Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 7, 2009

Official Report 780KB pdf

---

Climate Change (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Resumed debate.

For the sake of people in the public gallery, I should explain that the next item of business is a continuation of yesterdays debate on motion S3M-3963, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, on the general principles of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. Speeches should be no longer than six minutes. I will allow a couple of seconds for the ministers to change places.

If he is ready, I call Jim Mather. You have six minutes.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I have just passed the manual dexterity test.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on day 2 of the stage 1 debate on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. Clearly, the bill is a flagship piece of legislation for the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and Scotland itself. Therefore, I welcome Labours absolute support for our strengthening of the interim 2020 target. I am also encouraged by the evident consensus in Parliament that our emissions reduction target of 80 per cent is right. Liam McArthur acknowledged that the bills central objective is "bold" and "ambitious" and Alex Johnstone recognised that the target is "appropriate and ambitious".

Our aim is to deliver world-leading legislation on climate change—which is of global importance—at a crucial time as we all work towards what we hope will be an ambitious new international agreement on climate change in Copenhagen in December this year. All along, our intention has been that Scotland should act as a model of international good practice in order to influence decisive world action. We are committed to acting in co-operation with the United Kingdom Government, with which we are already working on the delivery of European Union commitments.

With Scotlands wide and material array of natural resources, we are well placed to respond to climate change. As a result, we can deliver a solid and persuasive plan of action to follow on from the self-evident political commitment. In so doing, the foundation of our response to climate change and to the challenge that it presents is our energy policy. As I have said, Scotland has vast potential in renewable energy. Onshore wind power is an established green energy technology, and offshore wind is rapidly opening up huge new opportunities. The emerging wave and tidal marine power technologies are also attracting great new interest. That is being augmented by the saltire prize, which we are working on with the National Geographic Society.

Marine energy obviously presents many technical engineering challenges, but Scotlands history of North Sea exploration puts us in a good position to develop the required expertise to meet those challenges. We have comprehensively done that in North Sea exploration, which is proven by our exporting of those skills around the globe. Our blend of track record, natural resources, expertise and commitment reinforces the belief that Scotland can be the green energy capital of Europe. Given that we have a quarter of Europes renewable energy potential, there is no doubt that Scotland will always be on the global energy map. We already enjoy that status, as we are well on the way to achieving our target of meeting 50 per cent of our electricity demand from renewable sources by 2020.

Given what the minister has said about renewable energy, does he agree with the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committees recommendation that the Government should provide us with more detail on the emissions cuts that are expected in electricity generation and three other key sectors? What can he say in response to that recommendation?

The delivery plan will provide that additional detail. I expect it to evolve along the lines that Patrick Harvie suggests.

Our status and standing will be further established and enhanced as we do more, for example by encouraging the development of renewable heat. As the First Minister announced last week, Scotland is uniquely positioned in terms of geography, technology and ambition to become Europes leader in carbon capture and storage, which is the key technology for decarbonisation of emissions from fossil-fuel power generation and heavy industry. It is obvious that Scotland can be a world leader in the generation of clean, green energy.

The minister mentioned renewable heat. Does he think that section 51 of the bill, which deals with renewable heat, goes far enough to make Scotland lead the world in that area, or could the Government go a bit further?

There is always scope to improve, but I think that section 51 contributes to our being allowed to make the claim that we are world leading.

In addition to our work on carbon capture and storage, I am well aware that we must carry out work at the other end of the spectrum if we want to have the maximum impact and to continue to be a net exporter of low-carbon power. We need to tackle our domestic energy use, which we are doing through a range of actions on energy efficiency, including use of building standards and energy performance certificates, our support for the work of the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust, and our funding for a new area-based approach to energy efficiency.

All that emphasises that the climate change agenda is not just an issue of moral responsibility or just an environmental issue. The actions that we in Scotland take on climate change are inextricably linked to our economic aim of effectively managing the move to a low-carbon economy. We must ensure that that generates the economic impetus that we expect from a low-carbon future, and that it creates the green jobs that it is evident will be part of Scotlands national economic recovery. I look forward to further progress on that and other fronts as the bill progresses into law.

Yesterday, Sarah Boyack said that the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill is potentially the most important legislation that we will pass in the current session. The challenge is in how we will ensure that the bills outcomes are as significant in practice as its words will be on paper. That was the spirit in which I and other members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee approached our consideration of the sections of the bill that deal with energy efficiency and renewable heat. I am glad that we did so but, in my view, the bill falls short of expectations in a number of areas.

The first surprise comes in the opening provision on energy efficiency, which states:

"The Scottish Ministers must prepare and publish a plan for the promotion of energy efficiency in Scotland",

and stipulates that that plan

"must include provision about the promotion of the energy efficiency of living accommodation."

The surprise was that that form of words highlighted the promotion of energy efficiency, when ministers proposed to repeal section 179 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, which committed them to preparing

"a strategy for improving the energy efficiency of living accommodation."

On 4 March, we asked the minister why he proposed such a dilution of the existing provision. We did so in vain, although I am pleased to say that ministers have since then accepted the point and have indicated that they will support amendments at stage 2 to restore and, perhaps, to extend the existing provision, whereby they will have to produce an energy efficiency plan that is focused on outcomes as well as aspirations.

I hope that the minister will be able to tell us that the discussions between his officials and their Westminster counterparts, which he mentioned to the committee on 4 March, have not thrown up any fresh anxieties about what the Scottish ministers can and cannot do in respect of energy efficiency.

I believe that we and the Administration at Westminster have a common purpose. Our targets are part of the UK targets, so I am confident that we will be able to work together to ensure that we deliver. There is mutual interest at work.

I welcome that statement of intent, although it is not quite a response to my question about the discussions that the ministers officials have had; perhaps we will hear that in the winding-up speech.

The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee also recommended that ministers should include in the bill the setting of targets for energy efficiency. Unfortunately, that recommendation has not yet received a positive response. Of course, setting targets on its own does not deliver outcomes, but it stimulates activity, shows seriousness of intent and allows progress to be measured. The committee heard yesterday from Jeremy Sainsbury of Natural Power, who has been a member of the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland since its inception some five years ago. His evidence was very clear, and I suspect that it would be echoed throughout the renewable energy sector. Scotlands devolved Government, by setting ambitious targets from the beginning, sent a clear message that we wanted to see the renewable energy sector grow. The raft of proposed developments that are now coming through the system is a direct consequence of that proactive approach.

I hope that ministers will think again about taking the same approach to energy efficiency. A positive signal now, which other parties could support and industry could rely on, would stimulate confidence in the sector and help to maximise the contribution of energy efficiency to cutting carbon emissions.

The committee called on ministers to publish a full draft of their proposed energy efficiency action plan before stage 2 of the bill. Thus far, they have chosen not to do so, but have offered one of those circular arguments that are well suited to not doing very much. I quote from the ministerial response to the committee:

"Ministers could publish an action plan before the Climate Change Bill becomes an Act but this would not fulfil our requirements under the Act—Scottish Ministers would still have to produce and publish another action plan within 12 months."

That would be true, unless ministers were so bold as to amend the bill to allow themselves to introduce their energy efficiency action plan early. It seems that that is what committee members from all parties were calling on ministers to do.

The committee would like ministers to be ambitious in the promotion of renewable heat. Again, the first sight of section 51 was disappointing. It will require ministers to

"take such steps as they consider appropriate",

which is not a clear or demanding statutory obligation. It does not give great confidence that detailed plans are already in place.

However, ministers have now said that they will publish a renewable heat action plan this summer, following action at Westminster. That is welcome. They have set a target of 11 per cent of demand for heat in Scotland to come from renewable sources by 2020, which is less than the 14 per cent target elsewhere, but it is a start. I hope that there will be amendments to put more substance and more detailed targets in the bill.

The committee called for combined heat and power schemes to be part of the Governments plans on both energy efficiency and renewable heat. I am pleased to say that that has been agreed to and I look forward to seeing the substance of it. It is important that lessons that have been learned to date from the experience of CHP and district heating lead to action. The Climate Change (Scotland) Bill provides that opportunity.

When the committee visited Aberdeen Heat and Power Company in March, we heard about an important difference between Scotland and England in the assessment for rates liability of CHP schemes. In Scotland, the mains distribution pipes, the risers and the CHP building itself are charged business rates, but in England, they are not. The difference for a scheme such as the one at Stockethill in my constituency is some £18,000 a year, which is added to the cost of heat and power to the consumer. As, I am sure, we will hear this afternoon, local tax discounts to stimulate energy efficiency measures have huge potential but so, too, do business rates exemptions for stimulating CHP. I hope that ministers will consider that.

Overall, the recommendations of the range of committees, with cross-party support, provide a solid base for further improvements to the bill. I hope that more of those proposed changes are accepted at stage 2 and taken forward by ministers.

It is easy for us to ask what difference a small country like ours can make, but there is no doubt that we can make a difference. Climate change is complex, and there are natural cycles at work, too, but no one can doubt that we are polluting. That point was illustrated by the recent Stop Climate Chaos Coalition rally.

Green issues have always been at the heart of Liberal Democrat policy. In coalition, we made great strides on renewable energy. We invested about £100 million in renewables and support for energy efficiency—ahead of any other part of Britain or Ireland—and we have provided support for more than 600 small renewables and microrenewables projects. Lib Dems have delivered record recycling rates, which have trebled under our governance, and we have a proven track record in delivering green policies. We know what is achievable.

As a continuation of the good work, we support the bills headline target of an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050. However, two important points arise. First, the Government has so far offered no precise details on how it will achieve that reduction. Work to tackle climate change must begin now. Many members have spoken about the Stern report, which emphasises the importance of speedy action. That important point is also made in the report of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. It is a point that my party has been making for many months.

I absolutely accept that the previous Administration worked on tackling climate change. It will be important that we build on that work, rather than start anew, and that we keep going until 2050.

Yes. As I said, this is "a continuation of the good work".

The second point to arise is that, as my colleagues have said repeatedly, what we need to see from the Scottish Government now are clearly defined and detailed plans on how it will tackle climate change—plans that will take forward the targets that are set in the bill. We believe that the interim target could be brought forward from 2030 to 2020.

