Official Report 414KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by Gillian Martin on the greenhouse gas emissions statistics 2024. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
15:10
I am here today to discuss Scotland’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, before I go into that in detail, I want to express how pleased I am to return to Government as the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Rural Affairs, a portfolio that is of great importance to the people of Scotland.
I am acutely aware of the responsibility that we all have to limit and mitigate the impacts of climate change and to take effective action on its causes. Those impacts are felt by people at home and abroad. We have sadly grown used to witnessing devastating wildfires in places such as California and across southern Europe. However, in recent years, we have seen similar events here in Scotland, including at Dava moor in the Highlands, which last year experienced the first mega wildfire in any of the four nations of the United Kingdom.
We should be in no doubt that such devastation is caused by climate change. However, climate action is not just about reducing emissions; it is also an economic, social and health opportunity that will make people’s lives better. Climate action is creating thousands of jobs, with many more to come. It will provide warmer homes, it has huge potential to reduce the cost of living and it will strengthen the resilience of communities not only to protect themselves against the impacts of climate change but to make their neighbourhoods much nicer places to live in.
I published the climate change plan before the Parliament dissolved at the end of session 6. Notwithstanding how much time and effort it took to create that plan, comparatively, that was the easy part. We now need to drive the delivery of our ambitious policies to decarbonise our society and capitalise on all the benefits and economic opportunities that are before us.
I say “we” because every vote and decision that the Parliament takes will result in us succeeding or failing. I am talking not only about a failure to reach targets but a failure to harness the clear benefits of climate action. Over the years in the Parliament, many of us have reached consensus on targets. However, when it comes to policies and actions to deliver on those targets, even the most benign of actions face political opposition. That is just not good enough. We all need to ask ourselves whether we are a blocker to progress and delivery or an enabler.
Earlier today, we published “Scottish Greenhouse Gas Statistics 2024”, which provides us with detail of Scotland’s latest progress on emissions reduction. Those official statistics show that, in 2024, Scottish emissions were 50.5 per cent lower than they were in 1990. That is a further reduction of 1 per cent, or 0.4 megatonnes, compared with our position in 2023.
The majority of sectors that were measured in the statistics saw modest reductions in emissions, with the largest reduction being in industry, where there was a reduction of 0.3 megatonnes of CO,which was driven by reduced fossil fuel use. However, there were small increases in emissions related to transport and buildings. Emissions from international aviation and shipping increased by 0.2 megatonnes of CO,returning to pre-Covid levels, and emissions from domestic transport and buildings each showed very slight increases.
The statistics also continue to show that, between 1990 and 2024, Scotland had the largest reduction in emissions in the UK, at 50.5 per cent. The overall reduction in UK emissions, including international aviation and shipping, was 49 per cent. Emissions in England fell by 50.2 per cent, followed by Wales at 44.4 per cent and Northern Ireland at 28.5 per cent.
Today, we published two further important climate reports. The official statistics publication “Scotland’s Carbon Footprint 1998-2022”, which measures our domestic and imported consumption-based emissions, shows that Scotland’s carbon footprint increased by 1.6 per cent between 2021 and 2022, with equivalent figures for the UK showing 3 per cent growth over that period. “Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Scotland: Annual Report 2026” provides an update on our progress in improving nitrogen use efficiency across Scotland, which is supporting reductions in that significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.
Those figures tell us something important: progress continues to be made in Scotland. However, we must accelerate the transition. We are bound by law to take action on reducing our emissions, but it is also an economic and social imperative. The prizes are absolutely worth it. In the past few weeks, the Confederation of British Industry and the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit published a report that outlined that Scotland’s net zero economy supports 105,000 jobs and contributes £10.2 billion in gross value added.
Tens of thousands of livelihoods in Scotland are already being supported by the transition to net zero. The climate transition is not just an abstract future; it is a driver of economic growth that is already delivering for Scotland and Scottish people today.
Those economic benefits underline the importance of our continued action to reach net zero and reflect the ambitious action that the Scottish Government has already taken.
We have taken action on warmer homes by providing funding for the installation of more than 2,500 heat pumps just last year through the Home Energy Scotland grant and loan scheme.
In transport, as a direct result of Scottish Government funding and enabling private sector investment, Scotland has one of the most comprehensive public electric vehicle charging networks in the whole of the UK, with more than 12,700 public EV chargers.
