 Rwy'n credu ond ar gyfer eich cyfnod ac yw amendment 112, ac yw Mark Ruskell, rwy'n mynd i'r dalach i amendment 110. are you ready to move it or not? I'm not going to move that. Thank you. A call amendment 63 on the name of the Cabinet Secretary, you are ready to debate the amendment 63. I'm ready to move the amendment 63. Thank you. Can we ask amendment 63 to be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. A llwy o amlynnwys ar gyfer seksion 13. Mae'r byn oedd hynny'n ddweud there shortly? I call amendment 64, in the name of Angus MacDonald, group with amendment 65. I call on the Angus MacDonald to move amendment 64, and speak to both amendments in the group. Okay, thanks, convener. I have lodged these amendments to meet the recommendations in our committee's stage 1 report that any future regulations seeking Parliament's agreement to the use of carbon credits squadrice ar gyfunctus cymdeithaswidef yn Gordon jogo, wrth gref candwag. Ar tynno, rwy'n dipyn nhw – dyma drafonro i'r cop осв… Yn gyfourtym o'r sicr fydd yn dau, ac stores hanivedd anghaelrif ar hyn o an bathtub. that the government's policy is not to use carbon credits. Section 97 of the 2009 act sets out an enhanced pre-laying procedure for certain regulation making powers under that act such as those around deposit return. The second of my amendments ensures that the regulation making power in section 13A of the bill in relation to carbon credits will come under those same enhanced procedures, so that will mean the following requirements. An initial draft set of regulations must be laid in Parliament and consulted upon over a representation period. This representation period must be at least 90 days, including at least 30 sitting days. Ministers must have regard to any representations made to them during the representation period, including to any parliamentary resolution or report. Finally, when the draft regulations are subsequently laid in Parliament, ministers must lay a statement setting out details of any representations, resolutions or reports any changes made in response. My amendments retain from the current bill provisions an additional safeguard to ensure that it will be made clear whether the proposals in any such regulations are consistent with up-to-date advice from the committee on climate change. The first amendment is consequential to the second and removes subsection 13A brackets 5, inserted by section 14 of the bill. That would have required ministers to publish a statement alongside the regulations. Such a provision will now be made under the amended section 97. Those amendments will ensure a very strong level of scrutiny, as called for by this committee, should any future Government seek to raise the permitted level for the use of carbon credits from the default position of zero. I am happy to move. As the committee is aware, the Government's policy is that Scotland's emissions reduction targets should be met through domestic effort alone without the use of carbon credits. We have been absolutely clear on that. The bill establishes a statutory default limit on the use of credits of zero for all future target years. Nonetheless, the advice from the CCC has been to retain a limited ability to use credits in the future should circumstances change. We have allowed for that possibility in the bill, subject to the CCC so advising, and the Parliament agreeing affirmative procedure regulations. That means that the Parliament's explicit approval would already be needed to any proposal, to any increase in the limit from zero. The committee has asked for even higher scrutiny for any such regulations. I am content, as I said in my letter last week, to support Angus MacDonald's amendments 64 and 65. Those will require any such regulations to be subject to an enhanced pre-laying procedure that is already defined in the 2009 act. I hope that that would provide the committee with full assurance that any change in Scotland's approach to meeting its climate targets from a future Government will be carefully scrutinised. I would like to give Angus MacDonald the opportunity to wind up and press or withdraw the amendment. I have nothing to say to wind up, but I am happy to press the amendment. The question then is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 65 in the name of Angus MacDonald. Are we all agreed? We are. The question is that section 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 113 in the name of Claudia Beamish, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. I remind members that, in light of the Presiding Officer's determination on costs of the amendments 113 and 114 in this group, both amendments can be debated and moved, but the questions cannot be put on whether or not to agree to them. Claudia Beamish has had to step out and Mark Ruskell has agreed to step into her shoes briefly to move amendment 113 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thanks very much, convener. There are a number of amendments in this group, including my own, which look at the establishment of a Just Transition Commission, so I will get started on it. Those amendments established the Just Transition Commission in statute in this bill and put in place a range of planning, reporting and consulting processes. They are aimed at integrating the Just Transition into the bill's existing processes. The commission would, in addition, have the power to publish reports, as it considers appropriate, in relation to its functions and the Just Transition Principles and would also publish anual report. As committee members know, we believe strongly that a Just Transition is an imperative in our response to climate change and should