The next item of business is a statement by Paul Wheelhouse on the publication of the 2012 greenhouse gas inventory. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I will give Mr Wheelhouse a few seconds to gather his water, his papers and his thoughts—and, of course, the important card.
14:12
I advise members that the 2012 Scottish greenhouse gas emissions statistics were published this morning. The data indicate that between 1990 and 2012 Scotland saw a 29.9 per cent reduction in emissions of the basket of six key greenhouse gases. On a comparable basis, using data published today, that contrasts with reductions of 23.9 per cent for England, 17.7 per cent for Wales and 15.0 per cent for Northern Ireland. Over the same period, emissions among all 28 European Union member states fell by 18.5 per cent, and among the EU 15 member states by just 13.9 per cent.
However, progress towards Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions targets is formally measured against the level of the net Scottish emissions account. That account incorporates Scotland’s source emissions; international aviation and international shipping emissions; relevant emissions removals through carbon sinks such as forestry; and the use of emissions allowances by Scottish industries that are participating in the EU emissions trading scheme. Our annual targets were set using the 2008 inventory. At the time, Parliament envisaged that a 24.2 per cent reduction in net emissions should be achieved by 2012 after adjustment for emissions trading. In fact, in 2012, Scotland’s net greenhouse gas emissions had fallen by 26.4 per cent since 1990. In other words, our emissions trajectory is showing a steeper percentage decline than Parliament expected—we exceeded the percentage target by 2.2 per cent in 2012.
Nevertheless, the challenge to Scotland’s performance is in terms of measurement against fixed, statutory annual targets that are measured in tonnes. In 2012, unadjusted Scottish greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be 52.9 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That is marginally higher than the 2011 figure of 52.5 mtCO2e but, as I stated earlier, it is 29.9 per cent lower than in 1990. As the Scottish climate change target for 2012 was designed to deliver a specific percentage reduction en route to a 42 per cent decrease by 2020 but was set as a fixed value in tonnes, at 53.226 mtCO2e, Scottish emissions in 2012 exceeded the level required by the annual target that was set under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 by just over 2.4 mtCO2e.
That must be considered in a context of significant changes in how historical data are calculated as well as new data that combined to add around 5.4 mtCO2e, or a 7.7 per cent increase to the baseline against which all targets were set. That is more than double the amount by which the 2012 target was exceeded. Frustratingly, we have been informed of the changes only now and could not have been aware of them back in 2012. Details of how the data have been updated and improved are set out in the statistical release.
Our targets are challenging—that is deliberate—and year-to-year fluctuations in factors beyond our control are inevitable, but it is worth noting that, if the same percentage reduction of 24.2 per cent that had been envisaged when the 2012 target was set was applied to the updated baseline using the 1990 to 2012 inventory and the annual target was recalibrated accordingly, the benchmark of success would have been 57.3 mtCO2e in 2012. On that basis, we would now be celebrating Scotland’s emissions being 1.6 mtCO2e below a revised target of 57.3 mtCO2e.
In the annual progress report on Scotland’s performance that it published in March, our independent climate change adviser, the Committee on Climate Change, acknowledged that good progress has been made in Scotland on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in the energy sector and on energy efficiency. In particular, our record on leading the United Kingdom on renewables—in 2013, 46.5 per cent of Scotland’s gross electricity consumption was generated from renewables—is one that we can be proud of.
Crucially, the CCC noted that, despite the first two statutory targets having been missed,
“underlying progress appears on track in most sectors.”
I believe that Scotland’s Parliament and Scotland’s people should take heart from that. The trajectory is key. Now that the latest data have been analysed, Parliament can be assured that we are more than halfway towards our interim target of achieving a 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020.
In addition to significant baseline adjustments, an increase in the net Scottish emissions account, which resulted from the operation of the EU ETS, added 2.8 mtCO2e to the 2012 account. That, too, is more than the amount by which the target was exceeded. In 2012, as a result of poor weather, residential emissions increased and energy sector emissions were also affected. That is a regular vulnerability that we are determined to design out through tackling energy efficiency and decarbonising electricity and heat generation.
There are hard yards ahead. The second report on proposals and policies—RPP2—sets the strategic direction for meeting our interim 42 per cent target by 2020 and annual targets to 2027, but section 36 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 requires that, if Scottish ministers lay a report that states that an annual target has not been met, they must, as soon as reasonably practicable, lay before Parliament a report
“setting out proposals and policies to compensate in future years for the excess emissions.”
