point of clarification through the convener. Is what the member is referring to under 2B ensuring domestic policies and strategies do not undermine international development goals? To explain my position, which is capable of challenge, it is much more general that we simply do not have the power to mandate what the UK climate change committee can do, but, as I say, the 2007 UK act gives us the power to give guidance to the committee. It is just the drafting that I am tackling, not the principle of what is in the policy. Let me just continue that there is also, as I said, a further difficulty in the point that the member is referring to at 3B, where it has just not made clear which particular international development goals are being referred to. I think that it probably means the Scottish Government's ones, but it would need, in my view, to make it a little bit clearer. At 3C, it is unclear how we can ensure costs and benefits are shared equitably internationally, since we have no power to determine what happens outside our borders. There are issues in drafting, not in principle, but I encourage members to accept my amendment and remember that you are in favour of it when we get to the second-last vote at stage 2, when we will consider that. I hope that you will take some account of the comments that are made on other amendments in the group. No other members have indicated that they want to speak on this, but we have Mark. I think that it is important to realise that this bill is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, but it is also about a climate mission to make the world that we live in a better place for people to live in. On that basis, the climate justice principles are very important. It is about recognising that we have a debt as a developed nation to countries around the world. We also have a debt to future generations as well. I think that the principles outlined in 1991 are very important. I take on board Stuart Stevenson's comment about the specificity of some of those principles, but I think that, in their generality, it sets the context of the mission for this bill and I think that it is important. In terms of the 104 Morris-Golden's amendment, we took lots of evidence on that. What is the purpose of this bill? It is to meet Paris, the Paris agreement that Stuart Stevenson's amendment lays out, but it is also to go beyond that. It is to look at how we can, as part of a global effort, pin global temperatures to a maximum of 1.5 degree increase. I think that it is important to state that on the bill if we adopt this bill, that is what we will be working towards. I think that being explicit on that makes a lot of sense. I would just have one question for Claudia in closing. That is around sustainable development. I know that there are sustainable development amendments that come later in the bill in different forms. I am so curious as to why sustainable development does not form part of these principles, in particular given that we have a biodiversity crisis at the moment as well, as outlined by the recent IPVS report. Had we tackle the climate crisis, how do we deliver the mission in a way that restores the environment, which is so important for tackling climate change itself and delivering a viable planet? Claudia Beamish, will you be able to address those points when you wind up? I am sympathetic to the amendments from Claudia Beamish in this grouping. I recognise her consistently strong voice on these matters. The Scottish Government is supportive of the principles of climate justice. Scotland is already a world leader, being the first country in the world to champion such an approach through our climate justice fund. We therefore recognise that effectively tackling climate change requires a human rights-based approach, acknowledging real inequalities between and within countries as well as the multifaceted dimensions and impacts of climate change. My concerns with amendment 91, which seeks to place a set of climate justice principles at the start of the amended act, are not with its sentiment, but with how that would operate in practice and, in particular, how a set of principles would interact with other elements of the 2009 act framework. The act already contains target setting criteria, including a range of matters related to international and social justice. There is a risk of creating legally unclear hierarchies of competing sets of criteria and principles here. As set out in my response letter to the committee's stage 1 report, the Government has brought forward its own amendments to place internationally recognised just transition principles on the face of the bill, as matters that ministers must have regard to when preparing climate change plans. Those amendments feature in a later grouping and there is a considerable overlap between the principles in my amendments and those in amendment 91. I also have a more technical, but substantive concern that the amendment seems to seek to place duties directly onto the CCC. That deviates from the approach under the 2009 act and bill, where duties are placed on ministers to request advice from the CCC on specified matters and would significantly alter the statutory nature of the relationship with the CCC. I invite Claudia Beamish to not press amendment 91 at this time and the associated amendments 93 and 103 on the basis that I commit to working with her over the summer to explore how all of the key elements and intentions of the proposed set of principles can be embedded in the act framework in a way that is fully functional. In the case of the just transition principles, I would hope that the Government amendments in a later grouping provide an acceptable way to achieve that, but I would be happy to explore with the member any differences in wording between the set that she has proposed and those in the Government set. In terms of the international climate justice and intergenerational aspects of amendment 91, we can explore further additions to the target setting criteria and or adjustments to the climate change planning duties. If they were to be pressed now, I couldn't support them as they stand. With respect to the long title amendment for Paris agreement, it is, I understand, unusual to amend the long title of the bill unless significant new material has been added to a bill that was not previously covered by this. However, I am sympathetic to the present amendment from Stuart Stevenson. The Government has been clear throughout that this bill is indeed intended as a response to the agreement and this is borne out in its provisions. For example, the high level of ambition of the targets in line with the CCC's advice on a Scottish contribution to the aims of the agreement. The need to regularly review the targets to ensure that they are always the highest achievable on a timescale aligned to the Paris stocktake cycle. Government amendments in a later grouping will seek to directly link the definition of the fair and safe emissions budget to the global temperature aim of the Paris agreement. Although I am not sure that amendment is strictly necessary, I am happy to support it as a further reflection of our commitment to the Paris agreement. However, I cannot support Maurice Golden's amendment 104 that seeks to introduce a purpose clause to the 2009 act. This amendment would result in a hierarchy of potentially competing duties being placed on ministers when exercising their functions and it is not clear what the legal consequences of this would be. In particular, it is unclear how the objectives are intended to interact with the target setting criteria which set out a range of issues which ministers and the CCC are to take into account in a balanced way when considering what the targets should be, nor is it clear what the legal consequences would be of a perceived failure to meet the objectives. The amendment may also have unintended consequences if, for example, there was a potential conflict between the advice of the CCC two ministers and one of those objectives. Although the Scottish Government is supportive of the actual objectives set out in the amendment, the legal ambiguity that would result means that I cannot support it, and I urge members to reject what we think is a legally problematic amendment. Can I just say in general terms that there is a risk of overburdening legislation