Climate Change (Annual Targets) (Scotland) Order 2010 (Draft)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6416, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the Climate Change (Annual Targets) (Scotland) Order 2010. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. I point out to members that we have a negative amount of spare time this afternoon, if they get my drift, so I will stop members as soon as they reach their allocated time limit.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Climate Change (Annual Targets) (Scotland) Order 2010 be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]
14:55
Members will be aware that last week the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee voted against the original annual targets order. I take very seriously the requirement in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 to set targets for 2010 to 2022 by 1 June, and for that reason I withdrew the original order on the next day and laid the new version that Parliament is considering today.
I understand that there is a view in some quarters that we are still not being ambitious enough and that we are not being clear about the emissions reductions that are possible in the early years. I will outline clearly where we are. This Parliament passed unanimously an act that requires that we take independent expert advice before we set targets. We took that advice from the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change and we considered it seriously. That committee suggested that we set flat targets for 2010 to 2012, but we were keen to make early reductions in emissions. For that reason we set, in the original targets, more stretching targets for 2011 and 2012. So, the Committee on Climate Change recommended that for 2011 we set essentially the same target as for 2010—a zero per cent reduction. Instead we went further, requiring that emissions fall by 0.5 per cent.
For 2012, the Committee on Climate Change recommended that we set the same target as for the two preceding years. Again we went further, requiring a 0.5 per cent reduction on top of the 0.5 per cent in the previous year. We were clear in the statement that accompanied the order how challenging that is. We were clear that additional actions would be needed to meet the 2012 target and that we would have to give full consideration to options that might allow that.
The act requires that we report on proposals and policies for achieving the annual targets after the targets are set. That is exactly what we intend to do. We have committed to publishing a draft report on proposals and policies for parliamentary consideration in September. The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee voted to reject the order. We listened and went still further for 2012. So instead of the 0 per cent reduction that was recommended for 2011 and 2012 by the Committee on Climate Change, we have set targets requiring a 0.5 per cent reduction in 2011 and an additional 1 per cent reduction in 2012.
It is worth reminding members what the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition said about the annual targets order that we introduced originally. It did not give a whole-hearted welcome to the targets for the early years. It would have liked, bigger reductions, as we all would. It acknowledged that
“a step change in policy effort would be required if these and future targets are to be met”.
It emphasised that the targets should be seen as the minimum reduction. We agree. It recommended that the TICCC recommend the order to Parliament, but the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee chose to recommend rejection of the order. It is disappointing that the committee chose to ignore the factors that work against us in the early years: the fact that traded-sector emissions that follow the emissions trading system cap, in line with international practice, are flat in that period; the fact that we are seeing a significant decline over three years of 3.5 per cent or so in forestry sequestration, which results from a decline in planting rates since the 1990s; and the fact that international aviation emissions that are included in our targets, but not in the UK Government’s carbon budgets, are unlikely to fall significantly in the short term.
The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 has rightly been the subject of widespread praise in Scotland and internationally for the level of ambition that it sets out. It is worth reminding ourselves of that and comparing our ambition with that of the UK. Based on advice from the Committee on Climate Change, in 2011 both we and the UK have reduction targets of 0.5 per cent. In the order that is before us today for 2012, we will have 1 per cent, while the UK will have 0.5 per cent. In 2013, we will have 8.67 per cent and the UK will have 4.9 per cent. In 2014, we will have 2.78 per cent and the UK will have 1.4 per cent. In 2015, we will have 2.88 per cent and the UK will have 1.3 per cent. In 2016, we will have 2.9 per cent and the UK will have 1.5 per cent. In 2017, we will have 2.97 per cent and the UK will have 1.5 per cent. In 2018, we will have 3.05 per cent and the UK will have 2.5 per cent. In 2019, we will have 3.16 per cent and the UK will have 1.7 per cent. In 2020, we will have 3.34 per cent and the UK will have 2 per cent.
