The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06033, in the name of Rob Gibson, on reports on “Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting our Emissions Reduction Targets 2013-2027—The Draft Second Report on Proposals and Policies”.
I call Rob Gibson to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee.
15:36
The debate provides the opportunity for mainstream scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s “Draft Second Report on Proposals and Policies”, or RPP2, which sets out how our Government intends to ensure that Scotland meets its world-leading climate change targets. It has been a thorough, constructive and collaborative process, with the reports of four committees outlining how the draft document can be improved.
I firmly believe in the Parliament working on a cross-party basis in committees and here in the chamber to urge the Scottish Government to take on board our reports so that positive engagement by and with stakeholders will lead to a final RPP2 that is stronger, more transparent, more accessible and fully fit for its critical purpose.
First, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee scrutinised broad governance issues in the development of RPP2. Will the document as a whole deliver the emissions reductions that are required? How will its implementation be monitored and evaluated? Secondly, we addressed interests that were relevant to our remit, such as emissions reductions in farming, forestry, peatlands and the marine environment.
We applaud the Government and the Parliament for establishing such ambitious targets, and we are pleased that Scotland tops the European Union 15 table for emissions reductions, but we must meet our future annual targets and the overall reductions targets that are set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, especially as we missed the first target in 2010 because of the poor winter. Thus, RPP2 must be a robust document that sets the framework for delivery.
The draft RPP2 will allow us to meet all our annual targets only if all policies and proposals are implemented, which we call on the Government to do. When the targets were set when the 2009 act was passed, it was envisaged that the EU would move from its current 20 per cent emissions reduction target to one of 30 per cent, but deep recession has sidelined that aspiration. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government should work with the United Kingdom Government to press the EU to adopt the 30 per cent target. However, the final RPP2 must demonstrate how greater domestic reductions could be achieved within the current EU 20 per cent target.
A forecast as far into the future as 2027 is not an easy thing for any Government to make firm policy and spending commitments on. Worryingly, the draft does not strike the appropriate balance between policies and proposals. It is unclear whether or when some of the proposals will become policies. Clarity is essential for properly researched, funded and monitored plans. Where possible, more detail is essential for each proposal in the final document.
Changing behaviour is the key challenge for delivering emissions reductions. Sadly, the Government’s behaviours framework was published after the committees concluded their evidence taking on the draft RPP2. Now that the document is out there, we firmly believe that the Scottish Government, as lead player, must guide Scots to meet their reduction targets, working with the UK Government, the EU, the public and private sectors, civic society and all our citizens to deliver sweeping behaviour change on the scale that is required.
I will move on to policies in the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee remit. We warmly welcome the restoration of our degraded peatland habitats, which make a significant contribution to locking carbon in the soil. We recommend that RPP2 policies restore 21,000 hectares of peatland a year and, on clarifying technical uncertainties, speedily adopt that proposal as a policy.
We welcome the practical forestry planting targets as important and the use of more Scottish timber in new-build houses as highly desirable. The potential to make much more of our new-build housing from native wood and the timber that is available should bring eco-friendly housing to the fore and make it a bigger feature in Scotland’s housing landscape.
Waste reduction takes a positive trajectory through the zero waste plan. Some real successes are evident in managing our domestic waste, on which we must build. RPP2 appropriately details how landfill emissions will continue to reduce, but the final document must embody the waste hierarchy—reduce, reuse and recycle—as part of the methodology, particularly to encourage behaviour change.
Farming poses the most arduous challenge. Behaviour change is crucial to delivering the required abatement and yet the farming for a better climate programme is practised by only a few farms at present. It is the agricultural section of the draft RPP2 that overtly relies on proposals and lacks enough detail. We want clarity from the Government in all those areas.
I truly believe that the four reports by the four committees of the Scottish Parliament should prod the Government to sharpen the final RPP2 to lead and deliver Scotland’s climate change targets up to and beyond 2027. We must come together to ensure that we deliver on the targets. We owe it to future generations to get RPP2 fit for Scotland’s low-carbon future.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the reports of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee and the Local Government and Regeneration Committee on the Scottish Government document, Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting our Emissions Reduction Targets 2013-2027 - The Draft Second Report on Proposals and Policies.
I call Murdo Fraser to speak on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.
15:42
The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee scrutiny focused on the energy and business sections of the draft RPP2. The inquiry was short and focused, unlike our previous effort on renewable energy. Before I comment on the substance of the committee’s report, I record my thanks to those who gave evidence to the committee, to my fellow committee members, to our clerks and to the Scottish Parliament information centre researchers who supported us.
I will deal first with some general issues. We heard some concern from witnesses about the difficulties in reading across from RPP1 to RPP2 and in identifying whose responsibility it would be under RPP2 to take action. We have recommended a number of ways in which the draft RPP2 could be improved. Those include providing a clear update on progress and how it is monitored through the inclusion of indicators and milestones; identifying whether policies are Scottish, UK or EU; identifying who is responsible for the costs associated with policies, whether that is the Government, business or consumers; and identifying the potential wider economic, social and environmental benefits of implementing the policies and proposals.
Specifically, we ask the Scottish Government to undertake a broad range of consultation and engagement exercises in advance of the publication of the draft RPP3 and to ensure that it publishes future draft RPP reports prior to publishing its draft budget. It would be helpful if the minister, when summing up the debate, could confirm whether he agrees with those general areas of improvement that we would like to see.
The committee considered whether the proposals and policies outlined in the draft would enable the climate change targets to be met. In the brief time available, I will address one or two key issues that we considered.
First, there is the question of reducing carbon emissions. A significant area of interest for the committee was the energy emissions abatement targets. We heard about a number of risks and unknowns, which have the potential to impact on the targets’ achievability.
The committee heard that the setting of a 2030 target for decarbonising the electricity sector is an important signal for the energy sector. As the target was announced at the same time as the draft RPP2 was published, we could not examine it in detail. We look forward to seeing the detail of how it will be achieved in the final version of the report.
The committee heard concerns about the Scottish Government’s decision to agree to a UK-wide emissions performance standard of 450g per kWh until 2044. We understand that a UK-wide standard is necessary to secure electricity supply, but given the high level and lengthy timescale, we run the risk of not meeting the 2030 decarbonisation target.
We also heard concern that the agreed EPS would reduce the incentive for power stations to fit carbon capture and storage. CCS accounted for an important part of the evidence that we heard. We heard many calls for a quick decision on CCS schemes. Such is the influence of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee that no sooner had we agreed our report—and even before it was published—than the UK Government announced that Peterhead would be one of the preferred bidders for CCS, with a final decision to be taken in 2015. I am sure that members welcome that. However, witnesses were concerned that the high cost of CCS could mean that it might not proceed on the scale that has been envisaged, which might mean that targets will not be met.
Witnesses expressed serious concern about the impact of the EU not adopting a 30 per cent emissions reduction target. We asked the Scottish Government to say how it would mitigate the risk in that regard, in relation to achieving its emissions reduction targets. It would be helpful if the minister, in his closing speech, said how the Government plans to do that.
Good progress towards meeting renewable energy targets has undoubtedly been made, but less progress has been made on renewable heat. Witnesses agreed with the Scottish Government’s assessment that more needs to be done. We heard concerns about how the Scottish Government will address the promotion and funding of community district heating schemes, the raising of public awareness, assistance to off-gas-grid and rural properties, and the promotion of investment in large industrial facilities. Given that a variety of areas need to be addressed, we recommended that the Scottish Government include in its final report the recommendations of the expert commission on district heating.
The committee considered measures to reduce energy demand. The draft RPP2 contains a number of Scottish and UK energy efficiency schemes that aim to reduce demand for households and businesses. Witnesses welcomed the national retrofit programme, which focuses on tackling hard-to-treat properties, but asked for further detail on how schemes will achieve the desired emissions abatement levels. Witnesses also requested that future draft RPPs be accompanied by an updated energy efficiency plan; it would be helpful if the minister could advise the Parliament whether that is the Scottish Government’s intention.
Concern was expressed about the level of funding for the national retrofit programme. Witnesses questioned whether the £135 million per annum that is expected from energy companies can be achieved and asked how an expected quadrupling of carbon abatement as a result of the NRP can be achieved at a time when the Scottish Government’s budget line remains flat.
We heard a lot of concern about building regulations and the potential financial impact on businesses of meeting carbon emissions targets for existing buildings. In particular, we heard that the targets might be onerous for small and medium-sized enterprises. I would be grateful if the minister said how the Scottish Government plans to assist SMEs in improving their buildings’ energy efficiency, so that they do not bear an undue financial burden.
The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee is of the view that the report, “Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting our Emissions Reduction Targets 2013-2027—The Draft Second Report on Proposals and Policies” provides the necessary framework but could be improved on if some of the detail that I have mentioned were included. It is essential that the final report provides confidence that it contains the right proposals and policies to achieve the legally binding targets in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
I call Maureen Watt to speak on behalf of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee.
15:49
I think that the joint parliamentary scrutiny of the draft RPP2 was the first of its kind, involving as it did four committees. I will outline the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s view of the report. First, I thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee and I thank the other three committees, whose work on the report means that there has been proper scrutiny of an important and extensive document.
Unfortunately, some of our academic witnesses could not attend our evidence session, so we may not have received as balanced a view as we could have done. We focused on two main themes: energy efficiency measures in homes and communities, and transport. We made some practical suggestions about the clarity of the document to the Government and I am pleased that the Minister for Housing and Welfare said in evidence that she will reflect on suggestions for improvement in the presentation of material in RPP2 made by our and other committees.
We are clear about the enormity of the challenge facing the housing and transport sectors in contributing to meeting Scotland’s ambitious and world-leading climate change targets. We will need significant behavioural changes across Scottish society if we are to meet that challenge. It was made clear to the committee that improving energy efficiency in our homes is key if we are to meet the emissions reduction targets. However, that it is not an easy task—not least because of the large number of existing hard-to-treat properties in Scotland. We feel that regulation for minimum standards in private housing and energy-efficient building standards for new homes will help Scotland face the challenge. It is essential that we reduce the cost of heating our homes through energy-efficiency measures and that we seek to mitigate the associated cost and other barriers that make it difficult for home owners to do that.
We are concerned that it is not clear how the UK-based policies aimed at addressing this—for instance, the energy company obligation and the green deal—will work alongside Scottish policies. We recommend that the Scottish Government works closely with the UK Government to ensure that the Scottish-specific issues are fully recognised in the delivery of those schemes. Our committee will be writing to the UK Government about that.
We welcome the new national retrofit programme and the warm homes fund, which will help those in the most fuel-poor areas. It is important that the Scottish Government works with stakeholders and especially with local authorities, who have a key strategic role in identifying fuel-poor areas and housing stock that badly needs upgrading. The current economic climate and the impact of the welfare reform agenda make it even more important that programmes like that are rolled out to those who need them most. We look forward to seeing the detail of how the retrofit programme will be delivered when the Scottish Government publishes its sustainable housing strategy.
I will move on to the transport sector and what the committee believes is vital if RPP2 is to set Scotland on the right path to meeting the targets up to 2027. The Government must be able to embrace emerging technologies and innovations to meet the challenges in this sector. That is why we support a flexible approach to proposals and policies for the period up to 2027. I am pleased that the Government is funding a wide range of initiatives and programmes, such as those on decarbonising vehicles, promoting sustainable communities and encouraging people to change their travel practices and behaviour.
We do not know what the economic climate will be like in 2027, nor what budget levels future Governments will have. Since the 2009 act setting our emissions targets was passed, the economic climate has changed significantly and it will be a hugely significant factor in our ability to deliver the changes and improvements required to meet those targets.
The committee also acknowledges the positive impact that a shift to more sustainable procurement methods and procedures might have on carbon emissions reduction. I have little doubt that this will be an important part of Parliament’s scrutiny of the Government’s forthcoming procurement reform bill.
We hope that the Government will address the various concerns in our report and that these will be reflected in the final RPP2, setting out how Scotland will go about meeting its climate change targets up to 2027. We recognise that the Government has set ambitious, ground-breaking and world-leading targets and that to meet them Scotland must stay at the forefront of climate change policy.
I call Kevin Stewart to speak on behalf of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee.
15:55
The Local Government and Regeneration Committee was responsible for considering aspects of RPP2 relating to local government, communities and planning. I intend to summarise briefly the views of the committee and leave it to colleagues to provide greater detail on individual aspects.
