Overview
This Bill will make changes to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
It changes the target for reducing all "greenhouse gas emissions" to 100% by 2045. The target is currently 80%.
Greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth's atmosphere and cause climate change. Reducing these gases will limit the problems that come with climate change.
The proposed law explains how:
- annual targets will be set
- a target of 100% reduction in emissions will be set in the future
- progress towards meeting targets will be monitored and reported
You can find out more in the Scottish Government document that explains the Bill.
Why the Bill was created
The Scottish Government wants to make the current legislation on climate change tougher.
This will help:
- limit temperature increases and the negative impacts they have
- make sure that businesses and industries start using low-carbon technologies
- make sure that businesses and industries work in a way that reduces carbon emissions
Climate change is already happening. Its effects include increases in:
- coastal floods
- dangerous heatwaves
- severe droughts
- hurricanes
You can find out more in the Scottish Government document that explains the Bill.
Where do laws come from?
The Scottish Parliament can make decisions about many things like:
- Agriculture and Fisheries
- Education and Training
- Environment
- Health and Social Services
- Housing
- Justice and Policing
- Local Government
- Some aspects of Tax and Social Security
These are 'devolved matters'.
Laws that are decided by the Scottish Parliament come from:
Bill stage timeline
The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill became an Act on 31 October 2019
Becomes an Act
The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act passed by a vote of 113 For, 0 against and 6 abstentions. The Bill became an Act on 31 October 2019
Introduced
The Scottish Government sends the Bill and related documents to the Scottish Parliament.
Related information from the Scottish Government on the Bill
Why the law is being proposed (Policy Memorandum)
Opinions on whether the Parliament has the power to make the law (Statements on Legislative Competence)
How much the proposed law is likely to cost (Financial Memorandum)
Explanation of the proposed law (Explanatory Notes)
Information on the powers the Bill gives the Scottish Government and others (Delegated Powers Memorandum)
Stage 1 - General principles
Committees examine the Bill. Then the MSPs vote on whether it should continue to Stage 2.
Committees involved in this bill
Who checked the Bill
Each Bill is examined by a 'lead committee'. This is the committee that has the subject of the Bill in its remit.
It looks at everything to do with the Bill.
Other committees may look at certain parts of the Bill if it covers subjects they deal with.
Who spoke to the lead committee about the Bill
First meeting transcript
The Convener
Agenda item 2 is to hear evidence from Scottish Government officials at stage 1 of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Mark Eggeling, Sara Grainger, Dr Tom Russon and Calum Webster. Good morning. We will move straight to questions.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
In addition to the advice of the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change, which is the primary source of scientific advice for the Government, were other sources of scientific advice considered in deriving the contents of the bill?
Sara Grainger (Scottish Government)
The answer to that question is both yes and no. I will explain that.
The advice from the UK Committee on Climate Change has a certain primacy in what we consider for two reasons. The first reason is that the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 requires that the Scottish ministers seek and consider advice from the relevant body, and it designates the UK Committee on Climate Change as that relevant body. Therefore, ministers have to seek and consider its advice.
The second reason why we take the UK Committee on Climate Change’s advice particularly seriously is that it is hard to think of another body that has the same level of expertise in it. The breadth and depth of the expertise of the people in the UKCCC is quite remarkable. At the secretariat and committee levels, they cover various climate science specialisms, behavioural science, economics, cognitive science and technology. I have certainly missed some of what they cover, but I think that members get my point. The UKCCC is therefore the ideal set of people to provide advice. However, there is nothing in the 2009 act that means that we cannot look more widely, and we certainly consider information, analysis and opinions from a much broader range of people.
In coming to its advice, among the first things that the UKCCC does is issue a call for evidence. To the best of my knowledge, that is an entirely open call. Anybody in the UK—and probably internationally—can contribute to that evidence, which contributes to the advice that the UKCCC gives.
When we get the advice, we test it out with a few people, do some internal analysis and thinking, and then consult. On the basis of that advice, ministers took the view that they wanted to take one of the UKCCC’s options, so we consulted on that. That, of course, provided an opportunity for a much broader range of people to put forward their views.
We conducted some analysis ourselves. I have mentioned using the TIMES model and looking into various national examples of good and interesting practice.
To answer your question, we rely primarily on the advice from the UKCCC, because we are required to do so under the legislation, and because it is excellent. However, we are not closed to other sources of information.
Stewart Stevenson
We are trying to cover an awful lot in the time that we have, so I do not want to go down this road too far. However, it would be useful if you could give us a note of all the sources of scientific advice, in particular, that you have taken into account.
Sara Grainger
We will do that.
Stewart Stevenson
The UK Committee on Climate Change’s advice is that a 90 per cent cut in emissions is at the outer edge of achievability. I understand that achieving that cut would require a 100 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. I want to put on the record that that is the case.
Sara Grainger
That is the case.
Stewart Stevenson
In the light of that, I have already drafted an amendment to the bill that would provide that the Scottish ministers must ensure that the net Scottish emissions of carbon dioxide in 2050 are at least 100 per cent lower than the baseline. The phrase “at least 100 per cent” is interesting, because it could be more than 100 per cent. That option is left open.
Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The international scientific consensus on climate change is very much driven by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is scheduled to bring out a fresh report on climate science in October. I do not know whether you have seen some of the leaked draft copies of the report that have appeared on the internet. The leaked copies say that the world must move towards a net zero carbon target by 2050. If that is the conclusion of the IPCC, what scientific advice and support on how to deliver that target will you request from the UK Committee on Climate Change?
Sara Grainger
I am aware that the IPCC report has been leaked, but I have not studied it, and we will not look at leaked copies in any depth. We will wait until the final version is available, which I understand will be on 8 October—it will certainly be available in early October.
The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform wrote to the relevant UK minister, Claire Perry, requesting that the advice that the UK Government has indicated that it will ask the UKCCC for on the back of the IPCC report is commissioned jointly with the Scottish Government, because clearly we will need much the same information. I understand that Claire Perry has responded to that letter and has agreed that the UK and Scottish Governments should work together, but I have no further detail about that. I am not able to tell you exactly what that request for advice will cover, much less what advice might be forthcoming from the Committee on Climate Change. I cannot say how that will play out.
Mark Ruskell
Timescales are very important to this committee’s consideration of the bill. Will that advice come back to this committee before consideration of stage 2 amendments?
Sara Grainger
I am not able to say anything about the timescales for that advice. I do not know when the request—
Mark Ruskell
Should that advice come back to the committee before stage 2?
Sara Grainger
That is not for me to say. It is a matter for the ministers, the committee and Parliament. My understanding is that the decisions on the timescale for the stages of the bill, now that it has been introduced, is a matter for Parliament. I am not sure that my opinion is of a great deal of importance.
Mark Ruskell
I will take us back to the IPCC advice, as there seems to be a bit of confusion in the policy memorandum for the bill. The target that we are aiming for, in order to prevent catastrophic loss of wildlife, prevent environmental refugeeism and save the economy, seems to vary between a 2° increase in global temperatures and a 1.5° increase. The references in the policy memorandum switch from one to the other. Which one is it? What are we aiming for? Are we aiming for a world that is 1.5° warmer or 2° warmer? There is a big difference in terms of the impact on our economy, on nature and on the environmental systems that sustain us.
Sara Grainger
There is certainly a big difference. The wording of the Paris agreement—I hope that Tom Russon will correct me if I get it wrong—is to aim for well below 2° and to make efforts to limit the increase to near 1.5°. Is that right, Tom?
Dr Tom Russon (Scottish Government)
Yes, the agreement is to pursue further efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°.
Mark Ruskell
So why is there a reference to two temperature targets in the bill?
Sara Grainger
That is because the Paris agreement references two targets—trying to keep to well below a 2° temperature rise and to nearer 1.5°.
Mark Ruskell
So what is the target? Is it well below 2°? Is it 1.6° or 1.5°, or is it 2° and then going back to 1.5°? I am not really clear what we are aiming for.
Sara Grainger
I do not think that we can be any more clear than the Paris agreement.
Dr Russon
The defining central concept in the 2009 act is Scotland’s fair contribution to avoiding dangerous climate change, which was the concept that was predominant back in 2008, and it is not put in terms of a 2° or 1.5° target. One way in which we can understand the Paris agreement is to see it as having revised what dangerous climate change means. Neither the 2009 act nor the new bill has one of those numerical temperature targets at its heart. At the heart of the bill is the idea of avoiding dangerous climate change. Ministers requested advice from the UK Committee on Climate Change on appropriate targets to meet that objective.
Mark Ruskell
Are you clear about the differences between a world that is warming at 2° and a world that is warming at 1.5°, in terms of the impact on the environment, people, communities and nations around the world?
Sara Grainger
Yes, we are sufficiently clear on that and understand the need and purpose of the Paris agreement to limit temperature rise to well below 2°.
Dr Russon
In its original advice on the target levels for the bill, the UKCCC set out two options, which, you may recall, were remaining at 80 per cent for now and going to a stretch target of 90 per cent. The UKCCC’s advice on those two options was that remaining at 80 per cent would stay in line with a 2° goal, while the 90 per cent target would be more in line with a goal of 1.5°.
Mark Ruskell
The IPCC report that is coming out in October might paint a very different picture about what is dangerous climate change.
Sara Grainger
It might do. We await that report.
John Scott (Ayr) (Con)
How will updating the targets without updating all the activities and duties in the 2009 act produce the best results? Why was increased target setting considered without also considering what will be required to meet the targets?
Sara Grainger
The scope of the bill is a decision for ministers. Ministers set the scope in light of the Paris agreement and their enthusiasm and commitment to be at the limits of ambition and keeping at the forefront of the global response to climate change. The raison d’être of the bill is to increase the target levels.
We have also taken the opportunity to improve elements of the 2009 act that have proved to be particularly problematic, such as the emissions trading system adjustment, which we do every year and which causes no end of confusion, not least among ourselves. We were keen to remove the particularly problematic elements of the act.
09:45Other than that, there is a strong feeling that the 2009 act is working. The framework that we have in Scotland is achieving a great deal, and Scotland is doing very well at reducing emissions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: the act is doing its job. The aim of the bill is really just to increase the targets.
The Convener
In relation to Mr Scott’s question, it your contention that the climate change plan provides the detail on how we achieve the targets?
Sara Grainger
Yes, very much so—thank you for your question; I was taking a bit too long to get to the point. Beyond our having the knowledge and assurance that the target levels are achievable—at a very substantial push—the details of how we achieve the targets need to be set out in climate change plans, and that will continue to happen. It is in that context that we will think about activities.
The Convener
You said that, in the advice that you take on setting the targets, primacy lies with that of the UKCCC. However, the draft plan was not run past the UKCCC and its advice was not sought on it. Do you see a slight disconnect there?
Sara Grainger
I am not sure that I do, entirely. The 2009 act requires the Scottish ministers to seek advice from the UKCCC on appropriate target levels. Ministers then propose target levels, which are agreed by the Parliament. However, the policies and proposals that are put in place to meet the targets are dealt with under a section of the framework that is slightly distinct, that is, in the strategic climate change plans, which are produced by the Government, scrutinised by the committee and revised accordingly. It is a slightly different process.
The Convener
Yes, but the principle is the same. If the UKCCC is the adviser on one element, surely it would be reasonable to run the proposals past it. I realise that we have come past that point; I just make the point that, on one hand, you are saying that the UKCCC is terribly important and, on the other, you thought a few months ago that it was not important enough to merit having the plan run past it.
Sara Grainger
I do not agree that the UKCCC is not important enough to merit having the plan run past it; it is more that we see the UKCCC’s role slightly differently. The UKCCC has the overarching say on the appropriate target levels, but how targets are delivered and met is a matter for the Scottish ministers.
John Scott
The practical aspects of that will be important. Although the goals that have been achieved thus far are good, some people might argue that they were the low-hanging fruit. It is easy to declare ambitions—we all have ambitions—but the strategic delivery of the ambitions is important and it would be very welcome if the Government were to give advice, particularly to the sectors that most need to get their houses in order, on how ambitions can best be realised.
Has there been a review and evaluation of how other parts of the 2009 act are working? If not, why not?
Sara Grainger
Our focus has been on introducing a bill that raises the ambition of the targets, to meet the Paris agreement, and on correcting or improving elements of the 2009 act that are evidently and demonstrably not functioning. We have not looked at the full scope of the 2009 act, because we consider that it is working well enough.
John Scott
However, you have obviously been reviewing the 2009 act and considering which bits do not work adequately.
If it is the Government’s view that the best place to update policies and proposals is in the climate change plans, why did the most recent climate change plan not address, for example, specific policy proposals based on the first year of mandatory public sector reporting and the interaction with the land use strategy, as was suggested in the committee’s report on the draft plan?
Sara Grainger
None of us was involved in depth in the development of the plan. It is my understanding that the land use strategy is incorporated into the plan and that the two are intertwined, and that is set out in the plan. I am not sure about the public sector reporting element or what the committee’s recommendation was on that, I am afraid. We laid in Parliament the report that is required under the act, setting out how all the recommendations from the committee were considered and responded to, so that information is available and we will be able to find it and return to you with a fuller answer.
Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Sections 1 to 4 allow for the creation of a net zero emissions target at a future date, and we look forward to seeing the responses to the consultation on that over the summer. Sections 1 to 4 also update the 2009 act’s 2050 target from 80 per cent to 90 per cent. Can you give the committee any examples of international actions or of how the Paris agreement has been translated into domestic law with regard to that, and can you tell us how the Scottish Government is taking account of international best practice?
Sara Grainger
I will endeavour to do that. We have looked a fair amount at international examples of good practice. We have focused on countries, states and regions that we know to be leading and to have particularly good practice. However, we have found the work to be horrendously complicated, and it is difficult to draw comparisons between different countries’ actions, commitments and legislations. Countries, states and regions differ in terms of starting points and the assets that are available to them as well as in their legislation.
Trying to understand our own legislation is testing; trying to understand other countries’ legislation is exceptionally testing. However, we have put a lot of time and effort into it and we have discussed the matter with officials in several other countries. We have also commissioned work through ClimateXChange at the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation to look at examples of best practice. Those reports are in the public domain, so we can draw your attention to them.
We have concluded from that work that the existing work—and, even more, the provisions in the bill—means that Scotland will have the most stringent and tightly bound climate change emissions reduction legislation anywhere. We also rank highly in terms of progress. So, although other leading countries have slightly different approaches, ministers have taken the view that the approach that we have in Scotland is working for Scotland. There is reluctance to make changes that would make our legislation more similar to that of other countries for the simple reason that our legislation appears to be working for Scotland and is right for us as a result of the 2009 act, which was agreed unanimously by the Parliament.
Angus MacDonald
That is good to hear. What different actions and behaviour changes are required to attain both the 90 per cent reduction target and the 80 per cent reduction target to which we are currently committed? What scale of behaviour change and technical advancement does each require, and in which sectors?
Sara Grainger
Crikey—that is really quite complicated. I am very happy to set out the work that we have done on exploring the difference between an 80 per cent target and a 90 per cent one, but I am not quite sure that it would answer your question to the level of detail that you are looking for. We have not produced—and could not sensibly produce for the period up to 2050—a plan detailing exactly how we would manage emissions reductions in and across sectors or the precise contents of policies and actions that the Government and other actors would need to put in place.
We know that, in relation to the 90 per cent target, there is no scope for underachievement anywhere—I think that that is the phrase that the UKCCC used. I would phrase it slightly differently and say that we need the maximum level of decarbonisation in every sector to achieve the 90 per cent target. For the reasons that I have covered previously, work on exactly what that means in relation to policies and actions and when they would need to occur would have to be considered in the production of climate change plans.
Given that, I am not sure that my telling the committee what we think will be the difference between 80 and 90 per cent would be particularly helpful. However, I can go on to that if committee members would like me to do so.
The Convener
I think that we would. We would also be interested in understanding whether the decision that was reached on the target was influenced in any way by what we thought people would accept by way of behavioural change—what was achievable with the public in reality. That feeds into consideration of the legislation elsewhere and of what is suitable for other countries’ cultures but not for here. Can you give us a wider feel for how you arrived at the target?
Sara Grainger
I can try to. That is an interesting question.
I will start by saying what the UKCCC set out in its advice. The main difference between its central ambition scenario, which would see an 80 per cent target met, and its 90 per cent scenario, which is its high-ambition one, is in the level of the carbon sink from land use, land use change and forestry.
Under an 80 per cent scenario, there is a focus on buildings and industry—and also on aviation and shipping, which are crucial—and there is a little bit of wriggle room in other sectors. Under a 90 per cent scenario, there would be no wriggle room anywhere, although some emissions would remain in aviation and shipping—including international emissions, which are included in our targets but not in those of other countries—and in industry, beyond emission reductions that could be achieved through efficiency. We would also need to decarbonise buildings completely instead of almost doing so.
We consider that there are three options for going further than that. One option is to purchase international credits to make up the differences between what can be achieved domestically and what cannot be done responsibly, in the view of ministers. The second option is to hope that technology will develop to deliver negative emissions. However, at this stage, experts tell us that that is unlikely to happen at the right pace, rate or scale in the near future. The third way is to introduce policies and proposals that remove emissions completely from industry, aviation, shipping and agriculture, which I have not mentioned before but which is crucial.
When you talk about behaviour change, I am not sure of the distinction between the choices that individuals can make to change their own behaviour and wholesale changes to the economy that would impose changes in behaviour.
However, I think that I am answering your question if I say that it was and remains the view that, at this time, it would not be acceptable to the majority to impose policies that restricted aviation, shipping, agriculture, food production and industry to the levels that would be required to meet a net zero target.
10:00Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)
My question is for whoever feels it is most appropriate for them to answer. Can I have a bit more detail about the advances in technology? Sara Grainger said that the second way in which we might go further with the targets is by hoping that technology will deliver further. Can you tell us about the experts who have been consulted? It is obviously very difficult to know what technology will be available beyond 2040.
On the other hand, many stakeholders have said to me that it is important to be aspirational and that we should be determined to send a clear message to researchers, investors and the market about where we are going. Although I was not in the Parliament at the time, unlike my colleague Stewart Stevenson, I understand that the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was quite aspirational about where we were going.
Sara Grainger
Yes.
Claudia Beamish
I am asking about the experts. Sorry—that was rather long-winded, but I am trying to set the scene around the concerns that people have brought to me about why we are not going further.
Sara Grainger
The reason why we are not going further, even though ministers and the Scottish Government are absolutely clear that we wish to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible, is that putting a target into legislation that required us to achieve net zero emissions by a specific date could create difficulties if the technology did not arrive at the pace or the scale that was necessary to enable us to achieve that. It may do—some people are very optimistic that the technology will come on stream very soon and that it will be possible to roll it out on an industrial scale. However, others are substantially less optimistic. It would be, in essence, a bet on having the technology available at the scale that was needed.
It could be argued that, by setting out a clear ambition to achieve net zero emissions through a political rather than a legislative commitment—which is similar to what many other countries have done—ministers would be making the aspiration clear and sending a message to investors, researchers and other people who need to be encouraged to develop the technology and the business case for the technology. Putting a target date into legislation that we would absolutely have to meet, regardless of whether the technology had become available, is a different kettle of fish altogether.
The experts were primarily from the Committee on Climate Change, which has the technological expertise as well as all the other expertise. Discussions were also held with colleagues and stakeholders in other parts of the organisation who are involved in those kinds of technological developments.
Claudia Beamish
Sorry—which organisation? I am not sure what you mean by “organisation”.
Sara Grainger
I am not sure that I can answer that question right now, not least because we have had some consultation responses about the matter and I cannot remember whether those consultees agreed to have their names made public in connection with what they said. That is why I am being a little bit cagey about it just now, but I am happy to get back to you later.
The Convener
Could you get back to us when you have checked that out?
Sara Grainger
Yes.
The Convener
Here is the thing: some people would see a contradiction in the argument around technology.
I appreciate your point about you guys not being involved in the climate change plan, but the original plan relies, to a fair extent, on carbon capture and storage technology. We were told that the plan was credible with that technology in it, but we are now being told that we cannot be more ambitious because we do not have the technologies. Do you see the contradiction that some people see in the approach?
Sara Grainger
Yes, when you put it in that way. If the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform were here, she would say that she was criticised a lot for making those comments and for relying on technology, so you could turn that argument around. However, I will not do that, because I am not the cabinet secretary.
It is about the scale and the pace of technology change. It is one thing to expect, to rely on and then to plan for a level of technological development, but it is quite another to think that the scale of that development could be vast and quick enough to achieve a substantially more ambitious target.
The Convener
Thank you. It was useful to get that on the record.
Claudia Beamish wants to come back in. Please be brief, as Mark Ruskell will come in right afterwards.
Claudia Beamish
I have no idea what Mark Ruskell is about to say, but I will come back in only if he does not cover what I want to ask about.
Mark Ruskell
We are all keen to get in on the issue.
Sara Grainger talked about taking “a bet” on technology, but there are bets on the other side, too. If we do not meet our climate change targets or if the science on climate change changes and the situation worsens, we are taking a bet on the future. How do we refocus on technological change?
Back in 1986, which is the same timescale that we are being asked to look forward—that is 32 years ago, and we are looking forward to 2050—we had no idea that the internet was going to be a thing, but here we are today, rolling out broadband strategies, and the internet has completely transformed our world. How do you learn from previous technological changes what conditions, including those related to the market, innovation—particularly university innovation—investment and research, are required for those changes? How do you create the conditions to give us the certainty that we can make the necessary technological changes? What does Government need to do now, even if it does not have all the answers, to create the conditions for those answers to be brought into use?
Back in 1986, we did not have a clue that we would be where we are today. There were technologies that suggested that we might be here, but the exact pathway to delivering the transformation that the internet has given us today was not clear.
Sara Grainger
Indeed. You are putting me in mind of “Tomorrow’s World”, which I used to watch. When you see repeats, it is remarkable what people thought might become standard technology. Hovercrafts spring to mind.
I really do not think that I can answer your question about the changing landscape. I agree with you completely that technology will develop and the world will change—of course it will. However, the point is that we do not know how and when that will happen or what the implications and the impact of that change will be. Therefore, putting targets into legislation with all those unknowns is complex.
Tom, do you want to come in on the broader issue?
Dr Russon
Yes, I am happy to do so. I cannot remember who mentioned it, but carbon capture and storage is a good example to consider in this context. It is clear, from the CCC’s advice on the bill’s targets, that meeting the targets will not be just a question of carbon capture and storage. We must go beyond that and use bioenergy carbon capture and storage—that is, CCS coupled with the production of biomass to reach negative emissions. Regular carbon capture and storage gets you to reduced emissions, but to get to negative emissions you need to go beyond that approach.
There are two technologically uncertain steps there—the first is getting to functional deployment of CCS and the second is getting to functional deployment of bioenergy CCS. Although Scotland has excellent research in those areas, they are big technologies that will be developed and deployed effectively only on a multinational scale. They are simply beyond the scope of what a small country can do unilaterally. The costs involved in such technologies are very large, as are the research consortia. It is an area in which international partnership working is very important for Scotland, but it is also an area in which we are limited, to an extent, by the pace of development internationally.
As the committee will be aware, one of the key features of the 2009 act that is being carried forward into the bill is the principle that we will keep getting updated advice on all these matters. Technology is a key area in which that updated advice will be most important, along with the climate science that Mark Ruskell spoke about. The bill will require the UK Committee on Climate Change to provide updated advice on all these matters, including on the target levels that follow from that advice, at least every five years.
We acknowledge frankly the validity of the point that the technology is extremely uncertain. The examples that we have talked through illustrate that. However, every five years seems the right timescale for taking advice and checking on developments. The bill allows for the possibility that, if things happen more rapidly within that five-year timescale, ministers can go back to the UK Committee on Climate Change even sooner, note that some tipping point seems to have been reached around CCS or whatever and say that updated advice is required immediately.
The Convener
Committee colleagues have supplementary questions on slightly different aspects.
Stewart Stevenson
My question is certainly for Calum Webster and perhaps for Mark Eggeling. It relates to an answer that Sarah Grainger gave my colleague John Scott, when she said that the bill is about numbers and reporting, and that that is working satisfactorily. As the minister who took the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill through to becoming an act in 2009, I am not so sure about that. I give as examples Alex Johnstone’s amendment to that bill, to allow discounts on business rates for premises that were upgraded, and Sarah Boyack’s amendment on domestic rates: I do not think that they work terribly well. The bill is about emissions reduction targets,
“to make provision setting targets ... and to make provision about advice, plans and reports in relation to those targets.”
Is the bill amendable in a way that will allow us to amend those previous attempts, which are very worthy but which have not delivered what we hoped they would, and other provisions, helping us put into primary legislation things that would be part of plans in relation to targets? Is it amendable in that way?
Mark Eggeling (Scottish Government)
Those matters are ultimately for the Parliament to decide—in that regard, I include the committee’s consideration of stage 2 amendments. There have been exchanges around consideration of the present bill’s scope, but, as I said, that is for the Parliament to decide.
Principally, the bill will amend part 1 of the 2009 act, which is focused on targets, but it will also amend some of the provisions relating to reporting, including the reporting on the climate change plans. The bill’s focus is therefore on the targets that are imposed on Scottish ministers.
The bill is not looking at any delivery measures or at parts of the 2009 act that deal with how we implement and give effect to those targets. There is obviously a suite of existing powers in the 2009 act and there are lots of other powers in other acts to enable provision to be made on the delivery of various targets. However the principle here is that the climate change plans will set out the measures that need to be taken as well as proposals for any additional measures that need to be taken. The issue can be considered at the time to see whether the powers to do that are already in place or whether anything more is required.
Stewart Stevenson
The 2009 act creates certain powers, and the Parliament could amend it via the mechanism in the bill, subject to the convener and the Presiding Officer allowing that to happen. Is that correct? It is a purely legal question and not one for a long answer.
10:15Mark Eggeling
We have expressed our view on the scope of the bill. I understand that there are precedents for how that is handled in Parliament.
Stewart Stevenson
We will let the convener worry about that at another date.
The Convener
Thank you, Mr Stevenson.
Claudia Beamish
I have a question about the just transition commission. It is not in the bill but the committee has received a submission from the just transition partnership about it. I have also been in discussion with the Scottish Trades Union Congress and other bodies about it, as other people around the table and beyond no doubt have been.
Although I take the point that Mark Eggeling made about the targets, my clear understanding of the bill is that it is also a governance bill. Can the witnesses explain the reasons why the just transition commission is not in the bill? In the view of many people, giving the commission a legislative status going towards 2050 and beyond would give a clear indication and reassurance to people in affected communities and industries around how the shift will be done, that it will be done fairly and that there will be accountability to Parliament for it.
Sara Grainger
A live conversation is taking place within the Scottish Government about the scope, remit, form and function of the just transition commission. The discussion will be opened up shortly. The current thinking is that it might not be necessary for the commission to be established in statute for it to be able to provide valuable advice to the Scottish ministers about how to ensure a just transition to a low-carbon economy. However, that thinking has not stopped; it remains live and there will be more information in the near future.
Claudia Beamish
What is the reasoning behind it not being considered necessary to establish the commission in statute? To many organisations, trade unions and companies, a legislative basis for the commission would give clarity about arrangements for the future.
Sara Grainger
The purpose of the just transition commission, as was set out in the programme for government, is to provide advice to ministers to help them devise policies and processes to ensure a just transition. It is not evident that a statutory basis is required to establish a commission that is able to provide valuable advice.
Claudia Beamish
It is not required, but it might be valuable.
Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Good morning. Among the main themes of the Scottish Government’s consultation were: whether the bill should contain provisions to allow for a net zero emissions target to be set at a later date; whether to update the interim target for 2020 contained in the 2009 act from 42 to 56 per cent lower than baseline levels; whether to add further interim targets of 66 per cent by 2030 and 78 per cent by 2040; and whether to update the 2050 target from 80 to 90 per cent lower than baseline levels. In light of that, what scenarios might require changes to the interim targets, and what are the practical implications?
Dr Russon
I will start off with a slightly process-based answer and then go on to some hypothetical scenarios.
As you say, the bill allows for the interim and 2050 target levels to be modified through secondary legislation under the affirmative procedure. The process element of my answer is that a couple of things have to happen before that can happen. The UK Committee on Climate Change has to provide advice on those target levels. As has been touched on previously, it provides that advice with reference to a defined set of target-setting criteria. The list is quite long so I will not try to recount it from memory, but it includes factors such as the concept of a fair and safe total emissions budget over the period to 2050, the best available climate science, technological circumstances, the economic and fiscal circumstances here in Scotland, and impacts on rural and island communities, to name but a few. The list is, as I say, quite lengthy.
