Greener, Fairer Scotland
The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4810, in the name of Annabel Goldie, on a greener, fairer Scotland.
It is my pleasure to lead the debate. Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing the world today, although it is often seen as an issue that is far removed from voters. That is understandable, because if someone is on a waiting list for hospital treatment, is intimidated by antisocial behaviour or is worried about how they will pay their council tax, global warming does not tend to be an immediate threat for them. Although most of us care about the environment, it is not always high on our personal agendas because of the many other issues in our lives, which is unfortunate.
Global warming is sometimes seen as a middle-class issue or as an issue for people who can afford to buy environmentally friendly products that cost more, or for those who are not affected by the day-to-day health, education and law and order issues that perplex others. However, global warming affects us all, regardless of wealth, religion, education or location. If we do not address the problem, we will all suffer the consequences. It is important that we address the problems in our public services, that we try to make our economy more vibrant and that we try to provide better opportunities for all, but we cannot ignore the impact that we have on the environment.
The member says that the issue should be at the top of people's personal agendas and that we cannot ignore the impact that we have on the environment. Will she tell us how many times the Conservatives have raised the issue—which she says is one of the three key issues—during First Minister's question time in the Parliament?
In my time as leader of the Conservatives in the Parliament, I have felt obliged to raise the plethora of pressing problems that I have just referred to, which thanks to Labour and the Liberal Democrats currently perplex the lives of many people in Scotland. As I said, those issues are one reason why the environment is not always to the forefront of personal vision.
Carbon dioxide and other gases warm the surface of the planet naturally by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. That is essential, because it keeps our planet habitable but, by burning fuel such as coal, gas and oil and by cutting down trees, we have increased dramatically the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere and, as a result, temperatures are rising.
Will Miss Goldie take an intervention?
I would like to make progress, if the member does not mind.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by a mammoth 31 per cent since 1759, which is an unprecedented rate of increase in the past 20,000 years. As a result, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the increase in carbon dioxide has contributed to an increase in global surface temperatures of 0.6°C during the 20th century. The IPCC also estimates that, by 2100, temperatures may be as much as 5.8°C higher than they were in 1990. One of the difficulties is that such information just flows over people's heads without the practical impact being taken in, which is obvious from the casual chitchat that is going on among members of other parties. The figures may not seem much of a difference, but when we consider that European Union scientists agree that a change in temperature of more than 2°C would be catastrophic and would put 3 billion people at risk of flooding, as melting ice caps caused sea levels to rise, we can begin to understand the potential impact.
Al Gore has recently attracted a lot of positive attention—rightly, I think—for the film "An Inconvenient Truth", in which he warns of the terrible consequences if global warming continues unabated. The film predicts that deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years, to 300,000 people a year; that global sea levels could rise by more than 20ft as a result of the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, thereby devastating coastal areas worldwide; that heat waves will be more frequent and more intense; that droughts and wildfires will occur more often; and that the Arctic ocean could be ice free in the summer by 2050. Given that the changes would fall within the lifespan of some members, the estimates begin to be an alarming prospect. More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.
Tomorrow, when Miss Goldie meets the Tory candidate for the Ross, Skye and Inverness West constituency, Mr Hodgson, will she give him the same lecture? She will be aware that Mr Hodgson is a well-known campaigner against wind turbines. Will Miss Goldie ask Mr Hodgson to change his mind, or will she deselect him?
Unlike Mrs Macmillan's party and the Liberal Democrats, my party has always acknowledged that a balance must be struck in the provision of renewable energy. I am sure that I am not the only member whose mailbag is bulging with the legitimate concerns and objections of people who see areas of Scotland being absolutely inundated by forests of wind turbines. My party has made it clear that, where enormous wind turbine developments are proposed, a moratorium should be introduced and the schemes should continue only if there is no local objection to the scale of the proposals.
There is no hiding from or ignoring global warming—the evidence that it is already happening is overwhelming and undeniable. Glaciers are melting and the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the past 30 years, from an average of 10 a year in the 1970s, to 18 a year now. At present, we live with the threat of hurricane Gordon. Category 4 and 5 hurricanes made up about 20 per cent of all hurricanes in the 1970s but, in the past decade, they accounted for about 35 per cent of the storms. At least 279 species of plants and animals are responding to global warming by moving closer to the poles.
Does the member accept that her supposed environmental credentials are undermined by her party's support for new nuclear power stations? Will she explain how the production of nuclear waste in Scotland and the diversion of funding from renewables to nuclear power would be good for Scotland's environment?
My party has been clear that, at the end of the day, nuclear power may be part of the balanced provision of energy. Unlike the Scottish National Party, we believe that there is an obligation to ensure that the demand for consumption of energy can be met responsibly. My assertion is that we must investigate urgently all possible forms of alternative generation of energy, particularly renewables, which is the issue on which I am trying to focus in my speech. The thrust of the motion in my name is about going right back to individuals. The Scottish National Party believes that the enormous political panacea of an independent Scotland will be the Celtic utopia that we have all been awaiting, but I am not kidded and hundreds of thousands of voters in Scotland are not kidded either.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I have been generous and I would like to make progress.
Despite the inescapable and alarming factors that I have mentioned, we do not need to be resigned. Global warming is a huge issue with massive implications for civilisation, but the good news is that, by our efforts, we can contribute to solutions, which is the point that I made in response to Mr Lochhead. Indeed, we have a moral obligation to do so. We can work together and share responsibility between individuals, government and business, to ensure that the next generation enjoys a sustainable planet.
For Mrs Brankin, I will be the first to admit that the Scottish Executive has made progress in cutting emissions from Scotland. Under the Kyoto protocol, Britain, led of course by a Conservative Government at Westminster—a fact that our opponents conveniently forget—committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-12. Creditably, Scotland has already met that commitment. The latest statistics show that emissions from Scotland were 14 per cent below 1990 levels, an achievement of which we should be proud. I acknowledge that the Executive has played a part in that achievement. Businesses saw a drop in their emissions and removals by 41 per cent, which is another encouraging development.
We need to be aware of the increases in energy, transport and residential emissions. They highlight the need to change attitudes about the environment and to convince people to do a great deal more individually to help solve the problem of global warming.
I never cease to be astonished at the illustrations of what relatively simple changes to a domestic regime can achieve for energy conservation. If every household in the United Kingdom replaced just one 60W bulb with a new energy-saving light bulb used for three hours a day, that would be the equivalent of planting 10 million new trees. If every UK household filled the kettle with only the amount of water actually required, we would save enough electricity to power more than 50,000 homes for a year. That gets right down to matters under personal control. Those examples clearly illustrate the difference that each of us can make on a daily basis to protect the environment and, by saving energy, individuals obviously save money on their energy bills, which is a win-win scenario.
I accept that there is a limit to what Governments can to do to change attitudes, but I believe that political leadership has a role and that the Executive can help to encourage such changes.
I accept that Government can play a role and that individuals can play a role. What would Annabel Goldie expect her friends in business to do to help combat climate change?
I have already referred to what I think is a very impressive statistic: businesses have managed to drop their emissions and removals by 41 per cent. That is a pretty impressive performance. That is why our motion concentrates on personal responsibility.
Will Miss Goldie give way on that point?
I wish to make progress.
My party has called on the Executive to expand the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative to encourage households, communities and small businesses to install modern energy creating and saving technologies. That will have the triple benefit of cutting energy bills, reducing CO2 emissions and giving new small-scale renewable technologies a boost. Examples of technologies that would be eligible for funding under the Conservative eco-bonus scheme include hydroelectric generation, solar panels, roof or micro wind turbines, ground heat systems and wall and roof insulation. Under our proposals, households would be able to apply for a grant of up to 60 per cent of the total cost of their project, up to a limit of £4,000. We propose to double the previous 30 per cent limit, as we believe that those grants should be able to reach more households. We also wish to encourage community schemes. Communities would be able to apply for a maximum grant of £10,000 for a feasibility study and a maximum grant of £100,000 for a capital project.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I really want to make further progress.
We would extend the eco-bonus scheme to allow small businesses, too, to apply for a maximum grant of £4,000 for 60 per cent of the total cost of their small renewable project. I hope that that illustrates to Mrs Gillon how we view the eco-bonus scheme working. I applaud the scheme's principle, and it has been a sensible way to start providing political leadership, but we would try to take it further—to households and communities. We would make £12 million per annum available for our eco-bonus scheme, which matches the Executive's total spending to date and triples its current annual spend. I believe that the eco-bonus scheme will help address cultural attitudes and raise awareness, as well as encouraging the public to assume personal responsibility for contributing to a sustainable Scotland.
Returning again to Mrs Gillon's point, we should recognise that many businesses are helping to change the way in which we think about the environment. For example, Sainsbury's is now using biodegradable packaging, and Tesco is encouraging shoppers to reuse polythene bags. Those developments are important, if small, steps towards improving our environment.
To help heal the planet fully, we need seriously to consider new ways of developing energy. Wave power, small-scale hydro and decentralised energy all have great potential to offer us, but they require a lot of research and development. That was recently affirmed to me by a businessman who works in that field. Research and development into new ways to reduce carbon emissions is vital. I was sorry to see that the Executive had performed a U-turn on its promise of a business rates cut for companies engaged in research and development.
That brings me to my final point: politicians and double standards. [Laughter.] I suggest that there is a certain candour in any politician being prepared to accept the perception that many people have of politics and politicians as a whole. The braying laughter from the Labour and Liberal Democrat ranks is a mocking reflection of those parties' hypocrisy, duplicity and manipulation over the past seven years.
It would be totally unacceptable for MSPs to call on businesses and homes to help the environment when the Parliament itself is apparently energy inefficient. In March this year, thermal images of this building, which were commissioned by the BBC, showed that the Parliament is losing heat. It is certainly not losing any heat from Mr Tavish Scott and Mr Lyon, whose incessant chattering is adding to the already present hot air in the chamber. It is well known—indeed, it is visible every night—that a great number of lights are left on in the Parliament around the clock. How many televisions, computers and Telewest boxes are regularly left on standby? That is a waste of energy. I am not calling for the appointment of a parliamentary inspector of gadgets, as the Presiding Officer will be relieved to learn, but I point out that each of us has a responsibility to ensure that our offices and the Parliament itself are energy efficient.
I wanted to use the debate to outline the threat that we all face from global warming. It is imperative that we encourage everyone to work together to contribute to a sustainable Scotland. If, as we sit here in Edinburgh in September 2006 having what I hope will be a genuinely constructive and helpful debate, we do not translate what we know now into a personal and collective change in lifestyle, we are contemplating a Firth of Forth where the Isle of May could disappear, a Scotland where shoreline settlements could regularly become the victims of tidal flooding—and where that could become the rule, not the exception—and a Scotland whose familiar physical face, which many of us have taken for granted, could suffer ugly and unwelcome change.
My party believes in trusting people. I believe that the Scottish people want to protect their planet for future generations, which is why the Scottish Conservatives are committed to enabling every individual to play their own part in meeting the climate change challenge.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that, along with global poverty and terrorism, climate change is one of the three great challenges facing mankind; recognises that there needs to be a greater shared responsibility among government, business, individuals and families to meet this challenge; believes that combating the threat of climate change will require fresh ideas and radical thinking and, therefore, that the concept of decentralised energy should be seriously pursued; recognises that if we are going to achieve a sustainable Scotland we need to address culture and attitudes to raise awareness and encourage the public to be proactive and to assume personal responsibility for contributing to a sustainable Scotland, and calls, therefore, on the Scottish Executive to expand the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative to incentivise households, communities and small businesses to install modern energy creating and saving technologies as an important first step.
