Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Official Report 535KB pdf

---

“Low Carbon Scotland”

Agenda item 3 is further evidence on “Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies”, which is produced under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. This is the last evidence session on the report. We are again joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, who is accompanied by Scottish Government officials Bob Irvine, deputy director for Scottish Water and climate change, and Rosie Telford, a policy officer on climate change acts implementation. I welcome the officials and ask Mr Swinney whether he wants to make any opening remarks.

I will make brief opening remarks. As the committee is aware, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Jim Mather, last week attended the United Nations climate change conference of the parties in Cancún as part of the United Kingdom delegation. He set out a range of initiatives and participated in a number of discussions.

The outcome of the conference was perhaps short of what many of us had hoped for before the Copenhagen conference last year, and much work will be required if a long-term binding commitment can be signed at Durban next year. However, the Cancún result—an agreement that deeper cuts in emissions are needed, a green climate fund and a means of addressing deforestation—is a clear sign that the vast majority of the world’s developed and developing countries want the UN multilateral process to succeed.

The Scottish Government will continue to challenge the world to set tough targets for reducing emissions. Strong international agreements are vital in ensuring that every country makes a fair contribution towards a low-carbon world. However, taking action on climate change is not just about Government ministers agreeing targets. Government, businesses and individuals all can and should make practical changes, whether that is doing less of certain things or more of others.

The message of the draft report on proposals and policies is that a low-carbon society makes sense for Scotland. Aside from the economic opportunities that come from Scotland’s natural advantage in renewable energy sources, Scottish consumers can save money on household bills through simple energy efficiency measures, and society as a whole would experience health, welfare and environmental benefits.

The RPP shows that there is flexibility in deciding which proposals should be adopted and which options could be held in reserve. We need that flexibility to enable us to manage the action that we must take, given the significant reductions in public expenditure that we must face.

The report on proposals and policies is one of a set of documents that set out our comprehensive approach to building a low-carbon Scotland. We have also published our energy efficiency action plan, a low-carbon economic strategy and a draft electricity generation policy statement, and we will publish our public engagement strategy by the end of the year.

The Government will continue its focus on taking forward the legislation on climate change that the Parliament has supported. The report on proposals and policies is an essential part of that work.

Before we begin questions, I remind members that we have fractionally more than an hour for the session, because of the overrun on the previous agenda item, so please keep questions brief.

The cabinet secretary talked about a number of documents, including the public engagement strategy, which is to be released shortly, the RPP and the budget. Those were all published in quick succession or, in some cases, at the same time. Is it a reasonable approach that enables input and scrutiny from civic Scotland and from Parliament to put so much on the table at one time?

14:00

There was a choice: we could do it that way, or we could spread out the publication of those documents over a longer period. The advantage in the way that the Government went about it is that we have put all the documents into the public domain in the same context. There is a need to examine carefully the crossover between the budget, the report on proposals and policies, the low-carbon economic strategy and the energy efficiency action plan. Those documents all have to be complementary if they are to deliver the sort of coherent policy environment in which we can make our judgments. I appreciate that there is a lot of material, but it comes in a context of taking decisions. I want to avoid taking decisions in a series of compartments that are not linked together effectively. We have published the documents so as to proceed in a coherent fashion.

Some of the work that is being undertaken has a set timescale. In some cases that relates to parliamentary scrutiny periods; there is also the requirement to complete the public engagement strategy by the end of the year. Are you confident that the change of minister with responsibility for climate change will not delay any of the elements of work that are required under a specific timescale?

I do not think that it will cause any delay. We took the decision over the weekend to reallocate responsibility for climate change, which will leave my portfolio and move into Richard Lochhead’s portfolio; Roseanna Cunningham will take responsibility in that area. The preparatory work has been undertaken well by Stewart Stevenson, and I have supervised it. I think that all that has been agreed by the Cabinet, with the exception of the draft electricity generation policy. Therefore, there is ministerial awareness and understanding of the issues. I do not see the change of minister as being a factor in any way.

Let us move to the contents of the RPP. Some witnesses from whom the committee has heard have argued that the RPP places too much reliance on the idea of a higher European target making it easier for us to reach the carbon emissions reduction target of 42 per cent in Scotland. They have commented that certain proposals that had been floated in earlier drafts, which would have made it easier to reach 42 per cent even without a higher European target, have not been included. Is that a fair criticism? Is there too much reliance on the 30 per cent target?