The UK Committee on Climate Change provides regular advice on target levels with reference to those criteria. Scottish ministers are then required to have due regard both to the committee’s advice and to their own assessments using that same list of criteria. If the view of ministers, upon reflecting on both those things, is that an interim or 2050 target should be modified either upwards or downwards, they can propose that to Parliament. The final decision will be for the Parliament to take.
My apologies for the slightly long preamble but I hope that that is helpful before I get into what circumstances or scenarios might lead to modification actually happening. In a sense, I hope that that groundwork points us back to the set of target-setting criteria: if circumstances either internationally or here in Scotland change with respect to those criteria, that would be the likely basis upon which a change to the targets could be made.
These are necessarily entirely hypothetical examples, in that I am foreguessing the future, the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and the will of ministers, all of which I should not be foreguessing. However, there are two potential scenarios. Mark Ruskell spoke about the forthcoming scientific report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That report will inevitably update our best understanding of the available climate science, which is one of the target-setting criteria. If that substantially changes the Committee on Climate Change’s view as to what Scotland’s goals should be, the committee would presumably provide advice to that effect.
A second scenario that I will try to explore in a little bit more detail is the question of how we measure the greenhouse gas emissions that Scotland produces at any given point in time. This is what is often referred to as the greenhouse gas inventory. It is referred to in the bill as “international carbon reporting practice”, and it is also one of the target-setting criteria. As members will recall, it is something that is changing all the time. When it changes, it can change the effective level of ambition that is needed to deliver a given target level.
One can imagine future scenarios in which, if that measurement science changes radically and we suddenly find out that Scotland has always been emitting either much greater or much lower levels of emissions than we previously understood, that might form the basis for the UK Committee on Climate Change providing advice that target levels should be modified to keep them in line with the decarbonisation pathway.
Richard Lyle
It sounds to me as though we are going to be changing our target levels every so often. Why is the ability to lower as well as raise targets critical to the operation of the target framework proposed by the Committee on Climate Change, and are we not just playing with figures to satisfy political parties and outside organisations?
Dr Russon
I hope that you will appreciate that I am going to struggle to answer the second part of that question. I genuinely do not think that it is the case that we are playing with figures for the sake of playing with figures. Much as we as officials might enjoy doing that, it is not about that; it is about what is at stake here. These are figures with very real, practical implications on the ground, in that the targets are the basis on which the climate change plans are produced. The climate change plans must set out to meet those targets, and they contain a whole range of practical, on-the-ground measures that affect everybody’s day-to-day lives.
The first part of your question concerned why the CCC advises that the ability to modify targets downwards as well as upwards is essential. That relates directly to the second of the two examples that I gave, which involved the fact that the science around how we measure emissions is changing all the time. The experience that we have had with the 2009 act is that that can change the figures in either direction—we can find out either that we have always had a lot more emissions than we thought or that we have had a lot less than we thought. On a year-to-year basis, which way those changes will go is entirely unpredictable. Control over the changes is almost entirely out of the hands of the Scottish Government, as decisions are made at a UK level, in line with the United Nations guidelines. In crude terms, these are things that happen to us that we have to respond to.
Modifying target levels in response to that is very much a last resort. We definitely would not want to be modifying target levels too often. Clearly, an important function of targets is to provide long-term signalling and, if you keep on adjusting them, that function is undermined. However, if really big changes to our best understanding of the current emissions levels keep on occurring, it might be necessary at some future point to adjust the targets. Because those measurement changes can go in either direction, the issue is entirely policy neutral—at this level, it is purely technocratic. That is why the CCC advice is that it is important to be able to modify the targets both ways.
Mark Ruskell
To what extent is regulatory alignment with the European Union important in that regard? As you know, there are growing calls for a net zero carbon target in the EU. In fact, the European Parliament’s lead negotiator on energy recently said that countries that resist the EU-wide proposal on net zero carbon by 2050 will be
“in the same camp as Mr Trump”.
There is clearly a political drive from the European Parliament, and the Commission is considering net zero carbon as the ultimate destination. Where does that place Scotland with regard to our policy of regulatory alignment?
Sara Grainger
Partly because of the reasons that Tom Russon gave earlier about multinational action and the development of technologies, what is happening in other countries is incredibly important with regard to how sensible or achievable it is for Scotland to have one target or another.
The other important issue concerns the risk of carbon leakage. I am sure that you are all aware of what that is, but I will spare anyone the embarrassment of having to ask—I was unaware of what it was for quite a long time. Carbon leakage is when businesses relocate to countries with more lax regulations or lower targets. If one country has a substantially higher target and tougher regulations than surrounding countries, that can have quite a negative economic impact and can affect the availability of jobs and so on. It can also result in products being imported rather than being manufactured in the country. For all those reasons, what is happening in the rest of Europe and the UK—and, indeed, in the rest of the world—is an essential consideration with regard to what target levels in Scotland should be.
Stewart Stevenson
Can you confirm that the plans that we have encompassed in the bill represent a net zero carbon target for 2050 and that the 10 percentage points difference between 90 per cent and 100 per cent relate entirely to the five gases other than carbon, of which the predominant one is methane?
Sara Grainger
That is correct.
The Convener
It is quite important to get that on the record, because there is a misunderstanding about that among the public.
Sara Grainger
There is, so I appreciate the issue being raised. My understanding of the conversation in Europe is that there is not yet an agreed definition of what “net zero” means. When people across the different countries talk about carbon neutrality, it seems to mean very different things—some people use it to mean net zero CO2 and others use it to mean net zero greenhouse gases. You are right that that is very important, convener.
10:30The Convener
Credibility and trust in what is out there is very important. To that end, how will changing to percentage targets deliver better scrutiny and improved performance?
Sara Grainger
That is another of Tom Russon’s favourite subjects.
Dr Russon
We see it as one of the key technical improvements in the bill. I beg the committee’s patience in order to provide a tiny bit of background to explain how we have got to this point, which I hope will help. Under the 2009 act, emissions reduction targets are set in two different forms: the 2020 and 2050 targets, which are set as percentage reductions from baselines of 42 per cent and 80 per cent respectively; and the annual targets, to fill in the gaps between those years, which are set as fixed amounts of emissions and expressed in megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, to the third decimal place.
There are pros and cons that come with both percentage-based and fixed amount of emissions-based targets. It is fair to say that a difficulty that was not foreseen at the time of the 2009 act is the potential for targets in two different forms becoming askew from each other. That misalignment is driven by changes to the measurement science and changes to the greenhouse gas inventory. Such changes affect the achievability of both types of target, but in different ways. In general, the fixed amount targets are much more sensitive to such changes than the percentage-based targets.
One consequence of having two different types of target is that they can become misaligned, which can lead to real difficulties both for us and for stakeholders. At the moment, the clearest example of that is that there are two different targets for 2020 and at different levels it is quite conceivable that Scotland could end up meeting one target and missing the other. That would be very hard to explain and quite counterproductive for credibility, which we all agree is central.
That is quite a long-winded way of saying that one of the key reasons for shifting to the percentage-based targets is to get all the targets in the same form. That is really important. One could ask why that form should be percentages and not fixed amounts, which would equally well address the point that I have just talked through. There are three main reasons why percentages are preferable to fixed amounts. As I said, there are some pros and cons for both. If the committee is interested we can go into those in more detail.
First, in favour of percentages, in general they are more stable in relation to changes in the measurement science. Such changes affect not just current emissions, but emissions going all the way back to the baseline. If you are measuring relative differences from the baselines to the present day, some of the changes will cancel them out.
Secondly, most of us find percentage-based targets to be more transparent. That is ultimately a subjective judgment. Some people prefer to think in terms of fixed amounts of emissions because they find it more intuitive, whereas other people find percentages more intuitive. The vast majority of the respondents to the consultation favoured the percentage target option. I find it easier to relate to 80 per cent or 90 per cent than to 52.392 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. However, that is a subjective judgment.
Thirdly, using percentage-based targets is the approach that the UK Committee on Climate Change advised that the Government should take. The committee’s view is that percentage-based targets are more transparent and more stable.
The Convener
Thank you. It is very useful to get that on record.
I have another layman’s question. As I understand it, if we had used percentages, we would have had to have removed an additional 4 megatonnes of greenhouse gases by 2020. Are we going to do that?
Dr Russon
I apologise; I am not sure that I followed the question. Are you asking about the difference between the annual and interim targets for 2020?
The Convener
As I understand it, under the original baseline we would have to have removed 40.717 megatonnes to meet the 42 per cent target. Now we know that we have to remove 44.713 megatonnes. I am asking a daft-laddie question: are we going to do that?
Dr Russon
Yes, we absolutely are. That is the daft-laddie answer. The climate change plans are required to meet the annual targets as well as the interim and 2050 targets. The effect of the misalignment between the two sets of targets that we have is that the annual targets are the harder ones to meet. The extra 4 megatonnes, as you nicely put it, fall between the annual target for 2020, which is harder, and the interim target for 2020, which is relatively a bit easier. The current climate change plan sets out to meet the tougher of the sets of targets—as the previous plans have always done—and by doing that, we of necessity meet and exceed the 42 per cent target.
The Convener
That demands a large improvement in performance—about 10 per cent.
Dr Russon
You are absolutely right.
The Convener
What does that look like? Give me an example of a sector, to illustrate the challenge.
Dr Russon
If my memory serves me correctly, emissions from the building sector are of the order of 4 megatonnes per annum.
The additional 4 megatonnes must be achieved over time—I guess that I am thinking about per annum emissions. However, you are right to say that it is a large amount. That is reflected in the package of policies and proposals in the current and previous climate change plans. The plans do not attempt to separate out policies and proposals and say, “These policies are for this target, and those policies are for that target.” That means that I am limited in my ability to give you a nicely packaged answer.
John Scott
Are the building sector and other sectors aware that there is a 10 per cent increase in the target, just like that, as a result of changing a unit of recognition?
Dr Russon
As I said, this is something that we have struggled with. It has been one of the hardest features of the 2009 act to live with, in some ways. You can well imagine the challenges that it gives us as we speak to our colleagues in Government and to stakeholders outside Government.
The position is not quite as bad as it would be if we were saying that sectors suddenly had to make the change. The inventory revisions have been building up over time. The issue brings us back to why it is so important to fix this element of the 2009 act, so that there is a clear basis and all the targets are in the same form, and so that the level of effort that is required from other parts of Government and outside Government is well understood and is stable through time. That has to be the right way to approach policy planning.
Sara Grainger
For up to five years.
Dr Russon
As Sara Grainger suggests, I am perhaps being a bit too bullish in my assessment of how effective the change will be, in that what the UKCCC proposed, which the bill will enact, is that the inventory is fixed for up to five years. Challenges such as we are considering will still arise, and I am afraid that our successors will have to come back to speak to your successors about them, but that will happen not every year but every five years. That gives external actors, in particular, who it is fair to say find all this very opaque, a bit of stability before the issue comes round again.
John Scott
I want to be absolutely clear about this, so forgive me for repeating the question. Are industry and the business sector aware of this creeping increase in the target, as it were? It was news to me when I read the papers, but I presume that others are much better informed than I am—that would certainly not be hard. It seems to me that by changing a unit you have increased the target by 10 per cent, which seems an odd way of doing business.
Dr Russon
I cannot speak to what a whole bunch of external organisations do or do not understand—
John Scott
So you do not know whether they understand this.
Dr Russon
A wide range of stakeholders are involved in the production of and the consultation on climate change plans. Those documents set out clearly the technical changes that have happened. As I have said, the plans ultimately have to set out to meet the more ambitious of the two sets of targets. However, I do not know whether the increase is well understood.
John Scott
I am not reassured that people are aware of the change.
The Convener
I presume that you would accept that that is a perfect example of why all sectors need to carry the load. As a result, when such significant changes occur, not just one or two sectors will be left to deal with them. The committee has highlighted one or two sectors across society that are not being asked to do a great deal. When we see such changes, that really brings home the need for everyone to play their part.
Sara Grainger
I certainly agree that a cross-sectoral approach is necessary to tackle the ambitious targets that we have and the even more ambitious targets that we will have. However, if you are implying—I may be understanding incorrectly what you have said—that all sectors should have the same percentage target, I am not sure that we would agree with that. At that level of detail, it makes quite a lot of sense from my perspective and the perspective of ministers to be able to look across sectors and see what it is reasonable to expect different sectors to do at different points in time, given changes in technology and emerging technology, for example.
The Convener
I was not suggesting that there should be exactly the same percentage for all sectors. However, some sectors could perhaps do more than they currently do. Let us move on.
Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
We have heard about how the Scottish Government has taken advice on future targets, and particularly on percentages. The advice must take into account target-setting criteria. How were the target-setting criteria chosen? Why do they not align more closely with the climate change plan’s sectoral approach?
Sara Grainger
The target-setting criteria are given in the 2009 act. I was not around in 2008, so I was not involved in that, but I understand that a set of criteria was consulted on in 2008. I cannot tell members how they were arrived at in the first place in order to consult on them, but I know that a set of criteria was consulted on, that they were reconsidered in light of the consultation exercise, and that they were set out in the bill in 2008 and amended by Parliament. They ended up as they are in the 2009 act. We are carrying the process forward in the bill.
In the consultation that we ran last year for the bill, the only thing that we really looked at related to the first criterion, which is:
“the objective of not exceeding the fair and safe Scottish emissions budget”.
Our thinking internally was that that criterion was no longer particularly necessary in the form that it was in because of the move to percentage-based targets. To be clear on that point, there was never any suggestion that we should move away from the importance of the concept of a fair and safe Scottish emissions budget—that remained absolutely central—but we did not think that the criterion in that form was necessary any more. However, the consultation responses were quite clear. Environmental stakeholder groups were very clear that they did not want to lose that criterion in that form and that they considered it to be very important. Therefore, the bill that we have introduced makes no change to that.
The bill moves a couple of things around. I can go into detail on quite minor changes that we have made to the wording of some of the criteria, but the answer to the question is that the criteria primarily come from the 2009 act.
Finlay Carson
Throughout the bill, there is mention of the phrase
“as soon as reasonably practicable”,
and of the Scottish Government’s proposal to find “achievable” net targets. What does “reasonably practicable” mean in practice?
10:45Sara Grainger
I can answer the question on “achievable”, and then I will pass over to a colleague to talk about
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
We will look to the UK Committee on Climate Change to advise us on what is “achievable”. Its current advice, on which the bill is based, is clear and explicit that going beyond a 90 per cent reduction is not feasible and stretches the bounds of credibility, so we interpret that as meaning that a reduction of more than 90 per cent is not achievable. That is what we mean by “achievable”.
Calum Webster (Scottish Government)
The term
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
does not have a formal definition in terms of something having to be done by a certain time. Part of the function of the term is that it needs to relate to the context to which it is being applied. The term is used quite extensively in the 2009 act and across a range of Scottish Government legislation. I am looking at Mark Eggeling to confirm that.
Finlay Carson
When you consider what is “reasonably practicable”, what do you take into account?
Calum Webster
It depends on the issue to which the term is being applied. There is a requirement in the 2009 act—which is included in the bill—that we have to publish advice from the CCC
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
It would be reasonable to think that we could do that on the day that we receive such advice, which is what has happened in the past.
Some of the other requirements, such as the need to respond to the CCC’s annual progress report, require some judgment to be applied and some information to be gathered. It would be reasonable to expect that that would be done over a longer period—responding to such requirements might take weeks rather than days. My answer is that it depends on the nature of the task in hand.
The Convener
I issue a plea to members and witnesses to consider short, sharp questions and answers, wherever possible, so that we can cover as much ground as possible.
Claudia Beamish
I will follow up on my colleague Finlay Carson’s question about the phrase
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
Does the bill require the information and advice from the UKCCC, to which you have referred, to be shared through a statement to Parliament, or can it simply be put on the internet or published in some other way as we move forward with the five-year commitment?
Calum Webster
There are no requirements in the bill other than to publish the advice. I believe that the same requirement is in the 2009 act.
Claudia Beamish
It is interesting that in section 5 there are 11 target-setting criteria. One of them, in proposed new section 2B(1)(i) of the 2009 act, refers specifically to “energy”, and proposed new section 2B(1)(e) refers to “economic circumstances”. Under “economic circumstances”, the bill refers to business more broadly. Why is “energy” specifically picked out, rather than agriculture or transport, for example? That seems strange—I will not use the word “arbitrary”, because energy is very important. How were those criteria decided? You said that they were based on the 2009 act, but my understanding is that there are fewer criteria in the 2009 act.
Sara Grainger
The criterion on energy policy is unchanged from the 2009 act—that is where it came from. I cannot tell you whether the Government conceived of it and consulted on it or whether it was added by amendment during the Parliament’s consideration of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, but we can endeavour to find that out.
What has been added to the criteria in the 2009 act is the criterion that
“current international carbon reporting practice”
be considered. That relates to the change in the accounting methodology that Tom Russon explained. That is the only substantive change to the criteria in the 2009 act.
Claudia Beamish
Were other heavy emitters such as agriculture and transport considered for inclusion in the criteria in the bill, given that energy was one of the criteria in the 2009 act? If so, why was their inclusion ruled out?
Sara Grainger
We did not look to change the criteria substantially; we accepted the criteria from the 2009 act. We merely made some very minor changes in the light of changes to the accounting framework and in response to stakeholders’ view that the Paris agreement should be more explicitly recognised. We did not conduct a full review of the rest of the criteria in the 2009 act—we accepted those as read.
Claudia Beamish
Do you not think that that sends a message that some sectors that are heavy emitters are more important than others? Are you able to give a view on that?
Sara Grainger
That is certainly not the intended message.
Claudia Beamish
I completely appreciate that. That is not what I am implying.
Stewart Stevenson
This is probably a question for Mark Eggeling. We have virtually nil legislative competence on energy—we have administrative devolution of sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989—so we need to be quite cautious about how we legislate in relation to it. Is that a fair characterisation of the situation?
Mark Eggeling
Yes, there are a number of reservations in relation to energy matters, but there are areas of devolved competence, including the promotion of energy efficiency and the like. There are things that can be done within devolved competence in this area, which would, where necessary, be picked up in the climate change plan.
John Scott
I would like to move on to emissions accounting. Could you provide a clear explanation of how emissions accounting is being amended? How is the proposed 20 per cent limit calculated?
Dr Russon
In answering that, I might struggle with the convener’s steer to be brief.
The 2009 act established two primary mechanisms by which what are termed carbon units can be used in emissions accounting. Carbon units are internationally recognised carbon credits that can be bought or sold. They represent a degree of recognised confidence that some action will be undertaken somewhere to reduce emissions by a specified amount.
The 2009 act provides for two mechanisms by which carbon units can be used to contribute towards meeting the targets for Scotland, the first of which is an adjustment to reflect the operation of the EU emissions trading scheme in Scotland. That happens automatically every year under the current carbon accounting system. The EU ETS operates in Scotland. Companies are the actors in that scheme, under which they report their emissions and, if necessary, buy permits. At the end of each year, an adjustment is applied to Scottish emissions to reflect the operation of the scheme.
The second mechanism is more intuitively clear. It relates to the possibility that the Scottish ministers may purchase international carbon units as a way of offsetting Scotland’s total emissions. Under the 2009 act, that mechanism is subject to two limits.
The first is the domestic effort target, which, in effect, means that no more than 20 per cent of the year-on-year reduction in emissions can be met through the purchase of credits by ministers. Secondly, ministers have to set recurrently absolute limits on the maximum amount for which they can use purchased units for a period in advance, which roll forwards by five years each time—it is one of the many five-yearly targets.
To come to your question, the bill would change carbon accounting in two main ways, both of which are intended to improve transparency and simplicity, and would affect both of the existing mechanisms. First, the adjustment that reflects the operation of the EU ETS would be removed and emissions would be reported on the basis of Scottish emissions from all sectors of the economy.
The second change would be that, although the option for ministers to use purchased credits would be retained, a new default limit of zero use of such credits would be established. That would effectively provide a stricter limit than the existing measures. The change reflects this Government’s clear commitment not to use purchased credits as a way of meeting targets. That commitment was set out in the recent climate change plan and will apply until at least 2032.
The bill would establish a statutory limit of zero by default. The power would exist to allow that limit to be raised, if future ministers wanted to do that and Parliament agreed to do so through secondary legislation.
That takes us to the final part of your question, which is about the 20 per cent limit. If the limit on the purchase of carbon units were to be raised from zero, it could be raised only up to 20 per cent of the year-on-year reduction in emissions. How would that figure be calculated? Under the bill, all the annual targets for all future years would be known, which would allow you to work out the year-on-year reduction in emissions that would be required. You take the difference and multiply it by 20 per cent to give the maximum amount of credits that could be used in that given year.
Why a target of 20 per cent rather than 30 or 10 per cent? The level of the current domestic effort target under the 2009 act is set at 20 per cent. In a sense, the new limit provision of a default of zero but up to 20 per cent, if that is desired at some future point, would replace the domestic effort target from the 2009 act and means that the domestic effort target as it stands could not be missed in the future, because the most that could ever be purchased would be 20 per cent. Therefore, by way of rationalisation, the domestic effort target has been removed throughout the bill.
John Scott
Under what circumstances might that power be used, if you do not revert to the default position?
Dr Russon
That is an interesting question. As I have said, this Government does not intend to use credits so, in a sense, we are speculating. In its advice on the bill, the UK Committee on Climate Change clearly advised that limited flexibility to use credits be retained. The scenario that it explored is the possibility of unforeseen changes in economic output year to year and a need to counterbalance the industries, especially those in the industrial sectors, as that economic output changes.
More widely, as with a lot of the measures in the 2009 act and in the bill, we are looking a long way into the future and there is a huge amount of broad uncertainty about international carbon trading and the co-ordination of those efforts. It seemed to us to be prudent to retain the capability to come back to the issue without needing further primary legislation to do so. However, the balance that is being struck is to set out clearly a simple principle for the foreseeable future, which is that there would be no use of carbon units in any form.
John Scott
Would the inventory revisions make targets easier or harder to meet? Would the proposed changes help to ensure greater objectivity, consistency and transparency?
Sara Grainger
Not using international carbon credits makes the targets harder to meet. We have not previously used such credits in Scotland, so that is not a comparison with our past, but with a hypothetical possibility, or potentially with other countries that do use them. All the effort having to be domestic is substantially tougher than its not having to be so.
11:00John Scott
Will that help objectivity and transparency? Will it become clearer to us all that that is a better way of doing things?
Sara Grainger
Yes. The default scenario being that zero credits will be used is much easier to explain than saying that we will consider every few years whether or not to use credits.
Richard Lyle
By virtue of sections 16, 17 and 18, the bill rationalises the annual report produced under sections 33 and 34 of the 2009 act. In what ways have sections 33 and 34 been rationalised? What has been removed or changed, and for what reason has that been done?
Sara Grainger
That is a very big question on which to be brief. Perhaps Calum Webster can do so.
Calum Webster
I will try to be brief. If the committee will bear with me, I will find the relevant sections of the 2009 act.
The rationale for making those changes has come about through stakeholder requests for alteration of the way in which we have reported on emissions in the past. At the moment, there is a convention that the cabinet secretary makes a statement in June, following publication of the greenhouse gas emissions statistics. That is not a statutory requirement, but there is a requirement in the act that a statement be made by the end of October. There is a lot of crossover between the content of the June statement that follows publication of the statistics and the statutory statement that the act requires to be made in October. That was raised at the conveners group in October 2017. There was a proposal from WWF Scotland, I think, that the contents of and requirements for the October statement be moved wholesale, to be applied following the publication of the statistics in June, and for there to be a statutory report and statement then, followed later in the year by more detailed reports on progress that had been made in the sectors later on.
The changes to sections 33 and 34 of the 2009 act have been made to allow that to happen. They are broadly similar as far as what they do is concerned, but a couple of elements that were contained in the reports have been removed. The first one that I will go into is the requirement to report against electricity-related measures in section 34(4) of the 2009 act. By removing that, we are able to make the statement and produce the report earlier than we would have been otherwise. We discussed that approach with the discussion group that we set up to look at technical elements of the bill. It was content with that proposal, because such issues are reported on under the energy statistics and also annually in relation to the energy strategy. Therefore they are not being lost; they will just be reported in another form.
Tom Russon has just talked about removal of the domestic effort target, and the reasoning behind that. That has also come out of the requirements to be reported on under section 33, although we have retained in the bill a requirement to report on the percentage of year-on-year reductions that are related to domestic effort, in the event that a future Government should choose to move away from the default position that has been established under the 2009 act.
There have been other minor changes to the criteria to reflect the fact that we have moved from fixed amounts to percentage reductions under the proposals in the bill.
The Convener
I would like a little bit of clarity on that. I clearly have a personal interest in the issue, having raised it at the Conveners Group, and it is terribly important. Courtesy of the bill, will we potentially end up in a situation in which different ministers will give statements indicating the performance in their portfolios?
Sara Grainger
WWF proposed that, in the space created in October by the June statement being made statutory, each relevant minister or cabinet secretary should make a statement to Parliament about progress in their area. We discussed and considered that, but thought that it would be quite unwieldy. I had several discussions with WWF about a different form, whereby reports on progress in each sector would be required to be laid in Parliament, but there would not necessarily have to be a statement by the Scottish ministers.
In legislation, we cannot put a requirement on any particular cabinet secretary or minister; the requirement has to be on the Scottish ministers and how it gets divvied up is up to the First Minister. We were not able to specify that the reports have to come from or be spoken to by particular cabinet secretaries, but the reports have to reflect different chapters in the climate change plan. A suite of reports will be laid in Parliament, and it will be for Parliament and its committees to consider how to make use of them and whether to call different ministers to discuss the reports.
The Convener
There is no requirement for statements to be made.
Sara Grainger
That is correct.
The Convener
That is interesting. Thank you for that.
Let us move on. In terms of recommendations from the Parliament about process, there was considerable discussion about the period that parliamentary committees have for the consideration of draft plans. There was unanimity on 60 days being completely inadequate and, if I recall correctly, there was some degree of discussion about what a better arrangement might look like, during which there was talk of 120 days, no limit and so on. In the bill, we appear to have reached a point at which the period would be extended to 90 days, only 60 days of which would be parliamentary sitting days. Can you explain the rationale behind the position that has been arrived at?
Calum Webster
Under the 2009 act, the trigger for climate change plans is the making of an order to set an annual target, which, at the moment, must be done at least every five years. The bill does not require the setting of annual targets in the same way because, as Tom Russon said, they are calculated mechanistically in relation to the interim of the 2050 target. That trigger will be lost, but it will be replaced by the requirement to lay a climate change plan at least every five years.
On that basis, we looked at the responses to the consultation, in which we asked specific questions on what the consideration period should be, and we took into account the views of committees when we discussed this with the technical discussion group. The position that we came to for the bill is that, to ensure that the Scottish ministers could meet the requirement in the bill to lay a plan within five years, there should be a defined period for the committee and the Parliament to look at the plan. If that was not there, it might not be possible for the Scottish ministers to meet that requirement.
We came to the minister’s view that the extension of the time period in which the Parliament has to consider plans, from 60 days to 90 days, which includes the 60 sitting days, is a good balance between the current arrangements and the calls for the consideration period to be open-ended.
The Convener
I suppose that the only thing to say is that, if recess periods are included in that, we could lose quite a lot of time and momentum in the scrutiny process.
The other aspect is that, as I read it, there is no time limit for the Government to produce, lay or, indeed, finalise its draft plan. I recognise that the last time that the Government produced a plan we asked it to take its time in finalising its draft, so I am not being hypocritical—I just want to be clear on the position.
Sara Grainger
There is a time limit for when the final draft plan has to be laid—it has to be within five years of the previous draft plan. There is a defined period within which that has to be done.
The Convener
But in terms of—
Sara Grainger
There is no requirement for when we get started.
The Convener
It strikes me that, although 90 days is an improvement, I am not convinced that where we have got to is exactly the best place.
Stewart Stevenson
On page 17 of the bill, we see new section 35B, which will be part of the replacement for section 35 of the 2009 act. In relation to the report on the plan, new section 35B(3) states that a report has to be laid by 31 October. Presumably that interacts with laying the plan itself.
Sara Grainger
I am sorry—can you ask that question again?
Stewart Stevenson
I am on page 17 of the bill and looking at new section 35B(3), which is on line 18. It refers back to new section 35B(1), which reads:
“The Scottish Ministers must in each relevant year, lay before the Scottish Parliament a report on each substantive chapter of the most recent climate change plan”.
The plan has been consulted on for two varying lengths of time when the Parliament is sitting. Nonetheless, to some extent, that need to lay the report by 31 October will interact with the 60/90 days. How does it do that?
