Parliamentary Bureau Motions
The next item of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion S3M-6417, on the approval of the Climate Change (International Aviation and Shipping) (Scotland) Order 2010.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Climate Change (International Aviation and Shipping) (Scotland) Order 2010 be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]
Patrick Harvie has asked to speak against the motion. [Interruption.] The console is not recognising his card, so he should perhaps move to another one.
I call on Patrick Harvie to speak against the motion. He has up to three minutes.
16:54
I apologise for that short delay. Members will be relieved to know that I will vote for at least two of the motions on Scottish statutory instruments on climate change that the Government will move tonight. There is no disagreement with the provisions on carbon accounting and on the use of international carbon units.
I do not expect my objection to the Climate Change (International Aviation and Shipping) (Scotland) Order 2010 to gain the kind of support that my objection to the Climate Change (Annual Targets) (Scotland) Order 2010 has received. However, I want to go over a little of the background. When we passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, we recognised that international aviation and shipping must be included in our targets for Scotland and that, in the case of aviation emissions, a multiplier needs to be applied—[Interruption.]
Order, order. There is far too much noise in the chamber.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The reality is that emissions from the aviation sector in Scotland have grown over the years since 1990, which is the baseline for all our targets. By 2007, emissions had grown by some 146 per cent, to 3.5 million tonnes. In 1990, emissions from the sector made up 2.6 per cent of all Scottish emissions but, by 2007, aviation accounted for 7.5 per cent of our emissions. The sector is growing and we need to take account of it.
Moreover, the international science is clear: emissions at altitude have a greater impact on the climate than do emissions on the ground from electricity generation, transport and other sources. That is why a multiplier is applied. The United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change takes that approach, up to a point, and includes illustrative scenarios that apply a multiplier of 2—doubling the calculation of aviation emissions—in its target comparisons. The committee is not alone. The Department for Transport in the UK Government uses a multiplier of 1.9 and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Energy and Climate Change recommend the same multiplier—[Interruption.]
Order. There is still far too much talking going on.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
However, instead of acknowledging the consensus that is growing in the UK Government and other agencies, the Scottish Government is asking us to approve a multiplier of 1. Anyone who has as basic a grasp of arithmetic as I have knows that a multiplier of one is not a multiplier. A multiplier of 1 leaves the figure as it is in the initial target.
David Kennedy, the chief executive of the UK Committee on Climate Change, told the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee that, although there is some uncertainty,
“We are confident that the effects that we are concerned about exist and that they are warming effects on top of the CO2 effects.”—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 27 April 2010; c 2851.]
The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change agreed with me when I put it to him that
“the figure is not 1”.—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 18 May 2010; c 3060.]
I am therefore not able to support a multiplier of 1 and the order that contains it.
Stewart Stevenson said in today’s debate that he is concerned that aviation emissions are not expected to fall. If that is the case, perhaps instead of supporting the order he should ask his colleague Mr Mather to stop using taxpayers’ money to advertise short-haul aviation.
16:58
I start on a consensual note. I agree that there is an effect associated with aviation that is greater than the effect of emissions at the surface. I think that the whole Parliament is of that view, which is why in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 we made provision for the Government to set a figure. The question is whether we are in a position to do so. The UK Committee on Climate Change has provided us with advice on the subject, which is that it is not yet able to identify the science that shows what the figure should be.
I want to talk about the need for multiple figures for different kinds of aviation. In setting a target, we should seek to incentivise aviation to move from more contaminating to less contaminating modes of flying. It is clear that a pure jet engine that flies at around 39,000ft to 41,000ft has much higher contamination than does a turboprop engine that flies at 20,000ft to 25,000ft. For the small planes that operate public services in the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland, the effect is likely to be similar to the effect at the surface, given that they fly at between 500ft and 2,000ft. Therefore, we should properly have different figures for different classes of aviation. We have asked the Committee on Climate Change to provide those.
An important issue of which members should be aware is that there is no difficulty in waiting to set the figure. When the factor is set at a figure other than 1, it is backdated. Therefore, there is no cost in terms of accounting to waiting for a scientifically based figure that provides the opportunity to restructure the way in which flying operates. Many short-haul flights that currently operate within the UK—and, more fundamentally, to the Republic of Ireland and other parts of Europe—can increasingly be conducted using turboprops, which result in lower contamination. Setting a different figure for that category of aircraft would be more appropriate.
I seek members’ support for the motion.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of a further four Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Bruce Crawford to move motions S3M-6418, S3M-6419, S3M-6420 and S3M-6421, which are on the approval of SSIs on climate change, on the carbon accounting scheme, on the rehabilitation of offenders and on the protection of vulnerable groups.
Motions moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Climate Change (Limit on Carbon Units) (Scotland) Order 2010 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Carbon Accounting Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2010 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2010 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Removal of Barred Individuals from Regulated Work) Regulations 2010 be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]
The questions on the motions will be put at decision time, to which we now come.