Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022

Official Report 981KB pdf

---

Scotland’s Climate Assembly

The next item of business is a statement on an update on Scotland’s Climate Assembly by the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, Michael Matheson. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

14:27  

I am pleased to provide an update on Scotland’s Climate Assembly, which held its eighth and final weekend session in February.

The assembly has been a truly historic process that has brought together people from across Scotland. More than 100 people gave their time and commitment over a 16-month period to consider the question of how Scotland should change in order to tackle the climate emergency in an effective and fair way.

The process resulted in 81 recommendations, which have already played a pivotal role in shaping Scotland’s journey to becoming a net zero nation. It was particularly encouraging to see so many areas in which the Scottish Government and assembly members were in absolute agreement, which reflects our shared ambitions.

It is clear that the assembly’s members have considered a broad evidence base to inform their recommendations. In December 2021, the Scottish Government published a detailed response to all the recommendations, drawing from a wide range of portfolios and ensuring that we have a whole-Government response in order to support the scale and nature of the change that is required.

The process of the assembly itself has been highly innovative—not least in that it is the first national citizens assembly to have taken place entirely online. It is also the first to have fully integrated the voices of children, thereby providing a clear platform for them to share ideas and priorities for tackling the climate emergency.

We are clear on the urgency of the climate emergency and the need to act decisively while ensuring that we focus on the areas that will have the most impact. We were pleased to be able to support the vast majority of the assembly’s recommendations. As I mentioned, some of those have already helped to shape work that was under way or in development. However, we must do more, and the assembly has rightly led us to go further and to increase our ambition in a number of areas.

We are working to ensure that we translate the recommendations into rapid action. For example, we are rolling out support for a new network of sharing libraries across Scotland, which will enable people to borrow, rather than buy, certain items, and we will ensure that those services are accessible for communities.

We are working to update and strengthen our “Learning for sustainability: action plan” to take full account of the recommendations from the assembly and of the calls to action from the children. We have committed to a feasibility study to investigate the assembly’s recommendation on food carbon labelling and to explore the potential impact of such a scheme.

We have increased our target for annual native woodland creation from 3,000 hectares to 4,000 hectares for the next two years, and we will explore opportunities to go further.

We have committed to developing a career pathway and volunteering opportunities for people who are economically inactive to develop green nature-based skills. We are considering the assembly’s recommendations as we develop our volunteering action plan with stakeholders.

We are supporting the creation of new and existing local work hubs across Scotland to support local living. That has already begun for Scottish Government staff. We have commissioned an additional piece of work with the Scottish Futures Trust to scope existing and planned local work hubs and to understand how they support better local outcomes.

More broadly, the work of the assembly has influenced the evolution of Scottish Government policy. Not only did it help us to refine our policy positions ahead of the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—but it influenced the Bute house agreement between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party parliamentary group, as well as the new “Heat in Buildings Strategy—Achieving Net Zero Emissions in Scotland’s Buildings” and the development of the new economic strategy.

Members will have seen that, at the eighth weekend of Scotland’s Climate Assembly, members drafted a statement of response to the Scottish Government. The statement commends the Scottish Parliament for establishing the assembly. We all agreed that the process must challenge us all to do things differently in the future; it has certainly done that. The statement also sets out some of the areas where assembly members want us to go further, and it outlines some new actions that assembly members are urging us to consider.

We understand that some of the assembly’s members will be disappointed that in a few areas we have been unable to support individual recommendations in full. That reflects the need to consider the limits of current devolved powers, technological feasibility and the feasibility of timescales. Where matters are reserved, we are calling on, and will continue to call on, the United Kingdom Government to match Scotland’s level of ambition. We will continue to work collaboratively with the UK and the other devolved Administrations to secure progress. To mention just one example, I note that since we published our response we are now part of a cross-Administration group on eco-labelling to help us to take forward the assembly’s recommendations in that area.

In Scotland, we understand the benefits of citizens’ assemblies and other forms of participation, but there is always more to do. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of Scotland’s Climate Assembly, we have all learned a lot, and we now have an even stronger foundation for tackling the climate emergency.