I welcome todays debate—and, of course, yesterdays—and the committee report, which echoes much of what my party has been saying for some time. However, I could not take part in the debate without talking a little bit about forestry and land use. First, the leasing proposal threatened the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. Those are not my words—they were the words of RSPB Scotland and the like. The proposal has been dropped after there was overpowering opposition to it, but the powers that will enable ministers to change the functions of forestry commissioners remain in section 47. I will lodge an amendment at a later stage if the Government does not address that issue.

Secondly, according to the then minister, we are now left with the prospect of a huge funding gap for climate change measures such as tree planting. The lease option was supposed to raise a one-off £200 million. We were told by the minister that

"by dropping the leasing proposal, we face a short-term funding problem for woodland creation for up to five years."

However, the Scotland rural development programme figures that were released last week—and with which Mr Lochhead agreed, just about 20 minutes ago—directly contradict that statement. We can now see that there is "ample headroom" for forestry under rural priorities funding. I hope that it was a miscalculation on the ministers part, rather than a misrepresentation. Clarification would be welcome.

We know that tree planting has a role to play in acting as a carbon sink, although there is still debate about how significant a role it can play. Tree planting has to be done in a balanced way, taking other land uses into consideration and not displacing existing and commercially viable activities. Tree planting can be only a part of the solution. There is no point in planting up hundreds of acres of land if nothing is done to address renewable energies or our energy consumption; and there is no point in planting without considering other land use and without considering soil types. Planting in peat-based soils releases a large amount of carbon, and it can take 30 years of tree growth to negate that release.

We need an integrated land use strategy that will take into account all types of land use—from commercial and agricultural, through to leisure and environmental. The recent forestry debates have highlighted the fact that forestry is a lot more than just wood production or a carbon sink.

My concern with the bill as it stands is the lack of detail on management of Scotlands land. The forestry sector has been acknowledged in the bill, but ministers have so far failed to provide direction for Scotlands major land user, which is agriculture—of course, I declare an interest in that respect. If the Scottish Government is determined to tackle climate change, it can ill afford to mismanage one of our most important resources. We all await the results of the rural land use study towards the end of this year, but what will come of the study, and will the Government be in a position to formulate a proper strategy on its conclusion?

This bill is welcome. I hope that ministers will heed the committees recommendations, and I also hope that a sensible land use strategy will be produced sooner rather than later. It would, of course, go hand in hand with the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.

The Scottish Governments proposed actions to tackle climate change are both bold and essential—and rather more clear-throated than I am. The urgency of the situation hardly needs to be stressed. We were presented with a graphic example of that urgency last month, when the ice bridge that pinned the Wilkins ice shelf to the land shattered, threatening the shelf itself. That shelf, which is almost half the size of Wales, is the 10th to break away or shrink to a fraction of its original size in the past 50 years.

Climate change has already wreaked havoc in Africa. A 2007 report states:

"The climate change threat is greater in Africa than many parts of the world. The changing weather patterns are already creating new complex emergencies where areas are simultaneously hit by droughts and floods, often accompanied by outbreaks of infectious diseases. Many communities are living through almost permanent disaster conditions."

It is a relief, therefore, that the new United States Administration is taking climate change seriously. Unfortunately, the previous US Administration, and far too many people in general, swallowed the myths of professional climate change deniers—people who were funded by the likes of ExxonMobil to lie and obfuscate. Only a year ago, according to The Guardian, ExxonMobil admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming. In its "2007 Corporate Citizenship Report", ExxonMobil said that it intended to cut funds to several groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy. So, ExxonMobil has publicly recanted; however, many of the myths that it has paid for live on, such as the one that volcanoes are a major cause of climate change. All such myths are easily debunked. I refer members to a handy website—www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/—in which they may be interested.

Far from being in thrall to the short-term vested interests of climate change deniers, the Scottish Government is, with its ambitious proposals, leading the world in tackling climate change. Scotland was ahead of the field in pushing for an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and has dragged the UK behind it. I welcome the commitment to a minimum annual reduction in emissions of 3 per cent from 2020, and I am pleased by the move from a 34 per cent reduction to a 42 per cent reduction by 2020 if the EU agrees to a 30 per cent reduction by that year.

Aviation is responsible for at least 3 per cent of the total man-made contribution to climate change, and shipping is responsible for 3.5 to 4 per cent. Both threaten to be increasingly important. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that the Scottish Government is including Scotlands share of emissions from international aviation and shipping in its greenhouse gas targets.

I will make a slight digression: shipping also contributes 18 to 30 per cent of the worlds nitrogen oxide pollution, 9 per cent of global sulphur oxide pollution and a significant amount of particulate matter, which are major contributors to asthma, heart disease and cancer. It is estimated that pollution from shipping causes 60,000 deaths a year in the US and 1,000 deaths a year in Denmark. The UK figure lies somewhere between the two.

There is talk of setting up low-emissions shipping zones. I encourage the Scottish Government to take an active interest in that and in the use of novel ship-propulsion methods such as solar power, fuel cells and high-tech kites, which could significantly reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. I am confident that the country that instituted the £10 million saltire prize could also innovate in shipping propulsion.

As far as aviation goes, I congratulate the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee on its suggestion that the Scottish Government should examine how to account for additional damage to the atmosphere that occurs when emissions take place at high altitude. I note the proposed measurement of fuel intake at our airports as an initial step in monitoring the impact of aviation. That has the advantage of being relatively straightforward but the disadvantage that flights with stopovers will count only the fuel that is used to fly to the stopover points and not the total fuel that is used in the flight from Scotland.

With regard not just to aviation but to other causes of climate change, I am of the opinion that there is great merit in individual carbon budgets—or, as discussed in the March/April issue of Resurgence magazine, "Tradable Energy Quotas". Time does not permit me to discuss TEQs in detail, but one of their many advantages is that they are redistributive: people who could afford air travel would have to buy TEQs from those who could not. Not only would such a scheme tackle climate change, with a reduced quota of TEQs being issued every year; it would also tackle local, regional and global inequality, which in themselves are major threats to health and wellbeing.

The Climate Change (Scotland) Bill is leading the way. I applaud those who have contributed to it: environmental groups, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and the Scottish Government, which is a responsible and responsive Government that has sought, listened to and acted on the best available advice. Let this be the start of Scotlands resurgence as a global leader. Let the words of Voltaire ring true once more:

"We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation."

Climate change could be an opportunity for Scotland rather than a malign threat; it could be a driver for truly sustainable development. We will be a greener country, of course, but we should also use climate change to become a fairer, healthier and wealthier, smarter, safer and stronger country. We could, and should, show other countries how to do that. Margaret Mead said:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Why not the citizens of Scotland?

Like my colleagues on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I welcome the Scottish Governments interim targets towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Achievement of the targets that are outlined in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill for investing in energy efficiency and renewable heat initiatives will depend on the Scottish Government being able to maintain a sustainable and highly skilled workforce in the environmental sector.

In February 2009, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth outlined his plans to create up to 16,000 green jobs over the next decade and claimed to be engaging with industry, skills providers and potential employers to deliver those opportunities. However, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has heard evidence from Northern Energy Developments and the Carbon Trust that there remain considerable skills shortages in renewable energy and in the basic energy efficiency sector. That has implications for potential employees, from those with level 2 Scottish vocational qualifications to those with degrees and postgraduate qualifications.

In my constituency of Kirkcaldy, the Adam Smith College has reported an anticipated shortfall in its ability to meet bursary commitments to its existing body of full-time students, which currently exceed £500,000. If the situation is not tackled, the Adam Smith College will have to make up for the shortfall from within its already strained budget, which will result in inevitable cuts.

I have used the example of my local college, but across Scotland the shortfall in bursary funding in the college sector is £4.1 million, which will impact on bridging the skills shortages in the renewable energy field. We have also heard that college applications have risen by between 30 and 40 per cent, and that some of those courses are already filled, which leaves no provision for school leavers who are awaiting their exam results. Addressing those skills gaps is a key part of realising renewable heat and energy efficiency targets. The Scottish Government must assess the employment implications of the plans that are outlined in the bill and work with employers and trade unions to maximise job opportunities and take a joined-up approach to the Governments skills agenda.

Further to the failings on skills, the target of reducing emissions from new buildings by 30 per cent is inconsistent with the ambitious target that was set by the Scottish Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050. Section 179 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 requires a strategy to improve energy efficiency, while the bill only outlines a plan to promote it, which makes the bill weaker than existing provisions for the domestic sector.

My constituency starts at Burntisland and finishes at Buckhaven. It is bounded along its length by the Firth of Forth, so I know only too well the impact that climate change is having on seawall structures. At the well-reported Adam Smith lecture in Kirkcaldy the other week, Kofi Annan made strong points about the impact of climate change on the poorest people in Africa, which other members have spoken about.

Buildings make up the single largest component of our carbon footprint, so if emissions from new buildings are not reduced effectively, the Government will not tackle climate change. The Government must explain the inconsistencies in the bill and say why it does not include requirements that would improve on Scottish planning policy 6. Evidence that was given to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee indicates that low-carbon and zero-carbon technologies will be essential to meet the revised energy targets.

Although the bill includes provisions on assessing the energy performance of existing non-domestic buildings in order to raise awareness of their contribution to greenhouse gases, the Scottish Government has failed to outline its intentions on the energy performance certification of domestic buildings.

The provisions in the bill will enable the Scottish ministers to create regulations to oblige building owners, responsible authorities and other bodies to improve the energy performance of non-domestic buildings. However, through the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, the Energy Saving Trust has called for the bill to include such provisions for the domestic building sector. That was also recommended by the committee but the Government has failed to take it into account.

It might be useful if I say that, through building regulations, we have a three-yearly programme of upgrading standards. To use that method is more appropriate than relying on a provision in a bill, which applies at a single point in time.

I take that point on board but, as a committee member, I am presenting to Parliament evidence that we heard from experts.

A programme is urgently needed to improve energy efficiency in the domestic sector by providing households with advice on, and financial support for, energy-saving measures and introducing a stricter standard for new housing. The Scottish Government must outline how it intends to proceed with energy performance certification of domestic buildings, in order to make a serious attempt to tackle climate change.