We are also supporting new industrial opportunities through carbon capture and storage in Scotland, including by providing £3 million of grant funding towards the Acorn project and working collaboratively with industry and the UK Government. However, we must see the deployment of the £200 million that the UK Government pledged to get that off the ground.
We continue to back our farmers and crofters to reduce emissions and improve their bottom line through sustainable farming practices. Our rural areas are already playing a vital role in Scotland’s climate transition, with more than 10,000 hectares of peatland being restored in 2023-24 and 53,000 hectares of woodland being planted in the past five years. That action supports rural jobs, restores our natural environment, enables nature-based solutions to the climate crisis to cut emissions and, critically, enhances climate resilience and community resilience.
The climate change plan, our environment strategy and our circular economy strategy form a co-ordinated plan for taking on the climate and nature crisis. My colleague Stephen Gethins will lead on a heat in buildings delivery plan, which will set out the actions that are necessary to meet our ambitious decarbonisation target in that area. It will provide further clarity on how our buildings are heated and will help to stimulate the clean heat market, thereby encouraging the clean heat supply chain.
That action is not just a crucial step towards decarbonising our buildings; it is about making homes warmer, improving the lives of Scottish families and, critically, reducing the scourge of fuel poverty in this country.
By the end of the year, we will publish a route map for deploying negative emissions technologies in Scotland, which will provide a framework for how carbon removals can be developed and deployed to support Scotland’s statutory commitment to reach net zero by 2045. That is another market-creation opportunity. It is also a huge innovation opportunity, as it involves technology that can be built and designed here that we can take to the rest of the world.
The climate change plan, which we published in March, set out £42.3 billion in direct financial benefits for Scotland. That included savings to households through policies such as discretionary bus travel, which the Child Poverty Action Group estimates can save families in Scotland more than £3,000 in the lifetime of a child, compared with families living elsewhere in the UK.
On top of that, the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute estimated that Scotland’s climate change plan would provide £8 billion in wider socioeconomic impact through, for example, improved health through physical activity, better air quality and warmer homes.
Whether it is providing thousands of jobs, improving the air that our children breathe or making it more affordable to travel, climate action is already improving daily life across Scotland.
Those who argue that we should give up on net zero are, in effect, arguing that we should give up on warmer homes for families, give up more than 100,000 jobs in the net zero economy and give up billions of pounds in financial benefits for people and businesses across Scotland. The Government will not turn its back on those opportunities, and I hope that members will join me in that.
Today’s statistics show continued progress towards our net zero goals, but we need to go faster and further. From island communities investing in renewables to rural areas restoring peatland, cities improving air quality and massive job creation across the country, the benefits of climate action are being felt in every part of Scotland.
Achieving net zero is an investment in our economy, in our homes and in all our futures. That is why I am focused on delivering fair climate action that supports the priorities of this Government.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow 20 minutes for questions. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons.
I last led on the environment and rural affairs for Scottish Labour in 2014, and I am afraid that, returning to the annual statement on meeting our 2045 targets today, the analysis and the questions for the Government largely remain the same. The Parliament agreed the 2045 targets not because of ideology but because of science. There is clear evidence that, for the future of our country and others around the world, we must address the impact of climate change and reduce our carbon footprint.
However, our progress so far has not been the result of intentional policy—it has too often been a consequence of what is happening anyway. At a time when progress should be faster, it is stalling, and the carbon footprint figure that was published today has actually increased. Friends of the Earth says that it is a “meagre” reduction. Stop Climate Chaos said today that the figures are a “stark confirmation” that action to tackle climate change has been
“nowhere near strong enough or fast enough”,
and the Climate Change Committee called for immediate accelerated implementation.
There is political will in the Parliament to make that happen, but the action so far—the 2,500 heat pumps that were funded last year and the provision of 12,700 electric car chargers—will not deliver the change that we need. At the start of this session of Parliament, with the 2030 targets now in our sight, how will the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary accelerate that action and make sure that we meet our 2045 targets?
I welcome Claire Baker to her role, and I look forward to working with her. I very much take to heart what she has said about the will to make progress on the matter.
The answer to her substantive question about how we are going to do that has been laid out in the climate change plan. The climate change plan is, in effect, the road map for all the policies that we will take forward.
I am convening early meetings with my Cabinet colleagues, because the areas that are associated with action to deliver on transport, energy, housing and social policy lie with other cabinet secretaries. We will form a cross-Government group to make sure that we hit the ground running. I will convene a meeting with the relevant cabinet secretaries and their officials in the next couple of days.