Although the legislative requirements of Scotland’s Climate Assembly have now been fulfilled, members of the assembly have made several suggestions about how we in the Government could continue to engage with assembly members in the future; we are looking at those suggestions now. We want to continue to hear from the people of Scotland, and our “Net Zero Nation: Public Engagement Strategy for Climate Change”, which we published in September 2021, sets out our vision: that all of Scotland understands the challenges that we all face and that we all embrace our role in the transition to a net zero and climate-ready Scotland. We know that achieving net zero emissions requires us all to collaborate across all sectors and regions of Scotland, as well as internationally.

Like many of my ministerial colleagues, I have had the pleasure of personally meeting a number of assembly members and some of the children who were involved in the process. The level of dedication and commitment to tackling the issues that we in Scotland are facing was impressive. I therefore reiterate our thanks to the members of Scotland’s Climate Assembly and of our Children’s Parliament.

I reassure Parliament and members of the assembly that although the official process is complete the assembly’s influence and legacy will continue. We will continue to draw on the assembly’s recommendations as we develop our policies, and we will continue to re-evaluate opportunities to go further, faster.

It is clear that the assembly process has been transformative for all who have been involved. I am sure that, as a Parliament, we will want to embrace that commitment to doing politics differently in the future.

The cabinet secretary will now 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 on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to ask a question would press their request-to-speak buttons or put an R in the chat function.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. It is extraordinary how members of the Climate Assembly dedicated themselves to Scotland’s role in addressing the climate emergency, particularly in an especially challenging period for collaborative working. What is concerning is the disconnect between the warm words and self-congratulation that we just heard from the cabinet secretary and what the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee heard this morning—that the assembly feels that the Scottish Government focuses more on what it cannot do than on what it can do and that

“Members ... overall are disappointed ... the Government’s response”

fails

“to recognise the urgency”

of their report.

Assembly members are also frustrated at their inability to check on delivery. The assembly called for the Government to create a scorecard for Scotland, with 10 key performance indicators—measurable targets for holding the Government to account. Will the cabinet secretary commit to developing such a scorecard in the form that the assembly suggested?

The assembly recommended a whole-government approach, which includes local government. According to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, next year’s budget will cut £100 million from local authority budgets. What will the Scottish Government do to ensure that local authorities have the funds and resources that are required to achieve the assembly’s ambitions?

I have twice asked the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, Lorna Slater, how a French-style ban on plastic packaging for most fruit and vegetables could work in Scotland to reduce plastic use, as the assembly would like. She has twice avoided giving me a substantive response. Does the cabinet secretary have thoughts on how such a ban could work here?

I will deal with a number of the issues in the member’s questions. As I did in my statement, I acknowledge the disappointment that some assembly members had about our response to the assembly’s 81 recommendations. It is worth keeping it in mind that, of the 81 recommendations, we have accepted in full or in part 75. We rejected some not because we do not have the powers to deal with them but because they are not feasible—for example, decarbonising aircraft by 2025 is not feasible, because of technological limitations.

We have sought to meet the challenges that assembly members set to stretch us as much as possible within what is feasible. I am sure that Liam Kerr recognises that the expert group, which assessed our response, commended the Scottish Government’s approach in responding to many of the points that were set out in the assembly’s report and acknowledged the areas that are extremely difficult, such as taxation, where we do not have the powers to pursue some of the assembly’s recommendations.

On marking our progress, if there is one policy area that has greater scrutiny and has annual accounting for the progress that the Government makes, it is climate change policy. We have our climate change plan, which is evaluated every year. We have our climate change adaptation programme, on which we must report every year. We are also committed to updating those plans regularly.

Alongside that, we have the work that is undertaken by the Committee on Climate Change, which carries out independent assessments of the progress that we are making. We are considering the assembly’s proposal about how we ensure greater transparency on how the Government is or is not making progress so that we are open and honest about where we are not making sufficient progress on the matter. I hope that that reassures Liam Kerr that we are seeking to ensure that we are held to account, challenged and transparent on the progress or lack of progress that we are making.

On the plastic ban, Liam Kerr will be aware that we have recently introduced regulations to deal with some of the most problematic single-use plastics that blight our environment. We need to take robust action to deal with them. I am more than happy to take away the point that he raised and has raised with my colleague Lorna Slater, but I hope that he will also support the Scottish Government’s position that the UK Government should not use the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to dilute the impact of the regulations on single-use plastics, which could undermine the regulations’ environmental impact.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement.

I declare an interest, because I recently became Labour’s representative on the assembly stewarding group. Even in the short time that I have been a member, I have seen the commitment, passion and wealth of ideas that assembly members have. I place on record my thanks to each one of them for the ambition that they have shown in our collective fight against climate change.