I do not think so. The direction of travel in the European Union is clear. We can take a robust position on the assumption that the target can be achieved. We should continue to argue for that, and we thought it important for Mr Mather to be in Cancún to assist in promoting some of our thinking. It was important for the First Minister and Stewart Stevenson to be in Copenhagen. We should continue to argue our point in support of our efforts.

If there was no 30 per cent EU target, would the Scottish Government’s response be to reduce the Scottish 42 per cent target, or would it be to reintroduce proposals that have not currently been committed to, which would allow us to reach 42 per cent on our own?

The Government has always been clear about the achievement of our targets, as statutory targets. Moreover, we do not simply view them as statutory targets. They are more than that: achieving those targets is an absolute obligation of ours. If there is no EU agreement, we must of course consider other options to ensure that we can fulfil our commitments to deliver a 42 per cent reduction.

Other options would involve meeting that target within domestic effort, not by use of credits, for example. It would be a matter of using new proposals to accelerate reductions in emissions. Is that correct?

You are familiar with the stance that ministers took throughout the process for the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. Stewart Stevenson and I have clearly said that we favour domestic effort over trading.

Do you have any sympathy with those who have suggested that there is a degree of uncertainty in the current document given that there will be a further RPP next year? Does having a list of existing policies, some possible proposals and a further document that will set policy in a further direction next year not leave too many of the ideas with a bit of a question mark over them?

My view of these things is that we just have to get on with it, convener. We know the direction of travel on which we will have to embark as a society. The Government is working to be as clear as it possibly can be about some of the steps that are required to ensure that we are able to make progress on that.

Nobody should look at the development of the RPP with any sense other than that the Government is taking a coherent, consistent approach. There will be no great change of direction. Next year’s RPP will refine the direction, not make big changes. Therefore, the approach that we are taking is consistent and clear.

Do you agree with Stop Climate Chaos Scotland that the draft RPP relies too heavily on a voluntary approach for other partners to deliver on housing and waste, for instance? Will that approach be successful? Will you share with us your thoughts on that?

It would be better and easier if voluntary activity was undertaken, as it would get buy-in from people and real oomph behind the approach that we are taking because people would be committed to the direction of travel. If we had to regulate, it would suggest a certain lack of empathy with members of the public about the question, which is undesirable.

I will probably bore the committee with my use of the same examples, but let us consider recycling services throughout the country. A few years ago, people thought that it was not possible to achieve higher levels of recycling, but authorities are now doing really well because members of the public are playing a really active part. It causes some controversy in some parts of the country but certainly not in my household, other than when something gets put in the wrong bin, but that is by the by—we rectify it immediately.

The more that we can get buy-in from people and take them with us, the better. Obviously, if voluntary effort is not compelling, we will have to consider other measures. However, it would be much better and preferable if we had people with us on the agenda rather than agin us.

I am depressed about that answer. It seems to me that people will possibly pay lip service, tick boxes and say that they are doing this and that. You are right on waste, but it has taken some time to get people to sign up and there is no evidence that it has happened across the board. How will you measure the success of a voluntary approach and will it achieve Scotland’s targets under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009?

I hope that I have not created a sense of disappointment for Cathy Peattie on that question, because that was not my design. I was trying to say that it is preferable if we motivate people to participate voluntarily rather than by compulsion but, having said that, as I just confirmed to the convener, we have a statutory target of a 42 per cent reduction and we have to achieve it. I view that as not only a statutory target but an absolute commitment that we must deliver.

We have taken that approach in the clear sight of the wider community, so we must deliver against it. The achievement of that target would be better if it was based on members of the public coming with us, playing their part and changing their approach, rather than on the Government legislating for this, that and the next thing, which might create an atmosphere in which people participated less in the process than they otherwise might. That is my feeling about the best way to proceed.

That in no way means that we do not take the matter seriously; we take it very seriously. A crucial part of the public engagement strategy is getting people to buy into the process. There are good examples of how people have bought into the process.

However, a lot of cynics out there think that the issue has nothing to do with them. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary mentioned the public engagement strategy, and perhaps we will have a timescale for that, but how do we win cynics’ hearts and minds? Why should we leave the issue and hope that it will be all right? Does that not undermine the 2009 act?

We have an absolute commitment to deliver the terms of the 2009 act. I am in no way pouring cold water on that absolute commitment of the Government. I am keen for us to have in place the participation levels to make the necessary impact on the targets and to obtain buy-in from members of the public.