with good intentions and ending up inadvertently diminishing its effectiveness? I have no doubt that all of the amendments in this first grouping are very well intentioned, but they also pose risks of that kind. I have set out what I think is a fair and collegiate approach to responding to those, especially the offer to Claudia Beamish, to work with her to ensure that climate justice is fully reflected in the most effective elements of the amended act. Claudia Beamish will like to ask you to wind up and then press or withdraw your amendment at the end, please. Thank you, convener. I think that this has been a helpful debate, and I would respond to the cabinet secretary by saying that this is not about good intentions, and I think that it is very important that those issues are underpinned in the bill as principles. Having said that, I respect and value the offer of discussion on those important issues. On that basis, I would be pleased to somehow, over the summer, to arrange that with possibly other members who have an interest in this. I will not be pressing those amendments today, but I do want to, for clarity, answer Mark Ruskell's question about sustainable development. What I actually did with advice from a number of groups was to adopt principles of climate justice that are already recognised internationally, because in this context I thought that simplicity and proven worth in my judgment was appropriate, and therefore I did not add sustainable development at this stage, although there are amendments later on that highlight that issue, which we will come to either today or later. I am happy to support Stuart Stevenson's amendment, and although I know that stock climate chaos is supporting Maurice Golden's amendment in terms of the legality of it, although I note that the cabinet secretary did not make an offer of meeting with him, which seems a pity, but that is not for me to perhaps intervene on, because I think that there are important issues, but I will be abstaining on that one today. Okay, thank you. That amendment has been withdrawn. So, Clare Baymish seeks to withdraw amendment number 91. Does any member object? Nope. The committee consents to that being withdrawn. I now call amendment 104, in the name of Maurice Golden, that is already debated with amendment 91. Maurice Golden asks you to move or not move your amendment. Thank you. So, that has not been moved. Right, we now move on to call amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary. A group with amendments is shown in the groupings. I draw members' attention to the procedural information of amendments in this group. I call on the cabinet secretary to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. A convener, following the special report last year on the intergovernmental panel on climate change, on the impact of global warming of 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, Scottish Government, along with other Governments in the UK, asked the Committee on Climate Change to provide further advice on target levels. The Committee on Climate Change's advice was published on 2 May and recommended that Scotland should set 2045 as the target year to reach net zero emissions. The Scottish Government has accepted the CCC's recommendation. As such, amendment 1 sets 2045 as the net zero emissions target year for Scotland. Members will note that amendment 1 also makes provision for modification of the target year by way of secondary legislation, which I will address later. The CCC's advice is clear that a 2045 net zero target represents the highest possible ambition for Scotland, as called for by the Paris Agreement. In giving evidence to this Committee on 14 May, Professor Forster of the CCC also said that, I think that we can say with confidence that the 2045 target for Scotland is currently the most ambitious in the whole world. Of course, such a target matches the Committee's recommendation that the Government should act in line with the CCC's advice. The CCC's advice is clear that the delivery of net zero emissions in Scotland by 2045 depends on UK ambition increasing in line with net zero by 2050 and increased UK-wide action across policy areas that remain reserved. I am pleased that the UK Government last week accepted the CCC's advice and followed us in beginning a legislative process to change their target accordingly. Mark Ruskell has lodged amendment 1b to set 2042 as the net zero target year. I urge members not to support this, as it would mean going beyond what the CCC has advised is the highest possible ambition. The CCC do not currently consider it credible to aim to reach domestic net zero emissions any sooner than 2045. I am aware that Mark Ruskell may seek to argue that this target reflects the CCC's analysis as set out in the 20th May letter to the Committee if known future changes to the GHD inventory are ignored. If members wish to consider legislating for a target on that basis, they need to be absolutely clear in two regards. Firstly, it means discounting the independent expert advice of the CCC. The CCC's recommendation is for 2045. During the session on 14 May, Chris Stark advised the committee that, and it has occurred to me that I really ought to make clear what is a quote and what is not a quote, we have offered you the best assessment of what is achievable in Scotland and also said, I am asking you to take the advice that we offer in the report, which is very ambitious, end quote. Secondly, setting the target now that ignores the inventory changes that we know are about to happen would mean that it will become necessary to modify the targets again very soon. In particular, it would mean that we will need to push the net zero date backwards within the next one to three years. That will require a process of secondary legislation that will further occupy Government, Parliament and the CCC's time. That is Government, Parliament and the CCC's time when we would all be better focused on delivering emissions reductions. This cannot be the right approach. I am also aware of claims being made in the press this morning by Friends of the Earth Scotland that the CCC has admitted that you need to set a date of 2042 to really deliver in 2045. This is a straightforward misrepresentation of the CCC's advice. The chief executive of the CCC has confirmed, and I will quote exactly from his letter that, quote, we recommend that the net zero target date that should be legislated is 2045 and not 2042, end quote. Given the importance of this issue to today's decision, I have sent the full text of Chris Stark's letter to you all. The technical landscape around on-going revisions to the GHG inventory, decisions on which are made at UN and UK levels, is clearly very complex. In the face of that complexity, I think that the right approach is to be guided by independent expert advice that is based on the full range of available evidence. The CCC has provided that advice and the Government has accepted it. I have brought forward amendment 6 to increase the 2030 target to a 70 per cent reduction and amendment 7 to increase the 2040 target to a 90 per cent reduction. Those targets are also in line with the Committee on Climate Change's advice on 2 May. Claudia Beamish has brought forward amendment 92, which is in direct opposition to amendment 6 and seeks to change the 2030 target of 76 per cent. I understand that she may deploy similar arguments to those that I expect from Mark Ruskell on the 2042 net zero date regarding technical matters around the GHG inventory. I really strongly advise members against a 76 per cent target for 2030 for the same reasons that I have set out previously. The CCC has been clear, including in the evidence that it gave directly to yourselves on 14 May, that it has provided the best possible assessment of the highest possible for ambition for Scotland based on the full range of available advice and evidence. That advice is for a 70 per cent target for 2030. I firmly recognise the particular importance of the 2030 target as action over the next decade is vital, in light of the IPCC's special report on the global climate emergency. I would emphasise to members that the 70 per cent target recommended by the CCC would be the most ambitious statutory goal for 2030 of any country in the world. It also more than meets what the IPCC's special report says is needed globally