I support all the committees recommendations, which would, among other things, ensure a commitment to drive forward improvements in insulation and provide the opportunity to install small-scale renewables in houses and businesses throughout Scotland. That would be achieved if the Government were to accept the committees recommendations and the measures that are outlined in Sarah Boyacks members bill. I present those recommendations seriously and on the basis of the evidence that the committee took.

As ever, I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer in this important debate on climate change. I will quote Robert Burns, rather than Voltaire, who said:

"Facts are chiels that winna ding".

Today—and not before time—we must face the facts of climate change. Temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising, Arctic summer ice is disappearing and summer heat waves are increasing, as is the intensity of localised tropical storms. Essentially, that is being brought about by the greenhouse effect and the emission of greenhouse gases. We will all—individually and collectively—have to start to address the problem. That is why Conservatives welcome the bill.

However, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee have expressed concern that the bill creates only a framework when we should be producing a strategy with details of solutions and costings. The challenge is to produce such a budgeted strategy as soon as possible, to pull together into a coherent policy the diverse and competing demands of energy production, food production and economic and social development in the face of fast-moving climate change.

The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee dealt with part 5 of the bill, on which my colleague Nanette Milne spoke yesterday. It is fair to say that Conservatives believe that that part could be stronger and that its introduction could have been better managed. When she was the committees convener, the Minister for Environment condemned the fact that the consultation on forestry was not undertaken timeously. Perhaps that contributed to the Governments eventual withdrawal of its poorly thought-through leasing proposal. However, that is in the past, and lessons will be learned, but we must find out soon what further forestry proposals—if any—the Government will produce.

It is unquestionable that increased afforestation—perhaps funded by joint ventures—will reduce our carbon footprint, but only if trees are planted on land that is capable of food production. That is a key point. Planting on peat soils appears no longer to be good practice for carbon reduction, so planting on mineral soils is the alternative. In the face of climate change, a growing world population and crop substitution, a strategic decision needs to be taken about our food-producing capability here in the UK and in Scotland. From a UK perspective, it is unwise to reduce still further our strategic ability to feed ourselves and to increase daily—as we are doing—our dependence on importing food from elsewhere in the world, so I say to the minister that we need an integrated land use policy soon, as that will have a huge impact on climate change.

Waste reduction and recycling have been mentioned. Scottish Conservatives fully understand and support the Governments intention and measures to drive towards a zero-waste position and reduce our dependence on landfill. However, the Federation of Small Businesses and other respected witnesses expressed serious concern to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee about the lack of infrastructure to achieve a zero-waste position or anything approaching it, or even to comply with existing European obligations. Dirk Hazell of the Scottish Environmental Services Association noted that

"we need to accelerate our transition from a disposal to a recycling society, but to do so requires more infrastructure."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 28 January 2009; c 1361.]

and John Ferguson of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency said that the required infrastructure development would be

"a challenge to the planning system."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 4 February 2009; c 1389.]

None of those statements takes account of the costs to already cash-strapped local authorities.

Is the member aware that, in my parliamentary constituency, there is an excellent facility that is recycling food waste? In fact, the private sector is in many ways stepping up to the mark and providing considerable useful infrastructure to complement and supplement what comes from elsewhere.

The minister should forgive me for not being aware of what is going on in his constituency, but I am sure that the facility to which he refers is of enormous value.

We need to know how these laudable objectives will be met. In addition, we need to know how food waste will contribute to recycling and composting targets—indeed, the excellent example that the minister highlighted from his own constituency might provide a model for us all—and whether energy from food waste will be counted as contributing towards the cap on energy from waste.

We support the Governments position on carrier bags. As long as the voluntary approach is working, there is no need for legislation.

I welcome the Governments view that the length of the muirburning season should at least stay the same. In fact, given the predicted increase in rainfall, I go further and suggest that the start of the season be brought forward to earlier in the autumn. After all, it is often difficult—and, due to increasing rainfall, becoming more so with every year—to get the right weather conditions to carry out this skilled and essential work in the spring.

Notwithstanding the bills lack of detail and its dependence on secondary legislation being laid at a later date, we welcome its general principles. We also welcome the fact that the Government has revised the 2020 targets—with a 34 per cent reduction in CO2 rising to 42 per cent if Europe plays ball—and acknowledge that they are ambitious.

We need to learn from what has happened in other countries that are further down the legislative route and use their experiences and ideas in developing the bill—putting flesh on its bones, one might say—with constructive amendments at stages 2 and 3. We desperately need to focus on reducing commercial and industrial waste—in fact, we need to make a start on that soon.

We will work constructively with the Government to develop and improve the bill at stages 2 and 3, and we look forward to meeting our commitment—indeed, our duty—to the next generation to leave things better than we found them.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, as I truly believe that the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill will be part of this Governments—and, indeed, the Parliaments—lasting legacy. Like many members, I have received a sizeable number of representations in support of the bill. Eco-congregations, eco-schools, fair trade groups and the many community councils in my constituency are actively engaged in combating climate change by changing behaviour at every level of society.

I have lost count of the number of times that I have visited a primary school, only to be blown away by finding that very young children know exactly what we need to do to save our planet. That is very uplifting and it gives me great hope for the future. However, the responsibility of parliamentarians is to bequeath to our children the right building blocks. As John Swinney said in the debate yesterday, the challenge is to create "enduring" legislation. With that in mind, we must bore down into the detail of this substantial bill. I have no hesitation in proffering my support for this world-leading and ambitious bill, and although I take exception to small parts of some of the detail, I do not want that to detract from my overall support for it.

That said, I seriously question the inclusion of section 59, which enables the current or any future Government to introduce, if it so wishes, charges for supplying carrier bags. I am grateful to my constituent Mr Bill MacDonald for bringing to my attention the problems in principle with that proposal.

The merits of charging for carrier bags were fully debated and tested by the Environment and Rural Development Committee in the previous parliamentary session during consideration of Mike Pringles Environmental Levy on Plastic Bags (Scotland) Bill. The committee did not recommend Mr Pringles bill to Parliament and it was withdrawn—for good reasons. More recently, when scrutinising the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee clearly pointed the Government back to the work of the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the issues that it highlighted. On pages 67 and 68 of its stage 1 report, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee states:

"In relation to the specific issue of charging for the supply of carrier bags, the RAE Committee noted that it had received numerous written submissions opposing the policy behind this section of the Bill. This opposition was based on evidence which suggested that proceeding with this policy is unlikely to deliver the intended environmental benefits and instead lead to increased emissions."

Does the member agree that on this issue—uniquely to date—the largest retail businesses and their customers are doing great work to reduce the number of carrier bags, by using renewable bags and, in some cases, not using bags at all?

I accept that the voluntary agreement is resulting in reduced use of plastic carrier bags, but I am concerned that that may be counterproductive and that we will merely replace the lightweight carrier bags with which we are all familiar with heavier plastic, paper, cotton or jute bags, which are often coated in plastic. Such products have a carbon footprint, are often bulkier and can lead to increased transportation costs. Evidence was presented to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that waste could increase by 13,700 tonnes per annum. The Irish experience has demonstrated clearly the unintended consequences of replacing plastic bags with so-called environmentally friendly bags for life, which has resulted in an increase in food packaging for loose items for health and hygiene reasons. That is an example of a counterproductive policy.

It is regrettable that the focus has been on lightweight plastic carrier bags, because—as I know—they are reusable as nappy bags, sandwich bags, freezer bags, pedal-bin liners and dog-poop bags; they can also be recycled. Surely the issue should be to improve plastics recycling. With that in mind, I welcome the cabinet secretarys announcement earlier this year that £5 million from the zero waste fund will be used to develop a home market for reprocessing plastics.

I am well aware that the Governments stated intention is not to introduce charging at this point but to retain the option to do so. Matthew Farrow of the Confederation of British Industry hit the nail on the head when he said in evidence to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee:

"The carrier bag issue is endlessly rehearsed and is a symbolic issue, and to be honest I would say that the proposal for carrier bag charges is probably not the best way to increase diversion from landfill. The effort that would be put into that policy could be better expended elsewhere."—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 3 March 2009; c 1620.]

If we are to create what Mr Swinney calls "enduring" legislation, we should not make symbolic proposals; instead, our proposals should be robust, rigorous and evidence based. In my view, section 59 is ill conceived. The merits of the case have already been rejected twice. Plastic bags account for 0.2 per cent of our waste, so our energy should be focused elsewhere. I urge ministers to put the issue to bed once and for all and delete section 59 from this otherwise ambitious and world-leading bill.

As members know, I have been pottering about as an elected politician for more than a quarter of a century. I have seldom seen an issue rise up the political agenda as fast as climate change has. The Parliament is reflecting that development in its consideration of the bill. It is right that we should do so, because, without question, climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing the entire population of the world.

We all know about changes in the environment from personal experience and going out and about: there is much more intense rainfall; winters are much milder; there is more flooding in winter, because of the increased rainfall; we get less snow and frost than we used to; we get more squally wind; and the wind is much stronger during certain periods. The seasons are starting to change, too. Birds are nesting earlier, to mention just one illustration of that. Farmers and people involved in forestry, fishing, ornithology and climbing can reflect their personal experiences of the climate changing around them.

I pay tribute to Al Gores part in the process of raising worldwide awareness of climate change with his film, his lecture work and his book "An Inconvenient Truth". I went to hear him speak in Glasgow a couple of years ago. His was an impressive exposition of the challenges that we face. Unquestionably, Al Gore has been partly responsible for the shift in American public opinion that allows the Obama Government to do the things that it will now do. That is an important point in a world context.

Controversial though Al Gores thesis is in many quarters—people take issue with some of the detail of what he says—he has unquestionably focused the minds of people around the globe on the issues. Even for those who do not accept the fine detail of some of his points and arguments, it surely cannot be right to keep pumping out into the environment the amount of carbon dioxide that we do, needlessly and wastefully.

I very much agree with that. When Barack Obama said,

"We will harness the sun and the wind and the soil",

he left the tides to Scotland. Is that not a key opportunity?

I am glad to see that the SNP has bought into the claims that the Pentland Firth will be the Saudi Arabia of renewables. I support what will be going on there, and I hope that more renewable energy generation will take place there, and more widely.