In its response, the Government has not shown the same ambition. The assembly speaks for Scotland when it talks about the lack of affordable, accessible public transport, the lack of proper smart ticketing and the concerns that the cost of retrofitting homes could fall on the shoulders of the people who can least afford it. The assembly was clear that there is a lack of urgency from the Government. There are too many pledges to consider or explore but not enough pledges to do.

Does the cabinet secretary agree with the assembly that we still do not have the detailed route map that we urgently need to take us on the journey to net zero? Does he also agree that we need to continue to harness the talents of assembly members, in particular the Children’s Parliament, which played a very important role in the final recommendations?

Surely, nine months after the assembly set out its recommendations, the cabinet secretary has a bit more to say about them than simply that he is looking into suggestions for further engagement. When will he set out what that engagement will be? Crucially, how will he assess the assembly’s recommendations—particularly the ones that he says he is still exploring and considering—in the months ahead? Assembly members want to continue to play their role but, more importantly, they want their work to be implemented.

Colin Smyth raised a number of issues. I am grateful for his questions on the matter and recognise his interest in the issue in representing his party in the assembly process.

On free transport, in the past few weeks, we extended free bus travel to under-22s, which is a significant expansion of free bus travel for young people in Scotland. Of course, we would always like to go further if there is the financial provision to do so, but we are certainly moving in the right direction and are keen to make further progress in the years ahead.

On the point about heating in buildings, one of the responses that we have made to the assembly members’ report is that there is a danger that, if we require the retrofitting of domestic heating systems, we could unintentionally create greater levels of fuel poverty. The delivery plan that my colleague Patrick Harvie is taking forward is focused on ensuring that that does not happen. That has been influenced by the assembly’s recommendations.

The climate change plan is the clear route map that we have set out for achieving our net zero targets of 75 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2045. That process has been gone through in great detail in the Parliament and in Government policy development.

In relation to ensuring that we harness the talents and interests of assembly members, although the formal part of the assembly process is complete, that is only the first part of the process, and we are engaging and looking at what more we can do going forward. We have agreed to establish an assembly members network, which will be independent of Government. How it will operate will be for the network itself to determine, but we will provide support to it and we are considering other measures.

Engaging the Children’s Parliament in the process as well has ensured that children’s voices are at the heart of the recommendations that came from the assembly and how they feed into Government thinking. I have just come from the children’s Cabinet meeting, which is hosted once a year and where young people were discussing the issues relating to the assembly and had an opportunity to feed into that process. Given the importance that our young people place on our environment, we want to make sure that they are at the heart of our thinking and involvement in designing policies to tackle climate change.

As members would expect, there is a great deal of interest in the statement and many members have indicated that they wish to ask a question. From this point on, I will insist that we have short and succinct questions and responses.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of the stewarding group of the Climate Assembly.

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the work of Scotland’s Climate Assembly has attracted international interest, not least because of its response, follow-up, dialogue and challenge to Government? At the last formal planned meeting of the assembly in February, concerns were raised about how to maintain momentum and accountability once the assembly has ended in its current form. Will the Government commit to the assembly’s proposal for a simple and widely publicised annual scorecard on its work, and will it support and possibly fund a recall of the assembly in the future if that is what the assembly wants?

Fiona Hyslop is correct that there has been significant international interest in the assembly. During the course of the many bilateral meetings that I had with ministers from other parts of the world during COP26, an issue that they often raised was the experience of the assembly and its work, and we have offered to share our experience with other countries.

In relation to Fiona Hyslop’s question about our helping to provide a network to keep assembly members together, as I mentioned in my response to Colin Smyth, we are prepared to support the network and how it could operate. However, I am open to the possibility of recalling the assembly at some point in the future. Certainly, I will ensure that we consider all the options that can help to support the assembly’s work.

On the final issue that the member raised about a scorecard, as I mentioned in my response to Liam Kerr, we are actively considering that issue alongside all the other measures that we have on climate change policy.

The Climate Assembly has, quite rightly, called for a decline in ferry emissions. In 2015, the Scottish Government commissioned the procurement of two low-emission ferries for that very purpose. However, almost seven years later, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has received correspondence from outgoing director Tim Hair to say that there would be another delay to both ferries, this time because of cabling problems. Can the cabinet secretary confirm when exactly those two ferries might be finished, and can he provide an update on the latest cost estimates for the completion of those ferries?