Sara Grainger
I think that I understand your question.
Stewart Stevenson
I may not understand the question. I am really asking how they interact.
Sara Grainger
New section 35B is about the progress reports against the plan. By each 31 October, the relevant Scottish ministers will be required to report on progress to Parliament against the plan that is the plan at that time. If there is a plan in prep, that one would not be reported against; it would be—
Stewart Stevenson
Do forgive me—let me just intervene. There is no legislative interaction between the two, because 31 October deals with whatever plan is prevailing.
Sara Grainger
Yes.
Stewart Stevenson
In practical terms, is it in the minds of ministers that 31 October and the laying of a draft plan interact in some way? If that is in the ministers’ minds, would it be appropriate for us to consider whether the bill as drafted should be tidied up to make it clearer what that interaction is?
Sara Grainger
I cannot comment on what is in the minister’s mind. I can confirm that that has not been in our minds, as officials. That is not a conversation that we have had.
Stewart Stevenson
That is fine. We will move on.
The Convener
Let us wrap this up by looking at the finances. The financial memorandum states that
“moving from an 80% to 90% Greenhouse Gas reduction target is estimated to result in an additional system cost of approximately £13 billion over the period 2030-2050”.
There are also other accompanying figures. I would like to understand how robust the methodology is for calculating indirect costs and what the margin for error is within that method. It is not an exact science.
Sara Grainger
It certainly is not. There is a great deal of uncertainty around the cost estimates that are given—they are given as a best indication rather than anything more. The only thing that we can be absolutely certain of is that they will be wrong, but I cannot tell you in which direction.
The Convener
How good a guess is it?
Sara Grainger
That is not something that I can answer. The costs given under the TIMES modelling section, are, quite evidently, from TIMES. To the best of my knowledge, analysts have not attempted to calculate confidence intervals for that. I do not know whether that would be possible or even a sensible thing to do. I am happy to take that away and look into it.
The Convener
In the absence of such detail, it looks like a figure that has been plucked out of thin air. I know that it is not. Is some of the detail publicly available? Can we see it?
11:15Sara Grainger
I am not sure that I understand.
The Convener
We have a figure here of £13 billion for the estimated system cost over a 20-year period. We are looking for an understanding of how accurate that figure may be, how it was arrived at and what confidence we can have in it. Mr Scott is whispering in my ear, “Can we see the workings?”
Sara Grainger
We could potentially show you the workings of TIMES, but you might be very sorry that you asked.
The Convener
Let us break it down in another way. Presumably, we have an understanding of what things were added together to get £13 billion. What does that look like on a sectoral basis?
Sara Grainger
We definitely cannot answer the question about what it looks like on a sectoral basis. My understanding of TIMES is limited, but I know that it only gives the overall system cost. Any ideas about where those costs might fall depend on decisions taken by ministers in climate change plans.
The Convener
I am sorry, but I am getting inundated with requests from my colleagues to ask questions—little wonder.
Sara Grainger
I can see that it is a very popular subject.
The Convener
A take away from today is that you need to come back to the committee with as much detail as you can provide, because at the moment it looks pretty ropy.
Mark Ruskell
I found that answer quite staggering. Why produce a figure at all if you cannot justify it? I am interested in all the assumptions behind the £13 billion figure. For example, does TIMES assume a degree of technology reinvestment, as technology comes to an end and there is investment in new technology and capital plant? We need to understand whether those are additional costs to tackling climate change or whether they are costs that are inherent in moving an energy system towards 2050.
Sara Grainger
I understand.
Mark Ruskell
The kind of energy plant that we would have had in 1986, in Longannet, for example, had to get shut and that is a system cost. Would TIMES see that as a massive cost?
Sara Grainger
I am sorry. I have clearly done an exceptionally bad job of explaining where the numbers come from. It is true that they are indications.
Mark Ruskell
They have been put into words in the committee session and we need to understand exactly what the basis for such a figure is when it is thrown up as a cost.
Sara Grainger
I can do a little better, verbally. We came up with that £13 billion figure by running TIMES under the assumptions of the climate change plan for the 80 per cent end target for 2050. We then ran the figures again using the 90 per cent target. We took the systems costs from both and subtracted one from the other to find the difference, which was £13 billion. That is above and beyond the cost that would happen anyway through society continuing to function. It is the additional cost of moving from a target of 80 per cent to one of 90 per cent.
Mark Ruskell
Is it reliant on purchasing credits?
Sara Grainger
No.
The Convener
Did anyone look at the figures for what it would cost if we did not do it?
Sara Grainger
Yes. That is the cost of the climate change plan. We gave you that figure in the letter that we sent to the committee—I will try to find it. The £13 billion is in addition. If we did not increase the targets but kept them at 80 per cent, the cost would be 2.2 per cent of gross domestic product. We would need to come back to you further on that.
The Convener
I want to get the overall picture. There may be an additional cost of some amount, but there will be an additional cost to the economy if we do not do it.
Sara Grainger
I understand what you mean. You are asking about the additional cost to the economy of not tackling climate change.
The Convener
Yes.
Sara Grainger
We attempted to set that out in the financial memorandum, based on the work that was done for us by ClimateXChange, which looked at the global literature, at the costs of limiting climate change beyond 2° to nearer 1.5°, at the cost of the damage if we do not mitigate, and at the cost of mitigation and adaptation. It was not able to come up with costs for Scotland, but it was able to review average costs for countries and jurisdictions.
The ClimateXChange report is nicely titled—“Landscape review of international assessments of the economic impacts of climate change”. I am surprised that you have not come across it. It sets out the costs as a percentage of GDP, and the upshot is that the cost of not mitigating climate change would probably be more than the cost of mitigating climate change, but that is on the basis of probability, because the estimates of cost depend so much on the likelihood of extreme events, which are an issue of probability.
The Convener
It sounds a pretty scary figure, if it is accurate, but in reality it is not, because we have to do it.
Sara Grainger
It is a big, scary number, but the cost of not tackling climate change would also be a big, scary number. That is the summary.
Stewart Stevenson
Section 19 of the bill replaces section 35 of the 2009 act with a new section 35. Subsection (4) of that new section is a word-for-word replication of section 35(9) of the 2009 act, and subsection (5) of the new section is a word-for-word replication of section 35(10) of the 2009 act. What do they say in relation to the breakdown of costs? The new section 35(4) that is introduced by section 19 of the bill states that the plan must set out
“proposals and policies regarding the respective contributions towards meeting the emissions reduction targets that should be made by—
(a) energy efficiency,
(b) energy generation,
(c) land use, and
(d) transport.”
That is word for word what is in the 2009 act. New section 35(5) states:
“The plan must also explain how the proposals and policies set out in the plan are expected to affect different sectors of the Scottish economy.”
You appear to have told us that we cannot do that—that we cannot break down the costs according to how they affect different sectors of the economy—or have I misunderstood what I have been hearing?
Sara Grainger
Yes and no. What we cannot do is separate out the costs up to 2050, so there is a difference in what we can say about the plan and what we can say about targets up to 2050.
Stewart Stevenson
Forgive me for intervening, but I want to bring this to a conclusion. Is it the case that that really relates only to the plan?
Sara Grainger
That is correct.
Stewart Stevenson
So it is essentially retrospective rather than prospective.
Sara Grainger
Well, the plans look forward.
Stewart Stevenson
Yes, but as far as the plan goes forward—and we are looking in the first instance at a plan that goes to 2032—we should have the numbers under those separate headings, rather than there being one aggregate number. I do not have the plan to hand, so I cannot answer that question for myself.
Sara Grainger
I am going to say that you must be mistaken because we have not done that and we surely would have done if we were required to. I will need to take that one away.
The Convener
Please come back to us on that, because there will be a lot of interest in that aspect.
Claudia Beamish
I would like to see what you come back with, because I have quite serious concerns about it, especially going between 2040 and 2050. If we do not know what the technology is going to be, I do not understand how we can be putting figures into the air.
John Scott
I have to declare an interest, as I come from a sector where it is all very well just to say that there is a cost of £13 billion, but people would quite like to know the real costs that they are likely to bear. Our economy is reducing in Scotland, as we speak, and you are gaily saying, “Well it might cost businesses £13 billion to carry on doing what they are doing, if we are to deliver on our climate change targets.” A breakdown, sector by sector, would be enormously helpful in giving an indication of the burden that is likely to be placed on each sector by the climate change proposals. Stewart Stevenson made that point. Are you unable to provide such a breakdown, or are you not prepared to do so?
Sara Grainger
We are simply not able to provide that—
John Scott
Do you not agree that it would be helpful, or do you just think, “Tough”?
Sara Grainger
I am certainly not disagreeing that it would be helpful, if you are telling me that it would be helpful. It is not possible for us to provide—
The Convener
I think that the point is that it is necessary. We need to see the figures, if we are to determine whether the £13 billion figure is credible. There must be figures that add up to £13 billion.
Sara Grainger
We will take the issue back to the analysts who run TIMES and see what we can do. I am really sorry if I have given the impression that I am gaily bandying the figure around. That was certainly not my intention.
John Scott
Not gaily, but without explanation.
Sara Grainger
Well, clearly with a poor explanation, which I will endeavour to correct.
The Convener
I must bring in Richard Lyle, because he has been waiting patiently.
Richard Lyle
Is the £13 billion based on today’s prices or 2050 prices?
Sara Grainger
Today’s prices.
Richard Lyle
What is £13 billion in 2050 prices?
Sara Grainger
I cannot tell you that.
Richard Lyle
It is at least £200 billion, given inflation and so on over the next 30-odd years.
John Scott
Is it fair to say that, in enacting the bill, we would be asking businesses in Scotland to sign a blank cheque, given the unquantifiable cost and burden that is likely to be placed on them? Is that a fair assessment?
Sara Grainger
No, I do not think that it is. Where the costs—
John Scott
How would you define it, then?
Sara Grainger
Where the costs fall will depend on the decisions that ministers make in the production of climate change plans, because it is the plans that will establish how we are to meet the targets. That is where the impact can be considered, in relation to where the costs will fall. We cannot do that for the targets out to 2050.
The Convener
Let us be accurate: the costs will fall on the public sector and individuals, too. They will not fall just on business.
Sara Grainger
In theory, at least, the costs could fall on the public sector, on individuals and households and on businesses. They could fall to one group entirely and not the others, or in any kind of mix.
The Convener
It is a mix of the three groups.
Sara Grainger
Yes.
The Convener
We have covered a lot of ground and I want to draw the discussion to a conclusion. We are particularly interested in the financial element.
Sara Grainger
Understood.
The Convener
You have agreed to come back to us on a number of things, and we look forward to that. Not only would it be helpful to have as much detail as possible on the financial element, I think that such detail is necessary, to be frank.
I thank the witnesses for their time.
11:28 Meeting suspended.11:32 On resuming—
19 June 2018
19 June 2018
23 October 2018
30 October 2018
6 November 2018
13 November 2018
15 November 2018
20 November 2018
27 November 2018
Committee findings
What is secondary legislation?
Secondary legislation is sometimes called 'subordinate' or 'delegated' legislation. It can be used to:
- bring a section or sections of a law that’s already been passed into force
- give details of how a law will be applied
- make changes to the law without a new Act having to be passed
An Act is a Bill that’s been approved by Parliament and been given Royal Assent (formally approved).
Debate on the Bill
A debate for MSPs to discuss what the Bill aims to do and how it'll do it.
Stage 1 debate transcript
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
Our next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-16697, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, at stage 1.
14:30The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (Roseanna Cunningham)
I thank the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee for its stage 1 report. I am pleased that it supports the general principles of the bill and recognises that it will maintain Scotland’s place among countries that are at the forefront of global ambition on climate change, and that it will make target setting more transparent and accountable. Those are exactly the reasons why we introduced the bill in the first place.
I intend to summarise the Scottish Government’s view of the bill and to set out our response to the lead committee’s recommendations. I will focus on three main areas. First, I will focus on Scotland’s headline target and the upcoming advice from the Committee on Climate Change. Secondly, I will focus on the importance of transparency and rigour for the framework within which the targets are being set. Thirdly, I will focus on the vital question of how the on-the-ground-measures that will be used to achieve the targets should be agreed.
The Scottish Government has been absolutely clear about achieving its long-term goal of net zero emissions as soon as possible. Throughout the bill process, we have been consistent in our intention to set a target date for that in law, as soon as it can be done credibly and responsibly. The bill includes the most ambitious statutory emissions reduction targets of any country in the world for 2020, 2030 and 2040, and it means that Scotland will be carbon neutral by 2050. Those targets follow the CCC’s 2017 advice on the highest-ambition Scottish response to the Paris agreement that remains within the limits of feasibility.
In its stage 1 report, the committee has acknowledged the world-leading nature of the targets in the bill, as have a number of leading international figures, including Laurent Fabius, the architect of the Paris agreement, who has described the bill as a
“concrete application of the ... Agreement”.
The bill clearly delivers on the Scottish Government’s commitment always to strive for the most ambitious credible climate targets. However, I recognise that the evidence continues to evolve at a rapid pace. In particular, the special report, “Global Warming of 1.5°C” that was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last October, represents a very significant step forward in the scientific evidence that underpinned the Paris agreement, and I am delighted that the lead authors of the IPCC’s report are in Edinburgh this week for a major scientific meeting, as part of their preparations for their next assessment review.
In responding quickly to the IPCC’s report, the Scottish Government joined the Welsh and United Kingdom Governments in jointly commissioning from the CCC further independent expert advice on targets. That advice is scheduled to be published on 2 May. If the CCC advises that higher targets for Scotland are now credible, the Scottish Government will act quickly, in line with that advice. I emphasise that important point: if, in its advice in May, the CCC advises that a date for net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases can now credibly be set, we will act to amend the bill to that effect at stage 2.
The Scottish Government recognises the urgency of the call to action on climate change. That call has been set out through the science of the IPCC, and is now being expressed very eloquently to us by our young people. I believe that some of those young people are here to watch this afternoon’s proceedings.
The devastating flooding that Malawi is currently experiencing is making it painfully clear what is at stake for communities around the world. All too often, it is those who have contributed least to climate change who are hit hardest by it.
In the light of some confusion in the ECCLR Committee stage 1 report on our approach in relation to the ambition of near-term targets to reduce emissions, I clarify once again that we have already asked the CCC to provide updated advice on the appropriate levels of all Scotland’s future targets, including those for 2020 and 2030. If the CCC advises that higher near-term targets are now credible, the Scottish Government will act quickly to put such targets in the bill at stage 2. Whatever targets are agreed by Parliament will then shape the update of the current “Climate Change Plan: third report on proposals and policies 2018-2032”.
I want the CCC’s advice next month to inform Parliament’s deliberations on the bill. I note the ECCLR Committee’s intention to seek for the remaining stages a timetable that will allow it to take further evidence, following publication of the CCC’s advice. It is my hope that the committee will be able to find a wide consensus around a set of targets that reflect the highest credible level of ambition.
I turn to the framework around the headline emissions reduction targets. The Scottish Parliament’s Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 is already the toughest statutory framework on climate change in the world. Scotland remains the only country to have set statutory annual targets to reduce its emissions, and has ensured annual scrutiny here in Parliament. We were the first to include in our targets a fair share of emissions from international aviation and shipping, and I am pleased that Wales has now joined us in doing that.
Scotland’s approach is working well. As members know, Scotland has almost halved its emissions since the 1990 baseline, and the last three annual emissions reduction targets have been met. As the ECCLR Committee recognises in its stage 1 report, the bill makes a range of changes to improve further the transparency and accountability of the 2009 act target framework, while maintaining its rigour. For example, the bill’s provisions will measure progress towards targets based on actual emissions from Scotland, and the bill establishes the clear default position that no international carbon credits can be used to meet domestic targets.
The ECCLR Committee has proposed further changes to the target framework. The Scottish Government accepts many of the proposed changes and will explore updating the definition of Scotland’s fair and safe emissions budget so that it is more directly linked to the Paris agreement, including the aim that it has set for global temperature.
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)
Just for clarity, can the minister confirm whether the Scottish Government has completely abandoned its plans either to cut air passenger duty or to eradicate it altogether?
Roseanna Cunningham
It would be helpful if members were to focus on areas that are within my portfolio. Colleagues will deal with specific issues that arise in relation to their portfolios.
The additional changes to the framework, combined with those that are already in the bill, will ensure that Scotland continues to have the most rigorous, transparent and accountable framework of climate change legislation anywhere in the world.
That, in turn, will ensure that the framework continues to fulfil its purpose of driving effective on-the-ground action to reduce emissions. The Scottish Government recognises that highly ambitious climate change targets have to be matched by an equally ambitious package of delivery measures, if they are to be credible and meaningful.
The approach that was established by this Parliament’s 2009 act is for ambitious evidence-based targets to be set in legislation, and then for the Government to introduce regular and comprehensive climate change plans that set out how the targets will be met, with Parliament playing a key role in scrutinising the plans.
I note the committee’s view that it might have preferred to include specific delivery measures and targets in the bill. Although I understand the desire to consider headline targets and delivery measures side by side, I consider that what is most important is that we get the best possible package of delivery measures for the people of Scotland. The Scottish Government is of the view that the current approach remains the best way to achieve that outcome. Setting out delivery measures through regular strategic plans allows measures to be updated as circumstances and technologies evolve. The plan process means that a wide range of policies can be considered so that we find the most beneficial pathways overall.
To put a specific set of delivery measures directly into statute now would risk compromising the approach and might lead to less effective overall planning—potentially even by binding us to delivery mechanisms that prove to be ineffective or that will be overtaken.
John Scott (Ayr) (Con)
Does the cabinet secretary concede that the bill is strong on ambition but rather weak and short on costed solutions? The financial memorandum is, at best, unclear in that regard, so can the cabinet secretary give any clarification?
Roseanna Cunningham
John Scott is a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, which has taken evidence from a number of people who have flagged up the point that long-term costing for climate change is not simple, and that the further out we go, the harder and more vague it becomes. The bill is about target setting, and a lot of the detail will be discussed in considering the climate change plans. I know that the member and some of his colleagues are very keen for that aspect of costing to be part of the discussion: I therefore expect that it will be.
In that context, I recognise that it is vital that the climate change plan process works as well as possible. I also recognise that there is scope for improvement in the process, so I welcome many of the constructive suggestions that the committee has made. The bill already includes the addition of new annual statutory sector-by-sector reporting for monitoring delivery of climate change plans. As has been requested by the committee, we will bring forward the timing of those reports from October to before the summer recess. The Scottish Government has also committed to exploring lodging a range of amendments, including amendments that would specify a structure of chapter headings for future plans.
We have already committed to looking again at the content of the current plan as soon as the bill is finalised. I have noted the committee’s recommendation on the timing of that update, and I will consider that carefully with my colleagues. We will provide a further response to Parliament once the CCC’s advice on target levels is available, but prior to the start of stage 2.
The transition to our being a carbon neutral and then a net zero emissions country will be transformational. The current climate change plan includes plans to phase out the need for new fossil-fuel vehicles by 2032, and effectively to decarbonise all buildings by 2050. Although there will be immense co-benefits and opportunities, hard decisions will be needed in many areas. As the IPCC made clear in its special report, everyone will have to act—Governments, businesses, communities and individuals.
Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Does the cabinet secretary accept that, if we are to make the just transition that everyone talks about, we certainly need to do a lot better than we are currently doing on employment in renewables in this country?
Roseanna Cunningham
I think that there is broad agreement on the need to do that. If I have time, I will talk a little about the just transition, which is central to a lot of what we are doing.
Everyone who is calling for even higher target ambition must also, if those calls are to be credible, be prepared to support practical on-the-ground measures to deliver the additional emissions reductions. A number of the policy levers that are needed to deliver the transformational changes to create a carbon-neutral Scotland remain reserved to Westminster.
For example, decarbonisation of heat depends on UK Government decisions on the future of the gas network. The potential for industrial-scale deployment of carbon capture, usage and storage depends on decisions about conservation of critical infrastructure in the North Sea. Faster decarbonisation of transport in Scotland could be achieved by enabling Scotland’s electricity network companies to make investment decisions that differ from those that are made in other parts of Great Britain.
More broadly, an approach to UK taxation that is coherent with high ambition on climate change and inclusivity could enable a faster pace of decarbonisation that is fair for all. The UK Government is able to tax goods and services to reflect the environmental harm that is inherent in their production or consumption. Through broad business taxation powers, including corporate taxes and reliefs, the UK Government is able to influence investment decisions and the structure of the economy. That is why it is so important that the forthcoming CCC advice will consider UK as well as Scottish and Welsh targets.
I again thank the lead committee for the constructive recommendations in its report. Climate change is a defining and far-reaching issue on which cross-party consensus is especially important. The general principles of the bill—of Scotland striving for the highest ambition on credible targets, and doing so within a transparent framework that provides strong roles for independent expert advice and parliamentary scrutiny—are ones on which I sincerely hope we can all agree. I look forward to our debate.
I am proud to move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill.
The Presiding Officer
I call Gillian Martin, the convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee.
14:45Gillian Martin (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
As convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, I welcome the opportunity to highlight the committee’s views on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill.
Climate change is the biggest environmental and societal challenge that we face. It represents the single greatest threat to our existence on this planet, and it is the most significant intergenerational justice issue of our time. Many of us in the chamber have children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, and it is their world that we are fighting to save. They are telling us loud and clear that we need to do more. They are organising outside this Parliament every week and demanding that we act. We must listen and ensure that we acknowledge the urgency and gravity of the task at hand.
The bill presents us with a timely opportunity to examine Scotland’s current ambition, and to explore what we can all do to limit global warming and tackle climate change now. We all recognise the urgency of the situation, so we need to increase and accelerate our action in the near term. We also need to recognise that the benefits and cost savings of early action far outweigh the costs of climate change itself. Increasing our climate change ambitions will offer clear potential for innovation, jobs, the economy, the environment and the wellbeing of the people of Scotland and beyond. We want Scotland to be at the forefront of exploring, developing and investing in those opportunities and the technology that will help us to reach our emissions targets.
The Scottish Government has stated that it is working towards
“a low carbon economy that will help to deliver sustainable economic growth and create a greener, fairer and healthier Scotland”.
We believe that the bill represents a significant step in the right direction, by strengthening Scotland’s existing climate change legislation and setting Scotland on the path to achieving the ambitious targets that are set out in the Paris agreement.
The bill sets a target of a 90 per cent reduction in all greenhouse gases by 2050, and it allows for a target of a 100 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the baseline—known as a net zero target—to be created at a future date. It also introduces more challenging interim targets, including a 66 per cent drop in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, with a 78 per cent decrease envisaged by 2040. We welcome the introduction of more challenging interim targets and note the cabinet secretary’s points about accepting the UK Committee on Climate Change’s revised advice.
Although we recognise that this is a framework bill, our exploration of the issues that it raises has taken us far beyond figures and percentages. We travelled across the country and found communities eager to support Scotland’s ambition to be a global leader. We held outreach events in Glasgow, Elgin and Kirkcaldy, as well as one here in Parliament. At those events, we asked participants to set out the changes that they would personally be prepared to make in order to achieve more ambitious climate change targets. One of the more memorable visits was to Wallacestone primary school in Brightons, where we met the school’s eco group—a group of young future leaders who were brimming with ideas on how we can move forward together. We also held several formal evidence sessions with stakeholders from across Scotland, as well as with experts who are tackling climate change issues in Sweden, in order to gain an international perspective.
The evidence that we heard throughout our scrutiny of the bill at stage 1 served only to emphasise the scale of the challenge that we face, as well as the immediate need for action. We identified several significant issues that still need to be addressed, and provisions that still require strengthening, in order to ensure that Scotland fully contributes to meeting the challenge of limiting temperature rises.
We are conscious that the bill was drafted ahead of the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on limiting global temperature rises to 1.5°C. The committee supports the report’s findings and urges the Scottish Government to ensure that the stark evidence presented in it is taken into account at stage 2.
The targets in the bill were based on the advice from the Committee on Climate Change in 2017. As we have said, updated advice from the Committee on Climate Change on the targets that we should be seeking to achieve will be published in early May.
Elaine Smith (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Was the committee disappointed by the Government’s late response to the stage 1 report?
Gillian Martin
Obviously, I am speaking on behalf of the committee. It is always good to have time to consider a Government response, but we were aware of the fact that we were given considerable time—extra time—at stage 1 to put together our report. We have to be mindful of the fact that we were given many weeks of extra time earlier this year.
We have recommended that the bill should reflect the most ambitious targets that are set out in the forthcoming advice from the Committee on Climate Change and that the Government should provide an explanation if it acts contrary to any advice from the CCC.
We identified several other areas that needed to be addressed. As the IPCC’s report states, we have a crucial 12-year period. If we do not get things in line, we will find it incredibly difficult to get back on track. With that stark warning in mind, we need a greater sense of urgency to ensure that global temperatures do not rise to dangerous levels in the near term. Therefore, we ask for clarity to be provided on the temperature limit that the bill seeks to work towards. We recommend that that should be 1.5°C and that it should reflect the most ambitious scenario of the CCC’s forthcoming advice.
We also need a greater focus on transformational behaviour change at the individual, institutional and systemic levels, so we ask the Scottish Government to prioritise, promote and incentivise behaviour change.
John Scott
I note Gillian Martin’s comments on behalf of the committee on limiting the temperature rise to 1.5°C and our preparedness to take advice from the Committee on Climate Change.
The cabinet secretary has talked about a “credible” scenario. Would Gillian Martin be happy to concede that the cabinet secretary has made a valid point in that regard?
Gillian Martin
I will concede that, because targets are all very well, but we need pathways in order to achieve them, or else we will fail. We cannot afford to fail in reaching our ambition.
We noted that
“Climate justice requires further focus”
to ensure that everyone is supported in the transition to a decarbonised economy and society. No one should be left behind. Therefore, we ask the Scottish Government to continue to place an emphasis on a just transition and to consider all steps necessary to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected.
We noted in our report that
“Further consideration is needed on the possibility of establishing an independent Just Transition Commission”,
which could be underpinned by statute.
Alex Rowley
I welcome what the committee’s report said about that and note that the committee also said:
“Further consideration should be given to setting sector specific targets within the Bill.”
On a just transition, we know that transport, for example, has performed fairly poorly and that agriculture has a long way to go. However, there is sometimes the view in those sectors that they are not quite sure what they are meant to do and what support they should get. Should the committee push further on setting sector targets so that we understand better what is going on in those sectors and what needs to go on in them?
Gillian Martin
I take on board Alex Rowley’s view on that, but we do not want to constrain ourselves, because we do not yet know where the innovation will be. We recommended that, in their support for businesses, business support networks and business support agencies such as Scottish Enterprise prioritise low-carbon innovation. As I said, we do not know where the innovation will be. If we set strict sectoral targets, we might constrain development.
We believe that the Government needs to take a holistic approach to climate change across all sectors and that further work is needed on target setting and identifying pathways for key sectors. Investment in and support for innovation, knowledge exchange and technology transfer and support to sectors such as agriculture and transport will be vital to meeting the targets.
In our report, we asked the Scottish Government to consider introducing sector-specific targets and to provide further clarity on the targets that it has already set. We have also asked it to clarify the costs and opportunities associated with setting revised targets and to consider the limitations of the TIMES model.
We believe that further clarity on and safeguards in the use of carbon credits are necessary. We also believe that there should be no fixed period for parliamentary scrutiny of climate change plans and that monitoring reports should be published in time for parliamentary committees to consider them in their budget scrutiny. I thank the cabinet secretary for her response on that today.
As a developed country, Scotland has a responsibility to lead action to ensure that future generations inherit a world that is sustainable. A secure and fair future for the planet lies at the heart of what the bill is trying to achieve, and experts have advised that that will only come about through transformational change.
I have been inspired—we have all been inspired—by the children and young people who have participated in climate strikes across Scotland. We hosted 13 climate strikers at our committee this morning and some of them are in the gallery this afternoon. In 12 years’ time, they will no longer be children. They will be adults dealing with the consequences of our actions now. We have a choice to make. Do we help them now or do we hinder their future? We want to see greater urgency and action across all parts of Government—
The Presiding Officer
Convener.
Gillian Martin
The bill represents a significant step in the right direction. I commend the general principles of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Parliament and recommend that they be agreed to, but, as highlighted throughout our report, the committee has raised several significant issues that need to be addressed. The committee, therefore, invites the Scottish Government to address those issues at stage 2.
The Presiding Officer
Thank you convener. I call Maurice Golden, to be followed by Claudia Beamish.