be at the core of all actions. This bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament as a direct response to the Paris agreement. Of course, the Paris agreement requires parties to increase action to reduce emissions while taking into account the imperatives of a Just Transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs. The vital importance of the Just Transition approach to realising the transformation to a low-carbon economy and net zero has been recognised in establishing the Just Transition Commission, and I welcome its work and congratulate the Scottish Government on setting this up. However, its two-year term is not sufficient to contributing to assisting ministers delivering on the targets in the bill and responding properly to the climate emergency. We all know that there is a need for urgent action in the coming decade and then continuing onwards to 2045. I want the bill to enshrine Just Transition processes in a meaningful and long-term way. Doing so will also help in generating and maintaining public support for the action required to meet the targets. Workers worried about their jobs across the range of sectors, affected communities and the young people striking for their future want to know that we recognise their fears and concerns and will ensure that the transition is fair for all. Having a statutory long-term commission for the duration of the targets in the bill would be a practical and, in our view, an absolutely necessary demonstration of commitment to this Just Transition. Advice from an independent body on implementing the transition is something that we have all welcomed. The trade unions through the STUC and environment groups working together through the JTC partnership have argued for a statutory Just Transition commission and that is what those amendments seek to establish. Stop Climate Chaos supports that and I know that many people across the country are watching today to see whether this committee supports those amendments. If we are to create a fair, high-value work, if we are to create socially and environmentally sustainable jobs while meeting our targets, planning is key and expert advice on how to do it is fundamental in an on-going, robust, long-term way whoever is in government. The Scottish Government suggests that putting the transition reporting in the climate plan is sufficient for the longer-term action but we disagree and see a clear need to build on the work of the existing commission. Our amendments do not affect the work of Professor Jim Ski and his colleagues. It is feasible to transition from the existing commission when it reports at the end of the two years to the new statutory commission. We have the example of the poverty and inequality commission for that with a public service reform order that comes into effect on the 1st of July this year. The land commission, which the committee will be aware of and has appointed the land commission, also sets a confidence building precedent. The JTC must have regard to the principles that are listed in the amendments that are put forward on climate justice and the just transition by creating quality jobs, protecting the rights of the workforce and affected communities and enhancing social justice, while sharing the costs and rewards fairly and engaging workers, their unions and employers with the plans needed for a just transition. I commend those principles to the committee. The functions seek to ensure that the commission is enabled to deliver on those principles, providing crucial advice to ministers and with important reporting duties and powers to ensure the best possible advice for a just transition in which the costs and rewards are shared fairly and report on measures that are put in place to ensure that livelihoods of workers and communities are protected and social equity is enhanced. Will the member, in charge, like to move the rest of the page with a convener's agreement? I apologise for having to go, but I had a... You don't have the opportunity to wind up, so maybe you can pick up on that. Right, I'd then like to ask Mark Ruskell to move amendment 113A. Sorry, there's more... Oh, is there so? Right, okay. That's what I was saying. When you get to the bottom of the page, if I can continue with your agreement. At a point, hand it over to the audience, you can finish off. It's a double-hack today. So, such a commission can assist the Scottish Government to overcome barriers to change and engage the active participation of workers, trade unions, businesses, the public sector and wider civic society. It's also important that the commission can conduct research and advocate to relevant organisations for the adoption of measures to support this just transition. We've included a clause on procurement, which would be extremely helpful to prevent the kind of betrayal of the workforce that's happened with BiFab and to support our renewable industries and ensuring the creation of quality jobs here, helping to make sure individuals and communities are not left behind. Fife is ready for renewal, and we must make sure that Scotland as a whole is ready for renewal. It is the demands of the workers, the communities and trade unions and environment groups who come together to demand a just transition for the benefit of everyone that we must respond to today. I'd like us to hand over to... I must say, I would really like to extend my thanks to Mark Ruskell, and it is a double act, and perhaps it's rightly so. They happen to be my amendments, but we are both as parties and as individuals very committed to the just transition. So, we're down to... In announcing the appointment of Professor Jim Sgear as chair of the