Eco-congregation Scotland
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-2665, in the name of Des McNulty, on the eco-congregation Scotland programme. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the important role played by churches and other faith groups in Scotland in raising awareness of environmental issues and in particular climate change; congratulates the Eco-Congregation Scotland programme on achieving its 200th registration; notes the rapid growth of the programme across Scotland from its inception less than a decade ago to become the largest network of community environment groups in Scotland and its spread to include congregations from nine denominations, including the congregation of the Abbotsford Parish Church in Clydebank, and welcomes the new commitment that the programme is making to help congregations and communities understand the impact of climate change here and in the developing world, respond appropriately to the challenge climate change presents and take collective and personal responsibility for reducing their carbon emissions.
During the debate in the chamber on climate change on 28 May, I suggested the addition of a fifth point—the need to help people in Scotland to understand and respond positively to climate change—to the four reasons that the Scottish Government set out for why a climate change bill is necessary. This evening's debate is an opportunity to expand on the need for a programme of active community engagement on climate change by highlighting the contribution of eco-congregations to spreading the awareness of climate change, illustrating how congregations are taking practical steps to reduce their carbon footprint, and presenting arguments in favour of setting not just scientific targets but targets for engagement with the community in order to meet the objectives that have been proposed for reducing Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions.
The growth of eco-congregations, from their launch in Scotland in 2001 to a movement involving more than 200 congregations, reflects concern among faith communities about local and international environmental issues. Eco-congregations are in most parts of Scotland, from Shetland to Galloway. They are in our inner cities and city suburbs, in towns and the countryside, and on islands. It is an ecumenical movement that includes congregations from nine denominations.
In my constituency, for example, the Abbotsford, Radnor Park and St Stephen parishes have active congregations. Other members will have significant numbers of similar church parishes in their localities. As well as those who have already signed up, other church congregations are taking an interest in joining the movement, overwhelming the people who were involved in setting it up.
The movement's growth has been supported by church leaders at a national level, by Keep Scotland Beautiful and by the Scottish Government. However, the movement primarily reflects the concern and commitment of members of congregations right across Scotland.
In 2008, the eco-congregation movement has made significant advances. Earlier this year, congregations and other stakeholders met to celebrate the growth of the movement and to consider its future direction. Congregations agreed that climate change is now of such importance that they must respond and get involved. With support from the Church of Scotland, that has led to a number of developments.
The Church of Scotland has established a responding to climate change project, which helps congregations to learn about climate change and challenges them to respond effectively. The project secured financial support from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to develop a simple carbon calculator that allows congregations to use their energy bills—or gas and electricity meters—to work out the carbon dioxide emissions both of their church buildings and of their homes. With the calculator currently being piloted, congregations throughout Scotland are learning with enthusiasm how to count their carbon.
I hope that that will lead to a bigger project. The eco-congregation steering group is preparing an application to the Government's climate challenge fund to help congregations to cut their carbon emissions. If the bid for that ambitious project is successful, it will give the group the staff resources that it needs to work with individual congregations across Scotland to make cuts in their energy use and therefore their carbon footprints.
Why are churches a good place to do that? Churches are places where people meet regularly and share common values, so it is entirely appropriate that the climate change message should be taken forward through the church network. Lessons learned can be applied in a variety of settings and by a variety of organisations. People can take the message into their homes as well as into their churches, so there is a multiple benefit.
Eco-congregations are important in a number of ways. First, without the active support and involvement of people and communities across Scotland, the Scottish Government will not succeed in meeting its target of delivering an 80 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Eco-congregations are leading the way on tackling the issue. In generating support and involvement across the country, they are setting a good example to other voluntary bodies.
Secondly, although many people are concerned about climate change, few people know how to measure their carbon footprint or have active experience of trying to reduce it. By working with congregations throughout the country, eco-congregation Scotland can help to spread awareness and help people to take action on reducing emissions.