I plan to address that by providing an annual report on the 2012 target by the end of October. The current RPP remains relevant and shows that it is possible to meet every annual target. Some policies and proposals will be easier to implement than others. Technology is changing all the time. If individual measures do not work out, we will need to examine alternatives.
We are also focused on negotiations leading up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference of parties in Paris in 2015. As Yeb Saño of the Philippines has asked, we need to demonstrate the Scottish Government’s commitment to delivery of our stretching targets as our contribution to the necessary global action and to encourage others to higher ambition.
We have engaged in discussions with Stop Climate Chaos on next steps for several weeks, and I am grateful for the fact that the Opposition parties seem keen to find consensus on new measures that arose from discussions with stakeholders. That positivity offers a hope of maintaining our common purpose as a nation in the face of what is perhaps the greatest global challenge.
Therefore, I am pleased to announce the establishment of a Cabinet sub-committee on climate change to ensure co-ordination of our strategic response at the highest level within Government. The sub-committee will complement the new public sector climate leaders forum and the Scottish Government’s climate change delivery board. To assist that process, I am making available a monitoring framework for delivery of RPP2 policies and proposals on the Scottish Government website, and I thank the climate change delivery board for its work on that.
Members can be assured that this Government’s ambition is resolute. I am confident that our world-leading targets are driving the changes that are required for a smooth transition to a low-carbon Scotland. Scottish ministers remain fully committed to meeting Scotland’s ambitious greenhouse gas emission targets, and the economic advantages of an early transition are clear. I meet my ministerial colleagues regularly, and I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the significant contributions that they have made to the implementation of the delivery framework that is set out in RPP2.
For example, through the heat network partnership, the Scottish Government and our agencies will build on the work that underpins the Scottish Government’s draft heat generation policy statement to commit resources to supporting delivery of district heating projects, and we are actively engaged with projects across Scotland.
The Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, Fergus Ewing, has committed to set up a working group under the expert commission on district heating to consider the existing regulatory context and to develop proposals for a regulatory framework. As part of that work, it will investigate how best to ensure that public sector buildings connect to district heating networks, where they are available and when that is cost effective.
In March, new energy efficiency standards for social housing were launched, and last week my colleague Margaret Burgess announced the final home energy efficiency programmes Scotland—HEEPS—allocations of £60 million for 2014-15, which will result in remote local councils receiving £5.3 million more in funding for energy efficiency measures for off-gas-grid homes than in 2013-14.
We will work with stakeholders to take forward our commitment to target the most fuel-poor areas in the years ahead, including remote rural and hard-to-treat properties.
On sustainable and active travel, we are committed to achieving our target of almost total decarbonisation of road transport by 2050. This morning, the transport minister announced a further £15 million package for 2014 to 2016, which includes an allocation of an additional £10 million to cycling infrastructure in 2014-15 and funding for more rapid deployment of electric vehicles and associated charging infrastructure throughout Scotland, made up of £7 million for cycling and walking infrastructure, which attracts match funding, £2 million for electric vehicle rapid chargers and £1 million for up to 30 electric vehicles for car clubs.
The transport minister proposes to allocate £5 million in 2015-16 to develop behavioural change aspects of the smarter choices, smarter places programme. There will be a focus on locally designed initiatives, including travel planning. The approach will be designed to attract local match funding. It is worth noting that the funding of £15 million that is targeted at reducing carbon emissions from the transport sector is 50 per cent more than we had discussed with key stakeholders such as Stop Climate Chaos. That indicates our determination to rise to the challenge.
On agriculture, we have recently expanded the farming for a better climate programme, and we have worked with Scotland’s farmers to encourage the mutual benefits from the greening elements of the common agricultural policy. The full detail of the CAP package will be announced by cabinet secretary Richard Lochhead tomorrow.
It is no doubt because of that package of measures that Stop Climate Chaos Scotland this morning commented that this Government is showing “serious intent” in tackling climate change.
Our climate challenge fund enables communities throughout Scotland to take action, and we support international action on climate justice through our climate justice fund. It does not stop there. Our new cabinet sub-committee and the climate change delivery board will develop policies and financial mechanisms to enable people, organisations and businesses to reduce their emissions while reaping other benefits. Through the public sector climate leaders forum, we have committed the Scottish Government to becoming an exemplar organisation on climate change.
Climate change is a truly global challenge, and tackling it is a moral imperative. With the Parliament’s support, Scotland will continue to lead by example and encourage other nations to raise their ambition.
The minister will take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. If questions and answers are succinct, I might be able to call everyone who wants to be called.