current commission late last year, the cabinet secretary said that it was important that no-one is left behind as the employment landscape shifts. Putting the commission on to a statutory basis is a major building block on how we deliver on that commitment. I want to highlight the financial issues. Members will know that the presiding officer has ruled that amendments 1-3 and 1-1-4, which establish a commission, are beyond the costing of the bill and are estimated at over £700,000 in the longer term. The Scottish Government voted to give consideration to a statutory commission, and it's disappointing that the cost rule is out today, but I respect the fact that if there isn't a financial memorandum, that's where we are. I do strongly request that the Scottish Government and Cabinet Secretary commit today to publishing a financial resolution rather than memorandum apologies for the bill ahead of stage 3, which there is, fortunately, ample time to do. We know the cost of inaction, far outweighs the cost of action on this issue of fairness. I do not think that the estimated cost would be excessive for the kind of commission that is required. I would be appreciative if you could review your approach, Cabinet Secretary, on a long-term statutory commission in this context. It is very much needed to ensure that we deal with the recent climate emergency as well in a fair way, and in my view would be money well spent. Amendment 114 makes further provision about the commission. It includes on membership that one member should be a nominee of the trade union movement. That is the case with the existing commission, and it makes sense to continue that provision given the importance that trade unions make in the just transition case internationally and have done so over many years, and the importance of involving workers in plans, more specifically here in Scotland for the just transition. It also asks that one member be a representative with experience of ecological and environmental matters, and again that is the case with the existing commission. The commission as a whole, as you would expect, should have experience in or knowledge of the formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies relating to the environment and climate change and the economy, industrial transition and social inclusion. 113 establishes the commission and 114 makes further provision in schedule 3. The other amendments in this group speak to invaluable advice and monitoring. The commission would be in a position to provide long-term. The amendments taken together will ensure a robust process whereby ministers must consult with the commission in relation to emissions target reports, climate plans and annual progress reports. They specify how just transition accordance with the just transition principle should be integral to climate planning and annual progress reports and how those reports should include the views of the commission. Amendment 151 ensures that the Scottish ministers consult the commission when preparing a climate change annual report. 115 requires that ministers must consult the commission in preparing a report on emissions reduction targets. 141 states that the plan must set out, with reference to the climate justice principles, how the proposals and policies in the plan are expected to affect different sectors in the economy, different regions importantly, including any effect on employment. The plan should also set out the measures that will put in place the support, the transition of the workforce and related communities in affected sectors and regions, as well as the investment that is needed to implement the proposals and policies that are set out in the plan and the anticipated sources of that investment. 143 ensures that ministers must consult the commission before preparing a climate change plan and the commission's advice on the climate change plan is therefore crucial to integrating just transition into all that we do to meet the targets. We need ministers to take account of the commission's advice and 144 will ensure or would ensure that ministers do this and that their statement laying the plan before the Scottish Parliament sets out details of the views of the commission and changes of any that are made in response to the reasons for these changes. 150 ensures that the annual progress reports covering each substantive chapter of the most recent climate change plan must include the views of the commission. These are all crucial parts of monitoring progress in a just way in my view. Finally, 154 adds the establishment of the Just Transition Commission into the long title. Let us all consider supporting not today but leading towards stage 3 with the net zero emissions in Scotland, which can now be underpinned by the thrust of these amendments, which are supported by the Just Transition Partnership, including a range of unions and NGOs, stock climate chaos, the STUC and many, many more people across Scotland. Nicolle-Mart Ruskell, to move amendment 113A and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and this is obviously part of a set of amendments that have already been introduced. 