“Report on Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies”
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7677, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s “Report on Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies”.
15:47
I am happy to open the debate on behalf of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and to discuss the report that the committee has published on the Government’s draft report on proposals and policies to reach the targets outlined in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. The draft RPP is one of a suite of documents published under the low-carbon Scotland heading. The documents are fundamentally interconnected, and I am sure that we will be able to discuss aspects relating to many of them and not just the draft RPP. Many of the points that members raise during the debate, as well as the recommendations in the committee’s report, will form the basis of Parliament’s response to the Government’s draft RPP. I hope that that will be reflected in the final version that the Government publishes in the near future.
I thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee in person and in writing. I thank my fellow committee members for their contributions, and our clerking team for their work in producing a report in a short timescale. I thank the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for its valuable contribution on the energy section of the draft RPP.
The draft RPP sets out proposals as well as policies that the Government believes will help it to meet the annual carbon emissions reduction targets to 2022 and beyond, from the 42 per cent target by 2020, consistent with the long-term 80 per cent target. We can recall the ambition that was talked of when Parliament set what the Government rightly calls world-leading targets. We did so not just constructively but broadly consensually. There are few parliamentary chambers around the world in which the issue of climate change has led to all political parties in an elected assembly seeking to strengthen legislation rather than undermine it. We can take some pride in ourselves for that.
We can also welcome the Government’s publication of the draft RPP and acknowledge the great deal of work that has been put into the document over the past 18 months, and the engagement with external stakeholders.
I have a couple of concerns to raise that are reflected in the committee’s recommendations. The first of those concerns is on the timing of the publication, which proved to be a problem in that not only did the 60-day statutory period for parliamentary scrutiny include a parliamentary recess, which made the timescale tight, but it took place at the same time as scrutiny of the Scottish budget. When RPPs are published in the future, it is therefore important that that is done at a time that allows for the highest possible level of parliamentary scrutiny within the statutory period.
As we make progress towards the emissions reduction that we have all signed up for, we will come to find that scrutiny of progress on the RPP is every bit as important as scrutiny on any other indicators of progress in our economy. A Finance Committee would not accept only limited scrutiny of a Scottish budget. Future Scottish climate change committees should not expect such a shortened, constrained process either. We will be happy to discuss the practicalities of that with ministers, if they are willing.
So much for the timing; what of the content of the draft report? Some witnesses expressed concern over the scope of and balance between existing, adopted policies and proposals for new policies that have not yet been adopted. A range of views was expressed. Many witnesses argued that the policies that the draft report contains are, broadly speaking, a summary of existing policy, not anything radically new or unexpected. They suggested that the proposals that are included in the draft report, which might at some future point be adopted as policies, were less radical than the proposals that were included in some earlier drafts of the RPP.
It is clear that the emissions reduction targets will be met only if both the proposals and the policies that are contained in the document are adopted and successfully implemented. The RPP specifically states that the proposals do not reflect current Government policy. My view, and that of many witnesses, is that a clear step forward would have been preferable, with a sense of direction rather than a summary of where we are now.
The committee recommended that the Scottish Government must, as a matter of urgency, assess and evaluate each of the proposals and decide which of them will become Government policy. When we see the final RPP, the committee expects it to contain an indicative timescale for carrying out that work. We further expect that the subsequent RPP, which is due to be published towards the end of this calendar year, will provide clear evidence of that analysis.
Other improvements could be made, and the committee has called for those to take place—with, I have to acknowledge, two members dissenting. The committee agreed by majority that failure criteria should be included for the voluntary measures in the RPP. That reflects concern over the balance between voluntary and mandatory or regulatory approaches. The idea of relying on voluntary measures is not inherently a bad one. We want the measures to be something in which the whole of Scotland chooses to participate, because they will lead to a better quality of life and because people see an incentive and a desire for that. We must be clear about what would represent the failure of a voluntary approach—if we achieve only 50, 60 or 70 per cent of the emissions reduction that is hoped for under a voluntary approach, we must be clear what the failure criteria would be. How could we move to a more assertive approach?
As I have pointed out, the timescale for scrutinising the document was tight, and we did not have time to look in great detail at the cost estimate for specific proposals and policies. That was compounded by the fact that we were scrutinising the draft budget at the same time, which meant that both the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee had to deal with major pieces of scrutiny concurrently. Both committees have argued that, as a result, the scrutiny of the documents was not as comprehensive as it might have been. Both Government and Parliament need to co-operate to do better in future.
Yearly budgets, as well as longer-term spending plans, must be consistent with our approach on reducing carbon emissions. I cite some of the evidence from Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, which has repeated its evidence in a briefing for all members today. It discusses
“funded support for the introduction of road traffic demand management measures”,
as well as funded proposals on active travel—walking and cycling—which has been long neglected, and which, during scrutiny of previous Scottish budgets, our committee has repeatedly argued needs a clearer focus, with more consistent funding. The Stop Climate Chaos briefing also mentions
“Greater funding for home energy efficiency”.
It says:
“SCCS is calling for a commitment of £100 million per year for a universal home insulation scheme and ‘soft’ loans package”.
Those are not new ideas, but it is clear that we will not achieve the emissions reductions unless our budgets and long-term spending plans are consistent. Other witnesses argued that there is insufficient alignment between the draft budget for the coming year and the RPP. The freight facilities grant, which will be debated later this week, is an example that members might want to raise.
There is little benefit in setting challenging objectives and making ambitious estimates of the reductions that we can achieve if Government budgets, not just under the current Administration but long into the future—up to the 2020 and 2050 targets and beyond—do not contain sufficient financial provision to allow delivery.
There is a further challenge to the Government. The committee agreed that the final version of the RPP must include a clear statement of what the Government will do if the European Union does not adopt a 30 per cent target, as we hope that it will do. If that happens, there will be greater challenges for Scotland in meeting our legally binding targets, but that will not be an excuse to abandon the targets.
The RPP is part of a suite of low-carbon-Scotland documents, the weight of which is burdening my desk—I am holding up only a sample. One of the most important documents that we will consider is the public engagement strategy. It will be vital that we move the debate on from the cosy language of consensus. On climate change, we have had centuries of ignorance of the damage that human economic activity was causing our environment, followed by generations of denial of the damage. Denial still exists in some quarters but is less strong in Scotland. We have had decades of inaction, even after the science became clear, and years of debate. The years of debate have led to a measure of consensus, but we need to move on, through public engagement, to convince Scotland that we need a radically different approach to reducing our emissions. An 80 per cent cut is not a few trimmings and does not require small, incremental measures. We must convince Scotland that a radically different approach is in people’s interests, so that all Scotland will sign up to it.
I move,
That the Parliament endorses the recommendations contained in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s 9th Report, 2010 (Session 3): Report on Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies (SP Paper 554) and agrees that this report, together with the Official Report of the Parliament’s debate on the report, should form the Parliament’s response to the Scottish Government on the Draft Report on Proposals and Policies.
15:57
I thank Patrick Harvie for his comments. I hope that we will have a constructive debate and that we will be able to build on the unanimous support that the Parliament gave to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
I am grateful to the two committees for their scrutiny of the draft report on proposals and policies. I thank committee members, who had to work hard to absorb all the information, and the committee clerks, who worked hard to support the committees’ work.
This is my first opportunity to speak to members about climate change since it became part of my portfolio. I acknowledge the great work that my predecessor, Stewart Stevenson, did in developing the RPP—I will use the acronym for the rest of the debate. I am also grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth for his attendance at the committee sessions during the handover period—I cannot begin to tell members how grateful I was for that help.
In our draft RPP we set out our vision for a low-carbon Scotland. A low-carbon society will make the most of our energy and resources, consuming less and using cleaner and renewable energy sources. Building a low-carbon, sustainable future will benefit Scotland economically, through our natural advantage in renewable energy sources and through cost savings from using energy efficiently. Of course, it will also benefit us socially, improving our health, welfare and natural environment. Our energy efficiency action plan and our low-carbon economic strategy showed how we can harness those benefits.
The draft RPP shows how our actions will affect Scotland’s emissions. Current policies can achieve a 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, compared with the 1990 baseline. The policies would allow us to meet some of the annual targets between now and 2022, but not all of them. Therefore, we have considered additional proposals which, taken together, would allow us to exceed the annual targets in all years. That provides some flexibility to decide which proposals should be adopted in future.