I have also reached out to every one of my shadow cabinet secretaries, because I think that Claire Baker’s fundamental point is correct. We have made progress in the 10 years that I have been in the Parliament. We are more than halfway to net zero. I do not agree with the position that those things would have happened anyway. A tremendous amount of work has been done on peatland restoration, which is sequestering carbon and stopping leakage into the atmosphere. A great deal of work has also been done on Government support for electric vehicle chargers and heat pumps and for various other measures to help businesses to reduce their carbon footprint.
I want to work with every individual shadow of mine on our shared goals and ideas, because I do not believe that anyone has a monopoly on good ideas.
The climate change plan was set out in March. However, are there areas in which we can do more? I want to talk to my counterparts across the chamber to work out how we can do that, because it is not just the Government’s challenge but Parliament’s challenge. It is society’s challenge, but it is also Parliament’s challenge. Particularly when we have individuals in the Parliament who do not believe in climate action—we have already heard them in the past three weeks—it is ever more important that those who understand the science and realise the imperative around climate action stick together and get action done.
I ask for questions and answers to be shorter.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her interesting statement. I will make a couple of points to start with. I note that the emissions levels in the report—the 2024 levels—represent around 0.07 per cent of global emissions, so there is a total-rounding error. I also point out that, in the past five years, Scotland’s emissions have barely declined at all. However, its share of global emissions will keep declining as emissions around the world keep increasing, notably in the large economies of China and India.
My question comes from the fact that I massively disagree that this activity is an economic opportunity; rather, it is a massive economic cost for Scotland, which is driving expensive energy and deindustrialisation. We have seen that with the closure of Grangemouth refinery and the Mossmorran plant. The figures in the report show that the largest reduction—nearly 80 per cent—came from use of fuel for combustion. That is basically industry closing down. Has the cabinet secretary reviewed how much of the reduction has been caused by deindustrialisation and how many jobs have been lost? Can she elaborate on that?
Again, I ask for shorter questions.
I will try to keep my answer short. With respect, for Duncan Massey to say as a representative of North East Scotland that there is no economic benefit to his constituents or to my constituents in the area is, frankly, astounding. In Aberdeen, 12.7 per cent of local employment is supported by net zero activity. In Aberdeen city alone, net zero activity contributes £1.1 billion of gross value added. In Aberdeenshire alone, there has been a £6.8-billion pipeline of energy projects. Those are facts; I have not just plucked those points out of the air.
To say that Scotland is not emitting much compared with global emissions but then ask why we are not doing better is completely and utterly all over the place. Also, to say that climate action is accelerating job losses in other areas is completely back to front. We are making sure that we have the replacement jobs and activity for when we see an increased and accelerated decline in the industries that rely on fossil fuels and the burning of those fuels. That will make Scotland more resilient. Frankly, I would much rather be protecting and creating jobs in North East Scotland, which Mr Massey represents, than turning my back on those opportunities.
A number of members have indicated that they wish to ask a question, so I again ask for questions and answers to be briefer.
Peterhead power station is the biggest carbon emitter in Scotland, but it is also, through its dispatchable energy production, vital for energy security. Carbon capture is the obvious solution, and the cabinet secretary has touched on that. However, what can be done to make the UK Government stump up the £200 million for development that it promised and, more importantly, funding akin to the £22 billion that has been allocated for carbon capture south of the border?
Alan Brown alights on something that, when I formerly had responsibility for energy in particular, became the subject of an almost twice-monthly conversation with my UK Government counterparts. The UK Government pledged £200 million for the development of Acorn, but that money is still not flowing. Alan Brown made a really good point. I do not like the phrase “shovel ready”, but Peterhead power station is the most mature of the carbon capture, use and storage projects in the UK, yet other, less mature projects have been given billions of pounds.
The Acorn project is vital to decarbonising Scotland’s emitters and delivering a just transition. It could unlock billions in private investment while driving essential progress to net zero. I agree with Alan Brown that we need to get clarity on the £200 million and ensure that we get the project off the ground, as it will create many new jobs, particularly in the place that I am from.