Thirdly, congregations are doing such work because they believe in it. Although scientists and the Government can tell us what we need to do, people really need to believe in change if it is to be effective. Congregations are motivated by faith. In facing the difficult challenges that lie ahead in becoming a low-carbon Scotland, their faith and commitment will be essential. They can help to lead communities in response to climate change.
Those are some of the reasons why I was motivated to lodge the motion for debate. I am delighted at the amount of support that it has generated among members. I hope that the debate will help to spread the word about the value of the work that eco-congregations are doing. I commend the work of eco-congregation Scotland to Parliament.
In conclusion, if we are to meet the target of an 80 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions, we need to engage the public sooner rather than later. The smoking ban was a success because the argument was won through the debate that was generated not here in Parliament but in homes, places of work and public venues throughout Scotland. It was an issue whose time had come. I believe that success in tackling climate change demands the same kind of awareness and the same engagement in public debate. I hope that tonight's debate will underline to the Government and to members the potential of eco-congregations in helping us to meet the objectives that we all share.
I commend the motion to Parliament.
We move to open debate. Speeches should be of four minutes.
I congratulate Des McNulty on securing this evening's debate and on his success in attracting the support of nearly 50 MSPs for his motion recognising and celebrating the eco-congregation Scotland programme.
Particularly at this time of year, it is refreshing to debate some good news. As it is Christmas, it is all the more worthy that we take cognisance of what our faith organisations have achieved and what they aspire to do for our communities and, not least, for the developing world.
The manner in which the eco-congregation programme has been embraced exemplifies how our faith organisations practise what they preach when it comes to personal and collective responsibility for reducing carbon emissions.
As I have already indicated, the eco-congregation programme is the largest network of community environment projects in Scotland. The programme is leading the way in educating individuals and communities on the impact of climate change and, more important, leading the way in enabling individuals and communities to make changes and make a difference. That is an important message in the more global and uncertain world in which we now live. We must not fear the environmental challenges that face us. Small actions add up. Actions also speak louder than words, which we politicians should always try to remember.
One of my colleagues remarked in passing that I always talk about my constituency in the chamber, so in order not to disappoint that colleague, I will make a special mention of Knightsridge church in Livingston. Like the eco-congregation project, many of the churches in the new town of Livingston are ecumenical and seek to work in partnership with other organisations. The ecumenical parish is very much at the heart of its community. In 2005, Knightsridge achieved an eco award for its butterfly garden. Several young people and Sunday school teachers embarked on that environmental project over the school holidays in 2005 and turned an ugly, litter-filled area into life-giving space.
They did not stop there. They built on the butterfly garden's success until Knightsridge became the eighth church to achieve a second eco-congregation award. Its major breathing spaces project has created beautiful gardens from waste ground that is fenced off around the community centre in which it meets. There are three areas in the garden and each has a different theme: love, joy and peace. That is very apt for this time of year, but it is also symbolic of our aspirations for our local and wider communities all year round.
There is a growing number of faith-based environmental groups and organisations, one of which is aptly entitled operation Noah, reminding us that a little action taken often counts, but there is nonetheless a sense of urgency in making our planet a safer and greener place for our children's children to grow and thrive in.
I congratulate Des McNulty on bringing the debate to the chamber. No doubt we will agree that the issue is very topical. I cannot be the only member in the chamber who has been asked to represent several churches and make members aware of the superb work that is being done.
I began to be aware of the work that churches are doing on climate change when I was visited a couple of years ago by someone from the church and nation committee of the Church of Scotland who interrogated me about what Parliament was doing to create greener transport options and about climate change.
The eco-congregations are not a new thing; the issue has been being raised in churches for quite a few years now. It gained speed and depth, especially in Edinburgh churches, when the G8 summit was held in Scotland. A series of seminars were held in churches focusing on trade and aid relationships and on what we in Parliament could do, along with United Kingdom parliamentarians, to take tougher action on climate change.
