Draft Second Report on Proposals and Policies
The next item of business is a statement by Paul Wheelhouse on RPP2—the draft second report on proposals and policies. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:15
Today, I lay before Parliament the Scottish Government’s draft second report on proposals and policies for meeting Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The report, “Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting our Emissions Reduction Targets 2013-2027—The Draft Second Report on Proposals and Policies”, is in accordance with sections 35 and 36 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, and builds on the package of measures set out in RPP1, the first report on proposals and policies.
The report updates the analysis, while extending the timeframe to cover targets for 2023 to 2027. The draft is available for consideration by the Scottish Parliament for 60 days, after which we will publish a final version. An online consultation facility is available on the Scottish Government’s website.
There is no doubt in my mind that climate change poses one of the greatest threats to the world as we know it. Global mean temperatures continue to rise and we know that global pledges for emissions cuts will be insufficient to limit global warming to 2°C. Left unchecked, global emissions trends put the world on a path towards 4°C, or possibly more, of warming within a century. Let us be clear that such a change will deliver damaging impacts on populations across the globe and introduce new security risks associated with international resource conflicts. Colleagues, we have a moral responsibility to act.
We think of climate change as a problem that is far off in time, and only in far-off places, but we are already seeing evidence of Scotland’s climate changing. In 2011, rainfall in Scotland was some 36 per cent more than the average for the period between 1961 and 1990.
The experience of recent years has shown that climate change and severe weather events are impacting negatively on many aspects of our society, including increased frequency of flooding with impacts on residential areas and business premises; disruption to travel; increased health risks; lower agricultural productivity; and threats to biodiversity, including new plant and tree pests and rising river temperatures affecting spawning salmon.
Acting both locally and globally to reduce emissions by moving to a low-carbon economy is self-evidently crucial to reduce the potentially severe economic and social impacts of climate change on present and future generations. We can be justifiably proud of our overall progress to date, which has been achieved despite the obvious constraints on policy in this place arising from key powers being reserved to the Westminster Parliament. Our climate change act is the most ambitious piece of climate change legislation anywhere in the world and, unlike the United Kingdom, we have set statutory annual targets that include emissions from international aviation and shipping.
Let me repeat that the Scottish Government is fully committed to the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that the 2009 act sets. We have set challenging targets, and it is to the great credit of the Parliament that we remain committed to achieving them. We accept that human interventions have created and worsened climate change. Our responsibility to future generations is to take action in response. The challenge is by no means easy. It would have been far easier to set targets that ignored climate science or which showed a lower level of ambition that would be straightforward for ministers to meet, but that is not our chosen path.
Last October, I reported to Parliament that our first climate change target for 2010 had been missed, largely as a result of increased energy demand for heating, due to the exceptionally bad weather that Scotland experienced in quarter 1 and quarter 4 of that year. That was replicated in England and Wales. The package of measures that is set out in the draft report shows that it is possible to compensate for that shortfall as we move towards becoming a truly low-carbon economy. While we set out to meet annual targets, we are charting a course to meet our obligations on cumulative emissions, too.
On where we see our role in addressing climate change, Scotland does not lack ambition. As a nation, we can all take pride in that. We sit at the top of the emissions reduction table for the European Union 15, all of which are Kyoto protocol signatories. In 2010, Scotland’s unadjusted greenhouse gas emissions had fallen by 22.8 per cent compared with 20.8 per cent for the UK, 8.5 per cent for the EU 15 and 14.3 per cent across the EU 27. Scotland’s progress shows what can be achieved with a strong political commitment, ground-breaking legislation and a comprehensive framework for action. After adjustment for the EU emissions trading system, Scotland’s emissions fell by 24.3 per cent by 2010—more than halfway towards meeting the 42 per cent reduction target set for 2020 in the climate change act.