I recognise the Committee on Climate Change’s determination to see decarbonisation of our transport network, including the ferry network. I am conscious that an update has been provided to the committee and that my colleague Kate Forbes has also provided an update to the Parliament on that matter. I am more than happy to ensure that Mr Lockhart is provided with an update on the latest timescales and I am sure that my colleague Kate Forbes would be more than happy to provide that.

To ask the Scottish Government for an update on plans to protect low-income families, including the working poor, from being pushed into fuel poverty when we are decarbonising homes.

The cabinet secretary may address that briefly, but I remind members that the statement is focused on the Climate Assembly.

The work on the decarbonisation of domestic premises is one of the key things that has been identified in the Climate Assembly. The committee’s work fed directly into our heat and building strategy, which my colleague Patrick Harvie published a number of weeks ago. A key part of that is making sure that we not only drive down our emission levels but work in a way that helps to reduce fuel poverty. I assure the member that, as we take forward further work on our fuel poverty strategy and our heat and buildings strategy, the key focus is to reduce the overall level of fuel poverty in Scotland.

I thank the cabinet secretary for an advance copy of his statement. He mentioned the limits of devolved powers, but that does not excuse the lack of ambition shown by the Scottish Government over the powers that it has, including in relation to land use planning.

On land, Scotland’s Climate Assembly has recommended that community right-to-buy legislation be enhanced to empower communities

“to take ownership of unproductive land for climate action”.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the Government will include that practical suggestion as part of its proposed land reform bill? If not, why not?

I very much support local communities having the ability to purchase land, and the member will be aware of the provision that the Scottish Government already makes to support communities to do exactly that. We want to consider how we can explore and develop that further through our forthcoming land reform bill.

I am sure that the member would also recognise that, at this stage, it would be inappropriate for me to give the details of a piece of legislation before it is introduced in Parliament, but she can be assured that we intend to take a very ambitious approach to land reform in that legislation.

Will the cabinet secretary give an update on banning single-use plastics and non-recyclable packaging, particularly plastic bags, as called for by the Children’s Parliament and by local pupils hosting COP26 events across Lanarkshire?

That important issue was identified by the assembly—[Interruption.] I am not sure why Stephen Kerr thinks that it is a funny issue—[Interruption.] That important issue was raised by the assembly and, in particular, by young people in the Children’s Parliament. I am sure that Mr Kerr would want to respect the views of our young people on these important issues.

As I have mentioned, we have introduced regulations to tackle problematic single-use plastics. Those regulations could have a significant impact on dealing with the issue, but they could be impacted by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which could undermine their operational effectiveness. It is important that we do not allow the UK Government to do that.

Stephanie Callaghan should be assured that we will continue to look at what other measures we can take to reduce the impact of plastic on our environment.

I add my thanks to all those involved in the assembly. The assembly rightly underscores the urgent need to decarbonise transport and recognises that we cannot achieve our ambitions without disincentivising air travel and making more sustainable transport options available. Is this not finally the moment for the Scottish Government to rip up its contract with Heathrow airport in support of a third runway, given that we know that that will lead to an extra 75,000 flights between Scotland and London, and an additional 600,000 tonnes of emissions being added to the atmosphere by 2040?

In all fairness to the assembly, I do not recall that being one of its specific recommendations, although I recognise the point that the member has raised.

We are already progressing a range of actions, including supporting research, to reduce carbon output from aircraft, including in Orkney. The member will be well aware of the Ampaire programme that is being taking forward, which is being supported by Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd and others, and which will look at the use of zero-emission aircraft.

Clearly, that is an area in which technology must still be developed, and part of the recommendations are difficult for us to implement because the timescale that has been set does not match technological development yet. However, I assure the member that, as a Government, we will continue to look at what measures we can take to support the decarbonisation of the aviation sector. That includes encouraging people to make journeys using alternatives where those are available.

Many of the areas highlighted by the assembly are reserved and require UK Government action. How does the Scottish Government intend to work with the UK Government to ensure that Scotland can reach her full emissions-reduction potential?

There are a number of areas in which devolved powers run up against reserved areas in tackling climate change in Scotland. The challenge is partly that the UK Government’s approach to tackling climate change does not match the Scottish Government’s level of ambition, which causes consequences for some of our targets. A very good example of that would be the decision by the—[Interruption.]