113A is about establishing a citizen's assembly, and MSPs will be aware that there are many hundreds of people outside this Parliament today that are calling for that. Really, this is about the heart of democracy. It is about ensuring that, on this very difficult journey that we are going to have to make, where there is probably going to have to be massive behavioural change, there are going to be controversial decisions that we need to make about our society that we take people with us. There has been excellent work done in Scotland engaging with the wider population. The committee has engaged in some recent citizen's jury work, which has been very positive. I am sure that we will report in due course, but the idea of a citizen assembly of taking some of the harder choices that we are going to have to make and taking that out to the people and getting ordinary people to really consider these options and to think about how we can bring about these changes, I think, will be extremely important. What we do not want to see is going forward a kind of response to climate crisis that results in a sort of Gil-Asian-type movement. We have to take people with us, we have to take workers with us, we have to take communities with us and wider citizens as well. The concept, the idea of a citizen's assembly, I think, is a good one. We see the First Minister reflecting on it in relation to our future constitutional decisions as well in Scotland and it is being used in many other contexts globally as well. For this climate crisis, we need to understand the views of citizens, we need to understand how they may react to some of the hard choices that will be required. That is that amendment. The other two amendments in my name, one for five and one for six, are really in relation to the climate plan. It is ensuring that the climate plan does cover this issue about just transition, that it is integral to the way that we plan and report on our progress towards tackling the climate emergency. I am happy to move those amendments along with 1-1-3-8. I ask the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 75, another amendment that is in the group. Thank you, convener. I will begin by describing the Government's amendments to place internationally recognised just transition principles on the face of the bill. Scotland's transition to net zero must be just and fair to everyone to ensure that the concept of just transition is to be at the heart of future climate change plans that I have brought forward amendments 75, 83 and 86. Amendment 83 sets out the just transition principles. While there is not a universally accepted single definition of just transition, the principles contained in my amendment are an accurate reflection of international labour organisation principles as they apply in the Scottish context. Such principles were, of course, agreed by this Parliament as the right ones for Scotland following January's debate on just transition. Ministers may modify the principles by secondary legislation as provided for by amendment 83. Those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament would have to explicitly agree any changes. It is important that the just transition principles have a clear application in practice. As such amendment 75 requires ministers to have regard to the principles in preparing climate change plans, it also imposes a duty on ministers to set out how the just transition principles were taken into account in preparing the plan. Finally, amendment 86 is a minor amendment and inserts the definition of principles into the interpretation section of the 2009 act. I am now going to turn to Claudia Beamish's suite of amendments to establish a statutory just transition commission. At the outset, I emphasise that there already is an active non-statutory commission referred to by others undertaking this important work in Scotland. The commission will be providing practical advice by early 2021. The Government has been carefully considering the establishment of a just transition commission on a statutory footing and exploring ideas with stakeholders. However, it remains unclear what additional value would be gained by establishing a body on a statutory basis. Although you will not be voting on amendments 113 and 114 today, I thought that it would be worth setting out my position on the specific set of proposals for a statutory commission. Firstly, I am not persuaded that our commission would need the body corporate status to be effective. I further note that such an approach has likely been a factor in the significant cost estimates arrived at by the Parliament. The Parliament's estimates and our estimates are not exactly the same, but I need to make people understand that those are annual costs. This is not a one-off set-up. This is the annual cost for running a statutorily-based just transition commission. Perhaps I ought to say that the estimated annual cost is significantly greater than the current Scottish Government contribution to the committee on climate change costs. Secondly, I am not sure that I see the value of adding a specific duty for the commission to consult a citizen's assembly. The current commission is already working across the country, engaging with those likely to affect and be affected by the transition. We have ensured that dialogue and engagement are crucial to the current commission's remit. The amendment would provide for an extremely broad role for the proposed commission, including functions that are already delivered by the CCC and others that are delivered by Government or Parliament. I hope that Claudia Beamish would not press the other amendments in the group that are directly associated with the establishment of the proposed commission, given that that cannot be voted on today. I see Merit and Claudia Beamish's amendment 141 to require climate change plans to include assessments of how the policies and proposals to reduce emissions will affect matters related to a just transition. There is a degree of overlap between this and my own amendment 75. I do have some concerns about aspects of amendment 141 as drafted, but I appreciate the desire for more specific reporting requirements in this space. If Claudia