Official Report 387KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20964, in the name of Edward Mountain, on the draft climate change plan, on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
14:50
Helpfully, my office has written the word “farmer” at the start of the speech, to which I have added “Not yet.” However, because we will be talking about agriculture, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I have a farm in Moray.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I thank my committee colleagues and the clerks for their work not only to scrutinise the draft plan but to produce our report over a fairly hectic three days. As I will touch on later, the process has, to my mind, been frustrating and slightly unedifying, but I am content that we as a committee have played our part well.
The committee held nine evidence sessions, a call for views and a targeted online consultation. We met young people and got out and about, with a visit to Aberdeen. I thank all of those who engaged with the committee during that process.
As the lead committee, we proposed dividing up the work on the draft plan, and I thank all the other committees involved for their work to ensure that this was a cross-committee effort. There are now four committee reports on the draft plan, including our own, and six other committees sent letters to support our work.
The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 followed advice from the Climate Change Committee that the targets to reduce emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 were no longer achievable. The 2024 act moved to a system of five-year carbon budgets, replacing annual targets, and moved back the date by which a plan was required.
The draft plan in front of us is the first under the changes made by the 2024 act, and the first statutory draft plan since the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. After the end of the parliamentary scrutiny period, which falls today, the Scottish Government must lay a final climate change plan, reflecting on the views that it has heard. The cabinet secretary has said that it is her intention to do so before dissolution in just a few weeks, but, legally, it does not have to be done within that timeframe.
As a committee, we acknowledge that there has been good progress overall, with emissions having more than halved since 1990. Recently, however, momentum has been lost, and we heard that more challenging actions will now be needed across more sectors.
We agree that delivery must be the central focus of the final plan, but we found that the draft falls somewhat short as a delivery-focused document. The plan should clearly set out how the Government will use its powers to drive down emissions. Where it does not have powers, it should be clearer about that.
We found four areas that the Government should consider. First, we recognise that all climate policy is underpinned by modelling, which is intrinsically uncertain. However, we heard that the information on emissions, costs and benefits—and the latter two, in particular—does not give the detail needed to scrutinise the Government’s assumptions. The Government should welcome informed and constructive criticism of the data and assumptions that it has used, and the final plan should provide more of that. We accepted that it would be challenging for costs and benefits modelling specifically to set out where and on whom costs will fall, but we also asked the Government to reflect on whether the draft falls short in signalling to the public and stakeholders what costs and incentives there are and who will have to pay those costs.
Secondly, we discussed the approach to monitoring in the draft plan, which includes a proposal for early warning indicators to account for the fact that accurate emissions data comes with a delay. However, the draft does not say what those indicators will be. We recommend that they be published at the earliest opportunity to ensure that corrective action can be taken when required. They should also be performance indicators, and have a clear link to the corresponding policies published in the plan.
Thirdly, we noted that delivering changes throughout the economy is a complex task; it needs co-ordinated action across the breadth of Government and with multiple partners over long periods. We discussed dependencies on UK Government action, particularly on electricity, where lower electricity costs would help—and, indeed, are desperately needed in several key areas if we are to decarbonise at the pace that is being asked.
Fourthly, we noted the critical role for local government, which I am sure the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s convener will touch on in her contribution. We also heard evidence of the support that communities and individuals need and the role that they could play in reducing emissions.
Although we welcomed the reopening of the climate engagement fund, we recommended that the Scottish Government communicate clearly what the plan means to people’s everyday lives and work with communities and others to do that. The agriculture, land use, buildings and industry sectors were considered by the rural, local government and economy committees respectively, and we agreed whole-heartedly with their conclusions and recommendations.
I will now briefly touch on the three sectors that we considered. On energy, we discussed the reliance of the draft plan on negative emissions technologies and asked the Government to set out how it would monitor whether those technologies were on track to come online in time to meet its ambitions. The committee considers that the plan relies in large part on electrification, without laying out the absolutely vital issue of how electricity costs will be reduced. We also found the plan to be insufficient in setting out how the Government proposes to meet the substantial increase in renewable energy required to electrify key technologies, especially in the absence of an updated energy strategy.
On transport, we noted that the plan places significant reliance on the uptake of electric vehicles. There is a considerable move away from the 2020 climate change plan update, which committed to an ambitious target of reducing car mileage by 20 per cent by 2030. The draft plan now proposes only a 4 per cent reduction.
We heard particularly concerning evidence from industry that plans to electrify heavy goods vehicles were totally unrealistic. The industry instead suggested that a role for drop-in biofuels would be more appropriate, and we have asked the Government to explore that.
On waste, the committee was concerned that projections for energy from waste emissions might be underestimated, following the decision to delay the enforcement of the ban on biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill shortly before the plan was submitted.
A thread that runs through the plan is just transition, and it includes the welcome addition of just transition indicators. The Economy and Fair Work Committee led that work, but we heard evidence on it, too, and we recommend that the Scottish and UK Governments work together on site-specific just transition plans where they are needed.
I will finish on the process of developing the climate change plan. I say, with regret, that the Parliament is in the same place as it was five years ago. We are doing this work right at the end of the parliamentary session, something that I counselled against as convener when we started the process.
That has been extremely challenging for committees, but it is not the primary concern; the key issue is that the Scottish Government has only three weeks if the cabinet secretary is to meet her own deadlines to finalise the plan and meet the timetable. That is bad practice, because it lowers confidence in what should be a robust process. We must remember that the Government will have to consider all the committee’s reports and the consultations with the public and then implement all of that in the final plan.
I look forward to hearing members’ views on whether the wait was worth it and whether, in the next few weeks, the draft climate change plan can be turned into a climate change plan that will get delivery back on track.
Presiding Officer, I will just say that, on the basis of the process alone, I have been underwhelmed by, and am deeply sceptical of, the way in which the Parliament has dealt with this issue.
Thank you, Mr Mountain. Can I ask you to move the motion, please?
I apologise, Presiding Officer. My notes do say to move the motion at the end of my speech, but I did not see them.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s 10th Report, 2026 (Session 6), Report on the Draft Climate Change Plan (SP Paper 1031), and the reports and letters from other committees, as referenced in the report.
15:00
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. First, I offer my sincere thanks to all the stakeholders who engaged with the committee throughout its scrutiny of the draft climate change plan. As it is likely that this will be the last time that I speak in the chamber as convener of that committee in this session, I want to put on record my thanks to the committee clerks.
Given the scope of the plan and its cross-cutting nature as it relates to health outcomes, what was paramount was our ability to draw on a solid evidence base. I am pleased to say that the level of oral and written evidence that we received allowed us to produce what I believe to be a comprehensive report in relation to the health remit.
I thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for its innovative approach to scrutiny, in particular, which has enabled contributions to be made from across portfolios. The need for greater cross-committee working is something that we have talked about at length in this chamber, and I am grateful to all the committees that have taken the time to contribute to the plan’s overall scrutiny. I look forward to more scrutiny work being done on the same basis, and I commend the example that has been set across the chamber and in the committees.
Turning to the health committee’s report, I begin by saying that, as part of its scrutiny, the committee held three evidence-taking sessions with a focus on the potential co-benefits of emissions reductions for health, and on the draft plan’s potential impact on health and social care services. The draft plan is presented as being necessitated by, and having the purpose of addressing, the health risks associated with climate change. Under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, as amended, the plan must set out policies and proposals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across all major sectors of the economy. Although health and social care is not one of the sectors that the plan is required to cover, some elements of health and social care emissions will be nested within the residential and public buildings sector and the transport sector, which the legislation requires to be covered.
I also remind members that the population health framework, which was published in June 2025, states that
“a just transition to net zero”
is among Public Health Scotland’s commitments to support health and wellbeing. In that context, the committee welcomes evidence that a growing number of health boards are implementing sustainable travel schemes for patients and staff, and encourages further sharing of best practice in that area. The committee also notes that
“health boards should maintain momentum in collaborating with other authorities and providers to ensure that large hospitals are treated as sustainable, connected transport hubs for people attending appointments as well as visitors.”
The draft CCP identifies several health benefits from policies and proposals to reduce emissions in other sectors, including those in relation to cleaner air, warmer homes, healthier food, health-promoting natural and built environments, high-quality public services and fair work. One of the core themes of both the oral and the written evidence that we received was the significant health impact associated with emissions and the scale of potential co-benefits from mitigating them. However, the committee also heard from witnesses and respondents that health and inequality outcomes should be made explicit in the plan and that those co-benefits should be integral to policy appraisal and budget decisions, instead of being treated as secondary considerations.
The CCP cuts across the building blocks of health and the measures in the plan should be more explicitly treated as a public health intervention. The committee echoes calls from Public Health Scotland for a “health in all policies” approach, in which climate measures are designed and delivered to reduce emissions while maximising health gains, thereby contributing to improved life expectancy and reducing health inequalities.
The disproportionate effects of climate change on disabled people, those with long-term conditions, unpaid carers and lower-income households have long been established. In that context, the committee highlights the importance of designing mitigation measures to avoid widening existing health inequalities. It is also vital that the role of social care is recognised within that wider prevention agenda.
The issue of air quality and the impact on it of certain pollutants was raised extensively in evidence, and the committee echoes calls from witnesses for improved monitoring frameworks and action in those areas. Any changes to monitoring should track indoor and outdoor air quality outcomes to ensure that improvements in buildings and transport deliver improvements for, and do not risk undermining, health and wellbeing.
More specifically, the committee notes a lack of quantifiable metrics in that area, which could lead to difficulties in tracking delivery and outcomes. We therefore call for clear indicators of health, wellbeing and equity impacts, alongside the metrics on emissions outcomes. Those indicators should reflect place-based variation, and public health expertise should be embedded in their design and interpretation, so that co-benefits and risks are properly captured and used to inform appraisal and budget decisions.
Finally, the committee notes the complex role of food in meeting climate and health objectives. Although I am conscious of the fact that that issue is not explicitly explored in the plan, the committee highlights the concerns that it raised in its report on the proposed national good food nation plan about the risks of taking a siloed approach, and it reiterates its call for the Scottish Government to set out more clearly how it will work to foster improved cross-sectoral and cross-portfolio collaboration to further strengthen the NHS, as well as wider approaches to sustainable procurement and minimisation of food waste.
It is clear that the draft climate change plan is incredibly broad in scope. The committee commends the plan, in so far as it recognises the health benefits associated with policies that reduce climate emissions across sectors. However, more can be done to make those links more explicit, and I hope that members in future sessions will continue to pursue the same level of cross-portfolio working throughout the scrutiny process to ensure that the final plan delivers on all its intended outcomes.
15:06
I am pleased to contribute to today’s important debate on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.
We examined the buildings element of the climate change plan and the role that local authorities have to play in delivering the plan’s ambitions. As buildings are the fourth-largest emitter of carbon in Scotland, it is critical that we take action on decarbonising how we heat our homes and other buildings if Scotland is to meet its net zero target. In practical terms, there needs to be a huge shift away from gas heating to technology such as heat pumps.
Sadly, stakeholders told us about their frustration that we have had a lost decade in which, even though it has been clear what actions could make a difference, instead of getting on and delivering those, we have been mired in lengthy planning and strategising. As a result, people lack confidence that the climate change plan can deliver.