I welcome the cabinet secretary to her role. Members on our benches look forward to working with her. However, today is not a day for celebration. Overall, our carbon footprint in Scotland is going up, not down, and it should be going down, faster. The Greens have continually pointed out the huge reliance in the climate change plan on technologies that do not yet exist, such as in Acorn with CCUS. I heard what Alan Brown suggested, but we could spend £200 million on carbon capture and storage and still not have a viable technology that delivers carbon reduction. When will the cabinet secretary come up with a plan B—if CCUS does not happen—that will lead to steeper reductions in emissions in transport, home heating and agriculture but also benefit jobs, the economy and the people of Scotland?
I will not turn my back on one of Scotland’s major innovation opportunities, in CCUS. We have arguably the largest capacity for CCUS under the seabed in the North Sea. We also have a mature project that, frankly, should have been delivered 10 or 12 years ago but has continually had the rug pulled from under it.
I thank Mark Ruskell for his warm wishes. I absolutely want to continue working with him, and I hope that, at the end of today’s ballot, he will be successful in becoming the convener of the committee that, if I have this correct, will scrutinise me.
The climate change plan is an evolving document and we will not rule anything out. We will ensure that it is not a static document that sits on a shelf unchanged. We will have to change it depending on the situation and as we find innovations. We will also ensure that we act when we see disappointing results: a 1 per cent emissions reduction for 2024, for example, is not what it should be. We should accelerate more quickly.
I extend the same words to Mark Ruskell that I did to Claire Baker: I want to work with him and his colleagues to ensure that the climate change plan is delivered and that it is enhanced as we progress, so that we get to net zero by 2045.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. I welcome her to her post, and I look forward to once again working with her on her extensive portfolio.
The agriculture budget has faced year-on-year cuts under this Scottish National Party Government. However, in the cabinet secretary’s statement, there is a clear expectation that agriculture will continue to reduce emissions and that land use will come under increasing scrutiny, while, notably, there is no clarity on the future direction of livestock policy. The Scottish Government’s “Rural Support Plan 2026-2031”, which was published at the end of the previous parliamentary session with minimal opportunity for scrutiny, indicated that there will be a shift in funding away from active farming towards environmental schemes during this parliamentary session.
At the same time, we see worrying signals elsewhere. Last week, in England, Ed Miliband expressed support for policies to reduce herd numbers without a matching reduction in meat and dairy consumption, and that will simply lead to cheap imports with a higher carbon footprint. Therefore, given the importance of the beef and sheep sectors to rural Scotland, will the cabinet secretary now give a clear and unequivocal commitment that the Government will introduce policies that actively protect and sustain our national herd and flock, rather than continue with a position in which there are no safeguards in place and a real risk of further decline towards a critical mass cliff edge? Will she set out detailed proposals so that farmers—
One question is enough, Mr Carson.
—finally have the certainty that they need?
I thank Finlay Carson for his warm wishes, and I look forward to working with him.
It is not true to say that there have been funding reductions. The Scottish Government will invest more than £1 billion in the rural affairs budget during 2026-27, and we continue to provide certainty to the industry.
Critically, the substance of Finlay Carson’s speech, before he asked his questions, was about herd numbers. If he casts his mind back to before the election—I know that the election campaign took a long time and that we were all away from here for a number of weeks—he might remember that I did not take the Climate Change Committee’s advice on active policies to reduce herd numbers in Scotland, because I recognised that that would offshore emissions and have a detrimental impact on our agriculture. With my officials and Cabinet colleagues, I have formulated a climate change plan that does not depend on anything that he has described as happening elsewhere in the UK.
I will continue with that approach. Mr Fairlie will be working with me on how we sustain active farming. We will give direct payments for active farming. We will make sure that we support farmers in decarbonising their activities and in improving their bottom lines as a result of those activities. I look forward to Finlay Carson scrutinising me on that.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement, and I welcome her to her role.
I very much share the cabinet secretary’s ambition in relation to climate change requiring sensible and practical solutions, not ideological blockages. However, the Government repeatedly failed to meet the majority of its climate change targets in the previous parliamentary session.
The cabinet secretary talked about making homes warmer. In my Edinburgh Northern constituency, many people live in old tenements, where it is much more difficult to get consensus on insulating homes and upgrading heating. Will the Government establish a specific fund to help those who are most in need with the costs of insulation and heating upgrades? How will the Government make progress on retrofitting tenements in this parliamentary session?
I thank the member for her warm wishes, and I welcome her to her role in the Parliament.
On retrofitting and housing quality, I will be working with my Cabinet colleagues, including Shirley-Anne Somerville, who will lead that work. Stephen Gethins, who is sitting beside me, will take forward the strategy on heat in buildings.