Beamish would be content to not press amendment 141 at the present time, I would be pleased to work with her over the summer to bring back some elements of it in a revised form for stage 3. However, I could not support it if she is going to press it now. Similarly, I see Merit in Mark Ruskell's amendments 145 and 146 to require climate change plan monitoring reports to include an assessment of progress towards a just transition, as defined by a set of just transition principles. My only substantial difficulty with those amendments is that there are, of course, now multiple sets of principles being discussed around the various bill amendments. As such, I would also invite Mark Ruskell not to press those amendments at this time on the understanding that the Government will support amendments with the same intention at stage 3. There is no doubt about the importance of ensuring Scotland's journey to net zero emissions is a just one. My amendments place those matters squarely on the face of the bill and will ensure that they are embedded in policies developed through climate change plans. I am open to working with members to further refine those approaches in advance of stage 3. Thank you very much, convener. It is worth saying that there are more words in the amendments here than we actually spent discussing just transition during the stage 1 process. I have come from a viewpoint that if you were to require something of this scale and complexity to establish the Just Transition Commission, it should be a bill on its own with a proper consultation that would help to come up with the result, but that is for another day. My personal calculation of the cost of this is between £3 million and £5 million per annum, because I think that looking at the workload, it is about 50 civil servants are required to deliver. I have run groups that have lesser responsibilities, so I am using personal experience to come up with my views, but they are only a guess. They are not anything like the final word on the thing. Turning to the detail of what is in front of us in particular, looking at 1.1.4, paragraph 2, in performing its function, the commission is not subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Government. That seems to run against the Scottish Government being able to ask for advice, because that is a form of direction and control, so I am not terribly clear how that works in relation to other parts of the amendments. The next thing, if we move down to four under resources, Scottish ministers have provided the commission with such staff and other resources as it requires to carry out its function. That seems to suggest that the commission itself is in control of that and represents a blank check. That is where you might find that it is 100 civil servants and the legislation would require the Government to provide that number of civil servants. On membership at 3.2, I do not, in any sense, subject to a nominee from the trade union movement, but I am not entirely clear why there is not a nominee from farming, I am not clear why there is not a nominee from academia, I am not clear why there is not a nominee from young people, from business and so on. No objection whatsoever to the trade unions being there, as they are in the prison commission. Incidentally, the community and myself had lunch yesterday with a young member of the existing commission, and a very excellent contribution that I am sure she will be making. I thank the member for taking a brief intervention. On membership under 2, I appreciate that this is not going to be voted on today and could be developed if indeed there was any will to take it forward, but it was particularly the trade union movement and a representative with experience and knowledge of ecological environmental matters. Just to be quite frank about that, those are the groups that have pushed this forward, and in my view they are at the heart of where we are going. Sometimes, frankly, the trade unions particularly can be left out, so I wanted to be sure that that was there. If it may pick up on that briefly, when I was climate change minister, the first group that I went and spoke to was a CBI group, with 80 people in the room in 2007, very enthusiastic. The member should not imagine that other parts of Scotland are not deeply interested in the subject. We are not disagreeing on the subject, so at least I am not seeking to disagree. On the list of people who are disqualified from being on the commission, I am quite content, but there is a significant omission from the list, and that is members of the House of Lords. Now, much as I think George Fawkes would be welcomed back into decision making in Scotland, he and other members of the House of Lords are lawmakers, and therefore their role as lawmakers would conflict with that. The way that insolvency and company director disqualification in charity crust is dealt with is very unfortunate because it says that it is or has been insolvent, so even if your insolvency is discharged to your disbarred, even if your disqualification as a company director is dealt with, you are discharged. Even more fundamentally, when we get to see, has been disqualified, et cetera, et cetera, anywhere in the world, I am absolutely uncertain how it would be possible with any reliability to know about that and, similarly, anywhere in the world appears elsewhere. Resignation that you can resign to the presiding office of the Scottish Parliament, even though the presiding office of the Scottish Parliament has no role in appointments, which I found a little bit baffling, and I am only dipping into quite a wide range of concerns that I have about the way that it is drafted. I