over the next decade to prevent warming of more than 1.5 degrees. Meeting such a target will be very challenging and will require a step change in policy action here in Scotland. It will also depend on the UK Government doing more, given the importance of reserved levers. The Scottish Government recognises the challenge and will rise to it. I expect Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell to argue that the CCC's recommended target is not ambitious. That is simply untrue and fails to recognise that the target builds on the already world-leading goals for 2030 set out in the bill and the 2009 act. I will now turn to the other functions of the amendments. Amendment 1 also imposes tighter restrictions on Scottish ministers' ability to amend the date of the net zero emissions target year. Under section 1 of the bill as introduced, ministers may, by secondary legislation, propose to Parliament the modification of the net zero target year either to an earlier date or to a later year, subject to certain restrictions. Ministers may only propose a later day if such a change has been advised by the Committee on Climate Change. Those are already strict conditions to ensure that the net zero emissions target year could only be pushed backwards in the case that independent expert advice says that this should occur due to circumstances having changed. When giving stage 1 evidence to the committee, environmental NGOs welcome these safeguards. Nevertheless, the stage 1 report recommended a further tightening of the limitations placed on those and similar powers. I have therefore also included provisions in amendment 1 that further restricts the power to push the net zero target date backwards, with the effect that ministers can only propose such a change to Parliament if the Committee on Climate Change has advised that this should occur due specifically to considerations of scientific knowledge about climate change and or international carbon reporting practice. Amendment 12 imposes tighter restrictions on the power to modify the interim targets in the same way as described for the net zero target date through amendment 1. As I hope that I have demonstrated across the many amendments that I have lodged, the Scottish Government has listened to and considered the committee's recommendations and attempted to address committee concerns as far as possible. The tightening of the power to amend target levels and dates is just one example. Finally, in relation to amendment 1, that also introduces a duty on ministers to have regard to the target setting criteria, as well as the most up-to-date advice from the relevant body when preparing draft regulations to modify the net zero target year. That has been brought forward to implement a recommendation by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that making this duty explicit would be more consistent with other provisions in the bill. Now, allow me to turn to amendment 4. This removes the 2050 target from both the bill and the 2009 act. I have proposed this change because, by way of amendment 1, a net zero emissions target date will now be set on the face of the bill and for a date that is earlier than 2050. Under these circumstances, I have proposed that the clear end point for Scotland's statutory framework should be the achieving of net zero emissions rather than any particular fixed date. Section 8 of the bill makes provisions to hold ministers to account if they choose not to amend target levels in line with advice from the relevant body, that is the CCC. The bill, as introduced, includes a requirement for ministers to make a statement to Parliament after 12 months following receipt of advice that targets should be changed if they do not act upon it. In my response to the committee's stage 1 report, I explained that this 12-month timeframe is intended to reflect the time that it would take for policy consideration of the advice, as well as any public and stakeholder consultation that might be required. It would be difficult to envisage a situation where Parliament was not well aware of the Government's intention earlier in that period, although there was no statutory duty requiring a formal statement of that intention. However, I have listened to the concerns of the committee on these matters and have brought forward amendment 17. In addition to the obligation for a statement after 12 months if the advice is now followed, it requires ministers to publish a statement within three months of receiving such advice, setting out how they intend to respond to it. Amendment 19 imposes the same obligation on ministers to publish a statement within three months of receiving advice from the CCC to the effect that the interim targets should be modified. I have lodged a set of technical amendments in relation to annual targets to ensure sensible calculation of those following the setting of a net zero emission target year on the face of the bill through amendment 1 and the removal of the 2050 target through amendment 4. Although complicated to explain, those amendments will ensure that there continues to be a clear way to calculate annual targets and recalculate them if interim targets are amended or if the net zero emissions target year is modified. The actual approach to calculating the annual target levels as a straight line between the nearest two headline target levels remains the same as in the bill as introduced. I will summarise the more substantial amendments as briefly as I can, convener. Amendment 21 creates a new final annual target period instead of 2041 to 2049. This period will be from 2041 until the year before the net zero emissions target year, which in the first instance would be 2044. Amendment 20 amends the section heading of section 3 of the 2009 act as a consequence. Amendments 24 and 25, taken together, set out how the annual targets in this period will be calculated. Amendment 24 inserts a figure of 100 per cent reduction, which is equivalent to net zero emissions instead of the percentage figure for the 2050 target. Amendment 25 ensures that annual targets are equally spaced over the relevant time period. Amendment 17 and 28, taken together, ensure that annual targets will continue to be calculated in the same way if the net zero emissions target year is modified. Mark Ruskell's amendments to section 9 in relation to annual targets follow on from his amendment to set a net zero emissions target year of 2042. The Government's amendments are designed to work with a net zero emissions target year of 2045, with a separate interim target for 2040. If the committee agrees the Government's approach to the net zero target date and rejects Mark Ruskell's one, I would therefore urge him not to press amendments 40 to 45 and 28a. The remaining Government amendments in this grouping are consequential to amendments 1 and or 4 or are otherwise purely technical. Amendments 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 33, 35 and 38 are consequential to the removal of the 2050 target through amendment 4. There are so many of those because the 2050 target appears so frequently across the current 2009 act framework. Amendment 13 is consequential to the setting of a net zero emissions target in the bill. It removes the reference to the enabling power for making regulations to specify a net zero emissions target year of 2050 or earlier and replaces it with a reference to modifying the year to one, which is earlier than 2045. Amendments 22, 23, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are consequential to the setting of a net zero emissions target in the bill and the resulting removal of the 2050 target. Amendments 32 and 34 are again consequential to the setting of a net zero emissions target in the bill and amend the ministerial duties to publish information about the targets. Amendment 36 is consequential to both amendment 1 and amendment 4. It amends the definition of emissions reduction target to mean an annual target, an interim target or the net zero emissions target, and amendment 37 is consequential to the setting of a net zero emissions target in the bill, updating a cross-reference to the section that sets the net zero target year. Turning to the final amendment in the grouping, I cannot support Maurice Golden's amendment 105 as it is completely unnecessary. This amendment would place a duty on