Paris Climate Conference (Scottish Government Response)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the outcome of the Paris climate conference. (S4T-01248)
The Scottish Government warmly welcomes the historic Paris agreement on climate change. The agreement has, as we hoped and argued for, set certainty about the global low-carbon future in the same way as we set certainty about Scotland’s low-carbon future in our legislation in 2009. We hope that the agreement will avoid the worst impacts of climate change falling on the global poor and vulnerable.
I thank Tavish Scott and his party for supporting my calls ahead of the Paris summit for a cross-party approach to securing an ambitious deal. I particularly pay tribute to the efforts of the French Government which, against the background of the shocking terrorist attacks in Paris, displayed resilience and skill in guiding a particularly challenging international negotiation to a successful conclusion.
I recognise the minister’s commitment in the area and the considered remarks that she has made.
The Paris climate change deal, which spans 195 countries, is an important step towards combating global carbon emissions. The agreement that was reached, which was brilliantly marshalled by the French Government, is more ambitious for limiting temperature rises than the Parliament’s Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Does the minister accept that her Government must detail how it will reverse missing the statutory annual emissions targets for four years running? Does she also accept that WWF and many others now see tomorrow’s budget as an acid test of the Government’s commitment? What new domestic policies will the Government introduce to ensure that Scotland really is at the cutting edge of action on tackling climate change?
First, I am not in a position to pre-empt the discussions on the budget statement tomorrow but, obviously, I can say to Tavish Scott what I have said in previous statements, which is that we have to ensure that climate change is embedded as part and parcel of our budget process.
To meet Scotland’s targets in the future, we are developing the third report on proposals and policies. That will also make up for the excess emissions resulting from revisions to the greenhouse gas inventory. The draft RPP3 will be published after the next batch of annual targets, covering the period for 2028 to 2032, is set out in legislation no later than 31 October 2016. The advice on the next set of greenhouse gas annual targets is expected from our independent adviser, the Committee on Climate Change, in March next year, and that will be based on the latest evidence, including international policy.
I thank the minister for that detail. She will be aware that figures that were published just this morning show that 35 per cent of Scotland’s households were fuel poor in 2014 and 9.5 per cent were in extreme fuel poverty. This morning, the director of Energy Action Scotland said that, unless tomorrow’s budget allocates greater funding,
“the desperate situation of hundreds of thousands of households living in cold, damp homes will continue.”
What is the Government doing to fulfil its statutory requirement to abolish fuel poverty by November 2016 when 845,000 households across Scotland are still in fuel poverty? In light of those figures, can the minister say how a national infrastructure priority will contribute to Scotland’s climate change ambitions and whether tomorrow’s budget will at least invest more in tackling fuel poverty than the investment in the current financial year?
Quite a lot of detail is required to answer that question. I am more than happy to write to the member with that detail following tomorrow’s budget statement. However, I can say that we are reducing fuel poverty levels. Since 2009, the Government has allocated more than half a billion pounds to a range of fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes, with a budget of £119 million in the current financial year. In June, I announced that this area would be a national infrastructure priority for the Government.
It is clear from the commentary around the Paris climate summit that Scotland’s actions and ambitions on climate change have widespread international support. It is a pity that that international enthusiasm was not mirrored at home by some Opposition politicians. How will the Scottish Government’s climate justice policy further help to reduce the impact of climate change on the world’s poorest communities?
We know that the most vulnerable are those worst affected by climate change—the very young, old, ill and poor. Women are suffering disproportionately as they are often the main providers of food, fuel and water. The people who have done the least to cause climate change and are the least equipped to cope with the consequences are those who are being hit the hardest. The scale of that injustice is massive.
In 2012, we became the first national Government in the world to establish a climate justice fund. The Scottish Government is doing its part to foster the trust between developed and developing countries by pledging £12 million over four years to climate justice. Over the past five years, the climate justice fund has invested £6 million in 11 projects in four sub-Saharan African countries. In Malawi, for example, about 30,000 people now have access to safe, clean drinking water, and more than 100 committees have been trained in natural resources rights and management. Our Scottish national action plan on human rights commits us to continue to champion climate justice.
What changes does the minister envisage the Scottish Government putting in place in light of the new commitment to a rise in global temperatures of no more than a 1.5°C? How will those changes particularly focus on the 900,000 fuel-poor households—single pensioner, single adult, small pensioner and lone parent households—who are struggling the most to pay their energy bills? Given the whole focus in Paris on climate justice, what new initiatives will she put in place?