It was instructive that, in response to the intervention by my colleague, Rhona Brankin, the leader of the Conservative party admitted that she had not raised this issue in the chamber before. It is almost the first time that she has raised it at all. While much of what she said was admirable, it is a pity that she did not listen to the debate that we all participated in earlier this year, when we launched the Executive's strategy on climate change with "Changing Our Ways: Scotland's Climate Change Programme". This Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition made clear its commitment, and other parties contributed to the debate as we spelled out the major problem that we face. Most of us in the chamber are already familiar with the facts that have suddenly come to the notice of the Conservative leader.
As for politicians and double standards—well, well, well. David Cameron's new car, in which his chauffeur follows behind his bicycle, emits more carbon dioxide than nine out of 10 of the top-selling cars in Britain. That is very much a case for braying laughter. That is indicative of exactly the point that Miss Goldie was making: double standards by the Conservatives. No one could have made that point more eloquently than Miss Goldie and David Cameron.
The Conservative motion takes 100 words before it gets to the Tory solution to climate change. It is perfectly admirable in as far as there is no question that households and individuals need to do more and do it better. However, not only has Miss Goldie not been listening to what we have been saying; she has forgotten that, over two years ago, the Executive launched the do a little, change a lot campaign. If Miss Goldie had been listening she would know that we talked about using energy efficient light bulbs and switching off televisions. I am sorry that it has taken her two years, but I would never wish to condemn someone who converts to the cause after a long period.
The issue that we face is as serious as Miss Goldie suggests—there is a big challenge. In putting together the changing our ways programme, we have sought to address not just one aspect of that challenge. If one is going to use the sort of rhetoric that appears at the start of the motion, one cannot just single out individual points to address. If one is going to make a commitment to dealing with climate change, one has to present a much more comprehensive programme than that which is on offer from the Conservatives—or any other party.
I want to leave aside the sideshow of the Tories for a minute. Is the minister happy that he has set a target in the climate change programme that could be met even if emissions in Scotland go up? Does that make sense?
Mark Ruskell has made that point before. It is technically possible to do that, but when we publish the other aspect of the emission measurement, it will clearly be silly for us to do so. Once we have the two figures it will be impossible. We are committed to having a vibrant, low-carbon economy. A change must be made. We must have a sustainable economy and break the link between crude economic growth and the efficient use of our resources.
It is also a question of fairness. We need to reduce our global impact. Scotland's environment is an important national asset that we must use in responding to the challenge. The changing our ways programme provides a serious response.
I agree that a comprehensive set of measures are required to tackle climate change. However, is the minister confident that the Scottish Executive has given all the support that it could to the development of a broad suite of renewable energy forms, such as tidal and wave power? By any objective analysis, the Executive has somewhat dropped the ball in the development of such technology.
I do not accept that. I would argue that we have seen the other side of the coin. We have not dropped the ball or reduced our commitment—including our financial commitment—to the resource centre in Orkney. Since we set our initial ambitious target of 40 per cent renewable energy, there has been a radical change in the economics of wind power. It has never been the Executive's policy to go single-mindedly after wind power. That has been more to do with the economics of putting in wind power than the commitment that we have made to the research and development needed in other areas.
We have identified our Scottish share of commitments. As Mark Ballard—sorry, Chris Ballance—said, we have set a target of achieving 1 million tonnes of carbon savings over and above the Scottish share of the United Kingdom's Kyoto commitment of 1,700 million tonnes by 2010, which I think is an ambitious target.
It is also about working together. We need not just Government, but individuals and industry to contribute to tackling climate change. The challenge to industry and commerce is enormous. The prospect of a total change in public opinion on the need to address climate change offers huge opportunities to our young people and those in academia, research and development and manufacturing. The green jobs that could emanate from our pursuing the kind of strategy that we have set out offer huge opportunities to Scottish business. All that would be good for the economy, the environment and tackling climate change.
Our programme commits the Executive to an ambitious carbon savings target. It sets the strategic framework to mainstream climate thinking into key policy areas in the Executive. It commits us to total carbon savings from all energy efficiency measures in our Scottish energy efficiency strategy as a further contribution to the Scottish target. It commits us to develop further the renewable heat strategy and a biomass plan to ensure strong market development on heat, not just on electricity.
Will the minister support my Home Energy Efficiency Targets (Scotland) Bill, the first part of which would just bring us into line with England and Wales?
I can be as British as anybody else, but my ambitions are higher than bringing us into line with England and Wales.
Our programme commits us to continue to improve energy standards and our building regulations, which we have already done. It commits us to determine what contribution we have to make to improve even further what we are doing, having already shifted the balance of spending in our transport policy to public transport, which we will take further in the much-awaited national transport strategy.
Let us not forget the contribution that Scottish business is already making to the largest emissions trading scheme in the world—the EU emissions trading scheme, which started last year. That is the sort of radical action to which business can continue to contribute in making efforts to make the significant reductions in global emissions that are needed to avoid damaging climate change.
Sustainable development is at the heart of our programme. As Annabel Goldie said, it cannot be left to somebody else. We all need to participate in it, because the choices that we make as individuals and the actions that we take as politicians, business people, public servants, volunteers, consumers and citizens are all important. That is why we place so much emphasis on education and learning and on creating an atmosphere—for children at an early age and right through their education—to influence their thinking so that they understand better what they require to do if they are going to play their part in combating climate change.
We can take opportunities to put on the statute book acts of Parliament that can improve greatly our approach to sustainable development. The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 is one such example.
Climate change is a major problem. The Executive has recognised that for some time, not, as the Conservative party has, just this morning. We have taken the time and trouble to prepare the changing our ways strategy, which is based firmly on the principles of sustainable development. "Changing Our Ways: Scotland's Climate Change Programme" sets out a comprehensive package of measures that are designed to combat climate change. Climate change is a huge problem that will not be overcome tomorrow but which requires sustained and committed action by politicians, to which the Executive is committed.
I move amendment S2M-4810.3, to leave out from "mankind" to end and insert:
"the planet; recognises that the Scottish Executive has already embodied fresh ideas, radical thinking and a uniquely Scottish approach in its response to this challenge in Changing our Ways: Scotland's Climate Change Programme, and welcomes the significant initiatives that the Executive has taken to increase the level of renewable energy generation, improve the energy efficiency of new buildings, boost microrenewables, reduce energy poverty and increase investment in public transport, the introduction of strategic environmental assessment and the promotion of sustainable development across its policies."
The Scottish National Party members welcome the debate, but I am sure that we are not the only ones in the chamber in a state of shock because the Tories, for perhaps the first time in seven years, have lodged what at first glance appears to be quite a sensible, pro-environment motion. Perhaps we are seeing the new Tory party, seven months before next year's vital Scottish elections. Perhaps its next debate will be about saving the fox in Scotland or the case for more land reform. The Tories have even adopted a tree as their new logo. However, one thing is for certain: their tree will not bear any fruit at next year's elections, because the people of Scotland will see right through them and judge them not on this debate or on what they say in the next seven months but on what they said in the first seven years of the Parliament.
Has Richard Lochhead noticed that the Tories' tree logo for Scotland leans a little to the left, but the one for the rest of the UK leans a little to the right?
I suggest that if anyone is authorised to comment on the new logo, it is me. I say to Mrs Macmillan that, interestingly, the Scottish tree does not point to the left, nor does it lean excessively to the right. It is also bigger than the other tree and, I suggest, represents a visible verdant robustness, which I think will be enticing to all who see it. I am glad that the logo has attracted such interest and justified such attention.
I thank the member for her explanation. Members have also noticed that the shade of green on the Tories' logo north of the border is a bit darker and more sinister than the shade of green on the logo south of the border. Perhaps that speaks volumes.
We all know that the Tories are not quite ready yet to park their four-by-fours and that their green policy is not much greener or fairer than it was.
The Tories' motion is undermined by their commitment—which they have emphasised in previous debates on energy and the environment—to build new nuclear power stations in Scotland. The motion mentions the need to decentralise energy in Scotland, but they want new nuclear power stations to be built here.
The motion also talks about finding extra funds to install microrenewable technologies in Scotland's residential sector, which most parties would support. I think that Murdo Fraser was in the news earlier this week calling for £12 million to go towards microrenewables. However, the Tory party wants to spend £2.5 billion at least on each new nuclear power station—that is not to mention the billions of pounds that would be required for cleaning up the waste. If the SNP had a choice between spending £2.5 billion on a new nuclear power station and putting that money into renewables, we would certainly choose to do the latter, because that would be better for tackling climate change and for Scotland.
Next year's elections are not just concentrating Tory minds; as this week's news shows, they are also concentrating the minds of the Liberal Democrats. Seven years into devolution, the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Nicol Stephen, has finally said that he supports tidal and wave energy for Scotland. Scotland has had a big opportunity that it has taken him seven years to wake up to and he has done so only after the outcry that occurred when wave technology that was developed in this country was exported to Portugal before it had been deployed in Scottish waters.
I will take an intervention from Mr Finnie.
When we launched the target of generating 40 per cent of energy from renewable sources, all the accompanying documentation made it clear that wave power and wind power were an integral part of our approach. We did not discover wave power and wind power just last week.
The minister can publish as many glossy documents and use as many warm words as he wants to, but it is action that matters. The Portuguese have beaten Scotland in deploying technology that was developed on Scotland's own doorstep.
Does the member acknowledge the results of the British Wind Energy Association's consideration of wave energy? I agree that such energy has great potential, but the most optimistic forecast is that, by 2020, only 2.1 per cent of energy will be provided by tidal and wave energy. What would the SNP do about the energy gap?
I do not know how the member has the brass neck to talk about a potential energy gap in Scotland when Scotland currently produces six times as much energy as it uses. If we play our cards right, there is no chance of there being an energy gap in Scotland.
Nicol Stephen has said that he will meet the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets this week—seven months before the next elections—to discuss the charging regime that discriminates against Scotland's fledgling renewables sector. The SNP has been calling for such discussions for the past two years, but he has decided to meet Ofgem and stand up for Scotland's renewables sector only this week.
We can all agree that climate change poses a threat to Scotland and the rest of the planet and that human activity is behind that threat. We can also agree that, in Scotland and on the rest of the planet, energy is the biggest emitter of harmful emissions. That is why energy issues are so tied to environment issues in parliamentary debates and why such issues are dominating today's debate.
Scotland is lucky. Of all the European nations, it has the biggest potential to make a disproportionate contribution to tackling climate change because of its renewables and clean technology potential. It can make a contribution by developing carbon capture so that harmful emissions are stored under the North sea; by developing clean-coal technology, which is currently being exported from Scotland to other countries around the world—we should be using it here—and by taking advantage of our massive renewables potential, which we must do. We have failed to do that in the first seven years of the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Government. There is a massive golden—indeed, green—opportunity for Scotland and we must get our act together. Not only will taking advantage of that opportunity help us to tackle climate change and reduce harmful emissions; it will create thousands of jobs for the Scottish economy.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that the member is in his final minute.
I apologise for not taking Chris Ballance's intervention. However, I have already taken three or four interventions.
We welcome Nicol Stephen's recent statement that 100 per cent of electricity in Scotland should be produced from renewable sources, but we must be much more ambitious. [Interruption.] I see the minister reacting—he should let me finish the serious point that I am making. Electricity use represents only 20 per cent of our energy use. We must tackle heating and transport fuel issues. For example, biocrops have the potential to meet 20 per cent of our transport fuel needs, but the minister is doing virtually nothing to develop that potential. A huge opportunity has been missed. Scotland has the potential to become an all-renewables nation by 2050. Addressing heating and transport fuel issues as well as electricity issues must be a greater priority of all the parties that are represented in the Parliament.