Back in 2023, the Scottish Government announced that it would deliver a sea change through the heat in buildings bill that it would introduce in this session of Parliament to legislate for the installation of heat pumps in our homes. That legislation never arrived. Instead, the Government has published a draft bill, which some would say has greatly altered the original vision for decarbonising homes.
I highlight that because one of the committee’s key concerns is that, at the moment, very few homes use a heat pump. Only around 7,000 heat pumps were installed in 2024. In stark contrast, Nesta in Scotland has estimated that around 110,000 heat pumps will need to be installed over the course of the next parliamentary session, which is equivalent to 22,000 a year. The climate change plan does not set out how that dramatic change will take place, although it commits to a new heat in buildings strategy and delivery plan, which is to be published this year. I hope that that will prove to be the driver for change.
In the meantime, the Climate Change Committee’s report on Scotland’s progress in reducing emissions agrees with our conclusion that, fundamentally, the draft CCP lacks sufficiently detailed plans for buildings. In particular, there will need to be a rapid acceleration in reducing emissions in 10 years’ time, but it is not clear yet how that will be enabled. The CCC’s report describes that as a “delay and catch-up” approach, which carries significant risk. It says:
“A more plausible approach”
would be to scale up
“the recent steady increase in heat pump installations”.
My committee identified a number of components that will be critical in delivering such an approach. First, we need to have a national retrofitting plan that sets out how we will go about making our homes more energy efficient. Tenement buildings, which make up around 30 per cent of our urban housing stock, represent a significant challenge, as do our rural properties, which are typically older and colder.
The first step is to ensure that we have enough people trained in the right skills. A skills plan must be a component of a wider retrofitting plan and it must include traditional building skills. Building the right skills for Scotland’s varied housing stock presents a huge economic opportunity, but it is not going to happen without leadership.
We also need to build the demand for decarbonising homes. People need to want to have technology such as heat pumps installed, and it needs to be made possible and easy for them. They need to know where to go for trusted advice and help with planning what they are going to spend money on. The committee recommends that the Government supports the creation of one-stop shops that can provide that kind of support. Home Energy Scotland provides an important service, but it is difficult to see how it will be able to meet future demand, particularly for more tailored advice. There is also a need for an updated public engagement strategy that will cover how consumers will be informed about what they can do, why they should be doing it, and where they can go for help and financial support.
Local authorities are key to the delivery of the climate change plan. It is clear that they recognise the urgency. When they came to committee, it was clear that they are ready to act, but they told the committee that they need a route map for how to do that. They told the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee the same thing in 2023, and that resulted in a recommendation to the Scottish Government to do just that. However, the draft CCP has not taken that on board.
We therefore recommend that the final version of the plan gives local authorities clarity by setting out their role in delivering each policy and proposal contained in it. It is difficult to see how local authorities will be able to identify sufficient resources to deliver the ambitions in the plan. The committee therefore also calls on the Scottish Government to explore what additional resource and long-term certainty it can provide through multiyear funding.
We hope that the Scottish Government takes account of the committee’s recommendations and that the final version of the climate change plan will provide the clarity and leadership that are needed. Otherwise, I fear that Scotland’s important net zero ambitions might be at risk.
15:12
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee to set out the findings of our scrutiny of the agriculture and land use chapters of the draft climate change plan.
The committee began its scrutiny of the plan by taking evidence at meetings in early January. We heard from a range of stakeholders, including academics and non-governmental organisations with experience and expertise in agriculture, peatlands and forestry, as well as representatives of the agriculture and forestry sectors. To conclude our evidence taking, we heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy and her officials later that month.
On behalf of the committee, I take this opportunity to thank everyone who contributed to our scrutiny of the draft CCP and the clerks who were involved in the preparation of our report.
I turn first to our findings on the agriculture chapter. The Scottish Government has set out in the draft CCP that it intends to achieve most of its reductions in agricultural emissions through its reforms to support payments. Many stakeholders agreed that changes to requirements for agricultural subsidies would help to incentivise farmers to transition to more sustainable and climate-friendly practices. However, the committee also heard concerns from the industry that there was still a lack of clarity around the Scottish Government’s reform programme, which it believed was holding back efforts to decarbonise the sector in the short term.
The sector was particularly concerned about delays to the first rural support plan, which will set out the Scottish Government’s policy priorities for agriculture support over the next five years.
I thank the member for raising that issue, which I, too, have raised. If the agriculture sector is to be able to make the transition that is needed, does it not need long-term assistance schemes that will help to fund innovative farming and change farming practices to give it the support that it needs now, as our climate begins to change?
I could not agree more. Sadly, however, very little policy has come before the Parliament other than legislation that ensures continuity of the common agricultural policy. We believe that that creates a huge amount of uncertainty around how the farming sector will deliver the plan’s aims.
The delay to the support plan has hampered the committee’s ability to scrutinise the draft CCP, which meant that we could not come to a view on the emissions reduction pathway proposed in the agriculture chapter of the draft plan, because we simply did not have all the information that we needed. The only option open to us was to recommend that our successor committee in the next session of Parliament should examine the linkages between the rural support plan, the final CCP and the wider agricultural reform programme to ensure that they show sufficient leadership and ambition for the agriculture sector.
The committee also considered the Scottish Government’s decision not to reduce livestock numbers in order to reduce agricultural emissions, and we heard a range of views on that. Those who were in support pointed to the economic cost of a declining livestock sector in Scotland and to the potential for that to lead to the offshoring of livestock emissions to other countries to meet domestic demand. However, given that almost half of Scotland’s agricultural emissions come from livestock production, some stakeholders questioned whether the Scottish Government could deliver its climate ambitions without dealing with the sector’s highest emitter. Having weighed up both arguments, the committee believes that it is important to ensure that any shortfalls in emissions reductions caused by not reducing livestock numbers are being compensated for through deeper reductions in other sectors. We tasked the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee with exploring that as part of its wider consideration of the draft plan.
I turn to the land use chapter of the draft CCP. The Scottish Government’s main policy commitment was to reduce emissions by introducing new targets to restore more than 400,000 hectares of degraded peatland by 2040 and to increase annual tree planting to 18,000 hectares by 2030. The committee heard strong support for those new targets on the ground that they demonstrate a clear commitment by the Government to develop those sectors in the long term. Although some stakeholders questioned whether those targets are achievable, those involved in delivering peatland restoration and forest projects made it clear that they are ready to scale up their operations to meet the ambitions set out in the draft CCP. However, they also told us that the Government must play its part in providing certainty about public funding to give businesses the confidence to invest in the workforce and equipment that will be needed to ramp up capacity.
The committee believes that the final CCP will provide an opportunity for the Scottish Government to set out clearly how it will finance tree planting and peatland restoration in the longer term, thereby giving the private sector much-needed clarity. The committee also recommended that the final CCP should include details of how peatland restoration and tree-planting activities will be prioritised. That follows evidence that we heard from academics, who emphasised that the Scottish Government must ensure that both of those prioritised aspects take account of the individual characteristics of sites, and so ensure that the right tree goes in the right place and that the most highly degraded peatlands are tackled, as opposed to activities being focused on less-degraded or more easily restored sites.
In conclusion, it is fair to say that the draft climate change plan has left the committee with more questions than answers. We expect to see the Scottish Government make improvements to both chapters in the final CCP to provide further clarity about how emissions reduction pathways for agriculture and land use will be delivered in practice. I therefore hope that the Scottish Government will engage constructively with the findings of the report, which seeks to identify some of the gaps so that they can be addressed.
I call Clare Adamson to open on behalf of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee.
15:18
As part of our pre-budget scrutiny for 2026-27, the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee considered the role of the culture sector in addressing climate change and reaching net zero. Our findings and recommendations were set out in our pre-budget report and in our letter to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, the latter of which has been included in the report on the draft climate change plan.
Committee members and I attended the museums and galleries strategy symposium this week—albeit for a parliamentary hustings—where it was noted that some of the issues that the culture sector faces are caused by a lack of funding or capital investment and by the rising costs of fuel and energy. Those will only be exacerbated by current global events, which will put further pressure on the sector.
I thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for its work on the draft climate change plan, and I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate.
During our evidence taking, we heard that organisations across the culture sector are implementing a wide range of measures to reduce emissions and contribute to net zero ambitions. The measures that were highlighted include energy efficiency upgrades, circular economy initiatives and carbon budgeting and reporting, to name just a few.
We also heard that the culture and heritage sectors play a significant role in shaping public attitudes. For example, the “Waters Rising” exhibition at Perth Museum was highlighted for its work in engaging audiences with climate themes and we heard that projects such as the Royal Scottish National Orchestra’s “Sounds of the Deep” schools initiative are demonstrating how the sector can help to foster climate literacy and dialogues in our country. In addition, Culture for Climate Scotland told us that
“Cultural organisations … reach the hard-to-reach groups”
and facilitate
“creative, accessible and restorative ways of having conversations about climate change”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 18 September 2025; c 4.]
The committee recognises the role of the culture sector in shaping understanding of climate change, and we recommend that that role be recognised in the Scottish Government’s climate change plan. Perhaps further initiatives could be given some support by the Government.
However, Culture for Climate Scotland also highlighted concerns that funds that are being mobilised in the culture sector to address climate change might not currently be used to their full advantage. We recommend that consideration be given to how funding to support net zero ambitions could be used to further the impact of the culture sector on public attitudes.
We heard that achieving net zero will require substantial capital investment in the culture and heritage sectors. As I said, this is only going to get more challenging in the coming years. Stakeholders told us that retrofitting buildings, upgrading heating systems and improving energy infrastructure are costly and complex pieces of work, particularly for listed or heritage properties. National Museums Scotland highlighted challenges in sourcing alternative carbon-free heating for sites that are currently heated by gas boilers. It explained that that is not only technologically challenging but expensive and beyond the annual operating budgets of most museums and heritage bodies. It said that making the required changes will be possible only through partnership working and major external funds. As such, we ask that the Scottish Government outlines how it will address the substantial capital investment that will be required if the culture and heritage sectors are to meet the climate change and net zero ambitions.
We heard that audience travel to and from events and venues represents the largest source of emissions associated with the culture sector. Stakeholders suggested that it may therefore be useful to focus on that area in order to maximise the impact of spend on reducing the sector’s climate impact. We heard that the reliance on international visitors to, for example, the Edinburgh festivals raises difficult questions for the sector about the impact of international travel, if that is not mitigated in some way.
The Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture told us that the Scottish Government is focusing efforts on increasing public transport use. He stated that the culture sector should be
“properly served with the ability for people to travel with the least environmental impact possible.”—[ Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 25 September 2025; c 42.]
The committee welcomes the confirmation that efforts are being focused on public transport use. However, we ask that the Scottish Government outlines how it is addressing the aviation emissions that are associated with audience travel and festivals.
I look forward to hearing the remaining contributions to today’s debate.
15:24
I am pleased to speak in this important debate on the Scottish Government’s draft climate change plan, the policies and proposals that it includes, the opportunities that it brings for the people of Scotland and the vision for our country’s future that it embodies.