We certainly warmly welcome the Paris agreement’s aim of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5°C. That is a major victory for the climate vulnerable and the poor around the world.
The expert Committee on Climate Change will be visiting Scotland in January 2016 and we will receive further advice from it in March before setting future targets. We will be looking afresh at what opportunities there may be to advance some of the actions that we need to take and develop. Some of that will be set out in RPP3.
Limiting global climate change to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels might have been easy had we not had 20 years of global delay before reaching this point. The Scottish emissions targets are based on a desire to contribute Scotland’s fair share to limiting global climate change to 2°C. How can the 2°C targets goal still be correct in light of the 1.5°C goal? Will the Scottish Government revisit its targets?
As I said, the advice on the next set of annual greenhouse gas targets is expected from our independent adviser, the Committee on Climate Change, in March next year. The committee will be visiting Scotland in January 2016. The targets will obviously be based on the latest evidence, including our international policy.
Trade Union Bill (Presiding Officer’s Ruling)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Presiding Officer’s ruling on a potential legislative consent memorandum regarding the United Kingdom Government’s Trade Union Bill. (S4T-01233)
Although we remain disappointed by the Scottish Parliament’s views last week on the lodging of a legislative consent motion, it is essential that the Scottish Parliament is able to express its opposition to this poorly thought out piece of legislation in the clearest possible terms to the United Kingdom Government. The general policy memorandum that was sent last Friday to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee for its consideration will provide an opportunity to do that. That consideration will be followed by a debate of the whole Parliament.
Yesterday, the First Minister raised the Scottish Government’s very clear opposition to the Trade Union Bill with the Prime Minister. We will continue to make the case to the UK Government that the bill is unnecessary and potentially damaging, and that banning check-off and facility time in Scotland impinges on our responsibilities to our employees.
It is our view that the best solution would be for the United Kingdom Government to devolve industrial relations to the Scottish Parliament. We will work across party boundaries in that regard. Indeed, we are delighted to be part of a broader coalition on the issue, which includes the other devolved Administrations, the unions and wider civic society.
This Parliament overwhelmingly spoke out against the Trade Union Bill, and Labour members welcomed the Government’s first attempt to lodge an LCM against what is a draconian piece of anti-trade union legislation. As a consequence of the bill and last week’s ruling on the LCM, a private employer could choose to retain practices such as check-off when ministers of the Scottish Government will not be able to do so.
Does the minister think that ministerial executive competence is compromised by the proposed legislation? On what grounds has the Government come to its view? What action will it take?
As I think that I indicated, our view is that banning check-off and facility time in Scotland impinges on our responsibilities to our employees. We are adamant that that is the case, and that view formed part of the evidence that I gave to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee on the Trade Union Bill. What is being asked for is simply not required—it is absolutely clear that there is no evidence whatever to support the position that the United Kingdom Government has taken.
The Deputy First Minister confirmed last year that the Scottish Government will continue to offer check-off, and that position remains unchanged—also, we do not intend to use agency workers. We will continue to do what we think is right for our employees.
For clarity, on the basis that the Scottish Government believes that ministerial executive competence is compromised by the proposed legislation, what consideration does the Government think the relevant committee should give to the issue?
It is not for me to dictate to a parliamentary committee what it chooses to do. I look forward to hearing from the committee and hope that it will accept the Government’s invitation to look at the policy memorandum. As the member knows, what action the committee takes is entirely a matter for it to discuss. I very much hope that it will come to the same view as we have come to.
The purpose of our approach to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee is to present an opportunity for a policy memorandum and a motion to be lodged for debate in this Parliament. That is an outcome for which I think we all wish.
The cabinet secretary has been having discussions with trade unions. Will she update the Parliament on those discussions?
Ministers have held meetings regularly with the Scottish Trades Union Congress. We meet to discuss a number of matters, of course, but the Trade Union Bill has been to the fore. Last week, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister had their biannual meeting with the STUC and the bill was discussed.
As most members probably know, the FM addressed the STUC anti-Trade Union Bill rally last Thursday night. Indeed, on 24 November she gave the keynote address at the Jimmy Reid memorial lecture and the bill formed a large part of what she had to say. I have met the STUC and Unison to discuss the bill on a number of occasions recently.
I do not think that there is any sense that this Government is not taking the issue extremely seriously. We have huge concerns about the bill’s impact on the Scottish Government’s industrial relations. In my view, the bill will endanger industrial relations in Scotland, although we have a better record on industrial relations than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Forth Road Bridge (Closure)
To ask the Scottish Government what regular assessment it is making of the operation of the plan to minimise the disruption to journey times since the closure of the Forth road bridge. (S4T-01250)
Regular discussions continue to take place between transport delivery partners on the travel plan’s effectiveness. The plan is reviewed daily, and following feedback from businesses and communities we have already relaxed the restrictions along the dedicated transport corridor on the A985. The plan must have the ability to adapt and to respond to need.