At the outset, I express my thanks and those of the committee to the witnesses who provided written and/or oral evidence to us, often at short notice. Without their considerable assistance, we would not have been able to complete the report in the time available.
The committee made a deliberate choice to look forward, as RPP2 is an opportunity to set out the proposals and policies to facilitate the delivery of a second tranche of climate change targets. It also, of course, provides an opportunity to revise the approach to meeting the first batch of targets and, again, we have chosen to look forward and concentrate our thoughts on ways in which that can be achieved and reporting improved.
Although the total quantity of emissions output from the public sector is relatively small, at 2 per cent, local authorities have large estates and are responsible for a wide range of functions as consumers and suppliers of services. The Minister for Local Government and Planning said that the actions of local government
“will be central to the transition to a low-carbon economy and in helping to deliver the associated social, environmental and economic benefits to our communities”.—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 27 February 2013; c 1758-59.]
It is, therefore, right that the committee should consider how local government can influence public behaviour as well as contributing to meeting the targets.
All Scotland’s local authorities have signed Scotland’s climate change declaration and all have produced annual statements, the latest of which—published in February 2013—were analysed by the sustainable Scotland network. The ensuing report set out a series of recommendations to improve the reporting of good practice and to support the development and use of its impact and influence. The sustainable Scotland network also made a series of recommendations that were aimed at improving the support that it can provide to local authorities. Basically, it wants more resources—nothing new there—to improve its reporting and analysis. The committee commends and supports its work and has recommended that future climate change reports to the Parliament should include a section specifically on local authorities, along with milestones by which progress can be measured.
We also recommend that the future reports of local authorities include the amount that they are spending to support the delivery of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
One example of work that is being undertaken by local government that can be shared by all concerns street lighting. Authorities are facing a triple whammy of increasing energy costs, significant increases in the distribution system charges from Scottish Power and increasingly non-compliant, out-of-date lights. Street lights and other lights, such as traffic signals, illuminated traffic signs and so on, account for 18 per cent of local government energy costs, which represents an annual figure of £43 million. Work in East Dunbartonshire Council on installing LED technology and other measures has shown that annual energy consumption—and therefore costs—can be reduced by 63.5 per cent. That equates to a reduction in carbon use of 26,752 tonnes annually. Of course, significant initial capital investment is required but, given the figures that I have provided, the payback period is relatively short. We were pleased to learn that the Government has indicated that it is providing pilot funding to some authorities to take schemes forward and we look forward to such schemes being quickly rolled out across the country.
Local authorities have a significant role to play in influencing behavioural change. Like other committees, we were disappointed that the low-carbon behaviours framework was published after we had concluded our evidence taking. It is our view that that document should not be a stand-alone but should find expression in all sections of future RPP documents. Change is required across all sectors of the economy and society, if the targets are to be met.
I will stay with our theme of looking forward. We made recommendations in relation to proposed new planning guidance, new building standards and the new national planning framework, all of which are expected later this year. In each case, we recommended that explicit requirements on favouring low-carbon-emission options be included. We also want planning authorities to be required to produce a statement setting out how the implementation of development plans and planning consent for major planning applications would contribute to the reduction of emissions.
We were interested in a Government bid fund that has been made available to support local authorities that have applied for assistance in considering planning applications for wind farms. Assistance is provided to ensure that authorities have the necessary resource, policies and guidance in place when considering wind farm applications with the aim of speeding up the decision-making process. We consider that to be a helpful initiative and recommend that the Government widen its scope so that it can provide support for other climate change-related planning issues.
I see that I have only 20 seconds left.
We see opportunities in the forthcoming procurement reform bill. I hope that the Government will take cognisance of that. I also hope that more recognition will be given to communities’ input—perhaps the minister will deal with that in his summing up.
I agree with colleagues that the four reports that were published last week by four committees of the Parliament provide the Government with the basis to improve the draft RPP2. We should be proud of the approach that Scotland has pioneered and do everything that we can to turn into reality the targets in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
16:01
I thank Rob Gibson, Murdo Fraser, Maureen Watt and Kevin Stewart for their comments and the work of their committees in considering the draft second report on the Scottish Government’s climate change proposals and policies, which we have all come to call RPP2.
I also express my thanks to the many organisations that provided written and oral evidence to the four committees. Those detailed and thoughtful submissions are a vital part of the scrutiny process for the draft report.
The fact that four parliamentary committees took evidence on the draft RPP2—only two took evidence on RPP1—signals the growing recognition of the relevance across all parts of Scotland’s society and economy of acting on climate change. I am not aware of any subject other than the annual budget that would find six different Government ministers giving evidence to committees.
I put on record my recognition of the effort that the four committees have made in completing what has been an important but demanding task within the time constraints set down in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. The 60-day timeframe stems from the desire expressed by Parliament that there should be a defined period for scrutiny of each RPP before the reports are finalised. However, I appreciate the challenges posed by exploring such an all-encompassing subject and I would be happy to work with the Parliament to learn the lessons of the two RPPs to date and to consider whether there may be ways to improve the process for RPP3, which I reassure members—who are probably suffering stress from this exercise—is not due until at least late 2016.
The last thing that a minister wants is an important piece of their work to be picked apart and criticised, albeit constructively. However, I believe that the Parliament’s scrutiny of the draft RPP2 has been an extremely valuable process. Fresh eyes have added fresh perspectives and the final document will benefit as a result. The draft RPP2 is a complex and wide-ranging document, and the breadth of the recommendations reflects that. The Parliament will appreciate that, although we may not be able to respond to everything, there are some areas that we are already working on.
There were comments about the clarity of the data in some instances and it was noted that certain approaches that were taken in the first RPP are absent from the second report. Murdo Fraser referred to that. In many cases, those were editorial choices in attempting to simplify the document, but I am happy to reconsider how the data is presented in order to make it clearer.
In particular, committees have asked for more information to be provided about the three proposals that outline the technical emissions abatement potential in housing, transport and land use. Those proposals are intended to illustrate the emissions abatement that our modelling shows could be achieved in the longer term. More requires to be done to work through the possibilities associated with those proposals to improve our understanding and to narrow down the various ways in which they might be delivered. As we look towards 2027 and beyond, certain elements of RPP2 will, understandably, be work in progress. However, we will certainly reflect on what more we might be able to say about the technical potential proposals in the final report.
Many members and stakeholders emphasised the importance of behaviour change. Indeed, we have heard about that in the first four speeches in the debate. Whether that is the behaviour of individuals or organisations—or, to pick up Kevin Stewart’s point, communities—that is important in seeking to cut emissions significantly.
I am pleased that the principles set out in RPP2, which have been built on in the subsequent publication of our low-carbon behaviours framework, have been widely welcomed, but I appreciate the desire for the Government to demonstrate how it is turning the theory into action.
A programme of work is commencing to roll out the framework’s individual, social and material—ISM—tool to Government officials and delivery partners to help define and refine the behavioural aspects of our policies and proposals to deliver the greatest change. We will publish a report in the autumn highlighting the progress that has been made.
Finally, there have been calls for reassurance that appropriate governance and monitoring arrangements are in place to ensure that sufficient progress is maintained in delivering the action that we need. Although the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 certainly does not lack reporting requirements, the Government is happy to reconsider the use of milestones in the RPP in order to drive achievement. I emphasise the commitment that we have made to ensure that the senior civil servants responsible for the policy areas covered by RPP2 have individual and specific programmes of work to ensure deliverability and accountability.
RPP2 is the most comprehensive outline of measures for reducing national emissions that we know of anywhere. As the report describes and as I have explained in committee, revisions to the data used to calculate past and future emissions have significantly increased the challenge that faces us versus what we anticipated when we set our climate change targets as a Parliament. Despite that, RPP2 sets out a package that can meet those targets, delivering more emissions abatement than even our independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, suggested is possible.
Scotland is already a leader on emissions reductions in Europe. Our emissions cut of 24.3 per cent from 1990 is the biggest fall of any of the EU-15 member states and is higher than the average reduction of 14.3 per cent seen across the EU-27, which includes the accession countries from eastern Europe.
The Climate Change (Scotland) Act requires an emissions cut of at least 42 per cent in 2020. RPP2 shows that we can get to 42.8 per cent even without the assistance of a stronger European Union target. If the EU does move, the RPP shows that that will help Scotland to achieve an emissions cut of up to 46.6 per cent in 2020.
When this Parliament passed its Climate Change (Scotland) Act in 2009 it was in the hope—even the expectation—that our ambitious stance would be followed by others. In fact, progress on an international climate deal has been disappointingly slow in the past few years. It would have been easy, in response, to set less demanding annual targets or use older data, allowing us to cross comfortably low hurdles, but we have not done that.
Similarly, it would have been easy in the face of Westminster’s cuts to the Scottish budget to deprioritise climate change, but we have not done that either, as testified by the £1.1 billion committed over the current spending review period specifically to support low-carbon action.
That continued commitment is delivering progress such as: continuing to lead the United Kingdom on renewable power with 36 per cent of electricity consumption met from renewable energy, exceeding the 2011 target of 31 per cent and the UK’s own figure of 9 per cent; more than doubling the installation rate for loft insulation from 40,000 homes in 2008-09 to 104,000 in 2011-12; and reversing the declining woodland planting rate by increasing it from 2,600 hectares in 2009-10 to around 9,000 hectares in 2011-12, protecting that important carbon sink.
The Committee on Climate Change recognised that positive action in its recent Scottish progress report, and RPP2 shows where we can achieve even more in the future. Proposals will be turned into policies, but the RPP does not seek to nail down how every measure will be delivered over the next 15 years. RPP2 maps out where many of the opportunities lie, but there must continue to be flexibility about how those are realised.
I am not the first climate change minister to remind this Parliament that the Government cannot deliver this agenda on its own. Partnerships with the public and private sectors will be important and the actions of individuals and families will be vital.
RPP2 signals that the Government will not shy away from regulation where appropriate, but if we want to maintain the enthusiasm of the people of Scotland and their commitment to reducing emissions, we need to ensure that the effort that we expect of them is fair. Before regulating, it is right to seek to give people choices and to encourage and support households and businesses to use energy and other resources more efficiently, saving money as well as cutting emissions.
I think that the RPP2 gets the balance right. It is ambitious and wide ranging. It sets out a clear path for meeting our climate change targets while allowing flexibility to respond to future events. We are already laying the foundations for Scotland’s low-carbon future and the RPP2 shows how those foundations can be built on.
I have a bit more time, so I want to pick up on one point. Murdo Fraser requested information about how small and medium-sized enterprises might be assisted. We will respond in due course to the many points that the conveners raised, but I can highlight the fact that, as of April this year, the Scottish Government is establishing resource efficient Scotland, integrating current energy and resource efficiency advice and support for business and the public sector into one streamlined programme. The intention is that about £7 million of investment will be used under that programme to improve annual administration efficiency savings. I hope that that will help with the issue that Murdo Fraser raised on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.
16:10
I welcome this afternoon’s debate. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 is a significant piece of legislation, which established Scotland as a good example of both Government and Parliament action on climate change. It set out ambitious targets, which we all agreed to. It is recognised internationally as progressive.
In a number of recent debates, we have made it clear that the rewards of delivery are not just domestic; they contribute towards Scotland’s effort to deliver climate justice and our international obligations. The collective international effort is not where it needs to be, however, and there is an increasing need for leadership and for results. There is a huge responsibility on the Parliament and the Government to deliver.
We all accept that Scotland’s targets are ambitious, and that places all the more emphasis on the need to deliver if those targets are to be credible. We have had early indications that all is not well, and the first emissions target was missed. At the time, the minister identified a cold winter, but it is surely not a surprise to have a cold winter in Scotland. We need to move away from those excuses, and we need greater action. Cold winters by themselves are not the problem; the problems are too many homes and properties with inadequate insulation and inefficient heating, and not enough progress on building standards for new homes. We cannot afford to miss those opportunities if we are to deliver the step change that is needed.
I wonder whether the member might wish to reflect on the report from the Committee on Climate Change, which vindicates the point that we made at the time of announcing the missed target in 2009-10, as it says that the weather was a key factor.
The weather will be a contributory factor, but we cannot accept it as the reason why we might fail to achieve targets in future years. The issue needs to be addressed. The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee said that policies to address those challenges, such as on building standards and home efficiency, need to be accelerated.