Along with changes in public opinion, public awareness of climate change issues has become much more acute, sensitive and alert. Individual citizens want to do the right thing by the environment, although they are often not clear what the right thing is. That brings me to the theme of considering the issue from the individual citizens perspective and thinking about what we can do individually to contribute to the aggregate change that we want to take place. Central to that is empowering citizens. Information, in turn, is central to empowering individuals to make changes in their lives. That can be information on, for example, insulating their homes, public transport choices or buying a certain type of car. It might also be information on the type of housing that they construct, or on recycling, composting or a whole range of other things that they can individually take part in or do.

In my experience, it is not easy for people to access good, comprehensive, independent, impartial advice about what they should do. What is the optimal depth of insulation for lofts? How should people treat their windows to make them more energy efficient? Is triple glazing definitely better than double glazing? In my circumstances, I might ask whether an air-source heat pump or a ground-source heat pump would be better. What about solar panels and photovoltaic cells? What is the right thing for my household to do to help combat the changes in the climate? What about converting cars to run on liquefied petroleum gas? What about the question of an electric car versus a modern diesel engine? Individuals have 101 questions—even 1,001 questions—that they want to ask, but getting ready access to the answers is not straightforward. In moving the debate forward, it is important that more information is made available. Might we wish to place a duty on local authorities to help ensure that information is supplied throughout the country?

I will move on to my own experience of building a house, and I will develop the argument about information, advice and consultancy. I built my own house about five to six years ago. The design stage started about eight years ago. I can tell members that it was not a thing to do when I was a busy minister, as it took up a lot of time. My house was built to the proper standards, but it contains no renewable devices. That is a matter of great regret. I accept a large part of the blame for that, but not once during the process was I ever advised by my architect, by the planners or by the building warrant people about what was the right thing to do or about the range of options that were open to me.

Retrofitting my house would be expensive. I can find all sorts of commercial products in the marketplace, and all sorts of people advancing why I should buy one product over another, but it is virtually impossible to find a single point of contact for advice on what I can do to make a difference in my home. That brings me back to the role of advice and consultancy. During our consideration of the bill, we might consider whether there is a way of placing a duty on architects, planners and people who are involved in building control to give such advice, to help individuals contribute to change.

The new Acharacle primary school will need hardly any extra heat put into it. Does the member agree that it is best to build houses that will need no energy in the first place?

I completely agree. That intervention brings me neatly to my next point, which is about regulation—

It is your last point, Mr Peacock.

It is my last point and I will make it quickly. If the individual citizen cannot act, we must act collectively, for example through regulation. The need to improve building standards to encourage projects like the one that Robin Harper mentioned is central. I could go on for ever, Presiding Officer, but you are scowling at me, so I will sit down.

I did not believe that we would ever see the Deputy Presiding Officer scowl.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in a debate on perhaps the most important bill ever to come before the Parliament. I am convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, so I will speak mainly about the recommendations in our report on the sections of the bill that cover energy efficiency and renewable heat. I stress that I am not speaking on behalf of the committee. Although the committee was not formally designated a secondary committee—I guess that that makes us a tertiary committee—it was agreed with the lead committee that we would deal with chapter 3 of part 5, which falls within our energy remit.

It is fair to say that the committee was surprised and disappointed by the lack of substance behind the very general provisions in chapter 3. Moreover, I am very disappointed by the Governments poor response to our report. Indeed, it would be wrong to say that the Government has responded to our report, because the response that was published on Tuesday appears to address only the recommendations from our committees report that were referred to in the lead committees report. Of the 17 recommendations that were unanimously agreed by the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, the Government has ignored six completely, failed to address three, rejected three outright and rejected one in part. However, it has generously accepted the points that we made in the remaining four. That inadequate response leaves unanswered the fundamental question about exactly what the bill will achieve.

The Governments excuse that the bill is a framework bill does not wash. It is simply not good enough to ask the Parliament and the Scottish people to take so much on trust. When the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee tried to probe Government officials on the policy intent behind the framework, I was shocked by the paucity of substance in the responses. Indeed, the committee was so shocked that we had to ask the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Stewart Stevenson, to come before the committee to try to put policy flesh on the bones—it was that bad.

Thank you.

It is unfortunate that even after hearing from the minister and receiving the Governments response to the report, many of the committees questions remain unanswered.

I turn to issues of substance. I think that members of all parties would agree that it is crucial that we address Scotlands appalling record on energy inefficiency if we are to meet our climate change objectives. Half our energy use is on heating, and much of that is wasted, due to poor insulation standards in many of our domestic and non-domestic buildings—let alone the wasted heat from power generation. We need not just a plan to promote energy efficiency but positive action to improve energy efficiency. We need such a plan today, not within 12 months of the bill being enacted. We have waited too long for the publication of an energy efficiency action plan, and it appears that the Government is using the bill as an excuse to delay the plan further.

Lewis Macdonald mentioned the Governments response to our comments on the energy efficiency action plan. The Government said:

"Ministers could publish an action plan before the Climate Change Bill becomes an Act but … Ministers would still have to produce and publish another action plan within 12 months."

What utter nonsense. Sir Humphrey would be proud. It is surely not beyond the collective wit and wisdom of the entire Scottish Government to come up with wording that would allow the action plan to be published now. It is equally important that the Parliament knows what the Government intends to put into the action plan. What energy efficiencies are to be achieved through the plan? How will the approach be monitored? The Parliament needs to be certain that the provisions in the bill are sufficient to deliver what is needed.

On setting targets, the Governments response was:

"For energy efficiency we are keen to focus on outcomes rather than targets".

Ministers may call it what they like, but we need to know the target outcomes for energy efficiency. However, members should not worry; we have been promised another discussion document in the summer, which will cover that work. I say to the minister that that is not good enough. We do not want more discussion; let us have action.

It is also difficult to judge whether the bills provisions on energy performance certificates are adequate, because the policy intent is not clear. During the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committees inquiry, I sought clarity on what the proposed new regulations would seek to achieve, and specifically on how the Government would determine whether the approach that it opted for—out of the seven proposed options that it put before us—was delivering. One presumes that the intention is to drive up the energy efficiency of non-domestic buildings, but what level of improvement is being sought, over what period, and when will a judgment be made on whether the regulations are delivering? We look forward to seeing the mock regulations that have been promised. I hope that they will be published ahead of stage 2.

It is probably in the area of renewable heat that the bill needs most strengthening. I urge the Government to look beyond renewable heat to address the whole issue of heat, and wasted heat in particular. We must address issues such as the wasted heat from power generation, the promotion of waste to energy and the development of district heating schemes, as well as renewable heat sources such as biomass, air-source and ground-source heat pumps and solar. I therefore hope that the Government will strengthen section 51 at stage 2. It is important that we do so.

We asked the minister to set out the Governments intentions regarding Sarah Boyacks energy efficiency and microgeneration bill in the stage 1 debate. I do not think that any of the three ministers who have spoken so far have done so; I hope that the minister will do so in winding up.

Finally, in response to the committees recommendation that the Government should report on whether some form of rebate through local taxation systems to incentivise energy efficiency, renewable heat or microgeneration should be introduced, the Government said:

"councils in Scotland do not have the same level of discretionary powers to offer council tax discounts as councils in England. To give Scottish councils similar powers would require primary legislation."

The bill will be primary legislation. Surely it must be possible to put in this framework bill a provision to enable the introduction of a council tax discount scheme if the Government at some future date decides that such a scheme would be beneficial?

This is an important bill, but it needs to be substantially amended and strengthened at stage 2 if it is to meet the challenges of climate change.

The radical Scots academic Dr Malcolm Slesser died at the age of 80 only two months after the Scottish National Party Government was elected in 2007. He was twice an SNP candidate, a renowned mountaineer and a valued fellow of the Centre for Human Ecology. Before that, he lectured at the University of Strathclyde in the 1970s, where he wrote about his concerns for the planet.

In his groundbreaking book "The Politics of Environment: Including a Guide to Scottish Thought and Action", which was published in 1972, he examined how modern technology was being exploited by an irrational economy of

"unlimited industrial expansion in limited space",

which, as the blurb in his book states,

"must inevitably destroy itself, the land, the community and very probably, hazard the future of mankind".

He was an inspiration to many of us in the SNP, an eco-hero who will not be forgotten. His message appeals across party lines, so it is most fitting that in addressing the challenges of climate change, the bill puts practical steps in place to reduce radically greenhouse gases, a science that was in its infancy and of which Malcolm Slesser was only beginning to be aware in the 1970s.

We need action plans to ensure that Scotland shows a lead to other nations by taking our full share of the fight against climate chaos in time for the Copenhagen conference in December. I want to focus on a couple of issues that can make a real difference via the bill. Scotland has many advantages in playing its carbon-busting part. We now know how blessed Scotland is with the largest proportion of high winds, big waves and strong tides in Europe. That gives us a huge economic opportunity to contribute to the UK contribution to the EUs 2020 targets. Tidal and wave power in the Pentland Firth will follow on from the huge arrays of offshore wind turbines to provide secure and safe green power to ourselves and our neighbours to the south and across the North Sea.

Heat represents more than 50 per cent of our energy needs in Scotland, yet heat generated from renewable sources represents less than 1 per cent of demand. A massive increase in the delivery of renewable heat will be required in the domestic and commercial sectors in the years ahead if overall targets for greenhouse gas emission reduction are to be met alongside the targets for renewable energy. The further behind we get on delivering renewable heat, the steeper the targets will need to be in the electricity and transport sectors to meet overall energy targets, and the steeper the targets will need to be across the whole of society in order to meet climate change targets.

I therefore welcome the response from the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committees report, in which he pledged that the renewable heat action plan will contain a target to supply 11 per cent of heat demand from renewable heat by 2020 as part of the overall EU targets.

With regard to job opportunities from climate change mitigation, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committees conclusion on the financial memorandum in its stage 1 report discusses the Governments estimate that 16,000 jobs will be created in the field of renewable energy. Members were "extremely concerned" about the veracity of that estimate, but I am glad to say that at the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee yesterday we heard evidence that verifies that figure—indeed, we heard evidence from some who believe it to be a conservative estimate.