Peace and justice groups, such as the one at the Sacred Heart church in Lauriston, which is quite near the Parliament, held a special event to focus on what we could do to change the world. Their debates had a different flavour from those that we have in Parliament in that they had a much stronger ethical dimension. They compared the wealth of developed western countries with that of developing countries and looked at what we can do to spread our wealth across to those countries, while avoiding making some of the most damaging changes to our climate that will be caused by our historical and future emissions. There were some very powerful discussions, which were significant in that they cut across the churches in Edinburgh. There was a huge amount of enthusiasm for that work.
The other aspect of the work of eco-congregations of which I have been made very much aware is churches getting in touch and asking what we are doing on these issues in the Parliament. For example, the congregation of St John's church invited me to address it when it gained eco-congregation status. That is not a simple box-ticking exercise; a church must demonstrate commitment and say how it is going to go further over the next few years. St John's already has a One World Shop in its complex, which promotes fair trade goods, and it was already active in the fair trade debate. It is now thinking about what more it can do.
Murrayfield parish church is also an eco-church that is active in fair trade. It is keen to see what its members can do not just as individuals but as a congregation and a parish to lobby organisations. One member of the congregation wrote to me when she knew that tonight's debate was going to take place. She wrote:
"On a personal basis I have reduced the temperature in my home by 2 degrees Celsius and do not find this a problem. I would like to think that many larger organisations could do the same. Would anyone notice? I am thinking of shops and offices."
Everybody has walked into a shop and just about got fried alive. When they walk in through the door with their jacket on, it is hot; then, when they walk out, it is freezing. There are issues about what the right temperature is for those organisations that must spend a lot on heating bills.
There are other practical ideas. Gorgie parish church is not yet an eco-congregation but, knowing members of that church, I believe that it soon will be. They are keen to make practical changes to their local community. They started with small changes that we may take for granted if we have been on this track for some time—they recycled paper and sold fair trade tea and coffee—but they have begun to move on and want to do more. They have carried out local garden project works and have been involved in trying to help local communities to make the local environment more attractive. They recently had 40 students with links to the church working on Gorgie city farm, clearing litter and making practical improvements to a garden area just opposite the church. People are not just involved in the high-level ethical and political debates about climate change; they are active in churches, making changes to their communities. That has to be commended.
There is some interest among Edinburgh churches in microgeneration, which is an issue that we have discussed in the chamber before. They have become interesting advocates, lobbying in the city to persuade other organisations to let them use microgeneration to reduce their bills and produce green energy. Only last month, the churches across Edinburgh came together to bring UK, Scottish and European parliamentarians to debate with one of our local councillors what we could do collectively.
There is a lot happening. I hope that Des McNulty's motion will add to the support for that work and encourage people to go further.
I welcome this opportunity to debate Des McNulty's motion. As I have mentioned in previous debates, it is one of the great ironies that we politicians see the issues of the environment, ecology and climate change as among the most important that we ever address, but when we go out into the community we often find—at least, I often find—people who regard other issues as their priorities and who cast doubt on some priorities for whose relevance politicians have ceased to argue. It is therefore important that we have the opportunity tonight to talk about one of the mediums that has allowed us to extend the debate and to interact with organisations outside Parliament.
We have had debates on eco-schools and I have found it interesting to visit schools that are involved in the programme to try to understand how young people think about the issues that we deal with here on a political level. The idea of eco-congregations follows the same model, but takes it to a whole new level. We have, in that area, a pool of people who have so much to contribute and so much to do to influence our thinking about how we progress these priority issues.
I am particularly pleased that the motion refers to the local, national and international significance of the work that eco-congregations can carry out. We should value the fact that the tradition of the Christian churches in Scotland is to take an interest in, and to do good work on behalf of, third-world countries and their communities. That is an example of how we, as a developed society, can address the impact of our actions on those who are least able to defend themselves against that impact. The involvement of churches in that is particularly valuable.