I thank members and all the committees for their contributions to the draft plan. I have met members from across the Parliament during the past few months, and I appreciate the pace at which the committees acted in scrutinising the draft plan.
I put on record my thanks to my policy team and the policy teams of my Cabinet colleagues—particularly those in transport, housing and rural affairs—who have so much to add to the draft climate change plan, and who are working hard to respond to all of the committee reports and their recommendations.
I also put on record my thanks to everyone who has responded to the public consultation and who has taken part in public engagement events across the country. Almost 2,000 people have taken part in more than 100 events. I am particularly grateful to our partner organisations—trusted voices in their communities—which have delivered those events.
Although that engagement took place across the country, it focused on the north-east, the Forth Valley and Grangemouth and the greater Glasgow and Clyde area. Those are all areas with historical connections to fossil fuel industries. The Government is determined to ensure that our communities do not suffer the same fate as former industrial communities did as a result of Thatcher’s unjust transition in the 1980s.
I remind colleagues that the first job of Scotland’s climate change plan is to set out a credible pathway that will deliver on each of our first three carbon budgets and support net zero by 2045.
The Committee for Climate Change said that we are on an “achievable” pathway. Important to me is the Just Transition Commission’s description of the plan as a “real step forward”. We have tried very hard to weave just transition throughout every element of the plan.
I am confident that Scotland is on a credible, ambitious and achievable pathway to meet our carbon budgets and, at the same time, grow our economy and capture the benefits of climate action. It is estimated that the direct financial benefits of the plan will amount to £42.3 billion between 2026 and 2040.
The plan will proactively increase the nation’s climate resilience and reduce our dependence on international markets, which is as important now as it ever has been. The plan will also be reactive and agile to technological changes, new UK Governments, international policy moves and market shifts.
The Scottish Government believes deeply in a positive vision of the future and, at its heart, the draft plan sets out a future in which we are less exposed to fluctuations, particularly in imported fossil fuel prices, and instead benefit from more efficient green technologies, which bring with them many opportunities for skilled, low-carbon jobs across the country and a healthier environment for our people to live in.
Those jobs are not just speculative. Study after study shows that there is already an impact in Scotland and that it is growing. The PwC green jobs barometer shows that the number of green jobs continues to grow at a faster rate in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK.
An Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit report shows that Scotland’s net zero economy has grown by more than 21 per cent since 2022—again, that is faster than in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is a source of great encouragement, and it should be a source of great encouragement to everyone who is involved in the climate change plan and who cares about the positive benefits that are included in it with regard to economic growth.
Data that was recently published by the Office for National Statistics shows that Scotland had the largest percentage increase in turnover across our low-carbon and renewable energy sectors compared with anywhere else in the UK.
The economic opportunities of the transition to a green economy are already here for us to see, and their number is growing. However, the climate action that is set out in our draft plan also, crucially, brings substantial wider benefits for individuals and our communities.
The convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee helpfully explained some of the health benefits that are associated with climate action. We have an opportunity to widen out what is in the final plan to explain more of them.
Increased physical activity from the move to active travel will obviously benefit people’s health and wellbeing, as will cleaner air from the switch to electric vehicles and more attractive sustainable public transport.
That is supported by the removal of peak fares on ScotRail, the freeze on rail fares and our £2 bus fare cap pilot, which has now been launched in Shetland and the Western Isles. Those changes mean better air quality, with positive impacts on preventing or stopping the exacerbation of lung health conditions. Those will all support reduced pressure on the health service and saving for public finances. That is an area of work that we are doing in Government, with academic partners, to better identify some of the co-benefits associated with health and what that could mean for future health spend and savings. That is all evidence that, in Scotland, emissions reductions, economic and social benefits and economic growth go hand in hand.
Despite those advances, we must recognise that our Parliament does not possess all the powers necessary to deliver the action that we need. We are, regrettably, still relying on Westminster in some critical areas. When taking evidence on the draft plan, committees have heard repeatedly about the most important issue that the UK Government must act on, which is reducing the price of electricity. That has come through in most of the evidence. There are not many things in this area of work that are a silver bullet, but if there is one, it would be bringing down the cost of electricity. For heat pumps to make our homes warmer, for fuel poverty to disappear and for our transport systems to work for everyone, we need cheaper electricity.
I will mention solar energy in my speech, but will the cabinet secretary have a solar plan that fits into the final climate change plan?
The solar vision has been worked on in Scotland, and we will see what energy mix is available. We are looking at all the generators of electricity. A couple of things have to work to make it attractive for people to change their heating systems. More projects need to be able to get on to the national grid. The critical build-out and improvement of the grid system is mentioned by industry time and again. The other issue is bringing down the cost for households. At the moment, electricity is about five times the cost of gas, which is a significant factor in people not decarbonising, particularly in a cost of living crisis.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I am over time, so I will go to the end of my speech.
We have consistently raised the issue that we are already getting on with delivery. That is why the Scottish budget allocated record funding of more than £5 billion for activities that have a positive impact on Scotland’s climate change goals. The budget also included new measures to reduce carbon emissions and ensure that the polluter pays, including through a new tax on private jet use. That demonstrates our commitment to delivering a just transition.
It is not just about the associated costs. It is not even just about the cost benefits. I end with the words of Graeme Roy, the chair of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, who said:
“not responding to the challenge of climate change ... will be far more expensive and damaging to the public finances than investing in net zero ... it is simply not an option.”
I advise members that there is a bit of time in hand, so if you take interventions, you will get the time back, and possibly a bit more. Douglas Lumsden is next and has a generous six minutes.
15:33
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I speak with a lot of disappointment, to be honest. What should have been a landmark report for this Parliament is instead a catalogue of errors from this out-of-time, out-of-touch Scottish National Party devolved Government. I have been an MSP for nearly five years, and this is one of the most damning reports that I have seen from a committee or have been involved in.
The report describes the draft climate action plan in these terms: “clear gaps”, “falls short”, “insufficient detail” and “areas of risk”. The plan was “rushed”, leading to a lack of confidence from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that our concerns will be taken seriously. “Rushed” is quite a statement, given that we were promised the plan more than a year ago; now, so close to the dissolution of Parliament, it finally appears.
It is quite simply a disgrace that the cabinet secretary has come here today to defend what is, in essence, a plan without detail and without targets, and one that will fail to deliver its main point, which is a reduction in emissions that will contribute to our net zero climate goals. Any climate change plan should have one aim: to reduce emissions and help us to reach our 2045 climate goals.
This plan should be about delivery. It should include timelines and targets for how we will get there. However, the plan that the committee was asked to scrutinise does none of that. It has let down our committee, the Parliament and the people of Scotland.
What action that is not in the climate change plan would Douglas Lumsden, who holds the shadow portfolio for his party, include in it?
I will come on to some of the targets that should be in the plan.
The plan sets out aspirations, which have their place. It is right that the Government establishes where it wants to go and what the vision is, but what we have in front of us today is a vision document. I do not feel that it is an actual plan.
Time and again, the committee asked simple questions. What exactly will be done? By whom? By when? With what funding? However, too often, no answer was provided.
The milestones are particularly weak. They are framed in broad trajectories rather than measurable delivery points. For example—the cabinet secretary asked for examples—on the decarbonisation of heat in buildings, the plan sets out long-term outcomes for emissions reduction but does not set clear annual targets for the number of homes to be converted, the workforce that will be required or the funding profile that will be needed year by year. Without those practical milestones, there is no way for Parliament to track whether delivery is on course or falling behind.
On heat in buildings, what plans would the member who is the shadow for this portfolio put in a plan that he would devise? How would he decarbonise homes?
Any plan should have real and proper targets that can be measured. This plan does not have any of that. We cannot wish our way to net zero. If the Government really wants to get to net zero, it should put forward a plan. However, just as it does not have an energy strategy, it does not have a climate change plan that we can look at.
If we do not know how many heat pumps are to be installed each year, how many skilled workers must be trained or how much capital funding is required at each stage, then we do not have a delivery plan; all we have is an ambition.
If the Government were serious about a plan with detail in it, it would not be cutting college funding in the way that it has done over the past five years, during which time there has been a 20 per cent cut in real terms. That reduces the availability of skilled workers.
Does Douglas Lumsden think that it is quite remarkable that the cabinet secretary alighted on the idea that we need to have cheaper electricity but did not mention the magic word “nuclear”? The country in Europe that has the most nuclear power stations has the cheapest electricity.
I completely agree. Once again, the SNP cannot wish its way to cheaper electricity. The same applies to the SNP’s claims that it would reduce people’s bills by a third if we were independent. That is absolute nonsense, and it has nothing to back it up whatsoever.
The plan matters because Scotland has missed climate targets before. A plan that is light on detail and vague on milestones risks repeating that pattern. If the Government wants to get to net zero by 2045, it needs to be honest with people about how much it will all cost. What will it mean for air travel? What will it mean for car travel? What will it mean for people when they are trying to heat their homes? The SNP Government is not being honest.
Mr Lumsden has highlighted the issue of cheaper electricity. In order to reach net zero, we need cheaper electricity, but we also need more electricity. That does not need to come from nuclear; it can come from renewables. However, we need a grid to deal with that increased amount of electricity. Does Mr Lumsden support increasing the capacity of the grid?
If only we had an energy strategy, we could maybe look at what we need. We should have a proper energy mix with nuclear, oil and gas and renewables. This Government seems to be putting all its eggs into the one basket of renewables. What we need is cheap electricity, not the much more expensive electricity from the renewables that are proposed.
That comes back to the point that the SNP Government is not being honest.
You are not being honest.
It is not telling people what the push for net zero by 2045 will mean for households. It is not telling people who live in a flat why they will have to pay up to 10 times more to charge an electric vehicle than people who have their own driveway. It is not telling our oil and gas workers that it does not support projects such as Rosebank, which are vital for jobs in the north-east. It is not being honest for the simple fact that there is an election in 63 days.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will give way.
Before I call Mr Kerr, I note that there is plenty of time in hand and there are plenty of opportunities to make interventions, although the decision on whether to take them is for the person who is on their feet. Could we please have a little less shouting across the chamber? Members should make interventions instead.
I am grateful to Douglas Lumsden for giving way. It is important to note that, last night on “Debate Night”, the depute leader of the SNP was explicit that he did not support new oil and gas exploration and extraction licences in the North Sea, and he specifically mentioned Rosebank. The SNP is against it.
Keith Brown let the cat out of the bag on “Debate Night”. We all know that the SNP has a presumption against oil and gas, which he made clear last night.
The SNP is not being honest, and it is also not being honest with community groups across Scotland that are angry about the scale of energy infrastructure projects that are sweeping the countryside.
You now have the opportunity, on behalf of Stephen Kerr, who is supporting you in this, to answer the question that I asked last night. Will you support the removal of the energy profits levy, which your party introduced and which is now supported by the Labour Party? It is quite an important issue. All the industry leaders say that that is what is losing the most jobs in the energy sector.
Members should always speak through the chair.
I agree 100 per cent. We have been calling for the energy profits levy to be scrapped for a long time, because there is no windfall. At least we know where the SNP stands on oil and gas.