I have been generous in taking interventions and am now running out of time. I will therefore conclude by saying that all the parties that are represented in the Parliament must accept that Scottish society must make huge sacrifices to tackle climate change in the years ahead—indeed, the behaviour of society and political parties must change. We must all recognise that the sacrifices that we must make to tackle climate change are nothing compared with the cost that we will pay if we do nothing to tackle it. We will have to pay an horrific price if we do not take radical action now to tackle climate change.
The Tories' motion is pro-environment and difficult to disagree with. Perhaps this is the first sign, in the year before vital Scottish elections, that all the parties are reaching a consensus that tackling climate change is the number 1 priority of Scotland and the planet.
I move amendment S2M-4810.1, to insert at end:
"believes that the building of new nuclear power stations would undermine Scotland's efforts to tackle climate change, and recognises that, to make an effective contribution towards the global campaign to tackle global warming, our Parliament requires the powers of other independent nations including responsibility for energy and fiscal policy."
That the Tories are apparently getting serious about climate change is significant because it amplifies the signal that the next election will focus heavily on energy and climate change. It is great news for the Green party that even the Tories are trying hard to appear green. They are hanging on to our coat tails. I say to everyone else that they should keep talking up climate change and the environment, which are vital political issues that cut across everything. However, the voting public are not stupid—they know that talk is easy and that action is what counts.
Does the member acknowledge the contribution that John Selwyn Gummer made to the debate as early as the 1990s? That contribution embodies the Conservatives' position then and now.
Was that when the Tories continued to build roads and tear down public transport facilities?
The record of the main parties in the Parliament leaves a great deal to be desired, but we accept that political consensus is needed so that there can be much more serious action on climate change. That is what we have tried to obtain in campaigns for legislation. However, there is not a single Tory MSP among the 40 MSPs from six parties who have supported my proposal for the Home Energy Efficiency Targets (Scotland) Bill, which I introduced to the Parliament yesterday. Now is their chance to demonstrate their change of heart. They should, with the minister—who has said that he will set a much more ambitious target—help me to get that important bill through the Parliament.
I applaud the Tories for backing more cash being made available for microrenewables. That is a simple and basic step. More than 66 MSPs, from every party in the Parliament bar one, have signed the proposals for bills to promote micropower that Sarah Boyack and I have made. Guess which party's members have not signed the proposals.
Will the member take an intervention?
I must continue.
We agree that decentralised energy in Scotland is a huge priority, but the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot with what they say about nuclear power stations—they may, of course, want to put one in every street.
The member referred to decentralised energy. How does the Green party's policy on that square with its stated policy of renationalising Scotland's utilities, including energy?
Mr Purvis is so predictable. It is surely sensible that a national monopoly such as the national grid should be run in the public interest.
Moving on from the Tories, I must say something about the recent apparent increase in green rhetoric from many corners. The rhetoric is good, but we can judge politicians only by their actions. The Lib Dems promise to have 100 per cent of Scotland's electricity generated from renewable sources by 2050. That is a laudable aim but, judging from comments that were made on the radio this morning, I think that it is obvious that many Lib Dem activists do not realise that it refers only to electricity, which accounts for just 20 per cent of our total energy consumption. The real challenge is to reduce our oil addiction, and that is only ever mentioned by the Greens.
We need much more serious action now. It is serious action within the next four years that matters if we are to avoid runaway climate change. There must be joined-up thinking and serious urgency and we must tackle energy use overall, not just electricity. As Menzies Campbell stated recently, there is little point in developing renewables if we just build more motorways and fly more aeroplanes. He was criticising the Tories and Labour, but his criticism should have been aimed at Nicol Stephen who, according to Friends of the Earth Scotland, made the most environmentally damaging decision since devolution.
Tough action on traffic growth is a critical move to curb climate change. We need to move away from motorway building and rail schemes that simply get more people to bigger airports. It is time to make some hard choices with public spending, but I see no sign of that from the present Government. We must also remember that it was the Lib Dems, along with the SNP, the Tories and the Scottish Socialist Party, who campaigned against congestion charging. That exposed their true colours. I give credit to Sarah Boyack for being one of the few Labour MSPs to join us in condemning that strange alliance.
There are some positive things going on. However, were it not for the strong presence of Greens in the Parliament making a difference to move things our way, I suspect that we might have seen even less progress. At last, an improvement in the support for marine power appears to be coming. Why do we not have it now, though? We no longer have the luxury of time.
Our proposed bill on climate change targets is the kind of bold commitment that ministers need to make—not the pseudo-target of the Executive's "Scottish share". Carbon emissions have not been reduced since Jack McConnell became the First Minister. Even David Cameron backed legislation to set a target of a 3 per cent year-on-year reduction overall. If ministers can set a target for the number of teenage pregnancies or the suicide rate and if David Cameron can set a target for the reduction of carbon emissions, why cannot the Scottish Tories do that? Perhaps they should stop campaigning against wind farms and listen more to their leader.
We welcome the fact that the environment is moving further up the political agenda. If voters want serious action, they will vote for a party that really means it. Only the election of more Greens will ensure that crucial shift from rhetoric to reality. We will keep pressing the other parties to shift from their luxurious pre-election rhetoric on climate change to much more serious Government action. If we are handed the responsibility of holding the balance of power after the next election—to which we are positively looking forward—we will ensure that that is what happens. I urge all members to support the amendment in Mark Ruskell's name, which I will move.
I move amendment S2M-4810.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"recognises the seriousness of climate change and the grave threat which it poses to humanity; notes the reality, as evidenced in the latest report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, that it is vital to implement a major new programme of action to cut carbon emissions within the next four years if we are to play our part in keeping global temperatures below dangerous levels, and calls on the Scottish Executive to adopt a target for a 3 per cent year-on-year overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and to take action to achieve this target including reducing road traffic levels, bold energy efficiency measures, promoting micropower technologies and decentralised energy generation, the rapid expansion of renewable energy and the carbon proofing of all Executive decisions and policies to ensure a consistent rather than contradictory approach to emissions reduction."
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wonder whether you can offer guidance to the chamber on potentially misleading comments by Green members. They stated today that it is not the Green approach to renationalise public utilities in Scotland. However, according to the Official Report, Mark Ballard said:
"We believe that the most effective way to deliver basic utilities such as electricity is through state provision."—[Official Report, 12 February 2004; c 5896.]
Is there an opportunity to correct what has obviously been a misleading statement this morning?
You have made the point and clarified the matter simply by raising it, Mr Purvis.
Do we have another point of order or can we get on with the debate?
No, let us just get on with the debate.
Let us get on.
We have had both ends of the political spectrum this morning—sanctimony and hypocrisy. It is interesting to see that the Conservatives have discovered recycling. Last week, when David Cameron came up here, he talked about Britishness and the number of relatives that people have in other parts of the UK—recycling what Gordon Brown had said the week before. That is indicative of an approach to politics that is driven by public relations. David Cameron is, essentially, a PR man. He does not believe in what he says; he simply finds the best bits of everybody else's speeches, wraps them all together, puts his green tie on and tries to convince us that somehow he is being serious.
Parroting arguments in pale imitation of sustained engagement with issues such as climate change does nobody any good. That is especially true considering the fact that, as Ross Finnie said, the actions of the Conservatives belie everything that they say. Whether in the Tories' objections to pylons or the point that Ross Finnie made about David Cameron's car being driven behind his bicycle, the actions and the words are completely separate.
Does Des McNulty acknowledge that John Major's Government in the 1990s took the lead on CO2 emissions at Kyoto and achieved far more than the Scottish Executive has? Going back further, does he recognise that, in the 1980s, the Tory Government introduced efficiency schemes that helped people to insulate their homes to save energy? Surely the Labour Executive and others are simply following the example that has been set by the Conservatives.
It was Mrs Thatcher who spiked wind farm developments over a lengthy period—a practice that is still being followed by individual Tory MSPs.
Annabel Goldie talked about carbon emissions doubling since 1759, the time of the Government of William Pitt the elder. That does not take us much further forward in identifying the tasks that we face now. I worry about all the commitments to strategies and targets that we get from all the political parties. I cannot remember how many strategies Ross Finnie mentioned in his speech—I gave up counting when it got to 15. We need to recognise that rhetoric must be followed not so much by Government action but by action that engages people. Unless people begin to change and begin to be persuaded by these arguments, instead of being hit over the head with them, we will not achieve the significant change that we want.
I was going to make the point that was made earlier about the new Scottish Tory logo, which is bigger, has a darker shade of green and leans less to the right than the English Tory logo. That attempt to reposition the party does not cut much ice or persuade me that it will solve the problems or provide the engagement that is needed.
We need cleaner beaches and we need better arrangements for recycling, which people must use for getting rid of their rubbish. We need opportunities for people to install more efficient heating systems such as condensing boilers rather than the boilers that they have at present. We need practical schemes to enable people to do that. It is regrettable that we are only at the start of that process. We need a sustained process of engagement over 10 or 15 years that will enable ordinary people to make positive ecological choices. It seems to me that it is the Government's role to facilitate that process by encouraging and enabling ordinary people to act in a greener way. That argument spans all the political parties. It is not a task for the Labour Party any more than for the Greens, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats or the SNP; it is a task that we must share across the Parliament and across society. If we do not engage with the people whom we seek to represent, we are all talking in a vacuum.
It is crucial to recognise that climate change is not just a Scottish or UK issue, but fundamentally an international issue. Given the level of emissions that is being produced by China, India and other rapidly industrialising nations in south-east Asia and given what is going on in Latin America and eastern Europe, if we focus only on what is happening in our environment and in our tiny political system, the world will warm up regardless of what we do.
However, that does not mean that we should simply say that there is nothing that we can do about climate change and take our Cortinas to the supermarket as usual. Of course we have to change what we do, but the world needs to think about the major economic forces and the dynamics of economies and change its direction of travel on issues such as population pressures if we are to deal with the increasing temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic and the desertification of previously green areas of north and west Africa. All those things are happening rapidly, and I get fed up with parties saying, "We're better than you are," and all the name-calling that goes on.
Des McNulty does that, too.
I realise that I engage in that myself from time to time. I must confess that pointing out the error of the Conservatives' ways has become a habit.
The fundamental point is that we have to engage not only with the people in Scotland whom we represent but nationally and internationally to change attitudes and values. That will be a difficult task.
The debate has been interesting so far, although it has been high on rhetoric and low on policy. In fact, if it had not been for Annabel Goldie's clear statement of Conservative policy in this area, we would have heard very little about any policy at all.
Will the member give way?
I would like to press on.
I note in passing that, unfortunately, George Lyon and Tavish Scott have left the chamber. Their contribution to the debate was made up entirely of words of one syllable.
The only party that is entitled to take a reasonably light-hearted approach to this matter is the Green party. After all, its members' hearts must be flying high at the moment, because they have managed to move the political agenda in the chamber and in Scotland into the area that is their primary reason for existing. We make no apologies for following them into that area, because we realise that it will form the agenda for the future.
However, we must not make the mistake of thinking that this battle can be fought entirely through rhetoric, not on policy. We might be following the Greens' agenda, but we disagree fundamentally with them about how best to achieve its aims. I suppose that those differences could be described as the traditional ones between the right and the left. We as Conservatives will always seek to ensure that the policies of the right—which are, of course, the right policies—are put forward to achieve our broad aims.