However, there is much that churches can do in the Scottish context, as well. Issues relating to fuel poverty and the limitations of transport impact on our ecology. The churches can give us feedback on such issues. They can act as a forum for debate and assist us in finding out how people can best adapt to environmental changes that are brought about by climate change. Through such work by the churches, politicians can learn a lot about what people feel. Also, we have in the churches a good cross-section of the people who have the most to give, the most to contribute and the most influence to exert.
The eco-congregation Scotland programme has much to deliver, so I am delighted that the debate has given us an opportunity to highlight the work that it has done and, more important, that it can do in the future by interacting directly with Scottish politicians and influencing how they think.
I congratulate Des McNulty on securing this debate and I assure Sarah Boyack that she is not alone in feeling somehow stalked.
The recent publication of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill makes the debate extremely timely. Des McNulty referred to points that he made in a debate in May about the need to raise public awareness not only of the problems and challenges but about the roles that individuals, groups, communities and businesses can play in meeting those challenges, not least through specific behavioural changes. As we wrestle with some of the macro issues, it is important that we do not lose sight of that aspect of what needs to be done. The Institute for Public Policy Research—I think—produced a report a few years ago on the language of climate change, which stressed that a balance must be struck between impressing on people the seriousness of the challenge that we face and convincing them that small individual actions matter and can be effective.
In my constituency, the congregations of Papay and Westray churches and Kirkwall East church were among the first to take up the initiative, and I know that others are following suit. The Westray congregation has for some time been particularly active on ecological issues—all its primary heating needs are met from renewable sources. Also, I awarded Westray its Fairtrade island status last September. The congregation felt that, although it had been active in that regard for some time, the eco-congregation initiative was a useful way of focusing effort, providing support and guidance and helping to maintain the standard of the work that is done.
The success of the eco-congregation initiative should not surprise anyone. As Sarah Boyack highlighted, it is difficult to think of a theology that is not an environmental theology. This initiative, therefore, very much sings to the choir. In their communities, eco-congregations can act as catalysts for further action—it is not only MSPs that churches contact and encourage to take action. As Alex Johnstone suggested, the eco-schools initiative has proved successful across the country. In Orkney, Dounby and Glaitness primary schools have achieved green flag status. Glaitness primary's only dilemma is that it does not have a pole from which to display its flag.
Such initiatives demonstrate the growing public appetite for taking specific actions to reduce our impact on our environment. This evening's debate further raises the profile of the work of eco-congregations and others in our communities in that regard, and it highlights the need for us to continue and build on the support that we give to eco-congregations.
I congratulate Des McNulty on securing this important debate, and I offer even more congratulations to the 200 congregations throughout Scotland that have registered to become eco-congregations. I am sure that members will forgive me for picking out the seven of those 200 that happen to be in my constituency.
I pay tribute to St Serf's, South Leith parish church, St Andrew's and St George's, St James's Leith, St Paul's and St George's, Stockbridge parish church and Wardie parish church. I congratulate Wardie parish church congregation in particular on having recently received its second award—I am told that only six congregations in Scotland have achieved that.
Having heard from many members of those churches and having looked into the matter, I am struck by the enormous amount of work and commitment that is involved in the eco-congregation scheme. An award is not gained easily—congregations have to work through a series of modules. Some of those are to do with the church buildings, for example, while others are about reaching out into the life of the community and carrying out environment-related work in that context.
In Edinburgh, a network of churches—I believe that it is the same elsewhere—ensures systematic organisation of the eco-congregations. We should acknowledge the significant work that they are doing. It is an example of the churches showing leadership, sometimes on issues on which the majority of opinion is not always on their side. They have, for example, shown leadership on international development and nuclear weapons, and they are now showing leadership on climate change. That is particularly important because, as we all know, and given the enormous challenges that we face in relation to climate change, Government cannot bring about changes on its own. We should pay tribute to the Governments in London and Edinburgh for the leadership that they are showing, but we cannot make the advances that are required unless people take action in their own lives. It is important that we have more community-based initiatives to get people to change their lifestyles in relation to climate change.