Furthermore, much of the progress that has been made has been attributed to the economic downturn, and there are concerns that change is not being embedded. This afternoon we are debating a draft report, and the next few weeks provide the Scottish Government with the opportunity to respond to the concerns that are being raised and to come back with a more convincing set of policies and proposals.
In this short debate, it is impossible to cover the four committee reports, although the conveners’ opening speeches set out the thrust of them. Although there has been scrutiny by policy area, there is a need for scrutiny of RPP2 as a coherent package of measures. Although the RACCE Committee is the lead committee, there was little synergy between the committee reports. I know that there was frustration from some witnesses at the RACCE Committee that they could not talk about transport policy, even though it is pretty impossible to discuss behavioural change without talking about transport policy.
Key messages emerge from the hours of scrutiny involving MSPs, local authorities and environment campaigners, which the Government must listen to and act on. Although it is a statutory requirement to report on how the Scottish Government will respond to the missed target, it is open to interpretation whether or not that can be achieved through RPP2. There has been rhetoric, but it has been difficult to identify what specific policies or proposals have changed in response to the missed target.
There has been criticism that it has been difficult to compare RPP1 and RPP2, and I acknowledge the minister’s comments on that in his opening speech. There is a lack of transparency on which proposals from RPP1 have become policies, which proposals and policies have been dropped, and how policies will be addressed. If that point could be addressed in the redraft, it would be much appreciated.
No one suggested that meeting our climate change targets would be easy. It needs a combination of Government effort and effort from local authorities, individuals and communities. The committee reports make some good points in those areas. There is an acknowledgement that there are positives in RPP2—that is not in any doubt. There is a recognition of the importance of peatland restoration as a welcome addition to the Government’s priorities. We can also point to the progress that there has been on recycling.
In relation to behavioural change, schools and their partners are doing a lot of good work on early years. As my local primary school headed off to the beach this morning as part of eco-week, I do not think that they expected to be going there in the snow. The unpredictability of the weather, both at home and abroad, is one of the key challenges of climate change.
The question is whether RPP2 is robust enough to get us to where we need to be and whether it is credible, ambitious, transparent and capable of delivery. When the document was published, Stop Climate Chaos did a scenario calculation demonstrating that Scotland would hit all its targets only if the EU shifted to a 30 per cent target and all policies and proposals were introduced.
It looks increasingly likely that the change at the EU level will not happen until at least 2016, so RPP2 is at risk of being doomed to failure. Missed targets in the early years will only make future targets more difficult to achieve and we will constantly be compensating rather than making progress. Stop Climate Chaos chair Tom Ballantine said in recent days:
“Ministers are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the parliament with the current climate plan”.
Will Claire Baker give way?
I am just about to refer to the RACCE Committee.
To be fair, the committees have recognised the risk. The RACCE Committee report states:
“It is clear from the draft Second Report on Proposals and Policies … that there is only one combination of circumstances that will allow Scotland to meet each of its annual targets from 2013 until 2027.”
The committees are consistent in calling for the Scottish Government to be clear about how it will respond if the EU delays setting, or fails to set, the 30 per cent target.
At the weekend, a Government spokeswoman was reported as saying that it is “commonly understood” that Scottish targets are based on the EU target. However, that is not the case. It was always recognised that it would be harder without the 30 per cent target, but the Scottish targets were still to be achieved regardless of the EU target.
In that context, the challenge for Scotland is to be bold and ambitious, and RPP2 needs to respond to that challenge. The concern is not only about the EU target and the impact that it will have but about the overreliance on proposals over policies.
Although proposals have a role to play, the dominance of proposals risks undermining the credibility of the RPP2. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee described it as a failure
“to strike the appropriate balance between policies and proposals.”
RPP2 itself recognises its limitations. As Stop Climate Chaos highlights, low-carbon transport policies are classified as proposals rather than policies, and RPP2 states:
“while in most cases they are already being taken forward, they are not yet being implemented at the intensity required for the abatement figures in this document.”
Of course, there needs to be a degree of flexibility, but an overreliance on proposals leads to the plan lacking credibility. Policies, as opposed to proposals, come along with finance and/or legislation and a clear set of timetables. It is not clear when, or which, proposals are expected to become policy.
When the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 was passed, there was recognition of the need for early action. However, RPP2 back-loads activity, and there is a lack of evidence of policy action of sufficient intensity in the early years. Transport, housing and rural land use are the policy areas that are identified for additional effort. That is not to say that nothing is happening, but the scale of the challenge in those areas is significant and we have the opportunity to do more now.
Although there were calls for greater commitment in the early years, particular concerns were raised about the future abatement—
Will Claire Baker give way?
I am sorry, but I am running out of time.
I am afraid that the member is in her last minute.
I know that we are tight for time in this debate.
Particular concerns were raised about the future abatement figures—the phrase “wishful thinking” was used in more than one committee. In his opening speech, the minister referred to the fact that significant abatement potential is identified in transport, rural land use and housing in particular. There needs to be greater transparency about how projections are arrived at if there is to be confidence in RPP2.
The minister cannot deliver on the challenges alone. If RPP2 is to have the confidence of MSPs and wider Scotland, a Government response and leadership in the Cabinet are needed. Although there is support for what can be achieved, the purpose of RPP2 is to set out the future path to hit statutory targets, and there are concerns that the report as it stands will fail to achieve that. Scotland has a reputation on climate change that is world leading and worth saving.
16:19
I am pleased take part in the debate.
The subject is an important one. It will impact not only on this session of Parliament but on the next three as well. The policies and proposals in the report that we are talking about take us up to the year 2027—a long time hence—and some of the scrutiny of the policy area seemed like something of a lottery at times. That surely makes it all the more important to be as robust as possible in any report of this nature. All the committees have delivered suitably robust reports on this occasion, and I commend the minister for the changes that he has already committed to making.
The Scottish Government has rightly earned plaudits from far and wide on account of the carbon abatement targets that it has set. Government ministers are fond of calling them world leading, and why should they not? In many ways, they are world leading.
In the previous debate on these issues, I said that the Government could easily have set less challenging targets that were easier to achieve but that it was wise not to go down that route. Instead, with the backing of Parliament, it has set challenging targets and gained a lot of good publicity for doing so.
The only problem was that the Government failed to meet the first target that was set. During the previous debate, the minister shifted some of the blame for that to the UK Government, but more accurately he then focused on the truly dreadful winter conditions of 2010 as the primary reason for the failure. Having just returned last Saturday from more than 80° in Malawi to minus quite a lot in Dumfries and Galloway, I am tempted to suggest that the minister might need to dust off those arguments again when this year’s results are eventually published.
There is a serious point here. Given the vagaries of the Scottish climate, I find myself asking whether it is realistic to expect any Government to
“ensure Scotland achieves each annual target, as well as the overall emissions reduction set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009”,
as stated in the very first paragraph of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee report. I suspect that it is not realistic but it should certainly remain our constant aim to do so, even if it necessitates the setting of challenging targets that run the risk of not being met, as those annual targets undoubtedly do. I commend the Government for sticking to its guns in that regard.
Although one can look back to cold winters, does the member agree that, for the future, we need to be factoring the possibility of cold winters into RPP2?
Of course one should factor in as much as possible, but we cannot factor in how cold a winter is going to be. We are always at risk of freak weather conditions. Although it is absolutely right that we should try to take that risk into account, it is inevitable that, from time to time, conditions will arise that give us an even greater challenge to achieving the targets—but that is not to say that we should not try to achieve them all the time.
It is difficult not to harbour some concerns about how the Government proposes to carry out its plans. As witness after witness in committee and speaker after speaker today have said, the Government’s strategy is strong on proposals but a bit short on policies. In others words, it tends to be high on aspiration but low on action.
I will spend a little time on two areas of RPP2 that fall within the remit of the committee on which I serve: forestry and agriculture.
Our committee report rightly welcomes the forestry planting targets, and I am happy to agree with that. However, I raised my concerns at committee about whether those targets can be met. I do not think that it reads well that the Government has switched its planting target from 10,000 hectares per year to 100,000 hectares over 10 years. I know that the final outcome will be exactly the same, but the ability to scrutinise progress towards that outcome will be greatly diminished by the change and I rather regret it. It looks to me—and, I suspect, to neutral onlookers—that that is the action of a Government that is seeking to cover its back in a policy area in which it is increasingly unsure of itself and with a sector that is increasingly uneasy about its direction of travel. That is not a good place to be, especially given that forestry has a huge part to play in achieving our abatement targets.
As our report highlights, the situation with agriculture is even more concerning. It is absolutely right to point out that the levels of abatement and reduction being sought from the agricultural sector will depend on significant levels of behaviour change. Behaviour change is, however, an inexact science, particularly perhaps in the agricultural sector, so an awful lot is being taken on trust. That might not matter, were it not for
“the lack of information and detail regarding the proposals, which account for significant volumes of abatement in the later years of the draft RPP2.”
Those later years are the years 2024 to 2027, and the figures given for agriculture in those three years exactly mirror the assumed abatement levels from transport in those same three years. When we combine the two figures, we end up with 11 per cent of the total abatement forecast for the whole period—surely an unwise level to commit to in what is essentially a pretty vague aspiration that will only be delivered after 2024, if at all. I have some difficulty in agreeing that that is the proper basis for a policy of this importance, and it should concern all of us that the back-loading that Claire Baker referred to is quite as evident as it is.
I will highlight one factor over which we have little control, yet which could render all of these proposals almost unachievable. As many people from outside this Parliament—and from within it—have told us, unless the EU moves to emission reduction targets of 30 per cent, only one of the Scottish Government’s targets can be met. The good news is that the UK Government fully endorses a move to 30 per cent and I hope that both our Governments will pressurise the EU on the matter at every available opportunity. If they can do that, it will achieve two things: it will make RPP2 doable, which we all want, and it will prove that, as in so many other things, we are indeed better together.
We turn to the open debate. Speeches are to be five minutes long.
16:26
It is now a number of years since the subject of climate change was first highlighted. In those days, no one gave climate change any serious thought. How things have changed. In the 21st century, we must act on what is one of the main issues in the world today. What we dare to do today will affect the generations that will follow us in this world of ours. What we do today will help to ensure the survival of all mankind tomorrow.
I believe that Scotland has the most ambitious climate change legislation in the world. Scotland’s emissions are reducing; Scotland has had the biggest fall in emissions of the EU 15 since 1990. The challenge is increasing, but we are over halfway to achieving our target of 42 per cent emissions reductions by 2020.
Missing the 2010 annual target was disappointing, but annual fluctuations are to be expected. 2010 saw the first year-on-year increase since 2006, which was the result of very cold weather at the beginning and end of the year—the coldest six months since 1919. Scotland was not alone in experiencing the impact of that cold weather; the Welsh Assembly Government noted that increased demand for energy during the winter months was a major contributory factor to Welsh emissions increasing by six per cent between 2009 and 2010. The measures that are set out in RPP2 show that it is possible to compensate for having missed the 2010 target by beating targets in future years, thereby meeting our obligations on cumulative emissions, as well.
The Scottish Government has committed £1.14 billion over the current spending review period to support additional climate change action. That is on top of its traditional investment in areas such as public transport. The investment will support a range of climate change measures, including investment in driving the growth of low-carbon energy over the next three years in renewables and grid enhancement; investment in homes and communities, including support for fuel poverty reduction, energy efficiency and the climate challenge fund; investment in active travel, low-carbon vehicles and congestion reduction to reduce the impact of transport; and investment over three years to tackle emissions from rural land. The overall estimated annual costs that are set out in the draft RPP2 present overall financial costs to society as a whole, not just to the Government.
It is not just about Government money; investment decisions that are taken by local government, the wider public sector and the private sector will all contribute. Everyone in Scotland has their part to play in the climate change agenda and everyone needs to plan. If we all buy in and take part, we can help to meet our emissions target. Simple things such as saving energy in our daily lives will help. Remember the switch off campaign some years ago? Occasionally, I go around my house and switch off lights when my wife has left a room, which really annoys her. I used to say that my daughter lit up my life, but that was because she left all the lights on in the house. Basically, if we take part and switch off, we can save a lot of energy and help to move towards our targets.
It has been suggested that the Scottish Government needs to turn proposals into policies, and I am sure that the Government will do so where that is practicable. The money that the Government has invested over three years demonstrates its commitment. For example, the national retrofit programme will refurbish or refit Scotland’s older houses to make them more energy efficient. Other proposals are already contributing at a lower level, including support for cycling and for a modal shift to bus or rail and away from private car use.