That is laughable.

Mr Kerr thinks that the issue of the environment and the negative impact of the UK Government’s policies on it is laughable. If anything is laughable in the Parliament, it is probably Mr Kerr.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I point out that the tactic that the cabinet secretary is using is very childish. In actual fact—[Interruption.] Members can make as much noise as they like, but the reality is that the cabinet secretary is using a tactic. He needs to be aware that we are laughing at him making such outrageous claims about ambition. Ambition has to be matched with action that results in outcomes. This Government is bereft of any of that.

In response to Mr Kerr’s point of order, I would say that I have noticed several members shouting across the aisles to one another during the statement. I have, perhaps, heard one or two voices more clearly than others. I would be grateful if, at all times, all members of this Parliament treated one another with the courtesy and respect that the code of conduct demands.

Now, are we moving on to the next question? Are you content—

I did not finish my answer to the question that I was in the middle of answering before I was rudely interrupted.

Okay, you may complete your response, cabinet secretary.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Of course, it will be a surprise to most of us that the panto season now runs into March each year. [Laughter.]

Anyway—

Cabinet secretary, I remind you of my addressing of that point of order. Can we just focus on the business in hand? Thank you.

A very good example of UK Government policy not matching the ambition of the Scottish Government in tackling climate change is the decision by the UK Government not to proceed with the Scottish Cluster on carbon capture and the Acorn project. That was an example of a policy that the Climate Change Committee says is absolutely essential in order to achieve our climate change targets.

I am afraid that that is the type of approach by the UK Government that, if it does not start to align its level of ambition with that of the Scottish Government in tackling climate change, will undermine our ability to reach our targets. That is why it got that decision wrong. It is also why we continue to engage with the UK Government and why, through the interministerial group for net zero, energy and climate change, I am pursuing it to make sure that it responds on the reserved areas on which the Climate Assembly has said that it needs to take action.

One of the recommendations is to improve recycling in Scotland. An important step towards that will be to finally meet the 2013 household recycling target that is now almost 10 years late. When will that target be met?

The member will be aware of the very ambitious proposals that we are taking forward alongside the record level of investment that we are making in recycling. Some £70 million is being invested in recycling infrastructure to support local authorities to meet the challenges that they face. We are making the investment that is necessary to meet our climate change ambitions and investing in areas of recycling as a priority. Some £20 million has already been committed and I can assure the member that that investment will help to make sure that we drive forward and meet the targets in the years ahead.

In recent months, we have seen successive warnings from the UK Climate Change Committee, the Government’s energy advisers and now the Climate Assembly about the urgent need to cut air miles. The assembly has made a clear recommendation that air departure tax should be raised for frequent flyers. Will the Government square up to that climate reality and make demand reduction for non-lifeline flights a central objective in its new aviation strategy?

One of the main areas that could have a positive impact and reduce the need for regional flights, in particular, is greater investment in our regional rail network to speed that up. Greater electrification of the network could play an important part in that, for example, as could extending high-speed rail into the north of England and Scotland. That would have a significant impact and reduce the need for regional flights.

That is the approach that we believe should be taken to transport investment, reducing journey times in a way that is sustainable and compatible with becoming a net zero nation. That is why, as part of the work that we are taking forward, we are looking at how we can improve and speed up connectivity between our seven cities through further electrification programmes and why we have made representations to the UK Government to look at electrifying parts of the network in England. That would also help to speed up journey times and, as a side issue, increase freight capacity. If that happened, it could help to reduce demand for some regional flights.

Young people have been inspirational in their campaigns on the future of our planet. The decisions that we make now will have a huge impact on their future and that of subsequent generations. Will the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government will keep dialogue open with children and young people as we work towards net zero, so that they can help to shape decisions?

During COP26, some of the most powerful testimony that I heard was from young people, at events that they hosted, on their ambition and determination that we should do everything that we can to protect our environment and tackle climate change. The First Minister and I are very clear that young people must be at the centre of our thinking about how we take forward climate change policy and how we go about tackling climate change in the years ahead.

In the discussion in which I have just taken part at the children’s Cabinet meeting, young people put to us the issue of ensuring that their voices are heard. I assure Collette Stevenson that, as we move forward with our climate change plan update and wider climate change policies across Government, we are determined to ensure that young people’s voices are at the heart of that work and of our thinking on how we take those policies forward.