This is the third year in a row in which I have stood before the minister and been disappointed by the Government statement on achieving our year-on-year emissions target, and this is the third year in a row in which I have heard the same excuses and spin from the Government. That is not acceptable.
The minister highlighted the general trend, but progress has stalled since the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 was passed and statutory targets were introduced, and this year there has been a rise in emissions. The Government defends the lack of progress by focusing on the shifting baseline, but such adjustment was not unexpected. In relation to the 2010 figures, the then minister, Stewart Stevenson, said that the early experience highlighted the need not just to plan to meet the targets but to build in contingency. If that had been done we might not be in the position that we are in today.
There is a need for action, which is why Opposition colleagues and I wrote to the minister to support Stop Climate Chaos’s policy asks. We made clear that such policies are only a start. I am pleased that the minister has responded to the suggestions today, but they will not achieve the step change that is needed.
Today’s announcement means that it will be much more difficult to achieve our target in subsequent years. Does the minister share my concern about our ability to meet the 2013 target, which demanded a significant drop in emissions, given that it will be based on past and current activity, and given that today’s announcements will have no impact on our ability to deliver on the target?
We are playing catch-up. The small measures that the minister announced are welcome, but will the minister commit to producing a substantial annual report in October, which will fully compensate for the excess emissions?
As I said, we will produce a report by the end of October on the need to pick up slack, in terms of emissions.
I welcome Claire Baker’s welcome for the measures that we have taken. I hope that she recognises the serious commitment of resources from this Government today and, last week, from Margaret Burgess and Keith Brown, and I hope that she acknowledges that our setting up a cabinet sub-committee shows our serious intent to keep the Government’s and the Parliament’s ambitions on climate change on track.
I highlight to Claire Baker, who talks about the Government’s ambition and—in her terms—our seeming inability to meet targets, that I have checked with John Swinney and in the seven years since 2007 the Labour Party has never asked in the budget process for low-carbon ambition to be one of the budget’s priorities. She ought to address that issue to her colleagues. It has not featured in those discussions. Let us have a little bit more honesty and openness about this. [Interruption.]
Order, please.
I hope that we can have—
Three years in a row, and the same excuses.
Order.
Claire Baker talks about excuses. Let us get this straight. Each year, I or my predecessors have been here and she has criticised the Scottish Government’s performance on climate change. In each year, the Labour Party has failed to make any further requests in the budget process, but we have—[Interruption.]
You are responsible.
Order! Minister, please continue.
I am trying to listen to the dialogue and to you, Presiding Officer.
If I may stop you for a moment, minister, I remind members that sedentary contributions are not acceptable. This is a statement and questions.
I would be grateful if you would continue answering the question, minister.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I assure Claire Baker that we are serious about hitting our targets, if we can, between now and 2020, but as I said in my statement, the underlying trend should give us confidence. Both the Committee on Climate Change and our analysis suggest that we are on track to achieve a 42 per cent reduction. It is difficult because there have been sizeable adjustments to the baseline; 5.4 mtCO2e is a 7.7 per cent adjustment to the baseline, which is not easy to overcome when we find out about it retrospectively, but we are working very hard to ensure that we deliver on our targets.
It is not third time lucky, is it?
Given that the emissions from homes appear to have risen substantially in 2012, does the minister believe that enough is being done to support consumers, particularly elderly residents and those who live in remote and rural communities, to insulate their homes to prevent heat from being wasted? How will he increase awareness of the schemes that he outlined, particularly among hard-to-reach groups such as elderly people who live alone and are not online?
Does the minister feel embarrassed that the Government has missed its fixed annual emissions targets for three years in a row? Is he aware that the UK’s expert Committee on Climate Change has said that additional opportunities to reduce emissions that go beyond current and proposed policies will be necessary? Is he confident that the additional measures that he set out today are adequate to prevent us from missing our targets yet again in future years?
On the targets, I merely highlight to Jamie McGrigor that the targets that the Scottish Parliament collectively set—we agreed them unanimously—are more stretching than those of the UK. We have a 42 per cent target for 2020 whereas the UK target is 34 per cent. On the basis of the evidence that was published today, I hope that Jamie McGrigor can at least accept that Scotland’s performance is far better than that of the UK—it is far better than that of England, of Wales and of Northern Ireland. We are making good progress.
On the issue that Jamie McGrigor fairly raises about energy efficiency, which is extremely important, I accept the point that he makes about the need to help those who are vulnerable and in harder-to-treat properties. I mentioned in my statement that Margaret Burgess announced £60 million under HEEPS last week, and £5.3 million of that is being specifically targeted through discussion with stakeholders such as Stop Climate Chaos to hard-to-treat properties that are off the gas grid in remote and rural areas such as the area that Jamie McGrigor represents. I hope that Jamie McGrigor will find something in that which is of potential benefit to his constituents, as it will be to all remote and rural areas across Scotland. People who currently find it hard to have their properties treated will have additional support through local authorities, funded by this Government through our HEAPS programme.
In the light of the Opposition parties’ contributions today, I ask the minister how he intends to engage elected representatives in our Parliament and in local government to play their part in meeting the targets that we all agreed to. All the parties require to contribute ideas if we are to succeed in meeting our stretching targets.
Rob Gibson is absolutely right. I suspect that the issue is bigger than normal politics and it requires a consensus, so I am disappointed by some of the remarks that were made earlier and I hope that we can have a more positive tone throughout.
I say to Rob Gibson that we all have a role to play in reducing carbon emissions. We are engaging with families throughout the length and breadth of Scotland through our greener together campaign and we are engaging people with positive messages about creating a cleaner, greener Scotland, linked to actions that we can all take.
We know that about half of what we must achieve will come through behaviour change, so it is significant. We are engaging communities through the climate challenge fund and the junior climate challenge fund, with the support of £11.8 million this year, which will enable communities to deliver the climate change ambitions that meet their needs. We are engaging local government and the wider public sector through the public sector climate leaders forum, and we are targeting the private sector through the resource efficient Scotland programme.
As I said, this morning, my colleague Keith Brown announced £5 million for the smarter choices, smarter places initiative. That is a significant investment to tackle behaviour change in transport use and to reduce emissions.
We are taking the decisive steps that we need to take. I hope that we can get a consensus across the Parliament that this serious issue requires mature debate and an understanding of the figures and that we can take appropriate action.
Climate change is a worldwide issue, as the minister said. It is also deeply relevant in Scotland, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others have stressed. In view of that, what is the minister doing to support economically challenged communities and households in Scotland to tackle emissions and fuel poverty and to have a better quality of life?
I welcome the tone of Claudia Beamish’s comments. We have a serious challenge. I acknowledge that genuine equalities issues, in which she has expressed an interest before, relate to climate change policy.
We have taken action on adaptation and mitigation to support communities that are at a disadvantage, perhaps in their internal capacity to apply for funding, by providing development grants under the climate challenge fund. The communities in the bottom 15 per cent of the Scottish index of multiple deprivation are supported to have the capacity to make an application and draw down funding from the fund. That is bearing fruit and a broader range of communities is coming forward, including communities from areas that have high levels of deprivation.
More generally, we are tackling adaptation issues. I am sure that Claudia Beamish is aware of the study that we have commissioned from the University of Dundee on the impact of flooding on lower-income groups.
Our view is that there is a climate justice agenda at home, as well as abroad. We are tackling the needs of our more deprived communities. I would be happy to engage with Claudia Beamish on those issues.
Whatever else the figures tell us, they surely reinforce the need to get the private sector and all public bodies properly engaged in the drive to create a truly environmentally responsible Scotland. How can we do that? I do not mean getting chief executives committed to doing the right thing; I mean embedding from the top to the bottom of organisations the behaviour that will ensure that Scotland hits future targets.
Graeme Dey raises an important point. We must ensure that a culture change occurs in business, local government, the public sector more generally and the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government is showing what it can do and leading by example. I am confident that local government is taking the issue seriously; I have had positive discussions about the issue with Stephen Hagan, who is my counterpart in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
We have opportunities through the deployment of measures in RPP2, the low-carbon behaviour framework and the individual, social and material tool, which allows us to design policies across the Government that will work with and influence aspects of people’s consumption behaviour. We can deploy a number of tools.
We can look at providing resources and materials to local government through the sustainable Scotland network and other vehicles—such as resource efficient Scotland, which I mentioned—to ensure that people have access to the information that they need to make decisions for themselves. As I said, the climate challenge fund provides another way of helping individuals. Individuals may take the message from the workplace into other environments. We need to take a number of approaches to behavioural aspects of tackling climate change.
I, too, am disappointed that we have yet again missed our targets. I am also disappointed that I detected no great urgency from the minister. The first half of his statement could be summarised as saying that, if only we had set different targets or measured things differently, we would not have been found wanting.
The issue is serious. Consensus will be won only when we all believe that the Government is doing its utmost, which is not the case at the moment.
One way to tackle emissions is to increase low-carbon transport. The Scottish Government should be leading the way on that. Will the minister give details of the fleet of electric cars that the Scottish Government uses?
I am disappointed by that line of questioning. Keith Brown has just announced £15 million of investment in electric vehicle infrastructure, sustainable and active travel and smarter choices, smarter places. It would be good of Alison McInnes at least to acknowledge that, rather than make a cheap point.
We have just installed a sub-committee of the Cabinet to tackle climate change. The member accuses the Government of not showing the necessary urgency in tackling the problem. We have more ambitious targets than her own Government at the UK level has. Our target is a 42 per cent emissions reduction by 2020. Where is the UK Government’s similar ambition?
I challenge the member to come forward with positive solutions instead of cheap points. We have made sincere commitments today on low-carbon transport, electric vehicle infrastructure and sustainable and active travel. It would be more fitting if she acknowledged that point in her line of questioning.
I shall resist the temptation to go where the previous question went. I would like to extend what Graeme Dey commented on.
England, Wales, Northern Ireland and probably Europe seem to be behind us, but there are, of course, many businesses that work right the way across the area. To what extent do we need to influence businesses and other private activities in such a way that what they do impacts not only on us but on the other countries in which they are placed?
Obviously, Nigel Don has made some useful comments. We have to try to use the regulatory powers that we have across Europe to influence business behaviours, and it is clear that the regulation of key markets is a key issue. The emissions trading scheme and the trajectory that the European Union has set us on are also extremely important in driving business behaviour, particularly that of businesses that are in the traded sector and emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
In the context of Europe, our performance is good. We have seen a 29.9 per cent reduction in emissions. As I said in my statement, EU 15 emissions fell by 13.9 per cent and EU 28 emissions fell by 18.5 per cent. We will not necessarily always be at the forefront of all the countries in Europe, as there will be chopping and changing, but we are very much at the frontier in European ambition.
We need the UK to stick to its guns in its fourth carbon budget, which influences UK policy and businesses that operate within the UK; we need the EU to move to a higher ambition for its 2020 target; and we need at least a 40 per cent carbon mitigation target for the 2030 target—I hope that there will be a 50 per cent target if a global deal can be struck in Paris in 2015.
By comparison, Scotland’s target for 2027, which is clearly earlier than 2030, is 60 per cent or thereabouts. Therefore, we are showing much more ambition than our colleagues in Europe are, but we support the European Union and the UK when it comes to international negotiations. They can play a big role in creating the right environment for business to take the appropriate action.
If we look at emissions by sector, we see that agriculture has the second highest, at 11.2 per cent. Given the failure to meet our emissions targets and the five asks that Stop Climate Chaos has put forward, why is the Government’s response on agriculture not much more robust?
Cara Hilton may have missed a point that I made in my statement. My colleague Richard Lochhead will tomorrow make an announcement on the common agricultural policy. I encourage her to listen to and read that statement to see the detail in it. She is being overly pessimistic—perhaps that is a trait of her Labour colleagues—about the Scottish Government’s performance. She should have every confidence that our Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment will be helpful in that regard.
We have worked very closely with Stop Climate Chaos to ensure that we understand what it believes we need to do to get back on track. We have made our own input; we have put in more money than that organisation asked for for sustainable and active travel. That is a serious sign of the Government’s intention to tackle the challenge.
I thank the minister for the copy of his statement, which I read before he made it.
I congratulate the minister on the 29.9 per cent reduction in emissions in the basket of six key greenhouse gases between 1990 and 2012—especially when we compare that figure with the figures for the rest of the UK. Will the minister expand a little on how the emissions trading scheme has affected carbon emissions?
The emissions trading scheme is extremely significant, because approximately 40 per cent of our total emissions are through the traded sector. The emissions trading scheme’s performance and impact on our figures are therefore quite profound.
Under the current proposal across Europe, the cap will decrease by 1.74 per cent a year, which will result in a reduction in ETS emissions of 21 per cent in 2020 from the 2005 amount. The European Commission has proposed that emissions should be 43 per cent lower by 2030. It is clear that we have a higher level of ambition than that for 2030. We are talking about achieving a reduction in emissions of 60 per cent, or thereabouts, by 2027, after taking into account our new baseline.
We need Europe to go faster, so we are constantly pushing it, and we support the UK’s line in Europe to try to get the ETS to be more ambitious and to have a steeper trajectory for the traded sector in order to help to keep us on track to meet our targets. In RPP2, we have shown that we will, from 2021 onwards, move to recording actual emissions rather than the ETS, because we are concerned that the European Union might not get to the level of ambition that we want to show.
Minister, I am afraid that when you turn away from your microphone and do not speak through the chair, not only can I not hear you but, worse than that, the official reporters might not be able to pick up what you are saying.
The first three targets—the failed targets—are the easy ones. They come before a big step change for 2013 and an expectation of a reduction of something like 1 million tonnes every year after that, which is substantially more than has ever been achieved.
Given that most of the initiatives that the Government has announced today—which are welcome—have come from non-governmental organisations with the support of the Opposition parties, are we really to expect that big step change in our emissions trajectory without a big step change in policies?
I welcome Patrick Harvie’s positive comments about the initiatives that have been announced today. His comments are in contrast with the comments of other members.
We have put in place the Cabinet sub-committee to reflection the fact that we realise that we have a serious challenge ahead of us. The continual change in the baseline figures has made the challenge more difficult, as the Committee on Climate Change has acknowledged. I am sure that Patrick Harvie is aware that that change makes it more difficult.
The drop-off between 2012 and 2013 is a substantial issue of which we need to take account. We are pushing the UK Government; we have not yet seen what cap it will set for the ETS and we need to know what allocation we will have. However, we are trying to reflect the need to up our game as a society. I hope that all members will engage in that positively—as, I am sure, Mr Harvie will. We can try to achieve that.
We are confident that the underlying trajectory for 2020 is still on track. As I have acknowledged all along, we may have challenges from year to year, but we are taking decisive action today to try to step up our efforts and ensure that we accelerate investment in low-carbon technologies. I welcome Mr Harvie’s warm welcome of that.
The reduction in emissions in Scotland of about 30 per cent since 1990 is almost double that which has been achieved across Europe. What can the Scottish Government do to encourage other countries to match our ambitious targets on climate change?
Willie Coffey has made an important point. That encouragement is part of our role, and one of the reasons why the NGOs have been so supportive is that so few Governments throughout the world are showing the degree of ambition that we are showing. To be fair to the UK Government, it is more ambitious than some others, so I give it credit for that.
We do not have a direct voice at the negotiating table, but we can exert influence through bilateral engagement with international NGOs and Governments to make them aware of what we, as a developed country, are doing on climate change mitigation and climate justice. The importance of that cannot be overstated, because it is about trying to build trust among developed and developing nations so that the latter can trust developed nations and groups, such as the EU and the US, when they make pledges on climate change.
We play an important role in demonstrating that it is possible to address climate change. It is not without its challenges, but it can be done. That is good for the economy; we have positive evidence from Scotland about how our doing so has helped to support the low-carbon economy and sustain jobs at a time of otherwise reduced investment across the UK economy, and how important it is to deliver on climate justice.
Given the contribution that the public, community, voluntary and private sectors can make to achieving our targets, does the minister see a role for community planning partnerships in taking forward the work and engaging with all the stakeholders?
I agree with Jayne Baxter that there could be an important role for all forms of community planning. The work is an important part of the planning process for social and community infrastructure and investment in services. Clearly, that feeds through into some of the messaging that would influence individual partners within community planning partnerships. I recognise that that is an important area on which we can work.
I have no doubt that my colleague Derek Mackay is, through bilateral talks, taking a close interest in low-carbon investment and its impact. That is reflected in the draft Scottish planning policy and the national planning framework 3, as Jayne Baxter saw, and has fed through the consultation into the finalised documents.
We realise that there is a tie-up between the planning system and our low-carbon strategy through RRP2. Community planning has an important role to play in both.
I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to the minister for missing his opening remarks.
I welcome the minister’s comments on district heating—in particular, the announcement on the expert commission, which will clearly require collaborative working, not least with planning and development officials.
The minister has assured us of co-ordination at the highest level. There will need also to be co-ordination at a local level. Will he set out a timeframe with specific targets for district heating schemes?
Mr Finnie might be aware that that matter is in the ministerial portfolio of my colleague Fergus Ewing, who has been very supportive of this agenda. I want to thank him for the action that he has taken.
We have an opportunity to consider the current regulatory framework, how it influences take-up of district heating and what kind of regulatory framework we might need in the future. I encourage those who have an interest in the issue to engage in that process. I will ask Fergus Ewing to address the point that the member raises in due course, once further information comes forward about the process.
Previous
Topical Question TimeNext
Older People