I suggest that the Scottish Government is delivering on climate change. We are ahead of our schedule on renewables targets. By 2011, 65 per cent of Scottish homes had achieved a good energy efficiency rating—up from 50 per cent in 2007 and from 31 per cent in 2002. Tackling fuel poverty and cutting emissions from homes should be a priority of the Government, and I am sure that the Government is doing that.
The Government is reversing the decline in the woodland planting rate. It is phasing out, by 2020, the sending of biodegradable waste to landfill—the first ban anywhere in the UK—and it is giving more resources to Scottish communities to support low-carbon action at local level.
I believe that RPP2 takes the Scottish Government’s commitment further in building on the strong package of proposals and policies that were in RPP1. The new vision for decarbonising heat means that Scotland will have a largely decarbonised heat sector by 2050, with significant progress being made by 2030.
I compliment the staff, the convener and the other members of the RACCE committee on the work that they did on an excellent committee report.
16:31
It is extremely disappointing that this is such a short debate. Last week, we spent days debating issues that are not within this Parliament’s competence, but this week a debate on an issue of global significance that is within the Parliament’s competence is being squeezed into a very short time.
The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 is world leading, with ambitious targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions enshrined in law. Alex Salmond struts the world stage taking plaudits for the legislation, but his Government has missed the first annual target and RPP2 shows no real commitment to getting us back on track. Again, the Scottish Government seems to be making assertions without principles or policies to underpin them. Only if all the policies and proposals in RPP2 are implemented is there any likelihood that we will achieve the legally binding targets.
When the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee tried to hold the Government to account over the targets and the content of RPP2, the Government party used its built-in majority on the committee to protect the Government from hard questions. A committee’s constitutional role is to hold the Government to account, but the votes that are listed in annex A to the EET committee report show how some committee members failed in that role.
Section 36 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 requires Scottish ministers to set out proposals and policies to compensate for any missed targets, but such measures are missing from RPP2. A committee recommendation on the inclusion of such measures was again voted down by Government party back benchers. However, that is a legal requirement, which must be included in the final RPP2 report. The Scottish Government must also show how it will act to meet those missed targets, and that must be addressed urgently. Otherwise, the cumulative emissions from the missed targets will cause further damage.
The EET committee had previously asked that the report on policies and proposals be provided ahead of the budget so that the budget could be scrutinised in tandem with the report. Again, Government party committee members blocked the inclusion of such a request in our report. However, unless reports are provided in that way, budget scrutiny of the targets is impossible for committees. As RPP2 is unclear about where the costs of policies and proposals lie, any financial scrutiny of the measures is impossible. Stakeholders have found that frustrating, because they cannot calculate where the costs lie and what their financial commitment will be.
Our meeting our target is dependent not only on all the policies and proposals in the report being implemented, but on the EU setting a 30 per cent emissions reduction target. If the EU fails to do that, our target will not be met. The report provides no contingency to mitigate the effects of that happening. That must be included in the final report.
Energy efficiency is crucial for meeting our targets. We need improved building standards for new builds and the retrofitting of our existing buildings with insulation. However, the RPP2 report depends heavily on new technologies for meeting those targets. That is pie in the sky, because the report provides no real knowledge of what such technologies will be, when they will come into being and whether they will be able to provide the emissions savings that are indicated in the report. Other countries have much better-insulated homes than we have. We need to learn from them and start now to improve the fabric of our new buildings and retrofit our existing stock.
I accept that in the report there is a degree of dependency on technology change, but does not Rhoda Grant accept that there is inherent uncertainty about new technologies this far out, given that we are talking about the period up to 2027?
I agree that there is uncertainty about new technologies, but the report must be based on reality in showing how we will get to our legally binding targets, rather than doing things on a wing and a prayer in the hope that something will come out of the woodwork to help us get there.
Carbon capture and storage is one of the technologies that the report is so dependent on for meeting the targets. The UK Government has just announced funding for two CCS test sites, but the UK Energy Bill does not include power station emissions targets at a level that would incentivise CCS. The Scottish Government intends to align itself with that by handing back the power to the UK Government to legislate on those emissions for Scotland. Meeting our targets is dependent on CCS, but there is no incentive or, indeed, compunction to use that technology. Again, Government back benchers stopped the committee asking those difficult questions.
RPP2 is a draft document and there is time to improve it. However, I am concerned that the Scottish Government is trying to avoid scrutiny rather than to make an honest attempt to deal with our missed target. The Government is legally obliged to meet the targets and to report on how it will mitigate the missed target. I hope that it will do that when it publishes the final report.
16:36
I congratulate the Scottish Government on its ambition, but I note that the ambition is shared across Parliament and will be inherited by future Governments.
All members who have spoken have mentioned targets and plans, but how will we make it all happen? I am following a number of other members in considering how we will achieve behaviour change. Governments can, of course, have policies in that regard, but Governments control relatively little. The Government employs what feels like a great number of people, whose example will be important. However, as a parent, I note that our children may sometimes listen to what we say but, infuriatingly, they by and large copy what we do. Societal change is inevitably the sum of our individual changes, so it will depend on what we do.
The best model that I can come up with for what we are trying to do in terms of the climate change challenge is probably how we have tackled public health issues over the past decade or two, because this really is about the public good. I refer members to a couple of recent public health issues, starting with smoking.
Smoking has been an issue for a generation or two now, but I invite members to reflect on the fact that if an individual who smokes—there is nothing in society that smokes—is to stop smoking, he or she first has to see the risk of their behaviour and understand the desirability of the change; they then need to believe that change is something that they must do rather than something that somebody else must do and they must internalise that belief to the point at which they act on it. They also of course need to be able to persevere, and even then it may be too late. The ban on public smoking has undoubtedly helped that process, but I suggest that the individual requirements on the way are crucial. In that regard, I do not think that I have told anybody anything that we do not know.
I now want to consider the on-going public health issue of obesity and being overweight, for which exactly the same sequence as for smoking must be gone through. I will not repeat it for the record, but will acknowledge that the individual must feel the need to make the change and must persevere. In this particular instance, society is not that helpful. Food is actually good and public bans on this and that are not going to help. We can see that the public environment for that situation is not particularly helpful.
Before I go on to discuss one or two other little issues, I point out that the greener Scotland website provides some very helpful stuff regarding RPP2.
How will we change our energy use? First, we have to ask the question, “Does it matter to me?” It must do, because it costs money. “Do I care about that?” That depends on how rich I am. “How much trouble is it worth taking to save that money?” We are struggling to give away loft insulation, but the UK Government has discovered that if an offer is made to clear the loft at the same time, people are much more likely to take it. If I can borrow a phrase from chemistry, we need to get over the activation energy. It is not just about inertia—there is a hoop to jump through.
It also helps if we can see the costs. When we used to go through from the lounge for tea, my beloved and late, lamented mother-in-law would go back, find the light switch and turn off what was maybe a 100W bulb. On the way back, she would walk past the electric fire, on which two bars were still on. That is why her chemical engineer son had not worried about turning off the light; I knew that the 100W bulbs up there were helping to heat the house when she already had 200kW on with the electric fire. She simply could not see that or understand that the fire was giving out energy and that turning off the light was irrelevant in the context. Unless people actually understand energy, they will not respond in the right way. Metering is absolutely crucial: what gets measured gets done.
16:41
I congratulate the Scottish Government on its great progress on renewable energy and some other areas, but the two sectors with the biggest emissions are housing and transport, and those are the two sectors that unfortunately are letting us down.
Emissions from the residential sector were 3 per cent greater in 2010 than they were in 1990. There are some very good initiatives—including the national retrofit programme, which starts next week—but they are not of sufficient scale to meet the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. For example, the committee said that all lofts and cavities should be filled by 2015. Notwithstanding what the minister said about that, only half of lofts currently have good insulation. The committee also recommended that 230,000 solid walls should be treated by 2020. For some reason, work on that seems to be at a virtual standstill. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.
The biggest problem is in existing homes in the private sector. There is provision for that in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009; section 64 provides a regulatory power to establish minimum standards for not just the private rented sector, but the whole private sector. The draft report that we are considering today has a proposal for minimum standards for 2018, but I support the call of WWF and other bodies that have made submissions that that should be turned into a policy for 2015. As well as helping us meet our commitments, it would drive uptake of, for example, the new national retrofit programme, the green deal and the energy company obligation, which are excellent new initiatives. WWF recommends that the standard should kick in at the point of sale or rental and it recommends that it should be at point E on the performance certificate scale for 2015 and point C by 2020. Those proposals should be seriously considered.
Transport emissions were also higher in 2010 than in 1990. Vehicle kilometres inexorably rise, which leads me and many others to the conclusion that demand simply must be reduced. In a 2009 study, the Scottish Government said that measures to reduce demand had greater impact, but I can see none in RPP2 and there are virtually no policies, either. In that and other ways, RPP2 is weaker than RPP1, which called for some demand management measures, as well as, for example, a 5 per cent budget for active travel, which we are nowhere near.
More of the proposals in the transport section need to be turned into policies, whether they are to do with cycling, car clubs, travel planning or the sustainable communities proposals.
We also have a problem with the vague statements beyond 2020. The report talks about additional technical abatement beyond 2020. In particular, for the last three years—from 2025 to 2027—there are massive transport reductions for which there is no explanation whatever.
In general, we need more of a focus on behaviour change, as Maureen Watt said. As Kevin Stewart said, it is regrettable that that is in a separate framework, rather than its being integral to RPP2.
RPP2 suggests that we should aim for
“Almost complete decarbonisation of road transport by 2050, with significant progress by 2030 through wholesale adoption of electric cars and vans”.
However, concerns have been voiced in the consultation process that too much faith is being placed in the capacity of low-carbon vehicles to contribute to that reduction. Perhaps it would be advisable to focus more on modal shift towards public transport and active travel in the immediate future. The benefits that would be achieved through that change are far more certain and are more likely to contribute to our meeting our ambitious targets.
Finally, the clarity and transparency of the broader proposals in RPP2 have come in for some criticism, with the report clearly lacking in key detail in comparison with RPP1. Specifically, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee has been urged in submissions from Transform Scotland and Sustrans to push for a disaggregation of data in the same format as RPP1 to allow for proper scrutiny. Increased transparencies will also facilitate proper monitoring and evaluation, which would, preferably, be helped by more milestones for both 2015 and 2020.
I hope that the minister will take on board many of the suggestions that have been made in the debate. Many of those suggestions have, of course, come from outside bodies, whose help with the proposals that I have put forward I acknowledge.
16:47
We are at our best as a Parliament when we act together and with ambition. I think that we are together today in saying that we need, as well as world-leading targets, world-leading action to achieve them.
It is very easy to get caught up in party-political fights and not to realise that we are, to an extent, fighting the problem and discussing it in the margins. Even with the policies alone that are set out in RPP2, we are, by my calculation, on course to reduce emissions by 39.56 per cent, from 72.3 megatonnes to 43.7 megatonnes. At the start of the passage of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, even a reduction of 34 per cent seemed like a good place to go.
It is clear that we should accept at this point that, although proposals will need to be turned into policies, the policies alone can take us quite a distance. In fact, it turns out from the recalculation that we were, to begin with, further than we had thought from our target. The Scottish Government is to be commended for saying that, instead of going only so far, it will go to a point that may be further away and may require more effort. It may have gone unnoticed by many, but the 42 per cent target that we talked about is now 43.66 per cent as a result of the recalculation. That the Government has stuck to its guns is definitely worthy of commendation.
We have in the plan a hugely ambitious trajectory for recycling that will finally put us among the best in Europe. We heard at the last cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency meeting that the Scottish Administration is the only one of the four UK Administrations that is now directly funding home energy efficiency. More than that, that public funding can help to unlock private sector funding from the likes of the ECO and the green deal. The £200 million a year can bring about a fundamental change not only in the cost of heating homes, but in the amount of carbon that that heating emits. That is a win-win situation that really does not need much of a sell to the public to win its support.
RPP2 sets out very clearly an electricity decarbonisation goal of 50g of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour. In Scotland, we continue to recognise that nuclear energy, although it is—very arguably—a low-carbon energy source, is definitely not a green one. All of that is commendable to anybody who approaches the debate from an environmental perspective.