The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee heard directly from community groups across Scotland. They are made up of local residents, community councils and volunteers who are trying to engage in good faith with the planning process and the energy transition. It was deeply concerning that the cabinet secretary dismissed concerns that were raised about energy infrastructure as narratives that were linked to the far right. That kind of language is not only wrong; it is damaging and it undermines trust. It polarises the debate and risks shutting down legitimate participation in the planning process.
I invite the cabinet secretary to take the opportunity to apologise to those individuals and groups that she has labelled as far right. Those groups and communities care about where they live. She refuses to meet them and she denigrates them in the press and badmouths them to the public. How can she claim to represent her constituency when she shows such disregard for its residents? She should be ashamed. Presiding Officer, I am sorry if my language is less than parliamentary, but you will understand my disgust at the phrase that was used by the cabinet secretary in describing my neighbours and friends as far right.
A just transition requires partnership with communities, not rhetoric that is directed at them. For the cabinet secretary to direct that language at those communities just shows what a disgusting organisation the SNP is. It is trying to discredit communities that dare to speak up and then brand them as far right in the hope of shutting them up. Those communities will not be silenced—
Mr Lumsden, please resume your seat.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I respectfully ask for your ruling on some of the language that Mr Lumsden has used which, personally, I find offensive. It is not becoming of a member of the chamber.
I accept your point of order. I remind members of the requirement for courtesy and respect. I suggest that the temperature of the debate has gone up a few notches in the past 10 to 15 minutes. I invite Mr Lumsden to bring his remarks to a close and to moderate his language.
I am not sure what language some people took offence at.
Those communities will not be silenced, because they are doing something that the SNP is failing to do, which is to stand up for rural Scotland. Only the Scottish Conservatives are working with communities, listening to them and providing them with a commonsense plan to tackle climate change. Net zero will be achieved only with the support of the people of Scotland. Their support cannot be commanded; it must be earned. Right now, the SNP is failing on all counts.
15:43
How will I follow that?
I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour as we discuss the draft climate change plan. When the plan is finalised, it will shape Scotland’s environmental, economic and social future for decades to come. The plan has to get it right, because the risks are high for our constituents, our land, and our economy.
In recent months, I have been involved in scrutinising the plan in the Economy and Fair Work Committee and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I have also been involved in meetings with the climate change plan team and the advisory group. I have attempted to engage constructively with the cabinet secretary by sharing concerns and giving her lots of suggestions about how we can improve the plan, because it has to work.
I thank all those across the Parliament, particularly the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, who have been involved in the consultation exercises that have been carried out to engage people on the issue.
A document cannot do this—we all have to do it together. The challenge is that, although there are areas of ambition in the plan, there are also areas from which ambition is entirely missing. As priorities have been chosen, some key elements have been left behind.
It has been excellent in the debate to hear from a raft of parliamentary committees, including the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee; the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee; the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee; and the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. The plan will affect all our committees, and it will require action across the Government. That is absolutely critical. We need investment and action right across the Government and a plan for the future.
I am very conscious that the Government’s climate change plan team is analysing the consultation feedback that it has received and that the final report will be published at the end of the month. The challenge is that, by the end of the month, the Parliament will have dissolved. Ensuring that there is a focus on the climate change plan will be a challenge and an opportunity for the next Parliament, because delivery will be critical. The Climate Change Committee’s report makes it clear that there are gaps in delivery, gaps in understanding and gaps in the practical steps that are needed to meet legally binding targets. The Climate Change Committee’s warning on the second and third Scottish carbon budgets is particularly stark.
I echo many of Sarah Boyack’s words about the challenges that the next Parliament faces. However, one of the biggest challenges is for the next Parliament to ensure that it does not discuss the climate change plan at the fag end of the session. It must do so much earlier on, so that people can be involved in it and see the plan when it is properly laid.
The opportunity for the next Parliament is that there will be a final plan that it can scrutinise and focus on. Given the huge turnover of parliamentarians, it is critical that the next Parliament prioritises discussion on the issue across the Government and across parties as soon as members are returned.
Many things need to be addressed, including electrification, which several colleagues have talked about.
One of the most concerning omissions from the plan is solar power; there is an absence of any real consideration of it. It is one of the cheapest and quickest-to-deploy renewable technologies available, yet it is hardly present in the plan.
Solar Energy UK has been clear in its evidence that the absence of solar and battery storage is a major strategic failure that risks undermining our wider energy ambitions. The Scottish Government should maintain the ambition of 4GW to 6GW solar capacity by 2030, and it should go further to commit to a 9GW target for 2035. That commitment could include rooftop solar and ground-mounted solar farms, which are now compatible with agriculture, and should involve thinking about where battery storage fits in. We need a joined-up plan. Solar Energy UK has called for a sector deal for solar to recognise that the tech can make a real contribution.
I want to focus on the issue of housing.
Will Sarah Boyack add nuclear energy to the portfolio of sources of energy that we need in order to sustain our economy?
I have done so on many occasions. Torness is next door to my constituency, and there are hundreds of skilled and knowledgeable people working there. It is not about building nuclear plants everywhere. It is about using the tech that is available now where we can use it, so that we do not have to import nuclear-powered electricity from down south.
I come back to my point about solar. The Climate Change Committee has made the point that we are not meeting our heat pump targets fast enough; in fact, doing so has been kicked into the second or third Scottish carbon budgets. We need to ensure that there are proper opportunities for all our homes in that regard. The withdrawal of grants for solar panels was a step backwards, because it stopped many people who were about to install a heat pump, knowing that, if they put on solar panels, that would reduce their energy costs. However, that is not happening now. There are also huge missed opportunities for supply chains.
I particularly want to focus on the fact that 25 per cent of homes in Scotland are tenements. There will be a bit of heavy lifting for the final plan there. How will we do it? We are allowed to have joint work in tenements, with people coming together to repair and maintain tenements, so why do we not have such an option for solar heat and heat networks?
We need to think about the practicalities of how this will work, because after years of waiting for the energy strategy, we need action now. From what I have heard at the conferences that I have been to, heat networks are a practical solution for both urban areas and rural areas. All the authorities have a plan, but they need investment and support to implement it.
Transport has also been mentioned by several colleagues. We need a more realistic approach to that. Yes, we need electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, and there has been progress with those, but we need to focus in particular on affordable solutions. Not everyone will be able to afford an EV, and as was raised at the disability conference that we had a couple of weeks ago, not everyone is able to drive, so we need affordable public transport. The bus passes are brilliant, but we need the buses to use them on. We need buses particularly in our rural areas, to enable people to get to work.
Agriculture and land use require a lot more work, and the comments of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee convener on that were important. Farmers and crofters are willing to be part of the transition, but they need clarity, support and fair funding. We need to have a public conversation about the environmental impacts of imported food, the water footprint of global supply chains and the emissions associated with different types of products. We need to support our domestic producers so that the transition is fair for them and so that it is viable.
We also need to look at forestry targets, which are off track. The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has spent a lot of time talking about peatland restoration. There is a huge amount of work to be done on peatlands, and we are leading on it, but there are barriers to delivery. Those two areas are central to our meeting our carbon budgets but also to protecting our natural environment. Let us remember that it is a climate and a nature crisis, so we need joined-up solutions.
We also need action on industrial emissions. The energy issue is key to that, but there is also the issue of support. If we have a clear plan and confident supply chains, industry will make investments. If we partner with Great British Energy and use the national wealth fund, we can get investment that will deliver the energy infrastructure that we need.
The Climate Change Committee has also highlighted the need for credible monitoring and evaluation. We will not have annual targets, but we will need annual pathways for sectoral emissions and clear indicators of progress. That way, if progress is not being made, we do not wait five years to have a catch-up, but get on track and do the work now. Accountability must be built into the system, not added on as an afterthought. The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee also recommends that we have a comprehensive mix of performance indicators across the breadth of the plan.
I think that one of the best ideas is having a dashboard that is accessible to the public, so that they can see what they can contribute and what progress is being made. That would enable us to see where we have made progress and where we need to catch up. Bringing people with us will be critical. People need support, but they also need to understand the benefits of tackling the climate emergency.
We know that more than 400,000 homes and buildings in Scotland are now at risk of flooding in the next decade. That is a real issue, not a theoretical one. We need to tackle the risks of flooding and sea level rise, because there are now vulnerable coastal areas in constituencies across the country. Homes and businesses will be at risk, and the insurance sector is already lobbying us about that. That is why we need a credible climate change plan.
I will come to my conclusion. Long-term action is not where we need to be. We have to be planning now so that for each of the first five, the second five and the third five years, we have a plan for industry, home owners and every sector of our economy. That plan needs to include resilience, adaptation and preparedness, and that will need cross-Government thinking.
I hope that the cabinet secretary takes away the point that all the committees that have been engaged in the discussion have called for more action and more clarity and for getting on with it. We cannot wait. We are almost at the end of this parliamentary session and we are debating the draft plan. The next Parliament needs to debate the final plan and to get on with the action.
15:54
It has been seven years since Nicola Sturgeon’s Government declared a climate emergency. That declaration was important. It was a moment of leadership; it was about leadership across Government to accelerate climate action. It was also about the opportunities to drive investment, to create new jobs that have a long-term future, to improve the health of our communities, to make it easier to travel and to live in a comfortable home and to make our economy much more resource efficient. It was never about Scotland going it alone. It was about tried and tested solutions that have been proven around the world. It was about selling the important benefits of transition and leading delivery and change across our society.
When the Scottish Greens formed part of the Government, we worked hard to put that emergency at the heart of the Government’s programme. Our former ministers would acknowledge that that was, at times, not easy, but we secured significant progress. The cabinet secretary has already talked about free bus travel for under-22s and the cap on bus fares, which were delivered by the Greens. There were many more areas of progress but, since we left government, the SNP has gone into retreat on climate action. It has not just lost the narrative on the climate but wilfully given it away.
A form of paralysis has crept in. With powerful lobby groups on one side and the limits of devolution on the other, the Government refuses to move forward. The energy strategy has been buried, the heat in buildings programme has been dropped and the traffic reduction targets have been abandoned. I know that there is disquiet among some on the SNP back benches about that direction of travel.
The member knows full well, because it has been relayed and is in reports, that we continue to have a car use reduction target. We are looking at emissions reduction in line with the Climate Change Committee’s proposal to reduce car use. Mark Ruskell might not agree with or like what the Climate Change Committee says, but it is wrong to say that we do not have a car use reduction target or have somehow abandoned it, because that is not the case.
I was at a hustings last night at which an SNP MSP said that the abandonment of the 20 per cent target was a retrograde step. I agree with that wing of the SNP.
It is easy to set targets, including traffic reduction targets. The hard work is having an action plan that local authorities can pick up on and that we can advance nationally to incentivise people to leave the car at home. That has to be a mixture of measures. It has to be a balance of carrot and stick, including financial incentives and improved public transport. I say to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport that that is what I have been waiting to see over the past three years since we have been out of government and I have not seen it. All that I have seen is a reduction in the target.
Of course, there is always the Westminster Government to blame. Greens are never shy of taking a genuine opportunity to blame Westminster, just like the SNP, but we must build the case for the Parliament to have more powers by acting like we want them and pushing up to the limit of the powers that we have now. The reality is that more than half of the policy levers and programmes in the climate plan are devolved, but the Government is unwilling to commit to using them to benefit people and the climate.