The member pointed to the fact that reducing emissions is not a role for only one cabinet secretary, the Cabinet or the Government; there is a role for the Parliament, local authorities and private enterprise. We need a whole-society change, but there is also a whole-society opportunity.
On fuel poverty and warmer homes, I think that we can all agree that action to decrease bills and provide drier and warmer homes will have an impact on generations of families. The Government is very serious about tackling that issue.
A number of members still wish to ask questions, so we will need shorter questions.
I congratulate the cabinet secretary on her role. She recently visited Blawhorn Moss national nature reserve in my Bathgate constituency to mark world peatlands day and celebrate Scotland exceeding its annual peatland restoration target. Will the cabinet secretary, having seen at first hand the innovative restoration work at Blawhorn Moss, outline the contribution that peatland restoration is expected to make towards reducing Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions? What further support will the Scottish Government provide to expand that work?
As Pauline Stafford said, I visited Blawhorn Moss last week, and I thoroughly enjoyed hearing from people from the peatland action project about their partnership work with the Government, with innovative solutions being deployed to rewet peatland, make it a haven for wildlife and protect neighbouring communities from flooding.
This year, the partnership between the Government and the peatland action project restored 15,448 hectares of degraded peatland, which is the equivalent of 30,000 football pitches—for those who care about football. That exceeded our programme for government target by more than 3,000 hectares. The climate change plan sets out how we will protect, manage and restore Scotland’s peatlands for climate, nature and people, and it details our ambitions to restore more than 400,000 hectares by 2040.
The importance of peatland cannot be underestimated. It is an emitter when it is degraded, and it is a sink when it is rewetted. We need a double whammy of opportunity in sequestering carbon for Scotland through peatland restoration activities.
My entry in the register of interests will show that I run a crofting business that is in receipt of agricultural support.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to supporting farmers and crofters to reduce emissions, and I listened carefully to her response to Finlay Carson’s question earlier. Does she share my concerns that the fall in emissions in agriculture that was published today is largely attributed to a drop in livestock numbers, which has worrying implications for Scottish agriculture? Does she agree with me that the Scottish Government must deliver policy that maintains a critical mass of livestock across the country to support the supply chain and our rural economy?
I welcome Donald MacKinnon to his role, and I look forward to working with him. The simple answer to his question is yes. I had discussions with the Climate Change Committee, and it gave us advice on what we should put in our climate change plan. It said that there should be policies that actively reduce livestock numbers. We said no: Scotland is an agricultural nation, and we must maintain our herd numbers.
As Donald MacKinnon will know, there are many reasons why herd numbers are coming down. We need to ensure that our direct payments are associated with active farming and that we give farmers and crofters the tools not only to decarbonise and to reduce their methane emissions in particular, through innovation and using support payments, but to ensure that their farms are working farms that produce food for our nation.
I hope that some of our policies across the Government, particularly on local food procurement for parts of the public sector, will improve that situation for farmers in Scotland.
I will reduce my question, Presiding Officer.
I welcome the cabinet secretary to her role, and I declare an interest as someone who believes in the science of climate change.
I welcome the Climate Change Committee’s approval of our revised climate change plan, with its focus on feasible and deliverable change. However, I am slightly dismayed at the lack of progress, and I accept the Climate Change Committee’s view that we must accelerate action. I would like to hear some detail from the cabinet secretary about the areas where she thinks acceleration in action can be focused, and about what she would hope to prioritise over the next 12 months.
We need to ensure that our pathway is ambitious, deliverable and central to the Government’s approach. Being ambitious on its own is not good enough. Our pathway has to be fair, deliverable and achievable. We have worked closely with the Climate Change Committee, and its advice has informed our emissions trajectory and the policies that are set out in the climate change plan, with a couple of exceptions. I am meeting the committee’s chair in the next couple of days. The plan is to have a road map for what Heather Anderson is asking me to consider.
One area where we are doing a great deal of work is the decarbonisation of transport, and I will be working closely with my Government colleagues on that. I will be having a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport, who is sitting beside me, on what is happening in the transport area. That represents a huge opportunity for change, and indeed for making businesses more resilient to global shocks that are outwith our control when it comes to fuel prices.
Scotland has consistently missed its woodland planting targets. The statement shows that, and the statistics show that we are still doing that. I welcome the cabinet secretary to her role. Can she tell us how she is going to improve the Government’s record in this area?
I have to take slight issue with the assertion that we are missing targets. We are actually doing exceptionally well when it comes to woodland planting.