We need such flexibility for several reasons. First, a number of the proposals come from work that was undertaken by third parties such as the Committee on Climate Change or research commissioned by ministers. It would not be appropriate to introduce those as policies without discussing them further with stakeholders.
Secondly, several of the committee’s recommendations call for extra funding for various proposals. I would love to have more money to spend—I look appealingly to the Conservative members for them to ask the chancellor whether we could please have some more money to spend—but the reality is that Scotland’s budget has been cut. That limits the funds that are available for expanding programmes or launching new initiatives.
Thirdly, we are constrained in what we can deliver by the limited powers that are at our disposal. The United Kingdom’s comprehensive spending review has thrown into sharp relief the limitations of the existing constitutional arrangements, particularly with continuing uncertainties around the green investment bank and the fossil fuel levy.
Furthermore, reducing emissions relies on everyone—Government, business and individuals—playing their part. We cannot predict the extent to which people will get on board with the agenda, so we need to have new policies ready to introduce if more action is needed.
Both committees have made recommendations about the timing of the draft report and how it aligns with funding in the draft budget. Indeed, Patrick Harvie mentioned that point in his opening remarks. The final outcome of the budget will determine which proposals can be implemented as policies in 2011-12 while leaving flexibility as to which proposals are adopted in future years. That is why it makes sense for consideration of the draft report to run in parallel with consideration of the draft budget.
I am happy to consider any suggestions from members for alternative or additional proposals. However, if members want additional measures to be supported in the budget, they must also be clear how they would fund them.
It is important that the progress that we have already made on climate change is not overlooked. For instance, last month, new statistics showed that, in 2009, Scotland met 27 per cent of its gross electricity consumption from renewable sources. The amount of electricity that is generated by renewables in Scotland has more than doubled since 2000, so we are well on track to meet our target of 80 per cent of Scottish electricity consumption coming from renewables by 2020.
We are continuing our flagship energy assistance package and home insulation scheme in 2011-12. They are designed to tackle our emissions and fuel poverty and are supported by a budget of £48 million.
The committee is right to flag up the risk that our fuel poverty target—to end fuel poverty, so far as is reasonably practicable, by 2016—will not be achieved. I will not run away from that. Given escalating energy prices and the impact on income of increased unemployment and lower benefit levels, the target is very challenging, but we have not given up on it. We are doing, and will continue to do, everything in our power to achieve it.
Our focus is on improving house conditions and providing energy, benefits and tariff advice. The most recent data show that early phases of our area-based insulation programmes have already provided nearly 87,000 home energy checks, with more than 13,000 households receiving insulation measures and many thousands more being offered further assistance. Those numbers will only go up.
We also continue to access carbon emissions reduction target investment worth around £100 million per year in Scotland, focused on low-income households.
Patrick Harvie mentioned the issue with the EU move to a 30 per cent target, and the committee report calls on the Government to make clear its intentions should the EU not strengthen its 2020 target to 30 per cent. We have always been clear that, as part of achieving our 42 per cent target in 2020, we require the EU to strengthen its target. We will continue to lobby the UK and the EU on that but, if it becomes clear that there is no prospect of the EU moving, we will obviously have to consider other options.
Achieving the 42 per cent target is already a big challenge. Trying to achieve it without the EU compelling the heavy emitters in the emissions trading system to do more would make it even more difficult and costly for ordinary people. If we are to maintain the enthusiasm and commitment of the people of Scotland to reduce emissions, we need to ensure that the effort that we expect of them is fair.
We believe that a move to a global low-carbon economy is inevitable. Last month, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism attended the Cancún conference as part of the United Kingdom delegation. That conference laid the groundwork for a long-term binding global agreement on emissions. A lot more work will be needed to secure that, but the Cancún result is a clear sign that the vast majority of countries want the United Nations multilateral process to succeed.
The committee report asks whether the voluntary approach that we have favoured in our draft report will deliver the necessary emissions reductions. I understand that there is a bit of a philosophical debate about the voluntary approach as opposed to the regulatory approach and when one or the other is most appropriate. We strongly believe that the public and businesses want to reduce their emissions, and we want to support and help them to do that, but we recognise the need to use every tool available to achieve emissions reductions, including regulation where voluntary approaches do not prove successful. In the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, we introduced enabling powers in many areas, including in relation to domestic and non-domestic buildings, microgeneration and waste. We will use those powers if and when we need to.
The committee asked how we would determine the success of voluntary measures. To help us to make those decisions, we are putting in place a low-carbon monitoring and management framework that will indicate whether we are making progress with our policies before emissions data for each year become available.
It is not, of course, for Government alone to take action on climate change. Meeting our targets depends critically on actions that ordinary members of the public take to reduce their emissions and energy use. Our public engagement strategy, which was published on 30 December, sets out our approach to encouraging that contribution and recognises that the most effective engagement comes not from the centre, but from more local routes—whether local communities, employers or local authorities.
The committee asked us how we would engage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities on the proposals and policies that we expect them to deliver. We believe that central Government should not dictate to local authorities what they should be doing—we established that principle in the concordat. We will continue to work with COSLA and other public bodies to help them to identify the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions and to help them to meet their climate change duties as established in the 2009 act.
In conclusion, the draft report on proposals and policies sets out a clear path for meeting our climate change targets and gives us flexibility to respond to future events. I believe that that flexibility will become incredibly important as the years go by.
I call Iain Smith to speak on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.
16:07
I thank the Presiding Officers for giving me, as the convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, the opportunity to open on its behalf.
The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee was designated as a secondary committee to consider specifically the energy aspects of the draft report on proposals and policies. We reported to the lead committee with a list of recommendations. I thank the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee for carefully considering our report, and particularly for endorsing our recommendations, which are contained in annex A of its report. I also thank those who gave evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, its members and, of course, the clerks, who turned round the report in a very short timescale. We had a short timescale for completion, so we decided to combine consideration of the report with scrutiny of the energy expenditure levels proposed in the draft budget as well as consideration of the carbon assessment of the 2011-12 draft budget and the draft electricity generation policy statement for 2010.
One of the committee’s first recommendations was that future annual reports on proposals and policies should not be published simultaneously with draft budgets and that the Scottish Government should consider publishing all the energy and climate change information at least six months prior to the draft budget. I say to the minister that it is important that policies and proposals inform the budget-making process rather than the budget-making process informing the policies and proposals. We need to get that right in the future. The committee heard evidence from a number of people who were concerned about the publication of proposals and policies not being at the right time in the cycle. In particular, it was suggested that, in a spending review period, publishing policies in advance so that they could be part of the spending review process is extremely important.
I appreciate what the member is saying, but members should accept that the first publication created difficulties. Publication was delayed for reasons that were completely outwith the Government’s control, and some of the timescales are laid down in the 2009 act. I am happy to speak to people about how we can do things better in the future.
The point of the committee’s recommendation was to ensure that we get better at that in the future. We accept that there are difficulties but think that, in future, we need to improve the process.
We were also concerned about the lack of financial information in the RPP and felt that there was a need to include information on medium and longer-term trends and to develop more of the proposals into policies so that we are clear about where we are going.
The committee considered whether the proposals and policies that are outlined in the report, as well as the allocated draft budgets, would enable the relevant targets, as well as others under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, to be met.
A significant area of interest to the committee was investment in renewable energy. The committee welcomed the targets that the Scottish Government has set, the most notable of which is a 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050, but there seemed to be a disparity in the statements that the Scottish Government and the enterprise agencies have made about energy and renewable energy, in particular, being a top priority, given that the energy budget faces a proposed cut of 22 per cent in real terms.
The committee heard that investment in renewable energy is needed now so that we can take advantage of the opportunities that are available in Scotland, so we would like the funds from the fossil fuel levy to be made available to the Scottish Government to help with that. I am pleased to say that in evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee this morning, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne, again stressed that that money was available and urged the Scottish Government to engage constructively with the UK Government on how we can start to release those funds as part of the green investment bank proposals. It is incumbent on all of us to look for innovative ways of taking advantage of that offer, rather than simply to block it by saying that it does not do exactly what we want it to do. We must take the opportunity that exists.