In committee and when I met environmental groups, I heard the same calls for more information as we have heard during the debate, but we must acknowledge that there are limits to how much we can expect from a document that, essentially, seeks to peer into a crystal ball and to see 14 years hence. I have not been an MSP for very long, but every committee report that I have seen or co-authored has called for more information; the reports that we are considering this afternoon are no different.
I have sensed an openness in the Government. I remarked to one representative that it would be handy to have the tables at the end of RPP2 in Excel format, and he replied that the officials had already sent him the spreadsheets, along with more detail that he had wanted, and he offered to forward them. The draft RPP2 is already clearer and more comprehensive than any other climate change action plan in any nation anywhere, and every reasonable request for more information that the EET committee has made has been answered positively.
Of course, that brings me to the unreasonable requests. Many EET committee members—and many members who have spoken in the debate—have pressed for the inclusion in RPP2 of a lot of hypotheticals. Although it is sensible to take risk into account, to acknowledge it and to present an assessment of its impact, it is impossible for any organisation to produce a complex branching tree of all the overlapping contingency plans that covers every factor and every potential mathematical combination thereof. No one in the chamber needs me to remind them that the EU’s target, regulation of the green deal, energy market reform, the renewable heat incentive, the successful development of CCS and even the possibility of a run of bad or good winters are all very much beyond the Scottish Parliament’s control.
On CCS, Commissioner Oettinger put the issue well when he spoke to the EET committee. He pointed out that once Government decreed that sulphur dioxide should no longer be pumped into the air by industry, the practice was stopped. The pumping out of nitrogen oxides was then stopped, too. Now it is the turn of carbon dioxide. All that stands in the way of CCS being deployed on a sufficient scale is our having sufficient will to ensure that it happens, and the same can be said about achieving CO2 reductions on a sufficient scale in all the other dimensions. If the Parliament has the will, I believe that RPP2 shows the way.
16:52
My committee—the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee—rightly starts its report by recognising that the Parliament established world-leading targets for emissions reductions. However, I recall that, back then, the Scottish Government did not want annual targets to come in immediately on the passing of the 2009 act and was keen for the proposed reductions in emissions to be measured at a later stage. We Liberal Democrats opposed that. In his report, Stern made it clear that action as early as possible would have the most effect and that later action would, de facto, be more expensive to implement. It was thanks to us and some other Opposition parties—plus Jamie McGrigor and Margaret Mitchell rebelling—that the Parliament voted narrowly to have emissions reductions measured from 2010, hence today’s debate.
It is frustrating that it took so long for the 2010 figure to be announced—we now await the 2011 figure—and that the first climate change target was missed by some distance. I know that we had a cold winter that year, but if the Government wants to be serious about achieving future targets, it needs to be serious about actions. Therefore, we need stronger building standards in the public and private sectors. It is worth remembering that more than half our electricity is used to make heat, so insulation makes sense.
The draft RPP2 outlines the pathway to achieving our ambitious targets, but it was clear in the committee’s many evidence sessions that many people were concerned that the report was heavily reliant on proposals rather than policies, and members of all parties have noted that during the debate.
Some of the figures in the document are worth noting, and I intend to look at them in more detail. In evidence on rural land use, it was mentioned that in the tables at the rear of RPP2, the Government forecast that the abatement from “Fertiliser Efficiency Measures” would rise from zero in 2017 to 260 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide the following year. It is unknown what those measures could be. Suddenly, from 2020, there is to be 310 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide abated annually from “Developments in agricultural technology”. Furthermore, from zero in 2024 to 250, 500 and 750 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide in 2025, 2026 and 2027 respectively would suddenly be abated from
“Additional technical potential from low carbon land use”.
It is as clear as mud where the abatements in those areas are coming from or going to, but the three together add up to 48 per cent of total abatements from rural land use forecast for 2027.
As I explained to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, we have ambitious targets on rural land use, and Rob Gibson has outlined those targets in relation to the restoration of peatland. However, we must also develop a peatland plan and identify the next Scotland rural development programme, and we need to know what the budget is arising from the CAP reform. All those are uncertain, so there is an element of uncertainty. We have ambition to improve on peatland restoration, but we need to know the detail before we can put that forward.
I will give Jim Hume a bit of time back for that intervention.
I appreciate what the minister said, but I was trying to show that the forecast 48 per cent rural land use abatement—a significant figure—is reliant on woolly figures. I am not necessarily criticising the minister; everybody today has recognised that the figures need to be clearer.
The figures are unclear not only in relation to rural land use, but in other sectors. The homes and communities section also refers to “Additional Technical Potential” and, in the transport section, the same figures of 250, 500 and 750 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide pop up for 2025 to 2027 under the heading
“Lower Emission Potential in Transport”,
bearing in mind that the section on “Decarbonising Vehicles” might have accounted for that.
It is not unfair to believe that there will be some efficiency measures, developments in technology and—this is my favourite—“Additional Technical Potential” that will help Scotland abate carbon dioxide emissions. That is why the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee calls for
“greater detail of how each proposal may be taken forward ... in the final RPP2.”
However, the report is too reliant on unclear figures. I look forward to the minister providing clarity on that in the future; I think that he said he would do that.
The targets are reliant on much happening way beyond this parliamentary session and Government, particularly with regard to land use. They are also heavily reliant on a large increase in costs, from £70 million in 2019 to £377 million the next year, which is an increase of 538 per cent in one year. It would be interesting to know where the funds will come from; perhaps the minister will address that point, too.
I am glad that so many committees have examined the draft RPP2, but it is obvious that the draft report is too reliant on proposals rather than policies and heavily reliant on unclear proposals that will come to be in the future somehow. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s report applauded Scotland’s ambitious world-leading targets, but if the detail of how we make the proposals into policies and how they are to be implemented is not in place for the final report, we may be the country with the most ambitious world-leading targets that we do not meet.
16:58
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on giving yet another statesmanlike speech in his role as convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. I am pleased that the committee’s report on RPP2 was a good one, but it could have been better. It might have been better had the Labour members of the committee concentrated more on climate change mitigation and a bit less on political point scoring.
I am sure that most of the committee’s members would agree that the great thing about the Scottish Government’s ambitious climate change targets is that they not only tackle the threat of climate change, but give impetus to our renewable energy targets, to much-needed investment in our grid and to tackling the scourge of fuel poverty. I am therefore proud that the Scottish Government has set such ambitious targets and that it is more than halfway to meeting them.
In our scrutiny of RPP2, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee heard calls from some quarters for more clarity and detail. Such calls represent a failure to recognise that RPP2 is a high-level, strategic document, or that it relates to a fast-moving field, in which innovation, the application of technologies and business practice are all moving forward at a startling pace.
I am a member of a different committee, so I am not sure to what Mike MacKenzie is referring. I understand that RPP2 is a high-level document, but does he not understand that the high-level document must enable people at all levels to understand how proposals can be turned into policies on the ground?
I think that the member will agree that technologies are moving so quickly that it is impossible to predict where they will go, other than to say that they will be helpful during the next few years, given that a lot of our technology is directed at solving the problem that we are talking about.
There is a failure to recognise that plans that are too inflexible will be an obstacle to achieving targets, far from increasing the possibility that we will achieve them.
There were calls from some quarters to introduce more punitive regulations to enable us to achieve our targets. For example, it was suggested that the introduction of tougher building standards would lead to greater energy efficiency in new homes. Such suggestions fail to recognise that the house building industry is on its knees. We are building less than 0.5 per cent of our building stock per annum.
Could the lack of house building be due to the SNP Government’s huge cut in funding for house building?
I will give you a bit of time back, Mr MacKenzie.
I reject that suggestion absolutely, Ms Grant. If you want a tutorial on the cost implications of higher building standards and energy efficiency, I will make myself available to give you such a tutorial.
New houses have to meet high energy efficiency standards and tougher standards are being introduced—they might not be as tough as some people would wish them to be, but that is for very good reasons.
Our energy efficiency problem lies not with new houses but with the existing housing stock. The vast majority of the housing stock—more than 90 per cent—is more than 10 years old and such homes are not nearly as energy efficient as new houses are. To raise energy efficiency standards for new homes beyond what is planned would be to run the risk of building far fewer new homes, which would be counterproductive, even in the context of our climate change targets.
It was suggested that tough regulations should be introduced for the private rented sector. The suggestion fails to recognise that even with today’s high energy prices, many interventions have a payback period of more than 60 years. That is made clear in the Sullivan report, which I commend to members who have not read it. The green deal also fails to recognise that issue. If it is any sort of deal, it is the wrong deal for the wrong people; it will certainly not help the people who are most in need, who are increasingly suffering fuel poverty.
If we are to make progress in the area, it is better to use the carrot than to use the stick and to work in partnership with Scotland’s businesses and people. That leads me to one of the most significant problems that we face in meeting our climate change targets. Whereas the Scottish Government is focused on renewable energy and its climate change targets and recognises that the approach offers many opportunities as well as challenges, the UK Government is unfocused and perhaps confused. It is procrastinating on energy market reform and the necessary grid enhancements, it is procrastinating on transmission charges, especially for Scotland’s islands, and it is procrastinating on the domestic renewable heat incentive, all of which could help Scotland to achieve its climate change targets sooner rather than later.
I would think better of some Opposition members of this Parliament if they thought less about applying unwise and punitive regulation to Scotland’s people and businesses and more about the inadequacies of the UK Parliament, and if they gave a little thought to the issue and recognised how well the Scottish Government is doing in achieving its very ambitious climate change targets.
I remind members to speak through the chair.
17:05
This is my second time on my feet this afternoon, so I should apologise to anyone who sat through my earlier speech.
First, I welcome the process that the Parliament has adopted in examining RPP2. I was a member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee when, as our contribution to the budget discussions in 2011, we decided to examine how RPP1 was being delivered. We found the process quite frustrating, because many of the issues that we wanted to examine came under the remit of other committees and therefore the emphasis that was placed on the examination of climate change measures depended on the emphasis that those committees wished to place on that rather than on other budgetary issues. The process for examining RPP2 has allowed all the relevant committees to scrutinise the whole document. There might be an issue about how all that scrutiny is tied together, but the exercise itself has been useful.
As Maureen Watt pointed out, it is unfortunate but perhaps inevitable that given the limited time committees had to gather evidence some witnesses were unable to attend the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s round-table evidence sessions on housing and transport. As Malcolm Chisholm has made clear, both sectors are vital to the delivery of emissions reductions.
Concerns were expressed about the balance between policies and proposals, particularly in the transport sector. RPP2 cites seven policies and five proposals on housing but, for transport, there are only two policies, both of which result from EU directives on decarbonising vehicles, and four proposals. Some witnesses expressed concern that the policies were reliant on EU car emissions standards instead of being led by the Scottish Government and, as a result, RPP2 was very dependent on the EU’s improving its emissions reduction targets from 20 to 30 per cent. The minister argued that that was not the case and that we would still meet our targets even if the EU did not improve its own, but other witnesses suggested that the Scottish Government would then be required to implement every policy and proposal in RPP2 to achieve the 2020 target. A 100 per cent success rate is really quite a tall order.
There might have been some confusion over what constitutes a policy and what constitutes a proposal, with the perception that there is less commitment to proposals. I accept that the Government can cite as a policy only what it is undertaking in this parliamentary session and funding in the current spending review cycle and that proposals are what it intends to do over a long timescale and what might be suggested for later spending reviews. The criticism, therefore, really relates to the question whether some proposals should have been brought forward to become policies in the current spending review cycle.
As other members have pointed out, the decision to publish RPP2 in a different format from RPP1 makes it more difficult to assess progress. The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee noted that the transport section in the draft RPP2 contained no estimate for abatement potential and costs for the Scottish Government’s initiatives, and that the five proposal headings were new and not used in RPP1.
There seems to be an overreliance on the emissions savings to be made in the final three years from 2025 to 2027, with a saving of 750 kilotonnes of CO2 in the final year but little indication of how that will be funded. The Minister for Transport and Veterans told us
“we cannot know the technical and policy contexts that will apply up to 14 years from now”.—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 27 February 2013; c 1444.]
Although I am sure that that is true, surely it is unwise to place such reliance on a large reduction at the end of the RPP period in the hope that technological and policy development will somehow make it happen.
With regard to the housing sector, housing for social rent will be required to reach minimum energy efficiency standards by 2015. According to recent research, 75 per cent of social rented properties in Scotland achieved a good rating under the national home energy rating scheme in 2011 compared with 62 per cent of owner-occupied properties and 52 per cent of private rented properties. It is very likely that the social rented sector’s higher achievement is due at least in part to the response to the 2015 target. That is why some witnesses argued that it was important to introduce regulation and minimum standards for existing private homes earlier than the 2018 date that has been proposed.