Indeed, the draft RPP2 identifies ways in which Scotland could deliver significantly more emissions abatement than our independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, suggested was achievable and an appropriate Scottish contribution to global action. Of course, the Committee on Climate Change’s figures also assumed an EU-wide emissions reduction target of 30 per cent for 2020, which has yet to be realised.
My ministerial colleagues and I have a collective responsibility to take action across all areas of Government. As we move through the next decade and beyond we need to intensify our efforts to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, support the uptake of low-carbon vehicles, invest in improving public transport and in sustainable and active travel, and reduce the waste that we produce and be smarter about what we do with it. We also need to make the most of opportunities that are afforded for good stewardship of Scotland’s ecosystems. That will involve deploying best practice in agriculture while improving the ability of our peatlands and woodlands to lock in carbon.
We are making significant progress on many fronts. In transport, we are following through on our manifesto, developing the infrastructure to support electric cars and increasing the proportion of transport spend that goes on low-carbon, active and sustainable travel. In our homes and communities, our national retrofit programme builds on a highly successful area-based programme, which has already seen more than 700,000 households across Scotland being offered assistance through the universal home insulation scheme.
We are on track to achieve 10,000 hectares per annum of new woodland planting, which will quadruple Scotland’s woodland planting rate from a low point following transition to the current Scotland rural development programme. As part of that approach, more than 9,000 hectares were planted in 2011-12—almost three times the total planting that was achieved across the rest of the UK.
We are laying firm foundations for much greater, long-term, transformational change in how we generate and use energy. Decarbonisation of electricity generation will be a key driver of our progress towards a low-carbon economy. By 2011, renewables generated 36.3 per cent of Scotland’s electricity needs, smashing our 31 per cent interim target years ahead of schedule and putting renewables on track to produce equivalent to 100 per cent of Scotland’s electricity demand by 2020.
We can go further. Earlier today, in Aberdeen, the First Minister announced an ambitious new decarbonisation target for Scotland for 2030, of 50g of CO2 per kWh. The target is in line with the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change and Westminster’s Energy and Climate Change Committee, which said:
“It is right to prioritise the decarbonisation of the electricity system because this is likely to deliver the most cost effective route to meeting our 2050 climate change targets.”
Today we also publish our draft outline heat vision, which describes our ambition for a largely decarbonised heat sector by 2030 and sets out how, by using low-carbon and renewable heat sources, we can supply heat to consumers efficiently and cost effectively, reducing emissions and addressing fuel poverty. We also need to reduce demand for heat by better insulating our buildings and changing our behaviour so that we use less energy for heating.
The draft RPP2 contains a comprehensive package of proposals and policies that can deliver the required emissions reductions to meet our climate change targets. However, our society’s transition to a low-carbon economy does not require action just by Government. Scotland needs partnerships between the public sector and private and social enterprises. We need communities to engage and take action together. Most important, we need the participation of individuals and families across Scotland.
The Scottish Government fully recognises its role in leading the transition, helping the people of Scotland to make informed choices about how we live and work and ensuring that we seize all opportunities that a low-carbon future offers to Scotland’s economy and society. I am confident that a low-carbon economy will bring significant economic benefits and opportunities for our communities, businesses and industry, while helping to protect our environment and wildlife.
The draft report that I present today sets a pathway to realising those benefits. Parliament now has the opportunity to help to build that pathway. I welcome the opportunity to engage with members today and at the committees that will consider the draft RPP2.
The Scottish Government’s commitment to a low-carbon future has provided certainty and is delivering jobs and investment across Scotland. However, we cannot be complacent in our approach. The report demonstrates that we are setting stretching targets for ourselves and are committed to doing all that we can do to deliver action to ensure that those targets are met. We are very clear about the scale of the challenge. I commend to members our draft report and its updated strategy for action to deliver on Scotland’s ambition for emissions reductions.
The minister will take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business.
There are quite a few requests to ask questions already, so I would be most grateful if questions could be kept as succinct as possible.
First, I apologise for being late. It is a large document, but I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement and the document.