14:55Maurice Golden (West Scotland) (Con)
The numbers sound small—a rise of 1.5°C or 2°C. Yet those seemingly small temperature increases would have profound effects on humanity: tens of millions of people would be impacted by sea level rises, hundreds of millions would face drought, and billions would be exposed to extreme heatwaves. The environment would see catastrophic changes too: almost all coral reefs would be lost, the Arctic would be regularly ice free, and scores of species would be impacted. Indeed, as the RSPB has highlighted, we have already seen wildlife affected right here in Scotland.
The question is: what must be done to avoid that? Much of the debate around the bill has, understandably, been on what targets should be set for emissions reductions, and especially on the potential for net zero emissions.
First, though, clarity is needed on exactly how the bill responds to the Paris agreement. I note that the ECCLR Committee’s report recommends that the bill should explicitly reference the temperature targets that are being aimed for, with a 1.5°C limit suggested. Moreover, the committee recommends that the bill should also include a commitment to avoid an overshoot scenario. Both are sound proposals. I am mindful of the consequences of an overshoot scenario, having raised the issue last year with Professor Jim Skea from the IPCC. He was clear that the environmental consequences would be disastrous—not to mention the economic impact of having to cope with subsequent higher adaptation costs.
It is not just the long term that we should be concerned about. The IPCC report suggests a sense of urgency and raises the issue of what actions we are taking in the near term, particularly on interim targets. Both the UK and Scottish Governments have sensibly sought updated advice on our long-term targets from the UK Committee on Climate Change, and I welcome the same approach for the 2030 target. Of course, we will hold the Scottish Government to account in line with the advice that is received. It is important that we do so, because progress in reducing emissions will be achieved only if it is rooted in an evidence-based approach. The bill affords us an opportunity to embed that approach at a fundamental level across all Government departments.
I was pleased to see that the ECCLR Committee takes a similar view on monitoring and reporting, echoing the case that I have consistently made for climate change thinking to be factored into every portfolio. The suggestion is that, in practice, climate plan monitoring reports are made available in time to inform budget scrutiny, and that ministers should report on the long-term impact of their spending decisions rather than just the immediate impact. The latter point lends extra strength to the idea that individual ministers should be held accountable for delivering specific sections of the climate plan. That accountability would produce a greater emphasis on actions that are achievable—and it is worth noting that the committee has recommended that the bill should include a definition of “achievable”. That measure would give the public, businesses and stakeholders confidence that policy decisions are rooted in practicality.
Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Maurice Golden may have noticed the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report, which suggests that it does not intend to take further action, particularly on agriculture, beyond what it already laid out in the debate in the chamber on 10 January, when it explicitly took the view not to link future farm support to action on climate change. What is the Conservative view on that? Do you support farm support being dependent on action on climate change?
Maurice Golden
I was disappointed by the tardiness of the Government’s response to the committee report, which did not allow parliamentarians time to fully digest it.
On the specific question about agriculture, I see farming, land managers and the agriculture sector as a whole as part of the solution in tackling climate change. Payment should very much be part of that. An incentivised system should work for farmers and our climate change efforts. In addition, fantastic techniques are available, including no-till farming. We have to ensure that we not only foster the sector, but make it accountable. This and future Scottish Governments should be scrutinised on that.
We must closely monitor the situation when the CCC releases its updated advice on reaching net zero. The cabinet secretary has already confirmed that she will adopt any technically feasible pathway to the targets. Ultimately, that will result in consideration of sectors beyond those that have already seen significant emissions reductions. For example, the 49 per cent overall emissions reduction that we have seen has been largely driven by a 69 per cent emissions cut in the energy sector and a 73 per cent cut in the waste sector. Those are welcome achievements resulting from a combination of public, private and third sector actions and a favourable policy landscape from both the UK and Scottish Governments.
However, that success masks a lack of progress in other areas, such as the housing sector, where emissions are down by only 21 per cent, or transport, where they are down by just 3 per cent. Conversely, success must not breed complacency. The latest waste figures show that the recycling rate is down while the volume of waste and the amount incinerated is up. Clearly, there is need for further action: action that is based on evidence, informed by relevant voices and has at its heart the principle of just transition.
Let us consider agriculture. NFU Scotland is broadly supportive of the current strategy and is willing to engage on further measures. For it, progress is, as I have highlighted, more a question of resources and recognition of the nature of the sector, rather than just a question of stretching targets. Therefore, we propose direct capital funding and technical support, which would enable farmers to produce better environmental and economic outcomes. It would recognise that they are part of the solution.
That same principle applies to other businesses: they must feel that they can contribute and they must have confidence in the changes that we ask them to make. However, a recent WWF Scotland survey found that just one in six small businesses felt they had the right direction from the Scottish Government about their role in climate change. That should be a wake-up call to make a better business cases for action on climate change. When businesses are invested in the process, the results can be extremely impressive. For example, the Scottish Leather Group in Renfrewshire has developed a world-leading low-carbon leather production technology, which has reduced the carbon footprint from 10kg of CO2 per 1m2 to less than 1kg.
I have mentioned the housing and transport sectors. With the former, the Parliament has indicated that it wants to take action, and the Scottish Conservatives led cross-party efforts last year to bring forward energy efficiency and heat waste reduction targets by a decade.
In transport, targets have been set to phase out petrol and diesel cars and reduce sectoral emissions by 37 per cent by 2032. That ambition is laudable but, with just 1 per cent of Scotland’s 2.9 million cars currently being electric, there is a question over the level of detail and the feasibility of that. Perhaps a way to kick-start progress would be—as the Scottish Conservatives have suggested—to ensure that, where possible, electric vehicles are the default in all public procurement by 2027.
In sector after sector, there is a need to go further. I understand calls to commit to maximum reductions as quickly as possible. That is why I welcome the opportunity to explore these issues in as much detail as possible as the bill progresses through Parliament.
15:06Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)
I am proud to open for Scottish Labour. This is the first parliamentary debate on a bill that holds monumental significance for the future of our country, our standing in the world and the joint battle against man-made climate change. I am also pleased to support the recommendations that are set out in the stage 1 report of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee.
In this stage 1 debate, I must recognise the tireless work that has already been undertaken to get us to this point. I want to thank the clerks and all stakeholders for their briefings and support, as well as those who were out at the demonstration today, which focused our minds. I also thank those who gave compelling evidence to the committee, and the school students—some of whom are in the gallery today—who have made sure that this Parliament really sits up and listens. It was fantastic to meet young climate activists this morning in the committee. They are clear that they did not create the climate emergency, yet it is they who will experience the drastic effects of adults’ slow action or inaction, across the globe and here in Scotland. Those young people, led by the brave Greta Thunberg are an inspiration, sending messages of urgency and equity that cannot be ignored.
It is welcome that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee has produced a pretty strong and consensual statement of action on climate change. We can proudly say that, despite some differences with regard to pace—along party lines, in various ways, beyond the committee—there is unanimous, cross-party agreement in the committee for our report. The report recommends that the bill should
“include an explicit reference to the temperature the targets are seeking to achieve”
and it
“recommends this should be 1.5°C”.
It also says:
“The Committee accepts that a net-zero target is a clearer message to understand than 90% and would send a strong signal, emphasising the need for significant change.”
It recommends that the Scottish Government should
“reflect on the possibility of establishing a Just Transition Commission with statutory underpinning”,
that it should
“continue to place a priority on intergenerational justice”
and that it should
“continue to focus its work on how Scotland should account for its fair share globally.”
Scottish Labour welcomes the committee’s report. We considered the Scottish Government’s response as best we could, given that we had only 24 hours in which to do so—other committee members have made that point.
We welcome the agreement of the committee and the Government to strive for greater transparency, for improvements to the TIMES model output and for the creation of a more comprehensive link between the international Paris agreement and national targets with, in the words of the Scottish Government, a
“fair and safe emissions budget”.
One of the most important points in the report is the statement that a net zero emissions target would
“send a strong signal, emphasising the need for significant change.”
That is absolutely correct and, although it is disappointing that the Scottish Government considers itself unable to make that commitment without the approval of the UK CCC, I look forward to that advice and the Scottish Government’s response.
In response to the committee’s recommendation 272, the Scottish Government said that Scotland’s relatively small size is relevant to its climate ambition. Scottish Labour strongly refutes that assertion. We may be small, but our capacity for innovation knows no bounds, and historical industrial emissions must be accounted for and responsibility must be taken. We must be inspirational climate change action leaders.
The Scottish Government’s openness to a statutory just transition commission is also welcome, following on from its support for my amendment calling for further consideration of that. While we are in the process of transitioning to a net zero economy and society, we will need proper guidance and advice from industry experts, environment experts and trade unions in order to find a fair and rapid way forward, and we must be rigorous about testing for injustice when delivering the targets.
The Scottish Government is clearly unshifting in its intention that the scope of the bill should remain narrow. I am not convinced that that is the best approach. However, it is positive to have a commitment from the Scottish Government to look again at the current climate change plan, which runs to 2032, once the bill’s passage is over. The updating of policy intentions in line with stricter targets will be vital if we are to ensure that action is not delayed.
In addition, in relation to delivery on the targets, it is promising that the Scottish Government will explore commissioning further work to assess the current low-carbon investment landscape, particularly in the context of the Scottish national investment bank.
The debate about how best to tackle each sector is interesting. I urge the Scottish Government to commit to requiring all cabinet secretaries and ministers to account for their portfolios, thereby embedding climate change concerns in everyone’s work. As we heard, sectors such as agriculture and transport need to speed up the rate at which their emissions are falling, and that will take support, direction and robust policies from Government. The bill could be the place for a firmer requirement on the Scottish Government to set out how its decisions contribute to meeting the targets.
There is much to be proud of in the stage 1 report and in the response from the cabinet secretary, but there is still much further to go. We are following in the footsteps of the 2009 act: there is collaboration and agreement, as well as a driving ambition to set targets that will make a real difference to the lives of affected workers and communities here in Scotland, people in the global south, who will be hit the hardest, and the young people of today and tomorrow.
We are facing a national environment and climate emergency. That is a declaration that Scottish Labour and UK Labour can both make. Scottish Labour supports the ECCLR Committee’s stage 1 report, which provides strong ground from which to move forward. I welcome the report and this debate.
15:11Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
I welcome this stage 1 debate and the opportunity to step up our climate laws to the monumental challenge of keeping the world below 1.5°C of global warming.
At times, the stage 1 report was not an easy one on which to find consensus. Some of the harder questions have been pushed to the UK Committee on Climate Change to answer. However, the report allows us to move on to stage 2, at which there will be clear choices to be made about strengthening the bill.
The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 might be world leading in its annual targets, but it lacks a world-leading net zero target and a far-reaching 2030 goal to secure the future. We need the bill to deliver the changes that are necessary.
Those changes require us to look unpleasant truths in the eye and turn them into opportunities. It is about Government setting clear goals for transition, with time to plan and bring the jobs of the future into reality today. It means acting, as New Zealand has done, to plan ahead for the next generation beyond oil and gas and for a net zero farming sector—because if we cannot make decisions today for future decades, we are simply condemning communities to abrupt and inevitable economic shocks in future.
To avoid such shocks, a just transition commission needs to be underpinned in the bill. The commission must have a remit to speak truth to power and guide us through the complex challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
The business of transition needs more than just a chapter in the climate change plan. It must be central to the purpose of Government, with innovation and productivity growing only in a low-carbon way from now on.
It is not good enough to point to examples of where enterprise agencies are steering low-carbon work. This mission needs to run right through the core of all Government business, with no policy contradictions and all effort in the same direction.
The same goes for Government spending decisions. It is welcome that the Government wants to discuss further how the budget process could be strengthened through the bill, building on the commitments that were secured through last year’s budget deal with the Greens.
One of the few clear positives that I took from last week’s debate on climate change was that there is a consensus in this Parliament that we must keep temperature rises below 1.5°C. That is the only credible response, and it needs to be reflected in the bill at stage 2. We are either on the right side of history or we are not. Going over 1.5°C will mean death for millions. It will mean droughts, floods and heat waves that lead to mass climate migration. It will mean development in the global south going into reverse. It will mean collapsing economies, and it will mean wars over resources that we take for granted, such as water.
We have to give people in the south room to breathe on this tiny planet. After centuries of colonialism and industrialisation, how can we deny people their birthright and their future because of fear of the industry lobbyists who are standing in the way of change at home?
The 1.5°C goal must be reflected in the bill, but I am disappointed by the Government’s response to the report, which was issued yesterday and seems to weaken the much stronger position that it took on 1.5°C in the debate just last week. Although there is an acknowledgement that the emissions budget in the bill needs to be linked to the Paris goal of “well below 2°C”, the Government backtracks in the very next point when it starts to explain that Scotland makes a very small contribution globally and that it is not confident that a 1.5°C goal will be met. So much for world-leading ambition. Perhaps the person who wrote that needs to talk to the person who wrote the Government’s amendment for last week’s debate. If the UK Committee on Climate Change was not asked how to avoid the “overshoot scenario”, in which the planet heats beyond 1.5°C and millions of people are killed, the cabinet secretary should avoid any further confusion and make sure that she has that advice.
It is clear that an acceleration of action is desperately needed in the next decade, rather than the current trajectory, which will cost lives. If we consider land use, the committee has a strong consensus on the need for better management of land to drive action on climate change and for farming to be the solution rather than the problem. However, the Government’s response points to low key voluntary programmes and even highlights its position during the debate on agriculture on 10 January, in which the Government rejected an explicit climate change objective for future farm support.
There is strong cross-party agreement in the committee that measuring what the farming sector does, from carbon sequestration to productivity improvements, must be understood, incentivised and counted. It is not good enough for Government to say that this stuff is hard to do on a farm level; it must be integral to individual farm support payments. In this morning’s committee meeting, we heard direct from IPCC scientists that New Zealand and Ireland are ahead of the game with regard to farm inventory accounting—it is time that we caught up, because we are running out of time.
After last week’s debate on climate change, I started to question whether this Parliament is fit for dealing with the biggest existential crisis that faces humanity. It is clear that growing numbers of people—especially young people outside the Parliament—are making up their minds on that question right now. This is our opportunity to restore faith and to show that politicians can reject short termism; can look to a future beyond our political careers; and can do the right and necessary thing to correct the errors of what has come before us, so that we can give the gift of the future to all those who will come after us.
15:17Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
It is customary to start by thanking the committee for its work on the stage 1 report but, given the magnitude of the issue and the complexity of the bill, “thanks” seems somewhat inadequate. Nevertheless, I congratulate Gillian Martin and her colleagues, not least on reaching unanimity, and I acknowledge the contribution that has been made by all those who gave evidence and, indeed, who have provided helpful briefings for today’s proceedings.
After last week’s dummy run, this afternoon’s debate gives Parliament a chance to flesh out where we should be setting our sights to match the gravity and urgency of the challenge with the ambition that is necessary to avert the catastrophic consequences of climate change. Whatever our disagreements over the detail—and there will be some—I hope and believe that we are more likely to be successful in that if Parliament ultimately comes to a united and unified view by the end of stage 3.
Scottish Liberal Democrats are proud of the part that we have played to date in framing ambitious legislation and policy. We remain committed to doing so, again, for this bill and related strategies. However, we should not be under any illusions—the easy wins and low-hanging fruit have largely been grabbed. What comes next will require greater effort, more difficult choices and increased resources. Unfortunately, the Government’s bill falls short of meeting that challenge. The Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and others have pointed out that, despite what the cabinet secretary has said, it fails to enshrine the Paris agreement. Explicitly aligning the bill with the 1.5°C global temperature goal would be one way of moving us in the right direction, and I echo the sentiments of the ECCLR Committee in that regard.
Of course, the Paris agreement also enshrines the principle of equity. The ECCLR Committee is right to acknowledge that, as a developed nation, Scotland has a greater responsibility for global warming that should be reflected in the targets that are set in the bill. As Lord Deben, the chair of the UK Committee on Climate Change, fairly observed:
“When you look at the capacity of some countries to meet the targets that they are prepared to sign up to, it is clear that we in the richer countries have to do more.”—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 23 October 2018; c 22.]
That is what equity means in practice, and it is what we need to achieve through the bill. That is what those in the global south—who have contributed least to the creation of climate change, but are already enduring its worst impacts—have a right to expect. It is also why the targets that we set need to be as ambitious as possible. I still believe that achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is stretching, but feasible. Should we be going faster? Absolutely, if that is underpinned by the evidence and independent expert advice. I note that WWF Scotland, Scottish Environment LINK, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland and others advocate bringing forward the net zero target to 2045. They are absolutely right to keep our feet to the fire, but I am conscious of Lord Deben’s response to the ECCLR Committee on target setting, in which he cautioned:
“It is not sensible to espouse a target without being clear about what it really means. You can have any old target, but it will not work if you cannot come down to the terms for how you will get there.”—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 23 October 2018; c 33.]
Mark Ruskell
When Parliament set the target for renewable energy, were we clear about how we were going to achieve that?
Liam McArthur
As I said, we should set stretching and ambitious targets, but if we pick and choose the points at which we accept the advice of the UK Committee on Climate Change, we move into difficult territory. It is right that we sought revised advice from that committee, but to distance ourselves from that advice would leave us in a position in which substantiating and justifying our approach becomes more problematic.
Of course, the public also expects us to face up to the urgency of the threat posed by climate change, and not simply to postpone taking hard decisions. That is why I have considerable sympathy with calls for an emissions reduction target of 80 per cent by 2030. Again, that needs to be aligned with the advice from the UK CCC, but the view of the IPCC that
“rapid, far reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”
will be needed over the next 12 years cannot be ignored.
That is also the clear message from young people. Last week, like other members, I highlighted the local dimension of the climate strike campaign. I will quote Jessie Dodman from Papa Westray, a pupil at Westray community school, who wrote to me, saying:
“The Scottish Government’s Climate Change bill offers a good first step but needs to be delivered more quickly and effectively before the predicted deadlines for irreversible change in 2030.”
She added:
“Scotland and the UK are investing millions in roads, bridges and ferries but not nearly enough in making sure all transport is carbon neutral.”
As well as offering me a chance to reiterate my call for the Scottish Government to help to fund replacement of the internal ferry fleet in Orkney with one that is more fuel efficient, Jessie’s comments underscore one area—transport—in which more urgent action is desperately required. Heat and agriculture are perhaps two other obvious ones.
In identifying how we achieve the emissions reductions that we need to see, it is worth bearing it in mind that while advances in technology will undoubtedly help, we cannot innovate our way out of the problem and behaviour changes will be necessary.
On the question whether we should look to set sectoral targets, again I find myself in agreement with the ECCLR Committee. Its stage 1 report suggests that
“sectors need a clear understanding of what they are expected to deliver”
and adds that
“sectoral disaggregation of the targets is required and as our understanding of what is necessary in each sector develops, a move to sector specific targets may be appropriate.”
That is one of the key roles for the just transition commission, and another good reason for putting it on a statutory footing.
Before I conclude, I will touch briefly on agriculture. That sector needs to do more, and there is an appetite for it to do so. However, that is best achieved collaboratively—by using carrots as well as sticks, rather than the more confrontational approach that, unfortunately, is adopted by some. As the NFUS says, emissions are an inevitable consequence of our food production. They can and should be reduced, but there is an argument for looking at how the positives from agriculture can be more fairly balanced alongside the negatives. Ultimately, however, farmers and crofters must be seen as part of the solution.
The clear and present threat that is posed by climate change—both here and internationally—has been exposed by the latest IPCC report. It demands a more urgent and ambitious response from the Scottish Government and the Parliament. I am determined to continue to work with colleagues across the chamber to ensure that, as we have done in the past, we can meet that challenge collectively.
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)
Before we move into the open debate, I note that we have a little time in hand so members may take interventions and have the time made up. I ask for speeches of six minutes.
15:24Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
With the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, we showed leadership in tackling the scourge of climate change, and we can and will do so again with our Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. I deliberately say that it is “our” bill rather than the Government’s bill because in a Parliament of minorities, the Government is merely the midwife; we must all be the bill’s parents.
In 2009, the Parliament united to support our bill, and as we consider whether to support the general principles of the new bill, the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee has shown the way by unanimously agreeing its report. That does not mean that any of us has resiled from the detailed differences that we will explore as the bill proceeds, but we have to put some of our differences on hold in order to agree the next steps, and that will continue to be true throughout the bill’s passage.
For my part, I have already written two stage 2 amendments—I saw the cabinet secretary flinch when I said that. One is to put into the bill the zero carbon target that is implicit within it, and the other is to add to the long title a reference to the world’s need to restrict global temperature rise to 1.5°C. I cannot see any way that we could make it legally enforceable in those terms, but others may do so.
It is vital that we continue to challenge one another and ourselves on every proposal, including the ones that I have just described, but in the end we must return to agreement if we are to succeed in moving our fellow citizens with us to protect our planet and all life that depends on it. That means that we must be prepared for compromise, but it does not require us to advertise what compromises we might contemplate before we actually make them.
In essence, we are writing a corporate plan for our country’s future—a model process, actions and method for other countries to follow. We are but a small speck on the globe’s surface, but that small speck can be the fulcrum over which we leverage others’ actions. However, a corporate plan is mere hot air if it is just a piece of paper. It has to lead to individual change. For that reason, I want to talk about some of the things that we in the Parliament can do—the practical things that we can do on the ground to contribute to reductions.
I will illustrate that. In my first full year in the Parliament, I claimed for 19,391 miles in a car at a rate of £49.03 per mile. [Laughter.]
Stewart Stevenson
It was 49.3p per mile. Did I say something different?
Members: You said “pounds”.
Stewart Stevenson
If only. Presiding Officer, are you not glad that everyone is listening to my every word? [Laughter.]
I also claimed what would have been £369.67 had I been able to use a senior railcard, as I now do. Therefore, 96 per cent of my travel costs were for car miles. In the year that has just ended, I claimed for 6,387 miles at 45p per mile and £2,707 for public transport. Only 51.5 per cent of my costs are for car miles now, and my mileage is less than a third of what it was in 2002-03.
Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
I wonder what costs the member puts on democracy given the lack of representation that people in very rural constituencies who do not have the luxury of a train station might experience if their members were unable to visit them by car in order to represent them properly in Parliament.
Stewart Stevenson
My personal activity rate, measured by the number of surgeries and the number of entries in my diaries, was broadly the same in the year that has just ended as it was in 2002-03. If I can do it, others can. We also have modern technology. Why do we not do online video surgeries with our constituents so that they can engage with us without leaving home? That idea was just made up on the spur of the moment. I am talking about what we can do to set an example. I am not saying that everyone can do it.
Elaine Smith
Will the member take an intervention?
Stewart Stevenson
I ask the member to forgive me. I will make a little more progress on cars, if I may.
The marginal cost of a car mile is falling steeply as hybrid propulsion becomes more pervasive, and for all-electric vehicles the fuel cost is now down to 3p per mile. I am going to write to the Presiding Officer at the end of this debate to suggest that we reduce our expenses per mile, initially from 45p per mile to 30p per mile, and that we commit to tapering it to zero by 2032, which coincides with our going electric, because the marginal cost of driving becomes almost zero.
We should also keep our cars for longer; I plan to keep mine for 10 years. I have a paperless office in the Parliament, which saves money. Other people can do that as well. [Interruption.] Okay, my speech is on paper—I have a 99.5 per cent paperless office. [Laughter.]
Neil Findlay
Will the member take an intervention?
Stewart Stevenson
I will. I will regret it, but I will.
Neil Findlay
Would the member care to hazard a guess how many of the people who access the electric vehicles grant are from the lowest socioeconomic groups? I have tried to find that out from the Government, but I cannot get the information.
Stewart Stevenson
I will not hazard a guess. However, I know that there are a lot of electric vehicles out there, because there are 6,500 charging points in Scotland and, as time goes on, more vehicles will be available at cheaper prices. Let us hope that that happens sooner rather than later.
We are also encouraging active travel for our citizens. I propose that we stop allowing MSPs to claim for short taxi journeys—initially journeys of less than a mile, less than 1.5 miles by 2021 and less than 2 miles by 2026. I am going to write to the Presiding Officer about that, too.
I walked 81.3 miles in March. It is not very much—only 2.6 miles a day—but how far did everyone else in the chamber walk?
If we, as individuals, do some of those quite simple things, we can have credibility and a dialogue with the citizens of Scotland. I have given only a couple of examples. If I had another hour to speak, Presiding Officer—
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Which you do not have, thank you.
Stewart Stevenson
—I could give another 100 examples.
15:31John Scott (Ayr) (Con)
I declare an interest as a farmer, landowner and food producer.
Roseanna Cunningham
And as a car owner.
John Scott
I am a car owner as well, cabinet secretary. I will not be doing any virtue signalling in my speech, I can tell members that now.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this stage 1 debate. I thank all those who have given evidence, in whatever form, to the committee. I thank our clerks, and I thank the wider public and our young people for their active engagement in the process.
Although we all share the ambitions to reduce the speed of climate change and the rate of temperature rises, we need to find a practical way of achieving them. The Scottish Conservatives want our nation to be one of the lead nations worldwide in getting to net zero as quickly as possible. Although we are concerned about the difficulties and cost of pioneering and delivering on that ambition, we are also excited by the opportunities that it may offer to our scientific and business development communities. It is a long-held business mantra that the prize goes to those who can turn a challenge into an opportunity, and Scotland as a whole will need to buy into that concept. As I said in the climate debate last Wednesday, it may be our young people who help drive it forward more quickly, by influencing their parents. I welcome the young people who are in the public gallery today.
Ambition is not lacking, but easily reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping temperature rises to 1.5°C will be very hard. We are in a limbo land: we are debating the principles of the bill today while awaiting further advice from the Committee on Climate Change on 2 May. However, the consideration of various fundamentals of the bill are not dependent on the CCC’s advice or on pathways being demonstrated.
The most obvious fundamental is the cost of pursuing targets. The Parliament and the people of Scotland need a better understanding of what is going to be expected of them, and the cost to them, as the financial memorandum for the bill is—at best—unclear on that point. A figure of £13 billion appears to have been almost plucked out of thin air, with TIMES modelling not accurately applying to the two sectors that are most perceived as needing to do better—namely transport and agriculture. That, of itself, calls into question the reliability of the whole TIMES modelling process.
Stewart Stevenson
Will the member take an intervention?
John Scott
If it is brief.
Stewart Stevenson
Does Mr Scott regret, as I do, the fact that there is not a costing for the cost of doing nothing, which, I think it is generally accepted, will far exceed the cost of doing something?
John Scott
I have only Mr Stevenson’s word for that, but by and large, I accept what he says.
The accounting methods and models used to arrive at the figure that I have mentioned, and other figures as high as £55 billion, were not clearly explained to the committee and left us all—at best—confused. If the Government cannot easily explain the likely cost burdens to committee members who are willing and endeavouring to understand them, how will it get its message over to the taxpayers and the businesspeople who are going to have to fund them? Although yesterday’s response from the Scottish Government to the stage 1 report acknowledges those concerns, it does little to address them, noting as it does that the bill is about raising ambitions, not about delivering costed solutions.
Another cost that will not change, no matter what the Committee on Climate Change says, is the physical and mental health cost of expected and required behaviour change. The lifestyle changes that the Scottish Government and we as a Parliament are apparently expecting the people of Scotland to make will leave many individuals and businesses feeling threatened and financially pressured. The Scottish Government will have to be very careful about how it is perceived as it presses for modal shift—that is to say, moving people out of their cars and into electric vehicles or on to trams, buses or bicycles, or just on to pavements, given that more of us are expected to walk to work.
With regard to the agriculture sector, lifestyle and business model changes will undoubtedly be required for the increased delivery of the public goods that is demanded by the bill and environmental non-governmental organisations. A welcome start to such progress would be a more realistic appreciation, understanding and measurement of the contribution that land managers and farmers already make to climate change reduction, if that were measured in a more holistic way. Mark Ruskell has already alluded to this issue, but not everyone will know or think it reasonable that a farmer planting trees on his land or allowing renewable energy projects such as wind farms or hydroelectric schemes or, indeed, peatland restoration schemes on his land receives no credit in terms of carbon reduction for doing so. Indeed—and more important in this context—the agriculture sector receives no credit for that type of land use on agricultural land.
The measurement of climate change-reducing industries is driven by IPCC standards, but a parallel and more realistic way of measuring the benefits of different types of whole-farm land use, particularly here in Scotland, is required. I welcome the Government’s acknowledgement of that in its response and its offer to work further with the committee on the matter, and I suggest that the Scottish Government look to New Zealand and Ireland for good examples of how that should be done.