Targets in the private sector could focus efforts and the UK and Scottish Government energy efficiency programmes can provide routes for financing the necessary improvements. I realise that covering the entire private sector is, indeed, ambitious, but the committee has asked the Government to investigate—
Will the member give way?
I am about 10 seconds away from the end of my five minutes.
I can give you a bit of time, but not much.
How much time?
Well, we are wasting time now. It is entirely up to you.
All right, I will not waste time. I think that I probably need to make progress.
The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee has asked the Government to investigate whether it will be possible to introduce the standards more quickly.
Obviously, it has not been possible for me to cover the 53 pages of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s report in five minutes. I reiterate the committee’s recommendation that the Government should respond to all its conclusions and recommendations in the final RPP2.
For the benefit of other members, I clarify that, at this stage of the debate, if members want to take interventions, I can give them back a few seconds.
17:10
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate, because it highlights the role of the Scottish Parliament’s committees in scrutinising the progress that has been made towards meeting our emissions reduction targets. It also provides us with the welcome opportunity, based on the extensive evidence that we have received from a range of stakeholders, to identify the further measures that need to be taken and milestones that need to be met if we are to meet the ambitious targets that were set by the Parliament.
I will focus on housing and transport, as they are areas that can make a significant contribution to meeting our emissions reduction targets and were examined by the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, of which I am a member.
Housing accounts for 25 per cent of our CO2 emissions, so there is a role for the Scottish Government, local authorities and other agencies to ensure that we do all we can to improve the energy efficiency of our existing housing stock. We should recognise where significant progress has been made. For example, according to the Scottish house condition survey, 65 per cent of homes were rated good by 2011, which was up by 31 per cent from 2002-03. Some 400,000 homes have received loft or cavity-wall insulation since 2008. The Scottish Government has provided further investment for boiler scrappage, and is on target to replace 30,000 boilers ahead of the anticipated timeline. We have a national retrofit programme that is the only scheme of its kind in Great Britain, as Marco Biagi said.
In welcoming the progress that has been made, we should recognise the scale of the challenge that we face. The Scottish house condition survey also identified more than 500,000 homes with solid walls that need insulation. We need to use the levers at our disposal, which include the role of standards and regulation. Mike MacKenzie sounded a note of caution in relation to the introduction of minimum standards, but that was not the view of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, as my colleague on that committee, Elaine Murray, said. Paragraph 120 of the committee’s report says:
“The Committee acknowledges the ambitiousness of the proposal to introduce minimum standards across all of the private housing sector. However, it requests that the Scottish Government investigates whether the timescales for the introduction of these minimum standards could be revised with a view to an earlier than 2018 introduction”.
We heard that view in evidence during the committee’s consideration of RPP2. Elizabeth Leighton, from the existing homes alliance, stated:
“We are talking about a minimum standard—the bottom level. It is about ensuring that we drive demand so that we do not let off the people who could not be bothered to do anything with their houses, despite the incentives.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 6 February 2013; c 1350.]
WWF has also issued a challenge to the Government to signal a step-change, which it will need to do if it is to achieve significant reductions in energy demand in Scotland’s homes. If we can bring forward the 2018 deadline, we will have gone a considerable way towards meeting that challenge. I look forward to further clarification when the Government publishes its sustainable housing strategy.
Transport has an important role to play in meeting our emissions reduction targets, as Malcolm Chisholm said. Paragraph 239 of the committee’s report stated:
“The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government continues to monitor the impact of initiatives in relation to encouraging behavioural change and whether certain demand management initiatives might require to be considered as potential future options in advance of the publication of the RPP3.”
Rob Gibson talked about the need for positive engagement. In what I think is a model of such positive engagement across the chamber, my parliamentary colleagues Claudia Beamish, Alison Johnstone and I have written to the Minister for Transport and Veterans, Keith Brown, making the case for introducing a competitive award for an urban, on-road, segregated cycle lane project. That type of project is commonplace in other European countries and is a practical example of the kind of behavioural change that all the committees called for, which we could facilitate through the introduction and adoption of such a project. It is the type of initiative that is necessary if we are to persuade people who do not cycle because of safety fears that cycling is a viable alternative mode of transport.
Scotland can join the European mainstream in emulating the success of other northern European countries by investing in housing and transport in order to reduce our climate change emissions.
17:15
The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 was, indeed, something for parliamentarians of all parties to be proud of. It was testament to the progressive policies that can be implemented when we work together towards a common goal. However, in the Scottish Government’s failure to meet the annual emissions abatement target for 2010 we also see the danger of taking our eye off the ball. That failure serves to emphasise how important the second report on proposals and policies is.
Given the importance of RPP2, it is disappointing that the document, as it is currently laid out, looks extremely unlikely to provide the framework for meeting the next set of targets. Some of the strongest criticism of the draft report came from key stakeholders. For example, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency highlighted its concerns, saying:
“there is more that needs to be done in order to make the RPP fit for the purpose of delivering world leading climate legislation. There is a need in our view, for a step change in the ambition of RPP2, particularly in the light of the first annual target having been missed.”
As the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee report has highlighted, there is only one combination of circumstances that will ensure that Scotland reaches each of its annual targets from 2013 right up until 2027. Frankly, it seems pointless to have emissions reduction targets proudly set out that everyone in the chamber knows we have no chance of meeting. Aspiration in this case is simply not enough. As we now know—the committee reports highlight this—in order to meet each of the annual targets, we will have to implement all the proposals and policies that are laid out in the draft RPP2 and rely on the EU-wide emissions reduction target shifting to 30 per cent.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thanks.
It is realistic to be sceptical about whether such a set of circumstances is likely to occur. During the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s round-table evidence sessions, a number of stakeholders made it clear that there are too few policies and too many proposals. To be fair—I think that the committee’s report makes this clear—in some circumstances it might not be possible to have clear policies stretching ahead into 2027. However, for the more immediate annual deadlines I hope that we will see more detail on how we will meet our targets.
It is heartening to hear from colleagues in the debate today, and from the reports in front of us, a recognition that the targets are not just numbers in a document. For many of the proposals and the policies to work, it will rely on people to implement them.
Ms Baxter is right to point out that people will make the difference. However, sometimes people do not need the policies to drive things forward. I saw that when I was on the carbon management board of Aberdeen City Council. Does the member think that, rather than have everything set in stone, we should allow certain people to make decisions as they go along, which often results in huge impacts?
No. I think that we need some bottom-line requirements that people know they are expected to achieve, with a role for all organisations, agencies and individuals to work together to meet those targets. It must be recognised that some bottom lines need to be achieved.
Behavioural change is a key factor in helping everyone to play their part in meeting targets. We cannot rely on someone else to do it for us. However, a strict timetable is laid out for scrutiny of RPP2, which the Scottish Government would have been aware of prior to the publication of the draft document. Given that fact and the importance of behavioural change to meeting any targets, it is doubly disappointing that the behaviours framework was published only on 4 March this year—and not in the detail that many were hoping for. I am pleased that the committee has received a commitment from the minister to respond to scrutiny of aspects of the behaviours framework separate to the report.
It is not all negative. There are a number of areas that, I know, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has welcomed, which have been highlighted in the debate—particularly the inclusion of peatland restoration and forestry planting as possible means of helping to meet our targets.
It must be hoped that the Scottish Government will take the criticisms that the four committees levelled at the draft report in the constructive spirit in which they were intended. I urge ministers to make the necessary changes to the document and to report back to the Parliament with an improved plan to increase our country’s chance of making a difference and reducing our carbon emissions to effective levels.
17:21
I am pleased to contribute to this debate, not least because of the importance of RPP2 to achieving our target of 42 per cent emissions reductions by 2020, which we are more than halfway towards achieving.
We have heard some criticism from Opposition members about missing the 2010 target, but members have acknowledged that that was due to the very cold weather, which increased energy demand for heating, particularly in the residential sector. RPP2 shows that it is possible to compensate for that by beating targets in future years. In 2010, there was the first year-on-year increase since 2006, which was a result of very cold weather.
It is worth reiterating that the UK Committee on Climate Change noted in its second statutory progress report to Scottish ministers, which was published earlier this month, that temperature-adjusted figures indicate that, in a normal year for temperature, the 2010 emissions reduction target would have been met.
It is also worth noting that David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, concluded that Scotland had performed well by saying:
“Scotland has made good progress in delivering on emission reduction measures to date. This lays the foundations for meeting ambitious Scottish emissions targets and building a low-carbon economy in Scotland with the benefits that this will bring.”
It should also be noted that our world-leading climate change targets, which go over and above those in the UK act—the targets are higher and include international aviation, shipping and annual targets, which are not included in other parts of the British isles—make this not only the most ambitious Parliament in the UK but the most ambitious Parliament in the world when it comes to emissions reduction targets.
The report also states that Scotland continues to lead the UK on renewable power, with 36 per cent of electricity consumption met from renewable energy, exceeding the 31 per cent target and the UK’s 9 per cent. The setting of a 2030 decarbonisation target provides longer-term certainty for the sector.
If members of the EET Committee will forgive me for straying into their territory, I must say how pleased I am to see progress on the carbon capture and storage front. As a former member of the EET Committee, I was pleased to see the Peterhead CCS project receive preferred bidder status just last week. However—to make a local point—I remind ministers about the application for the £500 million CCS plant proposed for my Falkirk East constituency in Grangemouth, which I believe Summit Power is continuing to progress despite not being awarded preferred bidder status. The benefit of that project—assuming that it is approved—is that once the Grangemouth plant starts up, an identical one will already have been built in Texas, which will be a tried-and-tested plant, so any teething problems will already have been dealt with on the other side of the pond. Given that there will be more than 90 per cent carbon capture in a 500MW electricity plant, I do hope that the project goes ahead.
I return to the report from the RACCE Committee. We welcome the setting out of how targets up to 2027 will be met and accept the challenges that are presented by planning 14 years into the future. We also called for all policies and proposals to be implemented to ensure that annual targets are met and called for the Government’s farming for a better climate initiative to be extended and ramped up to deliver increased emissions reductions by encouraging farmers to adopt efficiency measures that reduce emissions and help them adapt to climate change while also having a positive impact on business performance, primarily by driving efficiencies in working practice. However, as the convener of the RACCE Committee, Rob Gibson, stated in his opening speech, we need more clarity from the Government on the matter.
Another policy that is well worth mentioning is the increase in woodland creation rates to 10,000 hectares per year, with the planting of 100 million trees by 2015, which, as the minister has mentioned, is indeed the equivalent of 10,000 hectares per year.
Other land use measures include peatland restoration, which has been warmly welcomed by the director of RSPB Scotland, Stuart Housden, and many others. There is also the wood first timber construction programme and the encouraging of best practice in nitrogen efficiency, with a 90 per cent uptake of nitrogen fertiliser efficiency measures.
Our world-beating targets are not helped by uncertainty over reform of the common agricultural policy, with rural development pillar 2 funding at risk and the resultant reduction in SRDP funding. The situation is not helped by our own cabinet secretary having been locked out of the CAP reform process meetings in Brussels last week. Thanks to the UK Government, 16 member states got an uplift of their pillar 2 budget, but the UK, despite having the best case of all countries, did not itself seek an uplift. Scotland had, and looks set still to have, the lowest share of funding in Europe, which will affect the funding of local projects in the future.
17:26
As a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I was pleased to help scrutinise our section of the RPP. It was unfortunate that the final meeting took place on a day of public sector strikes against the cuts. Personally, in supporting those who were striking, I felt unable to cross the picket line. I thank the convener, my committee colleagues and the clerks for their flexibility in taking on board some of my input and comments in my absence.
I share some of the concerns that were raised by Rhoda Grant that, in voting down some sensible recommendations, Scottish National Party back benchers have not assisted their own Government colleagues to ensure that the finalised RPP2 is as robust as possible. I am sure that the minister is willing and able to accept constructive input.
The task of meeting our ambitious climate targets is not easy. It requires changes—small ones, bigger evolutionary ones and a few large-scale transformational ones—if we are to play a fair part in tackling the climate crisis. Transport did not form part of my committee’s scrutiny, but it is one area where poor choices are compromising the plan. It is impossible to double-think our way into a future of more motorways and to expect to meet our climate targets, too. I invite the minister to comment on what more can be done in that respect.