ministers that they must make regulations under the affirmative procedure to specify a definition of the term net zero. The net zero emissions target is already clearly defined through the provisions of the bill. The committee raised that in their stage 1 report. In my response to the report, I clearly set out how the bill does define this term. For the benefit of any colleagues here today who have not read my response to the report, I will reiterate the relevant points. The net zero emissions target is defined in the bill to mean a 100 per cent reduction from baseline levels in net emissions of all greenhouse gases. The various elements of the definition are all further defined in the 2009 act. Section 13 of the 2009 act defines the concept of the net Scottish emissions account, which is the aggregate amount of net Scottish emissions reduced by any credits purchased by ministers. Of course, the bill sets a default limit of zero on the extent of credit use for all future years unless Parliament decides otherwise. In particular, sections 10 and 11 of the 2009 act set out the greenhouse gases included, which are all seven gases covered by the Kyoto protocol. In summary, I urge members to support the Government amendments in this grouping, which will set world-leading targets in line with the independent expert of advice of the CCC. This is the approach that the committee called for in its stage 1 report and has welcomed in its stage 2 report. I urge members to reject those amendments, which would mean rejecting that independent advice and an evidence-based approach. I move amendment 1. This has been quite a long session, but it is, of course, the key session for this bill. I call on Mark Ruskell to move amendment 1B and speak to all amendments in the group. Thanks. How long have I got? It's an emergency, isn't it? It's up to five minutes. Great. I'm sure that I won't need all that. I can start by saying that the amendment that I'm moving 1B is an amendment to an amendment. I accept the broad thrust of the Cabinet Secretary's amendment here. It is about changing that target date to 2042. I want to say briefly why the reasons are for wanting to do that. It is about bringing absolute clarity to the bill and removing a glaring inconsistency that exists in the bill at the moment. It isn't about changing the effort. It isn't about changing the effort. I know that the Cabinet Secretary has made a number of comments about how he can't go beyond what the Climate Change Committee has advised in terms of effort. This isn't about changing the effort. It's about bringing consistency within the legislation. It forms a matching pair with Claudia Beamish's amendment, which changes the 2030 target on the same basis. Let me give a little bit of background. The evidence that was given to the Committee in May and the Climate Change Committee outlined the assumptions that it made when developing their advice on Scotland's net zero and interim targets. It became clear that the recommendations had been made on the assumption of a future inventory change that would include extra emissions from Scotland's peatlands. The bill, as it stands, specifies that targets should be set on current reporting practice, which excludes peatlands, but has mechanisms in place to revise targets at the point when those inventories are updated. The bill is not changing the 2020 target, which will be set according to the current inventory. The Cabinet Secretary's amendments said that a net zero date for 2045 and interim targets for 2030 and 2040 are based on an anticipated future inventory. It's not the inventory at the moment, it's an anticipated future inventory. There's a lack of coherence here, and it could be confusing when the inventory eventually changes in one to three years' time. Getting to 2045 as set out in the Government's amendment requires the same effort to reach it by 2042 under the current inventory. The risk is that, in the future, when the inventory changes, a future Government ignores that it has already revised down the target and does so again. That's a risk. You might see that as a slight risk, but it's a risk within the way that the bill has been currently drafted. To avoid future confusion, I believe that we should set the targets in this bill based on the current inventory. I note the comments by the Cabinet Secretary about the letter or an email exchange that has been forwarded to the committee at 11 o'clock last night. I did read it when I was tucked up in bed. The comment from Chris Stark and the main concern that I took out of that letter is that there could be an appearance of loosening ambition if we then, on the back of an inventory change, have to push the net zero target date back to 2045. I see the politics in that. It's not strictly an issue for the bill in terms of the technicality of setting the right target date. I'm prepared to put on record right now that, if the Government had to do that as a result of a technical inventory change, it wouldn't be getting criticised by my party on that. The discussion that we've had in committee and the discussion that we're having at stage 2 now would put that future change on the basis of inventories into context. The political risks for the Cabinet Secretary at the moment or future Cabinet Secretary would be very slight. The intention would be very clear. This is a technical amendment. Finally, convener, if those amendments don't pass, it would be interesting to hear from the Government, perhaps in closing, about how they could place in this bill safeguards against lowering a future target due to an inventory revision, whether that's something the Cabinet Secretary would consider to bring consistency into this bill at stage 3. Would you like to move your amendment? I would, yes. I call on Maurice Golden to speak to amendment 105, another amendment in the group. Thank you, convener. The amendment was purely to provide increased clarity on the definition of net zero. However, having listened to the Cabinet Secretary and recognised its 14-year, since I graduated with a master's in environmental law, I'm happy not to press on this particular topic, having agreed with the position outlined. Thank you. I call on Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 92, another amendment in the group. Thank you, convener. I'm supportive, of course, of the amendment in the Cabinet Secretary's name. Amendment 1, in relation to net zero by 2045 and the consequential amendments by the Cabinet Secretary. Amendment 92 sets the 2030 interim target as a 76 per cent reduction in emissions from the baseline, as we've already heard, highlighted by the Cabinet Secretary. This target is based on today's greenhouse gas inventory and aims to deliver consistency of approach to baseline changes and to give the most reliable interim targets possible when it is important that we also send a signal about rapid transformational change. Changes to the inventory will soon be made, as we have heard, and the inventory takes account of methane and degraded peatland emissions. It is very possible that there will be further inventory changes in the coming years, which cannot be foreseen today. Those will, of course, be based on increased scientific understanding and improved methods of accounting on emissions. More robust scientific basis is, of course, to be welcomed, although it does cause some inconvenience for setting annual targets as it can lead to fluctuations. Members will know that the picture is somewhat confused, frankly, with the UKCCC using an estimated future accounting system, instead of, I stress, the current one. My amendment is based on the current inventory, which is in line with the existing reference for target setting criteria in the bill, as I quote, current international reporting practice, defined in section 19, and as I again quote, the most up-to-date international carbon reporting practice. That clearly suggests that targets must be set on the basis of today's inventory. Mechanisms have been built into this bill to adapt this for many years into the future, as the cabinet secretary confirmed in her statement on the 2017 greenhouse gas emissions recently. I again quote, a new climate change Scotland bill includes changes to the target framework in order to improve transparency and allow for clearer scrutiny of the bill. The bill proposes targets that