That is where our eco-bonus scheme proposal comes in. I should point out that this is the third time in a row that energy and the environment have been chosen as the subject for Conservative party business. We have nothing to learn from other parties in that respect and the fact that the issue is not raised more often at First Minister's questions perhaps reflects his interests more than it reflects the interests of those who are asking the questions.
If we are not very careful, policies that are designed to achieve shared aims such as a reduction in global warming might have negative effects. For a start, we need the kind of economic growth that will keep our public services fully funded. Moreover, we also need to consider whether any energy policy that we develop will threaten the fuel security of the least well-off in society.
Our straightforward, honest and down-to-earth policies, such as the eco-bonus, will ensure that our industries and the least well-off in our society are able to participate in the revolution that must take place. Although it will provide only a small amount of money at the start, it is certainly a great deal more than has been made available so far. I should also point out that our policy aims to achieve much the same thing that Shiona Baird and Sarah Boyack want to achieve with their bill proposals. Shiona Baird was somewhat unjust in dismissing the Conservatives' attitude to those bill proposals. She is right to say that no Conservatives have as yet signed her bill proposal but, after discussions, we are now moving towards the position that is set out in Sarah Boyack's bill proposal. In fact, some Conservatives have already signed up to it. We believe that what Ms Boyack is trying to achieve is essentially much the same as what we are trying to achieve with the policies that we have set out this morning.
I am concerned that certain parties in the chamber are moving in a direction that will have genuinely dangerous long-term effects for our economy. I did not hear the speech that Nicol Stephen made south of the border; I have only read the reports of it in the Scottish press. Those reports might be inaccurate—it is conceivable, after all, that some Scottish journalists might write something that is not 100 per cent true—but his proposal seems to be that, by 2050, 100 per cent of electricity will be sourced from renewables. That is dangerous because we need policies that ensure that we do not suffer the consequences of variability and that, when we flick the switch, we get the power that we need at a price that we—including the least well-off—can afford to pay.
We have to be responsible about how we achieve these aims. I believe that we can move towards 100 per cent carbon-free electricity generation using existing means and technology that is being developed in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry; I am just finishing.
I believe that such generation might—or, indeed, must—include clean-coal and nuclear technology. That is the route that we must consider if power is to remain affordable and if the country is to grow in the way that most of us want it to grow.
Like many members, I welcome the Tories' decision to debate climate change once more. Indeed, like Richard Lochhead—and I have to say that I am seldom to be found in the same camp as Mr Lochhead—I thought that the Tories' motion contained some sensible statements. I was particularly drawn to the part of the motion in which the Tories set out their belief
"that combating the threat of climate change will require fresh ideas and radical thinking".
I read on, looking for the "fresh ideas and radical thinking"; I was sadly disappointed.
In fact, during the debate, the Conservatives have not set out many "fresh ideas" or much "radical thinking". However, boys, there is still time.
What are the member's ideas?
I did not lodge the motion, the point of which is to set out
"fresh ideas and radical thinking".
The motion also mentions the need to involve and invoke change in communities, so I will highlight some examples of what is happening in my constituency. For the past two years, Biggar rotary club has held well-received eco-forums at which a wide range of organisations has informed and educated the community about issues such as solar panels, heating, energy conservation and using local food and produce.
People are beginning to take the issues seriously. In the fantastic world heritage site at New Lanark, which I am proud to represent, there is a radical new heat-pump system, which converts the energy that is generated from the Clyde into heating for the public buildings. The system represents the third time that energy from the Clyde has been used in New Lanark: it was used to power the mills and in the Bonnington hydro scheme, which heats all the homes in New Lanark. Action is being taken.
On public transport, the Executive invested in the Larkhall to Milngavie railway line, which has attracted patronage levels that are 40 per cent higher than projected. People have been encouraged off the roads and on to public transport and congestion on roads into Glasgow has been reduced.
The first wind farm in Scotland was built in Clydesdale, at Hagshaw. There is also the wind farm at Black Law. Unlike the Conservatives, I think that wind energy plays a part in the energy mix in Scotland—[Interruption.] If the Conservatives agree that it does, why do they oppose nearly every wind farm application, not on the evidence that is presented but because local people say, "Not in my back yard"? We must take a pragmatic approach. A party that is serious about leadership must sometimes do what is right and not what is popular. The Tories will have to learn that lesson the hard way.
The member mentioned the Bonnington hydro-electric scheme on the Clyde. In the early 1900s it was a Tory Government that gave the nod to such schemes, which shows that the Tories were in on environmental change at an early stage.
Some members might suggest that Phil Gallie was involved in setting up those schemes. That is not true, although he has played his part. The Bonnington scheme has been well received by the community and people from further afield.
I am concerned about the Conservatives' approach. What will they do when people start objecting to the installation of solar panels and mini wind turbines? Will the Conservatives be big enough to stand up and say, "These things are important. We will support them and defend the right of communities to install them"? People do not like change, so they will object. Will the Conservatives have the guts to put their money where their mouth is?
The Executive could do more. We have embarked on one of the biggest school building programmes there has been in Scotland, but up to now we have missed an opportunity to ensure that some of those buildings are as energy efficient as they could be and use alternative fuel sources in the way in which I would like them to do. Will the Executive consider the guidance to local authorities and meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to consider how better to use that opportunity to change the nature of the energy that our schools use? I would welcome the minister's comments on the matter. I have a boy in primary 2, who has got the message through his school and his nursery. He changes things at home. If young people can become involved in the process, we will have a much better future.
I welcome the fact that the Conservatives have come to the table. We should work with them and members of all parties to ensure that our children grow up in a world that is safe, sustainable and fair.
I was bemused when I read the Tories' motion. I tried to imagine how its call for the decentralisation of energy production sits with current Tory energy policy. I envisage an election campaign next year in which a Tory manifesto commitment is, "Every community should have a nuclear power plant."
I support the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative, but it is a small part of a big solar panel. Green investment is crucial—[Interruption.] Is that not what we are discussing? The big question is how we find the money for green investment. Al Gore calls for a tax on polluters and the Lib Dems support that approach. Are the Tories in favour of such a tax to secure green investment?
However, such policies are not the answer. There is an elephant in the room, which is the real problem. As long as it is possible to make billions of dollars in profit by producing a barrel of oil for $7 and selling it for $60, energy consumption around the planet will change little. The pursuit of the world's oil supply is the dominant theme of domestic and international policy of our times. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money—our money—subsidises the battle to secure oil. We debate renewables initiatives and we count the pennies for green investment while handing over billions of pounds to support and protect the oil companies as they scour the world for the last of the oil reserves.
If members doubt what I am saying, they should remember that the war in Iraq is a war for oil, as we all know, and that the first thing that the Americans did was to remove Iraq's oil from public ownership and hand it over to the oil companies. This year, the UK Government put £800 million of taxpayers' money into the war chest to pay for the Iraq war. The Scottish Executive has invested £3.6 million in community renewables schemes in a three-year period and Annabel Goldie attempted to look green by talking about investment of £12 million, but even that is a paltry sum. We demand green investment while emptying the coffers to underpin the oil companies and their profits. The war for oil in Iraq has cost £6.4 billion. If we had not spent that money on war in Iraq, it would have been lying in the coffers—what could have happened if Scotland had used its share of the money to invest in renewables? We could make an enormous difference.
The Scottish community and householder renewables initiative, which the Tory motion mentions, represents nothing more than a green photo opportunity for ministers. It does not tackle how we make a step change from a fossil-fuel-based economy to a green economy. No member can claim that they want to prioritise green investment and tackle climate change while supporting wars for oil. Such politicians' double-speak fuels the cynicism that corrodes the reputation of the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments and leads to the belief that politicians just spin to cover up their real positions. The Tories' motion, which signals their apparent conversion on the road to Kyoto, is utterly cynical.
If we are to take the issues seriously, there must be change. Labour and the Tories cannot support wars for oil and the profits of the oil and gas companies—we are paying through the nose for gas—while claiming to be green.
Will the member give way?
I am about to finish.
The debate is more about public relations and getting David Cameron's nice, touchy-feely image into the media than it is about how we secure 100 per cent energy production from renewables in Scotland.
I agree with much of Frances Curran's analysis, although I do not necessarily agree with her solution. The Conservative motion acknowledges some of what she says in that although it does not refer to war, it mentions terrorism, which ties in with her comments. If there is to be a successful, sustainable future, not just for Scotland but for the world, people must stop fighting each other. An enduring image of both Iraq wars was that of oil wells being set on fire, which did nothing for the environment. I agree with Frances Curran that the wars in Iraq have been all about oil.
We have a carbon economy that it will take us time to change. I hope that we will move to a hydrogen economy, which will give us a sustainable future. I hope that there is consensus that although we are some way off that at the moment, we can take steps to make the transition easier. As Des McNulty spelled out, although we probably share a common view of how we want to achieve sustainability, we always revert to tribal loyalties and our party-political positions to define the differences between us.
In addition to the proposals in the Tory motion, we must consider what we as individuals do and the climate that we create. We have a major problem with consumerism and a mountain of personal debt funds the consumption of goods that we might not need. Overconsumption in the form of obesity is obvious among some of us. I commend one of our colleagues on the way in which he has addressed the problem over the summer when I say, well done, Mr Johnstone. We need to address such problems if we are to move towards a less selfish and consumerist society.
Globalisation does nothing for the environment. Although we have managed to reduce significantly industrial emissions in this country, we achieved it by exporting the jobs and the pollution.
I am interested in Mr Adam's two themes—the transition away from oil and consumerism. How does that square with the SNP's election slogan "Support the SNP's drive for cheaper petrol"?
I had hoped that we could get away from petty party-political point scoring in this debate. We all enjoy it—I enjoy it—but I had hoped that in light of the Conservatives' motion, which most of us can support despite any little wrinkles that we see in it, we could move away from scoring cheap political points.
We must achieve security of energy supply and secure the supply of food, which is part and parcel of the same thing.
The member speaks about basing energy production in Scotland. Does he agree that developing clean-coal technology to cut carbon emissions and using home-produced coal rather than coal that is brought from China, with all the transport that that entails, would be a way forward?
Absolutely. We need to think globally and act locally. The current drive towards globalisation is totally counter to that, as is our funding of consumption through borrowing. We need to have a total change of attitude. That will come from individuals, but there is certainly a role for Government as well.
There is no great dissent from the specific proposals in the Conservatives' motion. We must move away from big power plants to produce energy locally through combined heat and power plants, microrenewables or an expanded Scottish community and householder renewables initiative. All those initiatives are great. We need to accept that we cannot continue as we have been. If we are to build up our local energy supply bit by bit, there is no place for new nuclear plants. We can bridge the energy gap with clean-coal technology and by changing the fiscal regime. In Scotland, renewables obligation certificates are one way in which we can move wave and tidal power up the agenda instead of relying on onshore wind farms.
Ms Goldie's motion starts with a bang and ends with a whimper. It says that
"The three great challenges facing mankind"
demand fresh ideas and radical thinking, but the Tory response is to put more money into an existing initiative that the Lib Dem-Labour Executive put in place. Still, it is an important first step in the right direction from the Conservatives, but let us look at some of their environmentally backward steps.
Step 1 is unequivocal support for new nuclear power. Step 2 is a moratorium on wind farms. Step 3 is the launch of a massive road-building agenda, reminiscent of the biggest road-building programme since the Romans, which Margaret Thatcher trumpeted in her time while wreaking havoc on public transport. She deregulated buses and privatised the railways and we are still paying for that today.