Turning very briefly to housing, I support Maurice Golden’s view that we need all homes to have an energy performance certificate rating of C by 2030, and I earnestly encourage the Scottish Government to work harder to deliver that. Its response suggests that ambition to improve housing is only for others, not for the Scottish Government.
We await the further evidence from the Committee on Climate Change on 2 May and hope that, if it expects still greater effort from the people of Scotland to reduce the threat of climate change, it will explain and demonstrate credible pathways to doing that, and the likely cost involved.
15:38Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)
I do not think that it is overdramatic to say that the possibility of a climate catastrophe is the biggest global issue of our time. Indeed, we should never tire of saying it until it is well and truly planted in the mind of every citizen in this country and beyond.
Six months ago, we all got a wake-up call when the IPCC warned the world that
“rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes”
were needed to tackle the climate crisis effectively. I was therefore pleased to see the Scottish Government hosting nearly 200 climate scientists this week at the John McIntyre conference centre in Edinburgh at the third working group of the IPCC. They were looking at ways of equipping Governments with the information that they need to act now, keeping in mind the goals of the Paris agreement and national ambitions to achieve net zero emissions. The final report, which is due for publication in 2021, will provide Governments with scientific information to underpin responses to climate change in the context of sustainable development.
Of course, all of that is happening in the week of this stage 1 debate and the release of some interesting statistics from Stop Climate Chaos Scotland’s YouGov poll. According to the poll, 78 per cent of respondents are either more concerned or as concerned about climate change as they were 12 months ago; one in three are more concerned about climate change now than they were a year ago; and 70 per cent support Scotland taking greater action on transport, food and homes to tackle climate change. It is encouraging to see new polling that highlights that people in Scotland are getting the message, recognise the seriousness of the situation and want more action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
As Gillian Martin, the convener of the ECCLR Committee, mentioned, we had the benefit this morning of meeting young climate change protesters at an informal meeting of the committee. It is fair to say that they did not hold back in letting us know all that we need to do, and that we need to do more. There is no doubt in my mind that the recent climate strikes have acted as a catalyst to show that there is not only justification, but an appetite for urgent and more ambitious action from Governments across the world, not just here in northern Europe.
Turning to the stage 1 report, I add my thanks to the committee clerks for the work that they have done. The committee recognised that the Scottish Government selected the more ambitious of the two options proposed by the CCC, which highlights what will be required from Governments around the world to keep temperature rises closer to 1.5°C than 2°C. However, we also noted that the Scottish Government is awaiting further advice from the CCC in the light of the 2018 IPCC report, as are we all. It is therefore welcome to see in the Scottish Government’s response to the ECCLR Committee’s stage 1 report its reiteration that it
“has been clear that if the CCC advises on 2 May that higher target ambition is now credible then we”—
that is, the Scottish Government—
“will act on that advice”.
I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary confirm that in her opening speech.
The ECCLR Committee’s report states:
“A 90% target is stretching and challenging and a net-zero target will present further challenges but there are also great opportunities. The benefits and cost savings of early action far outweigh the costs of the effects of climate change.”
However, we have to bear in mind that setting targets that are too high too soon could have a detrimental impact on Scotland’s economic growth. Striving for the most ambitious targets possible, based on the best available advice, is admirable, but it must not compromise the wellbeing of the people of Scotland.
That brings me to farming. I am grateful to the NFUS for its briefing in advance of the debate, which recognises that climate change is a critically important issue for Scottish farming. I am also grateful for the WWF briefing, which highlights the report that it produced with Vivid Economics, providing a pathway for agriculture to reduce emissions by around 35 per cent while maintaining current production levels.
There is no doubt that farmers and crofters will have an important role to play in helping to tackle the climate change challenge, and it is important that agriculture is seen as being part of the solution, not part of the problem, as other members have stated this afternoon. It should be noted that reducing emissions from farming beyond those that can be achieved through efficiency and technology would mean reducing the amount of food produced in Scotland and instead importing from abroad. That may result in a reduction in emissions in Scotland, but would result in increased emissions elsewhere.
Several witnesses who gave evidence to the committee spoke of the potentially disproportionate impact that a badly managed transition could have in rural areas and on those working in the agricultural sector. I am sure that none of us in the chamber wants to see land abandonment in the Lowlands or the Highlands and Islands, which could be an outcome if we are not careful.
I want to touch quickly on carbon capture, use and storage, as I am keen to see progress on the carbon capture and storage plant that is proposed for Grangemouth in my constituency. The ECCLR Committee welcomes the recent shift in the UK Government’s position on CCS and has recommended that the Scottish Government continues to work with its UK and international counterparts on the development of CCS technology. We call on both Governments to utilise all levers at their disposal domestically to evaluate the merits of CCS and consider the merits of early development and implementation of that technology. It is encouraging to see the Scottish Government’s response detailing the establishment of the CCUS leadership group, support for the acorn CCS project and funding for a Scottish universities collaborative on CCUS. That is progress indeed.
15:44Elaine Smith (Central Scotland) (Lab)
I thank the committee for its work and note that the committee had extra time to look at the issue, as mentioned by the committee’s convener, Gillian Martin, in response to my intervention. However, other members had little time to consider the Government’s response, and I express my disappointment at that.
Although I am not a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak on a vital subject that should—and, increasingly, does—concern all of us. As we know and as other members have mentioned, school pupils around the world have been on strike to raise awareness of climate change. They want to ensure that future generations are not denied the right to a healthy planet.
As the committee’s report notes, the issue of climate change raises particular challenges for intergenerational justice. We have a duty to protect the environment and natural resources for future generations. Alan Munro of Young Friends of the Earth Scotland warned the committee that the Government risks
“passing on the burden for ... radical transformative action to young people”.—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 20 November 2018; c 15.]
In an open letter about the effects of climate change, young activists say:
“People did die, are dying and will die because of it, but we can and will stop this madness.”
As Claudia Beamish mentioned, the young people’s movement was launched by Greta Thunberg, a young woman who first missed school in Sweden to protest in 2018. I understand that she has recently been nominated for the Nobel peace prize. It is apposite that it was a young woman who started the movement, as women and girls suffer disproportionately from the effects of climate change. The tasks of producing and gathering food, collecting water and finding fuel for heating and cooking are often the responsibility of women, and climate change is making those life-supporting tasks much more difficult.
The committee’s report cites the Paris agreement, which names important rights such as gender equality and the empowerment of women as fundamental to achieving climate justice. The report recommends that
“climate justice requires further focus to ensure Scotland has the necessary structures in place to engage and support the most vulnerable through the period of transition, as well as a responsibility to developing nations.”
Many organisations have been campaigning on that issue for some time. There was a large campaign outside the Parliament today, which many members took the opportunity to join in, and there are many campaigners in the gallery. The Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund—SCIAF—knows from its consistent work in developing countries that people who were already living in extreme poverty are suffering the most severely as a result of climate change. The most recent cyclone that struck Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe affected more than 2 million people and caused indescribable devastation. When I visited Malawi on a previous occasion, I saw the aftermath of such an event, when people lose shelter and do not have access to food because of flooding.
Jessica Swart, a CARE spokesperson, commented that, following a natural disaster such as a cyclone, women and girls are particularly vulnerable. Climate scientists have confirmed that such disasters will only become more severe as a result of climate change. The effect that those events have on real lives underpins what we are trying to do. In response to the IPCC’s report, the committee recommended that the Government should seek further guidance on whether its 2030 target is still appropriate, and we have heard that the Government intends to wait until 2 May to consider that.
The committee’s report shows that 0.5°C of difference would result in several hundred million fewer people being exposed to climate-related poverty. As we know, 70 per cent of the world’s poorest are women. We also know that 80 per cent of the people who are displaced by climate change are women. The UN has highlighted the need for gender-sensitive responses to the impacts of climate change, yet the average level of representation of women on national and global climate negotiating bodies is below 30 per cent, which is just not good enough. The Women’s Environmental Network specifically makes the point that
“Until social inequality is addressed, climate change will only get worse.”
I turn to another issue. During stage 1, the committee heard evidence on the importance of monitoring other harmful emissions, such as methane, and acknowledged the potential for targets to positively impact on air quality. I believe that fracking would challenge our ambitions. Fracking is an issue of major concern in my community. As MSPs, we have a responsibility to protect our communities from harm. Fracking has proven deeply unpopular in every community in the UK where it has been trialled. Pollution, noise and dangerous tampering with the very ground on which we have built homes are justified concerns. I believe that a practice that is banned in Germany and France is not safe here in Scotland. Aidan O’Neill QC confirmed recently that we have the power to ban fracking. As fracking would put at risk the ambitions of the targets that are set, it is time that the Government used that power.
SCIAF notes in its submission to the committee:
“The 2020 and 2030 targets proposed in the Bill essentially maintain current levels of ambition and are, therefore, inadequate, and a 90% target by 2050 would represent a huge missed opportunity to lead the world in climate change legislation.”
In a briefing to MSPs, SCIAF adds:
“We must see this Bill for what it is—an opportunity for this Parliament to make a bold and world leading commitment to save the poorest, and all of us, from this impending disaster. At a time when concern over climate change is at an all-time high, this Bill is an opportunity for this Parliament to do something truly remarkable, in the name of the poorest who are already suffering the effects of climate change, and for the sake of the next generation, whose future is in our hands.”
That is why we need the Government and this Parliament to tackle climate change with urgency and not push it on to the shoulders of today’s young people. I look forward to seeing amendments to the bill at stage 2, including the introduction of a statutory just transition commission.
15:50Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Climate change is one of the defining challenges of our age, and Scotland’s international leadership on climate change means that our plans must be ambitious, credible and affordable. That is exactly what the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill delivers.
The bill is set against a backdrop of Scotland being a world leader in tackling climate change and on the circular economy. Scotland’s low-carbon transition is well under way. Our emissions have almost halved since 1990 and we continue to outperform the UK in delivering reductions.
We have a target to generate the equivalent of 100 per cent of gross annual electricity consumption and 11 per cent of heat consumption from renewable energy by 2020. In the UK context, Scotland continues to lead on renewable energy, with 75 per cent of Scotland’s gross electricity consumption coming from renewable sources—an increase on the 70 per cent figure that was achieved in 2017. Importantly, Scotland’s renewable energy electricity currently makes up 24 per cent of the UK’s renewables output.
Of course, our ambitions extend beyond that as we set forth towards Scotland creating a circular economy. We are the first country in the UK to commit to the introduction of a deposit return scheme for drinks containers to improve the rate and quality of recycling. I have seen that scheme operating at first hand, at a local Nisa store owned by Mr Abdul Majid. Mr Majid piloted the scheme and the generous people of Bellshill asked that the money from their returns be donated to St Andrew’s Hospice, which does amazing work caring for those who require palliative care. Not only is the scheme helping with recycling, but it is having a positive impact on the community, thanks to the generosity that has been shown. The deposit return scheme is just one of the elements that the Scottish National Party Government is introducing to tackle our throwaway culture; other elements include the establishment of an expert panel on environmental charging and other measures to tackle the issue.
In 2017, across Scotland, for the first time we recycled more than we sent to landfill. Since 2007, Scotland’s household recycling rate has improved by more than 13 per cent, from 32.2 to 45.6 per cent. Let us all hope that that trend continues.
The Scottish Government’s approach makes sure not only that we continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, but that we are resilient to climate change impacts. This week, the Scottish Government will meet its 2018 programme for government commitment to welcome 220 of the world’s top climate scientists by hosting a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to discuss its sixth assessment report; once again, that reiterates the Government’s unwavering commitment to international leadership on the issue.
However, we can always go further—and, with this bill, we are doing that. The bill sets out the Scottish Government’s commitment to reduce emissions by 100 per cent, with ambitious interim targets that strengthen Scotland’s world-leading position on climate change. The 90 per cent target will be even tougher than the 100 per cent goal that has been set by a handful of other countries, because our legislation will set more demanding, legally binding annual targets covering every sector of our economy.
Finlay Carson
Will the member give way?
Richard Lyle
No. I do not have time.
By 2030, Scotland will have cut emissions by two thirds and, unlike other nations, we will not use carbon offsetting—whereby other countries would be paid to cut emissions for us—to achieve our goal.
We have a moral responsibility to fight climate change, but Scotland’s academic and engineering expertise, coupled with our outstanding natural resources, mean that fighting climate change is also an economic opportunity, which is waiting to be realised.
It is important to reflect the fact that there are some who criticise the bill as not ambitious enough. The message is clear: the bill means that Scotland will have the toughest climate legislation in the world. Sweden has legislated for a 100 per cent target in 2045, but up to 15 per cent of that can be met through the use of international credits. New Zealand has committed to legislate for a 100 per cent target, but has not yet set out details of how that will be met. France, Iceland, Norway and others have made political commitments to net zero, but have not set out plans to legislate for that. Of course, in typical fashion, the UK Government has acknowledged the need to legislate for a 100 per cent target but has not yet set out details of how it can do that. I believe that our SNP Government is making a commitment in the bill to realise our ambitions and to tackle a most important issue.
I pay tribute to the work that our young people are doing. We have seen climate strikes by schoolchildren and other young people in Scotland and across the UK. Some people were quick to criticise them, but I am not. As far as I am concerned, it is their world and their future. It should be a reason for great optimism that young people are taking a stand on climate change. It is right that we are all challenged to see what more we can do. We all have a moral responsibility to do what we can to prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change for future generations.
Scotland has been praised as a world leader, but the urgency of climate change means that it is right that we are all challenged to constantly reassess our approach and see where we could do more. We must harness the energy of our young people and challenge ourselves to go further. In the bill, we are doing just that—we are taking action to deliver the change that we need. We have to do it, to safeguard our future, our children’s future, our grandchildren’s future—including my grandchildren’s—and the future of generations to come.
15:56Alexander Burnett (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
I join members across the chamber who are delighted to see such a bill coming before the Scottish Parliament. As someone who has been involved with renewable energy companies and worked towards improving our environment for most of my life, I very much welcome the bill. I refer members to my entry in the register of interests and in particular to my interests relating to agriculture, forestry, land management, housing and renewable energy.
For members who may not be aware, I point out that my background is one of environmental consultancy, rural development work in Azerbaijan, renewable energy, sustainable construction and numerous conservation projects. From planting trees and restoring peatlands to saving our red squirrels and championing the pearl mussel, almost all of my activities look to improve our natural environment. I am proud of the work that all of those projects have done in not only improving our environment but doing so in a sustainable manner, creating jobs and ensuring that businesses function.
It is clear that the bill has interested many people, and I am sure that many more will contribute as it progresses through Parliament. In my constituency, groups such as Tarland climate change group and St Ternan’s in Banchory have already voiced their concerns, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that their points are taken into consideration.
I will focus first on housing. The debate coincides with tomorrow morning’s stage 2 consideration of the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill, in which I am due to speak to my amendments. I am seeking to gain support for the identification of residential buildings with low levels of energy efficiency and which require improvements to achieve an energy performance certificate band C or higher by 2030. Last year, the Parliament voted in support of a motion calling for the same commitment from the Scottish Government and I hope that tomorrow’s stage 2 consideration will be the first step in achieving that.
It is not only members who are looking for improvements in EPC ratings of homes across Scotland—WWF Scotland has repeatedly called for similar action for a variety of reasons. The first reason is that the measure would naturally reduce energy costs for home owners by moving more people out of fuel poverty and allowing them to live in warmer homes. Secondly, and importantly for the bill that we are considering today, having more energy efficient homes would be a huge step in reducing carbon emissions. WWF Scotland has noted that it is supportive of such measures but is keen for targets to be set in the bill for improving energy efficiency in our homes.
A second area requiring serious attention is our agriculture sector, which would need to reduce emissions significantly to play its role in a net zero target. We of course support NFU Scotland’s position that food production is always likely to remain one of the biggest emitting sectors and that a net zero target does not mean reducing agricultural emissions to zero.
However, the NFU in England now believes that it can reduce its emissions to 35 per cent by 2045, so we await the Scottish Government producing a similar achievable road map. There is no doubt that our farmers are experiencing at first hand the effects of climate change. They accept that more needs to be done to reduce their contribution towards carbon emissions, but they cannot achieve that alone. NFU Scotland has called on the Scottish Government to provide better support so that farmers can become part of the solution to climate change.
A third area that affects climate change is transport. Transform Scotland flagged up that the Scottish Government’s current climate change plan and transport proposals are deeply inadequate. Given the lack of ambition for clean green buses and the zero progress on the electrification of rail routes to Aberdeen and Inverness, there is much that can be done here in Scotland to benefit the environment and our economy.
We want the Scottish Government to set ambitious targets, and the Scottish Conservatives will support that ambition. However, it is clear that the Scottish Government is still not being ambitious enough, and the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee is rightly concerned that there is not sufficient assessment or promotion of the positive opportunities for the economy of setting a net zero target. Stop Climate Chaos Scotland briefed that it would like the bill to set a target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 or earlier, citing evidence from WWF Scotland and Vivid Economics that shows that Scotland is capable of achieving such a target.
Although a net zero target is clearly the preference of many organisations, we must work on building a pathway to ensure that it is possible. We must reach for ambitious targets, but we need to be mindful about making them realistic. We need to ensure that we have sufficient skilled jobs to make the necessary transition, that businesses work with emerging technologies to improve their emissions, and that sectors work together. As the Confederation of British Industry Scotland points out, we need to ensure that there are collaborative policy frameworks across the whole of the UK, because climate change is an issue without borders.
We are very supportive of the bill at this stage, but we will try to strengthen it at later stages. I look forward to working with members, constituents and organisations to hear how we can achieve our shared ambitions.
16:02Bill Kidd (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
I thank the young climate change activists in the public gallery, who are very welcome, because their enthusiasm has kept us all going.
Today, we are debating, and will vote on, one of the most significant issues that faces humanity. Curbing global warming to a 1.5°C rise demands that we accelerate action. For decades, the scientific consensus has been that global warming exists and that it is anthropogenic—that means that it is a result of human behaviour. High consumption and having little regard for the consequences, even following early warnings of climate change, meant that our behaviour did not change. Humanity’s failure to act over the past decades has caused 1°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, which cannot be undone. Headlines are already showing the harm that that rise has done to coral reefs and the effect that it has had on species loss and rising sea levels. With regard to migration, it is clear that people are being forced to move due to climate change-related issues such as flooding and poor agricultural productivity.
Estimated anthropogenic global warming—remember, that means that emissions that have originated from human activity—is increasing at a rate of 0.2°C per decade due to past and on-going emissions. According to the IPCC, warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term change in the climate system. One example of a continuing change is the rising sea levels. I repeat the point: the emissions that have already been accrued over the period in which we have failed to tackle climate change will affect the planet for centuries to millennia to come. That inactivity has to stop.
Today, we have the opportunity to vote for a bill that could shift Scotland’s path towards a sustainable future. We have extensive scientific knowledge to draw on to help us to take the bill through Parliament, and, as a nation, we are equipped with abundant natural resources that will enable us to transition more fully to using renewable energy.
The 2015 Paris agreement, which the bill responds to with an increase in our targets, and the IPCC’s 2018 report inform us with greater evidence and reasons for action than ever before. We know from that report that reaching and sustaining net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing would halt human-influenced global warming within several decades. We also know from the IPCC that the maximum temperature that will be reached will be determined by what we and other policy makers across the world are doing now. Global warming will be determined by culminated net global human-caused CO2 emissions up to the point that we achieve net zero. That means that we have to act as quickly as possible—we have to act now.
Elaine Smith
Earlier, we heard about paperless offices from one of Bill Kidd’s colleagues. Does Bill Kidd agree that we should be encouraging our engineers, for example, to look at the lack of recycling of new technology and the ever-increasing scramble for things such as new mobile phones? Such things are not recycled enough, and that is a problem.
Bill Kidd
Elaine Smith is absolutely right. We have to address the capitalist madness that means people have got to have a new toy every five seconds. That does not do anything about recycling the old toys. I thank Elaine Smith very much for raising that issue.
Climate change is serious, and it requires cross-party and global action. Everyone—irrespective of their political allegiance—needs to back radical and rapid change. The next generation will, quite rightly, hold us to account, and we must act on its behalf and on behalf of generations to follow.
An increasing number of people in Scotland—seven out of 10—agree that tougher action on climate change is needed. Greta Thunberg—whom Elaine Smith, I think, mentioned earlier—is an incredible 16-year-old who inspired 1.4 million school pupils to strike against climate inaction. She has been nominated for the Nobel peace prize. Incidentally, I found out only yesterday that she is related to Svante Arrhenius, who won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1903 and was the first person to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate the link between increases in CO2 and the earth’s surface temperature. Everybody should watch Greta Thunberg’s TED talk, in which she spoke profoundly about our responsibilities. She commented:
“the one thing we need more than hope is action. Once we act, hope is everywhere.”
That statement has stuck with me. We should not be afraid of action or change; rather, we should embrace them.
In that context, I am pleased with the Scottish Government’s quick response to the IPCC’s report and its commitment to seek fresh advice. I trust that, as soon as a pathway towards net zero emissions and curbing emissions to 1.5°C is drawn up, it will be followed. I believe that independent advice will be published early next month.
I can see that I am near the end—of speaking only, I hope—so I will jump forward.
According to the Tyndall centre for climate change research, transitions to a sustainable path would secure jobs in Scotland for at least two generations in the renewable energy sector and related sectors. Improved air quality would be another positive benefit. We could also use the approach to tackle fuel poverty by creating energy-efficient homes that are powered by renewable energy. We can be smarter and, crucially, we can use this turning point in history to build a future that is fit for generations to come.
16:08Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)
With all those big words and the history lesson from Mr Kidd, I thought that he had lifted Stewart Stevenson’s speech, but it was far more interesting than what we usually get from him. I am glad that Stewart Stevenson was not here when I said that.
I came into elected politics after years of campaigning on environmental issues in my community. I saw big, powerful companies exploiting the land around my community to make huge profits from their plans to rip up the countryside for opencast activity, to fill in previously opened-up countryside with landfill or to take over land for energy production with little thought or care for the impact on the water, the air, the climate or the community—and certainly with little care for the impact on local people.
That was my introduction to political campaigning, and I have retained a strong interest in the issue to this day, because the environment and climate change go to the very essence of the politics that I believe in. It is a class issue—absolutely. By that, I do not mean the way in which it is depicted in the media, as an issue for the chattering classes. It is not, because it chimes 100 per cent with the politics that I believe in—politics with a socialist philosophy.
In order to address climate change and to ensure that there is justice for all our people, not just the powerful and the rich, we have to show international solidarity and co-operation, deal with all people equitably, and use and distribute the world’s resources in a sustainable way. If we are to deal with climate change, we have to act on those principles.
If the world’s climate continues to heat up, we know who will be affected most: it will be the poor, the weak, the vulnerable and the isolated who suffer most—as we see when we look at marginalised communities, whether in the Amazon in South America, in sub-Saharan Africa or, indeed, around our own coastline and marginal lands. It will be the low paid who suffer from increased food and energy costs and whose homes are the least energy efficient. It will be the poor who will suffer most from the impacts of air pollution and respiratory illness. It will be the marginalised and the isolated whose land will be flooded or eroded, whose farms will turn to desert and who ultimately will be displaced, homeless and stateless, or will become refugees, as often happens when war breaks out because of conflicts over resources or land. That is the reality of climate change for the most vulnerable people not only in our society but in societies across the world.
One of the most frustrating local issues that I have had to deal with during my time in Parliament has been that of wind energy. I am a great supporter of wind energy, but I have watched us waste one of the greatest opportunities that we have had, as speculators have come in with applications for wind farms in communities—one of the latest in my area is from an Austrian viscount—in the hope that they will get permission. Very often—most of the time—they do.
The consequence is that, every time the turbine turns, the profit flutters off to the board rooms of Paris, Bonn, Amsterdam, Madrid or Copenhagen when that money could go back into our communities to fund services, to ensure that houses come up to proper energy standards, to go into decarbonisation projects and to ensure that those communities can then enthusiastically endorse the roll-out of wind energy. Instead, we have hugely wasted that opportunity. Almost all of it has been exploited by the private sector when it could have been community owned and led by the people. Let us not repeat that mistake with offshore wind energy as it is rolled out.
Earlier, I asked the minister about air passenger duty, but she failed to give us an answer. How can she claim to support the strongest action on climate change while, at the same time, seeking to develop a policy that expands air travel? It just does not add up.
When will we see a watertight ban on fracking? As we know from Elaine Smith’s speech and from Queen’s counsels’ advice, we do not have such a ban at the moment. I have to say to the Government that we do not need another consultation on fracking; we need a ban that is watertight.
Many of the relatively easy things have been done on climate change. We now need big ideas, some of which may make only small but incremental differences. Scottish Labour wants to expand and better regulate public transport. We want to expand bus travel and make it a free service across the country. I have heard people criticise us for our ambition. If such people had been around when the national health service started up, they would have said, “Oh no, Mr Bevan, that’s far too hard. Don’t even attempt it.” It is essential that we do these things, and I hope that others will come on board with our approach.
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)
Come to a close, please.
Neil Findlay
We have to aim high in this debate. The Scottish Government has a plan, and we suggested changes to it to make it more robust. I hope that the Parliament as a whole takes the lead.
16:15Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
This is, indeed, an important debate in which to participate, as we have heard from members’ very thoughtful speeches. The close attention that is being paid by the young people in the public gallery is testament to the debate’s importance.
Our is the first generation to know that how we are living is impacting on the planet, and we have a duty to do something about that. All of us have a duty to leave the planet in a better position than that in which we found it, and knowing more about the effects that our mode of living is having makes doing so even more important. Of course, the information changes all the time, with more research on different aspects of our way of life and on different parts of the earth, so we must not set our actions in stone but be flexible while maintaining our goals.
Many people who are involved in the climate change field are constructing various models of how to progress. It is the Government’s task to make proposals that are credible and deliverable, and it is for all parties to coalesce around those proposals, as the long-term planning that is required goes well beyond one parliamentary session. The proposals must be credible because, whatever we do, we must take our population with us. Changing behaviour must be achievable. People will want to know what proposals mean for them and their way of life—they need to know what changes to make to their everyday lives and what will be available to help them to achieve those changes.
It is not credible, for example, to expect everyone to become vegan or to ditch their car if they live where there are no buses or alternative forms of transport available. If we tell people that they will not be allowed to fly, they will not come with us and support the proposals. Proposals have to be achievable if they are to mean anything and are to have a chance of success. We must harness the commitment and enthusiasm of our younger generation, to encourage older generations to make the required changes.
We need to remind ourselves and our constituents constantly that Scotland is a world leader on climate change already and that our ambitions in the bill are being watched carefully worldwide. It is not often that devolved legislatures are invited to contribute to climate change conferences, yet our First Minister and cabinet secretary have contributed frequently. There have also been discussions in the media between our First Minister and world leaders in the field such as Al Gore.
I am proud that Scotland will not use carbon offsetting, which I do not find very ethical. Other countries already have their own problems to deal with. As Elaine Smith said, we have seen recent terrible flooding in countries in southern Africa.
The fight against the effect of climate change is a moral responsibility for Scotland. We are fortunate to have academic and engineering expertise. That expertise, along with our outstanding natural resources, means that meeting our climate change targets is possible and that we can see the issue as an economic opportunity and not just a threat.
Many of our young people want to work in the fields that advise companies on their climate change responsibilities and how they can change their practices to meet them, as well as on their corporate social responsibility policies in relation to the issue. My daughter, for example, works in this area, and the work is increasing exponentially.
Several members have noted that the agriculture sector produces a high level of carbon emissions. Because of the nature of most the land in Scotland, agriculture is likely to remain an emitter. However, it can also play a huge part in the removal of greenhouse gases through tree planting, soil management and the protection and restoration of wetland and peatland. As Professor Andy Kerr, the executive director of the Edinburgh centre for carbon innovation, said to the committee:
“overall, we are not worried so much about exactly which sector emissions reductions come from; the issue is more about whether we are delivering them overall.”—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 23 October 2018; c 17.]
It is important that there is a greater, wider debate and honesty, around these issues.
As I have said, we are fortunate in that we have access to people with expertise, including the people in the centre for ecology and hydrology and the James Hutton Institute, in my constituency, as well as its crop research centre in Dundee.
It is important that, under this legislation, we continue to include our fair share of aviation and shipping emissions in our targets. No other country does that.
Patrick Harvie’s attack on the oil and gas industry this afternoon was really ill judged. It should be noted that Scotland is already beating its climate change targets while supporting a strong and vibrant domestic oil and gas industry.
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)
Will the member take an intervention?
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Ms Watt is just closing, Mr Harvie.
Maureen Watt
The just transition commission was established to advise Scottish ministers on the manner of transitioning to a low-carbon economy.