The climate plan should be an ambitious blueprint for a healthier, fairer, greener Scotland, but it is once again being rushed through with days to spare before dissolution. It is farcical to think that this Government—in fact, any Government—would make meaningful changes to a plan as a result of scrutiny from the Parliament at this late stage.
It is clear that the die has been cast for the next five years in the climate plan. In too many areas, I see policies being kicked down the road for the next five years. The danger is that the Parliament will end up in exactly the same position as here and now at the end of session 7. By that point, the target of being net zero by 2045 could be in grave danger because the policies that we all know are needed are still locked in the too-difficult-to-do box.
That said, in the plan, the Government is prepared to gamble on measures such as carbon capture and storage technology, even though it has never been delivered at an effective scale anywhere in the world and is dependent on Westminster action. It is a 12 megatonne gamble, doubling the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendation on what is possible.
With Grangemouth refinery and now Mossmorran out of the cluster, the Acorn project is in trouble.
It is reckless to gamble so much of Scotland’s climate plan on a single project, which investors are walking away from. The UK Climate Change Committee wants to see a contingency plan in case the Acorn project does not go ahead—it has been calling for that for years. The cabinet secretary said last week that it is up to the CCC to advise on a contingency plan. I do not care who comes up with it, but we need the plan. What is absolutely clear is that the Acorn project is a massive gamble.
It is even more absurd that a new gas-fired power station at Peterhead is being baked into a climate plan. If we could do one thing to increase energy bills, worsen climate pollution and make ourselves more dependent on a fossil fuel that is running out, it would be to make a dash for new gas-fired power stations. It is clear that the Government sees a new Peterhead power station as a price to pay to keep the Acorn business plan on life support, but running two gas power stations decades after Scotland is meant to be net zero flies in the face of climate reality.
If the Acorn project does not deliver, the too-difficult-to-do box will need to be opened. A credible pathway for aviation, with demand reduction at its core, a heat in buildings plan that is scaled up fast and fairly, action to help farmers get off the production subsidy treadmill, and a transformation in public transport and traffic reduction must be delivered in the next carbon budget.
The plan features two extremes on heat in buildings. First, there is to be zero ambition and no scale-up in the next five years, with a meagre 30,000 installations, no real incentives for industry to invest and no pathway to expand skills and capacity to deliver. Then, there is to be a vast increase in delivery in the 2030s, which will apparently come out of nowhere. Nesta pointed out in its briefing that a back-loaded plan risks a skills cliff edge with no expanded workforce.
It is as if the Scottish Government wants to make Scotland dependent on gas boilers—and on gas for electricity generation—for as long as possible. If the Government is searching for a social licence for action on climate change, it needs to stop worrying about the Daily Mail and knock on the doors of unions, communities and sectors that are ready and willing to step up. The solutions to the climate emergency are well understood, are tested and are being delivered at scale globally, but the plan before us today does not deliver for people and planet. It must be revised and reconsidered by a new Government if we are to have any chance of playing our role in tackling the climate emergency and delivering the benefits that the plan could deliver to the people of Scotland.
16:02
I will first highlight the hugely beneficial way in which the Parliament’s committees have worked independently but coherently on how their remits interact with the draft climate change plan. The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has been the lead committee, but seven other committees of the Parliament carried out their own inquiries and investigations, including those on which I sit, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. That collaboration and holistic approach, working across policy areas, is a model for similar work in the next session of Parliament, not just in five years’ time, when the climate change plan is updated.
I am proud that Scotland has a Government and a Parliament that recognise both that there is a need to address climate change and biodiversity loss, and that making the needed changes across society is crucial not only for our country and our planet but for driving innovation, prosperity and a healthier future.
That latter point has been key to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s work on the plan. We heard from experts who were open and generous with their time and knowledge. The on-going work around the good food nation plan dovetails with the need to tackle climate change. Utilising, as far as possible, local food producers and agribusinesses in the public and private sectors helps to reduce emissions, means generally healthier food and keeps more money in local economies, helping to boost demand in the community. Unlocking that economic potential by taking action to support local production is a key example of how measures that are enacted to help the environment can also have a significant multiplier effect on our economy and our health.
I hope that we see an increased emphasis on the importance of food production chains and their impact on the environment when the final climate change plan is published. Although we heard a range of evidence on the impact of ultra-high processed foods on health and the environment, to my mind it is clear that the increased energy costs and the growing complexity of the food system that are related to UHP foods have a noticeable impact on the route to net zero. Both collectively and as individuals, we can do something to change that narrative.
I have spoken about reducing emissions by producing and buying locally, and I note the key role that agriculture has to play in our climate journey. Yesterday, I was chuffed to be invited to provide a keynote speech at the Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association Scottish conference at Dynamic Earth. The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin, was also there, and was warmly welcomed by the association.
Anaerobic digestion is now ready to be more mainstreamed, with small, medium and large plants available. The innovation that we are now seeing in research and development, the processing of on-farm waste and other organic matters and the delivery of renewable energy and decentralised energy networks in our rural communities cannot be overstated. We know that AD, as well as solar—as Sarah Boyack mentioned—can be part of the mix of energy generation that leads to our energy security. I also spoke about that yesterday, and it is especially important given what is happening in the middle east right now. I know that AD isnae gonnae fix the whole problem, but it would be worth considering as we move forward.
When I addressed the association, I highlighted the fact that although Galloway alone has just more than 20 AD plants out of Scotland’s 90 or so, we have more than 500 dairy farms. That potential is being unleashed by facilities such as Crofthead Biogas near Crocketford, which is processing up to 100,000 tonnes of organic farm waste and turning it into the equivalent of 8MWh. Innovators such as The Carbon Removers are not just behind the technology but are leading the way on COsequestration.
Net zero innovation is being supported right now through South of Scotland Enterprise—an agency that was delivered by the Scottish National Party Government and which is making a difference to the south’s economy. The Scottish Government and its agencies are investing in the innovation and jobs that will sustain our rural communities for years to come.
I have touched on only a fraction of how the south is a hotbed of research, innovation and practical application of how we will hit net zero in the future. Yesterday, I highlighted the fact that the south-west of Scotland had the first offshore wind and the first onshore wind, and we have a 90-year-old hydroelectric scheme and solar arrays. The south-west of Scotland could be the renewables capital of Scotland.
That is only part of what we investigated in both committee inquiries. As a former operating theatre nurse, I was interested in the evidence that Professor Sir Gregor Smith presented about the progress of the green theatre programme. There have been changes in the gas that is used to deliver anaesthesia, as the gas was not good for our climate.
I thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee clerks for their forbearance with my research on the emerging evidence around ultra-high processed food and climate change and the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee clerks for all their work supporting committee members. I also thank everybody who gave evidence to both committees.
The plan is a substantial piece of work. As members go our separate ways in just a few weeks, we should all take heart that the demands of the 21st century in repairing the mistakes of the 20th century are at the top of the agenda for this Parliament and our Government, and I commend the plan to the chamber.
I call Stephen Kerr—you have around six minutes.
16:08
Thank you for allowing me around six minutes, Presiding Officer.
I know that we get slightly overexcited on this side of the chamber on certain subjects, but nothing quite triggers Conservative MSPs like listening to SNP members wax lyrical, with great virtue oozing from their pores, about the energy profits levy. SNP members must think that we have no memory. We remember—in fact, it is recorded in the Official Report—that they were clamouring for an excess profits levy on the energy companies. They were clamouring for it. In fact, not only did they want an excess profit levy on the energy companies, they wanted such levies on a bunch of other companies in other sectors as well, such was their desire to tax the capitalist organisations that were making money. Kevin Stewart was among them, and he often gets up to say, “Oh, the EPL is a terrible thing.” They were the ones who wanted it, and they were the ones who wanted to extend it, but we are the ones who have been clear for a very long time that we want it ended.
I remind the member that it was a Conservative Government that introduced the energy profits levy, at a time when energy profits were extremely high because of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine. Times have changed dramatically. That was supposed to be for the short term, but that short term is now long term. The EPL needs to go. The Conservatives should have ended it; they did not. Now, Labour must end it to save jobs in Aberdeen, the north-east and beyond.
Mr Kerr, I can give you the time back.
The Conservatives had a plan to end it, and the Scottish Conservatives had a plan to end it for very much longer—something that, at the time, we made very clear through our then leader and our collective voice.
I am sorry for Kevin Stewart—I know where his constituency interests lie and I could see the pain that he felt when I brought up what Keith Brown, the deputy leader of the SNP, said on “Debate Night” last night about being against exploration licences and extracting the energy resources that are right there within British territorial waters—the same energy resources that Norway is successfully making the best of.
I could also sense that members were upset because my friend Douglas Lumsden called the SNP a “disgusting” party. He comes from a position of angst about the state of what is happening in the north-east’s economy.
Will the member give way?
I will come to Keith Brown in a moment.
Actually, Douglas Lumsden was only quoting the words of John Swinney, who used that very term in First Minister’s questions. We thought that that was slightly at the edge of things; we have not forgotten it and nor shall we.
I give way to Keith Brown.
It is interesting that we have a new floor for parliamentary language and that, once again, that floor has been set by the Conservatives.
I go back to the point that Stephen Kerr made. I did not realise that he was my number 1 fan and was following my media appearances, but I thank him for that. Since he was watching “Debate Night” last night, he will know that I asked whether the Conservative Party still—or again—believes in climate change and the need to address it.
We have never disguised the fact that—it is in the name of the party, actually—we believe in conserving our natural environment. Of course we do. However, we are saying that we need to wake up and look at the arbitrary targets that we set and what they are doing to our economy. That is what I want to get on to—that is the thrust of what this debate should be about.
The debate is about the draft climate change plan that we have been reviewing. I have in my hand the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s submission, which is an excellent piece of work by all the committee members, including those from other parties. I think that the only party that is not represented is the Liberal Democrats—everyone else is represented. What does it say in here? Let me tell members what my conclusion from the document is—
Mr Kerr, I will give you a little latitude, but would you stop waving your props around?
I am not allowed to use props. Underneath this lectern, then, I have in my hand a letter that contains the report of the committee.
We were told that the climate change plan is a serious blueprint for delivering net zero by 2045. However, after the evidence that we heard in the Economy and Fair Work Committee, I cannot accept that description. What we have is not a credible climate change plan; it is an emissions reduction wish list. It is light on detail, heavy on assumption and dangerously detached from economic reality.
One of the memorable pieces of evidence to our committee was given by Professor Paul de Leeuw, who I think summed it up rather well when he said that, when he was reading the plan, he had
“a little Ikea moment. I know what the starting point is, which is a flat pack, and I know what the end point looks like, which is net zero, but what I am missing is the instructions and the plan in the middle.”
That was a very succinct and to-the-point comment that summarises all the evidence that we received as a committee in relation to the plan.
By the way, David Thomson of the Food and Drink Federation Scotland said that his members
“would probably struggle to see … a link between the plan and the actions, whether financial support, policy support or legislative support”.—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 7 January 2026; c 11, 20.]