I ask the member to consider her exaggeration of Conservative policy, her outline of which bears no relation to my understanding of it. Does she support the construction of the Aberdeen western peripheral route, which will be the biggest single road project to be carried out during the next session?
That project is part of a retrospective attempt to remedy the lack of transport infrastructure that is a legacy of the Conservative years. The western peripheral route should have been built 30 or 40 years ago.
I hope that the next Tory manifesto will reverse that backward progress and improve on the green rating of the party's previous manifestos. Friends of the Earth gave the 2003 manifesto zero out of 10, which was one point fewer than in 1999. I say in passing that the Liberal Democrats got eight out of 10 for their manifesto, but it is too easy to mock. We should welcome the fact that the message about global warming and climate change is reaching so far.
Liberal Democrats in Government are delivering the policies that will begin to tackle and manage climate change. We have more renewable energy, the biggest ever investment in recycling, tighter building regulations, more radical strategic environmental assessment and more ambitious energy-efficiency measures than south of the border. Scotland's climate change programme sets an ambitious target to exceed our share of UK carbon savings by an additional 1 million tonnes by 2010—a big achievement over the Scottish share.
Mention has been made of Nicol Stephen's recent announcement of his ambition to meet 100 per cent of Scotland's electricity needs through renewable energy sources by 2050. The Lib Dems' green switch supports decentralised energy, microgeneration in every building, making marine power a reality, North sea offshore wind power and developing the grid to allow offshore and island generation, all supported by cost-effective storage technologies.
Nicol Stephen announced details of a £20 million investment in the Executive's clean energy strategy, which aims to make Scotland the renewable energy powerhouse of Europe and help to tackle climate change.
On Nicol Stephen's announcement about expanding the grid, how exactly will he do that and where will the money come from? The matter is critical for Scotland. I am told by those who know best that we are talking about several billions of pounds. In which year will Nicol Stephen spend that money?
I cannot give Mr Davidson a detailed answer. Obviously, many of these matters are reserved to Westminster, where many of our MPs are pushing to achieve the changes that will enable Scotland's potential to develop.
From the sidelines, the Scottish Green Party tells us what we should be doing; in the coalition, we are doing those things.
Having listened to Miss Goldie and Ross Finnie, I am sure that the chamber will support the Executive amendment. It outlines how we must move forward and the policies and initiatives that will persuade and encourage people and support and facilitate the concerted action that will be needed of every sector, business, organisation and individual if we are to achieve a greener, fairer Scotland that makes its contribution to tackling the three great challenges that we all acknowledge.
Like many in the chamber, I am having difficulty reconciling the tone and content of Annabel Goldie's motion with press releases and speeches that her colleagues have delivered over the years. I applaud Alex Johnstone for his defence of Annabel Goldie's speech, but it proved only one thing—that Mr Johnstone is losing more than weight.
In December last year, my fellow Highlander, Murdo Fraser, the deputy leader of the Tories, said:
"Current Scottish Executive policy regarding wind farm applications is clearly inadequate and is actually damaging the future of our renewable industry."
He then called for a moratorium on the development of wind farms where there is any local opposition. I am sure that my friend will not object when I describe that as rampant populism. It shows a complete disregard for our environmental future.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am delighted to allow Mr Fraser the opportunity to recant.
Does the member accept that the Parliament's Enterprise and Culture Committee's unanimous, cross-party report on renewable energy—published more than two years ago, I believe—made the point that the concentration on onshore wind was damaging the development of other renewables?
I fondly recall the publication of that report, but I was referring to Mr Fraser's own statement when he demanded a moratorium on all wind farm development where there is any local opposition. That is a completely unsustainable position.
The Conservative motion combines words about the environmental challenge facing the world with a call to expand the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative. It does not seem to appreciate that it was the partnership Government here that set up such grants and continues to invest in them.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like to continue on this point.
The nationalists have appeared in the chamber with their usual air of smugness. Mr Brian Adam wants us to embrace new politics and not to become involved in party-political point scoring. Of course he does—because he does not want us to expose their hypocrisy when it comes to renewable energy and a host of other things.
When the nationalists make statements on renewable energy, they often fashion them to suit their audience. They are always trumpeting the prospect of Scotland becoming Europe's green powerhouse, but how can they expect Scotland to achieve that—or to get anywhere close to it—when they always look for the short-term opportunistic advantage?
Christine Grahame is another leading nationalist who constantly demands a moratorium on all wind farm developments. She does not appreciate that, if we are to be leaders in the renewable energy revolution, we will have to underpin our manufacturing and research base across all technologies. In no part of Scotland are such legitimate aspirations more amplified than in my constituency of the Western Isles.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, Mr What's-his-name.
My name is Lochhead, and Mr Morrison will be hearing lots more of it in the years ahead, not to mention that of Mr Allan.
In recent months, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Labour back bencher Elaine Murray and the Executive have been rejecting wind farm applications. Does the member accept that that illustrates that wind farms have to be correctly located? Does he accept that the Labour Party seems to have signed up to that? As ever, the member is expressing his hypocrisy when he speaks on this issue.
I am always delighted to be given the opportunity to amplify nationalist hypocrisy. What the member was referring to there was our sensible and coherent approach to wind farm development. The member's party's approach is to advocate a populist moratorium and to fashion statements depending on the audience.
The Arnish yard in my constituency is a manufacturing yard. It is operated by a young Scottish company and, sadly, it is experiencing several challenges. The two most advanced pieces of renewable technology built recently in Britain were built in the yard—the Ocean Power Delivery technology and the Beatrice field technology. The viability of the yard exercises every one of us involved in the regeneration of Arnish. Therefore, I am pleased that the Scottish Executive—through Nicol Stephen, Allan Wilson and their agencies—is treating the future of the yard with the seriousness that it deserves. The Executive acknowledges that if we are to remain at the forefront of the renewable energy revolution, yards such as the one at Arnish must be regarded as national assets.
The future of the yard does not depend on handouts from the public purse, but it does require a healthy order book. As I say, Camcal and its workforce have built the most advanced pieces of renewable energy infrastructure.
Right across government—including the Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government—we must ensure that companies such as Camcal are able to compete and to bid for work. We all thought that the work would be there and that, by this stage, the market would be more developed than it is. All arms of government will have to ensure that the planning system takes account of the fact that it is unacceptable for applications for onshore and offshore developments to take for ever and a day to be granted.
Another obvious advantage in my constituency is the abundance of wind energy. That potential will never be realised unless we have an interconnector that will take the electricity to market. The UK Government recently reaffirmed its commitment to capping the cost of transmitting electricity. That commitment was secured by coherent and consistent lobbying of Government and the regulator by representatives from the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland.
While I am on the topic of hypocrisy, I want to highlight another nationalist deficiency. When asked to comment on the capping of electricity charges, the nationalist MP for the Western Isles, Angus Brendan MacNeil, said that he was "neutral" on the issue. How can any right-thinking person be neutral on something that would give his own constituency such an advantage?
I conclude by restating the phenomenal potential in the Western Isles. I urge Scottish ministers to continue working with their UK counterparts to help us to realise that potential.
When Thomas Edison founded his Edison Electric Light Company back in the 1880s, he did not set out to sell people electricity, and he did not even set out to sell them light bulbs. His purpose was to sell them light. A century or so later, that philosophy has become the key to an alternative way of thinking about how energy is used, rather than about the method of supply. That way of thinking has become known as the end-use approach to energy planning.
What might be described as the conventional direction for energy over the past 50 years has been onwards and upwards—the production of ever more fuel and electricity. Because of the long lead times of power stations and oil and coal fields, demand has been forecast decades in advance and supply has been designed to meet that supposed need.
The devastating environmental impact of those conventional views of our energy future has led many experts to accept that there is no solution to the energy dilemma on the supply side of the equation and that the only answer is to consider the demand side. The basic premise is efficiency. In other words, it is cheaper to save a watt of electricity than to generate one. I am sure that few members would disagree with such an approach.
Because we are voicing such arguments, Scottish Conservatives are being accused of jumping on Dave's green bandwagon. The truth—certainly in my case—is rather different. Everything that you have just heard from me was contained in a television script that I wrote back in 1990 for a series of programmes on Channel 4 called "The Energy Alternative". Some might say that to use those arguments again is to carry recycling to a ridiculous extreme, but arguments, too, deserve to be recycled, especially when their time has come. Let no one think that Conservatives have been slow to argue for energy conservation and effective renewables—some of us have been doing so for decades.
When Margaret Thatcher opened the Hadley centre for climate prediction and research back in May 1990, she said:
"Discharges of carbon dioxide and CFCs, if unabated, will go on accumulating in the atmosphere and will not easily be reversed. Even the most urgent measures now can't repair the damage of the past. But action now will prevent the problem from becoming acute."
Was action taken? The answer is yes and no.
When Mrs Thatcher spoke, oil was in abundant supply and Brent crude was selling at less than $20 a barrel. As of yesterday, the corresponding cost was $62 a barrel. During the present crisis, oil prices have peaked at about $80 a barrel. When the cost was $20 a barrel, the energy argument was not being driven by economic pressure.
Something else changed in 1990—by November of that year, Mrs Thatcher had left office. John Major's Tory Government introduced important energy efficiency initiatives, including the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which was designed to produce an overall improvement of 30 per cent in the efficiency of homes by 2010, at a cost of £350 million—[Interruption.] Ross Finnie and other members might well jeer, but Conservatives need not be ashamed of their role in energy conservation. Did we do enough? I argue that Governments of all persuasions could have done much more. The prospect that the lights might go out concentrates minds wonderfully.
I return to my analogy of Thomas Edison's light bulb. Every day we turn on an inefficient light bulb in an inefficient building, somewhere there is a power plant from which a plume of pollutants shoots into the sky. Those pollutants are carried up into the atmosphere; they warm the globe, heat the earth and help to create the climate change problem of which we are all aware. We must break that cycle: we can break it at source by not using inefficient light bulbs.
In most industrialised countries, buildings use up well over half the energy that is delivered to consumers. I am talking about buildings of all kinds—houses, factories and offices. Domestic houses use up almost two thirds of the total. Most of the energy is used simply for space heating and supplying hot water; in other words, we are spending money on centrally heating neighbourhoods.
There is nothing new about energy-saving measures such as long-life light bulbs, house insulation and double and triple glazing. There is also nothing new about the use of mini solar panels as roof shingles, which returns energy savings to the customers who have them and who can watch their meters going backwards. I filmed that happening in New England 20 years ago. What we have lacked until now has been the will to develop renewable and waste technologies that are appropriate for this country. Denmark and the US were 20 years ago promoting wind technology—much of which was invented in the UK—and northern European countries were developing biomass and solar technologies, while we continued to squander the great gift of nature that was North sea oil.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am just coming to the end of my speech.
I am proud that the Scottish Conservatives are launching an eco-bonus policy that aims to promote greater energy efficiency and appropriate development of renewables, especially microrenewables. It is right that we should provide incentives for people to make the expensive initial investment. Green energy is a technology whose time has come and Scotland is particularly well endowed with energy alternatives, so it is up to the Scottish Parliament to give use of microrenewables every encouragement. If I am spared, I do not want to be recycling the same arguments again sometime in the mid-2020s. I have much pleasure in supporting the motion.
I begin by congratulating the Tories, who are obviously at the beginning of a journey. I hope that that journey is real and that they genuinely accept the realities of climate change—although I suspect that, when it comes to actions on the ground, it will take them longer to shift into the right mode.