The RPP almost entirely neglects demand management or the possibility that the policies and the investment decisions that we make can reduce the number and distance of journeys that are taken by car. Such decisions are largely devolved, but the only transport policy in the current draft RPP is based on EU directives. We can see from transport that the Government’s scale of ambition is falling away. Comparing RPP1 with RPP2, we see that 500,000 tonnes of abatement have been lost every year from 2014 to 2018. The necessary policy changes have just been pushed further into the future, and emissions from transport have risen, not fallen. We largely know what needs to change.
Does the member not think that if we can move to hydrogen fuel cell or electric vehicles or to using other forms of fuel, that does not mean that we cannot build motorways to get people to their destinations?
Although technological advances that reduce emissions will be welcome, traffic jams could still add to congestion, and not all vehicles will be so powered. What we really need to do is to spend more than just 1 per cent of the transport budget on cycling and walking. I hope that the final RPP2 will have active travel, car clubs, travel planning and ambitious demand management included as policy.
As the RACCE Committee has recognised, the only way in which we will meet our future targets is if all the policies and proposals are implemented and if the EU shifts to the 30 per cent reduction target. There is no margin built into the plan. We heard real concern from witnesses that the EU will not move to 30 per cent, so the RPP needs explicitly to work out domestic actions to mitigate that risk. The EET Committee recommended that.
The same risk exists for carbon capture and storage. Witnesses fear that the 2020 target will not be met. Peterhead now has preferred bidder status, but the RPP is predicated on CCS and we cannot put our heads in the sand about the risk.
Electricity gets lots of attention, but the provision of cheap and clean heat is important too. After all, heat accounts for more than half of our energy demand. I hope that the final RPP will provide more ambition and detail on delivering district heating. From the evidence that we heard in scrutinising the RPP and in previous committee work, it is clear that the public sector has a key role to play in that.
The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee looks forward to the forthcoming heat policy and has asked the Government to provide more details on how it will support community district heating schemes and off-gas-grid properties to get out of fuel poverty. I hope that the minister will confirm that the Government will provide that in due course and will listen carefully to the recommendations of the expert commission on district heating.
Cheap, low-carbon heat will be important in tackling fuel poverty, but high-quality insulated homes are essential too. Stop Climate Chaos, the existing homes alliance and others have all called for the proposal for minimum efficiency standards in the private sector to be upgraded to a policy and implemented by 2015. That would help to bring our existing housing stock up to standard, lever in investment and jobs for local trades and help to meet targets in a difficult sector.
Scotland has played a leading role in setting the bar high, promoting climate justice and inspiring ambition, but we missed our first target. That is not the end of the line, but it is a clear signal that we need to match ambition with a credible plan with fully funded climate policies that have headroom built in to address the possibility of long, cold winters, clear milestones to track our success and bold Government action on the big challenges of, and opportunities for, ending our dependence on fossil fuels.
17:31
I am pleased to close the debate for the Scottish Conservatives. I thank the members and clerking team of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee for producing the thorough and useful report that we have debated today. Thanks should also go to the external organisations that have provided us with briefings for the debate, including the RSPB, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland and the existing homes alliance.
As we have heard from members across the chamber, there remains support for the Government’s targets but real concern about the failure to achieve the annual emissions reduction target for 2010 and about whether Scotland will be able to achieve future targets. The committee’s report rightly sets out how difficult fulfilling future commitments will be and the need for measures to be implemented across all policy areas.
The concern that RPP2 lacked detail has also been a theme of the debate, as has the belief that a developed nation such as Scotland must be seen internationally to achieve its targets.
The Scottish Conservatives have consistently supported practical policies and incentives that will encourage consumers to make decisions that will help to reduce emissions. That remains our approach. That is why we championed the concept of a green council tax discount and are disappointed at the low take-up of the option so far.
On 12 November, the Scottish Government invited local authorities to consider how greater uptake could be encouraged, and I would be grateful if the minister would update us on that subject. What can the Scottish Government do to help, or persuade, councils to promote the measure?
Homes represent one quarter of Scotland’s emissions, and the existing homes alliance is right to highlight the need to transform Scotland’s existing housing stock. It says:
“The homes and community sector is well-placed to make a significant contribution to reaching Scotland’s climate change targets if given the right tools—sufficient investment for incentives combined with regulating for standards.”
Tackling heat loss from our homes must remain a huge priority.
A number of members talked about the importance of Scotland’s peatlands. I emphasise that, too. As I have said many times in the Parliament, Scotland’s peatlands are a world-class resource that act as a significant carbon sink, storing 10 times more carbon than all the trees in the UK.
Like the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, the Conservatives are positive about moves that would enable peatland restoration to be promoted but have sympathy with the experts who have warned that, although the funding of £1.7 million for 2012 to 2015 is welcome, it would need to be expanded if it is to lead to a significant area of peatland being restored. Ministers need to consider that as we go forward.
We also urge ministers to work with the private sector to develop innovative ways of allowing peatland restoration to be undertaken as part of corporate social responsibility programmes. I commend the good work and effective partnership working that have taken place for the peatland restoration at RSPB Scotland’s Forsinard reserve in Caithness in my region. Others can learn from what has been achieved there.
I note that the committee received evidence suggesting that the waste and resource use section of the RPP2 was overly focused on waste and did not consider wider aspects of resource use. Where local authorities are concerned, I sympathise with an antipathy towards directives that talk about targets for recycling if the markets are not in place for the material. Markets should be identified to make targets achievable. The slogan should be “No targets without markets.”
Turning to agriculture, I note in paragraph 173 that
“the policies in the draft RPP2 relate principally to the Scottish Government‘s Farming for a Better Climate (FFBC) programme.”
That is more than just a pipe dream. I am sure that arable farmers in Perthshire and central Scotland who experienced the wettest summer on record last year, and now those in Kintyre and Arran who are experiencing the worst winter weather for 50 years would agree that farming for a better climate is an admirable aim. In his comments to the committee, Professor Smith made an interesting point when he called for a thriving Scottish agricultural sector to be as low carbon as possible but pointed out that reductions in activity or output in Scotland were not the sensible way to achieve the targets because that activity and output would simply be taken up in another part of the globe.
The Scottish Conservatives look to ministers to provide greater clarity and detail on their policy as we go forward. We encourage them to prioritise practical options that act as incentives for consumers and businesses.
We have a couple of minutes in hand. I call Claudia Beamish. You have seven minutes, although I will be a wee bit generous.
17:37
Our meeting our climate change targets is a domestic imperative here in Scotland, and it is a climate justice issue here and globally. I am convinced that mainstreaming of deliberations across four committees, leading to today’s debate, is particularly valuable in focusing on necessary changes to the final RPP, and I thank all the witnesses who took part.
A step change is necessary in many sectors, not least housing and transport, as was highlighted by Maureen Watt, who stressed the enormousness of the challenge. Elaine Murray, Malcolm Chisholm, and Jim Eadie in particular explored those issues.
Perhaps it is equally challenging for all political parties to see how we can get from where we are now to where we need to be. Transport is the hardest issue, in my view. We have road-building commitments, rural public transport which is, to be frank, a joke in some areas, and pretty much non-existent urban segregated on-road cycle routes—although the award that Jim Eadie mentioned will no doubt help, if it goes through. The shift to low-carbon vehicles is in its early stages and, as Malcolm Chisholm stressed, it is uncertain.
Will Claudia Beamish take an intervention?
I would like to make progress.
It will take bravery as well as vision and, of course, funding, to achieve the shifts that are needed at all levels. The serious concerns about the level of EU targets were explored by my colleague Claire Baker and many others. In view of the strong possibility that, even if the EU target is changed, it might well not be changed before 2016, the RACCE Committee recommendation that
“the final RPP2 be more explicit in demonstrating how greater domestic reductions could be achieved within the current 20% EU target”
becomes even more significant. I hope that the minister will address that in his closing remarks.
As the debate draws to a close and the minister grapples with consideration of changes that might be made in view of the committees’ reports, I want to instil a sense of optimism. Many of us have a vision of how we could move forward towards a low-carbon economy, so I will look at the positives and at the opportunities. We can make the step change to meet our targets; Scottish Labour is clear that that must be done in a way that is inclusive and fair for all our communities and at household level—in particular for those who are living on the edge.
While meeting our climate change targets, we must also tackle fuel poverty and food poverty, air pollution, poor local environments and—as many members have mentioned—insulation to tackle cold and damp houses. Helping people through cold winters is essential.
Yes, we missed our first target. That must not happen again, but I puzzle over what is a “normal year”, as was mentioned by Angus MacDonald. We must firm up proposals into policies and there are concerns that much has been pushed into the later years.
The RACCE Committee asked the minister about interdepartmental discussion, which is so needed if we are to succeed in meeting our targets. That discussion must be on-going in order to evaluate progress and the need to adapt. I am sure that the minister will commit to that continuation.
The minister’s commitment to milestones today is significant—we must see those milestones in the final document. There can also be a strong commitment across all departments to properly funded research with appropriate academic partners, aided by citizen science.
Research is needed into the effectiveness of current programmes, such as farming for a better climate. The RACCE Committee
“notes the Cabinet Secretary’s ambition for every farm in Scotland to have a carbon reduction plan in place,”
but without research, there cannot be real monitoring of programmes, and alteration—and indeed regulation—as is needed across all sectors.
Research into new technologies is also needed, so that the step change that we are all committed to can become a reality—otherwise our ambitious proposals for the later years of RPP2 will not be realised as policies. The minister emphasised clarity, which was encouraging.
Who leads on this challenge to reach our targets? We all do. Local authorities all signed up to the climate change declaration; Kevin Stewart stressed the need to report to the Scottish Parliament on that. Primary schools—and now, many of us hope, more secondary schools—will contribute through the eco-schools programme.
All public bodies can play their part as well, as can businesses across sectors. Dr Andy Kerr, the director of the centre for carbon innovation at the University of Edinburgh, told the RACCE Committee:
“it is very much about creating the conditions under which we can also encourage private investment, because there are huge opportunities to deliver fairly radical change. Markets in this space are growing around the world.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 6 February 2013; c 1705.]
I want to focus on the marine environment, which other members have not mentioned today—it sometimes seems to get left out. The RACCE Committee
“recommends that the Scottish Government ensure the final RPP2 acknowledges the contribution”
of blue carbon, which could have
“an ambitious route map for future development, which can be updated in RPP3”.
The committee agreed that publication of the marine
“plan has become a matter of some urgency”
and that
“concurrent consultations on marine protected areas and a marine renewables plan”
are also extremely important.
Although I am disappointed by the lack of focus on marine protection and opportunities in the draft RPP2, I was somewhat reassured by the cabinet secretary’s remarks to the committee:
“The Committee notes the comments made that the final RPP2 might benefit from the inclusion of a specific marine section, and/or improved presentation of issues relevant to the marine environment and welcomes the Cabinet Secretary’s remarks which indicate he is prepared to consider this issue before the RPP2 is finalised.”
It was disappointing that the behaviour change framework came out so late, as many members have highlighted. The Local Government and Regeneration Committee report recommends that
“behavioural change should find expression in all sections of the RPP2 report and should not be stand alone as change is needed across all sectors of the economy and society.”
We all have a responsibility at individual level and to all the communities to which we belong, but people will contribute only if they believe that their contribution matters—that it makes a difference—which, often, they still do not believe, and if there is a pay-off. For some people, one of those will matter more than the other, depending on their circumstances. It is up to all of us in the chamber to ensure that everyone in Scotland understands that tackling climate change matters for both reasons.
Finally, let me use the words of Simon Pepper, with his wealth of experience of sustainable development. In evidence to our RACCE Committee, he said:
“One of the problems is the label “behaviour change”, because it tends to focus the mind on individual action whereas, in strategic terms, we need to concentrate on societal attitudes and norms. I like to think of it more as culture change.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 6 February 2013; c 1708.]
A culture change is what we need, and we must all work towards that in the future.
I call Paul Wheelhouse to respond to the debate. Minister, I can give you until 5.56 pm, and I would be obliged if you would continue until then.
17:45
I will do my absolute best, Presiding Officer.
First, I thank all members for their contributions to the debate, all of which will help to inform the Government’s thinking as we finalise the second report on proposals and policies for meeting Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. I also thank members for the constructive tone in which all have engaged in the debate.