As a member who represents the Highlands and Islands and has a long-standing interest in land use and tenure, I agree with RSPB Scotland on the need for an holistic approach to rural land use. Scottish land plays a big part in our greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions are falling slightly, but they must fall faster. Scottish risk impacts reports must be prepared for our Government, to complement the advice from the UK Committee on Climate Change. Particular features, such as the huge blanket peat bogs in the flow country in my region and our precious native pine woods, would then be subject to technical scrutiny from dedicated Scotland-based scientists. Such reports would provide that scrutiny and an annual reporting mechanism. Annual reporting is already provided for in the UK Climate Change Act 2008, and it should appear in our bill. I hope to hear from the minister on that.

I was privileged to visit Eigg last weekend to see its self-sufficiency drive for renewable energy for all houses on the island. From four windmills, a solar voltaic array and a run-of-river hydro plant, each home gets 5kW of electricity. Few in the cities could cope with such low amounts of electricity, but Eigg folk are leading the fight in limiting demand and securing clean energy supplies.

Malcolm Slesser would be proud that we, as members of the Scottish Parliament, are finding our way to the best means to stop climate chaos. Some 37 years ago, in "The Politics of Environment", he wrote:

"Modern technology need no longer be the servant of economics. It is now able to halt expansion-for-expansions sake without entailing unemployment and recession. There is now no excuse whatever for trying to impose this servant economics willy-nilly over the more biological, nourishing, attributes of human communities".

The principles of the bill are world class, and the amendments at stage 2 must make it easier for Scots to adapt to climate change. I believe that members of the Parliament can empower the citizens by our scrutiny of the bill now and after it is passed, and I fully support it.

I, too, am pleased to take part in the stage 1 debate on the bill, which is widely considered to be very important.

I will concentrate on waste strategy. Although the Minister for Environment stated yesterday that she assumed that the lack of major comment on the bills proposals suggests that they have a degree of general support, there are a number of points to be considered, as Angela Constance ably demonstrated in her contribution a few minutes ago.

Waste policy is important in tackling climate change. First, waste is, as a derivative of production and consumption, a strong indicator of inefficiencies at one or more points of a commoditys useful life. Secondly, waste itself may contain greenhouse gases or, more often, it may contribute by producing greenhouse gases—frequently methane—as a product of anaerobic degradation, as happens in landfill sites.

Methane is 21 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas by weight than carbon dioxide. However, with an atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, it is reasonably short lived, and controlling its production now can therefore make a real contribution to shorter-term targets.

Despite the Governments 25 per cent cap on energy from waste, waste processes such as the anaerobic digestion of agricultural or food waste, which produces methane that is used to produce power, should be encouraged, although wasting food should be discouraged as far as possible.

I commend Dumfries and Galloway Council—I do not always do so, but in this instance I will—for its capping of the Locharmoss landfill site, and the use of the methane that is produced there for the generation of electricity, which contributes to the national grid.

The bill does not transpose the European revised waste framework directive into Scots law, as is required by 12 December next year. In referring to recycling, the bill does not distinguish between reuse, recycling and recovery, as the directive requires. The directive also requires 50 per cent of household waste and 70 per cent of construction and demolition waste to be recycled or reused by 2020. Those may appear to be challenging targets but, back in 2005, Flanders, whose population of 6 million is only slightly higher than Scotlands, achieved 70 per cent recycling, reuse or composting of household waste.

The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee heard evidence on the need to subject commercial and industrial waste to the same requirements as domestic waste. The bill requires business and public bodies to provide information to SEPA on the waste that they produce, thereby identifying opportunities for a reduction in waste management costs and a means of comparison with businesses of a similar size and sector. The committee recognised the need for internationally agreed measures of carbon accounting across the life-cycle of a commodity. At times, it seems as if the evidence is counterintuitive: what one thinks of as low carbon can turn out to be high carbon, and vice versa.

Many small businesses want to recycle their waste, but find it hard to do so because of a lack of infrastructure. In evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, Susan Love, of the Federation of Small Businesses, stated that

"It will not be remotely possible to implement many of the bills measures unless we make progress with facilities",

and Dirk Hazell, of the Scottish Environment Services Association, advised that

"There is nowhere near enough waste infrastructure … to comply with existing European obligations."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 28 January 2009; c 1362, 1361.]

However, it is highly unlikely that local authorities can fund the development of such infrastructure. They are already struggling, as their current funding regime allows them to address only their existing obligations. The duty must rest on producer responsibilities, coupled with increases in landfill cost and—in certain cases—a ban on certain materials going to landfill. A duty on producers would encourage them to decrease waste and its toxicity and promote recycling and reuse.

Both SEPA and WRAP suggested that some forms of industrial and commercial waste should be banned from being sent to landfill. Stop Climate Chaos Scotland is looking into the possibility of strengthening the waste provisions along the lines of the Flanders policy on selected landfill and incineration bans.

Friends of the Earth has suggested that penalties for sending waste to landfill could be differentiated between small and larger businesses, perhaps by way of a link to turnover. In its response to the consultation on the bill, SEPA expressed disappointment that the suggestion that it had made in 2006 that direct variable charging should be made the subject of further consultation appears to have been withdrawn.

The bill addresses the six greenhouse gases that are mentioned in the Kyoto treaty, which includes action on hydrofluorocarbons but not chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, both of which are often referred to as ozone-depleting substances—ODS—because of the damage that they can do to the ozone layer. They are used in refrigerators and require careful end-of-life-cycle disposal. Prior to 2004, those compounds were also widely used in plastic foam insulation as the blowing agents that formed the core of insulating sandwich panels in industrial steel-clad buildings.

As the law stands, when such buildings are demolished, those materials have to be disposed of as hazardous waste and only in hazardous waste landfill. However, those gases are also significant greenhouse gases. As such, their carbon footprint is some 300 million to 400 million times that of carbon dioxide. It is unfortunate that similar care is not required with ODS-containing materials in the construction industry. Albeit that they are put to hazardous landfill, those gases can leach into the atmosphere, wreaking damage on the ozone layer, adding to atmospheric greenhouse gases and contributing to Scotlands carbon footprint. A strong case can be made for those compounds to be included in the list of greenhouse gases in section 9. On this subject, Scotland has the opportunity to lead the rest of the world.

The waste provisions in the bill are enabling provisions, but that does not mean that they are not controversial. I therefore support the Rural Affairs and Environment Committees suggestion of the use of the super-affirmative procedure.

I recommend that everyone should pay close attention to nearly every speech that I have heard over the past two days.

In her closing remarks yesterday, Roseanna Cunningham reminded us all that the bill is our chance to leave a legacy for the long-term future of Scotland. I agree with those remarks. The bill is perhaps the most important piece of legislation that the Scottish Parliament will ever pass. However, the minister went on to say that she hoped that "petty squabbling" would not sink the bill. Is she really happy for the bill to proceed, more or less in its current form, straight to stage 3?

Thankfully, as the Government would do well to remember, it is a Government without a majority. As so many members said yesterday, in the end, the bill will be Parliaments bill. We will not be harassed or made to feel that our attempts to strengthen and improve its provisions are simply "petty squabbling". I am afraid that, as far as my party and I are concerned, the bill does not yet strike the right balance.

Over the course of stage 1, campaigners and experts—including, of course, the environmental movement but also social justice and international development groups—worked hard to build a case for a strong bill. I thank and commend them for their work, but I also urge them not to rest when the bill is passed. Their energy will be needed urgently if we are to see the radical policy shift that will turn targets into realities.

In large part because of the work of those experts and campaigners, many key arguments have already been won. One such is the argument for a cap on international credits. The Government has agreed to introduce such a limit at stage 2. That is thoroughly welcome, as transformation must begin at home. The whole world cannot pay someone else to solve the problem. Countries such as Scotland, with high current emissions, high historical emissions and huge renewable energy potential, must take the lead.

I echo what Robin Harper said and congratulate the environmental lobbyists on the work that they have done. I agree absolutely that they should remain engaged all the way to 2050 because we will probably be engaged but the wider community will always need encouragement to continue to move forward.

I thank the minister for his intervention.

The argument to include aviation and shipping emissions has also been won. It is essential to include the emissions from those sources. We want to count them so that we can see them fall, not so that we can watch them rise inexorably as they have done for a decade. Even the Governments own adviser, the Sustainable Development Commission, says that we cannot commit to aviation expansion.

The argument for setting strong early cuts to put us on the right trajectory has been won too. It is good news that the Government will bring the 2030 target forward to 2020, but it follows logically and automatically that the annual targets should and must be strengthened to make it achievable.

We need to follow those arguments through and reflect those changes in the bill. Roseanna Cunningham should not be too nervous. We have in mind many straightforward and constructive amendments that will help the bill to deliver real, effective change without making it "unfeasibly large" and will give it some ambition, which is important.

Despite claims to the contrary, the bill lacks ambition. To be frank, it is disappointing in many respects and little better than a simple copy-and-paste job from the UK legislation. The most obvious example of that lack of ambition has been cited many times in the Parliament, but it is a fundamental part of the bill, so I feel no shame in going over it again. It relates to targets. We must have long-term and annual targets—the long-term targets to lock future ministers into the long-term task and the short-term targets to ensure that each serving minister is held accountable during their term in office.

The annual targets must be set in the bill at 3 per cent at the very least. The Green view, which is backed by the evidence of the Tyndall centre for climate change research and many others, is that we need a 4.5 per cent annual reduction, leading to a 30 per cent reduction by 2010, a 70 per cent reduction by 2030 and a 90 per cent reduction by 2050. Those figures are realistically closer to the cuts that are necessary according to more recent science.

The world is reaching a tipping point. Marine and terrestrial environments are under attack from levels of chemical pollution and overexploitation that are already causing one of the swiftest species extinctions in geological history. To overheat our fragile earth at this point would be catastrophic.

Ten years ago today—not yesterday—my election on an environmental ticket was announced. Over that time, it has caused me considerable content that many good Green policies have moved from being the preserve of our party into the mainstream. Some of those policies are embodied in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill and I am sure that others will be written into it during the amendment stages. It may take more time for others still to be accepted, but the direction of travel is clear: a sustainable future in which Scotland lives within its ecological means. That is the only survival strategy open to us and I, for one, remain hopeful that people in and outside the Parliament will, ultimately, vote for our survival.