Ambitious? Of course we are ambitious—as a Parliament and as a Government. It is important not to undermine the credibility of that ambition—which we shared, as a Parliament, when we passed the act in June 2009—by rejecting an order that is, as I have demonstrated by reading out the numbers, clearly ambitious to an extraordinary degree.
It would be irresponsible of Parliament to set targets that could not be shown to be deliverable for this Administration or any future Administration. That would send a disastrous message to our domestic stakeholders and to the international community.
I ask the Parliament to agree to approve the order.
15:01
The Scottish National Party’s manifesto promised annual targets of 3 per cent, but the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill as introduced included only a target of a 34 per cent reduction by 2020. The minister’s comparison with the UK is interesting. The UK Government took the UK Committee on Climate Change’s advice in setting its target at 34 per cent, but we felt that in Scotland we had more opportunities. Hours after Iain Gray challenged the First Minister to raise his target, the SNP jumped past our suggestion of 40 per cent and went to 42 per cent.
To blame scientific advice for the lack of action is unacceptable, because we all knew last year that 42 per cent exceeded the UK Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation. That committee’s report this year identifies more that the Scottish Government could do. The issue is about political priorities; that committee cannot make such decisions for us.
When the SNP Government finishes its fourth year in office, it will have put in place a reduction of only 0.05 per cent for this year, instead of 3 per cent annual targets. We all understand that the numbers will have to represent new effort by not just the Government but by all of us in society.
We acknowledge and welcome the fact that the minister has put peat on the agenda. We, too, want to act on peat. As carbon reductions through peat will count from 2012, we need Scottish Natural Heritage, the Forestry Commission Scotland and Scottish Water to work together. Let us look at the minister’s figures. We are not convinced that they add up. What will actually happen? He has changed the reduction only for 2012 and not for subsequent years. Surely the commitment on peat cannot be delivered in one year. It must follow through to 2015, so more figures should have been altered.
As we said in Labour’s climate change debate in March, the SNP Government can take practical measures now to bring about faster changes—it can do more on low-carbon vehicles, tree planting, Government buildings and schools. We have talked about the boiler scrappage scheme today, which was another missed opportunity to be ambitious. Every time I raise energy efficiency measures with the minister, he talks down what we can do.
We all agree that we could do more together. We need practical measures to drive our economy forward. Political support across the chamber is available for the minister to take action, so it would have been better to debate the policies with the targets, even if the final papers are not in front of us.
As ever, the SNP has talked a good game, but its manifesto commitments have gone the way of all its other promises—they have been dumped. We want statutory targets to be in place and we want ambitious targets to reduce our carbon emissions, but they must be backed by ambitious plans. We are being asked to put in place the targets without the programmes that we all need to talk about. The SNP has left the step change to following Governments.
We need more of a demonstration of serious action. We are not setting out to break a consensus on climate change; the Opposition parties are doing their job and reading the small print in statutory instruments.
In 2007, John Swinney said:
“A number of issues can be taken forward, and the Government will make early progress on specific action. I emphasise that we are not just putting the issue away for a couple of years until we get the legislation sorted out—there will be early action to tackle it.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2007; c 1047.]
That sums up our problem, which is that the SNP Government talks an excellent game but has failed utterly to deliver on its ambition that not only was in its manifesto but has been in what it has said in the chamber. The detail matters and the order matters. They are not good enough.
15:05
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate today, particularly because it is probably the last time I will speak as my party’s climate change spokesman. I will be ably replaced by Jackson Carlaw in debates to come. The debate is a timely opportunity for me to summarise the process that allowed us to get to where we are today, and to express my concern about the process in which we are engaged, right here and now.
I am one of those people who believes that climate change is happening and that we need to address it. My experience as a representative of the Conservatives in Parliament is that some of my fellow Conservatives have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point at which they agreed to participate in the process of legislating to stop climate change—
Was that you, Alex?
I have often joked about that. I hope that Jeremy Purvis’s lighthearted reaction reflects that.