Many members have spoken with a great deal of conviction—as exemplified by Claudia Beamish in her closing speech—about ensuring that a specific course of action is taken, and they have expressed concern that RPP2 does not commit to certain long-term policies right now. I recognise that some members have also suggested that RPP2 has an overreliance on proposals rather than policies. I am aware that that has also been a criticism from people outside the chamber; that view has been part of the narrative of evidence sessions.
However, I urge colleagues across the chamber to get the issue into some sort of perspective. The difference in the position for Scotland in 2020, between the scenarios where only policies are implemented and those where proposals are also implemented, equates to about 2.3 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent. With a 20 per cent EU-wide target, the balance of abatement from policies alone and the impact of net emissions trading—adding those together—amounts to an additional reduction of 4.1 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent, which is more than 2.3 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent. If the EU target of 30 per cent is adopted, the impact of policies and net trading will amount to a slightly higher reduction of 6 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent. That, again, is much more than the 2.3 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent that we will depend on from proposals.
Hence, the majority of the abatement to 2020 under all scenarios is delivered by policies, with potential to add more from the proposals that are outlined in RPP2. That is just for the period up to 2020, for which we know we need urgent action if we are to achieve our interim targets.
On what will happen if there is no 30 per cent target across the EU—unfortunately, Jayne Baxter did not let me intervene to address this point—the Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard, has acknowledged that the EU will probably hit about 27 per cent in terms of actual climate change mitigation by 2020. Therefore, I am reasonably optimistic that, by 2016, the EU will perhaps move to a 30 per cent target. However, I accept that we need to take measures to allow for the possibility that that does not happen.
As I have said, the majority of abatement to 2020 will come through policies rather than proposals. Although there is a natural tendency to focus on the absolute targets in tonnes that are our statutory annual targets—I acknowledge that we will need to push for the EU-wide ambition to meet the statutory 2020 target—it is unfortunate that the nature of our annual target framework has locked in a now out-of-date understanding of Scotland’s actual emissions. As was pointed out earlier, we now know that our baseline was higher than we had originally thought. Given that the latest data make it clear that the baseline was a good bit higher, I welcome the fact that the Climate Change Committee, in the form of Ute Collier, who gave evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, has also acknowledged that point.
Another issue to get in perspective—aside from the accepted movement in the starting line—is the following: if the EU moves to a 30 per cent target and we implement proposals and policies, we will reduce emissions by 46.6 per cent against the revised higher 1990 baseline, even allowing for the fact that we started from a higher position. That would give us a considerable amount of headroom, as I hope members will appreciate. If we do not implement proposals at all, we will still lower emissions by 43.4 per cent from the revised baseline, provided that the EU adopts a 30 per cent target.
In the absence of an EU-wide target at 30 per cent—if the EU target instead continues at 20 per cent, which is the current position—Scotland will see its emissions fall by 42.8 per cent, as Marco Biagi pointed out, provided that proposals become policies.
Even if proposals do not, for whatever reason, become policies—I apologise because this is getting complicated—emissions are projected to fall by 39.6 per cent, which is a point that Marco Biagi also made. Members should bear it in mind that the EU Climate Change Committee targets were set on the basis of assumptions about the old emissions baseline and how much it was thought a country such as Scotland could deliver. The committee explicitly assumed in its calculations that a 30 per cent emissions target for the EU would be in place. We have stuck with the CCC’s annual targets, even though we could have used a legislative route to adjust the targets to reflect improved science. Alex Fergusson referred to that.
As Richard Dixon of Friends of the Earth Scotland put it:
“The Government could have changed the 2020 target and all the annual targets in between to make up for the fact that the baseline was different”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 20 February 2013; c 1764.]
Dr Dixon went on to state that he welcomed the fact that the Government had decided not to mess with the numbers, but to go with them.
We have not sought to escape the statutory annual targets, and achieving them will be difficult. I was certainly pleased to hear most members acknowledge that. However, it is crucial to a rational debate to emphasise that, to the best of our knowledge at this time, we may see emissions fall by 39.6 per cent against the higher baseline emissions figures in the worst-case scenario, and at best we may even see a decrease of 46.6 per cent by 2020. If the EU does not move to a higher ambition, we project a 42.8 per cent decrease. I hope that gives members some room for optimism. Yes—we still have to go further to get to the 43.7 per cent that we must achieve to get the tougher annual statutory target because the baseline has moved.
The trajectories that are set out in RPP2 at the moment express the position purely in megatonnes. Does the minister think that we might have in the final version of RPP2 a percentage reduction trajectory, instead of having to get such figures by using a scientific calculator to do some arithmetic?
Absolutely; I wholly accept that point. It is one of the most obvious examples of where we realised that our presentation had not helped us or helped our colleagues in the chamber to understand exactly what we are trying to achieve. I provided the information to which Marco Biagi referred to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, and we will seek to incorporate it in the final version of the report.
As I said, we have not sought to escape our tough targets, but it is worth highlighting that only Germany and Denmark among member states have an emissions target of 40 per cent, which is marginally higher than that for our projected worst-case scenario, as set out in annex B of the report. I am slightly confused as to how Stop Climate Chaos can assume that we are pulling the wool over people’s eyes, because the figures are in annex B. However, I accept Marco Biagi’s point that they are not presented in the clearest way.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I ask Claire Baker to be brief.
In relation to Stop Climate Chaos, does the minister want to say something around the importance of the interim targets and the difficulty that there will be in achieving them prior to 2020? There is also concern that the policies that are meant to deliver after 2020 are unclear and undefined at this stage in RPP2.
In terms of the early years, I accept that the impasse in Europe makes matters more difficult. However, we are taking steps, including the extra £24 million that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth found in the latest budget for additional housing investment, where we are trying to do more. That money is in addition to what we already have in the RPP2 document. We can obviously do more and are looking to do more, where we can.
I think that I have addressed Claire Baker’s other point, so I will carry on, because I am conscious of the time.
Members should bear it in mind that the Conservative and Lib Dem UK Government—not to criticise it—is currently aiming for a target of just 34 per cent. I point that out just to please Alex Fergusson. In addition, the UK Government does not even set itself annual statutory targets, unlike the Scottish Government. The UK’s modelling is extremely sophisticated.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I need to carry on.
The UK Government does not provide as much detail on its proposals and policies as we have done on our RPP. I accept that Wales has a 40 per cent target, but members may not be aware that the Labour-controlled Welsh Assembly Government applies that level of ambition only to areas of its economy for which it has devolved responsibility, with the UK target of 34 per cent applying elsewhere in the Welsh economy. Like the UK, the Welsh targets also exclude international aviation and shipping. I know that Scotland’s legislation and approach serve as exemplars to others and are used as such by our stakeholders to push other nations to have high ambition. That is, in a sense, why this Government is under so much scrutiny and pressure to be seen to deliver. Any Administration of any party would be under this pressure at this time for the same reasons.
I hope that the analysis that I have set out demonstrates that we can deliver world-leading reductions in emissions, but I strongly urge members to recognise that we are already going beyond what our independent advisers thought was possible when they set our targets. I have acknowledged that there are presentational issues in RPP2 that need to be addressed and we will review other substantive points, but there is much that members can welcome in the report. For example, there is our approach on behavioural change aspects, which was warmly welcomed by WWF; our peatland proposals, which were warmly welcomed by RSPB Scotland; and our commitment to deliver forestry targets, which was welcomed by RSPB Scotland on behalf of Scottish Environment LINK.
Will the minister give way on that point?
I am afraid that I cannot; I am running out of time.
The minister is in his last minute.
Our bold 2030 decarbonisation target for electricity generation has been welcomed by many people. Moreover, as was stated earlier, we are investing £1.1 billion from the spending review to support climate change actions on renewables, delivery of the home energy efficiency programme, community action through the climate challenge fund, and delivery of advice and provision of low-carbon loans to businesses and the public sector. We are reducing the impact of transport by supporting active travel, low-carbon vehicles and congestion reduction, and we are funding our zero waste Scotland programme to help families and businesses to unlock savings and to reduce emissions by cutting waste. We are also helping farmers to make more efficient use of nitrogen fertiliser. I take on board the points that a number of members made about the farming for a better climate initiative.
It must be noted that the Government has received support from Lord Deben, or John Gummer as many may know him better, who is now the chair of the EU Climate Change Committee. Lord Deben stated:
“Scotland has tougher targets that the rest of the United Kingdom. I very much want to look at whether we can learn from Scotland, whether there are ways which we can copy elsewhere ... I am very supportive of the Scottish attitude which has been able to put through the whole of government an understanding that climate change is part of the job of every single department.”
Rabbie Burns, albeit in a different context, once wrote:
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see ourselves as others see us!”
Scotland has achieved much already—we can be positive about that. This Government is by no means complacent, but I maintain that we can continue to be proud of Scotland’s ambition and the progress that we continue to make. RPP2 is part of that, but it is not the end of the journey. I and my fellow ministers look forward to continuing the work of Parliament on what is the most important issue that any of us will be involved in.
17:56
It is interesting to compare and contrast the nature of and approach to the scrutiny of RPP2 and RPP1. Two years ago, RPP1 was considered by a lead committee—the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee—and the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee provided a report that was appended to the TICC Committee’s report. The process involved just one cabinet secretary being questioned and only four stakeholder sessions were held. The chamber debate ran to only a little over 90 minutes.
The delegated but co-ordinated scrutiny of RPP2 has undoubtedly made for a more forensic process. Each of the four committees focused on particular areas of responsibility to produce specific individual reports, although, as we have heard, some common themes run through them. Such scrutiny can only have been to the benefit of the process of consideration, as have been the level of stakeholder input and the extent to which ministers and cabinet secretaries have been questioned.
I doubt that many relevant or appropriate organisations or interest groups could claim to have been denied their say. The views of many of those organisations and groups are reflected in the reports.
In addition to the written submissions that it received, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee held three round-table sessions, followed by separate question sessions with the minister and then the cabinet secretary. That was replicated across the other committees. In the time leading up to the debate, some 30 per cent of MSPs eligible to serve on parliamentary committees have been involved directly in scrutinising RPP2. All told, half a dozen cabinet secretaries and ministers were questioned.
Despite the challenging nature of the timeframe allowed to committees to carry out their work, I suggest that the extent of scrutiny, the nature of the four reports and what we have heard in the course of the debate testify to not only the way in which this institution is maturing and growing, but the importance that this Parliament places on delivering its world-leading climate change legislation.
There are those who have sought—for whatever reason—to assert that the committees of this Parliament do not hold the Government to account. I do not think that any reasonable person who has witnessed the committees in action—and certainly the committee that I serve on—read the reports or tuned into the debate would concur with that view. Given the sometimes critical—albeit largely constructively critical—nature of the reports, I doubt that the Government would, either.
I will begin to draw my remarks to a conclusion by highlighting, as others have, the important issue of behavioural change. In evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, James Curran, the chief executive of SEPA, said of meeting our climate change targets:
“This is Scotland’s challenge—it is a challenge to each and every one of us to contribute what we can”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 6 February 2013; c 1710.]
He is right. As far as rising to that challenge is concerned, there is no free pass for us MSPs. It is not sufficient for us to sit in this place and pass legislation aimed at tackling climate change; we must live up to the demands created by that legislation ourselves. As a nation, we will only get where we need to get on emissions reduction by partnership working across Government—national and local—the private sector and NGOs, as Claudia Beamish noted. Just as important, we also need to change our individual behaviour where it impacts on the environment.
The Government must provide leadership, but it falls to every one of us to behave in a more environmentally responsible way. Small and simple changes, if they are widely practised, can make a contribution that matters. Therefore, before we head off for the recess in 48 hours’ time, will we ensure, for example, that all the appliances in our offices are switched off and are not left on standby; that none of our bins contains recyclable material; and that we will make the journey back to our constituencies on foot, by bicycle or public transport or, indeed, by car sharing? Will we continue in that vein going forward?
The clear message from the debate has been that the Parliament is absolutely committed to living up to the ground-breaking climate change legislation that it passed in 2009 and that it will demand that the Government does everything possible to make that happen. That is as it should be.
On behalf of the four committees that have been involved in scrutinising RPP2, I welcome the commitment that the minister has given to address some of the points that are raised in our reports, and I reiterate that we are all looking forward to a clearer and more robust final document emerging from the process of which this debate forms an important part.
Previous
Forth Road Bridge Bill: Stage 1Next
Point of Order