I support the bill proceeding, and I look forward to Scotland maintaining its position as a world leader on climate change.
16:22Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests and my membership of the NFU Scotland.
As a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, and as a former farmer and now Scottish Conservative spokesman on the natural environment, I am delighted to be speaking in the debate. I join members in thanking the clerks, and in thanking the stakeholders who have provided evidence, including the young climate change activists who have been with us today and have been outside the Parliament.
However, as other committee members have done, I must express my frustration and disappointment at the failure of the Scottish Government to respond timeously to our report: 24 hours before the debate is far from enough time for us to respond constructively. The Scottish Government will happily grandstand on past achievements and talk tough on tackling climate change, but responding to the report only a day before the debate sends out a poor signal not only to those of us in the chamber, but to our communities, including the young activists who joined us this morning and who want meaningful and fact-based actions that stand up to scrutiny. It has left us little time to digest just how the Government is planning take on board the committee’s recommendations on how we can make progress on tackling climate change.
We must all play our part in tackling climate change, and we must strive to ensure that the right balance is struck in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The committee heard extensive evidence from various organisations. Whatever their position on net zero emissions, they absolutely agree and recognise that although transformational change will not happen overnight, this generation must, without fail, be the generation that puts in place the policies that will safeguard the future of the planet and future generations.
I believe that our stage 1 report has taken the correct science-based and evidenced-based approach to understanding the drivers, impacts and future risks of climate change, and how we can reduce emissions. That science-based approach will give clear direction in setting targets and, ultimately, in achieving a net zero target as the science shows the pathway.
In the light of the recent IPCC report, the UK Government and the Scottish Government wrote to the UK’s CCC for further advice on setting potentially more ambitious emissions reduction targets.
I sincerely hope that a scientific pathway to achieving net zero can be identified and that we can have options to take it. There is also a case to be made for stretch targets, to encourage further investment in innovation.
I look forward to the Committee on Climate Change’s report that will be published on 2 May, and to scrutinising its advice and evidence at the ECCLR Committee. I hope that the Government will allocate the time that is needed to ensure that we have good and robust legislation that ensures that we can make the right choices for Scotland and the global environment.
By “the right choices”, I mean policy decisions that consider the wider implications, such as by ensuring that displacement of production does not occur by pushing demand-driven production to other parts of the world where the impacts are more damaging. A forced reduction in livestock production in Scotland, for example, would result only in the demand for meat being met by increased imports—potentially from South America, which would result in further reduction of our invaluable rain forests. The right choice in this case is accelerated and increased investment to improve animal husbandry and grass and feed production. It is arguable that enhanced and more efficient production will have a greater impact on reduction of greenhouse gases.
We need to change the narrative when it comes to agriculture and land use. Far too many people take the lazy option, particularly non-meat eaters—the vegan and vegetarian brigade—who portray agriculture as the villain of the piece, when science suggests that to a great extent it can be the solution.
Innovation and technology can be at the heart not only of emissions reduction targets but of a new revived and economically sustainable agriculture industry. We must seize new opportunities. I call on the Scottish Government to place greater emphasis on developing new technologies, and to give a clear commitment to action that drives private investment and accelerates change.
Mark Ruskell
Finlay Carson has probably never tried a Greggs vegan sausage roll. He might want to acknowledge that consumer trends are towards reducing meat consumption. Surely he recognises that that creates an opportunity for Scottish agriculture to respond, through horticulture products and through better quality meat, but less of it, being sold.
Finlay Carson
When we are looking to pick the low-hanging fruit, turning the whole Scottish nation into vegetarians is probably one of the last options that we need to consider.
Jim Skea, from the IPCC, said that, in setting the long-term direction, there is a clear need for research and development into
“land management, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, and ... afforestation”.—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 23 October 2018; c 8.]
There are many technologies that we can use and actions that we can take now to make quick gains. The Government can create an economy that can seize the low-hanging fruit.
The need for action is not lost on the public. A poll that Stop Climate Chaos Scotland conducted ahead of the debate shows that one in three Scots is more concerned with climate change than they were a year ago; indeed, almost 80 per cent of respondents are either as concerned about climate change as they were 12 months ago or more concerned than they were 12 months ago. The poll also highlighted that seven in 10 Scots support taking tougher action to reduce emissions in transport, food production and homes, in order to tackle climate change.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Come to a close, please.
Finlay Carson
I am a member of the ECCLR Committee, and I stress that I will support the bill at decision time. It marks an important step forward in tackling climate change.
We should not rush the process. The cabinet secretary’s response at stage 1 hints at her wanting a stage 2 debate before the summer recess. That smacks of not taking action. We cannot afford to squander this opportunity. Climate change is an issue on which Parliament must not take a path that does not leave a positive legacy for future generations.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
I stress to members that “Come to a close” means “Come to a close.”
16:28Stuart McMillan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
I will do as I am told, Presiding Officer.
I am pleased to be speaking in this debate on climate change, which is one of the most pertinent issues of our time. Few reasonable people could argue that climate change does not require immediate attention, so it is unfortunate that around the world some people are making baseless arguments to fit their own political agendas. Nothing highlights that more than President Trump pulling America out of the Paris climate agreement.
It is easy to stand here and criticise policy makers or leading businesses around the world that are denying or ignoring the extent of the environmental crisis that faces our planet. We can directly control only what we do here in Scotland through the Scottish Parliament. I believe that we are making positive strides forward, but there is still more to do.
I welcome the committee report. The following part of the executive summary was extremely accurate. It states:
“Climate change is an intergenerational justice issue and the committee believes we need to act now to help ensure future generations inherit a world that is sustainable.”
I do not think that anyone could argue with that.
It is only in the past 20 years or so that I remember anyone talking about recycling: 20 years ago, everything seemed to go in the same bin and to landfill. In the recent BBC documentary about waste, a site that had been used for landfill in the 1970s was dug up, and plastic items and clothing in it had not degraded at all. The onus is on us all not just to recycle but to re-use. We live in a materialistic and disposable society in which, unfortunately, instead of continuing to use older items that have begun to show their age, we bin them and buy something new.
In 1995, I was studying in Dortmund in Germany, where I learned a lot. It was the first place that I had visited where recycling of glass, newspapers and plastic was taking place, but when I came home, recycling did not exist in Inverclyde and Scotland.
The price these days of many items of clothing makes it very easy and affordable just to ditch them, but transportation to Scotland of the vast quantities of those products comes at an environmental cost. Many such items come from the far east—from China, Vietnam and Thailand. Those imports from across the oceans have a massive environmental impact, and we are all guilty when we consume those products. In 2017, Scotland for the first time recycled more than we sent to landfill. I welcome that progress, but it took a long time to get to that point.
It is fitting that the Scottish Parliament is debating climate change and transport in the same week, because they are intrinsically linked. Last year, rail travel increased yet again, but it is disappointing that we have seen a drop in bus travel. The Scottish Government has doubled its investment in infrastructure to support cycling, and is working to increase the number of charging points for electric cars.
The IPCC report touches on the fact that all businesses and individuals have a part to play. I welcome last week’s announcement from McGill’s Bus Service Ltd in my constituency, which has invested £4.75 million in 26 new buses to meet the new ultra-low emission vehicle standards. That is part of a £24 million investment over the past five years to improve its environmental impact.
Alexander Burnett unfortunately could not take my intervention earlier, but it is crucial that everyone has their part to play. Finlay Carson and even vegans have their parts to play as well. The way in which Mr Carson responded to my Green colleague was unfortunate: I will defend my colleague because I genuinely think that it was an unfair attack on him.
The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill means that Scotland will have the toughest climate change legislation in the world. No other nation has committed to targets that are as ambitious as Scotland’s, which is testament to the determination of the Scottish Government. By 2030, Scotland will cut emissions by two thirds. Unlike other nations, we will not use carbon offsetting, in which countries would be paid to cut emissions for us in order that we could achieve our goals. I welcome that.
The Scottish Government has said that it will go even further if the UK Committee on Climate Change advises that a more ambitious target is now feasible, as the cabinet secretary said in her opening comments. The bill provides for annual targets, so that the Scottish Government can be held to account for progress every year. No other country has annual targets: most countries that have domestic climate change targets have only interim targets for 2020 or 2030.
I do not think for one minute that members of the Scottish Parliament or the public are shy about challenging Governments or politicians. They never have been and they never will be, and I welcome that.
I thank the younger people who are in the gallery today and who are pushing this agenda for our nation. I genuinely believe that every generation needs to leave the planet better than it was when it was handed over to them. We do not own the planet; we are merely its custodians in our time here.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
We move to closing speeches. We are very tight for time. Alex Rowley has no more than six minutes, please.
16:34Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
As other members have done, I thank Gillian Martin and the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee for the work that they have done in producing the committee’s stage 1 report. Scottish Labour members will support the motion on the bill at stage 1.
I will focus on a couple of areas. The possibility of establishing an independent just transmission commission that would be underpinned by statute needs further consideration. I hope that the Scottish Government will take that point seriously, and that it will seek to establish such a commission so that we can make progress.
Liam McArthur spoke about the low-hanging fruit that has been picked so far. That is true. However, while we have done well, factors such as the closure of Longannet power station were great contributors to that success. The next stage will be much tougher. If we are to achieve the net zero target we will need to ensure that there is a just transition
The evidence to date shows that the Scottish Government needs to do much more work. Transform Scotland says that transport is our largest source of emissions and that there has been almost no progress in the sector since 1990. While other sectors of the economy have made progress, there has been a failure to decarbonise Scotland’s transport. Transform Scotland also talks about Scotland’s fastest-growing emissions source, which it says is aviation.
Earlier, Neil Findlay put to the cabinet secretary a question about whether the SNP Government’s policy is to cut air passenger duty by 50 per cent or to get rid of it completely, neither of which would appear to illustrate joined-up government. The cabinet secretary’s response was to say that the policy does not fall within her brief, but comes under that of another cabinet secretary. That highlights the lack of joined-up thinking and joined-up government when it comes to that issue and the just transition.
Alexander Burnett talked about housing and fuel poverty. In my view, the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill, which is currently making its way through the parliamentary process, lacks ambition and clarity on how we will achieve some of its objectives, such as being able to have energy efficiency ratings built in to private rented sector properties. We have no detail on how we are to make progress on that and how we are to pay for what needs to be done.
If we want to take people with us on such matters, we need to create opportunities and jobs. So far, there has been a failure to do that. Burntisland Fabrications is now unlikely to get any of the jacket structure work for the latest round of offshore renewable energy projects. That is a tragedy: most of that work is being done abroad. We can imagine how that company’s workers and the unions that represent them feel about the just transition. The Scottish Government needs to do far more on that.
As Neil Findlay also pointed out, there has been a missed opportunity on community ownership of renewables—a complete failure on public ownership at local level. This morning, I read a brief from a community energy company that has been successfully established in Nottingham. The Scottish Government needs to think about being a bit more ambitious about how we engage in and involve ourselves in such things, so that we can look to good practice elsewhere. Why are no jobs being created in Scotland, and why are there so few jobs in our renewables sector? What is the Government’s role in that? I believe that the Government is failing in those areas.
We must also consider what we are told by various organisations. For example, SCIAF says:
“For developing countries, and for millions of people living in poverty, missing that 1.5°C target is literally a matter of life or death. Warming over 1.5°C means millions more people exposed to drought, heatwaves and floods, and intense competition for resources, leading to unprecedented levels of climate migration.”
That is another big threat.
This is stage 1 of the bill’s progress. We support the committee’s report, but we believe that we can be far more ambitious. We need very much to focus on the just transition so that workers in Scotland know that there will be a transition and that jobs will be protected as we move forward to tackle climate change and reach the net zero target. I hope that other parties in the Parliament will support that.
16:40Donald Cameron (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
I refer to my entries on farming and renewables in the register of members’ interests.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this excellent debate, especially having had the privilege of being on the ECCLR Committee for some of the time that it was taking evidence on the issue. I pay tribute to the committee—its convener, its members and its clerks.
Back in 2018, when the committee began looking at the bill, I met various organisations, charities and individuals both in the committee and outside it, and they impressed on me the need to be radical and ambitious when legislating. It was clear back then and it remains clear today that decisive action is required, and I sincerely welcome the fact that, on climate change, there is a broad consensus across the Parliament on what is necessary. WWF Scotland is surely right to state:
“climate change is the biggest crisis facing the world, and Scotland must act urgently to meet this challenge”.
Although it is this Parliament’s role to set out the legislative framework and debate the extent to which we will go forwards in the struggle against the effects of climate change, we should also recognise those people across Scotland who are campaigning for climate change mitigation day in and day out. As the recent demonstrations involving young people have shown, there is an intergenerational passion for the issue. Those demonstrations and the one outside Parliament today remind us that we need to get this right not just for the current generation but for future generations, too. That point was made by Gillian Martin, Claudia Beamish and Angus MacDonald, among others.
Similarly, we must also bear in mind those on the ground far from this place who are already doing their bit to reduce their carbon footprints and particularly to cut emissions where possible. The wide variety of sectors across Scotland will ultimately need to adapt to any legislative changes that we initiate. Indeed, many sectors have already begun to adapt voluntarily. An example is housing, where businesses are looking at different ways to build more energy-efficient homes. Maurice Golden spoke about that. In particular, there is the Passivhaus movement, people from which I recently had the privilege of meeting in the Highlands.
In transport, bus companies are beginning to invest in green buses and are retrofitting existing vehicles to reduce carbon output. In Scotland’s food and drink sector, the Scotch Whisky Association has noted that the whisky industry is
“close to achieving zero waste to landfill”
and that
“In 2016 non-fossil fuels accounted for 21% of ... energy use, up from 3% in 2008.”
Many representative bodies across Scotland acknowledge the need to take action now. Particularly notable are the words of CBI Scotland, which says that it supports the
“increased ambition to reduce carbon and greenhouse gas emissions”,
because in that way
“we protect the economy, society and the environment”.
It is clear that there is broad recognition across society that action is needed, and that many are doing all that they can to enact such change.
Others have spoken about agriculture, and I will dwell on that for a moment. Scottish agriculture has recognised that it faces a challenge to reduce its carbon output, but it is clear from my conversations with farmers and crofters that the sector not only prides itself on its existing stewardship of land but is positive about making further changes in the way that it works and operates in order to cut emissions, whether that involves investing in new machinery to improve efficiency, planting new hedgerows and trees to sequestrate emissions or investing in new feeds to reduce methane output.
The ECCLR Committee’s report notes that Lord Deben said that
“credit and gratitude should be afforded to the farming community”
for the work that it has done so far. Much of that work has been carried out voluntarily by farmers and crofters for years or even decades. In pursuing the aims and ambitions of the bill, we must ensure that we do not overburden the livestock sector, which has enough struggles already with unnecessary regulation and impossible targets.
NFU Scotland has said that climate change is “critically important”. It believes that
“we will achieve much better outcomes in the long run if people are encouraged to tackle emissions rather than be forced to through the use of regulation”,
and that, if farmers are able to take a voluntary approach, it
“potentially also enhances their business”.
According to the Scottish Government’s climate change plan, the agriculture and related land use sector has seen a 25.8 per cent fall in emissions between 1990 and 2015, because of, for example, sustained efficiency improvements in farming and better fertiliser management. That is positive and it further highlights the actions that our farmers and crofters are taking to manage land more sustainably.
Representatives of the sector have raised concerns about how carbon capture calculations are made. The vice president of the NFUS questioned whether
“carbon capture calculations properly identify what is being sequestrated by our hills, uplands and peatlands and fairly balance that against emissions from the livestock grazing”.
If it does not, that sequestration should be promoted.
I acknowledge Mark Ruskell’s work on the committee on the measurement of on-farm activity. We will all be aware of farms, such as Kirkton and Auchtertyre farms near Crianlarich, that have been researching how different breeds of sheep are better adapted to changing climate in Scotland’s upland hills. Langtonlees farm in the Borders has sought to install new turbines to exploit the fact that it faces a westerly wind, and it has invested in a slatted shed, which has meant a reduction in the amount of tractor fuel that is required to bale, gather and haul straw back to the farm. Those are just some real-life examples of how our farmers are rising to the challenge of reducing carbon output.
I will turn briefly to another point that others have made: how the changes that we make can help some of the poorest countries around the world. Many countries face the brunt of the devastating impacts of climate change and it is not only our duty to make changes, but a moral responsibility. Neil Findlay was absolutely correct when he said that it is an issue of international solidarity and the effects of climate change on the poor. Those who suffer most will be those who are least able to bear it.
Last month, with other members, I had the pleasure of taking part in the launch of SCIAF’s wee box campaign. The funds that were raised from that and other activities that SCIAF run all year round help to support projects such as the climate challenge programme Malawi, which supports communities that are affected by climate change.
The Scottish Conservatives support the bill at stage 1. We recognise the need to act and be ambitious, and we believe that actions to limit global warming should be focused on those that provide for jobs, innovation and investment in technology. Before we can set a net zero target date, an identifiable pathway to zero emissions needs to be outlined and the potential consequences understood. We must do all that we can to meet the calls from the IPCC to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C and curb the devastating effects of climate change for future generations.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
I call Roseanna Cunningham to wind up the debate.
16:48Roseanna Cunningham
I thank all members for their various contributions to today’s debate. There were a lot of speakers, so I am afraid that I will not be able to mention everyone in my closing remarks.
However, I feel that I should respond to the issue of the late arrival of the Scottish Government’s response to the committee report, which was raised by more than one member. I note that rule 9.8 of the standing orders lays down a strict timetable for committee report publication. There is a protocol for Government response, but people who read that protocol would discover that it actually goes so far as to allow for post-debate publication, which I am sure would have led to me getting even greater pelters than I have had this afternoon. In an ideal world there would have been more time for us to make a response, but it was a very large report with a lot of recommendations and, sadly, there was just not enough time for us to be able to respond earlier.
A number of strategic issues came up more than once and I would like to pick up on some of the key themes. First, I appreciate that the Scottish Government’s evidence-based approach to target setting has led to the somewhat unusual situation in which we are awaiting further advice from the CCC at the time of the stage 1 debate. I do not think that any of us would have wanted to be in this position, but that is where we are.
It is right that Scotland responded quickly to the Paris agreement with legislative proposals and the introduction of the bill. Indeed, we are one of the first countries to have done so—not that one would notice from the tenor of the debate. It is also right that we asked for updated CCC advice in the light of the new evidence in the IPCC special report. Clearly, we now need to wait for the CCC advice on 2 May. The Scottish Government will act quickly to amend the bill if the CCC says that even more ambitious targets are now credible, and I will keep the Parliament fully informed of our response.
In my opening statement, I emphasised the importance of Scotland’s evidence-based approach to tackling climate change. The committee’s stage 1 report has recognised the important role of the independent expert advice from the CCC as statutory adviser, but the Scottish Government is also mindful of a wide range of other evidence. Last month, I had a good meeting with Vivid Economics, the authors of the recent WWF Scotland-commissioned report on pathways to net zero emissions in Scotland. That report drew on 2018 work from the Royal Society on greenhouse gas removal technologies; both reports have become available since the CCC last provided advice on Scottish targets, and I am very grateful to both organisations for their positive and constructive contributions. I have also recently visited the greencow facility at Scotland’s Rural College to learn more about research on and innovation around climate-friendly farming, and the Scottish Government is, of course, proud to be hosting this week’s meeting in Edinburgh of the world’s leading climate scientists as they prepare the next IPCC review reports.
I am listening carefully to all credible sources of evidence, but I heard Claudia Beamish talk about the Government waiting for the CCC’s approval. She somewhat overlooks the fact that the CCC is embedded in the 2009 act as our statutory independent scientific adviser.
Claudia Beamish
I take the cabinet secretary’s point, but it is my understanding that, although the legislation exists, it is possible for this or any Scottish Government to give reasons for not accepting the CCC’s advice and, indeed, to go further than it. After all, the Government did not accept all the advice that it received on the climate change plan.
Roseanna Cunningham
Those calling for us to go beyond the CCC’s advice—and there have been a few in the chamber today—must consider what that would mean for an evidence-based approach more widely with regard to targets. It would undoubtedly result in distracting arguments about which evidence to follow when the real aim is meeting the goals of the Paris agreement, and it would walk away from certainty and scientific evidence and instead put opinion in the driving seat.
We all need to act if the Paris agreement goals are to be met—and by “we”, I mean not only all countries, but all communities, all individuals and all businesses. As not much has been said about businesses this afternoon, I will say something now about them. Some are leading the way in this: I recently had a meeting with one major global firm whose Scottish operations have reduced their emissions by 35 per cent since 2010. Their efforts have also helped to save money. For example, they established a behaviour change scheme for staff that allowed an individual worker to identify energy wastage from the programming of equipment, and the issue was addressed not only in that plant but in others using the same equipment. That is just one example of practical action from businesses; there are many more, and I have asked those businesses to use those examples in positive ways by going out and making that point to their colleagues in other business areas.
Scotland has halved its greenhouse gas emissions, and we should all be very proud of that world-leading achievement. The bill will provide the framework for delivering the second half of the decarbonisation journey all the way to net zero. The opportunities and challenges in the second half of that transition will, of course, be very different from those that we have experienced so far, but what remains unchanged is the value of political consensus. I entirely appreciate the level of interest in and expectation around the next climate change plan; once we have received the CCC’s updated advice, we will look again at the current plan, which will need to be reviewed after the passage of the bill. However, climate change plans are major strategic documents that affect all parts of our economy and every person in Scotland. There is a trade-off between their rapid production, including stakeholder and public consultation, and the extent and robustness of their content.
On the issue of costs, which was mentioned by John Scott and others, future Governments will decide what actions to take to deliver the targets, the costs of which will be affected by future scientific understanding and the availability of technology. It is not reasonable to expect to be able to describe those future costs with accuracy. In any case, as Stewart Stevenson interjected, the cost of not tackling climate change will be greater.
It is vitally important that the remainder of Scotland’s decarbonisation journey is fair for all. The Government is committed to a transition that continues to bring together our social, economic and climate objectives and that leaves no one behind. The need for a just transition was raised by a number of members, including Claudia Beamish and Alex Rowley.
The just transition commission that we have established has been tasked with providing the Scottish Government with practical advice on how to maximise the opportunities and manage the challenges of decarbonisation in relation to fair work, tackling inequalities and poverty and delivering a sustainable and inclusive labour market. The independent commission, chaired by Professor Jim Skea, started work in January and will advise on how to shift to a carbon-neutral economy in a way that is fair for all. The committee has asked the Scottish Government to further consider how the bill can reflect our commitments to a just transition. Following the debate on that in Parliament in January, I confirm that we are giving the matter further consideration and I will provide an update to Parliament before stage 2 begins.
The committee has asked the Scottish Government to give further consideration to the possibility of setting sector-specific emissions reduction targets. We will do so and provide an updated response once the CCC’s advice is available. Again, I must remind members of the multiple interconnections between sectors that sector targets could make substantially more difficult to factor in, which would be to the detriment of overall success. That is particularly the case with agriculture, which a number of members mentioned, where the inventory does not reflect all that farmers do to reduce emissions and data revisions can have a disproportionate effect on specific sectors. Our current view remains that the existing framework of economy-wide targets is working well and provides the necessary flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.
This is a vitally important bill for every person, business and community in Scotland. The bill strengthens Scotland’s place as a world leader in tackling the defining global challenge of our time. It sets the most ambitious targets of any country in the world and ensures that those always remain under review. It further strengthens our already uniquely rigorous framework of accountability around the targets. It will support action effectively over the years and decades to come, as Scotland delivers net zero emissions as soon as possible.
Mark Ruskell
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The protocol between the Parliament and the Government in relation to the handling of committee business sets out in paragraph 41:
“The Scottish Government should normally respond to any committee report not later than:
a. two months after publication of the report; or
b. where exceptionally the debate is to be within the 2 months of publication, a week before the Chamber debate the report.”
Members received the Government’s response to the stage 1 committee report on the climate bill at 12.43 pm yesterday. That gave us barely 24 hours to read and digest the implications of the Government’s response ahead of this afternoon’s debate on this critical legislation. No letter was issued to the committee to explain the nature and reason for the delay.
Presiding Officer, I ask for your advice on whether the protocol has indeed been breached and, if so, what your advice is to the Government and Parliament on this matter.
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
I thank the member for advance notice of the point of order. I note that the issue was raised at a meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau earlier today and that the cabinet secretary referred to it in her concluding remarks.
It is the case that a protocol exists covering the issue of how the Government should respond to committee reports. The protocol covers best practice. However, it also covers the circumstances in which the Government is not able to respond to a committee in good time and has to respond on the day of the debate. I believe that that is the situation that the Government has found itself in. I suggest that the member—or the committee—pursues the matter with the Government directly.
I thank the member for the point of order and I am sure that the Government has noted the point he makes.
2 April 2019
Stage 2 - Changes to detail
MSPs can propose changes to the Bill. The changes are considered and then voted on by the committee.
Who spoke to the lead committee about this Bill at Stage 2
First meeting transcript
The Convener (Gillian Martin)
Welcome to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s 15th meeting in 2019. I remind everyone to switch off their phones or put them on silent mode, as they might affect the broadcasting system.
Agenda item 1 is for the committee to take further evidence on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. This morning, I am delighted to welcome, from the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change, Chris Stark, chief executive officer; Professor Keith Bell and Professor Piers Forster, committee members; and David Joffe, team leader for economy-wide analysis. I welcome you all. Thank you for coming to see us so quickly after your report, which we have all found interesting, was issued.
I will ask you some questions about how you compiled the report. You had just six months to research and compile the report. In that relatively short space of time, are you confident that you have considered all the available options that are open to the UK and devolved nations?
Chris Stark (Committee on Climate Change)
I will start by acknowledging that, as four white men, we are horribly lacking in diversity. I am sorry about that, but it does not reflect the make-up of the committee.
We are confident that we have considered all the available options. It has taken six or seven months of intensive work to produce the recommendations in the report for the Scottish and UK Governments but, of course, there is a lot more behind it than that—if you like, we have been in training for a while, expecting this commission. We draw on a number of pieces of evidence in the report, not least the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year and its landmark report, “Global Warming of 1.5°C”. The basis of our report is the IPCC work, a set of in-depth reports that we produced last year on land use, biomass and hydrogen, which are three essential components of the deep emissions reduction that we have projected in this report, and the body of work that we have put together over the seven or eight months since we received the commission from ministers. When we boil all that up, it allows us to say something that we have not previously been able to say. We now have a set of scenarios that take us out to 2050 and which, for the first time, permit us to talk about the net zero goal. We did not previously have the evidence base to do that.
I am certain that the evidence will get better over the coming months and years, but I am confident about the set of recommendations that we provided to ministers in the report. I am sure that we will want to look further at some of the issues that underpin our recommendations but this is one of the best pieces of work that the committee has ever produced and I think that it will stand the test of time.
The Convener
You mentioned that, as you go into the future, you want to do more in-depth work on some of the pathways. What are your top three priorities for that?
Chris Stark
Necessarily, we have had to do something that, in the main, looks at the UK. I have appeared before this committee many times, so you know that I have a prejudice towards thinking that we should also look closely at the Scottish issues. We have done a good job of that in this report, but some of the pathways to reduce emissions in Scotland will be contingent on things that happen UK-wide. Over the next 12 months, we intend to look closely at some of those things.
There is a requirement in the UK Climate Change Act 2008 for us to give advice on the sixth UK carbon budget next year. A huge amount of work in this report allows us to give an accurate assessment of the sixth carbon budget and the pathways to achieve the long-term target UK-wide. That will also allow us to look in much more detail at the Scottish issues.
Briefly, the kind of things that we will want to consider are the plan for decarbonising heat across the UK and how we approach the challenge of carbon capture and storage in the UK, which is an important issue for Scotland. We also want to consider some of the big issues that there is uncertainty about at the moment, such as what the policy towards land use and agriculture is after we leave the EU, if that happens.
We have made educated guesses about some of those things and have made a good assessment of them, but we want to consider them in more detail over the next 12 months or so.
The Convener
You have hit on another area that I want to ask about, which is equity. Obviously, there are more challenging targets for Scotland to deliver, but a lot of what can be done is dependent on what happens at a UK level. Is it equitable and realistic to put these challenging targets at the door of the Scottish Government when, as you say, the decarbonisation of the gas network and issues to do with carbon capture and storage involve responsibilities that lie at a UK level?