This is the beginning of the parliamentary scrutiny of the document. There is a serious responsibility on parliamentarians to ensure that the new plan is credible and robust and will enable Scotland to deliver on its climate change targets. We know that that is challenging. Scotland failed to meet its first emissions reduction target and the Scottish Government’s director of energy and climate change admitted that, at the current rate of progress, Scotland would miss all its legally binding emissions reduction targets. Does the director of energy and climate change now believe that we are on course?
We need a step change and a move away from proposals to deliverable policies. The statement highlighted where progress is being made, and we can support that, but the minister did not say enough about what additional substantial measures will be taken to meet our ambitious climate change targets. Disappointingly, his statement today has given the Parliament little assurance that the shortcomings of RPP1 will be addressed and it lacked sufficient new and additional policies to really make the difference, particularly in housing and transport. The minister cannot address those issues alone. What commitments has he gained from Cabinet members that will compensate for our lack of progress, both in this year’s budget and in future years?
Against the backdrop of rolling back on the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme, watering down new building standards and planning to use public subsidy to support inefficient large biomass, is there enough evidence in the document of policies that will make the difference that is required?
I am grateful to the member for her comments. However, I point out that I made a specific reference—perhaps it was in the part of the statement that she missed—to the fact that I am comfortable that the document addresses the shortcomings of RPP1 in relation to our having missed the target in 2010, which she mentioned.
The member mentioned the director of energy and climate change. David Wilson has been closely involved in the preparation of the document. As the member will see from the detailed information at the back of the new RPP, we are on track to meet our targets. The comments that were referred to as being current were made last autumn or last summer, when we were consulting stakeholders. It is a testament to the fact that work has been done between then and now that we have taken on board many points that were raised by stakeholders and we have done considerable work to deliver a report that shows us being on track to meet our targets.
On the specifics, the tables at the back of the document clearly show that, together, all the policies and proposals that are described will allow us to meet each annual target from 2013 to 2027. There is some flexibility to decide which proposals should be adopted and which options can be held in reserve in case any actions prove to be less effective than expected at present. Equally, if progress exceeds expectations, some proposals may not be necessary. The Parliament now has the opportunity to offer its views, and I would welcome the member’s views, on the proposals, policies and funding options. I look forward to a constructive dialogue with her.
What action are ministers taking to promote the green council tax discount that was suggested by the Scottish Conservatives, whereby people who can demonstrate that their homes are insulated to a high standard will get a discount on their council tax? What is the minister doing to increase take-up of the Scottish Government’s universal home insulation scheme? More widely, what action will the Government take to act on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s recommendation that there should be a one-stop shop approach and a hotline for all the energy efficiency schemes that are available?
The minister mentioned supporting the uptake of low-carbon vehicles and electric cars. In addition to that, what support is the Scottish Government giving to hydrogen fuel technology?
Lastly, can the minister assure the Parliament that none of his suggested measures will have an adverse effect on Scottish business?
That was quite a long list of questions; obviously, time constrains me in answering them.
As I said in my statement, 700,000 households have to date been offered assistance under the universal home insulation scheme, so it is clearly having substantial benefit. More than 100,000 households have been assisted with implementation of energy efficiency measures such as boiler replacement. We are making considerable progress, but that is not to say that we are complacent. We realise that energy efficiency and the supply of domestic heat are key issues. I appreciate that the member has not had time to look at the detail of the report, but I hope that he will find some comfort in the detail of the policies that we provide in the report.
I am happy to come back to the member on his point about the green council tax discount with regard to actual performance and what we might recommend to improve take-up. The scheme is administered by local authorities and not by the Government directly, but I will look into the matter. I am also happy to discuss with the member hydrogen fuel technology issues, which are clearly of importance to him.
Will RPP2 help the Government to reach early conclusions about the measured rate of greenhouse gas emissions from deep peat? When will that research lead to physical peat bog restoration across Scotland, which can be funded not only by the public purse but by private land managers and wind farm developers to achieve a major addition to our policy approach?