are based on actual rather than adjusted emissions and includes mechanisms to manage the year-on-year effects. It seems clear to me that the mechanism to do the changes that could be needed is in the existing section 4A on page 2 and will be retained if the replacement amendment 1 is passed in the name of the cabinet secretary. It is the case that the targets will need to be reviewed and revised downwards in future, but, crucially, that will not affect the overall effort. Amendment 6, the cabinet secretary's name, sets target for 70 per cent, but the legislation does not clarify to which inventory, current or future, this is referring to. The approach creates some dangers. We must recognise that there will be a Scottish election between setting the targets and the possible inventory changes coming into effect, so we cannot accept legislation with caveats to be held in good faith. We do not have any guarantees in the bill over the inventory that the Government is working to, nor do we have safeguards against further revisions downwards, thus weakening the effort. We must protect against the lack of clarity having consequences for the future. There is also the more positive angle that updated advice from the CCC at the time of the inventory change may only shift the target back to 73 per cent, for example, and we should not work against this possibility. I can, of course, understand why Governments would be reluctant to be seen to be weakening targets when climate change is a growing public concern, but we must bind Scotland, in my view, to the right numbers and simply explain the reasoning now and again at that time. I want to see the issue clarified in legislation and legislative safeguards put in place, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will agree to the arguments that I have made. We have a couple of other members who want to speak on this. Stewart Stevenson? Thank you very much, convener. I think that it is probably important to put something as my principle on the record right now, and that is that we should not simply change dates or percentages where that puts us at odds with the UK climate change committee. We absolutely must not get in a position where politicians are choosing dates and associated targets. For me, it is science or it is nothing. If we do not trust our adviser, and we could fall out with our adviser at some point, then we need to start a process of consulting as to who our new adviser should be and take advice on that. It is very simple. That is the principled point. I think that in this area there has been confusion, and I have been confused as others have been, and I accept that. However, I think that the helpful letter from Chris Stark makes it absolutely clear what is being recommended by the climate change committee, and in particular I latched on the quota that I think the cabinet secretary used. Those amendments were a result in Scotland facing a set of emissions reduction targets that go beyond my committee's advice. Therefore, in the context of what I said, I cannot support the amendments from Mark Ruskell and Claudia Beamish. They made a very important point in their contributions, and they both made it, that none of this affects the effort. Therefore, this is angels dancing and ahead of a pin time, in a sense, because it has not got practical effect by changing the dates. However, there is a very real danger that if we put in dates that we already know that we are going to have to change, because changes in the way that the inventory is going to work, we actually create a perverse incentive for future government of whatever complexion, whether north or south of the border, to resist inventory revision, which I do not think would be a helpful thing to do. As a minister when I am his climate change minister, I must say that I found the inventory revisions, which are a regular feature of this area of policy, most irritating because they caused us on more than one occasion to on the numbers to miss targets because of inventory revisions. That is why we should stick with what we know is going to happen and we know that there is going to be inventory changes, and indeed we support them in relation to beatlands and forestry and so on and so forth. We should incorporate in the act the amendments that the cabinet secretary has brought forward, which reflect the inventory changes that we know are going to be made because the optics of reducing numbers at a future date, when today in considering setting those numbers, we already know what the future looks like. You are not good. I will take an intervention from Mark Ruskell, if permitted. Mark Ruskell has a chance to wind up, so I would like you to part your comments for now, because we have another member who wants to speak to that. Yes, you do. Thank you. I just want to speak very briefly before I declare an interest. I believe that the 2045 targets and the IPCC advice are sufficient, although it will be immensely difficult to achieve. I do not believe that we have the capability to go further at this time. As the cabinet secretary has said, this is already the most ambitious target in the world, and I will not be able to support Claudia Beamish's or Mark Ruskell's amendments. However, I share Mark Ruskell and Claudia Beamish's concerns and I would ask the Scottish Government to be certain that the inventory charge and changes are as elegantly expressed as possible before we come to stage 3. As Stuart Stevenson has said and I think that the whole committee has felt, there is a huge amount of confusion over that. I would like the Government to be as certain as they possibly can that it is as well expressed as it can be. Standing at this stage, I will, however, be supporting the Government's position on these targets as they stand, but I would seek to make certain that they are absolutely watertight and sensible for stage 3. Just to clarify, Mark Ruskell will have a chance to wind up after the cabinet secretary has wind up. I think that the key thing is that for all of us here, the key question is do we trust the CCC or do we not? We either trust the Committee for Climate Change or we do not. If we do not trust them and we seek to go behind what they are saying, we will get ourselves into a terrible mess. I want to just quote something from the letter that you have all received from or the email from Chris Stark, which was received last night and it is in the second-last paragraph. It says quite explicitly, I would not wish to see the numbers in that letter and that was the previous letter to the committee misinterpreted to leave Scotland with legal targets that are not supported by CCC analysis. That is a pretty fundamental statement. We are in a place where substantial inventory revisions are known to be happening in the next few years, associated with the incorporation of peatlands into the inventory and changes to the global warming potentials of certain gases arising from the IPCC reports. The UK Government has committed to the UN to implementing the peatland changes within the next three years and this may happen as early as next year's set of statistics. The CCC's advice on future targets therefore reflects those known future changes to the inventory. The technical landscape around on-going revisions to the GHG inventory decisions on which are made at UN and UK levels is clearly very complex. In the face of that complexity, I think that the right approach is to be guided by independent expert advice that is based on the full range of available evidence and we either trust that advice or we don't trust that advice. In respect of safeguards, I have set out clear statutory safeguards already. Targets can only be lured if the CCC advises that this should occur specifically as a result of scientific understanding. Again, we are back to the science. Again, we are back to the fact that the CCC are our scientific advisers. We either trust them or we don't. Thank you. Mark Russell has wind-up and pressur with DROI's amendment 1b. Thanks, convener. Given that I wasn't leading this group, I wouldn't have a chance to wind up, which is why I was seeking to intervene on the students' team. If you have given me extra space, then that's fine. I think that it's a little bit disappointing that, in this debate, we're continuing to conflate issues. This isn't about changing the effort. It is about