They are not joined up. The targets may well be clear, but the pathway is not.
Let us be honest about how Scotland—this goes for the UK, too—has reduced its industrial emissions. Since 1990, emissions from industry have fallen sharply, but not because we have cracked the code of industrial decarbonisation. The primary reason for that is that, all too often, plants such as steelworks and paper mills have been closed. Now, refineries and chemical facilities are shutting. Emissions have been cut by shutting down industry. Members should ask the workers at Grangemouth or Mossmorran, or those in the oil and gas sector in the north-east, whether that feels like a just transition. They see their jobs disappearing faster than any serious alternative is being created.
That is what Professor de Leeuw said in his letter to our committee. I hope that I may share what he said with the chamber; I have been told that I am not supposed to have a prop. He said that Scotland was losing more of its supply chain and workforce capacity than was being replaced by offshore wind and carbon capture and storage. He argued that strategic investment at scale, ahead of final approval of projects, was now required. He observed that, between now and the early 2030s, the majority of wind activities would not be in Scotland but in the rest of the world.
I am happy to give way to my fellow committee member Sarah Boyack.
I absolutely agree that we need more investment in industrial capacity. Does the member agree that we need to have the ability to produce components for wind farms in Scotland? There were huge opportunities to build turbines. We had one plant, which closed. We need more such plants, because we must create more joined-up economic opportunities if we are to build the country that we need.
Sarah Boyack is right. We keep saying that the opportunity will lie in the onshore supply chain, but it is not there. We keep saying that we need to have an onshore supply chain, but we do not take the public policy decisions that are necessary to drive, invite and attract such investment into our country.
The reality is that we are de-industrialising our economy while we are industrialising our countryside. We see turbines, pylons and substations spreading across rural Scotland, yet we import the steel, the turbines and the workers to install them. That is not green prosperity—we are exporting value and importing dependency.
Other members have mentioned the cost of electricity—indeed, I mentioned it in an intervention on Douglas Lumsden. I wanted to intervene on the cabinet secretary, too. She was not wrong in what she said about the cost of electricity. We have the most expensive electricity in the western developed world. How is our business base—our industrial base—expected to prosper? [Interruption.] I am being a bit loud, but if we cannot get excited about what is happening to our economy because of the arbitrary targets that have been set, what can we get excited about? The whole basis of our country—our economy, our society and our public services—depends on our willingness to ensure that our economy is well founded and that it grows.
I am well over time. Am I being told that I must close?
You should begin to wind up.
I will—[Interruption.] That is a separate matter.
I will finish by saying that the Scottish Conservatives are not in climate denial, as Keith Brown suggested. We are calling for responsible government. Scotland accounts for a tiny fraction of global emissions. We will not change the global climate by hollowing out our industrial base, but we will make ourselves poorer, more dependent and less secure. Energy policy is not simply an environmental issue. It is about national resilience, economic strength and security of supply, and we need a reset.
16:18
How do I follow that?
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s report on “Scotland’s Draft Climate Change Plan: 2026-2040”. I thank the committee and its clerks. We are in a defining decade in our fight against climate change, and the report serves as a critical friend as we engage in that fight.
I think that we are also in a defining period politically. In a few months, we could have a Parliament in which there are 15 to 20 Reform MSPs—that is what the polls are showing us—and I have been at hustings with Reform candidates who flatly deny climate change. Kemi Badenoch has not been particularly supportive of the challenge against net zero. The Tories and Reform are hand in hand.
Scotland has set an ambitious target for net zero emissions by 2045. We have all heard that the draft climate change plan outlines policies across sectors such as transport, energy, waste, agriculture and buildings to meet our carbon budgets over the next 15 years. However, ambition alone is not enough; we need delivery. That is important, and I will come on to talk about that.
As we all know, the Scottish Parliament undertook a 120-day review, with our Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee leading the charge. It examined the plan’s governance, monitoring and fiscal aspects, which are important, and we have heard from other committees today. What emerged and what is important is a clear consensus that Scotland needs to regain momentum in our net zero journey. I will touch on the impact of that and why we have not progressed as quickly as we should.
At its core, the report talks about how the final climate change plan will have to prioritise delivery. Concrete policies must be backed by clear targets, timelines, assigned leadership and, where possible, costings. This is not just about Government policies. As we have heard, local authorities and communities have a role, and I will touch on that later in my speech. A robust monitoring system is essential to track progress and flag risks early. We cannot get to two or three years down the line and realise where we are. We must be able to do that monitoring on an annual basis.
The draft plan talks about electrification across the economy, but that brings challenges such as ensuring affordable electricity through collaboration with the UK Government. A number of months ago, I brought the National Energy System Operator to the Parliament, and a number of MSPs went along and spoke at that event. Grid capacity is essential, but we need close collaboration with the UK Government. I come from down in East Lothian, where the eastern green link is being built to export energy down to England. There must be closer collaboration with the UK Government on grid capacity, and I know that the cabinet secretary has been talking about that.
Dependencies on external actors, from Westminster to private industry, heighten risks, as do ambitious assumptions around rapid electric vehicle adoption, which we have had debates about. Ariane Burgess spoke about home heat decarbonisation and emissions technologies.
I turn to other key sectors that are under our remit. In energy supply, the Government’s plan for renewables and grid upgrades is positive, but we all need to do more to scale up. That comes back to how serious the UK Government is about that point, and I know that the cabinet secretary has been dealing with that. The UK Government was behind the curve for a number of years and is now catching up, but that has had an impact on our ability to grow the renewables sector. The UK Government needs to pick up the pace and move more quickly on that.
We need clearer pathways to decarbonise energy from waste. I have an energy from waste plant in my constituency and I met representatives of Viridor to discuss that point. Emissions projections in that area are key as we move forward.
I do not doubt Paul McLennan’s commitment to green and clean energy sources, but why does he not accept what the European Union now accepts, which is that nuclear is a clean energy source and that we should be investing in it for our energy and national security?
As the member knows, I have a nuclear power station in my constituency. When it comes down to it, there are a number of reasons why we are going forward with renewables. The strike price is considerably cheaper. We might continue to disagree and debate that, but it is cheaper to deliver renewables.
I have the strike prices here. Hinkley Point’s strike price is £92.50 per megawatt hour. For onshore wind, the figure is £64 and for solar power it is £61. [Interruption.]
Before I ask Paul McLennan to resume, could members resist the temptation to shout out rather than asking for an intervention?
I thank the cabinet secretary for that important point. It is all about how much cheaper prices are for consumers. One third of people in Scotland are in fuel poverty, so how we tackle climate change is incredibly important.
Will the member give way?
I want to move on from that, Mr Kerr.
Transport is a major emitter. The draft plan talks about modal shifts and encourages walking, cycling, the use of public transport and a reduction in dependency on cars. We have spoken about incentives such as free bus travel for under-22s and investment in active travel infrastructure.
Walking is key. Members will know that I have done lots of walking since I had my little health scare and have seen the benefits of that. We heard from Walking Scotland about the ambition for a £50 million path fund. That is being discussed and it is something that I support and that I encourage the Government to look at. We must encourage walking and cycling for health, leisure and work and we must support active travel hubs.
We have spoken about the issue of car mileage and use, which is something that we need to look at. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop, spoke about that. Bus passenger numbers have dropped since the Covid pandemic, and the Scottish Government has looked at incentives to get people back on to buses, such as free bus travel for the under-22s and a cap on bus fares.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am conscious of the time.
I can give you the time back.
It is difficult for young and older people to use their bus passes, because we have lost hundreds of bus routes. East Lothian, West Lothian, Midlothian and Edinburgh have Lothian Buses, but other parts of the country have no bus services, which is a real challenge. Does the member agree that the final plan should include support for new bus services?
That is really important. I know that East Lothian Council gives about £1 million a year to support bus routes. There is a bus route development grant, and the Government has worked with local and national bus companies. It is really important to encourage that.
Freight decarbonisation is key, and 80 per cent of operators are small businesses, so the way that we work with them is really important.
There must be more measures to deter car use, including demand management, multiyear funding and integrated ticketing. I come back to what was said about rural access to public transport, which is important.
On waste, the draft circular economy strategy is important. We need tighter timelines for reductions in emissions from landfills and incineration. Again, I speak from a local perspective on that.
I have spoken previously about the work of the East Lothian Climate Hub. Climate and environmental change impact us all. The issues of increasing flooding, food availability, the livelihoods of farmers and access to green spaces affect everyone in East Lothian. The East Lothian Climate Hub has done fantastic work with local communities. I remember talking to the cabinet secretary about the fact that embedding the plan means embedding it in our local communities, and the climate hub has done amazing work in that regard. I spent time with it last Friday restoring hedgerows in Tranent, believe it or not. I found that very therapeutic, and it had an important impact.
Edward Mountain put it well when he said:
“The Plan must be focused on delivery, with credible proposals and clear lines of accountability”.
Everyone agrees with that. He said that getting it right means listening to industry, NGOs, experts and Parliament, and other committees said the same.
Electricity pricing reform is vital as we move forward. That is one of the issues that we have spoken about. Scotland does not have the powers to take that forward. Prices are set in the UK Parliament, but we need those powers here in Scotland.
The report is not a critique; it is a road map to success. We must all seize the moment to rebuild momentum, foster collaboration and secure a sustainable future for Scotland. Net zero is not optional; it is our legacy, and we can deliver it together.
16:28
I welcome the draft climate change plan. However, what has not been said enough today is that, if we are to deliver the change that is required, we must have complete and utter co-operation from the UK Government, because that cannot be done with the powers of this Parliament or this Government alone.
I welcome the fact that this Parliament has set world-leading emissions targets, but targets are not results. We must move from what we would like to see happen to how we are going to make that happen, and that “how” is fundamentally economic. Rules, regulations and well-meaning soundbites are pointless unless the people of Scotland see a positive change in their lives and, most important, positivity in their pouches and their purses. To put it bluntly, what we need to do to ensure that we meet our climate change targets in Scotland is entirely dependent on lowering electricity bills, in my opinion. If we want people to switch to heat pumps and electric vehicles, the numbers must work for the person in the street.
Currently, the numbers are not working. Scots are seeing their bills go up rather than down, and the central reason for that is that the energy market is fundamentally flawed. We have the absurd situation where the cost of clean, green electricity that is generated right here in Scotland is based on the price of imported international gas. That marginal pricing system is a relic of the past. We need to remove the tie to natural gas prices. The previous Conservative Government failed to do that, and the current Labour Government seems unwilling to do it. However, it is nonsense to ask Scottish families to decarbonise their lives while charging them a premium that is dictated by the volatility of global fossil fuel markets. We just have to look at yet another American war in the middle east to see the folly of that.
However, we also need to be honest about the role of hydrocarbons in our future electricity generation.
I would like to read something to Kevin Stewart very quickly and ask him whether he agrees with it.
“Evidence repeatedly pointed to electricity prices that are materially higher than those faced by overseas competitors, driven in large part by policy, regulatory and system costs, rather than generation costs alone.”
Does he agree with that? Does it not indicate that we are more responsible than the market for the direction of electricity prices?