We should note that members reached consensus on the matter in order to pass the legislation. That consensus held together through the passage of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill—indeed, it has held together until today.
We need in Scotland to achieve consistent and long-term reductions in climate change gas emissions. The order that is before the Parliament today sets out ambitious targets to achieve that in the period leading up to 2020. The figures in the order are appropriate if we are to achieve the 42 per cent target that was put in place when the bill was passed. When the ambitious target was introduced, it gave me grave cause for concern; the change from 34 per cent to 42 per cent caused me to question my support for the bill. In the end, after the debate, I accepted the target, as did my Conservative colleagues. It is therefore essential that we now look at how the target will be achieved. The order is a route map of how to achieve that objective. We always knew that the means by which to reduce climate change gas emissions would involve setting of lower targets initially, and that subsequent targets would be higher. That is simply how to make progress. The S-shaped graph was prominent in our evidence taking at stage 1.
If we accept that the order shows the course on which we have to set out, why are we disputing the appropriateness of the figures? I worry about the attempts that are being made—for largely political reasons—at the outset of the process to destabilise the consensus, the outcome of which could be the consensus that we have achieved thus far being questioned. The order that was placed before the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee a week past Tuesday should have been passed. Having failed to get his order through the committee, the minister has brought to the chamber today an order that contains yet more ambitious targets. By doing so early in the process, the minister has taken the opportunity to show faith with those who questioned him two weeks ago.
If we fail to agree to the order at 5 o’clock this evening, the consensus that was built across party divides around the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the process that it underpins will have been shattered. I beg members not to do that. Let us approve the order at 5 o’clock.
15:09
The fact that, not a year after passing our landmark legislation, the proposed set of annual targets that we are debating today does not come up to scratch is disappointing in the extreme.
From the outset, the Liberal Democrats argued that early action is absolutely vital in the fight to limit the worst effects of anthropogenic climate change. Early action sets the trend for years to come. That is why we want ambitious targets to be set from day one. We do not know what is going to happen two or three years down the line: we cannot possibly know whether we will be in the position to make a 9 per cent reduction in carbon emissions in a single year. That is why we need to cut emissions early, and to cut them consistently.
We stand by that position. The statutory instrument that is before us today does not demand early action and we cannot support it. The minister repeats that the Government is following the UK CCC’s advice, and is bettering it, even. He believes that we can do better in 2011 and 2012 than the UK CCC suggests—not much better, but a little better. If we can do better in those two years, why are there no knock-on improvements over the trajectory that is set out for the years to follow? If the UK CCC has missed some policy measures in its advice, as the Government is suggesting, how can we know that it has not missed others?
The minister tells us that nothing more can be done, and that no extra cuts can be made, and he asks that we put into law binding annual targets solely on the basis of his word. We cannot do that. The minister should have engaged with Opposition parties on the targets long before we got to this stage. He should have consulted us on the targets and made available the figures that were produced by his Government for us to study, as well as suggesting areas for improvement. He should have realised that the best way to get the targets right—targets that will truly place Scotland as a world-leader in the fight against climate change—is through co-operation, discussion and openness.
The minister should have set up an open-book working group at an early stage, for all parties along with Government officials and experts, to examine the figures, to examine potential policy moves and initiatives and to work together to determine the best possible emissions reductions trajectory for Scotland. He should have done that months ago. The Liberal Democrats would have been delighted to play a full and active role in such an important matter. He should still do it now. The Liberal Democrats will be delighted to play a full and active role in such an important matter. Such a working group, with cross-party involvement and access to all the figures, could take the time that is needed to gather all the facts and then return to Parliament with a set of annual targets that everyone in Parliament could be confident in, and that we could all agree are the best possible targets that Scotland should be aiming for.
I strongly suggest to the minister that he seek to withdraw the order that is in front of us today, that he allow such an open-book group to be set up and that he report back to Parliament on its findings.