It would be hard to disagree with anything in the Conservatives' motion. No right-thinking person could do other than agree that more decentralised energy would be good. Decentralised energy can make a significant contribution to reducing Scotland's ecological footprint. However, if we are ever to achieve one-planet living—instead of consuming resources at our present rate, which if everyone did the same, would require three earths to meet our needs—a massive change will be necessary in our attitudes to how we run the country, how we act as businesses and organisations and how we behave as individuals and communities.
As far as government is concerned, I can think of no time during my lifetime when a UK Government has had a coherent, strategic and deliverable energy policy. Annabel Goldie's cheap aside about the "Celtic utopia" tells me that the Tories have not changed: they are still anti-Scottish by nature and do not have enough faith, ambition or confidence in their people. I believe passionately that if we want to deliver a well-constructed energy policy, the necessary fiscal and policy powers must be vested in the Scottish Parliament. I have no doubt that we could deliver the changes that are required more successfully and on a much accelerated timescale. It is obvious that a unity of purpose exists among members that would allow us to make significant progress.
I congratulate Nicol Stephen on what he said this week about Scotland being able to get 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2050, but he must accept that that will be possible only if all fiscal and energy policy powers are transferred to the Scottish Parliament. I must caution him—if he speaks to the energy industry, he will find that all the easy gains have already been made. From here on in, it will get much harder to meet the target that he has set. That is true of wind farms and offshore wind, in particular.
I turn to the Talisman Energy project for the North sea, the scale of which illustrates how we can deliver significant changes in how we do things in this country. I visited the Methil yard during the summer and was stunned by the size of the project that is being put together there, which involves a wind turbine blade that is the size of two football pitches put together. That massive project has huge potential for Scotland, but there is a blockage in the system. At this stage, the UK Government has the power to grant permission for the project to go ahead, but the chat in the industry is that the Government is considering devolving responsibility for it to the Scottish Parliament. That would be a good thing—let us hope that the Government gets on with the devolution of those powers so that we can get the job done and ensure that the wind farm is put in place. I would like the minister to tell us whether the devolution of those powers to Scotland is a genuine possibility.
We must also be realistic about the Beauly to Denny power line, which is attracting a great deal of criticism up and down its route. Talisman is quite clear that without that line, it will not be able to deliver its project in the North sea. Investment might make it possible to develop alternatives to the line, but at the moment it is the only vehicle we have. I accept that mitigation measures need to be put in place—undergrounding and route diversions will be required in some areas—but we should not kid ourselves that campaigns against the line in parts of Scotland will do the country's offshore wind energy industry a huge disfavour. I have tried to be as honest as possible with people to whom I have spoken in the Stirling area—I have said that although I am prepared to help them on mitigation issues such as undergrounding, we must accept the principle that if we are to deliver the changes that are necessary, the new line is essential.
Unfortunately, we do not have a great say—other than through the planning process—in many of the issues that Parliament likes to talk about and influence, including those to do with the national grid. I will finish with a plea. If the Conservatives are serious about what they say in their motion, and if Nicol Stephen is serious about delivering the target that he outlined this week, they should realise that the only way that we will be able to achieve those objectives is for us to be able to do the work ourselves and for that to happen soon.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, despite my reservations about its sponsors' new-found green credentials. Despite Ted Brocklebank's words, the recent attempts by the Conservative leadership at a Damascene conversion to environmentalism have been as transparent during their rebranding as they have been funny to watch, with David Cameron chartering a private plane to Norway to wedge a few words about melting glaciers in between his camera poses, not to mention his notorious bike ride to work with the accompanying press pack and chauffeur-driven car for his briefcase. There is also the recent logo change, in which the blue torch—which I presume had to be dumped because it was gas powered—has been changed to a fuzzy green tree.
In the words of Robert Macfarlane, writing in The Guardian, Cameron and the Tories have
"turned green faster than the Incredible Hulk."
That conversion is of a party whose voting record on green issues was, before the most recent European elections, judged by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth as the worst not just in Britain, but in the whole European Union. As late as January 2005, the current Tory leader and sometime environmental evangelist voted against the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, and he continues to decry Labour's climate change levy as a stealth tax on business. However, for the purposes of today's debate, I am prepared to give our colleagues on the right the benefit of the doubt. I am sure that today's debate is not an attempt by them to glean some of that promised Cameron public relations sheen, but is simply an expression of their commitment to the climate change cause.
I actually agree with the Conservative motion that global warming is—along with global poverty and terrorism–one of the three great challenges that we face, but I differ in my analysis in that I believe that the three challenges are fundamentally linked and equally exacerbated by rampant global capitalism, which puts profits and market freedom before everything else. I was interested to see on "Newsnight" last night a piece by George Monbiot, who writes in his recent book, "Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning", about a network of fake citizens groups and bogus scientific bodies that are funded by big business to help to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. He also wrote in The Guardian:
"While they have been most effective in the United States, the impacts of the climate-change deniers sponsored by Exxon and Philip Morris have been felt all over the world … It is fair to say that the professional denial industry has delayed effective global action on climate change by years, just as it helped to delay action against the tobacco companies."
The Conservatives must recognise the role of their big business friends in delaying action on the issue. We did not, however, hear much about that today.
As a Labour member, I welcome the motion's recognition of the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative because, as Alasdair Morrison said, it was the Executive that set up that scheme and has consistently invested in it, with the most recent boost taking the fund to £3.7 million a year. I am pleased to hear that support will be forthcoming for Sarah Boyack's proposed energy efficiency and microgeneration bill. That will make a change from the kind of nimbyism that has been displayed by Murdo Fraser in respect of wind farms and which was reiterated today by Annabel Goldie, who suggested that her party is in favour of promoting renewable energy, but only when nobody complains.
I agree with Murdo Fraser on the view that the current pace of change necessitates a more strategic and co-ordinated approach by Government. One specific area of concern that I want to mention is to do with private finance initiative arrangements for public services. Across the country schools, hospitals and other public facilities are, as Karen Gillon said, being built in partnership with the private sector. That is becoming part of the problem, because many investors are reluctant to take on the associated risks or the current costs of installing renewable energy technologies. A recent review found that
"Due to a ‘risk premium' PPP is not currently seen to be an appropriate vehicle for encouraging renewable energy systems,"
and that, as such, consideration should be given to ensuring that those projects can access the funding. Given that use of the facilities is often tied down by 20 or 30-year contracts, I am concerned that such arrangements will also preclude future change and development and I fear that, through PFI, the Government is denying itself an opportunity to lead the way on renewables via the public sector.
In its fourth report of 2006, on the biomass industry, the Environment and Rural Development Committee expressed concern about how the structure and funding of public-private partnership and PFI projects can allow for inclusion of renewable energy projects such as biomass systems. If we miss the opportunity, we will be left with an unacceptable energy emissions legacy. That must be addressed.
I welcome the Scottish Executive's efforts to ensure a more joined-up approach through the consultation on planning policy and renewable energy, and I hope that that will also help to marry the pace of change and development with the target of generating 40 per cent of Scotland's electricity from renewable sources by 2020. I also welcome the commitment that is evident in the fact that, among other achievements, 70 per cent of Scotland's transport budget is spent on public transport. The role of public transport in tackling climate change is important, but we need better regulation of the bus and train industries if we are to ensure that Scotland has an adequate and cohesive transport network. I wonder whether I can take it from the Tories' new-found enthusiasm for environmental issues that they agree with that. Can we expect an apology for their disastrous transport decisions in the past?
The motion is all very admirable, but the Tories would have to commit to action that would involve rooting out Thatcherite conservatism by, for example, imposing rigorous environmental taxing and detaching themselves from their big business buddies, rather than what we see today, which is simply promoting a return to 19th century genteel Tory paternalism. I support the Executive's amendment.
We come to the closing speeches. I call Mark Ruskell.
It has been an interesting debate on a greener, fairer Scotland. Annabel Goldie kicked off the debate by calling for a greener Parliament. I can tell the Tories that after next year's election there certainly will be a greener Parliament, because there will be more Green MSPs sitting in this chamber, and we will be taking seats off the Tories in the regional lists.
I doubt that very much.
If not votes. [Laughter.]
I can tell the Tories now that their policies on the environment have not changed since the days of the Scottish Office, when they had colourful characters such as Allan Stewart, who famously had to leave office because he wielded a pickaxe against anti-roads protesters in Glasgow. We now have a new generation of Tories who are prepared to wield the pickaxe again. We have Murdo Fraser, who is—
Will Mr Ruskell give way on that point?
No. I am sorry. Annabel Goldie did not let me in.
Stand up and be counted.
We have a new generation of Tories ready to wield the pickaxe again. Murdo Fraser is against every single proposed wind farm in Perth and Kinross, and the overall position of the Tories is in favour of a moratorium on onshore wind developments across Scotland. That is a measure that would cripple the renewable energy industry and the wealth creators who are generating economic growth in our country, and it is a completely unbalanced approach to renewable energy. It goes against Murdo Fraser's own position—he signed up to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report, which acknowledged that onshore wind has a significant role to play in generating renewable electricity in Scotland.
We have never said that we have a blanket opposition to onshore wind. If Mr Ruskell had done his research, he would have found out that on 2 February 2005 I lodged motion S2M-2365, which welcomed a wind farm proposal. Why did he not bother to look that one up?
Murdo Fraser's definition of the word "moratorium" and my definition are slightly different. I think that he should look at a dictionary. He is calling for all wind farms to be halted right now. That would damage the Scottish economy; it is a case of "Say one thing, do another"—which brings me on to the Liberal Democrats. [Laughter.]
We have had lots of excited Liberal Democrats rushing around this week talking about eco-taxes. Where were the Lib Dems when the City of Edinburgh Council was talking about introducing its own eco-tax through congestion charging? We have also heard the minister and Nora Radcliffe talking proudly about the Scottish share target—a target that could be met even if emissions go up. It does not make sense, so I urge the minister to turn it into something that we can debate because, at the moment, the target is ludicrous. Lib Dem tax policies have also been discussed this week. If pollution goes up, which might happen with the target, their policies would result in more public funding coming in. Perhaps that is the Lib Dems' intention.
If the Lib Dems are going to introduce the stick of eco-taxation, they must also introduce the carrot of investment—in public transport services, for example—to allow people to make the transition to more sustainable choices. We will not get that by investing in the M74 or in the Aberdeen western peripheral bypass. There are stacks of other projects, besides the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line and the Waverley rail route, that are queuing up—
Such as Glasgow crossrail.
I am grateful to Patrick Harvie for mentioning the Glasgow crossrail project. There are projects queuing up waiting for public transport infrastructure funding, including the Leuchars to St Andrews rail route in Ming Campbell's constituency.
The Greens are always asking people to adopt a greener approach, but as soon as anyone produces sensible policies that will tax pollution, the Greens tell us that that is the wrong approach. They then go on to ask for more public spending. The Greens are being most inconsistent. They do not want the taxation, but they want the public spending, so there will be a great gulf. They are even less credible than usual.
What we are saying is that we need hypothecated eco-taxes that solve the problem and which are not relied on for mainstream public services. This week, the Executive has cut the top rates of income tax—the taxes of those who can best afford them.
Over there, laughing, I see pro-privatisation Purvis—[Laughter.]—who will no doubt rise in a minute. Jeremy Purvis has to resort to spurious points of order to get his message across. To answer his question, the Green position is clear. A natural monopoly, such as the delivery of an electricity grid system, should be run in the public interest. I am not ashamed to believe that; it is the right way forward. Mr Purvis is wrong. It does not matter whether it is a national grid or a decentralised system; it can still be run in the public interest, unlike electricity generation, in which some form of competition is useful. No party in the chamber wants to break up Scottish and Southern Energy and turn it back into the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board—apart from the SSP perhaps.