The UK Government is responsible. One of the main difficulties, and one of the reasons why we have the highest electricity prices in Europe, is the flawed situation where we tie electricity costs to the price of international gas. It is absolutely daft. The Tories should have got rid of that system, and the Labour Party should get rid of it. For us to get this right and make it right for Scots, who are being overcharged to a huge degree for electricity, that tie needs to be cut once and for all.
As I was saying, there is a role for hydrocarbons in our future electricity generation. It is a simple fact that the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. Because of that, our electricity network must have the capacity to power our homes without renewables for up to 10 days at a time. Battery storage will be part of that solution and I hope that hydrogen will be part of it, too. However, there has to be a sense of reality here. We need back-up, so natural gas will remain vital for many decades to come.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not just now, thank you.
That does not mean that we cannot reduce the climate impact of using that natural gas. I give members project Acorn. We need to invest in that, no matter what some of the sceptics in the Parliament say. It is environmental barbarism to halt our production only to import gas from the war-torn middle east or Trump’s America. The carbon dioxide footprint of shipping liquefied natural gas across the Atlantic is obscene. We should also use locally-sourced hydrocarbons to reduce emissions from our energy production.
However, unit marginal pricing is not the only problem. Transmission charges and regional pricing also need to change, because we have the equally absurd situation where the price of clean, green electricity that is generated right here in Scotland is based on the cost of sending that energy to London. The current transmission charging system charges people in Scotland more and people in London less to encourage energy production near the energy demand in London.
I agree that we should be using our own hydrocarbons rather than relying on imported oil and gas. Does he disagree with his party’s stance against Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields, which would provide hydrocarbons that we can use in this country?
It is not up to the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament to give the go-ahead for Rosebank, Cambo or anywhere else; that is a matter for the UK Government. We have said that the impact on the environment and on energy security has to be considered, and we are not the only ones who have said that. The UK courts have said that the UK Government has to do that, too. I suggest that the UK Government—because, unfortunately, it is in charge at the moment—needs to put together environmental impact assessments and energy security strategies to get that right. I am not against new fields, but we need to consider the reasoning. If those works were carried out, they would show whether there is a need for future development. Anyway, forget about new fields—we should be drilling in existing areas, as the Norwegians are doing. That is another thing that the UK Government is failing to do.
I was speaking about transmission charges. They must be changed to reflect the cost of local production alongside regional pricing, which would allow the free market to bring energy-intensive industries back to Scotland. Not only would that revitalise the Scottish economy and lower bills, but it would eliminate the vast carbon dioxide footprint of transporting electricity from Scotland to England.
Finally, we must address the elephant in the room: our housing stock. Tenements make up only 2 per cent of the UK’s housing, but in Scotland they represent 25 per cent. In the centre of Aberdeen, which is in my constituency, well over half of the homes are tenements. Whitehall and the Climate Change Committee think that tenements are the last 2 per cent to be solved, but in Scotland, tenements must be one of the first problems that we solve. If we cannot decarbonise the tenements in our cities, we will not meet our targets—it is as simple as that. We simply cannot wait for a one-size-fits-all UK solution that ignores the reality of Scottish cities. Lower electricity prices will help us to do that decarbonisation.
Again, I welcome the fact that the Parliament has set world-leading climate emissions targets, but targets are not results. Results will be seen only if we can reduce electricity prices dramatically, which I think we can do and would do if we were an independent nation.
16:38
The draft climate change plan was developed around the principle of decarbonising our society and economy to meet Scotland’s net zero goals. Although the plan is a welcome and crucial step to decarbonising our economy, there remains a real risk that Government and business will continue to take decisions in the name of climate action without the inclusion of workers and their unions.
So far, ordinary Scots have been disempowered from taking ownership of Scotland’s energy transition, and they have been paying the price through job losses and the knock-on effects on our high streets, family life and mental health.
Like many communities across the country, Dundee, where I live, bears the scars of Thatcher’s de-industrialisation of Scotland. Further north in my region, Aberdeen runs the risk of bearing the same social and economic issues that resulted from Thatcher’s legacy should we continue to fail to get the energy transition right. Any transition that fails to reckon with the concentrated hoarding of wealth, land and resources cannot ever be just.
The choice before us is business as usual or seize the opportunity of clean energy.
The Just Transition Commission’s final report is clear about the necessity of an accelerated timescale in the delivery of climate action. It is clear that a just transition can be achieved only through our workplaces, organised labour and trade unions. If we do not treat the climate crisis with the urgency that it demands, we run the risk of falling prey to the whims of the market, which can only benefit big business and its shareholders. We must therefore address the issues raised by the Just Transition Commission to enable a clear understanding of where climate action laid out in the draft climate change plan should be taking us.
The Just Transition Commission’s report—[Interruption.]—makes a number of recommendations for the Scottish Government. It highlights the need for proactive, forward-thinking, place-based planning for workplaces and communities that are heavily entwined with high-polluting sectors, namely energy, transport, industry and agriculture.
Will the member give way?
That will require innovative redistributive plans for how we decarbonise and transition, along with transformative workforce planning, which means that workers and families will benefit from the just transition. We must be steadfast in our opposition to decarbonisation by deindustrialisation, which would have just as disastrous an effect as the status quo.
I echo the recommendation in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s report that the Scottish Government’s climate change plan should include clear timelines, targets and costings, and be clear about who is responsible for delivery. In particular, no Government should shy away from the report’s point that the inclusion of data and workings is crucial for scrutiny. However, given how soon the plan is to be finalised after the publication of the committee’s report on the draft, I agree with the committee’s scepticism about the likelihood that its recommendations will be reflected on by the Government and incorporated into the final climate change plan.
I want to take a moment to respond to an issue that Kevin Stewart, in particular, has raised repeatedly. He does his constituents a great injustice and disservice by propagating the myth put around by international oil conglomerates that seek to blame fair taxation on eye-watering profits for what is in fact their own mismanagement of the industry: an industry that should never have been allowed to fall into private hands, because energy is an issue—[Interruption.]—of national security that is fundamental to our economy. I agree with Mr Stewart that we must stop our reliance on importing gas. However, the solution is not endless drilling, because what is there is not actually what we need, and it is gone—[Interruption.]. The real solution—the only solution—is to pivot to a mix of renewable options, and that includes the untapped potential of geothermal, among other renewable options that members have raised. Sarah Boyack spoke passionately about solar, and we already have the option of wind and tidal.
Over the course of this parliamentary session, decisions about the energy transition have, too often, been taken at great distance—[Interruption.]—from the workers and communities at the heart of it, particularly those in the North East Scotland region that I represent. We cannot allow a just transition to remain an academic term used to greenwash industrial vandalism by an irresponsible state that is content to let the market decide our future. Instead, a just transition must represent something tangible in workers’ lives, through the jobs that it brings, the regeneration of our environment that we will see and the gains in our health and quality of life that we will feel. That will be the job of the next Parliament and the next Government, but it is also the job of all of us in Scotland to hold that Parliament and that Government to account.
Just a reminder: it is up to the member whether they take an intervention. That is not an invitation for the intervention to be shouted from a sedentary position.
16:44
It has been quite an afternoon, hasn’t it?
Irrespective of people’s views, the draft climate change plan reflects a substantial piece of work by the Scottish Government and its officials, and I thank them for that. I also thank my colleagues, of all parties, on the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for their thoughtful scrutiny. I thought that we did that very well. Of course, I also give thanks to all those who supported our work, including clerks, advisers, witnesses and other committees in this place.
In our consideration of the plan, we must seek to offer constructive scrutiny and—believe it or not—take a collegiate approach to working together on a strategic document that aims to make long-term progress and secure delivery on the ground. Members might be forgiven for thinking that that ambition was not in evidence this afternoon.
This is Scotland’s climate change plan, not the Scottish Government’s. It requires buy-in and strategic partnership at all levels of government as well as from our business community, our private, public and third sectors and our communities right across Scotland. After watching the debate this afternoon, I think that some people have opted out of engaging with the debate. We need people—including me—to opt in and make the lifestyle changes that we all need to see. We will have to bear that in mind when we discuss the issue in the future.
If ever there was an issue on which we should see non-tribal work between the Scottish and UK Governments, this is it. Without successful delivery of Scotland’s climate change plan, the UK plan has no chance of success. It is fair to say that the cabinet secretary indicated that relations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government have improved in recent times, but, in appropriately diplomatic language, he hinted that there is perhaps still a wee bit of room for improvement—let us just say that there is still work to be done more generally. I apportion no blame in that regard. I say to Stephen Kerr that I will not do so during this debate, at least. However, that partnership has to be as close to rock solid as it ever can be between two Governments from two different parties in two different places. That is vital.
The switch to electric vehicles is a good example of why that has to be so. The draft plan includes phasing out new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030 and ensuring that all road vehicles produce zero emissions by 2040. The success of that approach in Scotland will be dependent on having a stable UK policy landscape, including zero-emission vehicle mandates that dictate the percentage of cars and vans that are zero-emission vehicles between now and 2035. It will also depend on the UK’s vehicle emissions trading scheme for manufacturers being successful. However, investment from the Scottish Government, our local authorities, the private sector and households will be required in order to ensure that the charging infrastructure is in place. The Scottish Government has already invested £30 million to support the expansion of public electric vehicle charging networks, which should deliver 24,000 additional charging points by 2030. Thankfully, the up-front costs of new electric cars continue to fall, and I hope that they will reach parity over the next few years. Importantly, the resale market is increasingly strong, and price parity is likely to be approached much sooner than that.
Regarding electric vehicles, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee stated that there are still challenges around up-front affordability, the cost of charging and the significant inequalities that exist in that regard. We asked that the final plan set out how the Scottish Government intends to work with the UK Government and relevant stakeholders to overcome those barriers. For me, that means partnership working between both Governments to ensure that capital budgets for this place can continue to be used to expand the public network and to help to fund households and communities that, due to their house types, cannot simply have an EV charging point in their driveway. On-street solutions for tenement and other properties will be required. Price capping of commercial EV charging regimes may also need to be considered. It would be unfair if any households, but low-income households in particular, had to pay a premium to charge their vehicles because the fact that they did not have a driveway meant that they had to pay a commercial rate. That would not be acceptable, but that policy intervention will have to take place at a UK level.
I agree with Kevin Stewart’s comments about the challenges of decarbonising tenement properties in a fair way. In my constituency, many low-income households will struggle to play their part as householders. They will need support and investment, and all levels of government will have to contribute to that.
What about the bill you just scrapped?
Would the member like to make an intervention?
All that I was going to say is that what those people need is the bill that the Scottish Government has just scrapped.
My constituents need the draft bill that has been published to be delivered in the next session of the Parliament. It needs buy-in from all parties, including the Green Party, rather than members making a churlish intervention like that.
I note that the Scottish Government has changed the target for reducing car mileage to 4 per cent by 2030, as opposed to the previous 20 per cent target. Clearly, that gives an added focus to the need to move to electric vehicles as speedily as possible. The change in the target also recognises the on-going need for cars, particularly in our rural areas. I say that as an urban MSP.