By not setting the annual targets today, we will miss the first deadline under the 2009 act, which is regrettable. Let me make one thing clear, however: we will have missed it not because of petty politicking, as the First Minister implied earlier today, but because the climate change minister failed to engage properly, failed to consult properly and failed to treat the task with the respect that it deserves. The minister must take responsibility for that.
The Liberal Democrats believe that it would be a disappointment for the first deadline for setting annual targets to be missed, but it would be a travesty if we were to agree to annual targets that we do not think represent the best possible targets for Scotland to aim for. We want to work in a cross-party, constructive atmosphere to get the necessary agreements. We believe that the minister should withdraw the SSI that is before us today. If he does not, we cannot support it.
15:12
The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee voted down the SSI because we were disappointed by the lack of ambition and the corners that were being cut on the road to 2020. Each step on that road brings some cause for concern. This year’s reduction target—0.05 per cent—is so low that it has been rounded down to zero. It is not like the one significant figure that is stated in the footnote to the annex; rather, it is a very insignificant figure, as it merely reiterates the projected reduction based on previous inaction.
For the next two years, we were first offered 0.5 per cent—hardly an ambitious figure. That has now been raised to 1 per cent for 2012, and I welcome the nature of the commitments involved in that, although the new figure still lacks ambition. The 2013 target looks good, but it is there only because of action at Europe level. Even that has now dropped to offset the increase of the previous year.
The reduction is shown as 3 per cent per year to 2020, but closer examination shows that that is another rounded figure. It is lower to start with—it does not actually reach 3 per cent until 2018. By the time it reaches an average of 3 per cent, in 2020, we will have allowed another million tonnes of emissions.
The commitment to address issues around peat is very welcome, and it should have been part of the proposals all along. However, it is notable that the revisions still show the same figures for 2013 and beyond. That means that anything that is offered is purely a temporary gain, with no long-term gains expected as a result of the earlier action. Surely if the peat provisions are significant and carry through, that should have been reflected in bigger CO2 reductions from 2013. It is vital for statutory agencies to be directed to deliver peatland restoration. Key agencies need to work together to help deliver restoration on both state-controlled and private land.
The Forestry Commission should review deep peat and identify areas for restoration and planning authorities should enforce restoration conditions. Also, there should be targeted promotion of Scotland’s rural development programme funds, including measures to cover 100 per cent of a site. Scottish Water should use its priority catchment management fund to deliver peatland restoration and the Scottish Government should use start-up funding to attract additional European funds.
I appreciate that the minister is concerned about missing deadlines, but it is more important to get this right and to send out the right message about our commitment and the commitment that we want others to make. Rejecting the SSI will not prevent the Government from pressing ahead with any plans it has to address climate change. Allowing it to pass will, however, make it look as if we are prepared to settle for what is in it, and that we are not stretching ourselves sufficiently.
We should reach 3 per cent long before 2018. As we have already missed opportunities to press ahead, we are not going to reach 3 per cent in the next few years, but surely if we shift up a gear now, we can do better than the order proposes.
I agree with Alison McInnes. I ask the minister to withdraw the order and to work together around the table with the other parties to achieve the consensus about which Alex Johnstone spoke.
15:16
Since we passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 almost a year ago, the First Minister and others have been very happy to strut the world’s stage, casting themselves as the world leaders on climate change and talking about the consensus that was built up on the 42 per cent target. Alex Johnstone and others have talked about the value of that consensus, but frankly it is not enough for Government or for Parliament, a year on from the passage of that act and while those long-term aspirations remain mere aspirations, to keep patting ourselves on the back for achieving that consensus, which was only ever built up on the long-term targets but never managed to cover the steps along the way or how to get there.
We should remember that there are just 10 years in which to achieve that ambitious 42 per cent cut. We need to make urgent progress, and no fair assessment of the order could call it a demonstration of urgency—quite the reverse. It proposes a flat-line target of no emissions cuts at all for this year, after three years of the Scottish National Party’s version of world leadership. It proposes barely any more cuts than that until halfway through the next parliamentary session—0 per cent, 0.5 per cent, and 1 per cent. Even the fractional addition in 2012, which was brought in after the committee’s decision last week, does not feed through to subsequent years. That represents almost zero impact on cumulative emissions during those years.