am not seeking to engage the broad principle because I am strongly supportive of a just transition commission. I am just pretty certain that what is in front of us is not the way to do it. John Scott would like to speak to those amendments. It is very briefly, convener, and I thank you for that opportunity. While I support the work of the Just Transmission 2, I believe that it should not be on a statutory basis. I welcome the Scottish Government's offer to look further at this at stage 3, and I think that that is very welcome. I hope that the Government will look at this on a voluntary basis, and I support most of what Stuart Stevenson has said. I am not entirely sure what he said about George Foutts, his friend and mine. I thank you. I now give Faye Chaudhubimish the opportunity to wind up. Right. Thank you, convener. I want to start just by commenting on what Stuart Stevenson has said, not on the detail of it, but it is a very complex matter to set up a new commission. I think that this is the place to do it, and I think that if there is a financial resolution through the summer with the agreement of the Scottish Government, then the issues that were raised can be refined. I then want to turn to Mark Ruskell's amendment. I am hoping that none of the consequential amendments will be moved today, because I think how a Just Transition Commission, if we go forward on it, is crafted, is something that all those who have shown a keen and strong interest and support for it, such as Mark Ruskell, it would be helpful if those issues could be looked at together. I have one concern about the declaration and request from Extinction Rebellion, but this is not the only group that is asking for a citizens assembly on climate change. One of the aims of the group is that politicians should be led by a citizens assembly, and my view is that in a parliamentary democracy we should be inspired by and informed by and encouraged by, but not actually led by. Just at the moment, I think that there is some clarification needed on that, and I do stress that I am not against the idea—and I am keenly aware—that whether this proceeded or not through the auspices of the Scottish Government as a wider issue, the commission itself, is to be a public engagement over the summer by the Scottish Government. It might possibly be appropriate for the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary to consider more detachment from the Scottish Government in this process, such as happened with the citizens' jury of 12 people who were actually connected with our committee, which I found interesting and important. After all, one of the most important aspects of this, which I have not highlighted in my remarks, is behaviour change across not only affected workers and communities but also civic society. I am supportive of the Cabinet Secretary's principles for just transition. However, I am going to be supportive of them today if they are moved. However, I am somewhat worried that they will become an alternative that, in my view, is simply not good enough as we drive forward one of the most challenging issues of our day, if not the most challenging global and Scotland-wide issues. I am wary of doing it, but I will support them because I believe in them. In terms of the reporting requirements, I am pleased to have the offer from the Cabinet Secretary in relation to my 141, if I have got that right, to discuss issues over the summer. I think that that is important. I have written down here about the House of Lords, and that is where I started off with Stewart Stevenson's comments. I would highlight that I had no intention that members of the House of Lords should be part of this, despite the respect for George Fuchs. I would like to invite Mark Ruskell to wind up and pressur withdraw his amendment 113A. Thank you, convener. I really have much more to say on this. In answer to Claudia Beamish's clarification about how a citizen assembly would work, I agree with her. We have a clear role in this Parliament as decision makers. There will be some extremely tough decisions for us to make and for our successors to make in the decades to come. I do think that that needs to be informed by the real lived experiences of people out there. I think that that is the critical lesson from the Gilles Jaune movement. The Government of France did not listen to the impact on the people, and that is where I think it is hugely important that we reach beyond the individuals in this room. We reach beyond conventional forms of consulting with people through emails and everything else, and we go to effective communities. We take the information that lived experiences back, and that helps to inform the decisions that we make as elected politicians. I think that that is the right way around. That does differ from what Extinction Rebellion is calling for, but I think that it is critical that we involve the citizens in the decisions that we make. I think that I would leave it at the last point. Whatever the Government decides to do on this, and it looks like the Government at the moment is minded to not set a statutory basis to the Just Transition Commission, we have to learn the history here of what has happened to similar commissions, particularly at Westminster, where the Government down there, the Coalition Government, abolished the Sustainable Development Commission. I think now what use the Sustainable Development Commission would have in debating the bill, in taking advice, in looking at the biodiversity crisis. We lost a hugely important part of our Government and our advisory infrastructure, and that was just a decision that a Government made. I do not want to see the same