bringing consistency within the bill. At the moment, the bill is inconsistent. I did say to the CCC opening comments that I wanted to hear from the Government about what safeguards they would put in place if they didn't vote for those amendments against the lowering of future targets due to inventory revisions. I appreciate the email exchange with Chris Stark. I would have liked to have seen an actual response from the CCC to our second committee report detailing some of the issues that the CCC might have with changing targets, as proposed in my amendments, but we don't have that. Unfortunately, we don't have that well-rounded debate, which I think is a real pity. I think that the issue here is about the inventory change going forward. There is a risk, obviously, politically, in terms of how this is perceived if the target date is pushed back to 2045. We have to have a bill that is legally competent and is legally consistent. At the moment, it is not. I do not hear any move from the Government about how it intends to ensure that that is the case going forward. I intend to press my amendment to bring that consistency. If the Government finds a way to ensure that there is security around future inventory changes actually in this law for stage 3, I would be very interested to hear about that. I will press the amendment. The question is that amendment 1B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. No. We have a division. Can I ask those in favour of amendment 1B to raise their hands now? And those against? And those wishing to abstain? Total votes for amendment 1B is one. Total votes against is five. Total abstentions is one, so the amendment is not agreed to. Cabinet Secretary, press or withdraw amendment 1. The question is that amendment 1B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We have a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment 1B to raise their hands now? Those against? Those wishing to abstain? The result of that division. Total votes for amendment 6, total votes against is zero and total abstentions is one. The amendment is agreed. Call of amendment 2, in the name of the cabinet secretary. I am ready to debate it with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call of amendment 3, in the name of the cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. A call of amendment 105, in the name of Maurice Golden, already debated by the amendment 1. Would you like to move or not? Not moved. Not moved. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. Yes. A call of amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. A call of amendment 5, in the name of the cabinet secretary. I am ready to debate it with amendment 1. I am moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. A call of amendment 6, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Thank you. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. No, we have a division. I can ask those in favour of the amendment 6 to raise their hands. Those against. The result of amendment 6, total votes for amendment 6, 5 total votes against. The amendment is agreed to. A call of amendment 92, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated by the amendment 1. Claudia Beamish, would you like to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. No. We have a division. I can ask those in favour of amendment 92 to raise their hands now. Those against. The results are that we have two votes for the amendment and five votes against. The amendment is not agreed. A call of amendment 39, in the name of Mark Ruskell, already debated by the amendment 1. I remind members that if amendment 39 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 7. Not moved. Not moved. Not moved. A call of amendment 7, in the name of Cabinet Secretary. Moved. The question is that amendment 7 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. Those wishing to abstain. The results are that we have six votes for the amendment and one abstention. The amendment is agreed to. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. A call of amendments 8 to 12. All in the name of the cabinet secretary. Moved on block. Does any member object a single question that has been put on amendments 8 to 12? No. The question is that amendments 8 to 12 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. A call of amendment 13, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated. Thank you. A call of amendment 13, in the name of Mark Ruskell, already debated with amendment 1. Would you like to move? Not moved. Not moved. I ask the cabinet secretary if she would like to press or withdraw. Press. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. A call of amendment 14, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Thank you. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're agreed. The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. A call of amendment 93, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated. Would you like to move? Not moved. Not moved. A call of amendment 107, in the name of Maurice Golden, grouped with amendment 94. A call of amendment 107, in the name of Maurice Golden, would you like to move? Amendment 107, in the name of Maurice Golden, is to speak to both amendments in the group. So, 107 is in relation to the overshoot scenario, and the purpose of the amendment is to have a presumption against such a scenario. We have heard evidence at this committee regarding the implications of overshoot on both climate change and the financial implications associated with overshoot. Therefore, the amendment seeks to ensure that, on the face of the bill, this is something that we should be guarding against. Yes. Just to be absolutely clear, and I am in sympathy with what is trying to be done here, what the ecosystem that is described here actually means. I give us an example that we extract gravel, and it is not something that is renewed by the ecosystem in any meaningful timescale. That is just one example. I suspect that we are trying to deal with an ecosystem that is more restricted in the definition than perhaps the general term. Is that the member's understanding? Yes. I think that, at this stage as well, I would encourage committee members to be supportive of the amendment and, if indeed there are particular aspects of it that require clarity, then I am clearly happy to look at that going forward and take Parliament with us. However, at this stage, that is the intention of the amendment. Have you moved that amendment? Yes, I would like to move that. I call Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 94 and other amendments in the group. Thank you convener. Amendment 94 amends the bill to request that the UKCCC have regard to the likely impact of the target on public health when providing regular advice to ministers. Ministers do the same when target setting. Committee members will recall that this was one of the recommendations by the clear committee of which I am a member in the stage 1 report and also recommended by WWF Scotland, SCCS and Unison Scotland. This is another important amendment in my view, ensuring the impacts of our climate change action are just. The bill could secure a number of health multi and co-benefits and a number of stakeholders referenced these in evidence such as air quality improvements, reducing fuel poverty, mental health impacts and more. It was also noted that a better evidence base for the impact of public health is needed, which this amendment could help deliver. While there are a number of potential positive outcomes for our health, it is right that the impact is monitored. I hope that members will vote for this amendment today. Any other members wish to speak to any of those? I am happy to support amendment 94 from Claudia Beamish, which adds public health to the target setting criteria provided by section 5 of the bill. Improving public health has been noted by those giving evidence on the bill as a major co-benefit to climate change action. Our view at the point of introducing the bill was that this is arguably covered by the social circumstances criteria, and there was not a strong reason to add it as a separate criteria. However, I have taken on-board the feedback from the committee in the stage 1 report and further representations from stakeholders themselves, and I am happy to support this further