The committee welcomed the employment opportunities that are available in the low-carbon sector and heard evidence on the challenges in training and retraining that are faced in providing the skills that are required for those opportunities to be taken. It therefore recommended that the Scottish Government should provide the education and training sector with the necessary funds to enable the Scottish population to take full advantage of the employment opportunities in the renewable energy sector by providing the right skills at the right time.
In our 2009 energy report, we called for a rise of between £100 million and £170 million per year to fund energy efficiency schemes such as the home insulation scheme and energy efficiency packages, so I am disappointed by the budget of £48 million that has been allocated to the home insulation scheme and the energy efficiency package for 2011-12 and the proposed reduction of £20.7 million to £83.9 million for the supporting sustainability budget line. The committee is of the view that the proposed budget for 2011-12 would not be enough to meet the energy efficiency targets that the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 set.
We heard that consumers would find it difficult to fund energy efficiency measures in their homes, as they would have less disposable income. One of the reasons for that is the increase in the number of households in fuel poverty in Scotland, which has increased year on year since 2002 and now stands at 32.7 per cent of households. The committee found it regrettable that we appear to be in severe danger of failing to meet the target of eliminating fuel poverty by 2016.
The Energy Bill that has been introduced in the UK Parliament contains details on the UK-wide green deal funding, which was raised with Chris Huhne at the committee’s meeting this morning, and I welcome his comments on the issue. However, the committee considered that there was a gap in funding for energy efficiency measures prior to the green deal’s implementation, and I ask the minister whether she can provide any information on what finance options will be in place for Scottish consumers while we wait for the green deal to be implemented.
I am running out of time, so I will have to draw my remarks to a close. One final comment is that I welcome the comments that Chris Huhne made this morning, in which he indicated that he thought that there was a very strong case for the green investment bank to be based in Scotland. All members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee would endorse that.
It is essential that the RPP provides costed proposals and policies that parliamentary committees can monitor year on year if we are to have any chance of achieving the medium and long-term targets that have been set. I hope that we can build on this year’s report to improve on that process as time goes on.
16:14
I congratulate the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee on the thoroughness of its inquiry into “Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies”—which from here on in, like the minister, I will refer to as the RPP—and on the clarity of its report. Labour endorses the committee’s report and the report of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which formed an appendix to the lead committee’s report.
I am a member of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, but the pat on the back is particularly merited on this occasion, especially because the work coincided with our scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s draft budget for 2011-12. That fact, and the fact that the Scottish Government’s climate change targets for 2020 are projected to be undershot by 4 per cent, leave us open to doubts about the degree of the Government’s commitment to achieving those targets. The Scottish Government seeks to close that 4 per cent gap mainly by persuading the European Union that its emission trading scheme should be tightened by increasing emissions reduction targets for 2020 from 20 to 30 per cent. In the absence of that arguably rather optimistic scenario, we do not know what the Scottish Government will do. I thought that the minister was about to give us a plan B earlier, but it turned out that her plan B is to appeal to the Tories.
As the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee report makes clear, the area of EU emissions targets is not the only one in which scenario planning would be welcome. For example, it would be useful if early and successful private sector activity could be used to stimulate other private sector investment in low-carbon technology. Frankly, we need to know about the early wins that are taking place in the real economy that are to do with low-carbon technology, and we need to see if they can be encouraged and replicated in other sectors of the economy.
Scottish Government funding, such as the £48 million for area-based home insulation schemes and energy assistance packages, which the minister referred to as being in the 2011-12 draft budget, is welcome as far as it goes, although I am sure that a case will be made for a larger budget for those areas before we are finished today. However, targets will not be met simply through Government expenditure. There will have to be significant private sector investment in low-carbon technology, which was a point that I made to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth when he substituted for the new minister at the committee’s meeting of 14 December last year. I talked to Mr Swinney about leveraging in private finance, and he was relatively informative about what he and other ministers had been up to and how they had been beavering away trying to stimulate the private sector economy in this area. However, we do not know what the Government has in mind and at what point it will start to form a judgment about how achievable targets will be if early wins through private sector investment in low-carbon technology are not forthcoming.
Staying with scenario planning, if I was being generous, I might say that the jury is still out on the overall scenario. Some of the evidence that has emerged during the parallel budget process could lead us to a harsher verdict. For example, the proposals for the freight facilities grant for next year do not just send out the wrong signal; they create a danger of strangling private sector projects in the real economy that address the climate change agenda tangibly and practically. Surely that cannot be right. It illustrates that it is one thing to set targets, but it is quite another to identify the means of achieving them in the real world. It is stating the obvious, rather mildly, to say that this is a new process and very much a work in progress. It certainly needs greater scrutiny in future and comprehensive monitoring.
16:20
First, I apologise for the late arrival of myself and my colleague. No discourtesy was intended to Mr Harvie or the chamber.
We debate committee reports regularly. Few have the capacity to educate, inform, direct, terrorise or prove as far reaching as the one that is before us today, for it addresses Government policy and issues of public commitment and engagement not just in the coming session of Parliament but for the next 40 years.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on four areas, beginning with the issue of public engagement and the balance thereafter between voluntary and regulatory action. Undoubtedly, the public at large and certain sections in particular are committed to the task ahead. Others are less convinced, and I suspect that a significant majority, including many of those who notionally are engaged, are unaware of the enormity of the proposed task.
For public engagement to be sustained throughout the next 40 years—not just in 2049—politicians would be wise to accept that the support of the public can be fickle. For instance, do the public actually accept that the emissions priority, which is set out like no other in legislative terms, should be the supreme point of reference? Will they accept all deeds exercised in its name, however blunt the instruments proposed? I suspect not. If, as we progress, we impose because we have failed to persuade, that will be our failure, not a failure of the public. Were it to come down to a choice between achieving the emissions targets of the 2009 act or regenerating Scotland’s economy and the wealth and prosperity of Scots, I suspect that the latter would prevail with the overwhelming majority. It is important, therefore, that it does not come down to a choice. Already, business is suspicious that certain politicians would rather bite off their carbon nose to spite their economic face. For that reason, I have dissented from the committee report on the question of the balance between a voluntary and a regulatory approach.
The rush by the committee to embrace new measures and criteria for the imposition of a regulatory framework is a depressing admission of a failure that is yet to materialise. By definition, an admission that the voluntary approach will fail and will need to be supported by a regulatory framework implies a failure by the public to be sufficiently engaged and committed, but it will not be their failure, it will be ours as politicians.
I caution now that if we cannot persuade the public, any regulatory framework that imposes policies and views on them unwillingly and in the face of all the circumstances of the moment will lead to bitter resentment and perhaps fundamental disengagement and an alteration in the public mood.
Will Jackson Carlaw give way?
I think that it is going to get worse from Mr Harvie’s point of view, so I will let him get really rattled and then come in later. [Laughter.]
Failed politicians all too easily resort to regulation, legislation and compulsion. That surely flies in the face of the good will that has underpinned the 2009 act, and Scottish Conservatives will oppose such calls. I think that now is maybe Mr Harvie’s moment.
I am grateful to Jackson Carlaw, but his general argument that regulation is undesirable because it implies a failure to convince seems to apply to any area of regulation. Does he not accept that there are examples of voluntary approaches to reducing other forms of pollution that failed and that the country is a much cleaner place because regulation was brought in when it was necessary?
My concern is that we are seeking now to admit to a failure of the voluntary approach and to build in the requirement to establish a regulatory framework. That is the wrong approach at this time.
We must encourage science and hope for practical results. Success will assist us in meeting the challenge of the 2009 act in ways as yet unforeseen or unpredicted. We live in a global community, and in the environmental framework within which progress is measured not every route is within the unilateral control of politicians in this Parliament. Transport largely is, and it is therefore inevitably becoming the focus of unrealistic and unacceptable ambition.
We can encourage but we must not instruct. There is much more to be done in opening the minds of car users to alternating use of their vehicles with travel by public transport, which they may not have even considered as a more efficient way of accomplishing a particular journey. There is more to be done to encourage the development of city car clubs, but dictating to people—irrespective of their circumstances or needs—that they cannot use their vehicles is unacceptable.
The Scotland Bill proposes the transfer of road speed limits to the Scottish Parliament. Already, that has excited many of the e-mail lobby fraternity, who are campaigning for—and expecting—the imposition of a new national speed limit in Scotland of 50mph to achieve emissions targets. I confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will not support that policy and that it will not feature in our manifesto. Indeed, were such powers delegated to the Scottish Parliament, we might well seek to increase the speed limit to 80mph on certain highways.
The motor vehicle has a clear role to play, but we should not dismiss the role and contributions of the manufacturers. The motor vehicle that is sold and driven on our roads today is technically unrecognisable from the one that was sold a generation ago. Last week, the Ford Motor Company unveiled an electric Ford Focus. The development of such mainstream best-selling models in electric form is significant, as is their availability. We should not underestimate the investment that is being made in more efficient vehicles by manufacturers. The market will adjust and the motor vehicle of the future will prove just as unrecognisable technically a generation hence, and an imposed 50mph speed limit in such a world would be wholly irrelevant.
Finally, I throw my weight behind the long-standing efforts of my committee colleague, Rob Gibson, regarding the potential for the restoration of peatland through rewetting. That offers a big environmental return for a relatively tame public investment, and we can be more ambitious still.
Regrettably, because of the wording of the motion in Mr Harvie’s name and the unique invitation not merely to welcome or note the content of the report but to endorse the report, to which we have, in part, dissented, the Scottish Conservatives have no choice but to abstain in the division tonight.
16:26
I welcome Roseanna Cunningham to the climate change brief.
I join committee colleagues in thanking all those who responded to the call for evidence. As others have said, the timing of the report, which was a knock-on effect of the Government’s disappointing attitude when it originally set the targets last year, was unfortunate at best. I hope that the Government takes note of the committee’s comments on how the process might be better handled in the future.
The minister has joined us at what we could call stage 3 of the Parliament’s climate change process. Stage 1 was the passing of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which laid out the important framework for us to work within. Stage 2 was our agreeing the first batch of annual targets, thereby plotting the path that we need to take to fulfil our new long-term emissions obligations. Now, we have come to probably the most important part of the process—setting out how we intend to make the changes to our homes, businesses and lifestyles that will be necessary if we are to succeed in taking that path and achieving our climate change targets.
As a starting point for that, the draft report on proposals and policies is to be welcomed. Indeed, I commend the Government for the comprehensive coverage that it has given to the measures in the draft RPP. There are a number of proposals that I am particularly pleased to see included. For example, the extension of eco-driving training and promotion is an ideal measure for us to take, as it not only helps to reduce emissions but can lead to people saving money.
That particular example, however, leads me to the first of a few problems with the RPP as it stands. Although many proposals are included, a large proportion of them foresee action being taken on a voluntary basis. I agree absolutely that voluntary measures that require personal behaviour change must play a part in the move to a low-carbon Scotland, but I am not convinced that we can be sure that they will be enough in every situation. I suggest that the Government needs to consider carefully how it intends to monitor whether those voluntary measures will make the progress that is needed if the proposals are to be successful in reaching their maximum forecast emissions abatement potential.
That, in turn, brings me to another concern with the draft RPP. As things stand, meeting our 2020 target will require every existing policy to reach its maximum abatement potential and relies on the EU making the move to a 30 per cent target. It is also dependent on action in a number of policy areas being taken by, and future funding from, the UK Government. Of course, we all hope for the best-case scenario, but it is essential to make allowances for things being otherwise. I emphasise to the minister the importance of continuing to develop new proposals and of not assuming that every measure in the RPP will succeed. I also underline the committee’s call on the Government to outline its intended plans if the EU does not move to a 30 per cent target.
In addition, it is vital that the Government properly reconciles its budget with the RPP. Our committee report underlines concerns that have already been highlighted with regard to whether the 2011-12 budget contains adequate provision for measures on active travel and modal shift within the freight industry, for example. Publishing policies and proposals is worthless unless they are properly budgeted for, so I strongly associate myself with the committee’s calls for budget decisions and the monitoring of the progress of the RPP to be closely linked and mutually informed.
In the brief time that I have left, I would like to touch on a few of the issues from the draft RPP in various sectors.
On energy measures, I echo the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's conclusions on the overreliance on UK policies and funding. Working jointly on measures at a UK level is necessary—and desirable, to some extent—but the Government must ensure that Scotland is able to meet its energy efficiency goals from within its own resources if necessary.
In terms of the public sector’s role, the committee heard from several people on the need for greater clarity from central Government about what is expected from councils. Concerns were also raised about the level of resources, capacity and skills that are available to local government in order for those expectations to be met. There are many areas—the transport sector being a good example—where the most effective action to reduce emissions can be taken at a local level. It is crucial, therefore, that the Government sets out clearly what role it expects local authorities to play and that it provides the proper support to allow them to deliver.
Finally, on transport, I have already mentioned the apparent disconnect between the transport proposals and the draft budget, but I would also like to highlight the point that was raised by many who gave evidence to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee on the sustainable transport hierarchy. I strongly agree that the first consideration in reducing emissions from transport is, and ought to be, reducing the need to travel in the first place. I ask the Government to think again about how it can underline the importance of reducing the need to travel as the vital first step. Without that emphasis, the current proposals on transport in the draft RPP fall well short of achieving the step change in policy direction that is needed to meet our climate change targets.
As I said earlier, the draft RPP is to be welcomed, but as a starting point for our journey to a low-carbon Scotland, not as a finished route map. It contains good proposals, but equally more options must be considered. I trust that the minister will take full account of the points that have been raised today, the committee reports and the views of the many who have responded to us, and I look forward to her returning to Parliament with a suitably revised report.
16:32
As a member of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I was involved in discussions about both parts of the report. Much of the report is common sense and represents an important contribution to this first attempt by any Government to match the ambitious low-carbon targets that have been set. Given that that is the case, the question that we must address in this debate is whether there are too many proposals and not enough policies. At this stage, it would be difficult for us to say that we would have many more policies in place, for reasons that I will come to. The proposals that should be able to be turned into policies are many and listed.
Because of the nature of the debate, I would like to home in on one particular element of the committee’s conclusions from which Jackson Carlaw and I dissented. The report says:
“the Scottish Government should define failure criteria for voluntary measures and introduce an appropriate mechanism to provide a realistic assessment of all policies and proposals where a voluntary approach is proposed to determine whether these are is likely to be sufficient to deliver the necessary changes”.
At the end of that paragraph—which features a grammatical error that almost tripped me up when I read it out—the report notes that that recommendation was agreed by a majority of the committee.
Let us examine some of the transport initiatives. The Energy Saving Trust helps people with eco-driving advice and information, and I and some other MSPs tried its test. Let us suggest that we put down measurements to say how successful a driver has been in a year. How complex would it be to measure that accurately? Of course we want people to get involved in that kind of activity voluntarily. That is the kind of activity that will show public buy-in to the low-carbon future and buy-in by the businesses that produce cars and will ensure that they have much lower carbon footprints. There is a list of other transport initiatives that would be similarly difficult to measure.
Will the member give way?
If Mr Harvie is brief.
Briefly, will Rob Gibson agree or acknowledge that that is one of the reasons why the committee’s comments on demand reduction are important? It is much easier to measure demand reduction than eco-driving.
Of course that is possibly easier to measure. The important point is that this first attempt, in the middle of the biggest constraint on public spending that we have had, puts us in the position of trying to achieve many more radical changes at a time when we have fewer mechanisms to achieve them.
The committee’s report must be tempered with the facts in relation to the people who wish to see rapid changes and the non-governmental organisations that urge us to progress all matters as quickly as possible. We must throw that back at the NGOs and the other parties in the Parliament and say, “If we had the money from the fossil fuel levy, for example, which we have been denied for three years, would that allow us to invest in lower-carbon activity?” If people are in a policy bubble in which they think that they can quickly take things forward in the direction of low carbon without having the money to do it, they are in Alice in Wonderland territory. That is why we must temper our remarks about many things in this debate.
We should also consider one or two aspects with regard to relationships and what COSLA should be doing. Local authorities are also under the cosh as far as money is concerned, but their attitude is important. A more fundamental use of the single outcome agreements would involve measuring local authorities’ activities to see that they measure up in carrying out the actions that we wish them to. Local authorities must develop that over time. In Germany, for example, the buy-in to a lower-carbon economy has taken place over a period of 20 years. We have to catch up, but we must recognise that, although people start to behave differently when they begin to buy in, it does not happen overnight. We have made a start with the draft RPP, but we recognise that we need to create the conditions for that buy-in.
The land use strategy, which has been mentioned, is perhaps the very first attempt to have such a strategy. It is not as strong as I would like it to be, but I recognise the difficulties, and the work that our civil service—which is, again, constrained by time and numbers—has put into it.
As a result of campaigning by us and the Government, along with many others, the Kyoto protocol on national accounting for land management, which now includes the rewetting of peatlands, was agreed at Cancún. The measurement will be voluntary over the next couple of years, but it could add to the potential for reducing our carbon output. Unlike Jackson Carlaw, I do not view that as an alternative. It is not an either/or—we have to do it. We have to find the money from somewhere to dam the drains in peatland areas and restore the peat. If we find a budget for it, the huge return that was identified in the International Union for Conservation of Nature report on Cancún and the peatland programme could be a big win-win.
There may be difficulties in certain areas, but this is a work in progress, and we have to respect the fact that we are at a very early stage.
16:38
I am pleased to take part in this debate, especially as it is such an important opportunity to ensure that the Scottish Government’s plans to tackle climate change are improved.
We are all rightly proud of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, but we need to ensure that Scotland is, in the language of the e-mails that we have all been getting, firmly on track to meet its annual emissions reduction targets. We cannot just assume that wider society, including the business community, has bought into the 2009 act, and we must work to ensure that, like everyone else, local authorities are brought on board.
I thought for a moment that I was in danger of agreeing totally with Jackson Carlaw’s assessment of the draft RPP. As a parent and a former teacher, I believe in encouragement, but I also know the place of instruction.
Maf Smith, the Scottish director of the Sustainable Development Commission, talked to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee yesterday about the difficult choices that have to be made. Even in the run-up to an election, it is up to members to ensure that the Government makes these difficult choices. There is no point in watering down proposals when we know what has to be done. Constituents are asking, in particular, for a stronger commitment to greening our houses, a real alternative to allow us to reduce our reliance on the car and proactive work to tackle traffic levels.
Some of that might be controversial to some people, but it fits well with the committee’s response to the draft RPP. There is also great interest in the report from bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, that are lobbying for action on peatland restoration, which is one issue that we seem to be able to agree on. The RSPB also lobbies for compulsory measures for the agriculture sector, in particular.
I welcome the very recent publication of the “Low Carbon Scotland: Public Engagement Strategy”. There is, of course, a need to consider it and its results carefully. That is especially important given that the cabinet secretary and the minister place so much emphasis on voluntary measures.
The draft RPP is part of a set of publications, which are variously referred to as a suite or a raft, and the committee considers that, in general terms, it meets its expectations in terms of structure and format. As we have heard, the RPP is a mix of adopted policies and proposals, but the final version must set out all the proposals that are to be adopted and implemented to contribute to meeting emissions reduction targets and it must also have an indicative timetable. The convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee picked out that point in his speech, and I repeat it because of its importance.
The RPP is described as a good first attempt and a useful starting point that meets the benchmarks of credibility, transparency and ambition, but there is a lengthy list of committee recommendations, including on its timing. There is no time to go through all of the committee’s report in this debate, but there is serious criticism of the lack of time that was available—for whatever reason—for committees to consider the RPP. I know that it is a work in progress, but to be effective the timing is all-important.
Future RPPs must give optimum opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. We are always advised to follow the money to see where priorities really lie. The committee was, of course, examining the budget at the same time as it was looking at the RPP, and I agree with Iain Smith and with Friends of the Earth Scotland’s comment that there is a need to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny of the RPP helps to inform budget considerations, not the other way round. I look forward to the process being improved in the future.
We must also be clear about the costs to the public sector, the private sector and individuals. Is everything being pushed downwards, as one witness suggested, to local authorities, which we agree already have restricted budgets as well as increasing targets?
The committee’s scrutiny of the draft budget suggests that financial provision is not adequate to drive forward the initiatives on, for example, active travel or, as Charlie Gordon said, modal shift for freight.
There is a lack of financial information in the draft budget on energy efficiency packages and the home insulation scheme, so I welcome the recent clarification of the budget line on area-based home insulation schemes and the energy assistance package, because there are real difficulties that must be addressed, particularly with tenement properties and solid wall insulation.
There is also a need, with the greatest urgency, to assist people who are living in fuel poverty—something that we cannot ignore given the severe weather conditions that we have experienced this year. Witnesses to the committee expressed serious concerns and urged clarity about the level of investment for home insulation and dealing with fuel poverty. Estimates seem to show a decline in the programme, despite its obvious benefits of eradicating fuel poverty, creating and maintaining green jobs, and creating greater wellbeing. Such cross-cutting work is fundamental if we are to meet targets, not only on climate change but on health and wellbeing, the environment, housing and so on.
The lack of a regulatory approach in housing, waste, transport and agriculture could cause delays in reaching targets, and I press the committee’s recommendation that failure criteria for voluntary measures should be defined. There needs to be a realistic assessment of voluntary measures, so that action is taken to introduce regulation where that is shown to be necessary. That is much more basic than a philosophical debating point. We need to transform Scotland into a fairer and healthier low-carbon society. I look forward to hearing the minister’s reply so that I can reassure my constituents that the Parliament will continue to be bold in meeting its obligations.
16:45
I will deal with two themes: first, where we live; and, secondly, how we move. Housing construction has propelled our economy, keeping our bankers happy, but the United Kingdom’s average new house struggles to reach grade C on the EU’s thermal efficiency level and consumes twice as much fuel as the average German or Austrian new build. Today, our buildings consume five times more electricity than they did in the 1970s. That is because of the march of the computers and the supermarkets that must be heated and cooled simultaneously and which generate more road traffic.
I support the plans for insulation, but I also support pragmatically improving what we have. Many of our old houses still have wooden shutters or can get them back. It has been the fashion recently to have bare wooden floors, thus putting the people who wove carpets out of business, but a carpet is a form of insulation on the floor. We could have bathrooms with linoleum, which has the great advantage of keeping the bugs away as well—that is a deliberate plug for Kirkcaldy. In fact, we must live more collectively in Burns’s sense—in the kirk, the howff and the village hall and in that society of sympathy of Burns and Adam Smith.
My second theme is how we move. The $100 barrel of oil is nearly with us, but it was supposed to turn up in the 2030s. This winter, we have had snow-buried cars and jack-knifed lorries. The wise realise that the age of Henry Ford is over, but apparently they do not include the staff of Stirling Council, 82 per cent of whom go to work by car, or so the energy efficiency action plan tells us. Two per cent cycle, 5 per cent go by bus or train and 11 per cent walk or run, the plan suggests helpfully. Compared with Copenhagen, where 39 per cent walk or cycle, central Scotland looks like Europe’s greater Springfield. However, the old rival, London, from the city to the docklands, can now run almost totally on sophisticated non-oil transport, with public transport such as the Eurostar and private transport such as the Boris bike. Mind you, London gets £170 for every £113 in subsidy that finds its way to Scotland.
Targets are everywhere. Schemes with even the most ambitious targets can be sent haywire as climate disruption hits home. An example is flooding. Without even touching on inland flooding such as that in Queensland, we find that 10 per cent of the world’s population live 60 miles from a coast and within the surge-flood danger area. By 2050, the figure will be 50 per cent. It is a high-carbon business to restore the setbacks of flooding. I have had dehumidifiers working in my house in Wales after a burst water main. Such costs could well smash the most optimistic of our targets. If the Arctic melts, we will have a sea level of 5m more to contend with around our coasts. If the Antarctic melts, we will have 65m more to contend with.
What is going for us? We have Europe’s greatest single reserve of natural energy at a time of radical improvement, perhaps sixfold, in generation and turbine technology. Marine turbines are where the steam engine was when Watt and Trevithick got their hands on it after 1760. However, we know relatively little about the way forward, as I found out myself when I wrote “Fool’s Gold”, which is on North Sea oil. We have lost our industrial advantage and the heavy industries that existed here in the 1970s. Moreover, politically, our management of the issue is diffused over several Cabinet portfolios. It would be a useful step to unify those powers in an energy, infrastructure and efficiency powerhouse ministry to tackle the changes collectively and as soon as possible.
Am I optimistic in the long term? I am afraid that I am not. Like Rupert Soames, I believe that “holding hands singing ‘Kumbaya’” feels nice, but that is it. I do not follow Mr Soames on the issue of nuclear power—which Germany, for example, is running down without losing its industrial lead—but I appreciate that Churchills can be both dead wrong and on the ball, and sometimes simultaneously. We need that full-scale entrepreneurial flair if we are to turn renewables into the sort of marketable proposition that has a real chance of getting through.
We face a challenge here. To dramatise it, I must go back to someone from a family of engineers, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Alan Breck’s great challenge to David Balfour in “Kidnapped”:
“ye shall taigle many a weary foot, or we get clear! ... But if ye ask what other choice ye have, I answer: Nane. Either take to the heather with me, or else hang!”
16:51
Like Alison McInnes, I welcome the minister to her extended portfolio and wish her well in this and the many other important issues for which she is now responsible. I offer that olive branch at the outset in recognition of the fact that she is almost certainly sick of the sight of me, Elaine Murray and John Scott, having spent an uncomfortable amount of quality time this morning with the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.
I also congratulate the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee on its report and the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee on its contribution. Given the limited time available, with the draft report’s publication coinciding with the publication of the Government’s draft budget, the report is an impressively thorough piece of work.
As my colleague Alison McInnes has rightly pointed out, this is in effect stage 3 of a process that began with the strong framework established under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. In that respect, Patrick Harvie made some interesting points about the cross-party determination to strengthen that legislation’s provisions. That was followed, eventually, by the setting of stretching targets plotting the course towards the achievement of our emissions reduction obligations.
Finally, we reach the point at which we must decide how we intend to make these changes happen in our homes, our communities, our businesses, our towns, our countryside and the way we live our lives. Despite the faults that have been identified by the committee, the report sets all that out in some detail, although, as Rob Gibson conceded, what it contains are still perhaps more proposals than policies. However, as the committee and many who gave evidence rightly observed, the supporting documentation gives some confidence about not only how we might achieve our ambitions, but the real benefits that are to be gained economically, socially—for example, through better health—and, of course, environmentally.
That point is important. The many difficult decisions and choices that lie ahead cannot be ducked, and Jackson Carlaw and other members were right to highlight the importance of the public engagement strategy in that regard. All the more reason, therefore, for us to take care to accentuate the positives where we can and to not simply allow ourselves to be lured into a bidding war to see whose hairshirt is the hairiest. There are numerous examples of the health benefits to be gained from more energy-efficient homes, improved air quality and access to green spaces. Like Rob Gibson, I took part in the eco-driving test and was appalled to find that I had been outdriven by my colleague Tavish Scott, who I had always considered to be a bit of a boy racer. In these times of rising fuel costs, the benefits arising from reduced household expenditure really have to be accentuated.
As a number of members have noted, the committee has criticised the Government’s apparent reliance on voluntary measures to achieve the emission abatement objectives that have been set. I entirely recognise that a delicate balance has to be struck here; we will need carrots as well as sticks, and regulation should certainly not be the first resort. Indeed, in many cases, such a move could prove counterproductive. However, given the backdrop of the challenging targets that have been set and the changes that the Government has conceded will need to be made, there are serious questions about how achievable these objectives are through a predominantly voluntary approach.
Although care needs to be taken, many businesses will confirm that there are opportunities to be had from sensible and properly signposted regulation that also benefits and protects customers and the wider public. The minister accepted that principle in her opening remarks, perhaps in a vain attempt to persuade Jackson Carlaw, who might challenge my colleague Tavish Scott as Holyrood’s boy racer. One example is the particulate trap regulations that applied to diesel vehicles a number of years ago.
Linked to that is the concern that, to meet our 2020 target, every existing policy that is outlined would require to reach its maximum abatement potential. The Government has not allowed itself much—if any—margin for error. That might reflect a desire to set the most stretching targets possible, but that is credible only if it is backed by a commitment from ministers to work with the Parliament and wider stakeholders to develop new proposals. As the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee noted, the Government should as a feature of the final RPP make a clear statement on its intended course of action if the EU does not agree to strengthen the EU ETS to 30 per cent.
In the brief time that is left, I will touch on a few specific issues in the report. On energy, I note the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s view about an overreliance on UK policies and funding. Joint working will of course be necessary and desirable in many instances, but it cannot be used as an excuse for delay and inaction. My colleague Iain Smith gave several useful examples on energy efficiency, on which timely warnings have been given. Likewise, Charlie Gordon made interesting points about the need to lever in other sources of investment. The warm deal is perhaps an example of that.
RSPB Scotland pointed up in its briefing for the debate the importance of the land use strategy, on which the Government is consulting. The minister will be aware of the criticisms of the draft strategy. Much work must be done on it before it is laid before the Parliament in March if it is to guide effectively the implementation of the policies in the RPP. However, I share Rob Gibson’s confidence that that can be done in the time that is left. In relation to the briefing, like Jackson Carlaw, I acknowledge Rob Gibson’s work on peatlands restoration. The benefits from that in return for the investment that is made are worth while pursuing.
It is generally agreed that the report has provided a useful starting point. The debate has raised a range of improvements that could be made for the future in a constructive and well-informed tone. I congratulate both committees again on their thorough work in somewhat challenging circumstances. I look forward to the minister’s response in winding up the debate.
16:57
I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer, by apologising to Patrick Harvie and the chamber for missing his opening speech and by welcoming the minister to her new post. After today’s debate, she might wish that she was once again dealing with the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill rather than responsible for climate change on the Scottish Government’s behalf—had she been listening, she might have heard that.
The debate has been interesting and informative, particularly for me, as I am a member not of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee but of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. One always ventures cautiously on to another committee’s subject area, and I acknowledge the huge amount of work that members put into the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill and the report on proposals and policies for a low-carbon Scotland.
Our committee—the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee—has played only a small part in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s deliberations on the subject, but I will begin by addressing the land use strategy and by raising with the minister my concerns about the lack of definition and focus that are associated with the strategy. The debate provides an appropriate opportunity to do that, as the cabinet secretary is here.
Of course I and others support the three strategic directions of establishing a low-carbon economy, better consideration of the natural environment and connecting people with the land, but the detailed questions remain, such as where trees should be planted, how prime agricultural land can be protected, how land can be conserved and accessed for tourism, how carbon emissions can continue to be reduced, how biodiversity can be enhanced and protected and how—in all that mix—land-based businesses can prosper and contribute to a thriving rural economy.
If the cabinet secretary has the answers to those problems, I and other land users would certainly like to hear them. If we assume that he has the answers, a big communication job must be undertaken, because many people—and, indeed, witnesses to our committee—are still unclear about the strategy’s purpose.
The strategy should at least start to reconcile competing land uses and deal with how those competing interests will be prioritised across the country—for example, how do we reconcile a target of 35,000 new houses per year with protecting prime agricultural land? How do we sustain a planting target of 25 per cent cover by 2050 and yet maintain our ability to produce food from our land? It will come as no surprise to the cabinet secretary to hear again my view that food production should be the primary—the fundamental—use of land in Scotland, particularly given that food price inflation is running at 4 per cent. The figure is for the month of December. A hierarchy of other uses should be established thereafter. If the land use strategy is not to be a spatial strategy, national priorities must at least be clearly established with the reasons for choices being made and explained clearly to a currently expectant public. In addition, the strategy should provide incentives as well as the regulation that has been much talked about in today’s debate.
That takes me to a key theme in today’s debate: how will the promised land be reached, given the reduced funding that is available? Obviously, a 42 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emission by 2020 is both laudable and headline grabbing. The more important question is whether it can be achieved and afforded. Charlie Gordon referred to that. It was surprising—to me, at any rate—to hear him say that private funding needs to be levered in, too. There is also the question whether the reduction can be achieved and afforded without damaging or destroying existing businesses and jobs. Of course, I want these objectives and targets as much as anyone else in the Parliament, but I also need and want to be shown the route map of how we will get there. Patrick Harvie referred to that in his opening remarks, as did the minister in her appeal to the UK Government for funding. In fairness, it should be noted that the 42 per cent figure was set by the Scottish Parliament. The minister is now asking the UK Government to fund it.
In addition, there is the missed opportunity of the Government providing not a three-year spending review but a one-year election budget. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee pointed that out and Iain Smith referred to it in his speech. It gives further grounds for concern about how these and other targets will be met and monitored. In our rightful enthusiasm for delivering these emissions targets, in addition to appealing to the UK Government, perhaps we should also refer the matter to John Swinney with a view to sourcing future funding.
Like Jackson Carlaw, I believe in a voluntary approach that is incentivised by Government. That is essential for the successful delivery of the RPP. I remain to be convinced that this Government is prepared—or, to be fair, able—to finance the aspiration to which the Parliament signed up in 2009.
As Iain Smith said, investment in education and training will be necessary to fill the emerging skills gaps in the renewables industries and other low-carbon employment industries. Will there also be funding to provide that in the future?
Unsurprisingly, like Rob Gibson and Jackson Carlaw, I support peat wetting. I hope that funding can be found for that, albeit that I might find another way of describing it.
I must stop posing questions to the minister that she may be unable to answer, particularly given that this is her first public day in her new role. I do, however, largely support the report. In the main, the Scottish Conservatives will support the proposals in the report and, where possible, the delivery of its reasonable aims and objectives.
17:03
I welcome the addition of climate change to the minister’s brief. As the chamber can see, climate change has also been added to my brief—I think it is for one day only. I, too, am an interloper from the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Although I was not involved in the production of the report, I have read its conclusions with considerable interest.
Extreme weather events across the world should focus our minds on climate change. The extremely low temperatures in Scotland caused chaos on the roads last month and resulted in many of my constituents lacking the basic services of running water and sanitation, some for as long as two weeks. Now, on the other side of the world, appalling flooding in Queensland, Australia has resulted in loss of life and livelihood with possibly as many as 40,000 homes in Brisbane affected and damage to the economy that could run into billions of dollars. Of course, during the summer, severe flooding affected many parts of Asia. At one point, a fifth of the land mass of Pakistan was under water.
It cannot be proved that those events are directly caused by climate change, although we know that global warming will result in more extreme and chaotic weather patterns. We also know that the temperature of the planet has been rising over the past decade. If there is anyone out there who still thinks that the interests of the environment and the economy are diametrically opposed, they need only consider the economic damage that is done to individuals, communities and countries when the environment turns nasty. Reducing climate change and its consequences must be a priority for economic and social reasons as well as for environmental reasons.
It is not good enough to pass good legislation and collectively pat ourselves on the back at how groundbreaking we have been. Priorities for expenditure have to be set and choices—sometimes difficult ones—have to be made. Labour shares the committee’s concerns about publishing the draft RPP at the same time as the draft budget. That meant that it attracted little attention and, as Patrick Harvie described, that the committee had only a short period in which to take evidence and report on the proposals. We hope that, in future, changes can be made that will allow a better span of time for consideration.
Policy should inform budget decisions. It is difficult for committees to interrogate the draft budget with regard to whether proposed expenditure is appropriate to deliver targets, such as the 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, when the draft RPP comes out at the same time as the draft budget. Labour agrees that RPPs should be published in advance of the draft budget and that this and future RPPs need to be comprehensively monitored to determine whether sufficient progress is being made to deliver the 2020 and 2050 targets. The final version of the RPP should outline ministers’ intentions on assessment and evaluation.
There are many factors that will determine whether the aspirations of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 are delivered. As other members have said, public engagement and involvement will be crucial. There are many incentives: with sky-high energy prices there has probably never been a better opportunity to engage people in energy efficiency measures. However, such measures tend to have up-front costs that many people cannot easily afford, so we need to consider how those capital costs can be addressed so that we all benefit from the resulting energy savings.
Alison McInnes, Rob Gibson and Liam McArthur all mentioned eco-driving. I, too, took the one-hour driving lesson. I have been quite surprised at how much fuel can be saved when I remember to follow what I learned. Again, the current high fuel prices will be a big incentive for people to find out how to save money by driving more efficiently.
I have been interested in the discussion on the voluntary approach. The draft RPP suggests that regulation should be a last resort. Jackson Carlaw seemed to go even further when he suggested that failed politicians introduce regulation. In that case, we collectively failed in passing the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 in the first place. Presumably, in Jackson Carlaw’s ideal world, everyone would be following the act’s provisions voluntarily and we would not need any laws on the subject. I cannot follow that line of argument. It is obvious that unnecessary regulation should be avoided, but to assume that the default position in all cases should be voluntary agreement is likely to result in delays in implementation. Regulation should be considered particularly where the voluntary approach has been tried without success. Labour agrees that criteria must be established regarding how we assess whether such an approach has failed.
The way in which future UK and EU decisions impact on our targets must also be taken into account. There already appears to have been some retreat from zero waste south of the border and there is dubiety about whether UK policies and funding for reducing emissions will be sufficient. If they are not, there is uncertainty about what alternative funding might be available in Scotland and how we will access that funding. Ministers should not rely on the EU to deliver emissions targets through the emission trading scheme. The final RPP should state what ministers will do if the EU does not agree to increase the ETS to 30 per cent and how we will ensure that we meet our targets.
John Scott referred to the Scottish Government’s land use strategy, which arose from the 2009 act. There has been some disappointment that the draft strategy fails to address how some of the fundamental conflicts in land use should be addressed. I hope that the final document will take those concerns on board. The next RPP, in common with a host of other policies, will need to be informed by the land use strategy.
New technologies will pay a vital role in reducing carbon emissions, providing the opportunities for new skills and green jobs. However, such opportunities have infrastructure and training implications and require policy direction and priority. Alison McInnes referred to reducing the need to travel; there is the issue of people being able to work from home. One of the key aspects of that is the availability of fast broadband throughout Scotland, which is a major investment requirement. It could deliver climate change targets, too, but we have to understand how to deliver that in order to be able to do it.
The final RPP needs to be more detailed and ambitious. However, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee—especially the former—should be congratulated on the work that they have done. The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee has done an excellent job in a limited timescale in evaluating the draft RPP and suggesting improvements. I hope that the Scottish Government takes on board those suggestions when it produces the final RPP.
17:10
The draft RPP is our first attempt to quantify in detail the effect of the action that we are taking across the board. Members’ comments during the debate have reflected the breadth and complexity of the issues that face us as we seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I cannot hope to address every specific question that has been raised, so I will pick up on a number of the key themes that have been touched on by more than one member.
There has been some discussion about the publication of the draft RPP at the same time as the draft budget. This has been the first such process, and we were driven by the timescales that have been laid down by the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. I remind members that the delays in finalising the emissions targets meant that our initial intended publication date of September had to be considerably delayed. It was really not within our gift. When we discuss things in the chamber, it is worth remembering to consider the consequences of the decisions that are made.
Future RPPs will be for periods many years in the future. The next RPP, in autumn 2011, will be for 2023 to 2027, which is far beyond the periods that are covered by parallel budgets or spending reviews. I will speak about other aspects relating to funding later.
There has been a considerable amount of comment about the adoption of a voluntary approach, as opposed to regulation. I was trying to be polite when I said earlier that there was a philosophical difference on this. There is a view in some sections of the chamber that regulation is the automatic first response, rather than proceeding in a voluntary way. It is that qualitatively slightly different approach to things that I was trying to be as polite as possible about. I appreciate that each of us will bring our different attitudes towards that, but it is strongly the Government’s view that we have to be able to bring people with us as much as we can, only reverting to regulation when we can clearly no longer do that.
The point that some of us have been trying to make is that we have to assess at what point a voluntary approach has failed and we have to bring in regulation. The minister gave an excellent example of that in relation to the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee this morning; she said that the Government had to introduce vicarious liability because the assessment had been made that the voluntary approach to wildlife crime had failed and it was now necessary to introduce regulation. There is a point at which we have to be able to assess where the voluntary approach is failing.
I appreciate what Elaine Murray is saying and I understand her point, but I was speaking at the committee this morning with the knowledge and hindsight of the failure of the voluntary approach. It would have been extraordinary for me to have sat in a committee room two years ago and said that, in that timescale, I would be introducing that particular legislative change because of the failure of the voluntary approach.
Does the minister accept that Elaine Murray’s argument is about looking forward 40 years? The logic of the argument is that we should have set regulatory criteria in 1971 to deal with the environmental challenges that we face today. It is preposterous—we have to see the reality before we introduce the regulation.
In fairness, let us all acknowledge that we are developing a framework for monitoring progress. It is not as if we are unaware of the problem that will arise if the voluntary approach clearly fails.