thing happen to the Just Transition Commission. I suspect that it will not happen with this Government, but I do worry about future Governments coming in and effectively just wiping this away. The question then is that amendment 1, oh yeah, you want to press? So I'm not going to press it at this point? Ah, you're not, okay. Okay, and you're going to withdraw 113A, members satisfied? Anyone have any objections to that? No? I remind members that I can't put the question on amendment 113 for the reasons already given. Okay, I call amendment 114, in the name of Claudia Beamish, who is already debated with amendment 113, and as Claudia Beamish wants to move or not move this amendment. Amendment 114. Am I allowed to move? I don't understand. You can move it, but we're not voting on it. Oh, sorry. It just seems a contradiction in terms, but never mind. I move it. You move it. I'm not going to move it because of the comments that were made by some of the members I'm very committed to the Just Transition Commission on statutory basis, but I think I don't want to move it at this stage. Right, okay, so you're not going to move it. Okay, right. We then move on to, let's give me a second. I call amendment 66, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 60. Would the cabinet secretary like to move that formally? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 67, in the name of Stuart Stevenson, in a group on its own. Stuart Stevenson, to move and speak to amendment 67. Thank you, Cymru. I've lodged an amendment to remove the wording in so far reasonably practical, from section 33A, as substituted by section 16 of the bill. This section relates to the methods used when reporting targets in line with target relevant international carbon reporting practice. In other words, the technical implementation of the inventory freeze calculation recommended by the Committee on climate change in December 2017. One of the provisions in the bill was introduced was that such calculations should be done in a manner insofar as reasonably practical with the advice on this from the relevant body, i.e. the climate change committee. The committee noted some concerns in our stage 1 report that the Government might not use the calculation method specified by the CCC. I note that the cabinet secretary stated in her response to our stage 1 report that the Government's intention was always to follow the method recommended by the climate change committee and that the bill provision represented a standard drafting failsafe. However, my amendment puts that beyond doubt by removing the clause insofar as reasonably practical. That will have the effect that Scottish ministers must follow the calculation method set out by independent expert advisers fully and exactly. That is consistent with my comments in group 2 on taking the committee's advice. That provides assurance that this important but relatively complex aspect to the bill target framework is entirely objective in its implementation. I am happy to support Stuart Stevens's amendment 67, which relates to the technical calculation methods used for the purpose of reporting target outcomes under the inventory freeze method advised by the CCC in its December 2017 report. I thought that it would be helpful to briefly put the Government's position on record, although that may mean that I cover some of the ground already covered by Stuart Stevenson. In the stage 1 report, the committee raised concerns over section 16 of the bill, which suggested that the Government might choose to follow an alternative calculation methodology for applying the inventory freeze method to the one advised from the relevant body. That is the CCC. Our intention was always to use the calculation methodology that has been advised by the CCC for these matters. The inclusion of the reference to doing so quotes insofar as reasonably practical on quote clause in section 16 3a of the bill was intended as a safeguard in the very unlikely event that the CCC recommended in the future, an alternative method that was technically impossible to deliver, for example due to data availability considerations. However, given the very low magnitude of this risk and the committee's desire for assurance on these matters, I am content to support the present amendment. That will mean that the calculation methodology used will always be exactly as recommended by the CCC. Until such a time as the CCC may update their advice on this method, this will be the one set out in their December 2017 report, a worked example of which was provided to the committee in my response to the stage 1 report. I should say that nothing that I have said in this statement in any way leads to me agreeing with the pronunciation of inventory, as suggested by Stuart Stevenson. That is noted. Would Stuart Stevenson like to use the opportunity to wind up and press? Thank you very much. The question therefore is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 115, in the name of Claudia Beamish, who has already debated with amendment 113. Claudia Beamish would like to move that amendment. The question is that section 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 68 to 71, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated member. Does any member object a single question that has been put in amendment 68 to 71? The question is that the amendments 68 to 71 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Right. Thank you very much everyone. We are going to conclude our committee's business today. At next meeting on 25 June, the committee will continue its consideration of amendments to the climate change emissions reduction target Scotland Bill at stage 2.