In many cases, it is difficult or challenging for Governments to deal with climate change, because the people are not always signed up to the changes. It is different, in that sense, from international development and other movements that grew up from below and put pressure on Governments. Governments are showing leadership on climate change, but it is difficult in many cases to take action for fear of alienating the public, which is why it is important that there are groups that are active in the community and which are putting pressure on politicians, showing leadership and trying to spread the message through community engagement at local level.
In that context, the eco-congregation movement is important. We face no greater challenge in this century than the challenge of climate change, and the more grass-roots initiatives, such as eco-congregations, there are, the more likely it is that we will achieve our goals.
I congratulate Des McNulty on securing this fascinating and important debate. Sarah Boyack spoke about being contacted by local congregations: Fairlie parish church in my constituency has an eco-congregation, and this afternoon I received a signed petition from 47 parishioners urging me to participate in the debate. I am delighted to do so.
Churches are at the heart of our communities, and it is vital that they play a role in protecting our planet from the potential ravages of climate change. The eco-congregation Scotland programme strives to help Christians find ways to protect the environment, and it focuses on helping Christians to spiritually align their beliefs with their actions while protecting the environment.
An eco-congregation provides ideas that churches can use to reduce their own footprint, as well as find ways to help the community reduce its impact and helping to make a difference in the ecological impact that is made by communities in the United Kingdom. In Scotland alone—as Des McNulty said—the eco-congregation programme includes 200 churches from nine denominations that are actively trying to reduce the negative impacts that our lifestyles can have on the environment.
The organisation connects different congregations and different denominations with the shared goals of linking everyday environmental issues with Christian beliefs, taking action to reduce current ecological destruction, and changing the local and global community.
Members who looked at the back of the chamber earlier will have seen the document "Africa - Up in smoke? The second report from the Working Group on Climate Change and Development", which has a foreword by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The report points out that, although the west and the developed world are responsible for much of the ecological destruction related to carbon output, it is often poor countries, communities and societies such as those in Africa that bear the brunt of climate change.
The eco-congregation programme provides a network for churches in the same communities to come together and agree on environmental issues. The building of communities that are dedicated to protecting the environment is a big step forward in the movement towards a greener Scotland.
I return to the member's point about the impact on the developing world. Does he agree that the involvement of churches, including the church in Bridge of Allan in my constituency, in the eco-congregation programme gives an additional moral authority to the campaign on climate change? Does he agree that that also applies because the church has a long track record of working on issues in the developing world?
I agree. In fact, a number of members have made exactly that point.
Conscientious communities can go a long way towards changing the indiscriminate and wasteful use of finite resources and disregard for the environment in general that exist in the world today. When a community becomes environmentally aware, more people take public transport, recycle and conserve energy, and the community becomes increasingly environmentally friendly. Small changes might not seem to make a difference, but if they are made in every community in Scotland, they cannot help but change our use of resources for the better and have a positive impact.
I am pleased that Fairlie parish church received a second eco-congregation award this year. As Malcolm Chisholm pointed out, only six congregations have achieved a second award. The award was presented at a special eco-service in the church, during which a short Christian Aid film on climate change was shown and 27 signed postcards on the European Union climate change legislation were gathered to send to MEPs.
The award recognises churches that integrate environmental issues with the practice of their religion and make a realistic impact on the environment. Fairlie parish church has done that by actively campaigning for beach clean-ups and recycling and contacting its elected representatives about forthcoming climate change legislation. In its efforts to protect the environment and leave a minimal carbon footprint, Fairlie parish church also helped its community to become the first Fairtrade village in Scotland. That parish is just one example of the positive impact that the eco-congregation programme can have on a community and the environment.