I know that Rob Gibson has a long-standing and considerable interest in peatlands. I hope that he will be pleased with the commitment in our report to extend proposals for restoring up to 20,000 hectares of peatland per annum. Indeed, we will keep a watching brief on the science to understand whether we have the scope to increase that.
We have allocated £1.7 million to Scottish Natural Heritage and we are working with it to develop a peatland plan for Scotland that will look at many of the practical issues for implementing our proposals, which will include encouraging land managers to make proposals for peatland restoration. Funding is available in the Scotland rural development programme, but we recognise that more needs to be done to secure much greater investment in peatlands. I am happy to take forward any ideas that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee and the member have for engagement with business and other partners to encourage a stronger stream of income into restoring our peatlands.
I thank the minister for early sight of his statement. Can he reassure members about what research funding provision there is for us to move faster towards the low-carbon economy that we are determined to get? Specifically, is the assessment of downstream projects, as discussed in the committee previously, now included in RPP2?
I know from discussions that we have had in the committee that Claudia Beamish has considerable interest in that area. On research funding, clearly we have opportunities to try to influence researchers, but much research funding in Scotland is obtained through competitive funding rounds. In various strands or sectors, such as aquaculture, we are trying to take a more concerted view, which might include looking at the impact of climate change on our aquaculture and wild fisheries sectors, as we have discussed at committee.
I am happy to meet the member to discuss any specific proposals that she may have for looking at our wider research requirements to understand what is happening in terms of climate change in Scotland and, indeed, to investigate what measures might be appropriate to deal with mitigation.
I note that the Scottish Government proposals go further than those that were called for by the UK Committee on Climate Change. Can the minister outline why the Scottish Government is taking that additional action?
The member raises an important point. Since the independent Committee on Climate Change gave us its advice in July 2011 on the 2023 to 2027 annual targets, the historical data on greenhouse gases has been revised upwards with regard to Scotland’s emissions. In addition, our understanding of the science of carbon emissions has very much improved and it is now clear that if we did not act, our non-traded emissions would be approximately 4 megatonnes a year greater by 2027 than the Committee on Climate Change had suggested. That has increased the challenge that we face in meeting our climate change targets, but I am determined that we will rise to that. As a Government, we are trying to adopt best practice in the measurement of our emissions, and we look forward to the annual reports being judged on the more up-to-date picture of the emissions baseline. We will ensure that we have an accurate forecast for those.
Under the legislative consent motion on the Energy Bill, the Scottish Government is ceding emissions performance standards for fossil fuel plants to the UK Government. How will that impact on the Scottish Government’s ability to cut carbon emissions from such generation?
The member will have noted from my statement the important news that Scotland has set the first decarbonisation target for electricity generation. The Scottish Government has the aspiration of having full control of energy policy in Scotland. Putting in place a decarbonisation target is an important step in providing a sense of direction. I am aware from discussions that I have had with energy interests in the context of the climate change portfolio that clarity and certainty on our policy are key. The strong commitment that the Government has made to renewables has been a key plank in attracting inward investment in the sector to Scotland. Today’s announcement of a decarbonisation target adds weight to that.
If the member has specific points that she wants to raise with me, I would be happy to discuss them with her.
It is accepted that if we are to hit our climate change targets, everyone—Government, business and individuals—will have to play a part. How, in practice, will the Government seek to encourage and, ultimately, bring about behavioural change among individuals at home, at work and in their travel choices?
The Scottish Government acknowledges that behaviour change is crucial to meeting our targets. Some of the comments that have been received from Stop Climate Chaos and G6 environmental stakeholders have been about ensuring that our strategy takes account of the percentage of our targets that will be delivered by individuals and communities.