It is of great comfort to me that Graham Simpson seems to remain as he was in the previous session, in that he has an understanding of climate action as an imperative for this session. I wonder how he is going to get on with the climate change deniers in his group, and I wonder—
Cabinet secretary, could you please answer—
I wonder how he will square his—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
You cannot intervene on an answer.
There is a point of order.
I am answering a question. Can I continue?
There has been a point of order, cabinet secretary. Apologies—you perhaps did not hear.
My point of order is on standing order rule 7.3.1, which is about “courteous and respectful manner”. We have been extremely clear that we support the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which—
Mr Massey, this is not an opportunity for a speech. You have made your point about courtesy, and I reiterate that all members must be courteous to one another at all times. I will bring in the cabinet secretary to answer the question.
If Graham Simpson wants to meet me to go through the actions that we are taking on woodland and forestry creation, I am happy to do that.
I want to note that I was treating Graham Simpson with the utmost respect, because I worked very closely with him on these issues in the previous parliamentary session. I was merely pointing out that it is a relief that there is someone in the Reform party in this Parliament who still believes that climate change needs to be addressed through climate action.
The cabinet secretary referred to 105,000 jobs and the contribution to the economy of £10.2 billion from net zero-related industries. Does she agree that those figures are demonstrative of the renewables sector’s important role in supporting economic growth and employment while working towards net zero by 2045?
I absolutely agree with Stuart McMillan. Those figures are a powerful demonstration of climate action and economic growth going hand in hand. Scotland’s vast renewable energy potential is one of our greatest economic opportunities. Many people in the rest of the world do not have the geography to harness that we do, and they do not have the hinterland of working in subsea capacities that we have. There is an opportunity for us to continue to expand the sector and its wider, magnificent supply chain, along with associated industries such as clean transport and heat, which are expected to deliver thousands of well-paid sustainable jobs across Scotland, including in Stuart McMillan’s constituency, as well as to secure lasting benefits for communities.
I welcome the cabinet secretary to her role, which brings together climate action and rural affairs.
The cabinet secretary mentioned the important role that our farmers and crofters must play in reducing emissions by increasing tree planting and peatland restoration. Today’s figures show that progress is being made, but it is only a starting point, and land managers need long-term certainty to plan their business activity. Will the cabinet secretary set out how large and small land managers across Scotland will be supported to scale up climate-friendly actions such as tree planting and peatland restoration?
I thank Ariane Burgess for her good wishes. I look forward to continuing to work with her on this most important of areas. I know how passionate she is about it, as am I.
We will make sure that we continue with direct payments. We have been able to give payments early to growers, in particular where active farming is happening. Of course, active farming must be sustainable farming, and the agricultural and land management sectors, by virtue of managing our land, have not just the biggest responsibility but the biggest opportunity to assist us in getting to net zero and improving the environment for everyone. They also create hundreds and hundreds of jobs, particularly in rural Scotland, including the area that Ariane Burgess represents.
The final question that I can call is from Colm Merrick.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I congratulate the cabinet secretary on her new role. As she knows, cars remain the largest contributor to emissions in Scotland, although, thanks to SNP Government investment, Scotland has led the way in the UK in the provision of public electric vehicle charging points. How is the Scottish Government continuing to encourage an uptake in the use of electric vehicles? Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns about the impact of the UK Government’s new tax per mile on EVs, particularly on people living in rural areas?
I thank Colm Merrick for that question, the content of which very much exercises me, particularly the UK Government putting a motor tax on EV drivers and penalising them, when we should be encouraging the take-up of electric vehicles so that we can further decarbonise transport.
This is particularly important in rural areas, which may not have transport links that meet everyone’s needs. People in rural areas need to use cars so, when they can, they should have the opportunity to purchase an EV. The Scottish Government has invested more than £70 million in public EV charging since 2011 and increasing private sector investment has crowded in as a direct result of that, so that we now have one of the most comprehensive charging networks in the UK.
However, per-mile taxation is damaging not only Scotland’s decarbonisation objectives but those of the whole of the UK, because it costs the average EV driver in the UK £350 per year, with some drivers in Scotland paying more than £50 more, simply because of our geography. I am also unsure how it is going to work, so I have lots of questions. I would like to see it being scrapped and I would like to see EV take-up being incentivised.
I apologise to those members I was unable to call during this item of business.
Previous
First Minister’s Question Time