I have time to refer to some of the speeches that I heard during the debate. I commend Iain Smiths speech for its content, for being focused and for its reference to energy efficiency action plans. I commend, too, Rob Gibsons speech for its references to what should be done and what should be offered to our communities. I commend other members speeches for referring to what we still need with regard to science and accurate figures and information on which to base the policies that we should follow in the future.

I am pleased to take part in this important debate. I acknowledge the hard work and determination of the Scottish Government in introducing the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill and of members who have taken part in the debate.

Many aspects of the bill have been discussed, so I will not attempt to cover too much old ground. I will focus my contribution on how a recent visit to Berlin by a delegation from the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee relates to the bill. The purpose of the visit was to learn more about energy policy and usage in Berlin and in Germany as a whole.

The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has been undertaking an energy inquiry for some months. It started formally last September, before I became a member of the committee. We are now at the inquirys tail-end, and a report is due to be completed by the summer. As a new member of the committee, I have found the debate extremely informative. It has got me thinking even more about my own energy usage and my contribution to CO2 emissions as well as those of the country as a whole. I was particularly interested to hear the contribution of Peter Peacock, who is unfortunately not here at the moment.

The trip to Berlin ties in well with the bill. I will highlight two meetings and their relevance to the bill, particularly to section 48, which is on the duty of ministers to promote energy efficiency. Our programme of events included a meeting with two members of the German Bundestag: Dr Axel Berg, the SPD spokesman on energy; and Herr Laurenz Meyer, the CDU/CSU spokesman on the economy. While discussing the effects of energy consumption and energy loss in domestic properties, both Bundestag members acknowledged that there are major problems with German buildings and that it is up to the state to provide solutions.

We were informed that approximately 60 per cent of the current housing stock in Germany is rented, which will facilitate a domestic property improvement programme. In Scotland, however, 76 per cent of the housing stock is privately owned and 24 per cent is rented. It will therefore be a bit more challenging to have such a programme in Scotland. I said to Dr Berg that it was refreshing that there was an acknowledgment of the housing problem and that it was being examined. However, Germany appears to have acknowledged the problem some years ago. It was obvious to me that Scotland and the UK are some years behind Germany. I stated to Dr Berg that very little had been done in Scotland or, indeed, the UK to tackle this domestic problem. Dr Berg replied with a most startling response, "Sir, you must be a very poor country."

As everyone in the chamber knows, however, Scotland and the UK are not very poor countries—far from it. However, there appears to have been little drive to promote energy efficiency in the past. Many buildings throughout Scotland that are energy inefficient can and must be improved. Providing resources to deal with that is obviously vital, as is promoting energy efficiency plans, for which section 48 provides.

We had a meeting with the German energy agency and were informed that Germany plans to retrofit 50 per cent of buildings within the next 20 years. Given that 75 per cent of buildings in Germany were built before 1978, it is easy to understand that the retrofit will be a massive undertaking. Even if the 50 per cent retrofit is achieved, the target of a 2.5 per cent reduction in emissions will not be met, because it is currently calculated at 1.7 per cent. Even with retrofitting, there will therefore still be challenges for Germany, but at least it will be moving in the right direction.

Is the member indicating that the SNP would like to look again at the Scottish Green Party's proposition for a 10-year plan to insulate every house in Scotland?

I am not suggesting that at all. I am just highlighting a point that was raised at one of the meetings that we had in Germany.

The Germans have a progressive idea for any new building to use a third of its energy from renewable sources. That has already been agreed and I commend the German Government for that action.

No single solution will eradicate climate change or provide Scotlands contribution to tackling climate change, but the measures in the bill will surely play a valuable and important role. Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth said:

"Climate change is the greatest environmental threat facing humankind."—[Official Report, 6 May 2009; c 17081.]

No one in the Parliament could disagree with that. Judging by the contributions in the debate so far, I get the feeling that members are all singing from the same hymn sheet, but we must improve Scotlands contribution by ensuring that the Parliament passes the bill at stage 1 this afternoon. I certainly do not think that the bill will be voted down, as that would send a message to the wider world that Scotland does not really care about the environment. As Robin Harper said a few moments ago—on this I could not agree with him more—the bill is a parliamentary bill. Together, the Scottish Parliament and everyone in Scotland have what it takes to lead the fight to combat climate change. I am sure that the bill will provide that opportunity for Scotland and the wider world.

Like others, I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom and, with the passage of the bill, Scotland are providing leadership in the strategic framework for tackling climate change.

As others have said, the bill is a vital start, but it still leaves us with a choice: either we can stop at setting ambitious targets for tomorrows policy makers or we can challenge ourselves now to start setting targets for the current generation and to put in place policies to deliver those cuts in emissions. As Angela Constance said, people all over Scotland and at every level will be disappointed if the height of our ambition is not to set any short-term statutory duties for the current parliamentary session, for the next parliamentary session, between 2011 and 2015, or for the subsequent session, from 2015 to 2019. That is not what the people of Scotland want from us. The important thing is that we work with the bill to ensure that we act now rather than later. As the Stern review concluded—and as others have alluded to—it is clear that

"the benefits of … early action far outweigh the … costs of not acting."

However, the bill as it stands manifestly lacks strong early action.

Our second challenge with the bill is that we need not simply to set the right targets but to put in place the hard policy measures to make things happen. As we have learned to our cost over the past decade—Robin Harper alluded to this in a very powerful speech—simply defining the problem does not necessarily lead to the solution. To make that happen, the bill must tackle the system failures that are slowing the rate of green transformation. That means that the bill must go further in addressing market failures, providing the right financial incentives and ensuring that we take brave decisions on regulation.

The need for us to do that can be demonstrated by looking no further than our near European neighbours. We might now have the most ambitious strategic framework for the next 40 or 50 years, but the size of the green economy in each of our European neighbours—including Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain—is significantly larger than that in Scotland. That is not because people in Scotland have a lesser wish to be green; it is about our responsibility to create the right policy framework. I hope that the Government will try to meet the environmental ambitions of the people of Scotland by giving serious consideration to the advice of the three parliamentary committees and by making some of the brave decisions required for actual delivery.

Does the member regret, as I do, the loss of the pre-combustion CO2 sequestration opportunity at the Peterhead plant that is now being developed in the middle east?

I certainly welcome the fact that there are to be four CCS plants across the UK and a much larger number in Europe. CCS is an example of an area in which we need to work together and not try to score points if we want to secure the scale of investment that is required. I refrained from saying that we had been leapfrogged by the UK on targets, but I predict that we will be leapfrogged again unless we deal with the issue of short-term targets.

I return to the areas in which we need policy action. As has been mentioned, energy efficiency has been the Cinderella of the energy and climate change debate for decades, and it would be a shame if we allowed it to be a Cinderella in the bill, but that is the position as things stand. The provisions on energy efficiency, the energy performance of buildings and renewable heat lack the necessary policy bite. In the case of energy efficiency and renewable heat, there are no targets at all. The bill should include new financial incentives on energy efficiency and renewable heat. When that has been done, those new commitments must be reflected in a revised financial memorandum.

As the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee suggested, we would like local tax rebates to be provided to incentivise the take-up of energy efficiency, renewable heat and microgeneration. In the case of microgeneration, one need look no further than the evidence of Ian Marchant, who chairs the Governments business advisory group, on the wisdom of the provision of financial incentives in that area. That has been requested by the coalition that supports Sarah Boyacks proposed members bill on energy efficiency and microgeneration, and it would be respectful to the member, the coalition and Parliament if the Government could set out its intentions with regard to that bill—and, in particular, the proposal that general permitted development rights should be extended in the ways that the committee described—as soon as possible.

I am aware that time is pressing. The state of our domestic housing stock should shame us all. We cannot achieve the climate change targets unless we make it fit for purpose. That is an area that the bill leaves behind, and it is one that should dominate our thinking at stage 2.

Scots do not want to be less green. We are less green because of an inadequate policy framework, for which we should all take responsibility. The bill represents the only opportunity that we have to pass primary legislation that will address that inadequate policy framework. The next generation will judge the bill not on the ambition of our targets but on whether it fixed the policy framework so that we could deliver. I hope that we will put in place the necessary policy framework by amending the bill as it goes through its parliamentary stages. If we fail, we will have failed the many Scots who look to us not simply for targets but for delivery.

We move to the winding-up speeches.

Since its introduction, ministers have described the bill as "world leading". However, as Alison McInnes, who opened for the Liberal Democrats, and many others have said, both yesterday and today, that is not yet the case. Liberal Democrats will be extremely happy if the bill is world leading when it emerges from stage 2, but there is a lot of work to do before then.

Liberal Democrats totally support the overarching target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. We support the adoption of a scientifically credible target for 2020 and the setting of more ambitious early years targets and broad sectoral targets. However, the setting of targets and the giving of undertakings to Parliament to report on those targets are not in themselves sufficient to qualify for the title "bill".

I welcome the ministers acknowledgement that much of the content of the bill builds on "Changing Our Ways", Scotlands first climate change programme, which was published by the coalition Government and was a subset of the sustainable development programme. I believe that climate change must be set in the context of sustainable development.

I recall that, after the strategy was published and when the UK Government introduced proposals for a climate change bill, there were discussions on the difference between a strategy, which is a series of objectives and undertakings that a Government gives and for the delivery of which its ministers are accountable to Parliament, and an act of Parliament, whereby a public policy is brought within the mischief of the law by being given a statutory framework and is ultimately judiciable in the courts.

Yesterday, in response to a question from my colleague Mike Rumbles, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth eschewed the notion of a Government imposing fines on itself. That is a fair point, but if the targets and undertakings are not enforceable in law, do the measures merit the status of an act of Parliament? Therefore, apart from the policy issues that still wait to be addressed, which Robin Harper and Wendy Alexander narrated, more work is necessary before the targets and undertakings better fit the test of qualifying as a bill.

I am sure that Ross Finnie will accept that not every requirement of policy intervention is stated in legislation that Parliament passes. With a bill that has to give effect to the creation of a framework and a responsibility for a 40 to 50-year period, stating every requirement is a particularly difficult challenge. Will he reflect on that?