Through the travel plan, we are supporting communities, commuters and businesses as best we can do during the closure of the Forth road bridge. Key interventions have been made and promoted. Partners include Transport Scotland, Fife Council, Police Scotland, ScotRail and Stagecoach.
Does the minister agree with the Federation of Small Businesses and the Fife Chamber of Commerce that enhancements to the Scottish Government’s travel plan, allowing all light goods vehicles to use the corridor on the A985, will be particularly beneficial to local small businesses, as they will enable journeys to be made in a shorter time and will support the supply chain while the bridge repairs are carried out?
I welcome those comments. We are continuing to monitor the travel plan’s effectiveness and to listen to those who are affected by the closure. We are doing everything that we can to reopen the bridge in time for people who are returning to work in the new year. We must be able to adapt the travel plan in light of new circumstances, and that is what we are doing. We are ensuring that we mitigate as best we can the impact on the local and regional areas.
Will the minister comment on whether the enhanced public transport provisions are being effective?
Everyone would accept that it is incredibly difficult to address all need in terms of the displaced traffic from the closure of the Forth road bridge. However, there has been a massive move to strengthen rail capacity—an extra 10,000 seats have been provided—and extra bus seats have been provided. Both those things have been subsidised, and bus provision has been further supported with the priority route in order to give better journey times.
There has clearly been a shift on to public transport, and I appreciate the patience and forbearance of the travelling public as they have adjusted to the necessary closure of the Forth road bridge. We have ensured that the action plan is fully conveyed to the public through the dedicated website, and we meet regularly with stakeholders, including Police Scotland, which we meet to discuss enforceability and its intelligence and understanding. We also meet local authorities and businesses to do everything that we can to mitigate the impact of the closure of the Forth road bridge.
Incidentally, the repairs to the bridge are very much under way and the reopening time is very much on track.
Fife Council is advising businesses that have lost money as a result of the closure to direct compensation claims to Transport Scotland. How will those claims be dealt with?
My priority is to ensure that the bridge is reopened as quickly as possible and to mitigate the impact of its closure. The travel plan has been largely effective in that. Do not take just my word for that: even Alex Rowley has praised my work on the travel plan.
On the wider question of compensation, the Deputy First Minister has held useful talks with businesses. In fact, some constructive ideas from those talks have led to changes in the travel plan. I am sure that Mr Swinney will consider the issue of compensation further, but it remains the case that our priority must be to repair the bridge and reopen it as quickly as possible. Businesses and everyone else tell us that that must be the number 1 priority, and that is exactly what I am focusing all energy on.
The minister will be aware of the pressures that are being faced in Fife, as outlined by Mike MacKenzie, member for Highlands and Islands. I welcome ScotRail’s huge efforts, but crowding on trains on recent days has been particularly difficult. Sometimes there have been only two or three carriages on rush-hour trains coming from Kirkcaldy. What assurances can the minister give that that issue will be addressed?
ScotRail has mobilised as much as it can. As I said in my parliamentary statement last week, we have located carriages from south of the border and some have been displaced from other parts of Scotland.
I also pointed out that the issue is of national significance. It is right that we put extra carriages and effort into the Fife area, even though some Labour members felt that that was the wrong thing to do, because it impacted on their areas. Given the national recognition of the stress and pressures on Fife, it has been the right thing to do to locate extra carriages and trains there and to enhance the timetable with an earlier morning train. ScotRail’s approach has been helpful in mitigating the impact of the closure and has enhanced the provision during peak periods.
I have repeatedly identified the extra capacity that exists on the bus routes, and I encourage more people to look at the availability of bus provision. ScotRail has ensured that stations are staffed and that there is adequate information out there.
I say again that it was always going to be a huge challenge to manage the displacement of everyone who normally crosses the Forth using the road bridge. We made every effort possible, with rapid decision making and rapid intervention, to ensure that, by Monday morning—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the minister.
Labour members laugh, but I think that people appreciate the action of the Scottish Government to ensure that there are 10,000 extra seats of rail capacity and thousands of extra seats of bus capacity. I say again that, if there is any more that the Government can do, we will do it. We will get on with action while the Labour Party carps from the sidelines.
That ends topical questions.
Previous
Point of OrderNext
Points of Order