provision. I see merit in Maurice Golden's amendment 107, which seeks to add considerations of ecosystems and waste management to the criteria. The recent global assessment of biodiversity highlights the serious impacts of biodiversity loss that is happening around the world. The report underlines the links between biodiversity loss and climate change, and members will have heard the First Minister say in response to a question from Claudia Beamish that biodiversity loss is as important as climate change. However, the capacity of Scotland's ecosystems to regenerate what we consume is a complex and fluid calculation to undertake. I understand that many existing measures have shortcomings, which may mean that they are not robust indicators for Scotland. I would like the opportunity to consider those technical aspects further, with both the member and the CCC, given that all such amendments have implications for their advice. Although my officials have had an opportunity to gauge the CCC's views on the public health addition to criteria, there has not yet been time to do so for this one. I urge Maurice Golden not to press the amendment at this time. I will then commit to working with him to explore options for either bringing something back for stage 3 or taking those matters forward through the review of environmental monitoring that we have committed to as part of our recent environmental principles and governance consultation. I hope that Maurice will be reassured by that, because otherwise I will not be able to express support for the amendment as it stands. Thank you. Maurice Golden, would you like the opportunity to wind up and to press or withdraw your amendment? I will withdraw, thank you. All members are content with the withdrawal of that amendment. The amendment 94, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is already debated with amendment 107. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 108, in the name of Claudia Beamish, group with amendments 1, 2, 7, 1, 2, 8, 1, 2, 9, 1, 5, 2 and 1, 5, 3. Claudia Beamish would like to move amendment 108 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Those amendments, as a set, are designed to improve our approach to climate change with regard to international development and are supported by Skiath, who has helped in their design, and Stock Climate Chaos Scotland more broadly. Amendment 108 adds international development, particularly the ability of other nations to meet sustainable development goals into target setting criteria. This amendment has clear value in my view but would also not be onerous to apply. The Paris Agreement is a global agreement, of course, that successfully brought together developed and developing countries for action on climate change. The implementation of the Paris Agreement will come through a constant collaboration between developed and developing countries. For this bill to truly enthrine Paris, therefore, it is vital that it includes a requirement to consider the impacts on developing countries where amendment targets are set in future. We have a clear historic responsibility to consider the challenges faced by developing countries that it is recognised and did so much less to contribute to the current climate change challenges. I am very hopeful that members will support this amendment in that context. Amendment 127 adds the reference to developing countries' efforts to climate reductions when requiring the plan to explain how it will compensate for excess emissions, which is important to focus our minds on where the effects of this are likely to be experienced disproportionately. The Existing Climate Change Act includes the provision for Government to support climate change adaptation in Scotland. That is a vital part of addressing climate change, as even holding global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees will require adaptation. However, the act does not include commitments to support adaptation internationally, nor to help countries to develop low carbon and net zero economies. The Scottish Government already provides climate finance, of course, through its well-recognised climate justice fund. However, this exists Parliament to Parliament. Such an important contribution to global efforts to tackle climate change should, in my view, be put into legislation to prevent those commitments being easily repealed by any future Government. Amendments are required to protect this important contribution to climate finance into the future and to ensure that this is spent appropriately. Amendment 128 proposes to put a commitment in the climate change bill to supporting developing countries in adaptation and mitigation through the transfer of technology and expertise. Articles 10 and 11 of the Paris agreement detail the requirement for developed countries to support developing countries by sharing technology and expertise and capacity building. The bill was introduced to implement the Paris agreement in Scottish law. The amendment therefore seeks to enshrine this aspect specifically of the Paris agreement in the climate change bill. At present, the climate change act, as it stands, does not include any provisions for how Scotland will support global efforts to challenge climate change with the exception of its emissions reduction targets and the commitment that these will set in line with the, I quote, fair and safe, unquote, principle set out by the UNFCCC. This amendment is needed to ensure that the whole of the Paris agreement is enshrined in law and to formalise the requirement for developed countries to support developing countries in climate change adaptation and mitigation. For the world to achieve its ambitions of limiting warming to well below two degrees and to pursue efforts for 1.5, it is vital that all countries of the world work together and collaborate, of course. The Scottish Government has considerable expertise and knowledge about climate change adaptation and mitigation and Scotland has a world-renowned renewable energy sector. The amendment would ensure that the Scottish Government is committed through the years to continuing to share its technology and expertise with developing countries to help them tackle the climate emergency. 1.29 in particular seeks to enshrine the principle of policy coherence for sustainable development. Application of this principle in the climate change plan will help to ensure that what Scotland does in response to the climate crisis is done so with other countries in mind. The bill is uniquely global and attempts like this amendment are an attempt to reflect that. Through its devolved powers, Scotland still has made a significant contribution to tackling the climate emergency beyond our borders. The amendment will help to reflect the important role that devolved administrations can play in this global issue by ensuring that the policies are written in line with the UN commitment, such as the Sustainable Development Goals. Amendment 152 refers specifically to the need for Scottish ministers to recognise the global responsibility that Scotland has in relation to international climate change adaptation in line with best international practice as we move forward. Amendment 153 highlights the need to have regard to and then again the ability of other countries to achieve global commitments on climate change. It is a marker and serves as a valuable tool in my view to aiding in the focusing of attention on the implications of a range of our actions as a developed nation, where many of us are high consumers, though not all, which frequently has implications in relation to where we source materials and products from across the world and how we manufacture them. Finally, amendment 153 sets an expectation on relevant persons in the exercise of functions in relation to the ability of other countries to achieve sustainable development. As members will no doubt know, there is a well-recognised definition of sustainable development in common usage that comes from the Bruntland commission report. I believe that this set of amendments will indeed play Scotland in the forefront of excellent practice in international development and climate change action as we progress towards net zero emissions in a way that is globally just. Those amendments would single us out and signal to the world the clear and important way in which developed