We are supporting a number of initiatives that help to influence low-carbon behaviours, such as the national greener Scotland campaign, which the member may have seen, the climate challenge fund for community projects to reduce carbon emissions, and the better business guidance for businesses on engaging staff and reducing emissions. Shortly, we will publish the low-carbon Scotland behaviours framework, which will outline the strategic approach that the Scottish Government and its key partners will take over coming years in a bid to successfully influence low-carbon behaviour.
There is lost ground to make up, as the minister acknowledges—after the failure to meet the first target, we have just over 1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent to catch up on.
Am I reading the Government’s document right—is it the case that those excess emissions are to be compensated for by some unspecified policies at some unspecified time between now and 2027? Should not last year’s failing result in action this year and next?
The member is right to say that we missed our 2010 target by about a megatonne, but when he has the chance to look at the detail of the report, I hope that he will see that, over the period up to 2027, we will more than compensate for those emissions. The Government has a policy of pushing Europe to a carbon emissions reduction target of 30 per cent. If we are successful, we will break our targets in every year, so we will be in a very strong position.
It is important that we take account of cumulative emissions, which the member has raised with me in private discussions. I assure him that I am acutely conscious of our responsibility not only to meet our annual targets, but to deliver a report that shows us meeting our cumulative emissions targets over the period in question.
I am sure that the minister will want to join me in congratulating the people of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire on being among the most energy conscious in Scotland. Almost a third of adults there have installed or are thinking of installing renewable energy systems.
Does the minister believe that a huge reduction in carbon emissions can be achieved through a modal shift from air to rail travel? Does he believe that the Westminster Government’s HS2 proposals lack ambition and urgency?
The member raises an important point. I am happy to praise Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeen City Council for their action. I am aware that Aberdeenshire Council has done a lot of work to encourage modal shift among its employees and that it is looking at options to help them to work locally instead of having to travel to a central location.
There is no doubt that HS2 has the potential to offer substantial carbon savings, but only if the high-speed line is extended all the way to Scotland. Journey times by rail would be dramatically reduced, such that we would expect it to have a substantial share, if not the majority share, of the rail/air market between Scotland and London. That is why, as Keith Brown outlined during topical question time, we are pressing the UK Government for joint work towards Scotland’s inclusion in a full UK high-speed rail network. We will work with the UK Government to achieve that.
Does the minister accept that the previous RPP placed too great an emphasis on proposals, especially in the transport sector? What proportion of the total transport effort in the second RPP is focused on policies? Given that transport emissions are now greater than those in the baseline year of 1990, does he accept that those policies require to be radical demand-side policies to halt the inexorable rise in vehicle kilometres and vehicle emissions?
Malcolm Chisholm raises an important point. I recognise that many stakeholders have called for demand-management proposals to be included and to be converted into policies but, this far out from achieving our targets for 2023 to 2027, we have considerable scope to look at technological advances and other measures. If we succeed in delivering emissions reductions through other sources, that will take the pressure off us to introduce policies that might be more difficult for the public to buy into or more difficult to implement locally.
As for the point about RPP1, the report that I have published today shows that all proposals need to be converted into policies to meet targets. For 2013, a number of proposals have still to be converted and have not been mentioned at this stage.
It is true to say that the Government will work across portfolios. I have had bilaterals with ministers who have relevant portfolios to discuss what we can do to speed up the achievement of our targets and to look at implementing our proposals.
The minister was right to highlight the importance of the whole Parliament remaining committed to achieving the challenging targets. I agree with that entirely. However, he suggested that progress would have been much better if it had not been for
“key powers being reserved to the Westminster Parliament.”
That was odd, because he then rightly blamed the adverse weather for the failure to reach the targets. Does he agree that, on this subject of all subjects, such mischief-making statements do little to encourage the cross-party consensus that I think we all agree is important to achieve the targets?
I simply disagree with Mr Fergusson. I have enormous respect for him, but he let himself down with his question.