Chris Stark
I would extend what you say even further. We are talking about a global issue, not just one that is for the UK to deal with. In the end, the world will have to do something about all these issues. We are all going to have to get to net zero or the game’s a bogey. We can be pretty clear about the fact that these things will have to be in place or the overall mission will be off track. On that basis, it is fair, at this stage in the passage of the bill, to advise Scottish ministers that they should set the 2045 net zero target now and be confident that there will be a UK framework in place to deliver these things. In fact, I would say that inserting the new target into the bill at this stage creates a strong lever that I hope the Scottish Government will use when the two Governments are co-operating with each other.
I think that it is equitable to set the policy, but it is important that other UK and Scottish policy steps up to the task in a way that has not yet been the case.
Professor Keith Bell (Committee on Climate Change)
There is an interdependency between Scotland and the UK as a whole when it comes to reaching the targets that we recommend for Scotland and for the UK. With regard to the electricity decarbonisation that needs to be done, the UK has already benefited from what has been done in Scotland, such as the development of CCS resource, forestation and so on. It is a two-way interdependency. Therefore, as Chris Stark said, there is strong reason to believe that it is right that the recommendations be adopted.
Professor Piers Forster (Committee on Climate Change)
If you look at our cost analysis, you can see that the cost falls disproportionately on Scotland. We estimate that about 15 per cent of the overall cost of the UK net zero target falls on this country. That is much higher than your share of population or gross domestic product. Within that, there is an opportunity to send the rest of the UK quite a big bill for your forestation and your CCS work.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
I want to pick up briefly on what Chris Stark said. I very much welcome the confidence that he has in his report—it would be rather depressing if he had said something different. You talked about further evidence emerging, and I want to ask about that. The implication is that the evidence will reinforce the report—that is what I get from what has been said today and from my independent reading. When do you think it would be appropriate to further revisit the targets for the UK and Scotland in the light of that evidence, so that we might be even more ambitious in future? There are some pressures to consider different targets right now, which I am resisting, because I want to support what the scientists are saying.
Chris Stark
That is an interesting question. The hallmark of the Scottish and UK frameworks, under the respective pieces of legislation, is that, when the evidence supports doing so, we revisit the targets. Of course, it is about 10 years since those frameworks were put in place, so this is the moment to do so.
09:45In response to your question, I say that, first, it is difficult to be certain what will happen with evidence in the future. Therefore, we have been prudent and cautious in our approach to aspects such as cost reduction and, on that basis, I think that we can be confident that the costs are in the right ball park.
The second thing is that the position is not static. The application of policy has a direct impact, especially on cost. There is an excellent—I would say that, wouldn’t I?—section in the report on what happens then, which is that we get a very happy feedback loop. When policy is framed in the right way and markets respond in the right way, there is a remarkable impact on cost. However, we have been prudent. We have not seen those cost falls in all areas—most notably not in nuclear, for example. It is appropriate for us to be prudent and transparent about the way in which we approach these things.
The question of when we might return to the target is difficult. A period of a decade has been useful in allowing us to establish what happens when we have a framework such as this and policy steps up to address the issue. We have had several changes of Government over that period, both in Scotland and at UK level. The key component of the success of this bill when it becomes an act is that it should ride out those kinds of political shifts. I feel that this is the appropriate time for us to revisit the target, but there may well be a time to look at it again in the future.
My last point is that we do not have that much more time to achieve such targets, so the luxury of looking at the issue and thinking that we have decades of time will soon evaporate. Setting such a target at this moment is a fundamental step. I do not expect that we will be revisiting it any time soon. One of the straplines that I was using with the team when we were putting the report together is that I do not want to do it again. This is the moment for us to do as fundamental a piece of work as we can, so that Parliaments up and down the land can make the right decisions.
The Convener
What was the methodology? Targets are one thing, but pathways are quite another. What model did you use to come up with the pathways? Was it the TIMES model again, or was it something different?
Chris Stark
I will pass over to my colleague David Joffe in a second to say something about the modelling approach. We did not use TIMES. I can speak from the experience of using it in the Scottish Government, of course, but we have a different approach, although we have used TIMES in the past.
David Joffe (Committee on Climate Change)
We did not use only one model to come up with our analysis; we used detailed sectoral analysis and constructed an economy-wide scenario based on modelling in the power, building, industry and transport sectors and so on, so that we could get the great detail that sectoral approaches provide. We then combined them in a way that made sense across the economy, based on insights from modelling with not the TIMES model but one that was similar, the energy system modelling environment—ESME—model, which we used last year for our hydrogen and biomass report. We think that we have the underpinnings and insights from that modelling, but we wanted the greatest level of detail possible, which meant doing sectoral analysis rather than using a big TIMES-type model.
Professor Bell
I have come relatively late to the process, but I am very pleased to be part of it. The priority is to identify that there are credible and affordable pathways—multiple possible pathways. That means that there are uncertainties about some of the further ambition options for getting right down to net zero. However, there are options and that was the most important thing to establish from the detailed modelling, rather than doing what the TIMES model tries to do, which is to find a single optimal pathway from the data that are fed into it.
Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
You mentioned interdependency between Scotland and the UK in terms of policy and the potential for one target to leverage another. What about the European Union? We see a drive there now, with the European Commission wanting to set an EU target of net zero by 2050. How important is that interrelationship in terms of research and innovation, for example in relation to an EU-wide electricity grid? Is there uncertainty about that?
Chris Stark
The short answer is that the EU is not as important as the UK, but it is very important. Some of the strategies to achieve deep emissions reduction in some sectors rely on there being a compatible EU approach. The best example that I can think of is heavy goods vehicles. It is very difficult to conceive of a situation in which the UK alone, and certainly Scotland alone, could have a strategy to get HGVs to zero carbon without there being an EU-wide approach to that. We emphasise the importance of hydrogen in the report. To achieve the outcomes that we are hoping for, we would need an EU-wide system of freight management that used hydrogen infrastructure. We look at alternative options in the report, too, but it is fundamentally an international question.
The other aspect is that, at the moment, as members of the EU, we can sit behind some of the big frameworks, for example the EU renewable energy and energy efficiency frameworks. We need to see what happens after we leave the EU, and see how those frameworks are replaced. In the main, we are well ahead of some of the targets in those frameworks, so we have not had the opportunity to understand what happens when they start to bite on domestic policy. It is more of a theoretical exercise to consider what might happen in future. Europe is, of course, very important.
There is an interesting and important relationship between setting a domestic target for emissions reduction here in Scotland, and the impact that that might have on the UK setting a similar target, and the knock-on impact on other countries around Europe. In the report, we make a lot of the fact that there is a huge and underappreciated leverage role for the UK and Scotland in setting a target such as this, which far outweighs the impact in raw emissions terms. A rich industrialised economy such as Scotland and the rest of the UK setting a target as ambitious as this gives a much stronger platform for the EU to set the target that has been proposed by the Commission. In general, if we approach it that way, we can feel much more confident about the world getting on a better pathway. The counterargument is that, if we do not do it, it will be very easy for other parties, especially the EU, not to do it as well. This is a critical moment to set such a target.
Professor Bell
The other thing to mention is innovation. Chris Stark has talked about the importance of the hydrogen sector. Electricity is not the whole story, but it remains very important. A fair amount of electrification of heat and transport is built into what we see as being the credible pathways. There is an interdependency with the rest of Europe, and that interconnection is a way of balancing out the surpluses and deficits of renewable energy as they vary through time.
For imports of electrical energy to be genuinely low carbon, rather than a case of us offshoring the carbon problem, depends on the electricity sector in the rest of Europe decarbonising, particularly in Germany and Poland. Again, political leverage is important in helping to move that. The innovation aspect is extremely important—it is clear that there are innovation needs in all sorts of sectors. We have been careful not to make bold or excessive assumptions about what those sectors will deliver. We can never quite predict where the main outcomes will arrive, but I feel quite strongly about the importance of the capacity to do innovation. We pointed in the report to the need for investment in skills, not just in deployment but in innovation.
We could look to the offshore wind sector deal as being an example of that, but it should not be seen on its own. There has to be a wider framework for this. Whether the system works, as an engineering system across the multiple vectors—there are still challenges in the electricity system and how it is operated—depends on the involvement of people with deep knowledge in industry, academia and in consultancies and so on.
There is a set of centres for doctoral training that are really important UK-wide in delivering people with that level of skills, who know how to do research. In February, 75 CDTs were announced by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. It is disappointing that none of those CDTs is concerned with the energy system, the electricity system or energy storage. A serious trick has been missed there.
The Convener
We will meet a few representatives of various sectors that have been challenged in this area. When you took evidence, were there any particular sectors that were not behind the net zero ambition? Could you outline their reasons for that?
Chris Stark
David Joffe might have better knowledge of that. I am afraid that I have only a summary knowledge of the responses. Most people who responded were advocates for the more ambitious target. From memory, I think that a few were not, but I have to say that I cannot think of a single sectoral representative who argued against it.
However, there was lots of caution about setting a target that could not be met. That is the really important thing for me, and it is one of the messages of our report. This is about much more than a target. It is not credible to have a net zero target unless there is policy to match, and at the moment, we do not have that policy.
Professor Forster
Perhaps I could speak from my experience of the aviation and agricultural sectors. As Chris Stark said, they are cautious because they are the two industries that cannot decarbonise completely. However, they understand that they have to do more than they are doing. They are not completely against the target, but I am almost 100 per cent certain that they will come back to the Government and demand financial support of some kind so that they can get there.
David Joffe
The input that we got from stakeholders came in via the call for evidence and that sort of thing before we had done the analysis. We did not have the opportunity to show the analysis to stakeholders as we might have done if we had had more time. Inevitably, stakeholders will have seen the analysis for the first time on publication and we would expect them to react to it because it is important to their sector. We will see what their reactions are in the coming weeks and months.
Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)
I would like to look at the committee’s evidence on the appropriate contribution from Scotland in relation to capability, equity and, of course, support for the global effort.
I will start by asking Chris Stark and any other witnesses who wish to answer whether, if they are adopted, the Scottish and UK targets will represent the most ambitious targets globally.
Chris Stark
We are clear in the report that our targets are the appropriate contribution to the Paris agreement, one of the stipulations of which is that the countries of the world must offer their highest possible ambition, and we go on to define that.
Since we published the report, the IPCC has often been cited and I regularly hear that, because it has recommended that the world should reach net zero by 2050, we have therefore made an unambitious set of recommendations. It is important to make the point that that IPCC recommendation was for carbon dioxide only. We have offered a recommendation for all greenhouse gases, which is well in advance of the global average that would be necessary for the Paris agreement temperature goals.
We will be straining every sinew in every sector if we approach our targets in the way that we have recommended in the report. We have looked at an earlier date for the UK, and it therefore follows that we have looked at an earlier date for Scotland. It is a judgment, and that is why we have the committee—to offer such a judgment.
Any date prior to 2050 for the UK and prior to 2045 for Scotland carries a huge risk of failure. We can go into more depth on some of the sectoral strategies that would be necessary to get to the 2045 target in Scotland, but there are physical and other real barriers to achieving it. Those things will not be easily fixed, even over 25 years.
We have looked at a really ambitious overall strategy. We have departed in two ways from the cautious approach that the committee has typically taken during its 10 years of existence. One is that we are now suggesting to the UK and Scottish Governments that our GHG emissions reduction target should go beyond the global average per capita. We have never done that before. Secondly—this is true UK-wide, at least—we cannot get you to net zero; we can get you almost all the way. We are confident enough that a pot of speculative options will then be available to get to net zero, but again, that is a step in advance of where we have typically been as a cautious committee.
I am very happy to defend that and it is a measure of how hard it was for us to put together a set of strategies and scenarios for deep emissions reductions in every sector. The 2045 date is as early as we can confidently predict, given all the other factors that we are required to consider as a committee under the climate change legislation in Scotland.
10:00Professor Forster
Some other countries are considering quite similar targets, but I think that we can say with confidence that the scale of the 2045 target that we have set for Scotland will be the most ambitious in the whole world if it is adopted, because it is for all greenhouse gases, as Chris Stark said, not just CO2. International aviation and shipping are also considered as part of the target. The other thing is that we want to achieve it as much as possible without international offset of some kind. With those considerations, we think that it is probably the most ambitious target that we can set up.
Claudia Beamish
How were considerations of global equity factored into the net zero calculations? Was directly tackling consumption emissions considered as part of the equation? Consumption emissions were estimated to be around 70 per cent higher than territorial emissions in 2016. Of course, you will know that, but I wanted to put it on the record.
Chris Stark
We made a transparent and honest appraisal of the equity issues. It is worth saying that on some measures, which we set out clearly in the report, we would see the UK adopting a considerably harder target. I should say that those are UK-wide measures.
In summary, you are right to raise the issue of consumption emissions; it is something that we worry about a lot. The basis of the statutory framework in the UK is territorial emissions, but that did not stop us looking at the issue.
The problem with consumption emissions is that we cannot entirely control their reduction. The first thing to say is that the majority of consumption emissions are what is produced here. Secondly, we know—this is pure science; in fact, it is pure chemistry, never mind science—that if we are going to tackle global warming, we must, as a globe, get to net zero and therefore the consumption emissions line will eventually fall. Thirdly, in achieving a domestic net zero goal, whether that is in Scotland or UK-wide, we will reduce our demand for some of the things that push those consumption emissions as high as they are at the moment.
In summary, the fact that we consume more than other parts of the world is one of the strongest arguments for us to go beyond the global average on territorial emissions and set a net zero target overall.
We have given as thorough a description as possible of what can be done about the consumption emissions problem, including the potential to set new policies that actively tackle it; we explore the option of carbon border taxes in the report, for example. However, it is still appropriate to use territorial emissions as a basis for target setting, given that that is what policy can control directly.
David Joffe
I would add that calculating consumption emissions is complicated; there is a big time lag between the emissions occurring and having the data and there are different ways that you can do it, which will come out with different answers. It is a less transparent framework for measuring emissions. As well as the considerations that Chris Stark has set out, it becomes much more difficult and much less transparent if you do it that way.
Professor Bell
On the international process, as Chris Stark said, it is a global challenge. These things have to be accounted for somewhere, so if the globe is committed to whatever the Paris agreement said, the emissions have to be counted in the global ledger.
Professor Forster
Our report is the first to include accurately calculated consumption emissions. They were calculated by Dr Anne Owen from my department, who did a fantastic job.
In the policy that we advocate for the UK, about 60 per cent of the levers that we want to pull focus on demand or have at least some element of demand reduction, so we can be quite confident that consumption emissions will decline in time.
Claudia Beamish
Thank you. Will you clarify whether the target of net zero emissions by 2045 includes an overshoot scenario?
Chris Stark
I will ask David Joffe whether he wants to say more about this, but the answer is that it does not include that—or, at least, it includes minimal overshoot. We looked at a number of ways of achieving the target and concluded that, again, we should be cautious and prudent about that.
Is there anything that you want to add, David?
David Joffe
No.
Professor Forster
I would just note that, if we move to net zero greenhouse gas targets, we will be in a situation where the country’s contribution to temperature change will decline over time, so we will begin to reduce our contribution to that.
Claudia Beamish
Thank you. Lastly, I ask whichever of you feels it is appropriate to respond to say for the record why the rebalancing
“of effort towards existing climate leaders and richer nations”
appeared to you to be
“more plausible”
than increasing the effort of middle income and developing countries.
Chris Stark
That is one of the most important aspects of the report. We were let loose to look at a set of global issues that we would not typically be able to look at, and there is a great deal of new work in the report that you will not find in any other reports.
One of the really good contributions that we are now making to the global discussion is that we are trying to model a different scenario that is much more in line with the goals of the Paris agreement, whereby the richer developed countries go first and take a lead because they can do that and they can afford it. There is great service in them doing so. In Scotland and the UK, we have been doing that very well for the past 10 years.
One of the best expressions of why it is important for us to do that regardless of the fact that we have a relatively small proportion of global emissions is that, with policy, we have been successfully bringing down the costs of some of the key technologies. That is a service that other countries will then benefit from. It is most obvious in Scotland when we look at the offshore wind story, but there are other technologies, too. By supporting and deploying those technologies and bringing the costs down, we will feel more and more confident about their costs coming beneath those of fossil fuels globally, so that those countries that are still developing may never need to use fossil fuels and build the infrastructure. That is essential for us to achieve the goals of the Paris agreement.
It is an important aspect of our report that we look at those global concerns and model something that is more credible overall. I hope that other countries around the world and, indeed, the United Nations will pay attention to that.
The Convener
Is there also economic opportunity in that, given that the pioneers of the technology will be able to export their expertise and that technology?
Chris Stark
Absolutely. Again, this is something that we can be confident will be addressed in other countries. My stock answer to some of the questions that have been asked so far has been that everyone must reach net zero. In the knowledge that that is the case, it is a sensible economic development strategy to develop some of the technologies to do it here in Scotland.
The record of the past decade and more shows that, having had the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and legislation at the UK level, we have not ruined the economy. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. We have become a strong example of what happens when policy is framed in the right way. The economy has grown while we have successfully cut emissions, and that is exactly what needs to happen in every developed country as a demonstration of how we can achieve reductions overall. I am confident that it can be done if other countries follow this kind of framework.
The Convener
Mark Ruskell has some follow-up questions on that theme.
Mark Ruskell
The big take-home message from the IPCC report was that we need to take action in the next 10 years and that early action is absolutely critical. What research and analysis have you done in relation to the 2030 target? There is much more about what we should do and put in place now.
Chris Stark
I will open up the discussion, but I will first make some introductory comments.
We have necessarily had to look at a UK-wide strategy for net zero emissions, and we have drawn conclusions about how that effort can be achieved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but we have not been able to build a detailed pathway in Scotland yet. We acknowledged that in the report, and we intend to do something about it over the next 12 to 18 months or so. That has meant that we have been prudent again and cautious about how to assess the sensible and important need for interim targets under the new Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. We have used the best evidence that we have of what the pathway might look like in order to get to the 2045 date, and that has been a straight-line assessment.
I think that we will revisit the matter. I do not know whether that means that we will revisit the 2030 interim target, but I know that we will have better evidence on which to base our assessment when we do that. The key component of our ability to assess the interim targets, especially in 2030, will be the assessment that we make of the UK’s sixth carbon budget overall and the pathways to—I hope—achieving a tougher target if Westminster follows Holyrood’s example.
Mark Ruskell was absolutely right to refer to the importance of short-term action. The issue is global. In particular, long-lived gases, as they are emitted, add to the global stock of CO2, which is, after all, what global warming is all about. The more we can cut that in the short term, the better the impact on global warming overall will be.
Members can be assured that the Committee on Climate Change’s interest is in seeing as much action as possible as soon as possible to deliver those goals. We will want to look at that in more detail when we have the evidence to do so.
Professor Forster
As Chris Stark said, we have not gone into detail about what to do in the next 10-year timeframe, but some definite key issues come out of the report. We want to bring forward the date for switching to EVs, and we want the Government to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. We want carbon capture and storage clusters to be developed—they have to be developed in the next five-year timeframe—and we have to change our afforestation target immediately. We must get planting trees, because they take time to grow and suck carbon from the atmosphere. We recommended that Scotland’s current forest cover of around 20 per cent ought to be rapidly increased to 30 per cent.
David Joffe
I will add to what needs to be done. With only around 25 years to get to net zero emissions, some of the infrastructure that we will need will require early action. It is not only about CCS, although that is crucial. If we are going to use hydrogen, the infrastructure for hydrogen production and supply will be important for electricity grids. On the softer side, public engagement and skills will be important in ensuring that we are able to deliver those things over the next two decades.
Professor Bell
The infrastructure question is really challenging for policy making. A lot of transport and energy infrastructure was developed quite a while ago, under market or financing arrangements that were completely different from what we have now. What is the right framework within which to develop a hydrogen and carbon capture and storage infrastructure?
The approach in the electricity and gas sector will be sort of incremental, albeit that the increments will have to be big to accommodate repurposing of the gas grid and electrification of at least some part of heat and transport. However, in starting from scratch when we need something that is pretty big, we must decide quickly what the policy levers should be to enable that and how that will be financed and delivered.
10:15Mark Ruskell
I appreciate that there are big questions and what your report describes as speculative ways of reducing emissions, but it seems odd that you have, in effect, drawn a straight line for the next 10 years. If we adopted your proposed target, that would require an increase in effort by 2030 of 4 percentage points—from 66 to 70 per cent. What would fill the gap? In areas that fall under your previous and current advice, could we ramp up the ambition and go a bit further than 70 per cent, so that there is not necessarily a straight line?
Chris Stark
Absolutely. We acknowledge in the report that it is perfectly possible to go faster on some things, which would make it easier to achieve the net zero target.
I will list the things that need to happen. We are talking about an utterly incredible increase—I will rephrase that; I mean an amazing increase—in electricity production from low-carbon means.
Mark Ruskell
Is that over the next 10 years?
Chris Stark
Yes. That needs to be ramped up. The policies are there to deliver it, but the appropriate ambition is also needed. The report reflects on the UK Government’s strategy for producing 30GW of offshore wind energy by 2030. If that target were increased, and if we went faster on electrification from some key technologies, we might get ourselves on to a different trajectory, and we would reduce the risks of not achieving net zero emissions.
Mark Ruskell
So, progress would be steeper than the straight line.
Chris Stark
Yes. We do not yet have the data on which to base a more detailed pathway for Scotland; I am sorry about that, but it is best to acknowledge it. We must understand first what the UK-wide position looks like and then what share Scotland can take.
The electrification strategy is one thing that we could go faster on. We mentioned the EV switchover date. It is indefensible to have a UK-wide switchover date of 2040, which is incompatible with the 80 per cent target, never mind a net zero target. A car that is bought in 2040 that uses fossil fuels will still be on the roads 15 years later. In one of the best bits of analysis in the report, we show that switching to EVs will be a boon to the economy and that bringing forward the switchover to the earliest possible date—preferably 2030—would also be a boon to the economy.
Mark Ruskell
What about agriculture and land use?
Chris Stark
It is obvious that we must start planting trees, which means changing our approach to agriculture. We have been cautious about what needs to be done, but we must free up agricultural land for natural stores of carbon, which takes time.
We have discussed carbon capture and storage and the related issue of using hydrogen. If that is to play a meaningful role, as we think it should, in the next 25 years, the sooner we start on that, the better. We need a genuinely integrated approach to hydrogen from the Scottish and UK Governments the like of which we have not had in the past 10 years.
If those things are put in place and if they happen sooner, we can be more confident about achieving the net zero target, and we might be able to look at the date again. However, the best assessment now of how quickly the target can be achieved is in the report. Once we understand the UK pathway better, we will look at the 2030 interim date.
Mark Ruskell
Perhaps you can understand our difficulty. The bill that is before us will have gone through stage 3 and will have passed into law by the end of this year. Will we have to wait another two years for you to have more certainty before we set a 2030 target? The IPCC said that we had 10 years at tops. We will now have eight years, so time is running out. We need to decide now what a realistic 2030 target would be.
Chris Stark
We have offered you the best assessment of what is achievable in Scotland. We could not offer the detailed pathway that might inform a different 2030 target, but that does not mean that we will not come back to the question. I am not asking the Parliament to wait; I am asking it to take the advice that we offer in the report, which is very ambitious.
We have referred to UK-wide frameworks, but we should not let the Scottish Government off the hook, because a set of things can be done in Scotland—most notably in relation to agriculture and to housing as part of the built environment. If those things are stacked up in the next 12 months, we can be more ambitious about the interim targets.
Going back to my earlier point, I think that what happens over the next 10 years matters immensely. It is, of course, something that the committee cares deeply about, so you can expect us to look into the matter.
David Joffe
I think that it is really important to distinguish between the actions that we can take over the next 10 years and what those will mean for emissions in 2030. We now have a clear idea of the set of actions that need to happen over the next 10 years, and we have set some of them out; however, what we do not have is an idea of what exactly those actions will mean for emissions in 2030, because we have not been able to do that analysis.
The priority now should be to put in place policies to reduce emissions instead of working out and targeting the exact numbers. We know that we need to get to net zero emissions by 2045 and that there is a set of things that we will need to do in order to get there, but precisely what the emissions reduction needs to be as we move towards 2030 is, we think, less important than putting in place the policies to ensure that we get all the way to net zero. That is why we have focused on the end point and the actions that are required to get there rather than on the percentage reduction. Nonetheless, in the future, we will try to produce something more accurate than that sort of straight-line analysis.
The Convener
We have a lot of ground to cover. I therefore apologise to colleagues who want to ask supplementary questions. I suggest that you wait and ask them when I call you to ask your main questions.
We move on to questions from Maurice Golden.
Maurice Golden (West Scotland) (Con)
I wonder whether the panel will reflect on changes to the emissions inventory—specifically the global warming potential methodologies and the inclusion of peat.
Chris Stark
In a second, I will turn to David Joffe to tell you how we approached the issue. Our general approach was, again, to be cautious about such changes. We knew that they were coming and that some of the emissions inventory changes will have a greater impact on Scotland, proportionally, than on the whole of the UK. Some of the changes, such as the peatland revisions, are very big.
The advice that we have offered is based on what would have the maximum impact on the emissions inventory. In other words, we are being conservative in the right way in our assessment of the matter. The global warming potentials and the peatland revisions might turn out to be lower, which would make the targets easier to meet, and we have accommodated that in our assessment.
David Joffe
I echo Chris Stark’s point, that we have tried to be conservative. We had the option of making recommendations on the basis of the existing inventory. However, if we had recommended a net zero target that was more ambitious than what we have ended up recommending and, in three years’ time, when the inventory changed, we had to say, “Sorry, you can’t meet the target any more,” that would have been quite damaging to confidence in the legislation. We have therefore been very careful to be conservative, and we are confident that the target can be met with any known forthcoming changes to the inventory. Things might come down the line, in the 2020s or 2030s, that we have not anticipated, but, as far as the known changes are concerned, we are confident that the target can be met.
Professor Forster
Perhaps I can give the committee some idea of the significance of the changes. If you were to make them today, they could increase emissions by an order of magnitude of 15 per cent or so, which comes back to the point that was made about it being quite hard, depending on how the changes go, to set a precise 2030 target.
My advice in that respect is that you really have to be sure about the baseline with which you are comparing your target. For example, as far as peatland is concerned, you would need to be sure about the emissions that you would be comparing and what GWPs you could achieve for your particular target. You need some continuity there.
The changes will have a big effect today, but, after you begin to do lots of peatland restoration and reduce your agricultural emissions, you ought to find that they are not so significant by 2045. Changing the inventories today will have a big effect, but their effect will not be so big as you go further forward in time.
Stewart Stevenson
I was going to ask about peat later, but it has come up now. I presume that the baseline for peatland emissions is 1990 and that the change in methodology has incorporated what has happened between 1990 and the present, which we acknowledge is not very helpful.
My experience is that peatland restoration for environmental reasons—for diversity and so forth—seems to happen extremely rapidly. What does the graph look like, as we move forward, for peatland’s impact through reducing methane emissions and absorbing greenhouse gases? It is all very well to talk about peatland restoration, but that is currently being done for environmental reasons as much as to address climate change.
Professor Forster
A simple thing that can be done is blocking up drainage so that there is no draining of peatland. Just that one simple action almost instantly reduces methane emissions from peat. However, the sequestration of carbon dioxide would take more time, because peatland takes thousands of years to regenerate.
Stewart Stevenson
So, let us be clear: peatland restoration reduces emissions. I have seen examples of how quickly blocking drainage works. However, given that it will take a lot longer for the peatland to start to absorb CO2, is that land intervention the most effective way to ensure that CO2 is absorbed, or is forestry much more effective and quicker? We could talk about other land interventions that might be more effective, but I do not want to open the discussion up too much at the moment. We have to prioritise what works best and fastest.
Professor Forster
Peat is still very effective for emissions reduction and sequestration, and, because we are not talking about very big areas of land in the UK and Scotland, policies can be concentrated on relatively tiny areas. In targeting afforestation, you would have to engage with many more landowners throughout the country—in towns, cities, parks and all the communities—which would be a much more difficult logistical challenge. That is why, if you delve into the detail of the land use report that we published in December, you will see that we think that peatland restoration is a really effective approach.
David Joffe
Although I completely understand where you are coming from in asking what the priority is—whether it is here or here—the magnitude of our challenge of getting to net zero emissions by 2045 means that we need to do both the afforestation and the peatland restoration—and, and, and.
Stewart Stevenson
Oh yes.
David Joffe
Nevertheless, I understand where you are coming from in asking about priorities.
Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Staying with the previous discussion, I think it worth pointing out that I hail from the Isle of Lewis, where trees that were planted on peatland 40 years ago are no higher than the desk in front of me. There are challenges for the numbers there, too.
I want to look further at the challenges that we face in realising net zero emissions. The issue has been touched on in response to some of Mark Ruskell’s questions, but with regard to our further ambitions on electricity generation, what challenges do we face in increasing renewable generation to four times today’s levels?