nations can send a clear, positive, straightforward message to others of our like, and I hope that members will support it. Thank you. We have Stuart Stevenson. Thank you very much. I listened with care to what Claudia Beamish said, and I'm broadly supportive of what she said. However, I think that there are some drafting difficulties in what we have before us. In particular, in 127, I think that Jack McConnell was very wise when he took a slightly different approach. In other words, our international efforts are not supporting developing countries' parties to the UNFCC. They are instead supporting projects in countries that are parties to the CFIC. That might sound a slight academic, but I think that it's been successful precisely because it's bypassed some Governments in some countries that are pretty and effective in making sure that the money reaches the projects. I'm uncomfortable with the wording that Claudia Beamish has put in, but not at all resistant to the sentiment that she's seeking to pursue. In 129, we've got a line with global agreements under the UNFCCC. Again, that is broadly something that I can support, but the difficulty is that not all such global agreements are now current. For example, the Copenhagen agreement has been supplanted and overtaken by the Paris agreement, so the wording needs further attention. Sustainable development, I recognise that there is a broad agreement, but I'm not sure that it's expressed in our law in a way that's appropriate. When we refer to things that are external, as I have done in the amendment on the Paris agreement, I refer to something that is published and invariant and accessible to anyone who requires to refer to it. It's clear what's been pointed at, but sustainable development expressed simply as an expression in the way it is. Perhaps it doesn't meet those tests, but the same talking at 152, when we talk about international best practice, that certainly is unlikely to be a constant. It's something that will evolve over time, and I think that we just have to be quite clear what it is that we're saying. Again, not resisting, in any sense, the underlying attempt to align with international best practice. I'm just not clear that the construction of the amendments. Claudia Beamish, you'd like to move your amendment. I thought that we'd be dead to fight. Thank you very much. I'm sympathetic to all of the amendments that Claudia Beamish has brought forward. In this group, I said in my remarks on the first grouping that the Scottish Government firmly recognises the international dimensions of climate change. There's a global climate emergency and internationally co-ordinated just and sustainable action to tackle this is essential. The Scottish Government's commitment is reflected in our national performance framework being aligned to the UN's sustainable development goals and our commitment to policy coherence for sustainable development within our international development strategy. I see climate action including this bill as being an important element of this. I would however like to offer to work with the member on technical aspects of most of the proposed amendments. In relation to amendment 108, similarly to the Morris Golden amendment in the previous grouping, I'd like the opportunity to seek the CCC's advice and views on this given the impact it would have on their advisory functions. In relation to amendments 127 to 129, which relate to adding linkages to international efforts to tackle climate change into Scotland's domestic climate change plans, I'd like the opportunity to explore exactly how this is best done within the 2009 act framework. In relation to amendment 153, which relates to section 92 of the 2009 act, I'm again content in principle but would like to explore technical aspects of its implementation. On all of those amendments, I would invite Claudia Beamish to not press those at the present time in favour of a firm commitment to work with her to bring those back for stage 3 in a form that respects the intentions in full but is better technically aligned to the wider framework. That means that I wouldn't be able to support them if they are pressed in their current form. The exception is amendment 152 in relation to adding references to international matters to adaptation planning, which I'm happy to support outright. Claudia Beamish, you have the opportunity to wind up and if you can press or withdraw your amendment. Thank you, convener. I am conscious of time and how much we have to go through, but I do want to very briefly respond to one or two of Stuart Stevenson's comments. In my view, I very much respect Jack McConnell as someone who went to Johannesburg and was involved with environmental justice at that stage, rather than specifically climate justice, however, I don't see that working to support countries actually excludes specifically working with projects, and I don't think that they are mutually exclusive. I was purely seeking to exclude any suggestion that we could only do so via Governments. I think we're aligned. I will quickly mention in relation to 129, just for the record, that if some of these areas of the UNFC on climate change are not current, then obviously we wouldn't be referring to them. I don't really understand that point. I'm delighted that the Cabinet Secretary is able to support 152 today, and in relation to working with her and others who have helped me with these, if that's acceptable, I would be very pleased to work at some point over the summer on technical aspects. I do take the point about the UK Committee on Climate Change advice, and it's not for me in any way to tell them what to think, but I would be very surprised if they're thinking wasn't that we should be looking as a developed nation to be taking these issues into account in the current global climate crisis. I'm very pleased that we're, I think, on the same page, if I may say so, Cabinet Secretary, and look forward to that engagement. Are you going to press 108 or withdrawal? I'm going to withdraw a part, which I'm going to— Amendment 108. 108, I will not move it or do I say withdraw? You just withdraw. Okay, I'll withdraw it. Okay, any member object to that being withdrawn? Nope. Okay, I think we'll use this moment to take a short break. Actually, you know, just in consultation with a class, I think we'll actually move on just so that we can quickly dispose of amendment 51 and then we'll have a short break if everyone's content with that. I call amendment 51 in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments have shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 51, speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. This group of amendments relate to minor technical amendments to the bill and also the 2009 act for consistency and alignment. I'll describe their technical operation very briefly. Amendment 51 makes a small correction to the bill to ensure consistency with the terminology used elsewhere in section 5, which has no effect in practice. Amendment 53 inserts the words of greenhouse gases after reference to Scottish emissions in new section 2b subsection 2, which is inserted by section 5 of the bill. Amendment 56 inserts the same words after reference to Scottish emissions in new section 2c subsection 3 subsection c, which is inserted by section 6 of the bill. Amendment 68, 69 and 71 inserts the same words after references to Scottish emissions in section 34 of the 2009 act, which is amended by section 17 of the bill. Amendment 87 amends paragraph 5 of the schedule to insert the same words after reference to Scottish emissions in section 9 subsection 2 subsection d of the 2009 act. Amendment 89 is a minor typographical amendment to paragraph 17 subsection b subsection 3 of the schedule to the bill to reflect that the amendment by that paragraph is a substitution of text. I hope you all grasp that particular one. Amendment 90 amends the schedule of the bill. It substitutes 30 for 27 in sections 100, subsection 2 and subsection 3 of the act. This is required due to the repeal of sections 27 to 29 of the 2009 act under paragraph 11 of the schedule of the bill and ensures that there is a correct reference. I move amendment 51. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. At that point, we are going to suspend the meeting so that we can have a comfort break for 15 minutes.