And Solidarity.
And Solidarity. Well, who knows?
I wish the Lib Dems luck in taking votes off the Tories next year, but they should not pretend that they are a green party.
What has surprised me in the debate is the positive contribution from the Labour Party. Karen Gillon and Elaine Smith talked about the positive action that can be taken at local level.
The school building programme has been a huge issue, which the Greens have been involved in. Des McNulty talked about the international leadership that is required. Let us not pretend that the issue of the environment can be solved by some sort of cosy consensus. We need vibrant debate, but we also need to make hard choices about where we spend public money, based on the reality of what needs to be done. We do not need rhetoric and marketing from political parties.
On Mr Ruskell's point about electricity, I did not make a spurious point of order. I was quoting Mark Ballard from the Official Report. He said that the Greens
"believe that the most effective way to deliver basic utilities such as electricity is through state provision."—[Official Report, 12 February 2004; c 5896.]
In March 2005, I asked his colleague Patrick Harvie whether he favours state control of electricity prices, to which he replied:
"Off the top of my head, I say that I will be happy to discuss that with my colleagues."—[Official Report, 16 March 2005; c 15382.]
He did not have a clue what the situation was.
I shall give way to the Greens in a moment, but I wish to get on to the motion, which concerns the launch of the Conservatives' green agenda.
There is uncertainty about the green credentials of the Conservatives. I am not sure what shade of green their tree is and I am certainly not sure what species it is.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr Purvis is misleading the chamber. When Mark Ballard talked about the delivery of electricity he was talking about the national grid, not utility companies that are concerned with generation.
I did not hear the earlier point of order, so I shall not rule on whether it was spurious. That one certainly was.
Ms Goldie said that the green credentials of the Conservatives reflect robustness, but Parliament is uncertain which direction the tree is blowing in the wind: is it to the left this week and the right next week? We do not know whether the tree is deciduous. Will the policies fall off each autumn? There are questions over the depth of the shade of green, the dubious origin and the tilting in the wind. However, the £40,000 that the Conservatives spent on their logo aptly sums up their policies. I think it is a job well done.
Karen Gillon highlighted the differences that communities, individuals and Government can make. In my constituency, the schools that are newly built through PPP will have biomass heat and power, and there is real promotion of microrenewables schemes. There is also massive investment in public transport to attract people in rural areas out of their cars. The roads party, which is how the Conservatives have championed themselves, have clearly used that method of transport to reach Damascus. Whatever happened to the Conservatives being the self-styled motorists' party? Mrs Thatcher called the environment a "humdrum" issue, but apparently it is no longer so.
My colleague Nora Radcliffe pointed out that the Conservative motion calls for fresh ideas and radical thinking. The problem, however, is that none of the Conservatives' radical thinking is fresh, and anything that is fresh is not radical. The Conservatives' 2005 manifesto claims that
"A commitment to safeguarding our environment lies deep in Conservative thinking."
We might well ask what that deep Conservative thinking constitutes.
Not 60 words away from the statement about deep environmental thinking, the same manifesto says:
"A Conservative Government will end Labour's war on the motorist."
Roads alone are not the answer, which is why the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive has the biggest investment programme in public transport in Scotland for 100 years. More rail journeys are being made in Scotland, while growth in the number of car journeys is being stemmed for the first time in a generation.
I will quote Mr Cameron, in a friendly chat with Friends of the Earth during his leadership campaign. He said:
"We could all do more, and I would not paint myself as some sort of environmental saint. … I cycle to work".
Perhaps Mr Cameron could start by cycling to work without, for once, being trailed by a high CO2-emitting car carrying his shoes. The shoe chauffeur is obviously stylish and I guess it constitutes fresh thinking. Mr Cameron voted against the climate change levy, calling it a stealth tax on business. So we see the truth.
The Conservatives remain
"all talk and no action."
Those are not my words, but those of Conservative MEP Caroline Jackson, describing the Conservatives' new environmental policy. She predicts that
"in the general election I suspect that we will roll back from … this."
I do not doubt it.
Let us consider the Conservatives' record in Government: on their watch, emissions of CO2 increased by 50 per cent in the 1980s; motor vehicle traffic increased by 75 per cent over the final term of their office; there were 2 billion fewer bus passenger journeys; and recycling levels flatlined, while in the rest of Europe they rocketed.
No doubt Mr Cameron will have something else to apologise for when he comes to Scotland again—nuclear power stations. On 17 January, Alan Duncan, the Conservatives' energy spokesman, said in the House of Commons:
"I have had an instinctive hostility to nuclear power. I treat it with profound suspicion."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 January 2006; Vol 441, c 779.]
Not long after that, on 9 March, the Conservative motion in the Scottish Parliament—which has no power over nuclear policy—said that we should have new nuclear policies now. In May, challenging the front bench about the difference between the UK and the Scottish approaches, Mr Fraser said:
"The Conservatives believe in Scottish solutions for Scottish problems."—[Official Report, 4 May 2006; c 25268.]
Ultimately, we know that, apologies or not, the Conservatives have not changed. They will not take action, nor will they take tough decisions on the environment when they are presented with the opportunity to do so. They will oppose sitings for wind energy and other renewables.
The Conservatives seem to agree with some aspects of Scottish National Party policy. In The Scotsman in 2003, Fergus Ewing said that wind farms are "visually obtrusive" and therefore not a
"truly green form of renewable energy".
That is a rather bizarre definition. Al Gore should not be fearful of anybody competing with his analysis of energy needs. The SNP's whole economic policy is predicated and is totally dependent on oil.
The Greens—the other socialist party in Parliament—seem to be rather concerned to hide the fact that it is their policy, in their manifesto, to renationalise Scottish Power, Scottish Gas, Scottish and Southern Energy, British Telecom, First ScotRail and all Scottish bus companies. There will be no money left for renewable energy or any other policy; Scotland will be bankrupt. The Greens have said that they would pay compensation for all of that, to a total of £22 billion. There is only one party with real, achievable and bold ambitions, and which is taking action now and for the future: the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
Increasingly, this debate will form the backdrop to every election. We are talking about a global emergency, not some passing phase. We are talking about something that all parties had begun to embrace before the debate, but the Conservatives, in taking the steps that they have taken today, are providing the opportunity for us to fine-tune the way in which we all go forward.
There are a lot of rough edges in the Conservatives' arguments, at the heart of which is the one about the way in which the growth in demand for energy and electricity is dealt with. That must be tackled, yet it is the matter on which the Tories say the least. Indeed, some, like Alex Johnstone, have trumpeted the fact that there would be increased demand for electricity, which we take for granted in this day and age.
Will Rob Gibson give way?
In a moment; I have not finished my point.
We must moderate our behaviour, but the Tory party has not stated how we should do that.
Does Rob Gibson accept that the statement of mine that he mentioned—which I stand by—is based on the assumption that, in a post-fossil-fuel economy, electricity will have to play a much larger role in energy sourcing, including public transport in many cases? As a consequence, although we can cut total energy demand, the proportion of electricity and the actual need for it are likely to go on rising. That is why we must consider the total amount that we will need in the future.
I do not accept that, because hydrogen power and other sources—about which we have not talked in any detail today—will fill the energy gap in transport, which is one of the biggest energy users.
Electricity will have to be available for many uses, but the Tories have yet to face up to energy efficiency, which has not been discussed in the debate to any great extent. In the Parliament, we have asked before now about the use of money for investment in energy. Experts have suggested that, if we put the money that it would take to build a nuclear power station into energy efficiency, we would reduce carbon emissions seven times more. That is the kind of equation that the Tories have yet to face; it is one of the rough edges that they have not dealt with as the debate has developed.
In his opening speech for the SNP, Richard Lochhead pointed out that Scotland has one of the biggest potentials in Europe for the production of green power. It is important to remember that we have not discussed how other countries have tackled green energy production through combined heat and power. Sweden, Holland and Denmark—which, unlike Britain, have not had large amounts of oil in the past 25 years—moved on apace to create local energy in large measure by combining heat and power. The problem with electricity production is that, when we create coal-fired or nuclear power stations, we create heat. Sweden, Holland and Denmark have harnessed that heat, but I have heard nothing from the Tory party about that form of local delivery, which the SNP is happy to embrace.
When we hear about biomass plants being built into PPP schemes for schools, we realise how slow the Executive has been to force the pace on biomass. The banks in Scotland used not to accept such investment, whereas the banks in Sweden, Holland, Denmark and other European countries embraced it years ago. We have a long way to go to catch up with regard to energy efficiency and the way in which we use combined heat and power.
As I said, transport is one of the biggest energy users. It is interesting to contrast today's news that the state of California is lodging a law suit against the motor car manufacturers for the polluting effects of motor cars with the Liberal Democrats, who are in government in Scotland, telling us that rural motorists would be hit by their proposed rise in road tax and the way in which they would administer it. In Scotland, our total policy for ensuring that people can travel around must be based partly on public transport, but we must also ensure that people who live in rural areas can drive their cars at reasonable cost. Countries such as Norway, which has total control of its energy policy, ensure that fuel is not dearer at one end of the country than it is at the other.
Rob Gibson may have been listening, but he clearly has not read the excellent document that the Liberal Democrats launched this week. Will he admit that he has not read it or that, if he has, he has totally misunderstood it? In the sections that deal with road fuel and aviation, there are clear references to exemptions for people travelling in the Highlands and Islands and rural areas. There are explicit references to doing exactly what he has asked us to do.
The rural pensioners who have to pay car tax are not mentioned in that document, and they will be hit the most.
Mr Finnie has told me in the Parliament that we cannot produce more than 40 per cent of our energy from renewables in Scotland, but now his party's policy is a far higher target. The SNP welcomes that.
That is absolute nonsense!
It is not; I will give Mr Finnie the facts later.
The emergency is global, but we need a Scottish energy strategy, which needs to be delivered locally. We need to change the ROC proposals to ensure that our offshore energy supplies can be harnessed quickly, but there has not been a co-ordinated approach to that. Far too many of the powers over energy and climate change issues are reserved. As the SNP has said before, we could be much more efficient if we had those powers in Scotland so that we could devise a concerted strategy. The debate shows us that there are many elements in different parties that would allow us to draw together, but the most important step that we can take is the big step of controlling energy policy in Scotland. We cannot control our energy output until we have a Scottish energy strategy, which is why the SNP's amendment is essential to this interesting debate.
Well, well, well. Goodness me—a Conservative debate on the environment. That is fine. I am delighted by that, and I am even more delighted that Annabel Goldie lodged a motion that quotes Tony Blair:
"along with global poverty and terrorism, climate change is one of the three great challenges facing mankind".
I welcome that conversion, but actions speak louder than words. As has already been noted, David Cameron voted against the climate change levy in the House of Commons. Indeed, on 6 February 2006, the Tories in the House of Lords watered down legislation that proposed a legal duty on company directors to consider the impact of their actions on communities and the environment. The Tories' conversion is late and it remains to be seen whether their actions will speak louder than their words.
The minister has mentioned twice that actions speak louder than words, but will she offer some words of comfort to the islanders of Tiree? The island is arguably the windiest place in the UK and arguably self-sustainable in renewables, but the islanders cannot get wind turbines because their order is not big enough.