The proposed percentages are a fraction of the SNP’s manifesto commitment of 3 per cent, which it retained when it came to office, saying that it was a policy commitment. However, they are also actually lower than the cuts in emissions that we saw during the years before the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 was even written. For several years, we saw something in the ball park of 1 per cent per year cuts.
This year, progress has stalled. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 was supposed to accelerate progress but, instead, we are being asked to accept non-existent cuts and a slackening-off of progress. The principle of having annual targets in the act was supposed to hold ministers to account for their actions during their terms of office. Under the order, it seems that we are not to see serious cuts until the next Government and climate change minister, of whichever political party, is in place. Even then, it seems that the majority of deep cuts will come from changes in the European emissions trading scheme, not from changes in policy or action here in Scotland.
There is a danger of serious buck-passing, with each Government coming in and saying, “Well the last lot were a bit rubbish, weren’t they? It’s going to take us a few years to get started now, you know.” We need a trajectory that sets its ambition from the word go.
I did not want to be here opposing an order setting the first batch of annual targets. I do not think that anyone wanted to be here doing that. No doubt there will be great disappointment out there among the tens of thousands of people who lobbied us hard for a strong climate change act. They had the desire to see urgent and radical action, and for Scotland to become the first place in the world to begin to do what the developed world must do to contribute to human survival, which is to live within our means. The order does not reflect that kind of ambition. I cannot vote for it, the Scottish Green Party cannot support it, and I urge its rejection at decision time.
15:20
I will briefly address some of the points that have arisen. It was suggested that the 42 per cent target did not come from the Committee on Climate Change, but it did. The committee produced two figures, 34 per cent and 42 per cent, and we incorporated both in our proposals at an early stage of the bill. When it was clear that there was support in the Parliament as a whole for the 42 per cent target, we reversed our decision and made the target 42 per cent—a figure that came from the Committee on Climate Change and was based on European targets going up to 30 per cent. Sarah Boyack now appears to want us to break the law that we have just passed. I am not clear on this, but she appears to be suggesting that we bring forward proposals and policies in advance of our setting the targets, although the act requires us to do that afterwards.
Let me talk about some of the interventions. Peatland restoration is an excellent idea, which is why we brought it in. We expect that it will be included in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change inventory in Cancún, in December. However, we must be aware that, like many interventions, it makes things worse for two years, not better, because as peatlands that have dried out are rehydrogenated, the CO2 is released from the peat before we get the long-term benefit. It is for such reasons that many interventions will not necessarily deliver over the short term.
Cathy Peattie properly said that, whatever happens today, the Government can continue to bring forward its policy initiatives on the subject. Of course, we will bring forward a wide range of initiatives. However, if Parliament rejects the order today, there is a real danger not that the Government will stop bringing forward initiatives, but that wider society and businesses will take that as a signal that the issue no longer matters to Parliament. Tens of thousands of people lobbied Parliament on the subject—that is absolutely clear—and the advice that the committee received was that, yes, Parliament should set the minimum standards and challenge the Government to meet them. We have made offers to various parties that would help us to do that. Curiously enough, in the immediate aftermath of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s rejection of the order in its original form, we tested the new order with the Labour Party and said that we would lay it only if Labour members would support it. We twice asked them and they twice said that they would support it. They have resiled from that position and have placed—
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am in my last 20 seconds—I cannot do that.
That is not true.
Presiding Officer, am I being accused of something?
Certainly, the time is coming to an end, Mr Stevenson, one way or another.
I commend the order to Parliament and I absolutely refute what is being suggested from the Labour benches.
Presiding Officer, can I move that we suspend the standing orders?
I do not know whether that is meant to be a point of order. I do not know whether we can suspend the standing orders, but I am certainly not going to.