As environmental issues are discussed openly throughout Scotland and beyond, better solutions to problems will be found, as will different and more varied sources of energy. The two issues go hand in hand. Some forms of fuel will become increasingly expensive as reserves dwindle. We continue to use fossil fuels rather than renewable energy because it appears that a better, more practical and affordable solution is not available to us at the moment, particularly for transport. However, technical innovation coupled with the raised awareness in communities that the eco-congregation programme helps to bring about will help Scotland to find and implement realistic, affordable solutions to the energy and environmental problems that we face. Reducing carbon emissions will not only propel Scotland into more environmentally friendly sources of energy but move the whole country towards healthier lifestyles.
Eco-congregation Scotland is helping not only to protect the environment but to create a better quality of life here in Scotland. It helps to develop camaraderie among congregations through efforts to protect our environment, and it will lead to much more fulfilling lives for all those involved.
I congratulate Des McNulty on lodging his motion and I congratulate the churches in his Clydebank constituency that have successfully set up eco-congregations. The number of members who signed the motion and took part in tonight's debate shows the importance not just of environmental issues but of the establishment of eco-congregations throughout Scotland. As Angela Constance said, it is appropriate in the week preceding Christmas that we debate a theme that relates to religious issues.
The motion is important because it raises environmental issues and mentions what communities can do to tackle them, by reducing carbon emissions and raising awareness of the issues. As leaders in the community, churches are well placed to do that. After all, as Des McNulty pointed out, they are places where people gather. I think that the environment is an ideal issue to educate the community about and those who practise in churches throughout Scotland will be able to raise its profile.
In my area, not only has St Cuthbert's church in Cambuslang been awarded eco-congregation status but King's Park church has recently applied for it. On Monday, I met representatives of Burnside Blairbeth church to discuss their very active eco-congregation programme, which has been promoted very effectively by a parishioner, John Redshaw, and the minister, William Wilson. The programme's three aspects include finding ways of being more energy efficient and tackling environmental issues in the church itself; to that end, church members have looked at ways of recycling litter and saving energy in the church building. Such buildings—many of which were constructed 100 years or more ago, have quite high ceilings and tend to use a lot of heat and energy—raise interesting challenges with regard to reducing energy consumption.
The organisation has encouraged the various groups who use the church to think about how they might tackle environmental issues; for example, the local scout group regularly clears up litter in the area. Moreover, the church has used its position to engage the community and is working with the Energy Saving Trust on publicising ways of saving energy in the area. For example, stalls have been set up in local supermarkets.
The Parliament needs to consider how to take forward such issues. Indeed, we can do a number of important things. As well as supporting the work of eco-congregations, we could think about how best practice might be extended to other parts of the community. We should also ensure that, in our debates on energy saving, microgeneration, fuel poverty and so on, we tie the work of eco-congregations into the relevant policy areas.
Des McNulty's motion has certainly given rise to an excellent debate, with many positive comments from members. I congratulate the churches in my area, particularly Burnside Blairbeth church, on their work and wish the programme every success in the future.
I congratulate Des McNulty on securing this debate and absolutely agree with his opening remark that this is about the churches' active involvement with and leadership in the community. Indeed, it is all about communication, which is a central aim, along with mitigation and adaptation, of the Government's climate change programme.
Although this issue affects every one of us, some people have to be drawn to change. Eco-congregations play a considerable role in that respect. Every member who has spoken has mentioned some church or other that is in the programme; I will mention a church that, I have to say, is not in my area. Earlier today, Mr John Swinney told me about Auchtergaven and Moneydie parish church in Bankfoot and the efforts of that congregation to recreate the church after the original building burned down, to involve the wider community in its work and to provide a spiritual and physical centre for the community. Those efforts have been helped by leadership not only from the church but from individuals. The Rev Iain McFadzean, for example, has acted as a leader in allowing that church to rise again in the community and in setting an example of how to construct an environmentally friendly and entirely sustainable building within a community. I am sure that there are people in each eco-congregation who provide such leadership.