Of course there are cynics—there are cynics about everything in the world. Thank goodness I am not one of them; I would hate to be a cynic. Every opportunity is available to use the public engagement strategy to mobilise input and participation in the effort.

The work that we are undertaking to develop the low-carbon monitoring and management framework for Scotland is designed to provide a mechanism for assessing whether we are making progress, what we are doing, what approaches are being taken and what is succeeding. That is designed to reassure us that the concerns that Cathy Peattie raises can be addressed and that we can secure wider participation.

I asked how you can possibly monitor a voluntary approach. I am still not sure whether you have answered that question.

If we are not achieving our targets, that will become obvious through the work that is undertaken in the low-carbon monitoring and management framework. The framework will enable the measurement of and reporting on Scotland’s progress towards reducing emissions before emissions data for each year are available. It will provide the basis for managing carbon effectively in the Scottish Government by helping us to understand better the activities and actions that contribute to reducing emissions. It will ensure that responsibility for reducing emissions and building a low-carbon economy is shared across the public and private sectors.

I would not like to suggest that anything other than a rigorous mechanism is being put in place to ensure that we make progress and that we can see whether we are making progress. If we do not make progress on the voluntary measures, we will have to take other action, but the Government would rather avoid that.

I would like you to have said that you would take action sooner rather than later. The committee will want to return to that. The response worries me.

How does the cabinet secretary respond to the view of Scotland’s 2020 climate group that proposals in the RPP should be developed quickly to become policies? Will the final RPP set out a menu of proposals for the Scottish Government to take forward?

A range of policy proposals is in the RPP, on which we must make decisions. We have made decisions on some proposals—for example, we have taken decisions on domestic energy standards, which help to advance the arguments. We have developed a range of other elements as part of our policy commitments. The Government has a clear desire to take decisions readily to create the policy framework that will enable us to deliver all that is expected of us under the 2009 act.

There are a lot of good things in the RPP—there you are, cabinet secretary, I am being positive. How do we prioritise the RPP to ensure that the good things happen?

14:15

A combination of different approaches will be taken. Some proposals will be taken forward because, by a change of policy, we can effect an outcome relatively quickly. Some will be taken forward on the basis of their compatibility with areas of policy development in which the Government is confident about the basis on which we can act, while others will inevitably have to wait for resource issues to be addressed in the medium term. Our priority is to take forward a very sustained approach to the reduction in emissions; we will do that in a fashion that allows us to make commitments on the different policies and proposals that have come forward.

My question is on funding streams for the development of low-carbon technology and the like. A phrase that the Scottish Government has used—to wit “innovative financial models”—was described by a witness from the world of private finance as

“a euphemism for something that we have not yet thought of”.—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 23 November 2010; c 3400-3401.]

Perhaps the witness was being cynical or merely sceptical. What sort of innovative financial models does the Scottish Government have in mind for this agenda?

The witness to whom you refer may have consumed a little bit of the cynical juice.

The Government has taken a number of actions to try to ensure that the financial mechanisms are in place to boost the low-carbon economy. At the outset, I should say that the low-carbon economy cannot be delivered by public expenditure alone. There is absolutely no way that that can be the case; we have to leverage in private investment. In September, the Scottish Government and a range of partners hosted the first Scottish low-carbon investment conference. The conference, which had an international audience, brought together projects and investors with the aim of securing investment. It will now be held annually. That puts Scotland on the map for attracting funding to develop the low-carbon economy. I am chairing a finance forum in London, the aim of which is to take forward with our partners in that exercise some of the work that emerged from the conference. We have to put in place a range of projects that can attract investment.

An on-going priority of the Government is to ensure that, in the great competition for investment that exists around the globe, people can evaluate specific propositions in the Scottish sector. We want them to be able to look at propositions and say, “Is this likely to materialise in one, two, five, 10 or 20 years?” In that way, judgments can be made on the return on investment and the policy framework for our decision making.

The work that Mr Mather has undertaken to speed up the process of energy consents in Scotland—it was a remarkable achievement—undoubtedly makes Scotland a more desirable investment destination. People know that the decision will be taken quickly, whether it is a yes or a no. They know that they do not have to lose the will to live waiting for a decision to be made. That is the type of atmosphere that we are trying to create to attract investment. We want to make it clear to the private sector that we view this area as a development opportunity that the public sector will help to develop but which it cannot exclusively develop.