It is interesting that Dave Petrie has raised wind energy, given the Conservatives' appalling record on it. One of the reasons that it has been difficult for the islanders to get wind turbines might be demand. We welcome the fact that there is demand for wind turbines in Scotland; I hope that the Conservatives welcome that too.
As Ross Finnie indicated in his opening speech, the Executive is embodying fresh ideas, radical thinking and a uniquely Scottish approach to tackling sustainable development and climate change. That includes a wide range of innovative policy solutions, some of which I intend to touch on.
Will the minister give way on that point?
I would like to get into my speech, but I will take an intervention later.
Our reliance on energy to run businesses, deliver public services, heat homes, transport goods and provide services means that energy provision is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland. The residential sector is the largest energy consumer, followed by the transport and industrial sectors, and we have witnessed significant increases in energy use in the residential and transport sectors over the past decade. That leads to increased carbon emissions and tends to drive energy prices higher.
Therefore, a priority in responding to climate change is to reduce demand for energy, and one of the easiest and most cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions is to improve energy efficiency. That is why we are developing the first energy efficiency strategy for Scotland, which will take stock of where we are and outline where we want to be and what we need to do to get there. It will take a more holistic approach and discuss how microgeneration can help to cut emissions from buildings. It will outline a range of financial, administrative and regulatory measures that are aimed at offering better advice and support to the domestic, business and public sectors. Everybody has a part to play in helping to reduce carbon emissions, but we need to ensure that the right information, advice and support are available.
On microgeneration, the minister, like me, might be concerned about the delay in processing applications, applications not being acknowledged, and people having to go to London for answers. Will she investigate why it is not possible for people to get microgeneration schemes into their homes much more quickly?
I do not make any apologies for our policy on microgeneration. If the member has specific issues that he wants to raise with me, the minister responsible and I will be happy to look at them.
We have allocated £16 million to the SCHRI. The initiative has been hugely successful, which is why we are committed to extending it until 2008.
Will the minister give way?
I would like to continue. I can take an intervention later.
Demand reduction will not be enough. We need new thinking about how we generate and transmit energy, and new technologies have a role to play. Our commitment to renewable energy and the clean energy programme is clear. We know the scale of our renewable resource—nearly 10 times our current peak demand—and we have challenging targets to meet: 18 per cent of electricity generation to be sourced from renewables by 2010 and 40 per cent by 2020. We are on track to meet those targets, and we are commissioning research to inform a future review of them.
Several members mentioned diversity of supply, which we need to encourage to promote security and to maximise economic development potential. Hence, the focus of the clean energy programme will be on marine, biomass and hydrogen generation as well as on the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative.
The initiative was established in 2002 with the intention of increasing public knowledge and awareness of the benefits of renewable energy. It has been a success; more than 1,000 projects have received grant funding and an interim review that was done last year showed that the initiative has been successful in helping the development of the small-scale renewables sector in Scotland. That is why it is valuable. As I said, we are committed to funding the SCHRI until March 2008, by which time we will have invested just under £16 million.
Our developing energy efficiency strategy will take account of the contribution that microgeneration can make and the measures that will promote an increased uptake of the technology.
It is our ambition to establish Scotland as a world leader for wave and tidal energy development. Marine generation is a relatively untapped source, and Scottish companies can be at the vanguard of the industry. That is why in 2004 we established the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, which is first of its kind in the world.
That is also why we are consulting on changes to the renewables obligation to ensure that long-term funding exists to encourage developers to locate in Scotland. We have just published formal consultation on amending the obligation to support marine generation, which is in line with the conclusions of the UK Government energy review but is more radical. The proposal is for the marine supply obligation in Scotland to bring enhanced revenue to the sector from April 2007. Over 20 years, it could be worth up to £700 million to the sector.
We are undertaking a strategic environmental assessment of parts of our coastline to help steer wave and tidal energy developers to the best areas for device deployment. Results are due early next year.
You have one minute, minister.
We are supporting biomass in Scotland; earlier this year, we announced funding of £7.5 million for the sector. A biomass support scheme presently under development is one plank of the biomass action plan. Those are hugely important actions. There is also the potential for Scotland to be a world leader in the development of carbon capture and storage.
We are not just targeting energy use in homes, offices and businesses, because fuel use in transport is also a key contributor to climate change. That is why, of the £1 billion that we are spending on transport, 70 per cent will be spent on public transport.
It is hugely important for us to develop renewable energy. In my last minute, I want to say that the issue is not just about climate change. The Tories have had a miraculous conversion in relation to climate change, but climate change is not about only one idea.
The minister must close.
A climate change programme such as ours brings together a raft of commitments across the policy agenda. It is a complex issue that requires concerted actions and we are committed to delivering them.
In conclusion, I repeat my question to the Tories: if they truly believe that climate change is one of the three challenges facing mankind, why is it that, in 112 meetings—
You must close there, minister.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, and in the time available to me I would like to respond to some of the key themes that have been referred to in the past two hours or so.
It is fair to say that all political parties now recognise the threat of climate change and the danger that it presents to mankind. The Scottish Conservatives deliberately chose the environment for our debating time today because we feel that it is such an important subject. We are proud of our record in addressing the issues. As we have heard from numerous members, it was under a Conservative Government that the UK started to support international action to tackle climate change. Although the current UK Government has pronounced regularly on the importance of the issue, the rhetoric of ministers is failing to translate into Government action in a way that matches up to the scale of the challenge.
We believe that it is the responsibility of Government, business, individuals and families to meet the climate change challenge. It should not just be about dictating to individuals and businesses how they need to change their behaviour. Government should be giving a lead, and it should also be responding to the genuine and growing public demand for action. We want to encourage and incentivise people to do the right thing rather than force them down a road that they do not wish to go down. That is a difference between us and some of the other parties in the chamber. We want to go with the grain of public opinion.
Undoubtedly, energy policy will be a major component in developing an environmentally friendly approach. We in this party understand that we must reduce our reliance on CO2-producing energy production. We are keen to see an enhanced role for renewables, but that does not mean covering every hillside in Scotland with 400ft-high wind turbines, which is the road that some people want to go down.
We must have a balanced approach to energy production, and there is scope for all sorts of renewable energy. However, we have to ensure that we are not putting at risk our precious landscape and our vital tourism industry by building wind farms in inappropriate sites. On Tuesday night, I attended a celebration at the Fulford Inn, just outside Crieff, to mark the rejection of the Abercairny wind farm application. If ever a wind farm was being proposed for the wrong place, surely that was it. I am delighted that ministers rejected the application on the advice of the planning reporter.
I am a little puzzled by what Murdo Fraser just said. He seemed to imply that there is a role for onshore wind farms. Is he now saying that he does not support the moratorium that the Tories previously called for?
Mr Harvie has clearly not read our policy. We have said that we will support a moratorium on onshore wind farms where there is substantial local opposition until we have a new planning strategy from the Executive that properly balances the interests of tackling climate change with those of the tourism industry and local communities. We do not have that at the moment, which is why we support a limited moratorium.
We should be investing in other renewable technologies, such as biomass, wave and tidal power. The point that I have made continually in the chamber for many years is that current Government policy incentivises wind power to the detriment of those other technologies. As I pointed out to Alasdair Morrison, that exact point was made by the Enterprise and Culture Committee in its report on renewable energy two years ago, yet we still see a headlong rush to build huge onshore wind factories across the land. Surely it is time to bring a halt to that madness and ensure that our efforts go into investment in newer technologies.
The member says that both the Conservatives and he personally support wind power. How many applications for wind power development in his region has he supported?
I did not object to the application for the wind farm at Fintry in Stirlingshire. If the minister had checked the Business Bulletin, she would have found motion S2M-2365 in my name supporting the construction of a wind farm on Salisbury Crags in Edinburgh—for me, that is the perfect site to put a wind farm.
We should encourage microgeneration. The public and small businesses are greatly interested in microrenewable schemes such as rooftop turbines, solar panels and ground-heat systems. The Conservative eco-bonus scheme, which we announced this week and to which several members have referred, would provide much greater incentives than exist at the moment for individuals, small businesses and community groups to go down that road. We know that the demand exists, and the Government's role should be to stimulate and support that. If demand for the technologies increased, the entry costs would reduce in time.
Our eco-bonus scheme would also cover energy efficiency. We need to tackle the problem of poorly insulated homes that waste heat, which adds to CO2 emissions and, given the rising cost of energy, increases fuel poverty. A package of measures to encourage energy efficiency should be an essential part of any environmental strategy for the Government.
Several members have drawn attention to the impact of transport. One quarter of carbon emissions comes from the transport sector and concerns centre on road traffic and aviation. I do not accept that the only way to tackle vehicle emissions is simply to stop building new roads. Many necessary road projects need to be completed and we should remember that tackling bottlenecks and reducing congestion may in many cases help to reduce pollution. An important point is that as technology and time move on, vehicle emissions will reduce. The cars of today are much less polluting than those of 20 years ago. The development of biofuels and hybrid vehicles means that it might not be long before vehicles produce much less pollution than the cars of today do.
Public pressure is forcing change. As people become more environmentally conscious, car manufacturers must respond to demands for vehicles that run on fuels that are not as polluting. It is not inconceivable that, 20 years from now, we could have private cars that have little negative impact on the environment. Frankly, it would be ridiculous to find ourselves in that situation and realise that, 20 years before, we had scrapped all road-building projects—as some members would have us do—and left ourselves with a thoroughly inadequate road network.
I acknowledge the member's points about emissions. Would an increasing scale of vehicle excise duty for cars that have the highest emissions help? Does he support that Liberal Democrat policy?
After this week's party conference, I do not trust anything that the Liberal Democrats say about tax. The problem is that what Mr Purvis proposes is an extremely blunt instrument. We cannot take the simplistic approach of trying to price people out of their cars. For hundreds of thousands of people who live in rural areas, the car is the only viable means of transport. To adopt the attitude that someone who drives a four-by-four must pay more tax completely disregards the interests of rural areas, where many people must have a four-by-four to get around because of the nature of the roads.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I am running out of time and I need to make more points.
People who live in rural areas must have cars, because public transport alternatives do not exist and are unlikely to be created. Of course, we will continue to support public transport projects, such as the Edinburgh trams and new rail links, whenever there is a sensible business and economic case for them.
We should remember—it is an important point that should not be missed—that by far the most popular form of public transport is the bus. Bus travel has grown exponentially since the previous Conservative Government decided to deregulate it. We now see ventures such as Megabus, which provides extremely low-cost travel between cities, helps to reduce congestion on the roads and moves commuters around at affordable rates. In case anybody has missed it, I point out that buses need roads on which to travel, so just to say that we will stop building roads is a neanderthal reaction to the environmental problem that does not address wider issues.
I will briefly mention farming and food. Last week, my colleague John Scott spoke in the chamber on the local food is miles better campaign, which is about reducing food miles, on which public concern is growing. As with the growth in organic produce and fair trade produce, if there is public demand, large companies must respond to protect their profits. That is exactly what Tesco has done by introducing an incentive scheme to reduce plastic bag usage, which is a better way forward than the plastic bag tax that was proposed by Mr Pringle, whom we may not see for a few days.
There is much public interest in environmental issues. The Government's role should be to give leadership and, yes, to set targets. It should encourage people to do the right thing and reward them for doing so. The eco-bonus scheme that we have talked about this week would do just that. Only the first step is being taken, as the Government, individuals and businesses in partnership have much more to do if Scotland is to be the world leader in tackling climate change that I am sure we all want it to be. The Scottish Conservatives will play a full part in shaping the debate in the months and years ahead.