The debate is not just about leadership and community; it is also about spirituality—and we should not be afraid to say so. Tackling climate change is a spiritual and moral imperative for many congregations. Stewardship, interdependence, justice and international development issues come within that. Indeed, members who have read Alastair McIntosh's works will know perfectly well that the connection between climate change and spirituality needs to be made. We need to recognise the imperatives that operate in the area.
The church plays an important role in all our communities. It tackles poverty and social exclusion, it is involved in regeneration and community cohesion, and it deals with some of the most difficult and intractable social issues. It deserves recognition. It adds enormous value to the lives of innumerable individuals and to communities. Scotland would be a much poorer place without its rich and diverse religious heritage and the active work of all the churches.
Scotland also has a future in which the climate change problems that we face and the responses that individuals, communities and the nation can make to them must be recognised. The church is definitely living up to its mission by including climate change and responsive environmentalism in that mission and ensuring that it leads with those issues. How can it do that? I will deal with one or two points that have been made.
Mr McNulty referred to the £27.4 million climate challenge fund, which we debated in the chamber last week. The fund was launched in June, and 190 expressions of interest have already been made. I understand that eco-congregations have already expressed interest in it, as Mr McNulty said. The grants panel met today. When the eco-congregations make a formal application to it, I am sure that it will be enthusiastic. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the panel's consideration, but such an application sounds like the type of thing that it will be interested in.
That is only one area in which the Government can and does support the eco-congregations movement: I understand that climate change officials will meet the movement early in January, when they will be able to draw attention to the various other ways in which churches can be assisted. Many churches are historic buildings. Historic Scotland can offer sustainability advice and guidance on how to improve the energy efficiency of traditional buildings. An energy efficient church will have substantially more resources, as fuel costs are very high. Historic Scotland has, for example, grant aided St John's church in Edinburgh. Repairs were carried out to the building's stonework and windows, which eliminated draughts, created a warmer church and reduced carbon emissions. That is practical Government action that assisted a church.
I whole-heartedly agree with everything the minister has just said. Does he agree that there will be disappointment in many congregations that the energy efficiency and microgeneration strategy has been further delayed? I understand that it has been delayed.
I do not think that it has been further delayed. The Government is enthusiastic about microgeneration and energy efficiency, and I hope that we will drive forward those things with the Liberal Democrats' support.
Churches are, of course, eligible for support through the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative. Advice and encouragement have been provided under that initiative for projects such as the Bridge of Allan parish church's solar panels and heat pumps project and Yester kirk's biomass heating project. Interest-free loans of up to £100,000 are available under the scheme for the installation of energy-efficient and small-scale renewable technologies on church buildings. The energy saving Scotland advice network, which can also offer advice and support, was created earlier this year. There is a range of means by which support can be offered; I have described only some.
Mr Kelly mentioned Burnside Blairbeth church in Glasgow, which recently received advice under the Government-funded envirowise programme, as has Scottish Churches House in Dunblane. There is also the smarter choices, smarter places project, which will create seven sustainable travel demonstration communities in towns and cities in Scotland. I am sure that churches will be deeply involved in those movements. Many things are happening and the eco-congregation movement can take advantage of and be plugged into all of them. Also important is the fact that the movement can influence all of them, because there is a two-way street. The learning, experience and enthusiasm of eco-congregations must tie in to the Government's policies and plans, so that we learn from the movement.
I welcome the commitment of Scotland's churches and faith groups through their involvement in the eco-congregation movement. I congratulate all members who have spoken in the debate but, much more, I congratulate the 200-plus churches that are trailblazing. The reality, of course, is that every congregation will have to become an eco-congregation as time goes by. Mr McArthur mentioned the eco-school movement in Scotland, which started small but is now the largest in the world—it involves virtually every primary school in Scotland and is developing into secondary schools. I hope that, in time, every congregation in Scotland will be an eco-congregation, because they will see at the centre of their mission and concern the questions of sustainability and a better planet.
Meeting closed at 17:45.