It is true to say that, in important areas of the economy—such as energy and road transport—important powers are reserved to Westminster, such as those on vehicle excise duty, taxation policy and the regulatory framework and charging structure for energy transmission across the UK. In those areas, the UK influences the success of policy in Scotland enormously. It is not true to say that Westminster does not influence the achievement of our targets.
Mr Fergusson made a point about the bad weather. In Scotland—as in Wales and England—there is no King Canute who can hold back the weather. All three countries suffered similarly in the winter of 2010 and all three suffered in relation to their emissions targets.
The report sets out a number of energy efficiency measures in the home that help to reduce not just carbon emissions but fuel bills. What importance does the minister attach to such win-win measures in the coming years, so that we can achieve our targets and help to alleviate fuel poverty in Scotland?
Marco Biagi makes an extremely important point. The Government has two sets of binding statutory targets—on fuel poverty and climate change. Investment that is made in energy efficiency and in providing important sources of heat for domestic properties allows us not only to achieve our carbon emissions targets but to deliver on our fuel poverty strategy.
That is just one example, but there are many others. For instance, investment in woodlands can help with biodiversity and with public health and wellbeing issues. There are many policy synergies, and achievement of our carbon emissions targets should not be seen in isolation.
I am afraid that I need quicker questions and answers, or I will be unable to fit in everyone.
What analysis has been carried out of the impact of the public bodies duty on reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Will the sustainable procurement bill provide for the public sector to set carbon targets in the contracts that it issues?
I am happy to come back to Sarah Boyack about that. The Scottish biodiversity committee is talking about a similar approach to biodiversity. In that context, I would want to see examples of organisations that are reporting on their biodiversity strategies. In relation to the public bodies duty on carbon emissions, I would perhaps want good practice to be developed on how companies and other organisations report on their performance.
Organisations such as Scottish Natural Heritage, which is clearly an agency of Government, are doing great things in reporting their annual performance in relation to targets, and I will consider whether we can roll out that good practice to other organisations. I am happy to meet the member to see whether she has any ideas on how we can take that forward.
With a 3 per cent rise in emissions from homes since 1990, does the minister accept that we need commitments, not assumptions? Will he assure the Parliament that private landlords will have to improve the energy efficiency of their homes by 2018?
The Government has already taken action in that area by extending the availability of funding to private sector tenants to enable them to access improved energy efficiency and domestic heating systems.
I recognise that the residential sector is an area in which we have struggled to reduce emissions, and that is a high priority for the Government. When the member has a chance to read the detail of RPP2, I hope that he will see that we are making some ambitious moves on both heat and energy efficiency. That is tied in with trying to ensure that we have a sustainable source of electricity and energy for the people of Scotland.
The table on page 102 of the RPP states that the regulation of private and social housing should start to contribute in 2014, and that it should contribute 152 kilotonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2027. Will the minister confirm that he intends to set minimum energy performance standards for all houses in all sectors? How could that be supported financially?
I confirm that discussions are continuing regarding how we can deliver improved efficiency standards across all forms of housing. I am happy to update the member in due course on the outcome of those discussions.
I welcome the emphasis in the statement on active travel. Does the minister agree that we need sustained investment in cycling infrastructure to deliver segregated routes like those on the continent, so that we can meet our climate change obligations at the same time as meeting our ambitious cycling target of 10 per cent of all journeys being made by bicycle by 2020?
I agree: we must recognise that there are some disincentives to individuals taking up cycling and active travel. I would feel slightly intimidated cycling through the centre of Edinburgh or Glasgow on a daily commute. However, we are considering means of making it easier for individuals to adopt cycling. Some projects are being funded through the climate challenge fund at a local level, such as those in Creetown in Dumfries and Galloway, where individuals are being given advice on how to use cycling as a means of travel. They are being given support, initially by being lent bikes so that they can adopt that lifestyle choice. They are then helped to move on and to take on that modal shift permanently. I accept, however, that there is a need to consider safety issues in encouraging more people to take up active travel as cyclists.