Given the weight that you have just given to investment leverage, what about the scenario whereby, despite best efforts, lack of finance causes a rate of progress that is not significant enough to keep you on track towards targets?

Clearly, that would be disappointing. We must ensure that our efforts are clearly focused on trying to identify investment opportunities and attracting sufficient investors to make that happen. I acknowledge and accept the risk that that may not be able to be delivered, but the focus of Government efforts is certainly to ensure that it can be brought about.

I accept that, as you said, the Scottish budget is not only about the Scottish Government’s finance. In some respects, the Scottish Government’s draft budget for next year is the launch pad for the RPP. Given that it is a single-year budget, does that sound a clear enough call for what is of necessity quite a long-term agenda on the RPP?

Mr Gordon may have heard the implications of my statement to Parliament last week, which is that the Government will set out some—

I missed it, unfortunately; I was away dealing with the severe weather.

That is interesting. Mr Gordon obviously missed my statement; I am sure that he is kicking himself about that. However, I have set out that we will make clear some longer-term finance plans to Parliament.

We must keep the one-year budget issue in proper perspective. In recent times, the former Labour Government delivered one-year budgets to the then Scottish Executive and then to the Scottish Government in 2007-8 and 2010, respectively. It is therefore not unprecedented for one-year budgets to be bequeathed by the UK Government.

On whether a one-year budget causes inherent uncertainty for people, I return to my answer to Cathy Peattie. Nobody could look at what the Government is doing—at its policy and legislative agendas—and say that it will in any way change tack on the low-carbon economy, the pursuit of the climate change agenda and the wider question of sustainability, which are at the core of the Government’s agenda. Whether we have financial information for one year, two years, 10 years or whatever, much of the activity is 20 or 30-year timescale material. The Government’s policy agenda is designed to give confidence and focus to the planning of different organisations and individuals.

I will leave it at that, convener. I will try to see more of Mr Swinney in the future.

I am sure that he will appreciate that.

On energy supply, what proposals does the Scottish Government consider would have to be added to the RPP to incentivise particular forms of generation such as renewable and low-carbon thermal generation, as well as renewable heating and more sustainably fuelled motor vehicles?

First, I acknowledge that we have a number of policy recommendations around a renewable electricity target of 80 per cent of Scottish consumption by 2020; a renewable heat target of 11 per cent of Scotland’s heat from renewable sources by 2020; a 12 per cent reduction in total energy consumption by 2020; and carbon capture and storage demonstrated in a Scottish coal power station by 2020. Those are very significant, landmark policy directions to make it clear to the sector how the Government sees matters developing and emerging.

Clearly, the issue of planning consents is very important to our approach, in terms of enabling decisions to be arrived at for both thermal and renewable electricity generation. We want to develop further guidance to progressively demonstrate and deploy carbon capture and storage. The work that has been undertaken to create the Scottish national renewables infrastructure fund is a tangible proposition that will be helpful. The Government’s policy to promote the use of biomass plants for renewable heat is an important contributor to the process.

Mr Gibson also asked about electric vehicle infrastructure. The UK Government has announced a successful bid by a Scottish consortium, led by Transport Scotland, to secure an electric vehicle charging infrastructure in Scotland. That is a very good, welcome and innovative step that we are taking forward and which contributes well to the agenda that we wish to advance.

I notice that Shetland Islands Council has given the go-ahead to the Viking Energy wind farm scheme, although obviously the Government will take the final decision. Are we getting quick enough decisions on such projects to help incentivise renewables generation of the sort that I asked about in my previous question?

If the committee will forgive me, I will steer away from the specific consent issue related to the Viking project. That will be considered by Mr Mather in his capacity as the relevant minister for a section 36 consent.

I made the point earlier that, when we came to office, it was taking far too long for such questions to be decided. From the work that Mr Mather undertook, it was clear that it was taking too long for no obvious reason. That was wholly unacceptable and one of Jim Mather’s great achievements has been to make decisions speedily. The timescale from receipt of application to decision is nine months, which has enabled a significantly larger number of applications to be considered.

I think that the development community would acknowledge that it has been a significant benefit to have decisions made in such a timescale—whether it is a yes or a no—because it allows people to make their own subsequent decisions. I assure the committee that the Scottish Government intends to maintain those effective timescales to enable development to take its course.

You have already mentioned the balance in the draft RPP between voluntary and regulatory activity. When it comes to the measures on homes and communities, we have had some evidence that the balance is roughly 80 per cent voluntary to 20 per cent regulatory. Is that accurate and, if so, is that balance about right?

That is a fair assessment of where we are. Ministers will make a statement to outline their approach to regulation, particularly in the housing sector, in the early part of 2011 as the Government develops its thinking. It may be that we have to change that balance to encourage a faster pace of activity, but that is conditional on my answer to Cathy Peattie that I think that voluntary activity is more desirable than compulsion, particularly if we can motivate individuals to see the measures as a substantial point of intervention to make a difference to the climate.

We have also had evidence that perhaps more needs to be done to ensure compliance with existing building standards. Does the Government share that view?

It is important that we deliver compliance with standards. The Government has taken steps to intensify the standards that are in place. Some research projects have identified a gap between design and construction, and we would want to look carefully at the evidence base to ensure that we had a strong foundation for any action that was taken in that respect. Clearly, there is little point in setting out new building standards if they are not complied with, so it is certainly an issue that the Government will keep under active review. As we develop a base of information that gives us more evidence, we will undoubtedly take action when it is required to remedy any issues.

We have had other evidence about what is described as the need to signal an excellent, socially motivated energy-efficiency standard to deliver appropriate economies of scale and skills development in the housing sector.

Is there sometimes a tension between social needs and carbon reduction needs? How do you deal with that? I am thinking of the obvious example, which is the problem of energy-inefficient housing. The simplest way to deal with that might be to go for houses that are not necessarily in areas where people are in greatest fuel poverty. Is there a way of reconciling social and carbon needs?

14:30

Dr Allan puts his finger on a fundamental opportunity to tackle fuel poverty and emissions reduction in one go. Some excellent work has been done on the design of new-build properties, although I accept that there is a different issue with retrofit, which I will come on to. I visited a project at South Lanarkshire College in East Kilbride that was a tremendous example of partnership between the college and around 50 private companies, led by Dawn Homes.

The college enlisted the participation of those companies, all of which brought their technology to the party. They built a model house in the college grounds that was not discernibly different in price from houses of that type on the open market. Its carbon footprint was low, and its energy efficiency was decidedly high. The project involved the application of a host of innovative new technologies. That is the type of thinking that we have to roll out with regard to the development of social housing in Scotland, and the opportunity exists for us to do that.

A great deal more needs to be done to ensure that people are participating in retrofit. The voluntary activity is at the core of that.

The UK CERT—carbon emissions reduction target—programme prioritises low-income households in relation to energy efficiency and emissions reductions and is an important plank in the approaches that we can take.

Can you comment on two specific programmes: the renewable heat incentive and the green deal? What role do those play in delivering the Government’s targets on energy efficiency?

Both those projects contribute to encouraging householders to consider new areas of activity and involvement. They provide important aspects of the drive to improve energy efficiency and reduce the carbon footprint by encouraging members of the public to participate in attractive and beneficial points on the agenda for tackling the issue.

In response to Alasdair Allan’s question, you talked about identifying the fundamental opportunity to reduce emissions and fuel poverty through the same measures. The committee has received correspondence from a number of organisations that have been working on the issue for a long time. Energy Action Scotland, WWF Scotland, Consumer Focus Scotland, the Association for the Conservation of Energy, and Camco have written collectively to us to express their concern that the opportunity has been missed. They state:

“We believe the proposals and policies are simply inadequate to meet the challenges of emissions reduction and eradication of fuel poverty ... they will fail to realise the ... opportunity to create ... jobs ... and save ... money on ... fuel bills.”

They go on to note:

“The RPP states that the Home Insulation Programme and the Energy Assistance Package will be ‘maintained’”,

but they say that,

“Based on the numbers of houses to be engaged, we estimate that funding will be significantly cut for both programmes. To cut funding for energy efficiency at a time when fuel poverty numbers are rising ... simply beggars belief.”

When you gave evidence to the committee on the budget, you were unable to tell us what was happening to the level of funding for those programmes, based on the significant reduction in the housing budget. Would you care to respond to that criticism?

I have made a series of committee appearances in the past couple of weeks, so forgive me if I ascribe what I am going to say to the wrong committee appearance. My point is that, as I think I said to this committee—it may have been the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee—Mr Neil is undertaking commercial negotiation on some aspects of the energy efficiency budget. Details of that will become clear later on. I appreciate that that is not convenient for committees, but it explains why that dialogue is necessary.

We are dealing with an acute reduction in our budget. That means that there will be difficulties and challenges in a host of different areas and that things that we would ordinarily want to do and like to do may become more difficult to do. However, I assure the committee that the Government understands clearly the link between energy efficiency and tackling fuel poverty. We will do all that we can to try to encourage the development of that area of activity in the period ahead.

It is hard to square your comments about the need to think about the draft RPP and the budget as coherent documents that support each other if commitments in the RPP do not appear to be supported by specific money allocated in the budget. The organisations that have been working on the matter say that that “beggars belief” or is “simply inadequate”.

The question is whether enough money has been allocated, not whether any has been allocated.

We do not know how much money has been allocated.

My point about that is that a commercial negotiation is being undertaken. I appreciate that people want absolute clarity and to know all the detail but, equally, there must be a bit of an acknowledgement that the Government must undertake some careful work to ensure that it maximises value for money for the public purse. There is no point in the Government paying for things that it might be able to motivate other organisations to pay for in a time of financial difficulty. That is the challenge that we will have to face as a society and the nature of the work in which Mr Neil is involved in this area of the budget.

I understand that people want more money to be spent on different areas and priorities. Invariably, people are not coming to me to tell me to spend less money on something. Not a lot of that goes on.

I accept the general point that you make and do not doubt that, as finance secretary, you would like to be able to spend more money on a host of different priorities, but how is it possible for us to take seriously a specific commitment on the number of houses that are to be engaged with if you are not able to say what the commercial arrangements are for using Government money or how much money the Government is allocating to the issue?

It is expected that the home insulation scheme in 2011-12 will offer help to 200,000 households. That is a substantial contribution in one year and that is a measure of the commitment that the Government is making to the initiative.

It is a measure of the outcome that is expected once the Government makes a commitment of money.

Are the outcomes that we achieve not what matters, convener? The outcome is that we will offer help to a further 200,000 households.

I have a couple of questions on business and the public sector that, in the interests of time, I will roll together, if you are content with that, cabinet secretary.

In its evidence, the 2020 group said that, although some parts of the draft RPP were perfectly well understood, other bits were clearly still under development. That follows on from the point that you made a moment ago. Are you content that the RPP is sufficiently robust to give businesses confidence to make investment decisions in Scotland that they perhaps would not otherwise have made?

Will you elaborate on the brief comment in the RPP on the sustainable procurement action plan and how the plan, which is now a year old, is delivering low-carbon decisions?

I suppose that my answer to the question on business confidence is anchored in the approach that the Government took to the passage of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill through the Parliament. We sought to achieve unanimity on that. It was one of the activities that Stewart Stevenson took on with tremendous zeal and I was delighted that he achieved the objective that I set for him, which was to secure parliamentary endorsement with unanimity.

The point of that was so that the business community, in particular, could look at the legislation and say, “Well, this ain’t gonna change. This is it. This is part of the furniture.” The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 allows the business community to make plans under the policy framework. As Mr Carlaw rightly emphasises, many business investments are not short term or here today, gone tomorrow. They are long-term commitments, and we owe it to the business community to give it that degree of confidence. The longest budget we will ever set will be a four-year budget, and many business decisions are for a longer term than four years. The question of giving business confidence is answered by our setting up a coherent framework that comprises the 2009 act, the report on proposals and policies, the low-carbon economy strategy and the draft electricity generation statement. That framework gives clarity about how we are proceeding.

What was your second question?

It was on the procurement action plan.

We have consulted widely on how a procurement action plan could deliver a meaningful impact. We have shared that thinking with public bodies through the publication of the procurement action plan. It is designed to embed sustainability within procurement and, as a consequence, to assist us in dealing with some of the wider objectives that must be confronted.

We will have to revisit the plan to determine whether it is changing practice. The one key lesson that I have observed during all my involvement in procurement is to keep a close eye on whether it is changing practice. There are other examples of procurement where we have been able to put clauses about training needs and obligations into public sector contracts so that we can monitor whether there has been a tangible benefit to particular social groups as a consequence of the procurement decision. Exactly the same applies to sustainability. We will review the plan to determine its effectiveness, and we will be happy to share that information with the committee.

Thank you.

Since 1990, carbon emissions from transport have increased by 7 per cent. Can you say more about the two milestones in the draft RPP? Why were only two selected for the RPP for between now and 2020?

I acknowledge that the largest challenge in the transport area is emissions reduction. The draft RPP contains a range of different interventions, some of which are now being assiduously implemented. The low-carbon vehicle procurement scheme, the Scottish green bus fund and the work on the intelligent transport system are all different practical measures to tackle emissions. Obviously, they are designed to encourage others to take similar steps.

The fact that there are only two milestones should not be seen as a lack of acknowledgement of the seriousness of the question, because I concede that there needs to be a substantial focus on transport activity. As I said earlier, the announcement that the UK Government made on electric vehicle infrastructure is another indication of our active involvement in making progress on some of these questions, and we will continue with that. Of course, we would be happy to consider the committee’s comments on any aspect of that activity.

We have also had evidence that the policies that will have the most significant impact on emissions reduction lie with the EU and the UK. To what degree is that true? Do you see any solutions, constitutional or otherwise, to that situation?

14:45

With a wider range of powers in the Parliament, we would not have to rely on the UK Government to take decisions. The Scottish Government’s position is to be supportive of EU membership, so we would have to continue our participative activity to try to ensure that the EU makes as much progress as we would like it to make.

There are a variety of areas in which we can take action on our domestic activities. The RPP shows that some of the EU activity is broadly comparable with the Scottish activity—the Scottish input is slightly lower than the anticipated EU activity. There are ways in which we can develop domestic activity even in transport.

Will you comment on the evidence that we have heard that earlier draft versions of the RPP contained proposals on public and residential car parking? Why were those proposals not in the final draft RPP?

Any document goes through a process of iterative development. Choices will be made about which proposals are put in which documents. We consider the draft RPP to be a powerful example of a range of different initiatives that enable us to fulfil our commitments.

The transport section of the draft report includes references to technology. In particular, the only two milestones on transport involve technology, in addition to modal shift—changing the way that we move about—and reducing the need to travel. It has been suggested to us, first, that those priorities are not fully reflected in existing transport policy and, secondly, that those three things are in the wrong order—that we should start with reducing the need to travel; then think about how we move about; and, thirdly, consider the role that techno-fixes could play.

It is chicken and egg. The issues around transport use are very similar to some of the issues around energy use. We have to consider whether or not all our journeys are absolutely required. Can we find a different way of going about our journeys or find alternatives to doing them at all? There is a judgment to be made.

That goes back to my point about voluntary activity. We have all become accustomed to feeling as if we can go anywhere, at any time we want, without any thought about the consequences to the environment. There will be an element of considering whether there are better ways of undertaking journeys, perhaps using public transport or other mechanisms. Undoubtedly we have to embark on an approach in all those areas, but whether there should be a strict hierarchy is open to debate.

So you do not regard those three general approaches as being expressed in any kind of order of priority in the RPP.

I do not think that they need to be in a hierarchy. However, I am happy to consider the committee’s thoughts on the matter.

One would also expect demand management measures to be part of the list. Reducing the need to travel involves a voluntary approach; demand management would be a more proactive approach to reducing transport demand. Is that anywhere on the Government’s agenda?

The approach that the Government has taken is to identify measures in the RPP that would result in our annual emissions reduction targets being met by 2022. The measures are contained in the documentation. That, essentially, is our agenda for the areas that we will consider.

Is any work being done to review or revise the Scottish transport appraisal guidance in the light of the work that is being done on the RPP, to ensure that the two align and that we move away from considering more familiar factors and start to think about the impact on carbon emissions?

The STAG appraisal process must be appropriate for the policy framework of the time. Therefore, we will need to ensure that there is nothing inconsistent between the STAG process and the current terms of Government policy.

What is the timescale for that work?

I cannot offer the committee a timescale. I am just making the observation that we have to ensure that all our policy frameworks are consistent with the approaches that are contained in the Government’s direction of thinking.

Work will have to be done to ensure that STAG is compliant with existing climate change policies. Has that begun yet?

I might not have expressed the point as clearly as I could have. I was making the observation that we must ensure that all our processes are in line with the Government’s policy frameworks. That is an observation on where we are. There is not a STAG review process under way. Within elements of our policy framework, such as the national transport strategy, emissions reduction is a key priority.

When we took evidence on the budget, we discussed the cycling, walking and safer streets line. The RPP seems to imply an expectation that that work will continue. There is also the freight facilities grant. In evidence on the budget, we heard a significant amount about the work that both those budgets have supported that otherwise would not have happened. Where has your thinking reached in relation to both those matters, given the evidence that we heard and the questions that we asked in taking evidence on the budget? Will the RPP objectives be met if similar funding is not maintained or restored?

The Government’s budget for sustainable and active travel increases from £21.2 million this year to £25.1 million in 2011-12. There are not many budget lines like that in the Government’s draft budget.

Most of that relates to techno-fixes such as low-carbon or electric vehicles and is not a continuation or replacement of the cycling, walking and safer streets funding.

Cycling investment has increased year on year for the past three years and it increased by nearly 50 per cent in the last year alone, so there are a lot of good things happening on that.

I have discussed the freight facilities grant with the committee already. I am happy to listen to further representation on the issue, but I made the point to the committee last week that, since April 2007, the “Support for Freight Industry” capital budget line for FFG projects has totalled more than £40 million, but the fund has consistently underspent. The provisions in the budget for 2011-12 are more akin to the pattern of expenditure.

I also made the point to the committee last week that, if the practice was suddenly to change and we were to receive a lot of suggestions about how to develop new freight facilities activities that would cost more money, I would be happy to try to find the money to support them. I think that I mentioned last week that I had seen a freight train going through Perth station. I was there again last Sunday afternoon and the train went through again with goodness knows how many wagons on it. That was a great sight. So I am sympathetic. What we have provided in the budget supports the general pattern of expenditure in the area, but if there is a demand for more, we will explore that.

We must move on. We might have to explore in writing after the meeting some questions that we had hoped to ask today, but I hope that we can address rural land use and waste before we finish.

How will the land use strategy and the RPP work together to avoid or resolve conflicts?

The key consideration is that the RPP and the land use strategy must have clear compatibility. Richard Lochhead has been at the heart of developing the RPP and he is at the heart of developing the rural land use strategy, so that is well understood.

Perhaps we could have an answer in writing on how the tax system influences land use decisions, which relates to making the RPP more useful. Discussing those issues might take a while, unless you have a simple answer.

What the Government can do on tax questions is limited. That is a product of the limitations on the Parliament’s financial responsibilities.

How will city regions be able to contribute to the RPP’s delivery?

The RPP’s key thrust is that it must relate to all the different players and scenarios around the country. The document is not just for some and not others; it is comprehensive. All organisations and areas of the country need to identify what they can contribute to the process.

The Stop Climate Chaos people have identified the restoration of 600,000 hectares of peatland as a key objective. Can we fund the process of rewetting and measuring carbon emissions from peatlands to meet the RPP’s targets?

The Government is keen to support all such activity. Yesterday, we announced £200,000 of research funding to restore our peatlands landscape, which is a helpful step in that direction. Some of the research and what can be achieved are the subject of debate, but I hope that the research grant that the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change announced yesterday will provide confidence that the Government is exploring the issue seriously.

Do you agree with the view of some witnesses that the RPP focuses on dealing more with waste than with wider resource consumption? What proposals could reflect such broader thinking?

Waste is a fundamental issue, because it is a product of our energy use and our consumption decisions. We ignore that activity at our peril. I make no apology for waste considerations being central to the discussion and the thinking.

What is your response to the evidence that much better co-ordination of waste collection and management systems is needed, especially in relation to food waste?

Joint activity by authorities is needed on waste disposal arrangements. Much good co-operation has taken place in several areas and I certainly want to encourage that. The Government has put in place the zero waste strategy to drive that process. A discernible improvement in activity levels has occurred in recent years, which we will consider.

The issue is about much more than how we dispose of our waste; it involves judgments that we make about consumption, how products are displayed to us and all that goes with that. Much more needs to be addressed.

How will you be proactive on food waste?

The zero waste strategy drives the process. On food waste, I do not know whether I can say much more than I have said. Most local authorities have in place a means of addressing food waste. The maximum participation of the public in the process must be encouraged.

I say sorry to members who have questions that they have been unable to ask. We will explore those questions in writing with the cabinet secretary.

We are all working to a tight timescale, but can you respond to questions in writing within 48 hours, cabinet secretary? I know that that time is short, but we have a timescale to meet in drafting our report. Can you agree to that?

There is not much else on, so I am sure that that will be no problem.

I know that you are spending a lot of time with your feet on your desk at the moment.

I have some spare time on my hands and I will endeavour to deploy it on answering the questions.

I will try to answer the committee’s questions as swiftly as possible. My officials have heard your timescale, so they will be seized of its importance.

That is much appreciated.

I thank all the witnesses for their attendance.

15:01 Meeting continued in private until 15:13.