Parliamentary Bureau Motions
The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions.
I call Bruce Crawford to move motion S4M-01519, on the designation of a lead committee.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Bill at Stage 1.—[Bruce Crawford.]
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
I ask Bruce Crawford to move motion S4M-01520, on the approval of a Scottish statutory instrument, the draft Climate Change (Limits on Carbon Units) (Scotland) Order 2011.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Climate Change (Limits on Carbon Units) (Scotland) Order 2011 [draft] be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]
Alison Johnstone has indicated that she wishes to speak against the motion. Ms Johnstone, you have three minutes.
17:42
I will not take that long.
Scotland has committed itself to ambitious climate targets, with 80 per cent emission reductions by 2050. The Greens believe that our targets should be met as a result of our efforts in Scotland, through important actions such as widespread energy efficiency schemes and the promotion of walking and cycling. However, the order enables us to buy in carbon credits that represent promised carbon reductions in other countries, which is something that we consistently opposed during the passage of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. The Government says that it does not intend to use those powers. We welcome that commitment but, in that case, why lay the order?
If we end up spending money on buying the credits that the order allows us to, it will make our carbon accounts look good but will not provide for the people of Scotland the many other social, environmental and economic benefits that low-carbon investment can bring. For example, investment in cycling would improve people’s health through physical activity and reduced air pollution.
Some argue that carbon credits can support developing countries and that we have a moral obligation to support others to take a low-carbon development path. That support should be provided not through carbon credits, but grants to support community-level projects, and the Government has promised to explore that through a climate adaptation fund. We look forward to seeing its proposals on that.
For those reasons, we oppose the order.
17:44
The Scottish Government—and, I believe, the rest of the members of this Parliament—are proud of the ambitious climate change targets that we have collectively set. Meeting those targets will be challenging, but we remain absolutely committed to doing so, and we are on track to do so.
The spending review sets out this Government’s plans to invest more than £690 million in a wide range of measures that will help to drive the low-carbon transition. That significant investment supports the Government’s strategic priority to secure Scotland’s transition to a low-carbon economy. As well as cutting emissions, that will help to give Scotland a competitive edge in global green industries and will be central to maximising our sustainable economic growth.
We plan to meet all our annual emissions targets through domestic action rather than by offsetting emissions through the use of carbon units. However, in an uncertain world it is only sensible that we accept the advice of the independent Committee on Climate Change that we should allow ourselves the flexibility to use carbon units for the period 2013 to 2017 up to the 20 per cent limit that is prescribed in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. That means, for example, that with annual targets to reduce emissions by 3 per cent between years, ministers could use carbon units equating only to 20 per cent of that 3 per cent, which is only 0.6 per cent of the total amount of emissions allowed in a target year.
I hope that members will agree that, far from enabling ministers to buy their way out of trouble whenever targets become tight, the draft order that we are debating simply avoids ruling out the use of carbon units if the circumstances should ever present themselves, which I hope they do not. It is a very small contingency measure. [Interruption.]
I reassure members that we recognise and acknowledge the concerns regarding the quality and provenance of carbon credits that have been raised in some quarters. The further legislation that we plan to bring forward next year will set out which internationally recognised carbon units may potentially be purchased, and will ensure that those units represent genuine emissions savings.
On checking the record, I noted that Robin Harper of the Green party supported a 20 per cent limit when the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was before the Parliament. Principles are good things, and I urge the Green party to stick to theirs.
I regret that Mr Lochhead’s contribution was interrupted by a mobile phone. I remind all members that when they come in to the chamber, their phones should be switched off.
The question on motion S4M-01520 will be put at decision time.