I do not doubt that we cannot specify everything. However, my fundamental point is that I do not believe that Parliament will accede to a doctrine that undertakings that are given by a minister in the Parliament have force and effect only if they are enshrined in an act of Parliament. That is the distinction that we have to draw. At present, there is very little to suggest that anything in the bill will be enforceable in law. That matter must be addressed at stage 2.

Liberal Democrats accept that the world and the science have moved on since we produced the climate change programme when we were in government. However, the case for more ambitious targets in the early years has not changed fundamentally. The Government will advance its 2020 target from 34 per cent to 42 per cent only if the EU agrees to such a target. I have two points on that. First, is there an inference to be drawn that, if the Copenhagen summit failed to adopt the target of 80 per cent by 2050, the Government would retreat from that figure? Surely not.

Secondly, and more important, what is the domestic arithmetic that shows that a more ambitious target cannot be set in the early years? The previous Governments strategy document showed that Scotlands share of meeting the then much lower short-term target of 20 per cent by 2010 was a reduction of 1.7 million tonnes of carbon, but the then Scottish Government set the target at 2.7 million tonnes of carbon. I put it to the ministers that the increase in renewable energy production alone suggests that a more ambitious early target is appropriate.

The need for broad sectoral targets is also essential to give credibility to the overarching target. The work of the previous Government showed the difficulties to which the cabinet secretary has referred—the variability of contribution between the elements and the different achievements by sectors. Unless we produce broad targets for the sectors and take account of the fact that some sectors can and should be pressed to perform above the average, there is a risk that we will fail to meet the overall target.

Public sector bodies must be brought within the ambit of the bill. Liberal Democrats are not, as the cabinet secretary said yesterday, suggesting that the Government should take a unilateral approach, but agreement must surely be reached with the health service and local government, for example, on targets that are consonant with the Governments overall targets. That must form part of the bill because, otherwise, vast tracts of public expenditure will not be subject to the necessary scrutiny of climate change policy.

My colleagues Liam McArthur, Iain Smith and Jim Hume set out the reasons why the introduction of an energy efficiency strategy is urgent, why we need to pay more attention to renewable heat and why a land use strategy is important. We are pleased that the Government has accepted the need to include aviation and shipping emissions in its targets and to limit the use of international carbon credits.

Liberal Democrats will therefore have pleasure in supporting the general principles of the bill, but our amendment is designed to ensure that the bill emerges from stage 2 fit to be passed as an act of Parliament and is not simply a strategy by another name. I commend to Parliament the amendment in the name of Alison McInnes.

This bill is vital for Scotland and for the world, and it is vital in the short, medium and long term. For those reasons, Scottish Conservatives are happy to support the key principles of the bill. Of course, the bill is not perfect, and the Government has been gracious enough to accept that. There is work to be done today, tomorrow and thereafter.

I want to focus on some specific areas where I think that the bill ought to be strengthened. I will consider the rhetoric of Government ministers. Yesterday, we heard from Mr Swinney that the bill was groundbreaking, and we have heard today from Jim Mather that the bill is world leading. Groundbreaking and world leading are therefore the yardsticks by which each section of the bill ought to be measured.

The first issue that I want to consider is the green council tax rebate. Scottish Conservatives have been in favour of such a rebate for some time. South of the border, 40 of the 60 councils that have adopted such a policy are Conservative councils. My colleague Alex Johnstone said yesterday that he intends to lodge amendments on the issue.

The policy works: it is proven south of the border, and it is about to be put in place in Northern Ireland as well. It works because people get a rebate of somewhere between £50 and £125 per house for taking forward measures on energy efficiency, heat or microgeneration. There is no real reason why that cannot happen in Scotland, too. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee considered the policy, and made a clear recommendation—without division—that it ought to be taken further.

I am very gratified to hear support for that strong policy. Will the member also comment on the proposal to incentivise businesses through business rates? Is there scope to pick up on the point that Stewart Milne made about new developments all being required to have an appropriate level of renewables development?

The short answer is yes—all such areas ought to be considered. If a measure works in relation to domestic households, there is no reason why it cannot be made to work in the commercial sector as well.

We should consider the evidence that was given by the Energy Saving Trust, which stated clearly in its submission that a rebate is a tax incentive that is most likely to work. We also had positive evidence from Scottish and Southern Energy and Northern Energy Developments, and in the Halcrow report. The British Gas research into the local authorities where measures had been implemented shows that 35 per cent of those interviewed said that they would not have taken energy efficiency measures without the council tax rebate, and that 60 per cent of those interviewed said that they would prefer a council tax rebate to other grants or incentives to take up measures.

The policy is strong. One of the reasons given by the Scottish Government for rejecting a rebate was that it was about to introduce a local income tax. That, of course, is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Another reason given by the Government related to primary legislation, but that reason has been dealt with during the debate. There is no strong, tangible reason why the measure cannot be adopted. As I said, the committee agreed its recommendation without division. A rebate is popular with consumers, councils and energy companies, and it could provide a real step-change in the take-up of energy efficiency measures. Energy efficiency measures are critical because, in the hierarchy of measures to reduce carbon emissions, they are the simplest and most important.

I turn now to sections 48 and 49 of the bill. At the moment, the language that is used on energy efficiency is neither groundbreaking nor world leading. Section 48(1) says:

"The Scottish Ministers must prepare and publish a plan for the promotion of energy efficiency in Scotland."

Ministers then have up to 12 months from the point at which the section comes into force to produce the plan.

Consultations on energy efficiency have taken place over a number of years. Some of the evidence that we heard suggested that the plan is ready to go now. It is extremely important that the Government shows leadership in this area. The timing is also critical. If the Government has 12 months from the date on which the section comes into force, we could be at the end of 2010 before a plan is in place. We have carbon emissions targets from the beginning of 2010, but if we do not get any benefit from the target that is at the top of the hierarchy in year one, that will not be a very good start to the process.

The same applies to renewable heat, which is dealt with in section 51. I asked Jim Mather whether he thought that the response in sections 48 and 49 is strong enough, but the response in section 51 is even weaker:

"Scottish Ministers must take such steps as they consider appropriate to promote the use of heat produced from renewable sources."

It does not ask even for a plan, and there is no timeframe whatever. Such provisions are absolutely vital, as heat makes an enormous contribution to carbon dioxide emissions—more so than electricity and transport. We need to see stronger action from the Government on renewable heat.

We will support the general principles of the bill. It is a good bill, but there is much work still to be done on it. We hope that the Government can take that work forward, as we will get only one shot at it.

I agreed with John Swinney yesterday when he said that it is highly appropriate that, on the 10th anniversary of the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, we are debating arguably the most important and far-reaching legislation to have come before us. The decision of the parliamentary authorities to set aside two afternoons for the debate has proven to be correct, and we have had some very worthwhile contributions from all sides of the chamber. I highlight particularly Angela Constances speech, with which I agreed completely. I will return to the issues that she discussed later.

It is worth pointing out that the work that has been undertaken by the various committees that have examined the bill reflects the best practice that has evolved in the Parliament—comprehensive and inclusive evidence taking and rigorous scrutiny not just of the bill, but of the mass of evidence put forward in connection with it, culminating in clearly argued and constructive reports to the Parliament, which I hope will inform members consideration. This is legislating as it should be done.

However, we cannot afford to indulge in too much back slapping. People who are anxious to claim that the bill is groundbreaking or world leading should recognise that making the most ringing declarations of intent with regard to tackling climate change or, indeed, setting, but not meeting, higher targets than those set by any other jurisdiction will not slow down the melting of the polar ice cap, halt the inexorable rise in average temperatures that is being experienced in many parts of the world or stop the increasing pollution of the atmosphere. Only action will do, and I believe that only early action will succeed. Declaratory legislation must be accompanied by a strategy and an implementation plan that people will sign up to—if not with the same enthusiasm with which they sign up to the principles of the bill, then with the same determination to carry those principles forward in actions, many of which will turn out to be difficult and unpopular with some constituents.

If the committees recommendations are accepted and if the current Scottish Government comes up with a programme of quantified targets for the reduction of emissions, the delivery of which it and future Governments that are elected in 2011 and 2015 will be held to account for, we can have an excellent bill. However, the test of the bill is not in the setting of targets but in the delivery of action that is linked to the targets. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary accepts the Labour amendment in the spirit in which it was lodged. Our priority is, and has been throughout the scrutiny process, early action. We welcome the Scottish Governments acceptance of the case for bringing forward the interim target date from 2030 to 2020. Like the Scottish Government, we believe that the percentage reduction target that is set for 2020 should be based on the best available scientific advice.

Our objective should be in line with the maximum achievable targets that have been identified by the UK Committee on Climate Change, within the band between the extended ambition target of 34 per cent and the stretch target of a 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020.

Our preference is to look towards the more ambitious 42 per cent target, recognising that changes initiated by Europe will be required to enable some of the measures to be brought in. If that does not happen, the 42 per cent target will be much more difficult to achieve. However, I still believe that we should frame our aspirations around the 42 per cent target, partly to make a statement of intent, but also to make it clear to those involved in the summit at Copenhagen that we have support in our Parliament for a truly radical approach to dealing with global climate change.

Having spoken to the minister, I do not think that we are at odds, in principle, and I believe that a way forward can be found that will bring together all our ambitions.

However, it is not enough to set a challenging target for 2020. As the Royal Society of Edinburgh and many other witnesses who appeared before the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee told us, we need to have in place quantified targets that cover the period between now and 2020 and plot out the area under the curve of projected emissions reductions that we believe can be achieved through concerted short-term and medium-term action. I hope that the minister will be able to confirm that he shares our belief that quantified targets are needed for his Government and the next two Governments. We need targets that enable us to focus on short-term trends—a running mean over two or three years, or three or four years—so that we can ensure that the trajectory of change is in line with what is required to meet the challenging 2020 target that I hope we will agree on in the next few weeks.

I confirm that we have had helpful discussions and that we are very much travelling in the same direction. We believe that, if we can find an appropriate way of incorporating a target of 42 per cent, that will challenge others, which is important because joint action will lead to successful action.

That is a positive statement, and I hope that we can proceed on that basis.

To make the required progress, we need quickly to implement the necessary steps to reduce emissions in the areas of land use, energy generation, energy efficiency and transport. Labour supports measures that will substantially increase low-carbon electricity generation capacity in Scotland and, in particular, the development of renewables. I hope that we can agree that renewables development should be accompanied by reducing emissions from existing coal-fired generation and that we can do more to develop local generation and distribution capacity through, for example, combined heat and power stations.

As members have pointed out, we need an urgent programme to improve energy efficiency in the residential sector, providing householders with advice on and financial support for energy saving measures and introducing tougher building standards for new houses. As Sarah Boyack has repeatedly argued, energy saving technologies such as ground-source heat pumps and microgeneration offer a way forward. Peter Peacock gave a much longer list of such technologies, and I am sure that a complete list would be extremely long. The introduction of incentives such as council tax rebates, a policy that now has the support of Alex Johnstone and Liam McArthur, would supply an additional impetus to the adoption of some of those measures by domestic consumers.

Money that is put into energy efficiency does not deal only with climate change issues; it can help to create local jobs in local authorities and the voluntary sector, which will take forward the green jobs agenda.

In transport, radical measures are needed to deliver significant modal shift. We need to make public transport more price competitive and quicker from door to door than private transport so that people will shift from the car to the bus, the train or the tram for commuting and leisure travel.

We accept that statutory sectoral targets are not appropriate at this point, but we want the contribution that each of the sectors is expected to make to overall reductions to be quantified, so that there will be a benchmark and so that we can ensure transparency. Such information needs to be part of a detailed strategy and implementation plan that covers the period between now and 2020, spelling out how agreed targets are to be met. In line with what we have suggested about targets, the aim should be to hold whichever politicians are in charge in each electoral or budgetary cycle to account for their share of the responsibility for meeting Scotlands climate change commitments. Scotland has to realise its full potential in reducing its carbon footprint. However, it is also necessary to ensure that we get the right balance between our climate change aspirations and our other aspirations, such as those around sustainable growth, developing better health and education services and so on. Doing that will not be easy and we will have a tough task. When we start to see the detail, we will deal with the toughness.

I highlight the importance of jobs when tackling climate change. We have argued that employers and trade unions need to be involved early in discussions about job impacts. We need a full risk assessment of the job implications of the climate change strategy and any implementation plan.

Our emissions levels have been driven by the transfer of manufacturing overseas—especially to China and other parts of the far east. We are now in a somewhat different situation as a result of the economic downturn, and the situation will move on again. Our strategy must be robust enough to take account of whatever circumstances we experience. We need to reduce the prospect of inaction or slow progress in the early years; to quantify the expected contribution to meeting our emissions targets from the key sectors; to increase transparency; to reduce the scope for evading political accountability, so that every Administration must shoulder its continuing responsibilities; to send a positive message from Scotland to the rest of the world; and to engage the people of Scotland in the process.

I will highlight one or two issues from the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committees stage 1 report. A substantial body of evidence shows that section 59 is ill conceived and inconsistent with the bills overall aims, and I ask the minister again to review the provision and to consider whether it is appropriate.

I do not want reporting arrangements to be overelaborate. We need to streamline arrangements so that the Parliament has a sensible route to scrutinise what this Government and successive Governments are doing. The danger is that we will become overelaborate at stage 2. We all have an interest in guarding against that.

I listened to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growths response to Brian Adam on the engagement strategy, which is a theme that I have pursued. I am happy to work with Brian Adam and any other member on an engagement strategy.

As for international credits, I think that we should seek domestic delivery of 80 per cent reductions. We should examine the argument in the committees report for establishing a Scottish panel to work alongside the UK Committee on Climate Change and add the Scottish dimension on what is required. A role exists for Audit Scotland and perhaps the Accounts Commission in technical monitoring of progress through government.

One of the most difficult issues will be duties on public bodies. The SNP has expressed its view on that, and I know that many people have a different view. However, I hope that we can reach a sensible resolution that suits all sides and is not seen to place a disproportionate burden on local government.

The debate has been positive. I expect us to go on from here to produce a very good bill. I return to the point that the difference that we make will be through action, and I hope that we are girded up for that.

I am fully girded for the occasion.

I welcome the scope of the debate over the past two days, which has been of good quality. At least part of every members speech has taken us forward and usefully informed the debate. I was particularly taken by Des McNultys concluding remark that one of his key aims is to ensure that we keep it simple at stage 2. As the minister who has the pleasant duty of taking the bill through stage 2 on the Governments behalf, I heartily subscribe to his view and hope that we can deliver on it.

The debate has been unusual as, at least in this parliamentary session, it is unique in that four ministers have contributed to it. That does not just indicate the day-to-day engagement of those four ministers, but generally reflects the fact that every minister—like every member and everyone in the wider community—must be their own climate change champion in their own circumstances. I want to work with other members of the Parliament to put flesh on those bones and identify common ground and ways of taking things forward that sustain the very positive tone of todays debate.

Although we find ourselves able to support the Labour amendment, we cannot support the Liberal Democrat amendment because of its reference to the public duties. We are prepared to continue to discuss the subject, but we must recognise the very real sensitivities of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local councils on this matter. Although we might be able to find some convergence and strike the right balance, the Liberal Democrat amendment does not do so and, as I say, we cannot support it.

The support for the bills general principles that, unless I am very much mistaken, we will see at 5 oclock this afternoon is but the first step in the process. Discussions will continue through stages 2 and 3, and we will have to do a great deal more work to justify what we all want: legislation and actions that will act as a beacon for others. I certainly think that challenging the EU to step up to the mark on a 2020 target of 30 per cent is an ambition that we all share.

As I turn to the points that have been raised during the two days of debate, I have to say that I expect that I will not deal with them all, but we will look very carefully at the Official Report and get back to members directly on any significant matters.

A discussion that I had with Mr McNulty and Ms Boyack after yesterdays debate suggests that we might have a greater common understanding on the annual targets that we will put in place in secondary legislation next year and the need for those to form the core of what ministers will be accountable for over the coming period. Within a couple of years, we will have set targets that take us half way to 2050. That will certainly be a substantial set of commitments.

Ms Boyack described the provisions on public duties as vague commitments. We are looking at them again but, as I said earlier, we want to be very careful about how we progress in that respect.

Alison McInnes urged us to take early action. Earlier, I pointed out that we are building on action that has already been taken. This is a continuum of activity that transcends the transition from the previous Administration to this Administration and, indeed, will continue after many of us are no longer on this earth to see it in operation.

I sensed a suggestion that we might be able to disregard expert advice, but something that each and every one of us has to cling to is the need to use expert advice to determine the figures. The very moment politicians start to pluck figures out of the air, however well they might justify doing so by selecting what might have been stated elsewhere, they give future generations of politicians a hook for reneging on, moving back from or being less ambitious with commitments.

Will the minister advise the Parliament on whose expert advice he has set the interim 2020 target?

The 34 per cent and 42 per cent figures came from the UK Committee on Climate Change. If things go to plan and we are able to set targets in June 2010, advice from that committee might give us a different answer. We will of course respect that. The fact is that, in this situation, information is evolving and understanding increasing.

With regard to the debate on how Parliament will scrutinise the Governments efforts, Alison McInnes made the interesting suggestion that we consider the model that was adopted for the national planning framework in the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. We are looking at the text of the 2006 act to find out whether we can lift it and put it into the bill. Should we conclude that we can simply incorporate the wording of the 2006 act in the bill, it is more likely that we will do so at stage 3, given the tight targets for stage 2. We are looking seriously at that approach—it is not yet a commitment, but we are doing the work to see whether it is possible.

Patrick Harvie and I had a wee exchange on the subject of the Maldives, which is seeking to go carbon neutral. That is extremely admirable but, having looked into the subject, I make the point that aviation is not included in the Maldives ambition. Given that tourism is the countrys main industry, its situation is not quite the same as Scotlands; that illustrates the point that every country must find its own salvation. Patrick Harvie also referred to aviation and shipping; it is important that we continue to look at those issues.

Alex Johnstone commended the 34 to 42 per cent approach as one that would find favour with Conservative members.

The minister will be aware that not everyone commended the 34 to 42 per cent approach that the Government has decided to take. Regardless of whether annual targets are included in the bill or in secondary legislation, how is a minister to set them after the bill has been passed if the Government has not yet decided—and will not decide for several years—whether it is aiming for a 34 per cent target or a 42 per cent target?

That is to misunderstand. Both the 34 per cent and the 42 per cent figure, together with the up-to-date advice that the Committee on Climate Change will provide next year, will inform the annual targets that will be set—there is an absolute linkage.

I must make some fairly rapid progress. Charlie Gordon came up with the best question of the debate, as he often does, when he asked:

"what are you actually gonnae dae?"—[Official Report, 6 May 2009; c 17120.]

That is absolutely focused and on the money. Once we get the bill out of the way, we must focus on delivery and on ensuring that we get the outcomes that we want.

Liam McArthur advocated a bottom-up approach to developing initiatives, which is commendable. However, I suggest gently that that is a little at odds with the idea that we should direct centrally, through public duties, what happens.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt, minister. Members who have just come into the chamber should do others the common courtesy of allowing them to hear what is being said by members who have taken part in this two-day debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Lewis Macdonald spoke about the target of 11 per cent that has been set for heat from renewable energy. That is part of an overall 20 per cent that includes a range of other things—we are aiming to do a little better than the UK as a whole. That is reasonable.

I can tell John Scott that we are conducting a rural land use study, information on which we will provide shortly.

I am pleased to hear that Peter Peacock has the carpentry skills to build his own house. When I am building my next house, he can help me.

The community on Eigg that Rob Gibson mentioned was supported by the Scottish Government, under the excellent Scottish community and householder renewables initiative. We look with continuing interest at what is happening on Eigg.

This has been an interesting and engaging debate. It is the beginning of what will be a continuing engagement for years to come. Some years ago, John F Kennedy said that man can solve any problem that man creates. [Interruption.]

Order. I have already asked members to be quiet. Would they please do that?

We must hope that John F Kennedy was correct, but there is no absolute certainty in that regard.

Yesterday, when we were discussing the electrification of the whole of Scotlands rail network, one of the senior Government directors said to me, "Surely we will have to have battery-powered trains to go to Kyle of Lochalsh and places like that." The good news is that some battery-powered trains are already operating in England. We will copy a good idea, wherever it comes from.

I support the motion in my name.