Official Report 366KB pdf
Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the 21st meeting in 2008 of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. We have received apologies from Shirley-Anne Somerville and Alison McInnes, and Alex Johnstone has notified us that he will be late for the meeting. I remind everybody present that all mobile devices should be switched off.
I welcome the substantial engagement with the consultation process. We ensured that we read and counted every single response. Many of the responses that would previously have been counted as campaign responses had significant contributions to make by way of additional material. In fact, 420 additional pieces of material were extracted from what might have been counted in other consultations as campaign responses.
It has been suggested that the Government could have taken the opportunity provided by its response to the consultation to outline the rationale for some of the actions that have been taken. For example, there is a very short paragraph on each additional bill topic, but there is little detail and little information about the rationale. Would it not have been worth while for the Government to set out in more detail its rationale for the measures that will be included in the bill?
The response is not the only word on the additional bill topics. In many cases, there will be additional consultations. For example, a consultation is open on the energy efficiency action plan, which is an additional topic; it will close on 28 November. A consultation is also open on muirburn. On 4 November, which is after we published the Government's response to this consultation, we launched a consultation on the support that the forest estate can provide to climate change objectives. There is also a consultation on the performance of non-domestic buildings. There is a range of consultations that augment the material that appears under the heading of additional bill topics and flesh out the issues at considerably greater length. It would be as well to say at this stage, if the convener will forgive me, that we hope that we are doing things in a way that will provide the committee with the opportunity, as it moves forward with its consideration of the bill after it is published, to examine what we are doing under each of those headings as well as the material on which we directly consulted and to which we are now responding.
To pursue the point on the level of detail provided in the response, another example is the call for annual targets. The response notes the level of support that the consultation generated for annual targets and states simply, "The Scottish Government agrees". I, too, agree with that and want to see strong annual targets, but would it not have been helpful to the Government and to others making that case if a more detailed rationale and justification had been given in response to the consultation?
We are doing the 21,000-plus respondents the courtesy of acknowledging that the arguments that they have deployed and which are fully described in the consultation analysis are the ones with which we agree. The necessity of adding further words to that is not an option to which we gave enormous thought.
Again on targets, how has the Government ensured that, in developing the bill, it has taken account of scientific knowledge on climate change that has been updated since, for example, the 80 per cent target was fixed on? Before last year's election, a number of political parties talked about the 80 per cent target and the Scottish National Party referred to it in its manifesto. A number of voices in the scientific community are now calling for a more ambitious target than 80 per cent, even one that is based on parts per million rather than pure percentages.
We may be straying into what will be in the bill, but our approach is to have a bill that is able to adapt to changing science and circumstances. The one thing that all sides of any arguments that there may be on the subject acknowledge is that we do not understand everything today that we will understand in 2040. Therefore, the bill will not create artificial limits on what needs to be done. In any event, we will be driven by scientific advice. We take note of the interim advice from the United Kingdom committee on climate change—it is an interim body, not yet the full committee—which has reinforced our approach and target. Over time, the advice from our advisers, the UK committee on climate change and elsewhere may change. You can be sure that, if it does, the Government will take account of that, as I am sure any Government that was faced with solid, well-worked-out scientific advice would do.
One of the most consistent pieces of scientific advice is that early action is needed to achieve any of the outcomes that are being set. The 2050 target will be meaningless unless we take the action that is required to slow the melting of the Greenland icecap, for example, so I am concerned by paragraph 16 of the Government's response to the consultation, which says that the annual targets to which the previous paragraph refers
We will have targets from 2010.
They will not be set 10 years in advance, in that case.
That is the one exception because, logically, it is not possible to set those targets in advance. However, we will set targets 10 years in advance for all the periods thereafter. I think that you said that it would be absurd to have no targets that applied before that, and I agree with you absolutely. The response does not flesh that out, but it is certainly our intention that there will be targets from 2010.
We will ask further questions on annual targets later.
Has the development of the bill been influenced by the current economic and financial situation and the political debate about that?
Economic factors have always been one of the matters that must be considered in the bill.
Lord Adair Turner.
I beg your pardon—I beg his pardon, more to the point. Lord Adair Turner made this point neatly when he spoke to a Westminster committee—I may have said this to you, but it is worth repeating. The Stern report said that up to 20 per cent of our gross domestic product could be affected if we take no action and that it will cost us 1 to 2 per cent to take action. When pressed on that, Lord Adair Turner put it into perspective by saying that if—and the "if" is bigger now than it was when he said it—annual growth is 3 per cent, the growth that we would expect to deliver in January 2050 will instead be delivered in July 2050. That provides some context and demonstrates that the economy is a consideration in relation to the UK Climate Change Bill, which will affect Scotland, and the proposed Scottish climate change bill. However, as Sir Nicholas Stern said, taking no action would be the economically irresponsible course; acting is the economically responsible course.
Did the recent proposals to enhance the UK Climate Change Bill influence your thinking about the Scottish bill?
Scotland accounts for a seven hundredth of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, so it is self-evident that we cannot act alone. We are pleased that there will be a more ambitious figure in the UK bill. The Government was right to respond to the interim advice of the UK committee on climate change. This is not a competitive game; it is about opportunities and the contributions that countries and Administrations can make in different circumstances. The committee on climate change said that it is necessary and possible for the UK bill to have a more ambitious target. I welcome that and I congratulate the UK Administration on its positive response to the committee's advice.
Is the Scottish Government already applying the spirit of the proposed Scottish climate change bill?
I think that it is doing so. With each passing month, year and decade, we will witness more action being taken by this Administration and Administrations around the world, as scientific knowledge increases and we learn how effective the steps that we take are. We will need to ascertain whether we are making the progress that we should be making, and we must be prepared to adapt and respond as we go forward, because we are not dealing with absolute certainty.
Was the spirit of the proposed bill manifest in, for example, the decision on the Trump golf development? Will it be manifest in decisions about projects in the forthcoming strategic transport projects review and the national planning framework?
You are drawing me into matters that are slightly beyond the subject of the discussion. As we develop policy on a range of issues, we certainly consider the impact of policies. You will see the carbon effect of announcements that have been adumbrated when we come to make them.
Will you clarify that point? You said that we will
Yes.
Thank you.
Will you carry out a carbon assessment of the removal of tolls from the Forth and Tay road bridges?
Such an assessment was part of the study that was published around the time when the Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill was introduced—the estimate was in the range of 7,200 to 9,000 tonnes of CO2.
It might be worth comparing what you said today with what we heard when we took evidence on the budget. If ministers want to give a clear message, they need to tell us the same thing.
The UK climate impacts programme was due to publish a new assessment in late 2008, which would build on work that was done in 2002, but publication has been put off until spring 2009. Has the delay in the programme's project on UK 21st century climate change projections had an impact on the bill's development?
No. I am keeping my answers very short, as requested.
Indeed. Would it not have been helpful to have that assessment?
Our primary source of input at present is the UK committee on climate change, and we rely on the advice of that highly respected group of scientists. Under clause 36 of the UK bill, which is shortly to become an act, they are required to answer any questions that we put to them. That was embedded in the UK bill as part of our work with the UK Administration to ensure that its bill had the powers that were necessary for us. That is the way in which we will deal with matters of science.
However, I presume that the 21st century climate change projections include material about Scotland.
You must recall that one of the key reasons why the Administration in Scotland must work closely with the UK Administration is that we do not have powers over everything in Scotland that has an impact on the climate. Our actions must therefore complement and be consistent with the actions that are taken under retained powers at Westminster. The work is a good example of Administrations of different political complexions sharing an objective and working together.
Talking of which, I presume that there are Governments of different political colours throughout the developed world. Have we been in contact, through your office, with Governments elsewhere in Europe and the world about the details of their climate change plans?
We have had a number of contacts. At official level, we have substantial and continuing contacts. My official Philip Wright was in Bali for the conference last year and he will be part of the UK Government's delegation to Poznan at the beginning of December. I attended a meeting in Brussels to meet other Administrations. There is a wide range of interactions of one sort or another because we must seek to establish where the best practice is. If we are not an example of best practice, we must find out where the best practice is and seek to learn the lessons and improve our game. I hope that everyone, all around the world, will take that position.
Do you have an example of how those meetings with other Governments have improved the UK Climate Change Bill?
I was in Bali for the United Nations climate change conference but also for a parallel event that was run by the states and regions climate alliance, to which Scotland is a signatory. As I mentioned last week, that alliance gives us the opportunity to engage with other states and regions such as California, Quebec, Manitoba and the Australian states. It is early days, but we are engaging with such states and regions and they are examining what we are doing with the greenhouse gas inventory and our ability to disaggregate data from the member state or national level to sub-national level. That is useful.
Last week, I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth about Scotland's lack of participation on climate change in the world summit of regions, which is supported by the UN. I was disappointed to hear that the Scottish Government had not participated, given that a large number of regions and small countries did. Will the Scottish Government review its involvement in the world summit of regions and acknowledge the important work that Wales and other countries and regions are doing on climate change?
My reply is similar to the one that I gave last week. We are keyed into what is happening. I mentioned the United Nations Development Programme last week, but that is only part of the process that is being run by other international fora. We are in close contact with our Welsh colleagues and we are also involved in the states and regions climate alliance, which is not dissimilar to the group that met at St Malo. The paperwork for the UNDP initiative is enormous. Absorbing that would take up a lot of our time, so we are sticking with our link to the states and regions, while keeping an eye on what is happening on the other side.
I am interested in joint working. Wales has a fairly imaginative programme and it is clear that the Scottish Government wants to go further with legislation. Will there be a commitment to work alongside Wales and other areas in Europe?
We are happy to work with any other Administration in Europe and the world, preferably without having to make too many international air journeys. Wales has certain advantages in that respect.
Why has the Scottish Government decided to cover the basket of six greenhouse gases rather than just carbon dioxide? How prepared is it for tackling the other gases?
That is an example of our responding positively to the consultation process. It was clear from the consultation process that the six greenhouse gases that are already internationally recognised should form part of our way forward and that our climate change bill should provide for the inclusion of any gases that we become aware of during the period up to 2050. That means that we are open to further extension if it is appropriate on the basis of scientific advice.
Given that legislation tends to change as it goes through the processes of the committees and the Parliament, are you minded to take on board evidence received by this or other committees about increasing the bill's scope to include other gases and climate change issues?
We will listen carefully to what the committee says. I would be slightly surprised if you came up with gases beyond those on the current list, and we would want clear scientific evidence of the impact of another gas if the committee proposed its inclusion.
Absolutely—and the lives of my grandchildren.
If we have point targets that are sufficiently granular, in effect we lock ourselves into a cumulative target over the piece. That will be the effect of having those targets and of seeking to align those targets' timeframes with those of the UK Government—we do not have devolved powers over everything, so it is important that we align with the UK Government. Although we are going to go for point targets, the effect of that will be to lock the Administration into a cumulative target, even if that is not the language that we are currently using.
On carbon targets, the consultation mentioned the concept of banking and borrowing from previous or upcoming carbon budgets, but the Scottish Government's response to the consultation makes no reference to that concept. Why not?
That is because we are not doing it.
There will be no facility for banking or borrowing.
That is correct.
A clear answer. My word.
I did just check with my officials.
It is on the record now.
We have responded to the consultation by including international aviation and marine transport emissions. A move to a consumption-based measurement would have to happen all around the world or we would end up double counting certain emissions. Our approach has to be driven by evolving international standards. The bill will make reference to international standards and the need for us to accommodate, contribute to and respond to evolving international treaties and standards.
If the comparison were being made purely with our neighbours in western Europe, that might be the case. However, if a global comparison were made, I suspect that Scotland would turn out to be a fairly high-consumption country. In the longer term, intergovernmental negotiations might end up with a move towards a consumption-based model. Would the Scottish Government consider that to be feasible?
We intend that the legislation will be flexible enough to allow the Scottish Government to respond to international agreements that would result in the adoption of a consumption-based model.
In February, you said to the committee:
A report from AEA Technology will press that particular button and will be available before the bill is introduced. That is the first of a range of steps that we will take in that regard.
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth recently told the committee that the bill will now be introduced in early December. When—ahead of that time—can we expect to see the report? Can you give us a timescale and reassure us that we will have enough time to consider the contents of the report before we begin to consider the bill?
We expect the report shortly.
That was another of those "Yes, Minister" answers.
I am not deliberately trying to be obtuse.
You do not know when the report will be produced.
For a technical reason the exact day has not been confirmed. I know that it is within a few days of a particular date, which is quite soon.
The proportion of our carbon emissions reductions that could be achieved through use of international credits was raised in the consultation, but I could not see a definitive answer in the response to the consultation. Has the Government considered that issue?
We are not currently specifying a proportion.
Will the bill?
The bill will be published in early December.
Has the Government considered sectoral emissions reduction targets? What analysis has been carried out to determine how useful sector-by-sector targets would be in achieving the overall Scottish target?
It is important that every sector contributes to the climate change agenda and to the reduction in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The current reporting has something like a plus or minus 6 per cent margin of error. When we disaggregate down to sectors, particularly some of the smaller sectors, the margins of error make it extremely difficult to understand what is happening. Rather than set sectoral targets, it is more important to ensure that we understand the effects of all the actions that have been taken in different sectors. Things will not be smooth in individual sectors and will depend on specific interventions. In many ways, sectoral emissions targets are economically inefficient because the various sectors will be able to make positive interventions at quite different points. To imagine that we can have sectoral plans that run in parallel does not accord with scientific advice.
At the political level, is it more credible to say, "We can achieve the long-term, national target, so here's what we expect transport to do, here's what we expect buildings to do and here's what we expect electricity generation to do"? If we are going to say, "We can reach the 80 per cent target by 2050," do not we need to have an idea of how much can be achieved by each sector of the economy?
Clearly, as we develop the plan to achieve the 80 per cent target, we have to identify the steps that will make that contribution. In aggregate, they have to deliver on that aim. Our strategic overview will start to explore that.
That will be soon.
I appreciate the difficulties of a sector-by-sector approach when there is a large number of sectors, but most of the scientific evidence points to three areas in which significant changes must be achieved: electricity generation, energy efficiency in buildings, and transport. The last of those is within the minister's jurisdiction. The current rate of increase in transport-linked emissions is about 5 per cent. The most recent figures are, I think, for 2006. Before we can begin to make positive progress, we have to arrest the rate of increase in transport emissions. Within the timeframe of, let us say, between now and 2012, how could we turn back the current direction of increased emissions to the emissions levels of 2001-02? Are we looking too far into the future instead of implementing the practical steps that are needed to break the increase that is happening now and to get moving in the right direction?
At the risk of making a rod for my own back, I point out that I am responsible for building standards as well as for transport. The consultation that we are undertaking in that area shows our engagement in it. We now have some of the most ambitious programmes of investment in public transport for a considerable time and we will report on further proposals later this year. Since the Government came into office, we have seen consents for 1.5GW of renewable energy through 14 projects. That is against the backdrop that Scottish demand is about 6GW. Our potential for renewable energy is in the order of 60GW, so it is clear that we have a great deal to do. We will not deliver on carbon benefits in that area until we shut down the emitters: in other words, there will be a period of investing in renewable energy, followed by a period of shutting down the emitters.
How well developed is the methodology under the new legislation for accounting for emissions sources that are already covered by the European Union emissions trading scheme?
It is not our methodology—counting, recording and disaggregating into the nations of the UK are done elsewhere. We are content that that is so.
The consultation response did not give me much more detail. Are you clear about how the emissions that are currently covered by the ETS will be accounted for under the Scottish target? Will they be accounted for under that target?
They are in. Philip Wright will expand on that.
That would be helpful.
This is a particularly complex issue that is challenging for all member states and for the EU as a whole. It is particularly challenging for the UK and Scotland because of the relationship between domestic emissions targets and the emissions trading scheme. The emissions that are covered by the traded sector will form part of the target, but when it comes to accounting for them, a particular approach will be taken because, in effect, those emissions are capped. We have the traded sector and the non-traded sector. We have careful arithmetic to do to capture and reflect the emissions trading regime that is imposed on us through the emissions trading directive. We are looking to ensure that the Scottish approach is in sync with that regime.
Will some of the detail of those issues be covered in the strategic overview that is about to be published?
I referred to the AEA report, which is part of the development of the strategic overview and is the key first step. The strategic overview itself will come a bit later; it will come next year. The AEA report is the key—it is the first and most important step.
I see. When was it decided that the strategic overview would not be available before the bill's introduction?
The AEA report is a strategic look at the subject. In the longer term, we are planning a bigger report that will be produced within the timescale of the bill and which will draw on other sources—it will draw together many of the consultations that are still to be completed. I had failed to take account of that in what I said previously. The important thing is the AEA report, which we will see shortly.
You told us in February that the more substantive strategic overview would be available before the bill's introduction. That was an error—it will not be available before the bill's introduction. When will it be available?
We are looking for it to appear in early spring. We have referred to the AEA report in various ways internally, which is confusing, but that report is the key first step that will give you the information that will help you to understand the basis of our taking the bill forward.
I do not want to take up too much time on the matter, as time is tight. Perhaps it would be helpful if you wrote to the committee to define clearly the remit and scope of those two separate pieces of work, and the timescales within which you expect to publish them.
I would be happy to do that.
On annual targets and the mid-point target, is there a scientific, as opposed to mathematical, basis for choosing a target of reducing emissions by 50 per cent by 2030?
We set ourselves a significant challenge by choosing the figure of 50 per cent for the mid-point. That figure is clearly on the relatively smooth curve to the 80 per cent reduction by 2050 target. We are mandated to provide a complete review of whether we have achieved that reduction by 2030 in order to show that we are on target to deliver on the 80 per cent reduction target by 2050. We have, of course, drawn on what the committee on climate change has said and on other scientific information. We chose the figure; it was not delivered to us by others.
Indeed. Would it be possible to amend the mid-point target upwards if the scientific advice showed that that was required?
It is not a limit—it could be amended upwards.
It is recognised that the mid-point target will require average annual emissions reductions of more than 3 per cent. That issue has been commonly debated. Could the committee see analysis on that before the bill is introduced? Will the AEA report, for example, deal with that matter?
It should be remembered that we have sought to produce reporting periods that are aligned with United Kingdom reporting periods, and to provide 10-year notice of what requires to be done. Therefore, we will see the progress that we need to make within the context of the targets that we will set. In any event, it is clear that many changes in our carbon emissions will come in steps rather than in a smooth curve—for example, the shutting down of a significant coal-burning power station will make a huge change on the day it is shut down. However, we can provide a tactical note on the trajectory if the committee would find that helpful.
That would be helpful. It would be useful to have, before the bill comes to us, an analysis of what will happen so that we can interrogate the bill carefully.
The bill will set budgets with annual components so that we will be able to see exactly what we will have to do and give maximum notice. It is not a matter of the Government doing things on its own; every person and all enterprises in the community have to be part of the process.
I have been leading up to an issue that I asked about earlier in the year. I asked the Government why it takes 20 months for Scottish greenhouse gas inventory emissions figures to become available. Has the Government done any work in the meantime to speed up that process? Are you able to collect data more quickly on gases other than CO2 in that fashion?
We have done some work. However, it is a complex task and our data have to be disaggregated from the United Kingdom data, which entails further work. We want to get the figures as quickly as possible. If the data are received the best part of two years behind the actual event, then responses to an adverse situation will be two years late, so the response will not be as good as would have been looked for. That would be embedded in the system, so there is a key interest in shortening the time involved.
The committee has talked about various groups that collect information on climate change, and there is also the research infrastructure known as ICOS—the integrated carbon observation system. It is based in several European countries including Scotland, at the University of Edinburgh. How embedded is the Government's thinking when it calls on such groups? Do you use some kind of filter when accessing information from primary research bodies? It is taking you 20 months to get the data. Even though you mention obtaining provisional figures, the process must be speeded up enormously.
The minister spoke earlier about respecting international protocols. We are keen to be able to demonstrate comparisons with other countries. It would be nice to go away and use the methods that various institutes have developed, but those methods would not necessarily accord with international practice. We are committed to using the UK greenhouse gas inventory, which accords with international practice. We want to disaggregate the data as far as is possible, bearing in mind that Scotland is not a contracting party. We always try to respect international protocols. Lots of other organisations have ideas on how to obtain better data more quickly, but the work that we do has to be placed in an international context.
ICOS is funded by the European Union, of which we are a part.
Using ICOS's work would not be the same as respecting a UN protocol. However, ICOS can feed into the process.
I have a quick supplementary question on the 20-month time lag. The Government is coming up for its 20-month anniversary, so it would be fair to say that any changes in emissions from now on will take place pretty much on your watch.
When members see the bill, they will see exactly how we intend to deal with targets. I hope that what I have said makes it clear that we are setting ourselves ambitious and challenging targets. In particular, we are responding to the consultation by introducing an interim target. I use that phrase because it is the phrase that we plan to use in the bill.
Does the 3 per cent per year target for Scotland as a whole remain a policy target?
If we are to arrive at 2050 with an 80 per cent reduction, we must deliver on a trajectory of that order.
Okay. Will you confirm that the 2030 target is based on the same 1990 baseline?
The baselines are the same. For clarity, however, I should say that the baselines for some of the six additional gases—sulphur hexafluoride and so on—are slightly different. Owing to the inadequacy of the information on such fluorinated gases, the internationally recognised position is that the 1995 baseline is used.
But the baseline across all those will be the same—
Yes. I simply wanted to ensure that I was not misleading the committee—
Heaven forbid, minister.
We are in complex territory, as I am sure you are aware, convener.
Indeed.
On what scientific or political basis was the decision made to include international aviation and shipping in the targets?
First, the UK committee on climate change suggested that that should be done and, as we have said, we will seek scientific advice. I agree that there is a political element to the decision. That shows leadership: other Administrations recognise that government has to take account of those matters.
Obviously, I agree that international aviation and shipping are important to climate change, but I am confused by your response. How can the Scottish Government measure them? How robust are the figures on emissions that can be attributed to international aviation and shipping originating from Scotland? Also, is the Scottish Government confident that meaningful emissions cuts in the international aviation and shipping sectors are possible or is concern being expressed that cuts in other sectors will have to be made to allow those sectors to be included? How will all this be done? What are the implications for other sectors in Scotland?
We will take advice on the methodology. A range of options are available to us.
I am not convinced. What about the implications for other sectors?
I think I am now being asked how to ensure that aviation makes its contribution to the climate change agenda.
Absolutely.
The question is, of course, different to asking whether aviation should be included. Given the broad recognition that international aviation—all aviation—has a carbon impact, there is a sense that it should be inside the tent. Aviation is something that we have to deal with.
You have addressed aviation, minister, but I also asked about shipping. Given Scotland's dependence on shipping for exporting and so on, how do you deal with emissions targets for shipping? I understand what you say about aviation, but I am less clear on shipping.
Shipping is probably a less understood and less developed area. Marine transport fuels are not yet as free from contaminants as other fuels are, so we will have to change that over time.
I agree with including the aviation and shipping sectors in the emissions targets, but I am still not convinced about how we can measure their emissions in Scotland and what we can do about them. Clearly, we will have to continue to monitor that.
Des McNulty can ask a brief supplementary question.
I go back to aviation and maritime transport emissions. I do not think that anybody would argue against including aviation and maritime transport emissions in the targets in order to reduce emissions. However, given the uncertainties that the minister has just listed and the problems with measurement and definition, my concern is about whether including aviation and maritime emissions would dilute other more clearly defined targets. Can you assure us that the inclusion of aviation and maritime transport emissions in the targets will not make it easier to go easy on other target areas because the aviation and maritime issues are not sufficiently defined? I am sorry to raise the question, but I hope that you understand the mathematics behind it.
I hope I do, because I suggest that the effect will be the exact opposite of what you describe. Any uncertainty will be dealt with by reporting on aviation and shipping. It is important that those areas are brought inside the tent, so that we can respond to that uncertainty by creating higher degrees of certainty. If we leave aviation and shipping outside, the uncertainty will continue for longer than it otherwise would. It is self-evident that the difficulty of achieving reductions in those areas—partly because we do not have the methodology to measure and understand them—increases pressure on other sectors. Equally, bringing aviation and international shipping inside the tent will create an environment in which pressure can be put on them to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.
I suppose my—
We have to move on.
The bill will require you and your successors to report progress on reducing emissions and adapting to climate change. Will such reporting be to bodies such as the UK committee on climate change, as well as to the Scottish Parliament? How will the reporting mechanism work?
You will see the exact data when the bill is introduced, but, in broad outline, ministers will be required to lay before Parliament a report containing a number of headings under which we will have to report. The report will enable the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and other committees of Parliament to test and engage with ministers. I reject utterly the suggestion that I will have successors.
I dare say that you have one or two putative successors in this committee room.
Before 2050, perhaps.
Tomorrow is another day.
In the consultation process, various people suggested that if the Government does not deliver, it should fine itself, which is a rather strange approach. If progress is not being made, it is much more important that the Government shows that there is a remedy. The Government should be accountable to Parliament in the normal way and should demonstrate that the proposed remedy is effective and will deliver. At the end of the day, the parliamentary process of holding ministers to account is the only way in which we will make progress. In the nine or so years in which the Scottish Parliament has been around, every political party has been a minority, so there is never likely to be a lack of interrogation to hold ministers to account.
From your answer, it seems that the remedies will be implicit, rather than explicit, in the bill.
If I gave the impression that implicit remedies would be an adequate defence for a minister before this or any other committee, I should correct it at once. Remedies must be absolutely explicit. I am certain that committees and Parliament as a whole will challenge ministers and explore issues with them to ensure that if remedies are implicit, rather than explicit, they are quickly made explicit.
What work has the UK committee on climate change done to date on behalf of the Scottish Government?
At the moment, we operate as part of the partnership that lies behind the UK Climate Change Bill, so we are engaged with the work of the UK committee on climate change. It is an independent committee, but we meet it to exchange information and to enable the committee to learn about the Scottish, Welsh and English situations. That engagement is under way. There is provision in the UK bill for the Scottish ministers to seek advice on the Scottish target directly from the committee. We can draw on that provision when enacting the Scottish climate change bill.
Clause 36 of the UK bill requires the committee on climate change directly to provide us with answers to any questions that we ask. A wee while ago, I met Lord Adair Turner, the chairman of the committee, which I found very useful. He is now moving on. As the minister, I will be party to the appointment of a new chair of the committee, as I was to the appointment of Lord Adair Turner.
Given the position so far, is the Scottish Government confident that the committee on climate change will be able to respond suitably to particular Scottish circumstances and that requests will be dealt with as a priority when necessary?
The committee on climate change is required to respond to Scottish circumstances. If your question is whether it has the scientific knowledge and capability to do so, I have to say that we have no evidence to suggest otherwise at this stage. The committee is scientifically rather than politically driven, which has huge advantages, because it makes it difficult for any Administration—the UK Administration, ourselves or any of the other devolved Administrations—to reject its conclusions other than on clearly political grounds. We are comfortable with the nature of the committee.
Would it be fair to say that you have confidence in the UK committee on climate change?
As of today, yes.
What duties does the Scottish Government envisage that it might be necessary to place on public sector bodies under the Scottish climate change bill, and what powers are likely to be contained in the bill to allow duties to be imposed?
The 32 local authorities have already signed up to a common declaration on climate change. We hope and believe that public bodies are already planning to and will respond to the climate change agenda. However, we expect to include in the bill a provision to enable the Government to take a stronger lead with public bodies to ensure that the appropriate contribution is made.
Will that be in the form of encouragement rather than constraint?
Encouragement will always be the more effective option. We must all be in this together. It simply will not work if we are dragging a reluctant bride up the aisle to the climate change wedding. Persuasion is far preferable to coercion. Nevertheless, we will have the necessary powers to ensure that we meet Scotland's climate change targets. I hope that they are never used.
Some bodies, such as Scottish Water, are required to take account of sustainability. That was the kind of measure that I was thinking about.
Scottish Water is already considering siting renewable energy sources on many of its new plants. The new designs for waste water treatment plants and so on are already beginning to incorporate renewable energy technology. That serves two purposes. Scottish Water has one of the biggest energy bills of any enterprise in Scotland—we can all help by turning the tap off when we do not need to leave the water running. Scottish Water has a fundamental opportunity to do something about that, so there is an economic driver. Scottish Water is also aware of the fact that it is part of the natural environment in delivering a first-class product and that it must respond to the climate change agenda. The chairman and chief executive of Scottish Water have discussed that with me on several occasions, both formally and informally.
Let us move on to energy efficiency. The Scottish Government proposes that the bill will include a requirement on the Scottish ministers to produce an energy efficiency action plan that will be regularly reported on, reviewed and updated. When will the first such plan be produced and what will the reporting mechanisms be?
Given that we are currently engaged in a consultation on the subject, it would be ill-mannered of me to anticipate the responses to that consultation and the analysis of them by setting too firmly in tablets of stone what will happen. Clearly, domestic and non-domestic buildings are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and a major source of energy consumption in Scotland, so we need to make progress on energy efficiency, therefore we have included it in the bill. We are committed to ensuring that building standards are updated in that respect every year over the next few years in response to the Sullivan report. However, as perhaps only 1 per cent of our buildings will be replaced each year, we will also need to address issues with the existing stock. That is precisely the sort of thing that we expect the action plan to cover.
Can we be given an approximate date or indication of when the first plan will be produced?
Not at this stage, Mr McNulty.
I am afraid that we are pretty close to the end of the available time, as we must move on to the next evidence-taking session. We had hoped to ask a number of additional questions, including on the energy efficiency issues that Des McNulty asked about, waste reduction, recycling, muirburn, the energy performance of non-domestic buildings, renewable heat and the recent consultation on the Scottish forest estate. We will write to the minister to seek further detail on the questions that we had hoped to raise.
The bill as introduced should not have any surprises in that regard. Clearly, given that we will respond to some of the consultations during the bill's passage, the Government might propose some amendments at stage 2.
That is appreciated.
Yes.
What is it?
Ah, well, that is another question. "Soon" or "early December" is a good description of when the bill will be introduced.
We look forward to that and to hearing more from the minister in writing. We will certainly take into consideration the offer of a briefing with officials. I thank the minister and his colleagues for their time.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—