As an urban MSP, I would look to bus franchising to achieve the modal switch, which is not a cost-free option. The Strathclyde Partnership for Transport continues to bring forward a business model for it. There are also challenges with bus franchising. To achieve our net zero ambitions, do we need to get those who are using cars in urban areas out of their cars and on to buses, or will we need to prioritise low-income areas that have no bus services and no cars so that they can be better connected? There can be a conflict in that. We have to be clear about the policy intent of bus franchising, but it will need to be appropriately financially supported.
By nature of their geography, our rural areas will make a crucial contribution to net zero, whether that is through reforestation or peatland restoration. The Scottish Government has chosen an alternative balanced pathway to net zero from that of the Climate Change Committee and it has chosen not to reduce livestock numbers, as was suggested by the committee. That seems to be for good reason. However, that means that peatland restoration and reforestation must do more heavy lifting if we are to secure net zero. The plan does that in a fashion, because reforestation and peatland restoration do not scale up under the Scottish Government’s plan. New modelling work and new research show that the contribution that tree planting and peatland restoration make is far more significant than was previously thought. In that respect, I reference the industry standard for carbon sequestration in forestry, as well as the latest research from the James Hutton Institute on peatland restoration.
I mention that because it is the latest modelling and research work, but the modelling and research sometimes change. The Climate Change Committee asked clearly what plan B and the alternatives would be if those things changed and our ambitions were not fully realised.
Do I have another minute or so, Presiding Officer?
No, you do not.
My goodness! Mr Kerr gets a lot of airtime, doesn’t he, Presiding Officer?
As do other colleagues, Mr Doris.
More generally, by definition, all climate change plans are out of date almost as soon as they are written, because the policy landscape changes and public budgets, technologies and modelling all change. The climate change plan has to be iterative, but it also has to be delivered through the budget. In the next session of the Parliament, if I am lucky enough to be returned, I will want to see a much clearer link between the strategy and the budget that is delivered. I will also want to see more collegiate working to get the budget agreed on a cross-party basis in the Parliament.
We move to closing speeches. I advise the chamber that we have a little time in hand, but resources of generosity have been vastly depleted at this stage.
16:53
I start by acknowledging that there has been a failure of process. As a result of the timescale that the Scottish Government decided on, not enough time has been left for committee scrutiny to be done to the standard that committees would wish. The UK’s Climate Change Committee was not willing or able to appear before committees to give evidence. As it stands, we have the committee’s report and the CCC’s report in the final days of the parliamentary term and there is very little time for the Government to change the draft climate change plan in response to the debate.
Part of the failure of process is entirely within the Parliament’s control. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 says that the Government must respond to resolutions, as well as to reports, by the Parliament within three months. Indeed, the only resolution that we have allowed ourselves to vote on is a completely standard “take note” motion at decision time. There is no substance and there is no message for the Government within the resolution. It is a failure of the Parliament’s process as well as the Government’s process. We also have to acknowledge that there has been a failure of progress, and there are other past failures that we need to reflect on.
When I think back to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, I remember all the self-congratulation about target setting and the emphasis on consensus and how important that was. However, even as we debated the issues back in 2008 and 2009, I expressed the concern that we had consensus on the destination only and not on the route. We had consensus on the targets but not on the actions that would be needed—and so it proved. There was a failure to take the bold action that was necessary to cut emissions across many sectors. That is the reason why the 2030 target slipped out of reach. That is where we stand now as we approach the halfway point.
Next year marks the halfway point between the first climate act, in 2009, and the net zero target of 2045. In the first half of that journey, there has been only one solid success story: the growth of renewable electricity, which has been welcomed by most and opposed by a few—and that is still the case. Across the other sectors of the economy—transport, land use, buildings and more—emissions have flatlined or worse. That is the reason why Scotland is now years behind where we should be in tackling the climate emergency. My concern now is that, with the draft plan as it stands, the second half of the journey could fail just as the first half did.
Looking at the draft plan, it seems that we are setting Scotland up for future failure. The overreliance on negative emissions technology, which Mark Ruskell highlighted, is perhaps the biggest risk factor in the plan. It was always a risk, but, with the very obvious and all-too-predictable failures in the development of the technology, the risk is turning into a 12-megatonne hole in the Scottish Government’s plans. As Mark Ruskell argued, it is a massive gamble, and it is accompanied by a proposal for a new fossil fuel power plant, which is an absurdity when we are years behind schedule on cutting emissions.
On transport, there is a narrow emphasis on EVs. They have a role to play, of course, but replacing a fossil fuel car-dominated transport system with an electric car-dominated transport system will be both a failure and a missed opportunity to create a safer, healthier and fairer Scotland, which can be achieved through demand reduction and a shift to cheap, reliable public transport and safe active travel. The levels of road traffic reduction that are now being proposed are far lower than the ambition that previously existed, but, without a proper plan for modal shift and demand management, even those very low targets might be missed.
Will Patrick Harvie give way?
I am afraid that I cannot, given the time that I have.
I can understand why the Government chose to reject the advice on agriculture in the face of opportunistic opposition by those who were determined to misrepresent the issues. However, in truth, it was another missed opportunity—a missed opportunity to invest in a new and better food system and a new and better sustainable future for rural communities.
The Government has been commended for its previous heat in buildings programme, but that has been filleted. The proposed heat in buildings bill that was produced has been delayed until the next parliamentary session, with the contents stripped out of it. The Government has not only delayed and weakened the bill but allowed the number of homes supported by Scottish Government-funded programmes to absolutely fall off a cliff in the past couple of years.
There is simply no route to net zero without an ambitious programme to get Scotland off fossil fuels. If we did not understand the wider benefits of doing that before, the current spike in oil and gas prices caused by yet another illegal war should make it abundantly clear.
Many people talk about a high electricity price as an excuse. A high electricity price is a political choice, and it would be made much worse with the wildly expensive option of nuclear energy. Renewable electricity is the cheapest to generate, and it is only the increasingly perverse UK Government regulation of energy prices that fails to pass on that low price to bill payers.
Those who are concerned about the cost rarely acknowledge the cost of inaction. In the past weeks, we have finally seen the UK Government’s national security assessment of ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss. Never mind the long-term catastrophic risks; the assessment shows that, even in the short term, ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss could cost 12 per cent of gross domestic product as soon as 2030.
Even the previous partial consensus has now broken down, and, although most of the public still want climate action, the parties on the right have given up on any credible climate policy and talk of repealing the legislation. They have spent half their time in today’s debate demanding more fossil fuels. That is supported even by some in the SNP who are apparently unaware that the approval of Rosebank was already thrown out of court because its emissions would have been dramatically higher than was previously acknowledged.
The Government must significantly strengthen the draft climate change plan and it must be put under consistent pressure in the next parliamentary session to act with ambition. The political right cannot be trusted to bring that pressure—it will do the opposite. If the Government feels that it is under pressure only from those who want to drop climate action and water down policy, it will continue to drift. That is why it must be under pressure from a strong voice in Parliament calling for climate action and showing how it can build a fairer, more equal and healthier Scotland. The Scottish Greens will be that voice.
17:00
As we close the debate, it is clear that the climate change plan must contain ambition, but that it also needs to be delivered. I got that message across our committees: where we can find agreement across the parties, it is agreement that we need action.
The fact that we are debating the plan at the end of the session is a great pity, because a lot of the people who have debated it are leaving Parliament. There urgently needs to be a recommendation for the next Parliament to debate the final plan and talk about how it can be implemented.
Nine out of our 13 annual targets were missed. That is not just a failure of targets—it is a warning that we need to do better. Lessons need to be learned, because as 2030 approaches, the window for action is narrowing. We have to start moving at speed and take full accountability for missed targets and delayed policies.
The Scottish Government needs to be held to account for delivery. For example—I am surprised that nobody has mentioned this yet, but maybe it will be in Douglas Lumsden’s final speech—
It will be me this time.
Sorry—it will not be from that member, then.
The draft energy strategy was published in January 2023, and we are still waiting for the final version. Just last month, the Just Transition Commission published its report, “No Time to Lose”. It tells us that we need to be working together and to be making the maximum use of the powers that the Scottish Government has. Mark Ruskell made that point, and I totally agree with it.
The report also says that we need a place-based approach for every community. That means that communities and local authorities must have the capacity and the support to deliver in practice. We also need clarity so that sectors can invest, businesses can plan and workers can prepare for the future.
The financial aspects of the climate change plan reveal one of the most concerning gaps. Committees are always told that financial space is very tight, but we need to ensure that there are actual plans and incentives and that every policy has a fully costed financial plan behind it. We need to see that in the final plan.
We also need better monitoring and evaluation. The Climate Change Committee has been explicit that the final plan must include a complete monitoring and evaluation framework with annual sectoral pathways and indicators of progress. That needs to be monitored not just by one committee of this Parliament but by a range of committees, because one committee will never be responsible for everything that is in the climate change plan—everyone must be involved in it.
We also need joined-up thinking and action. When it comes to transport, there are huge opportunities for electrifying rail, cars, buses and other vehicles. We also have opportunities around heat. We need to think through the local supply chains. That need for joined-up action has been referred to in different ways.
We need to think about how we can better use our power near to where it is produced. That is a huge opportunity. It was interesting to hear Paul McLennan’s speech, as a big discussion is happening in the Lothians about the potential for the Berwick Bank wind farm to bring in lots of new electricity. Why do we not use that where it is produced? Why do we not establish heat networks both to use that electricity and as a storage process? We need joined-up thinking.
I mentioned solar energy in my opening comments. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Edinburgh Community Solar Co-operative. I have seen the impact that it has had on buildings that are owned by the City of Edinburgh Council but into which the council has not had to put any investment, because that was done by the co-operative, and it has made money. We should be doing that everywhere, but on a local basis.
I also used to work with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations—again, I declare an interest—where I saw the benefits of solar heat and solar power. We always talk about solar power, but the technology can be used to heat water in our homes. We need a joined-up approach.
We have done a lot with new housing. Patrick Harvie referred to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Following negotiation with the Deputy First Minister, I sneaked into that act an amendment that all new homes had to have some form of renewables. That has happened and there was constructive work with the building sector. A lot of it is solar but it is not exclusively so.
However, we are not seeing work to decarbonise existing homes and buildings. Kevin Stewart and Bob Doris made points about this. Tenements are critical. In the next session of the Parliament, we need more than a nice-to-have on tenements. We need to think about how we improve the quality of tenements and consider the opportunities for affordable heating—that means heating that people can afford to have on. We did not talk about it, but there are social justice and health issues with heating: an older person needs to have their home at 19°C at least and, if a person has a disability, that is something that they urgently need to be addressed.
There is a lot of work that can be done. I talk about the local issue. Members should think of the local jobs and supply chains if we have a programme and a plan to heat our homes effectively and affordably. We have the warm homes plan in the UK, so let us learn from that.
I will wind-up my speech. We need to make the plan an opportunity. We need joined-up thinking across Government and we need to ensure that, in the next session, the climate change plan is not just a job for one of the Cabinet members but a job for every member of the Government. If we do not take that approach, it will mean massive missed opportunities and social challenges in tackling the impact of the climate emergency on Scotland. Let us get on with it and have a proper discussion early doors.
I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has been listening not just today but for the past however many weeks and months because there are big opportunities and we need to seize them together.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.
Previous
Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill