Energy Efficiency
Good morning. This morning is given over to Labour Party business. The first debate is on motion S3M-2864, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on energy efficiency.
I hope that MSPs throughout the chamber will support my motion today.
My motion calls on
"the Scottish Government to take steps, as set out in the Energy Efficiency and Microgeneration Bill proposals, such as fiscal incentives for householders and businesses, to improve the energy efficiency of new and existing housing stock and ensure that microgeneration technologies become widely available and used."
My member's bill is drafted, but with the imminent introduction of the climate change bill and John Swinney's announcement that he is prepared to include measures on energy efficiency and microgeneration in that bill, I am keen to work constructively with him to ensure that the measures in my bill are included in the climate change bill. Those measures would greatly strengthen the climate change bill. If we are to have any hope of delivering the 3 per cent annual CO2 reductions that we need, we must maximise the potential contribution of energy efficiency, microgeneration and local community energy as we move towards becoming a low-carbon society.
I have met John Swinney, and although I recognise that he is keen on targets and monitoring, I do not think that there will be any progress to monitor without the other measures in my bill. I am happy to work with him constructively, but I put it on record that I believe that the cabinet secretary has not gone far enough to date. I hope that today's debate will encourage him to go further in the climate change bill.
I started work on my member's bill three years ago. I wanted to tackle climate change and fuel poverty and I believed at that point that we had achieved a huge amount with our main target of generating 20 per cent of our electricity from renewables, which we achieved early. However, making the shift to becoming a low-carbon society means that we need to involve people in the clean energy debate. We need to bring home to people their personal role and ability to tackle climate change. It will be a big cultural shift, but having spoken to colleagues at countless meetings throughout the country, I know that there is a powerful appetite for change. Housing associations can demonstrate that measures in new houses, such as high energy efficiency standards and microgeneration technologies, lead to warmer homes, cheaper bills and reduced CO2 emissions.
When I started work on my bill, every 5 per cent increase in domestic fuel bills led to 30,000 more people being dragged into fuel poverty. Energy bills have shot up and Energy Action Scotland now believes that every 5 per cent increase in fuel bills leads to 40,000 more households being dragged into fuel poverty. The tragedy is that we have the powers in Scotland to do something about that, but we are not using them to the full.
We have targets to reduce our carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 and to increase electricity from renewables to 50 per cent by 2020. If we are to have a chance of achieving those targets, we have to tackle our housing stock. Our homes account for 34 per cent of our energy demand and a third of our emissions. Microgeneration schemes and combined heat and power schemes are efficient, because the power and heat that they produce do not have to be transported long distances across the grid. They can also produce much-needed base-load.
We have made progress in the past three years. I thank the MSPs from all parties who have supported me. I thank members of my party, the Socialist Environment and Resources Association and the trade unions, who have campaigned consistently over the years. I refer to my entry in the register of members' interests and thank in particular the organisations that agreed to form a steering committee to help campaign for my bill—Energy Action Scotland, Energywatch, Friends of the Earth, WWF Scotland, Barnardo's, Age Concern Scotland and the Scottish Renewables Forum. Their support and advice have been invaluable to me. We have secured a number of significant wins, but the work needs to continue.
Planning guidelines that have been in place since March 2007 now require all major developments to include on-site renewables to reduce CO2 emissions. Research by Friends of the Earth, however, shows that the guidelines are not being applied consistently by every local authority. We need all authorities to follow the examples of Edinburgh and Midlothian.
We have had progressive increases in the amount of money allocated to the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative; we have had the renewables pilot for the warm deal in rural areas that are not on the grid; and we have had the recent announcement from Gordon Brown of a major energy efficiency programme. That programme needs to be followed by action, which is why my colleague Lewis Macdonald has been lobbying the major power utility companies to ensure that we get the full benefits of it in Scotland.
Only last month, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, gave the green light to feed-in tariffs, renewable heat incentives and a roll-out of smart meters. Although it is clear that things are happening, barriers remain—not enough trained installers, not enough advice to householders, and none of the economies of scale for renewables kit that a mass market would bring.
There is still planning red tape. SNP ministers' draft proposals to cut the red tape were roundly criticised—we are still waiting for the final Scottish statutory instrument, and it would be great if ministers would tell us today when it is coming. Let us make no mistake: jobs are at stake, particularly in the microwind industry, and jobs will go if we do not get fast action from ministers. I hope that we will get that fast progress.
We are still waiting for the much-vaunted energy efficiency strategy. I quote my opposite number, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Richard Lochhead, who said in 2004 that
"energy efficiency is the missing link in the Scottish Government's efforts to tackle climate change and fuel poverty."
Again, we are waiting. A lot has been done, but there is a lot still to do. We urgently need fiscal measures to get going so that householders and businesses can install energy efficiency measures and microgeneration kit. People in England are far ahead of us. They have that power, through council tax reductions, and we need the same opportunities in Scotland.
Energy efficiency and microgeneration go together. If we are to tackle climate change and fuel poverty, we need to amend the climate change bill. I am very keen to work with Scottish National Party ministers. We need to make sure that change happens through collective will in this Parliament. We want to ensure that we benefit from jobs, reduce fuel poverty and lower our carbon emissions. There is a great industry out there that is waiting for us to take action.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the significant role that energy efficiency and microgeneration measures could have in reducing energy costs for householders and businesses, in achieving urgent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 80% by 2050 and contributing to the eradication of fuel poverty by 2016; notes that research carried out by the Energy Savings Trust suggests that widespread installation of microgeneration could provide 30 to 40% of our electricity needs by 2050 but that current investment in energy efficiency and microgeneration measures is insufficient to achieve these goals, and calls on the Scottish Government to take steps, as set out in the Energy Efficiency and Microgeneration Bill proposals, such as fiscal incentives for householders and businesses, to improve the energy efficiency of new and existing housing stock and ensure that microgeneration technologies become widely available and used.
I have supported Sarah Boyack's proposal for an energy efficiency and microgeneration bill since its inception about two and a half years ago. However, there is room for serious debate about scale, pace and criteria. The short version of the Green party amendment states simply that we should prioritise insulation above all. I will give the reasons for that in the next few minutes.
SPREG—the cross-party Scottish Parliament renewable energy group—changed its name 18 months ago to the Scottish Parliament renewable energy and energy efficiency group, of which Sarah and I are co-conveners. There was a good reason for the name change, which is that we should not—now or in the future—debate energy generation and energy efficiency separately whenever there is a useful opportunity to debate the two together. This morning presents such an opportunity.
Before the last election, the Green party proposed a warm homes bill. Unlike Sarah, I have held back from continuing with that bill for the time being in the hope that—as Sarah hopes—most of the ideas in our proposed bill might be included in the climate change bill when it is introduced.
We have to take the fastest route towards reducing our impact on the environment by 80 per cent by 2050. If we take the slow route, by 2050 we could have as much as twice—certainly a third more—carbon dioxide as is already in the atmosphere warming the world. It might be too late if, by 2050, we have reduced our daily output into the atmosphere but have not started to achieve the reductions much faster.
I hope that everybody in the chamber will agree that investment in energy efficiency now is what we need because that will produce the biggest payback. The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee has received plenty of evidence to prove that point.
The Stern report showed clearly that every £5 that we invest now will save £5 in the future. It is almost a no-brainer that insulation should be our biggest priority. There are so many add-on benefits to our going down the insulation route—it is a case of win, win, win. The Federation of Master Builders is looking for work just now. The biggest block to that is the 17.5 per cent VAT on home improvements. I know that this is not within our purview, but, under European rules, the Westminster Government could now reduce the VAT on home improvements to 5 per cent, which would make an enormous difference.
Aligned to that, the Green party proposes fully funded, regional rolling programmes to insulate housing in Scotland. Those programmes could be similar to the project that is under way in Kirklees, which is proving to be extremely popular and effective. We really ought to consider that, because we can afford it. If we take the slow route, we will almost certainly not get there.
On rooftop renewables, I think that Sarah Boyack would agree that we need to carry out a careful audit that shows which measures are most appropriate and where. We do not know enough about that. In Amersfoort in Holland—in the Nieuwland quarter—seven different kinds of photovoltaics are being tested on the roofs of houses in a new housing estate. In three years' time, the people responsible for that will be able to tell the rest of Holland, us and Europe which are the best rooftop renewables.
As Sarah said, heating and water accounts for 50 per cent of the energy used in our homes. Those are the easiest areas in which to save money through insulation measures. Insulation costs a fraction of other strategies; maintenance is minimal; its lifetime can be the lifetime of the house itself; and it is extremely easy to install. Therefore, such measures should appeal to people throughout the country.
All the other things that we can do are also relatively simple and quick, such as installing secondary and triple glazing and shutters; ensuring air-tightness; and fitting draught-proofing around doors and old casement windows. All those things can be done swiftly. We could draught-proof and insulate Scotland within a decade if we put our minds to it. We call on the Parliament and the Government to set in motion the achievement of that big vision.
I move amendment S3M-2864.1, to leave out from "improve" to end and insert:
"ensure that microgeneration technologies become widely available and used and to consider other energy efficiency measures for new and existing housing stock to tackle fuel poverty, climate change and security of energy supply; notes the evidence given by Friends of the Earth Scotland to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee suggesting that an additional £100 million per annum would be a welcome change to the draft budget for 2009-10, and calls on the Scottish Government to consider a comprehensive and fully funded Scotland-wide scheme on this scale to provide energy audits, insulation provision and financial support for micro-renewables where appropriate."
I remind members that the accepted chamber protocol is that they do not call each other by their Christian names, even if they co-convene a very worthwhile cross-party group.
I thank Sarah Boyack for lodging the motion and I welcome the debate. I hope that all will take heart from our willingness to support the motion. Members should be in no doubt that the Government wants to see a reduction in the demand for energy through greater energy efficiency and through the generation of more renewable energy, which will play a significant role in reducing Scotland's emissions.
Our climate change bill is recognised as ambitious, world-leading climate change legislation that will drive new thinking, new solutions and new technologies, putting Scotland at the forefront of building a sustainable low-carbon economy. Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland, has said:
"what we are promising amounts to the best climate change legislation in the world."
We are not in competition; we each have to respond to the circumstances and opportunities that we have, but I think that we are showing the way.
We will be making provisions in the Scottish climate change bill that will give this Government the powers to promote energy efficiency and incentivise the generation of heat from renewable sources. That demonstrates a clear commitment from the Government and recognises the central role that energy efficiency and renewables will play in reducing our emissions.
However, we will not wait for our climate change bill to be passed before we take action. Enabling consumers and businesses to make energy savings is one of our top priorities and is vital in the current economic climate. We led a stimulating debate on the economy yesterday. It is clear that we cannot sit back and wait for things to get better—action is required now.
We are already taking a number of steps within our powers to intensify efforts on energy efficiency, microgeneration, fuel poverty and climate change, representing a total investment of around £226 million this year.
Will the minister respond to the call in our amendment for more resources, which came from Friends of the Earth Scotland, which argued at a recent meeting of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee that further changes in this year's budget would be necessary if we were to demonstrate the kind of progress that is required?
I am sure that as we proceed with the budget we will hear interesting debates about the amount of money that we are able to devote to different areas. I am sure that the Greens will pursue the issue in that context.
We are enhancing advice and information to stimulate and encourage consumers and businesses to take action and we are providing financial incentives.
We are working with the energy companies to increase their investment and activities in Scotland; we are helping our most vulnerable citizens, who have been plunged into fuel poverty; we are slashing business rates; we are taking forward proposals to exclude microgeneration investments from business rates; and we are already developing new energy standards for new buildings in the light of last year's Sullivan report.
We are also consulting on proposals for improving the energy performance of existing non-domestic buildings and, shortly, we will consult on additional measures that are needed to reduce energy use and carbon emissions in Scotland's existing housing.
I very much welcome Ed Miliband's announcement that he will make amendments to the Energy Bill for feed-in tariffs. That is an excellent move and I hope that he will follow it up by changing the penal regimes for connecting larger-scale renewable energy to the network.
Debates such as today's debate are critical. They help us to share and develop good ideas. I welcome the discussion and I believe that we can have a consensual and useful debate today. We want to contribute in that spirit, as I hope everyone else does. We want to maintain Scotland's reputation as a global leader in tackling climate change.
I rise not only to support the motion in the name of Sarah Boyack but to pay tribute to the work that she has done on this subject over a long period in the Scottish Parliament. At one point, she and our former colleague Shiona Baird proposed bills that covered similar areas of policy. At the time, the Conservatives considered those two comparable bill proposals and decided that the way ahead was the way that Sarah Boyack had proposed.
We paid further tribute to Sarah Boyack's proposals by, let us say, borrowing some of them and putting them in the Conservative manifesto last year under the heading "Eco-Bonus Scheme". She might have recognised some of those proposals.
The debate comes at a time that is slightly different from the times when the previous debates took place. One or two other things have to be said. I still receive letters from enthusiastic and—it would appear—honest individuals, who believe that climate change is not the issue that we believe that it is. In all honesty, given the current economic situation, even if there was no carbon benefit to the proposals in Sarah Boyack's bill, the contribution that it would make to alleviating fuel poverty and overcoming the economic difficulties that so many families in Scotland face would in itself mean that it was appropriate for us to support it. We are talking about a genuine win-win situation.
We need to work hard on a number of areas. We still have progress to make on the implementation of microgeneration measures. Microgeneration opportunities in our towns, particularly where strict planning controls exist, are still difficult to encourage and hard to take through the planning process. Planning regulations do not need to be changed, but how local authorities implement those regulations in some areas discourages the investment that could happen, even today.
Such investment is becoming more and more important. As I said, we are entering an economic downturn. Opportunities must be found to create worthwhile employment and to invest Government and private money in measures that will make the world more economically justified, particularly in Scotland, where the weather is still cold, despite global warming. Such opportunities are presented by the chance to make a limited investment that will encourage the development of energy efficiency measures, microgeneration and renewables in domestic and light industrial settings and will give us a new industry that could create new jobs when they are needed more than ever.
It would be inappropriate to end my speech without paying tribute to the Green party for its work to put such issues at the centre of the agenda. I am very interested in that party's amendment and will examine it further during the day to consider whether we can support it. In these difficult times, we must be wary of anything that has a cost placed on it. However, I will discuss that further with Green members after the debate.
We approach publication of the climate change bill, which we expect some time in early December. At the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's meeting on Tuesday, we went to great lengths to try to obtain a publication date from the minister, but the best answer that we could get was that it would be some time in the first half of December. Perhaps he will give us a date in this debate.
When the climate change bill is introduced, we genuinely expect it to contain measures that reflect the spirit of Sarah Boyack's motion. We look forward to the opportunity to support such measures and to ensure that Scotland becomes a greener place more quickly than it might otherwise have done.
Scottish Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the debate. We support Sarah Boyack's motion, which mirrors our manifesto, too, and addresses many concerns that were highlighted in our motion on fuel poverty, which the Parliament supported in March.
Sarah Boyack's motion articulates clearly the challenge that we face in meeting our climate change targets and highlights the potential for energy efficiency and microgeneration to help us meet that challenge. It outlines constructively the steps that the Scottish Government must take to make that happen. In that endeavour, ministers know that they can count on the full support of all parties in the Parliament. The development of the energy efficiency and microgeneration bill has been characterised by its cross-party and consensual nature, which was reflected in Sarah Boyack's speech.
The measures in the energy efficiency and microgeneration bill can provide a win-win-win by reducing carbon emissions, tackling fuel poverty and providing security and continuity of supply. Of course, the general principles are scarcely controversial. Only the most ardent flat-earther—who appears to be in regular correspondence with Alex Johnstone—would contest the notion that urgent and radical action is needed to reduce our energy demand and increase our reliance on renewable energy sources.
At the same time, the Government is right to argue that disagreement will arise on details in the bill—I can think of one or two issues on which I am likely to find myself shouldering arms with the minister. However, those are matters for debate in due course. The fact is that the Government still flatters to deceive on energy efficiency and promoting microrenewables. Ministers tend to announce and retreat. Nods and winks are given to the press and selected stakeholders, carefully choreographed photo opportunities are arranged and the sense is created that more progress is being made. However, as the bill's steering group makes clear,
"Despite several Scottish Government announcements, none fulfils the proposals set out for this Bill or will ensure that energy efficiency improvements and microgeneration measures are mainstreamed across society by requiring and incentivising such measures in homes or businesses".
If ministers support the motion—as they say they do—no further retreat can occur.
It beggars belief that, 18 months since the Government came into office, ministers still have not published their action plan on energy efficiency. The Government was bequeathed a draft by the previous Executive, which was drawn up thanks to input from a wide range of independent experts, so it is hard to find any justification for the Government's failure to set out its intentions and how it plans to achieve them.
The preamble to the much-delayed renewable energy framework is welcome but insufficient, as Scottish Renewables and others have made clear. It would help to hear in the winding-up speech what assessment the Government has made of the Association for the Conservation of Energy's proposals on planning, regulation, finance and information and advice, to which Sarah Boyack and Alex Johnstone referred. ACE suggests that about half of new homes are not built to current energy efficiency standards. If that is the case, it is deeply worrying. It would be useful to know what steps ministers will take to address that.
Given that 85 per cent of existing homes will still be occupied by 2050, perhaps it is more important that the Government sets out its intentions to step up the retrofit programme. I welcome the minister's statement about the Sullivan report's recommendations.
At the heart of any effective strategy must lie fiscal incentives for businesses and households. Agreement on that is fairly unanimous. However, ministers have sought to hide behind the skirts of the local income tax to justify their failure to support the energy efficiency and microgeneration bill. That is a little like ministers saying that they will not bother to introduce any measures until independence is achieved. It is obvious that many nouveau loyalists on the back benches privately agree with that approach, but the First Minister and his colleagues have—rightly—rejected it publicly.
Like the SNP, we support a local income tax, albeit one that is genuinely local and which provides several other safeguards that Mr Swinney is now actively considering. We are happy to work with the Government on ways of using a fairer local taxation system that is based on the ability to pay to incentivise households to adopt energy efficiency measures and microrenewables technologies, but we must establish the principle of such incentives first. Government support for today's motion is the necessary first step.
I am of course pleased to support the motion in the name of my colleague Sarah Boyack, who is to be congratulated on having done much in the Scottish Parliament over the years to promote microgeneration.
We have heard much from Scottish ministers about the importance of renewables technologies to tackling climate change and their potential contribution to the Scottish economy. Much of that has focused on large-scale developments, such as offshore wind farms. However, that is only one side of the story. It would be wrong for any of us to underestimate the contribution to tackling climate change and fuel poverty that small-scale individual efforts can make.
One third of the total energy demand and of CO2 emissions in Scotland is attributable to the residential sector. It is therefore a key sector in which the Government can encourage and facilitate action by individuals, families and microbusinesses to install measures to reduce energy loss and to generate power from Scotland's natural resources.
It is obvious that enabling households to generate their own power can address fuel poverty problems. According to a recent survey by the now-defunct Communities Scotland, a 5 per cent increase in energy prices pushes an additional 30,000 households into fuel poverty. That can be a particular problem in rural areas where properties have no access to the gas network and rely on more expensive electric or oil-fired systems. For the 30 per cent of the Scottish population that are in that situation, renewables technologies such as ground source and air source heat pumps and solar panels can offer a welcome addition to their facilities, so I welcome the recent announcement by the secretary of state, Ed Miliband, that the UK Government is to table an amendment to the Energy Bill to complement the renewables obligation with a guaranteed price for small-scale energy generation that feeds into the national grid.
The barriers for individual households to participating in microgeneration are financial and bureaucratic. The bill proposal that Sarah Boyack lodged in the previous session and again in June 2007 presents several strategic actions and financial incentives, some of which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has already accepted, and others of which I hope that ministers will accept as discussions continue.
The SNP's rhetoric in opposition needs to be matched by action in government. Like Liam McArthur, I would like to know the status of the Government's energy efficiency action plan, which was promised last year but is still unpublished, 18 months after the SNP took office.
Alex Johnstone referred to planning. Households are discouraged from microgeneration installation not only by the cost of technologies, but by the planning system. The previous Scottish Executive commissioned research from Heriot-Watt University on the developments that the general permitted development order should cover. In early 2007, that review advised that the GPDO should be extended to a range of microrenewables technologies. We are still waiting for a response from ministers—I hope that it will be timeous.
As Robin Harper said, we also need to look at energy efficiency measures. We have heard today that the Government is considering adopting the Sullivan report's recommendations, but will it follow the UK Government's lead by agreeing to procure only buildings that are in the top quartile of energy performance? How will ministers respond to the concerns expressed by Energy Action Scotland about the condition of existing housing stock, particularly in the private, owner-occupier and rented sectors? Can the Government answer the Association for the Conservation of Energy's concerns about whether Scotland is sufficiently prepared to meet the European deadline on energy performance certificates? Even if it is, how are we to address the fact that owners are under no obligation to act on the information contained in the certificates?
In October 2004, Richard Lochhead accused Scottish ministers of paying lip service on those issues. Of course, we refuted those allegations at the time. By addressing microgeneration and efficiency measures, the present Scottish Government can prove that its commitment is more than just lip service.
I will range over some of my personal experiences in this area. Jack McConnell, Jim Hume, Robin Harper, Mary Scanlon and I have been taking part in an MSP energy action challenge over the past year.
Who won?
We are about to hear from the organisations who arranged it.
We have all experienced considerable difficulties with our various types of house. My house, which is about 14 years old, started off being among the best insulated, but building regulations have improved since it was built and, through thermal imaging, we found out where the problems were.
Every person should be able to access thermal imaging for free. All councils have thermal imaging equipment and it should be made available to everyone. We could take that first step without any plans or anything else like that. We found out where the thermal imaging equipment was in Highland Council, and it would be a good idea if every council area started to provide a thermal imaging service, because it triggers ideas about what needs to be done.
I could mention many other aspects of the energy challenge, which might be won by the person who most improved their house's energy efficiency capacity; we have yet to hear the results, which we look forward to with interest. We are building an extension that will include a solar panel, which will change our heating system, but that will not happen within the year of the competition.
We must think about how building regulations are applied. If the houses that we are building now are causing more problems for the future, we must bring that to an end, and the sooner the better.
I am more concerned about rural housing, tenemental property and non-standard retrofitting. We must find ways of pinpointing what can be dealt with. That presents an opportunity for a Government agency that is known for its inflexibility. Historic Scotland could set an example by allowing many of the places that are in United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization heritage sites, for example, to use modern methods. Why do we have to maintain Historic Scotland's buildings to standards that were set in the 18th century? That is crazy in this day and age. Such buildings need not look any different, but they could contain modern materials, and it is high time that we asked Historic Scotland to review its policy. Conditions such as those, near my office, in Argyll Square in Wick, which Jamie Stone and I know well, are ridiculous. That is the kind of thing that could be dealt with now.
The fact that 34 per cent of our energy demand comes from houses must be tackled head on. The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee went to see London's green concierge service, which organises specialist advice for people who can afford to deal with their homes' energy efficiency problems, so that people can get on and spend the money. The Greater London Authority also invests in the affordable housing sector in the same way. We should learn from that plan.
My niece's husband trains people in insulation installation. Given the debate at the moment about what to do about the construction industry and considering Robin Harper's point about VAT reduction, we should be training the many apprentices who might be out of work in construction in insulation installation. Making progress on that will take the construction industry and the Government working in a genuine public-private partnership.
I have no time to speak about anything else, but I welcome the mostly consensual nature of the debate.
I support Sarah Boyack's motion, and welcome the opportunity to take part in this morning's debate. There are important matters to be discussed against the background of energy companies having doubled people's bills in the past five years, a 5 per cent increase in fuel costs resulting in 40,000 more people falling into fuel poverty and UK households emitting 153 million tonnes of CO2 every year. Governments around the world, and in the UK and Scotland in particular, face the challenge of reducing fuel bills, tackling fuel poverty and reducing emissions to help in the fight against climate change.
I welcome the work that is being done on the proposed climate change bill and the fact that some of the measures in Sarah Boyack's proposed member's bill have been incorporated. It is worth noting the work that Sarah Boyack has done over a long period. She has campaigned consistently on the environment, even when environmental issues were not as popular as they are now.
Unfortunately, although some progress has been made, it has been a bit on the slow side. We need to see some practical measures being taken. It is one thing to set a target of an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, but we need to help households throughout Scotland, particularly at this time of economic decline. From that point of view, some of the practical measures included in Sarah Boyack's bill are very useful indeed. We could look at incentivising council tax payers by giving them a £100 rebate if they install microgeneration. That would encourage the installation of microgeneration and reduce fuel bills.
In my constituency, Cambuslang and Rutherglen Housing Association piloted a scheme to install solar panels. That has directly reduced tenants' bills and has been of tremendous benefit to pensioners. That shows what can happen when the right equipment is installed.
When there is a financial crisis and the economy is under pressure, it is important to stimulate economic growth. Investment in microgeneration would be a step in the right direction.
It is also important to consider renewable energy obligations on new buildings. They should be tightened up to ensure that we have the best environmental standards. Rob Gibson alluded to that. Indeed, it is reckoned that 1.5 million homes in Scotland do not have their lofts correctly insulated.
I support speeding up the process for the removal of red tape so that planning permission can be given more quickly for microgeneration installations.
I welcome some of the UK measures that have been introduced to tackle energy efficiency problems, and the fact that smart metering is going to be mandatory across the six major energy companies. Members on the SNP back benches have been calling for that and motions have been lodged, so I am sure that we all welcome that.
The debate has been good and many important issues have been raised. Progress has been made but we need to speed it up and make action on the issue a priority. Swift action is needed now.
I congratulate Sarah Boyack on her motion. She has a fine environmental reputation and is the daughter of Jimmy Boyack, a good architect as well as a stalwart home ruler, who built his own Bauhaus-style villa near Cramond. As I remember, it incorporated part of one of Princes Street's greatest buildings, which was destroyed by corporate vandals in the 1960s.
That gives me my text, because 50 per cent of our carbon emissions involve heating—domestic and commercial. Adapting to a renewables regime will probably involve, for a time, increasing our manufacturing emissions, because manufacturing is necessarily heat intensive. One way in which we can save on industrial emissions is, of course, to import the equipment and fittings that we need and to pay only the transport costs, which seems a brilliant wheeze, except that it does not give us much chance of becoming world leaders in the industry or of creating a lot of jobs.
Does Chris Harvie agree that an increase in the release of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere from manufacturing could be avoided if our proposal to introduce a large-scale project for energy efficiency and insulation in Scotland's houses were adopted?
Yes—thank you, Mr Harper.
If we are to be world leaders in such technology, we must not only cope with repairing our deindustrialisation—manufacturing, which accounted for 30 per cent of gross domestic product in 1970, when we tackled North Sea oil, has come down to less than half that level, and the impact on engineering training and skills, which are well below European levels, has been significant—but be extra efficient across the board. Insulation would give us an important and manageable training phase while fundamental research is conducted on wind, wave and tidal energy.
We face an extremely sensitive challenge in Glasgow and Edinburgh, in particular. Georgian and Victorian Scotland were built in an age of cheap and plentiful fuel, when no conservation questions were asked, so there are plenty of plate-glass sash windows, chimneys, lofts, stairwells and cupolas through which heat can and does enthusiastically escape. The costs of preventing that are potentially huge. The alternative of cheap double glazing does not do our townscape any favours. The lofty astragalled windows of Edinburgh's new town are one of our civic glories, and one does not improve them by visiting one's local DIY store.
The costs of triple glazing such windows are formidable. Furthermore, there are all sorts of problems with ventilation, condensation, maintenance, safety and so on. Much of the heat loss is through the window housing rather than the glazing, so I suggest that insulation and heat retention should come within the scope of the saltire and horizon prizes that are offered by the Government. Retrofitting can be expensive, but if a mass-produced triple-glazed window that would be fitted behind the existing windows could be developed and installed as part of a programme, we would have made a breakthrough that could—given the numerous historic towns of Europe and America—be an export winner. In addition, we would have trained up a generation of technicians to face greater and more rewarding challenges when renewable regeneration comes on stream.
After Marilyn Livingstone, we will come to closing speeches.
Thank you for the opportunity to take part in the debate, Presiding Officer.
I think that I can confidently say that everyone in the Parliament agrees that Scotland's ambition should be to lead the world on climate change. Scottish Labour has a strong record on tackling climate change. The Labour-led devolved Government set ambitious targets for renewables generation in Scotland and completely transformed the country's recycling record. I join other members in supporting the target of reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
I am sorry to interrupt, but could members please check that their electronic equipment is turned off, because we are getting interference?
The problem has been solved—thank you.
I warmly welcome Gordon Brown's commitment to work towards the 80 per cent target across the UK.
The measures in Sarah Boyack's member's bill on microgeneration, which proposed incentives to encourage the use of small-scale renewables technology, were supported by the SNP when they were in opposition, but now that they are in power, they seem to be backing away from many of them. I pay tribute to Sarah Boyack for her total commitment to the agenda over many years. The SNP Government talks about committing to an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, but if we do not take all possible action now to make that happen, we will fail, with the result that we will leave an unacceptable legacy for our children and our children's children.
It is extremely disappointing that the Scottish Government's policies on transport, energy and energy efficiency do not measure up. Examples of those policies are putting out to tender the electricity supply to the Government but requiring only a part of the electricity to come from green sources; capping resources to support bus travel, which amounts to a real-terms cut; and attempting to cut the Edinburgh tram project.
In my constituency, the reduction in northbound and southbound train services for the people of Fife will mean that many commuters will be forced to travel by car if they are to get to work on time, or face lengthy travel times. For example, it will be impossible for Fifers who want to travel to Aberdeen by train to get to a meeting before 10 am. Commuters in my constituency and across Fife are extremely unhappy about the situation and a petition on the issue has gained many signatures. I have written to the minister, ScotRail and Network Rail to find out whether common sense will prevail. I hope that the minister will address those points.
Furthermore, as I know, as the chair of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on construction, the construction industry is experiencing difficult times, as many of my colleagues have said. There have been many redundancies. The industry is calling on the Scottish Government to bring forward projects that will help to sustain its members through this difficult time and which will allow us to retain jobs and a skilled workforce, which is crucial both now and in the future. I ask the Scottish Government to give serious consideration to increasing local government's funding to enable it to expand its energy efficiency and retrofit programmes.
The Government must show the political will to develop measures that will be effective in bringing about a substantial change in energy generation methods. Labour members have made many suggestions that the Government could adopt, and I hope that the minister will respond to them. I am pleased that the Government will support Labour's motion, but I ask it to support all the measures that are contained in Sarah Boyack's proposed bill, which they supported in opposition. Tough action is needed on climate change. Progress has been made, but we must now realise our ambitions.
We move to winding-up speeches.
Members of all parties have united in recognition of the contribution that Sarah Boyack has made over a long period to the debate on energy efficiency. She began her speech by calling for cross-party unity. If her motion remains unamended, I will certainly back it and I hope that the rest of the Parliament will, too.
Sarah Boyack and others, including Robin Harper, Stewart Stevenson, Alex Johnstone, Liam McArthur and Chris Harvie, have explained why the proposed measures are necessary. Chris Harvie is a freer spirit than most and he would be a worthy winner of that title if it goes his way tonight.
Few members and few people outside the Parliament doubt the urgency of the need to tackle climate change or the importance of consuming less energy if we are serious about achieving that target. In today's economic climate, it is clear that the best way of reducing energy consumption while saving households money is to implement programmes such as those that we are debating. Not only people who are technically in fuel poverty would benefit from that; households throughout Scotland would thank us for taking such action.
The only part of Sarah Boyack's speech with which I did not wholly agree was her description of the UK Government's track record in this area. I do not agree that it has been ambitious in tackling climate change. The ambition that is being demonstrated south of the border is attributable to local authorities, such as Kirklees Council, which are cracking on with programmes that are far more ambitious than anything that we are doing in Scotland, and are doing so with smaller budgets and less power than we have. There is no reason at all why we should not be able to match and outstrip their level of ambition.
A large part of Sarah Boyack's proposals relate to fiscal incentives. I will explain why incentives such as the council tax rebate are necessary but not sufficient. Of course, a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step, but on its own that step will not take us very far. If we want to achieve the scale of change that is necessary, we must remove all the barriers to uptake. The provision of a council tax rebate would certainly remove one barrier to uptake—it ticks that box. Planning changes would remove another barrier, which is great. Advice to households is good stuff, too. However, loan repayments are a huge barrier for householders, particularly at the moment, as are up-front costs. Another huge barrier is the hassle of getting energy efficiency work done. A geographically based, universal programme that is not means tested and which engages an entire local area at the same time would substantially remove the remaining barriers.
Stewart Stevenson reinforced the Government's frequently stated indications of intent to incorporate some of Sarah Boyack's proposals into the climate change bill but, disappointingly, there was little detail. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has repeatedly told the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee that he has been considering not whether but how to integrate her proposals into the climate change bill. By this stage, we should be hearing more about the detail rather than about another delay in the bill's introduction.
Alex Johnstone explained how influential Sarah Boyack has been in helping to write the Conservative manifesto. That may not have been her intention at the time but I am sure that we are all in favour of sharing. He also focused on the win-wins. Energy efficiency is not just about climate change and fuel poverty; energy efficiency measures would be worth implementing even aside from those issues. The green-collar jobs that could be created from an energy efficiency programme will be necessary in the current economic climate.
Alex Johnstone also asked about the price tag. On infrastructure investment, we have a range of priorities. I might suggest that we repair the Forth bridge instead of building another one, which could save £3.5 billon or £4 billion. There is room in the budget, if we are willing to consider the priorities. Investment in our domestic and energy infrastructure is a priority. The Greens' amendment calls for a comprehensive and fully funded programme and asks the Government to consider what can be done. That is all our amendment seeks to do and I commend it to Parliament.
I got slightly excited there—I am used to the Liberal Democrats starting the summing-up process.
I welcome the debate. I, too, congratulate Sarah Boyack on her work on the energy efficiency and microgeneration bill. She could be seen as a leader in that area; her thinking about the direction that this country needs to take—on not just the environment but the economy—has come very much to the fore. So far-sighted is it that even the Conservatives have caught up and have recycled some of her proposals in their manifesto. I welcome that, too.
There have been some valuable contributions to the debate. Robin Harper talked about the need for investment in energy efficiency and the return that we would get from that. He made an important point about how reducing VAT on house improvements could provide a big boost, not just for energy efficiency but for the economy. I hope that that will be considered by the UK Government in its pre-budget statement.
There has been an outbreak of consensus among members today and support throughout Parliament for Labour's motion. As my colleague Liam McArthur said, the Liberal Democrats support the principles behind the energy efficiency and microgeneration bill and look forward to its progress through Parliament. It is widely recognised that Scotland's housing stock falls woefully short of the energy efficiency standards required to cope with not just climate change but Scotland's climate. I agree with Rob Gibson about the need for new housing standards to be developed. House-building standards today are not yet adequate and the Government needs to move more quickly to develop better building standards to ensure that energy loss in new houses is minimised or eliminated.
We also need to address the existing housing stock. Many local authorities, including the one in my area, Fife, are to be congratulated on the actions that they have been taking over a number of years to improve the insulation and energy efficiency of their stock, although more still needs to be done to tackle the issue. However, it is perhaps in the private housing sector that we need to do more. Retrofitting has become the new buzzword—it is mentioned all the time—but it is essential that we retrofit our housing stock to reduce energy loss and to cut emissions and fuel bills. Further, by replacing some of the many jobs that are being lost because of problems in the housing market, that would provide a much-needed boost to our hard-pressed construction industry.
The Government's six-point plan refers to the need to boost the economy and talks about intensifying work on energy efficiency and fuel poverty. While that would be welcome, to date there has been no detail on it. Perhaps when he sums up the Minister for Communities and Sport will give us more detail on what is intended, as no extra money has been committed in the budget to deliver that. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee tried to get information about changes to the budget lines but none was forthcoming. Indeed, the draft budget for energy and telecommunications, which is the area that deals with energy efficiency, and microgeneration and other renewable technologies, will be cut by 1.5 per cent cut in cash terms—a more significant cut in real terms—between this year and next.
We welcome the additional £10 million for central heating, but that is in the context of a budget that is falling in real terms year on year, as it has been fixed in cash terms since 2007. New, efficient central heating is welcome, but that is not all there is to it. We need to ensure that all houses are insulated, so that people can afford to pay for the energy, and that affordable-to-heat, not just affordable, housing is available. Perhaps the Government will consider transferring some of the £100 million for affordable housing into retrofit housing.
I hope that the Government considers the technologies that are available. I have written to the minister about the problem of getting grants for installing air source heat pumps—perhaps that can be addressed urgently. We need to do everything that we can to reduce carbon emissions.
This has been a fairly good and consensual debate. I hope that the ideas that have been proposed will give ministers food for thought as they decide how best to progress matters.
Energy efficiency and microgeneration provide a clean, safe and comparatively cheap way of meeting our climate change commitments. A constituent—who may be related to one of the people who wrote to Alex Johnstone—said to me recently that energy efficiency is just
"a load of eco bling".
Although it tickled me slightly, I am sure that members would disagree strongly with that statement.
There are long-term benefits from energy efficiency and microgeneration not just for the environment but for householders. Cavity wall insulation, for example, pays for itself over several years. It gives a householder a warmer house and at the same time cuts down on carbon dioxide emissions. As a whole, it has grown well in recent years. In last night's members' business debate, we heard about actions taken by Community Energy Scotland, which is based primarily in the Highlands but is moving south as we speak. CES has grown well because of the actions of a number of people.
We have pretty close to a cross-party consensus but, as the Energy Saving Trust has pointed out, it is frustrating that while we consider the great progress that has been made over a 10 or 15-year period on the energy efficiency of certain household appliances, such as refrigerators and washing machines, it is possible in the space of a matter of months to invent a television that consumes double the power and has a standby button so that is never switched off. Despite all the progress that has been made, with one or two small inventions we can easily go backwards and depart from the trajectory that we have been on.
What gives me hope, though, is that the technology is adapting quickly and constantly. A couple of weeks ago, I had a flick through TIME magazine. Of its 50 top inventions of the year, three related to microgeneration. I am still struggling to get my head around one of them, which is described as airborne wind power. Another is a biochemical energy harvester. However, the one that impressed me most, and which should be coming to our shores soon, is Nanosolar's thin-film solar panel, which is much lighter and cheaper than previous solar panels. It can practically roll off the assembly line, which addresses one of the problems with solar power in the past.
I was struck by a comment in the consultation prior to Sarah Boyack's bill:
"Micro-generation will not become mainstream technology until they are easily accessible by householders across Scotland."
That hits the nail on the head. We must consider carefully the financial burdens and the start-up costs. That is a large part of the reasoning behind the Conservatives' eco bonus scheme for householders and small businesses, which Alex Johnstone referred to.
We must consider not only the regulatory issues but education—showing people, first, why energy efficiency is so important and, secondly, how it can be done. Most people are probably persuaded of the why but do not know as much about the how.
The Scottish Conservatives support energy efficiency measures and microgeneration for households and businesses. They have the potential to reduce the cost of energy bills; they create warmer households and offices; they are sustainable; and, most important, they reduce Scotland's carbon emissions.
I thank Sarah Boyack and all other members for a thought-provoking debate. We all agree that energy efficiency and microgeneration have a critical role to play not only in helping us to achieve our climate change targets, but in helping us to tackle fuel poverty and contribute to Scotland's sustainable economic growth. Increased action at individual, community and business levels is essential, so we must ensure that we have in place the right incentives to drive and stimulate that action. Some interesting ideas have been put forward this morning; we will look into how we can use those to build on the work that we are already doing.
This year, we launched the new energy saving Scotland advice network, which helps consumers and SMEs to reduce their energy bills and their carbon emissions. We have also recently introduced a new dedicated personal at-home service to help householders to find the right energy efficiency and microgeneration solutions. We are improving the advice that is given and have committed up to £13.5 million a year for the next three years to support uptake of microgeneration and community renewables—three times the funding that was provided by the previous Administration.
We are investing a further £2 million and are widening the scope of our small business loan scheme to include microgeneration. We also plan to relaunch the scheme later in the year with a more proactive and targeted marketing campaign. In addition, we are producing secondary legislation to exclude microgeneration investments from business rates. We intend that the legislation will come into force on 1 January 2009.
However, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to support Scots who face hardship this winter as a result of rising energy prices. In addition to the £45.9 million that we are already spending this year, we are providing £10 million for free central heating systems and, from next year, will expand the scheme to include families who most need help. We will shortly announce the actions that we will take in response to the recent recommendations of the Scottish fuel poverty forum, thus ensuring that our programmes are as effective as possible in tackling fuel poverty.
I do not think that anyone criticises the programmes for doing the wrong thing; the problem is that they are just not doing enough. Does the minister acknowledge the evidence from the Scottish Renewables Forum, which tells us that even to reach the Government's 11 per cent renewable heat target we need to increase the number of installations from about 1,200 a year to 25,000 a year? Does he accept that a step change is required?
As I have said, we listen carefully to all suggestions that are made to us—not only those from inside Parliament, but those from expert bodies outside it. There is much more to do and we will make announcements soon, not the least of which will be on the action that we will take in response to the Scottish fuel poverty forum's recommendations and on the proposed climate change bill, which will be introduced soon.
We must ensure that newly built homes have low carbon emissions. The research that we have done for the next energy standards, on which we plan to consult during 2009, indicates that low-carbon technologies including microgeneration will be a routine element in meeting the new standards. That will provide a flexible approach that will allow developers and designers to incorporate the right low-carbon solution for the building.
I will try to answer a few of the questions that members asked during the debate. A couple of members asked when the report on the renewables pilot will be published: it will be published by the end of the November. Its publication has been delayed a little, but I hope that members will be interested in it. Some members have written to me about it, and I am sure that there will be a debate around what it suggests.
Sarah Boyack asked about the red tape around planning for microgeneration. The Government is making progress on the relevant Scottish statutory instrument, which we intend to lay before the Christmas recess.
The energy efficiency action plan was mentioned by several members. The Government said in response to consultation submissions that the proposed Scottish climate change bill will require Scottish ministers to produce an energy efficiency action plan that will be regularly reported on, reviewed and updated, so that is also part of our plans.
A couple of members tried to suggest that there is a decrease in spending on energy efficiency. That is not correct. It is important to note that the enterprise, energy and tourism budget does not reflect the total spend on energy efficiency across the Government. Efforts to intensify action on energy efficiency will be undertaken by spending in a number of portfolios including housing, fuel poverty, transport, waste and so on.
Another member asked about the EU deadline for the introduction of energy performance certificates, which is 4 January. The recent indications are that more than 400 people are already qualified to do that work, and a further 200 are in the pipeline. We expect that there will be sufficient capacity to carry out that work.
We welcome today's debate. It has provided food for thought on what more we can do to ensure that we meet our climate change, energy efficiency and fuel poverty objectives. I hope that we can keep building on the momentum and the consensus that we have achieved today. We look forward to the proposed climate change bill and the actions that all of us can take to ensure that we reach the 80 per cent target.
This morning's debate has highlighted some important aims and objectives that are shared among all the parties. It has also highlighted how much more needs to be done, although some important progress has been made. The £1 billion that was announced by Gordon Brown in September for action on energy efficiency throughout Britain offers a good framework for further action in Scotland. I am glad, too, that Scottish electricity and gas suppliers have responded positively to the opportunity to invest in energy efficiency measures and to work with communities to reduce carbon emissions and cut bills.
The community initiatives that were launched this week by Scottish and Southern Energy in Comrie and elsewhere, Scottish Power's support for warm zones in Aberdeen and Lanarkshire, and the commitment of Scottish Gas and other suppliers to work with Government on rolling out the community energy saving programme are all welcome signs of the willingness of energy companies to play their part. Further progress, however, does not depend simply on installing more insulation or more energy efficient central heating systems, important though those are.
My involvement with the sector goes back to the early 1980s, when I carried out a number of energy efficiency surveys for Save Cash Reduce Fuel, which was then a brand-new agency. SCARF has since gone on to draught-proof and insulate many thousands of homes throughout the north of Scotland. As other members have mentioned, Fife Council's housing insulation and renewables programme, which has been running since 1997, and Edinburgh's community energy project, which was established by Mark Lazarowicz, offer other excellent models of what can be done.
However, the success of past initiatives means that insulation investment must now be about homes that are harder to heat. That will require active engagement, both by the Scottish Government and local councils, if Scotland is to win a proportionate share of carbon emission reduction target expenditure and investment. It is also essential that established community projects consider microgeneration as well as energy saving. The Government, too, needs to act to support microgeneration.
I believe that the proposals in Sarah Boyack's proposed bill offer a clear route map for using Scotland's devolved powers to support small-scale renewable energy developments. Ministers have said that the proposed climate change bill will include measures to deal with such matters. They have also mentioned today their intentions in relation to microgeneration and business rates, which are welcome. Nevertheless, if they want to meet the need to cut carbon emissions and tackle fuel poverty, they should go further and follow, as far as they can, the directions that are set out in Sarah Boyack's proposed bill.
Feed-in tariffs are important—Stewart Stevenson acknowledged developments in that respect. They are important at the point at which a generator produces enough power to be able to sell the surplus to the grid. They offer certainty, a fixed price and a predictable return. However, long before that stage is reached, fiscal incentives to install renewable generation technology can make all the difference to the initial decision on whether to go down the route of microgeneration. Householders, like businesses, will consider doing so in the expectation that they will achieve long-term savings and reduce their carbon emissions, if there are short-term fiscal incentives to provide an early benefit and strengthen the business case for their so doing. That is why ministers should not fight shy of acting on that now, even if they hold to their expectation that they will change the local taxation system. As long as households, as well as businesses, are liable for a property tax of any variety, a tax rebate or discount is an effective and legitimate means of promoting greater energy efficiency and more renewable energy generation. Ministers should accept that now and, if the need arises in the future to adjust the mechanism, they can do so in the context of the reforms that will already have been put in place.
The Government could do other things to promote energy efficiency. For example, much needs to be done to implement the recommendations of the Scottish fuel poverty forum, to which others have referred. Energy advice and assistance should be provided to those who need it most.
Ministers must also make the right decision on permissible noise levels, which is an issue that is delaying their commitment to bring microwind turbines under the general permitted development regime. World Health Organization guidelines could readily be applied through the statutory instrument to which Stewart Maxwell referred. That should be done in such a way as not to put at risk the microgeneration manufacturing sector that we all agree should be supported.
Other things could be done. Aberdeen's award-winning combined heat and power scheme, which has been running for some years in my constituency, could readily be replicated elsewhere and bring benefits to other areas. Much could also be done to improve the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock. Over recent weeks, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has heard from many witnesses who have highlighted the severe short-term difficulties facing the construction sector. They have called for Government action on retrofitting existing homes with up-to-date energy efficiency measures. Such action would allow ministers to deliver on their pledge of more action on energy efficiency and fuel poverty in the context of the current economic pressures. I hope that there will be a positive and urgent response on that.
Today's consensus is about the need to act; the responsibility to deliver those actions lies with ministers. If they act, they will, as they have heard today, have broad support.