Chamber and committees

Will the member reflect for a moment on the appallingly damaging signals that were sent to those who want to invest in the skills, supply chain and capacity for our heat in buildings programme when they saw the UK Government backtracking on, downgrading and diluting climate action, including action on heat in buildings? If we want the investment that is necessary to make these changes possible, at the scale and the pace that we want, we need to give the industry crystal clarity in order to make it worth its while to invest. Rishi Sunak blew a hole in that agenda.

—and that Parliament expects it to support the delivery of that package.

In closing, let us recognise that even that level of investment is at the bottom end of the 1 to 2 per cent figure that the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change has recommended and that it would not bring us up to the level of investment in the economy overall that we have seen in countries such as the US and across the EU—

Yes, indeed. A strong case for Grangemouth has been made by a number of members. The workforce there needs investment in its future. Information on that has come into the public domain and has appeared on Scottish Government social media during the course of the debate. I do not have that information right in front of me at the moment, but during the day more will have come into the public domain about the work that is taking place there.

What do we have as part of the UK, instead of having the ability to make macroeconomic choices about the scale of investment for ourselves? We have a Prime Minister who sees climate change as the latest front in a culture war that he wants to provoke. His notorious speech in September signalled to householders and businesses alike that climate change is basically dispensable and that the economic opportunity of net zero is to be ignored.

The former chairman of the UK Government’s own net zero review, Chris Skidmore, who is departing Parliament in dismay at the Government’s climate reversals, said that diluting green policies would

“cost the UK jobs, inward investment, and future economic growth that could have been ours by committing to the industries of the future”.

He also said:

“Rishi Sunak still has time to think again and not make the greatest mistake of his premiership, condemning the UK to missing out on what can be the opportunity of the decade”.

I think that he was right. His position contrasts with the arguments of the Conservative Party’s net zero scrutiny group and Mr Sunak’s policy reversals. Indeed, this week it has been reported that the UK Government’s net zero secretary has taken cash from a funder of climate denial lobbyists. The UK Government’s position is a mess.

Therefore, attention must turn to a change in Government and the opportunity that that might offer to develop an approach that stands comparison with what we see in the USA and the European Union.

Back in 2021, the UK Labour Party seemed up for that, proposing a £28 billion annual green prosperity plan, which would have been additional investment from the outset. That would have been extremely welcome. I hope that Labour MSPs will put pressure on the UK Government to stick with that original plan of £28 billion additional investment from the outset.

The First Minister has engaged with that. In his letter to Keir Starmer, he argued that

“Scotland’s transition to Net Zero represents a huge ... opportunity for the country, but one which ... requires action by both governments”—

so that, for example,

“other parts of the UK can benefit from Scotland’s huge renewable energy resources”.

However, hardly a week now goes by without more chipping away at the £28 billion commitment. A funding commitment that was additional is now the total commitment. First, it was a pressing priority, then Labour said that it might be achieved by halfway through the parliamentary session and then it was to be the second half of the parliamentary session—it could be as late as 2029.

We will support Labour’s amendment, but we do so on the basis that Labour must expect that its support for our motion signals its support for that full £28 billion of additional investment that is outlined in our motion—

Yes.

We are already seeing people transition across—there are many examples of that—and we should support them to do so. When it comes to the heat in buildings agenda, the gap in skills between people who install fossil fuel systems and those who will install, or are already installing, heat pumps is relatively small and that can be met easily, quickly and cheaply.

The opportunities across our economy are huge, and we have a great deal to build on, whether that is in decarbonising our homes, which I mentioned, in onshore and offshore wind or in green hydrogen. Several members have mentioned some of the issues around planning and consenting. A great deal of work is already being done on that, some of it under the auspices of the onshore wind sector deal, and there is a great deal more besides. I am sure that the minister with the relevant portfolio responsibilities will want to update colleagues on that as it continues to progress.

We need the UK Government to share that ambition as well. We have seen other Governments seek to rise to the challenges that exist in this area. I have mentioned the Inflation Reduction Act, as a result of which $369 billion is being provided in tax credits, subsidies and loans. Through its green deal industrial plan, the EU has pledged to mobilise at least €1 trillion of investment to build industrial capacity in green technologies and accelerate the transition to net zero. Scotland could and should be among the countries that are responding at that scale.

Citizens Advice Scotland and Pauline McNeill are right to draw attention to that. We are concerned about the risks that people could encounter and the kind of installers that the member is drawing attention to. We have to be clear about the things that the Scottish Government can do and the things that it cannot do, and we must put pressure on the UK Government to act.

On what we can do, we published “The Heat in Buildings Supply Chains Delivery Plan: Towards an Industry for Green Heat” more than a year ago. Since then, we have been working actively under that plan to ensure that we have the high-quality skilled capacity across Scotland that we will need if we are going to see the acceleration of energy efficiency and zero-emission heating systems that the country needs. As I said, we make the MCS and the TrustMark requirements part of the Scottish Government funding package.

However, Pauline McNeill has colleagues who might come into ministerial office down south at some point later in the year, and the burden might fall on them to do some of the work that the current UK Government has failed to do.

Rather like Pauline McNeill’s initial question, some of that relates to the consumer protection responsibilities. Brian Whittle is asking about the regulation of businesses, which falls under consumer protection and is the responsibility of the UK Government. Brian Whittle might like this Parliament and this Government to take responsibility for more of the powers that are currently reserved, and we would do a better job than the current UK Government, which is ripping up climate commitments left, right and centre.

The regulation of consumer protection is reserved to the United Kingdom Government, but the Scottish Government recognises the importance of consumers being assured that any work carried out is done to a high standard. Using microgeneration certification scheme installers and TrustMark registered businesses is a requirement of accessing Scottish Government funding. I encourage anyone who is considering energy efficiency upgrades to seek expert advice from trusted sources, such as the Scottish Government’s Home Energy Scotland service.

That is an extremely important aspect in relation to not only Shetland but other rural and island communities around Scotland, where the kind of experience that Beatrice Wishart described has taken place.

There has been a recent consultation on the microgeneration certification scheme and a relaunched version of that is due to be in place later this year—I think by summer. That scheme is not under the control of the Scottish Government, but we are pleased to see progress there. One thing that it intends to do is remove and reduce some of the barriers to certification that currently exist. I hope that we will be able to update Beatrice Wishart and other interested members on that activity, although, as I said, it is not within the direct control of the Scottish Government.

Of course the Scottish ministers meet regularly to discuss matters of mutual portfolio interest. There is a long-standing policy to introduce energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, recognising that tenants have limited powers to make changes themselves. Previous legislation was delayed due to Covid impacts. We now propose to introduce standards as part of a heat in buildings bill, with a target date five years from now and almost a decade since we first consulted on standards. We have commissioned further research on potential impacts on the housing market to ensure that future regulations work for all sectors.