The public engagement strategy is equally important. It has also just been published, and there will no doubt be some discussion about it. A number of actions are contained in that strategy that involve engaging directly with the public, which will have an impact on the extent to which the voluntary approach is successful or otherwise.
There has been much discussion about how not all the measures in the draft RPP are financed in the draft budget. Much can be said about that. If the Parliament considers provision in an area to be insufficient, we will welcome the Parliament’s views on where further provision might be found from elsewhere in the budget. We have a finite sum of money and decisions that are taken in one area will have an impact on decisions elsewhere.
I think that Alison McInnes said that we should not be overreliant on the UK and must fully fund all the proposals ourselves. Whether she likes it or not, we rely on the UK for funding. That is the reality of the devolved settlement. There is something that we can do about that, and I am always happy to welcome new recruits to the Scottish National Party’s cause, if Alison McInnes is beginning to think about the issue.
I think that Iain Smith asked what we will do while we wait for the green deal. That is precisely what the various domestic energy efficiency measures are about. We are running them until 2012, when the green deal will come on board. That is important.
Iain Smith and, I think, Charlie Gordon said that they were disappointed with the £48 million for energy assistance and home insulation, but the point about the programmes is that they are designed to draw in UK CERT investment worth £100 million per year. They do not stand completely on their own.
I have made a number of comments on funding. I did not do so glibly. There is little point in our debating matters in the absence of the reality against which all Government expenditure is set. It behoves us all to consider that carefully.
A number of members commented on the need for alignment between the RPP and the budget. I agree, which is why we brought the RPP forward in the timescale in which we did so. However, the same members also suggested that they would want to scrutinise the RPP in advance of the budget. There perhaps needs to be a little refinement of how we progress the matter in future. That is a debate that the whole Parliament must have, because we will need to resolve the issue. There is only a single year in which we must produce an RPP and a budget, so we need to think about how to time publication for best effect. I appreciate that the timing did not work out as well as might have been hoped for this year.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I am sorry. I am running out of time.
I am happy to talk to any members who have additional policy proposals to put forward in the event that the EU fails to agree a 30 per cent target. We have said that we will look at alternative proposals, from wherever and whomever they come.
The 60-day scrutiny period for the draft RPP continues until 16 January—that is a Sunday, so in practice it will be 17 January if members want to do something at the last minute. For reasons that are connected to the requirement in the 2009 act for ministers to have regard to representations during the whole of the 60-day period, the Government will abstain from voting on the motion at decision time.
Making the transition to a low-carbon economy during the next decade will be a huge challenge for every one of us. We must ensure that we act in a transparent and accountable manner. What we do must be set against the backdrop of the reality of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. There is little point in constructing a fantastic, wonderful model that is utterly unachievable. The achievableness of what we do must be tested carefully.
I am proud of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and I am proud of how members of the Scottish Parliament worked together to make it such strong legislation. I hope that the political consensus on the issue is not over and that we can continue to deal with matters on the consensual basis that there has been up to now.
17:19
I am sorry that I will not have time to respond to all the members who made points in the debate.
The minister began her opening speech by emphasising the social and economic benefits that can be achieved as we reduce our emissions. She was quite right about that, and what she said gives me hope that we will have constructive discussions with her when she comes to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. However, we should acknowledge that not everyone is yet convinced of that. For example, reducing transport demand and increasing the proportion of journeys that are taken by foot and by bike will have health, safety and economic benefits and just make our communities nicer places to be in, but many people still perceive that agenda as a threat, not an opportunity. That reinforces the importance of the public engagement strategy.
The minister and Rob Gibson were at pains to emphasise the spending constraints that the Scottish Government is under. The minister asked members to say how they would fund additional proposals if they sought them. I am happy to say—as I suspect the minister is—that I am opposed to the cuts agenda. I do not support the UK Government’s decision to reduce the Scottish Government’s grant and I want progressive taxation to play a bigger role. However, even if it does not play a bigger role and we have to accept the UK Government’s agenda, and even if other parties in the Parliament do not support increasing taxation, it is about not only the amount of money that we spend but the priorities. For example, budget after budget, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee has agreed unanimous recommendations that we should increase the proportion of the transport budget—not only the size of the cake but the share of it—that goes to sustainable and active travel as well as public transport.
The same argument is made on energy efficiency. Around a third of the energy efficiency budget has been cut—£48 million for the energy assistance package and the home insulation scheme is around a third down on last year—but it is one of the best-value and most effective ways of bringing social, economic and environmental benefits together. It simply has not had the priority that it needs, as not only the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee but the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has repeatedly said.
The minister says that we require the stronger EU target of 30 per cent and, if it is not forthcoming, we will have to consider other options. I am afraid that that is worryingly ambiguous. Many thousands of Scots campaigned hard for the targets in the 2009 act because the science required them. I suspect that those Scots will accept a weaker target only if the science justifies it.
I will spend most of my closing speech talking about the issue of the voluntary versus the regulatory approach, to which many members referred.
Jackson Carlaw rarely fails to engage full frontal with the substance of the debate before us. Even if we often find ourselves on the opposite sides of the debate when he does so, I appreciate his engagement. He says that some people are still not convinced about climate science. I happily acknowledge that that is a statement of reality. There are still some people who deny the science of evolution but, by doing so, they make themselves irrelevant to a discussion of biology. The Delingpoles and Plimers of the world make themselves irrelevant to a debate about climate change by denying the science.
There are also many people—many of us—who are convinced of the science but, as Jackson Carlaw says, do not yet fully understand the consequences of reaching our targets. I hold up my hands and say that I cannot tell anybody here what a zero-carbon or low-carbon world is like. No economies in the history of humanity have ever achieved it. We know that we will get some things wrong along the way, but the science dictates that we must make every effort.
Jackson Carlaw suggested that a regulatory approach implies that a voluntary approach will fail, but sometimes voluntary approaches do fail. Voluntary approaches on reducing smog, reducing acid rain, cutting out chlorofluorocarbons and a wide range of other environmental improvements over the decades had to be accompanied by regulation. The market did provide more efficient cars, but it did not provide lower fuel consumption because, when cars became more efficient, we started to use them more, so fuel consumption went up.
Markets are very good at meeting demands but, when environmental costs can be externalised, they are bad at living within environmental limits. If, one day, a fully functional, robust and meaningfully valued carbon price operated, encompassing the whole economy, perhaps a market approach might achieve the emissions cuts. However, I suspect that it would do so with an incalculable and unacceptable social cost and even a non-carbon environmental cost that most of us, I think, would not be willing to tolerate.
Beyond the environmental sphere, much of the social progress that has been made over the generations has happened only with both public engagement—the hearts-and-minds approach—and regulation. In the workplace, whether we are talking about holiday pay, sick leave, equal pay for men and women, ending discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace, the minimum wage or a host of other issues, we would have got nowhere without a regulatory approach as well. The truth is that we won the public argument on those issues by achieving progress, and we needed regulation to get us there.
The other point is that there is an economic argument for regulation. Does the member agree that companies should have the certainty to be able to make investment to achieve better standards that have public support?
That is absolutely right. Many in the business community consistently tell us in Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee meetings—I am sure that they make the same point in other committees—that they need certainty if they are going to bring in the private sector investment that Charlie Gordon, for example, talked about in his speech.
I make no apology for dwelling for so long on the balance between voluntary and regulatory approaches. The committee’s report goes into the issue at some length, but I suspect that it will also come to characterise many of the debates that we will have down the years towards 2020 and 2050 and way beyond. Jackson Carlaw was perfectly right to say that we must achieve our environmental objectives—which I regard as vital to the future of humanity—at the same time as we achieve our social and economic objectives. We can do that. We can use the transformation that climate change demands of us to become at the same time a healthier, safer, happier and more equal society in which the quality of life for everybody is our priority. I hope that Jackson Carlaw and every member of every party that is represented in the Parliament and members of no party are committed and will remain committed in subsequent sessions to being an advocate of that vision. We have the capacity to help to achieve that vision or to undermine it as we see fit. If any of us chooses the latter, that will guarantee the failure of the voluntary approach and leave us with a much harder and less pleasant choice.
It is crucial that, as it goes down the years and decades ahead, the debate must not become sterile and technical. It must remain fertile and visionary and inspire the positive reaction, creativity and enthusiasm that we will need if we are going to achieve the objectives that we have set ourselves.