Chris Stark
That is definitely a question for Keith Bell.
10:30Professor Bell
One of the major challenges is getting the supply chain and the finance going. At the moment, contracts for difference, which help to manage the risk of the variability of the wholesale price, are being offered only for offshore generation, whether it be generation that is in the middle of the sea or which is island based. We will see what happens with the less developed technologies, but that is the case for the more mature technologies. As Mr MacDonald comes from the Isle of Lewis, island-based generation will be a big topic of interest for him.
The financing for onshore wind remains very important. In my view, there is a lot of uncertainty about whether merchant development of onshore wind will happen in the short or medium term. Some seem to be reasonably confident about that and are developing the power purchase agreements to underpin those investments, while others to whom I have talked say, “No—that’s just not going to happen.” In the report, we say that some sort of financing mechanism is necessary for onshore wind, and that we need further development of solar photovoltaic energy.
There is also a network investment question, which relates not just to the need to accommodate new developments in generation where they are but to the electrification of demand, which we have talked about. The electrification of heat and transport will grow the electricity demand, which is something that has not happened in this country for years. That, too, must be facilitated by network investment at the right time. In the report, we talk about the need for timely investment.
There is a regulatory role to be played here. At the transmission level, the network companies are putting together their investment plans for 2021 to 2026, and the amount of money that they are allowed by the regulator will be extremely important in how they get delivered. We would expect some of the growth in demand to come through in that period. The distribution plans, which are also for five years, will come the year after that. Up to now, the regulator has been very worried about stranded assets, overinvestment and the risk of things being put in that turn out not to be needed. This is a personal opinion, but given what we have said about the pathways to the electrification of heat and transport, I think that being overly concerned about stranded assets will not be helpful in managing the total cost of facilitating the electrification of heat and transport.
Angus MacDonald
Moving on, we know the Scottish Government’s position on nuclear energy, but what role does new nuclear generation play in the CCC’s scenarios? Were the current difficulties with the deployment of new nuclear facilities factored into planning?
Chris Stark
David Joffe might want to come in here, but the point is that we need an electricity system that works, and such a system must involve a mixture of things. Renewable electricity production has proved a very useful addition to the energy system overall here in Scotland and in the UK. However, as we explore in the report, there are limits to how far we can go with that unless it is paired up with other technologies. In fact, alongside the report, we have published a separate document on the question of intermittency, which is often a key challenge that is identified.
This is another area where we have been cautious. We have assumed that we will get 60 per cent penetration of renewables in the future, although it will be perfectly possible to go further than that. A mixture of things will need to go alongside that to provide the flexibility needed to manage renewables at that level of penetration. Those things will include either firm nuclear power or firm carbon capture and storage, but we have made no assessment of the choice between those two options because, ultimately, the market will deliver that outcome. Nuclear energy might well have a role to play, but it needs to do so at a price that the market can deliver.
The best way to summarise our position on such matters is that the CCC is agnostic about the technology, but not about the price at which it is developed. That will be the key challenge. If nuclear is to play a meaningful part in the mix by 2050, it will have to do so in competition with other technologies, and a good and cautious assessment has been made of how that could play out in the future.
David Joffe
It is important to recognise that, in our approach, we prioritised looking at how low emissions could go rather than the precise mix of technologies that will be required. Clearly, a mix of technologies different to what we have assumed could achieve a similar level of emissions could be achieved, and it might be more or slightly less expensive.
However, our primary focus was not on that issue but on how low emissions could go and on what timescale that would happen. More or less nuclear power could be used than we have assumed, and that might get you to the same level of emissions, as long as you use the right mix of technologies to achieve the emissions reduction.
Professor Bell
We need to get the right policies to enable us to have the right kind of capabilities. At the moment—and I am talking here about schedulable generation, or the stuff that can be planned days or weeks in advance—the market will, if left to its own devices, deliver unabated combined cycle gas turbines. That sort of thing will not be acceptable very soon, given the lifetime of such plants, so what are the instruments for ensuring that we have the right kind of capability? Although we are agnostic about the technology that is used, we are aware that its service to the system needs to be enabled.
For example, although the capacity market contributes to meeting the costs of developing new generation and keeping existing generation open, it is pretty crude in what it commissions; it is just about finding the total for the system somewhere. Currently, the market does not think about its ability to flex and help manage intermittency through the use of mid-merit plants. What is more, because it does not think about exactly where it is on the system, issues such as the security of supply in Scotland become really important.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is reviewing how the capacity market works. It is in abeyance at the moment, but we assume that it will come back at some point, and it is important that we think about the features of the market that will enable the right technical characteristics.
Angus MacDonald
On low-carbon heating—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Stevenson—did you want to come in?
Stewart Stevenson
I did, convener, if that would be possible.
The Convener
Please be very brief, because I am conscious of time.
Stewart Stevenson
The network pricing strategy of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets discriminates against generators that are too distant from consumption. Given that plants that generate renewables are rarely on the doorsteps of our major cities, is it not time to have a network pricing strategy that relates to the climate change efficiency of the generation process rather than one based on the distance between generation and consumption point?
Professor Bell
The CCC has not gone into that level of detail for its net zero report, but perhaps I can respond to the question, given that I happened to work on the issue a few years ago.
The interests of society are served by two things: first, affordable access to electrical energy; and secondly, the decarbonising of the electricity system, which contributes to the overall picture set out by the CCC. Because affordability relates strongly to the minimum total cost of the energy, the issue as far as cost is concerned is that the right technologies need to be developed in the right places.
Clearly, there will be trade-offs. Before building a wind farm, you will want to consider where you can get the most wind and therefore the most energy per unit of investment. However, there is also the cost to the network of accommodating the wind farm. It is important that investors are given signals to allow them to make rational choices, given all the variables. It is really hard to try to intervene by playing games with the detail of various industry mechanisms, other than by setting out, at the highest level, the needs of the system and the decarbonisation needed by society.
We need to develop both offshore and onshore wind. That will come at a cost, but, as Chris Stark has mentioned, such costs have gone down as a result of the support that we have given the industry over the past 10 years. The market will need to ensure that the investment is covered and that investors come forward with business plans that work, including the costs to the network of accommodating the plans. The network’s pricing signals need to incentivise the minimum total cost. Those signals are important not just for the development of generation but in how we accommodate demand and the choices that energy users make. That will be really hard. Do we build an electricity network to accommodate his-and-hers Teslas that are fast charging simultaneously, or do we say, “Well, actually, you do not have to fast charge simultaneously. You can do it when you need to—when it’s windy or sunny. You don’t have to do it just any time”?
Stewart Stevenson
At the moment, we are, because of Ofgem policy, paying Drax to feed Manchester and penalising renewable energy in more distant areas.
Professor Bell
It is about signalling the cost to the network of developments in different places. Many people would argue about the accuracy of those signals. I still believe that, in terms of the overall affordability of energy, it is important to give signals about what the costs are to ensure that investors can make informed, rational choices.
Angus MacDonald
I am conscious of time, but I will try to cram in a couple of questions. Going back to the question of low-carbon heating, what are the challenges in increasing low-carbon heating from the 4.5 per cent level of today to 90 per cent by 2050? For example, are there opportunities to accelerate action to decarbonise the gas grid and to consider the balance of taxes across different heating fuels, to enable affordable low-carbon heating in homes and businesses across Scotland?
Chris Stark
If there is a test of whether we are serious, it is on heating. We have an extraordinarily useful energy system delivering heat to every home in Scotland and the UK at the moment and it works extremely well. Sadly, it is based on fossil fuels in the main. It is not going to be easy to change that, but it is necessary that we do so. The targets that we already have require that, and a net zero target makes it even more obvious that it needs to be done.
We do not have a strategy across the UK that will deliver a decarbonised heat system. There are big choices to be made about how to do it. The key message from the CCC to Governments in Scotland and the UK is that you have no excuse but to make that plan now. It is essential that that happens. That does not mean that we need to see the exact detail of what the system looks like in 2050, but it does mean that there has to be a clear commitment now, especially from the UK Government, which holds most of the policy levers, to a fully decarbonised heat system by 2050 at the latest, and preferably before.
The key choice is what we do with the gas grid—we are a country that still uses gas, and it is a useful thing. We have a choice of using hydrogen as an alternative, although it is not a case of flicking a switch to achieve that outcome. In the report, we lean heavily on electricity as the basis for heat, using things like heat pumps. It is perfectly possible to have a mixture of outcomes, for example, hydrogen and heat pumps in combination, and there are other alternatives that could get us there. That is one of the key issues that I expect the CCC to consider in more detail over the coming years.
I want to see a UK-wide strategy for domestic heat. We said in the report that the strategy needs to be formed by 2020. The committee may know that there is already a plan for the UK departments—the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—to put together a plan to consider what happens after we close the renewable heat incentive. That is not enough—the approach has to be comprehensive. One of its key components should be to address one of the things that Mr MacDonald raised in his question—the in-built penalty around the use of electricity in the system and the in-built incentive to use gas. That has been a sensible policy for a long time on the basis of fuel poverty. It is not a sensible policy for climate change.
I want the strategic question of how we address the imbalance to be one of the key components of the review that we have recommended that the Treasury undertakes. The policies are there to deliver a different outcome, but it must also consider the regressive impacts on vulnerable consumers. There is no easy answer—it is one of the major costs in achieving net zero—but it needs to be addressed.
Professor Forster
Scotland can set a good example to the rest of the UK. Compared to the rest of the UK, a lot of homes in Scotland are not on the gas grid. With those homes not on the gas grid, there is even more of a cost incentive to go over to electricity as fast as possible. They ought to be the first adopters of the new technology.
10:45On Mr Ruskell’s point about the next 10-year timeframe, I think that there will be an opportunity to really go after the parts of the country that are off the gas grid in those first 10 years.
Professor Bell
Another important area in which we have fallen behind is the gathering of evidence to inform the heat strategy, which will need to show flexibility. What exactly the right option will be depends on what the starting point is, as far as location and resources are concerned—for example, whether someone is on the gas grid, and the density of demand. Evidence on that is lacking. Only now are we starting trials to test out how people would respond—for example, how they would interact with hydrogen-based appliances or understand and use air-source or ground-source heat pumps, which would mean that their homes would be heated in a different way.
It is important to note that it is very often state money—for example, through UK research and investment or the Scottish Government—that ensures that the evidence that comes out of the trials is clear. There have been too many such trials. Not long ago, the UK Energy Research Centre published a report that looked into energy system demonstrators and trials that had been going on since 2008. The reporting of such projects has been poor, and some have not produced reports at all. The whole idea of them was that we would get evidence to inform policy by showing us what works and which challenges still need to be met. An element of innovation policy that has been very much lacking is ensuring that we capture the learning and disseminate it properly. As I have said, we are already behind on that, given the urgency, which Chris Stark described, of getting a heat strategy in place.
Angus MacDonald
Okay, thank you. We will all follow that and look for quick progress in the near future.
If we look at the example of off-grid energy—but perhaps do not confine ourselves to that—would you say that members of the public are ready for a net zero target? How can a positive public discourse be built, particularly with hard-to-reach individuals and communities?
Chris Stark
All the evidence suggests that at least the majority of the public want to see a net zero target. In the report, we explain that, in order to get to net zero, we need to do what we have not done for at least the past 10 to 15 years, which is to engage properly with our country’s citizens on how we achieve that.
There is nothing to be afraid of in such a target, but it would mean shifts in behaviour and the societal choices that would help to underpin those. One of those is the question of heat, as we could all start heating our homes from sources such as heat pumps. Those work extremely well, but they require consumers to interact with their home energy systems in a different way. I would like us to begin to tackle that issue properly. We cannot keep doing what we have been doing over the past 10 years—decarbonising electricity production very successfully—and expect that to get us all the way. It happens to be the case that, last year, more than half of the electricity supply to UK homes was low carbon, but most people have not noticed that. It has been a remarkable policy success.
The stuff that will come next will involve different types of behaviour. Those will have to be explored properly, with real people, otherwise we will not succeed and, frankly, the whole thing will go off track if we do not manage it in the right way.
My final point is that I do not think that that means that we need to engage everyone in the task of climate change action, although I am sure that we will want to do so as we go along. If we are to use smarter home energy systems and charging systems for cars, for example, those do not necessarily have to be seen as climate change measures. In order to keep the overall mission on track, the approach should be about engaging people in what you have described as a positive discourse about new technologies and new uses of technologies that will come along. We need to get on and do that as soon as possible.
Professor Bell
People worry about whether they will be able to adapt their behaviour, and they tend to say, “Oh, we are going to have do things differently.” Actually, I tend to be a bit more optimistic about that. We might look at the example of how people are now using electric vehicles. There might not be many of them around yet, but the feedback about them is often very positive. People have got used to doing things in a different way, and they really like many of the features that have come through. Therefore, there is a lot to be hopeful about as far as public engagement is concerned, provided that we can keep that momentum going.
The Convener
We will move on to what we might call the other elephant in the room, which is land use. Before I bring in Finlay Carson, I ask committee members to look at the questions that they intend to ask and to check that they have not already been covered, as we are running out of time.
Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
My question is on the thorny subject of agriculture, and I declare an interest as a member of the NFU Scotland and a former dairy and beef farmer. It is suggested that more ambitious uptake of existing measures is needed alongside improvements to livestock breeding and diets. How should the Government ensure that that more ambitious uptake is adopted?
Chris Stark
It starts with having an honest discussion about it, and I am afraid that we have not got to that yet. There seems to be more of an open discussion in Westminster about some of the issues than there is in Scotland at the moment. Perhaps that is not the case, but it certainly seems that way to me. In particular, there is Michael Gove’s interest in public money for public goods—the idea is that there is a set of services that the land delivers. Among those is food production, but there are also others including biodiversity and carbon sequestration.
The agricultural community understands climate change better than any other; it can see the change in growing seasons that is coming. I would love to see us engage properly with that community and not regard it as the enemy, which is how the discussions are sometimes pitched. There are real emissions from agriculture, some of which are perfectly manageable, and if that community is engaged properly it can be a real part of the solution to getting us to the deep emissions reductions that are necessary for net zero.
The agricultural community should expect to be recompensed for that, but we will need to broaden the set of incentives that are provided for agriculture beyond food production to achieve that. In the report, drawing on the work that we did last year on land use, we advocate a set of measures that free up agricultural land to help in the process of storing carbon more actively, which includes forestry, peatland restoration and, possibly, bioenergy crops.
Finlay Carson
On that point, do you believe in a move to a multifunctional land-use scenario, whether that is voluntary or otherwise? Should we look at specific areas’ soil types, soil designations and land use and move to that sort of scenario?
Chris Stark
Yes.
Finlay Carson
That was a nice simple question. The next one might not be so straightforward. There is a suggestion that we should reduce meat consumption by 50 per cent. I suggest that, currently, that would decimate the agriculture industry, particularly in Scotland. Has any thought been given to the rate of culture or behaviour change that we could expect and the potential for displacement of meat production—the fact that more of the meat that is eaten in Scotland might be produced elsewhere in the world and have a bigger impact on the climate?
Chris Stark
To clarify the point, in our scenarios we model a societal shift in which we are consuming 20 per cent less red meat and dairy. In among a set of speculative options to get us all the way to net zero, UK-wide, we consider that one of the things that could be looked at is a bigger shift in diet. It is not something that we are advocating; we are saying that it is there as a potential option.
I believe that a 20 per cent cut in consumption of red meat and dairy is a relatively conservative assessment. If we look at the changes in diet between the younger and older generations, it is broadly in line with that. We looked at some of the public health guidance, which is nothing to do with climate change, and Public Health England has produced a really good assessment of how people’s diet needs to shift if they wish to be healthier. The implication of that would be an 86 per cent cut in red meat and dairy, which was a bit racy for us, so we have gone with a 20 per cent cut. Rather than needing a policy for that, it looks very much as though it is broadly in line with social trends and, therefore, would not see us importing lots of meat.
I will make the key point again, which is that the cut would free up land to do a broader set of things and provide a different set of services. The agricultural community—the owners of that land—are in a profession like any other. As long as they are recompensed for doing those different things, I see no reason why we could not achieve something like that.
Professor Forster
I do not think that we will get to net zero without taking the agricultural community with us. It is important that we work together, and that whatever solution we provide works for them and for the country. We are talking about transferring about 20 per cent of pastures into things such as afforestation or bioenergy. We are talking about not bringing about a complete change to the way that agriculture is done, but re-incentivising it to take alternative approaches.
Finlay Carson
That takes me on to my next question, which is about agro-forestry, or forestry. What proportion of new woodland should be coniferous and what proportion should be broad leaf?
Chris Stark
I do not have the numbers in front of me, but we have not just assumed that we will grow conifers. Frankly, the cheapest overall strategy would be to build—no, not build; I am a city boy—to plant lots of conifers. We have been cautious and sensible about that because other things need to be considered alongside it, not least of which is biodiversity. I do not know whether any of the others have any statistics.
Professor Forster
Yes. You have raised an interesting point, because this is where we need the help of the research community. We know more about agro-forestry in tropical countries than we know about it in this country. A lot of the research in this country comes from the Forestry Commission, which has relatively big plantations. We do not have enough research about rewilding and what it does for the soil carbon and things like that. It depends on what you plant in particular locations. You talk about putting trees on the island of Lewis but a tree that you plant there might be different from one that you would plant somewhere else. It becomes a challenging problem for the research community, and we do not have all the answers.
Finlay Carson
Sticking with wood, why is there a presumption of only a 10 per cent increase in the use of wood in construction? What are the barriers to increasing that percentage?
Chris Stark
That seems to be low. We might have said that it should be more for Scotland but perhaps we can come back to that.
Last year, we did some deep research on biomass, and we looked at the question of wood in construction in deep engagement with the construction sector. The scenarios that we have in our report are cautious—a word that I am using a lot today—but many in the construction sector still find it difficult to conceive of them. We have not seen that there are major barriers to using wood in construction, even in high-rise buildings. It is a sensible use of a biomass resource.
I would love to see the kind of assessments that we are making outperformed. It seems to me to be a sensible use of Scottish biomass resource and we have a lot of capacity to grow it here.
Professor Bell
The further ambition assumes that 40 per cent of houses and flats will be built with a timber frame, which will be up from under 30 per cent today.
The Convener
We will move on to talk about obstacles and costs. We have picked up quite a lot of the other issues that we wanted to discuss along the way. Mark Ruskell will start us off.
Mark Ruskell
We live in a fossil fuel economy. The UK is a big oil and gas producer and fossil fuels are cheap. Can we continue to extract oil and gas at the current rate? Can we adopt a policy of maximum resource extraction and still meet a net zero target by 2045?
Chris Stark
This is one of the most difficult areas for us. The short answer is probably that we can, but we will need a set of things that are not yet in place to deliver it. The kind of extractive industries that we have at the moment are not compatible with an overall net zero future for ever more.
As David Joffe said earlier, in the report, we have focused on the question of whether we can get to net zero, and we have clearly nailed it that the answer is yes. In the report, and again using cautious assessments, we use a lot of fossil CCS, but there are alternatives. At the moment, they look like more expensive alternatives, especially the greater and more extensive use of electricity.
My personal view is that I would love to see that improve. When we come to do the more detailed assessments in the next 12 months or so, we will look at some of the alternatives to that fossil CCS question. However, in the hydrogen-fuelled economy that we have talked about a few times during this discussion, it is likely that some of those alternatives will come from natural gas, for example. There are alternatives to that, but they are more expensive alternatives, although that does not mean that we should not pursue them.
So, there is a world where we continue to extract oil and gas, but it cannot be a world where we burn that oil and gas unabated. That is the key thing. It is another one of those areas where we have to be extremely clear. I would love to see a much clearer strategy from Government on what it intends to do about that overall.
Some of the things that are in the report do not sit well with some of the campaigns by non-governmental organisations. In future, I hope that we can look at more of the options around those.
11:00Mark Ruskell
What is your view of countries such as New Zealand, which have said that they will draw a line and will not do any more licensing or issue more exploration licences? Even Norway recently said that it would not allow exploration in the Lofoten islands. Countries are considering the demand side, but they are also considering generation by and the extraction of fossil fuels and saying that we need to start transition now.
Professor Forster
I was an author of last year’s IPCC report. At the time, we looked at a whole lot of pathways that could get us to 1.5°. As Chris Stark said, there is a clear option in those pathways: either you have the extraction industry continuing, accompanied by huge amounts of carbon capture and storage, or you rapidly phase out the extraction industry. We have a range of pathways that go between those extremes of either phasing out the extraction industry as fast as possible and replacing it with something else, or having to increase your CCS. There is not one perfect way.
Mark Ruskell
Where does your advice sit at the moment on that issue? Do you assume that we will continue with current levels of extraction, or do you assume a certain level of transition because, otherwise, we will be taking a big risk on CCS?
Chris Stark
That is not clear in the report, one way or the other. We have looked at a feasible strategy that could get us to net zero. As I mentioned, we have a lot of fossil CCS in there, which probably amounts to there being a similar size of industry, but a different approach could be taken. You mentioned New Zealand. A political choice has been made there, and it is one that gets us to the net zero target like any other. The Committee on Climate Change’s job is to try to avoid the political choice and instead give you the assessment of the implications of such choices when they are taken. I think that the report is as good as any in that regard.
To give my personal view again, I would love us to go harder on some of the options that involve a much reduced use of fossil fuels. At the moment, those look like more expensive options. The Committee on Climate Change is required by the climate change legislation in Scotland and at the UK level to assess the cost-effective path as best we can.
The Convener
I have a question on the oil and gas industry. At current levels, if we moved to a model in which hydrogen was the main fuel for, say, heating and transport and we used the natural gas that is produced in the North Sea and west of Shetland as the feedstock for that, while the oil was used as a feedstock for manufacturing, would that in effect mean that we would be able to manufacture more here, thus reducing the need to import as many goods, which could have a knock-on effect for us in reaching net zero? With all those options, we would still have an oil and gas industry. If we were to shut down that industry tomorrow, that could mean that we would not have a feedstock for hydrogen and that we would have to import a lot of feedstock for the manufacturing and chemicals industry. Do you see where I am going?
Chris Stark
Yes, that is broadly right.
David Joffe
It is important to recognise that, if we do not produce the oil and gas here but still consume it, it will need to be produced somewhere else. The best thing that we can do for the climate is to reduce the amount of fossil fuel that we consume in areas where we can do so, although we will still need it in some areas. The question of the fossil fuel consumption that we end up with, whether it is produced in Scotland or elsewhere, is not a matter for the climate; it is a matter of how the economics play out.
The Convener
We are rapidly running out of time, but I have a question about the modelling that was carried out. Did you consider the projected co-benefits of carbon reduction, such as the long-term benefits in terms of air quality and the impact on health of active travel and healthier diets?
Chris Stark
We did. What we have not done in this report is wash all that together with the overall costs. We wanted to be completely transparent about the reality that there is a cost involved in achieving net zero. We assess that cost on a UK basis as being between 1 and 2 per cent of GDP. That is our best assessment of something that is extremely difficult to assess.
We also considered the co-benefits, not least those of improved health and air quality. If you take the Treasury’s green book, which provides a basis on which investments can be appraised, and roll forward some of those benefits—it is worth saying that they are more difficult to assess and monetise—you get to the figure that we set out in the report of about 1.3 per cent of GDP coming from co-benefits around health and air quality. That is a clue that doing all of what we are talking about is much more than just an exercise in addressing climate change. There are real benefits in reducing emissions, particularly in relation to the air quality question, and there are wider benefits in relation to biodiversity overall.
Of course, the biggest benefit of all involves avoiding the huge impact of climate change in the future. That is why we have not tried to give a false prospectus. There are real costs that need to be managed, but I expect the benefits to be enormous, as well.
The Convener
So, basically, early action now is going to prevent the huge cost of climate change in the future.
Chris Stark
Yes.
Professor Forster
I should say that you have to get those early actions correct. That is why it is good that you have a just transition commission. You get the benefits only if you do things in the right way.
Claudia Beamish
I am pleased that you highlight the just transition commission in the context of the fossil fuel industry.
With regard to the extraction industries, what place is there for the circular economy and the remanufacturing of plastics as a consideration alongside carbon capture and storage?
Chris Stark
There is a place for them, but I do not have statistics that I can use to set it out. In the summary of our report, we reflect on the importance of using and reusing the goods that we purchase, and of buying high-quality goods in the first place.
The circular economy involves a wider set of things than just climate change. In our report, we consider the question of waste and the emissions from waste. That is one of the key areas in which the circular economy might result in emissions reductions.
It is hard for us to assess the impact of the circular economy in terms of the overall emissions reduction that we have proposed. However, my point is that we need to throw everything at the net zero challenge, and that includes having a much more circular economy. David Joffe might be able to say more about how we have approached that challenge.
David Joffe
I would add only that, for the first time, our analysis has involved consideration of the potential for resource efficiency and what that can do in terms of reductions in emissions from industry. We have taken our analysis forward in that regard. We have a new evidence base and we have been relatively ambitious, although I am sure that there is more that we can do. However, we have considered the area. In particular, we want to think about the bits of the economy that will be hard to fully decarbonise even by 2045 or 2050, and what we can do on the demand side in that regard. That is an important area for further work.
Mark Ruskell
I want to ask about infrastructure projects. In recent Scottish budgets, we have seen the Government grading its infrastructure investment in terms of investment in high, medium and low-carbon infrastructure. Should we be aiming for a particular target? Obviously, there is a danger that, if we build high-carbon infrastructure, we are locking in emissions by design not only for 10 years but for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years.
Chris Stark
I do not have a strong view on how we approach the infrastructure questions, other than that I believe that we should approach them properly. It is perfectly possible to get to net zero with the kind of costs that we have assessed—indeed, I would say that those costs are relatively small and very manageable—but the costs will be much higher if we do not think about the turnover of capital stock that is necessary to deliver net zero. That involves transport and energy in particular, but also housing stock.
If, at the end of this period, we scrap capital assets, with the costs that we would incur to do that in a market like the one that we have, that is going to be much more expensive than it needs to be. I would like to see decisions about infrastructure provision, here in Scotland and across the UK, made in light of the net zero target. It is interesting that the UK-wide National Infrastructure Commission said something similar yesterday, I think—it was certainly this week—which was that the Government needs to think in those kind of timescales to deliver the right outcome.
We have a whole section in the report on the infrastructure requirements of net zero. Active thought and planning are needed, or we will not get there at anywhere near the right cost.
Mark Ruskell
What does that mean in practice? Does it mean fewer road-building projects, for example?
Chris Stark
Road building is one of those areas where it is not possible for us to be completely definitive, because if we are all driving electric vehicles, roads will become a much lower-carbon infrastructure asset. I am thinking less about road building and more about the energy questions. We forecast a doubling of electricity demand, which has a big infrastructure requirement.
The biggest infrastructure requirement of all—the hardest one—is housing stock. In Scotland, there is a much better plan for that than there is UK-wide, with the idea of achieving something over 10 or 20 years. It is far more sensible when there is a clear goal in mind and a clear set of policies to deliver it. I would love to see the rest of the UK adopt that approach.
Professor Bell
The timing issue that Chris Stark mentioned is really important. As the capital stock gets replaced—if we know what its lifetime is and whether it is going to be there for 25 years or whatever—it is important to ensure that low-carbon considerations are built in at the beginning. Early asset write-off will not be helpful.
Finlay Carson
I have a very quick question about obstacles and costs. How reliant are your ambitions for 2045 on behavioural change and taking the public with us? What risks are involved in that? On a scale of one to 10, how important is behavioural change?
Chris Stark
I can do better than that. If you bear with me, I will tell you exactly what role behaviour change plays in our assessment, because I have a handy pie chart that I will now bring up on my iPad. We are relying on a mixture of technological change and behaviour change to achieve net zero. I suppose that the key message is that we will not achieve that unless we engage people properly in that challenge. Thirty-eight per cent will be achieved through low-carbon technologies, 9 per cent is largely societal and behaviour change, and the rest is a combination of those two things. It is clearly an art rather than a science, but that gives you a sense of the proportions.
The Convener
I come back to the cost benefit of doing all that work over the next couple of decades. Should the Treasury review be looking at that now?
Chris Stark
Absolutely. We very carefully recommended to the Treasury that it should review it. I do not know whether it will accept that recommendation, but I hope that it does.
I do not think that we will make much further progress if the answer to decarbonising the whole economy is simply to lump more costs on to the electricity bill. There is a real need to look at the issue properly. The key outcome at the end of this is that we need something that delivers net zero in a way that is not regressive—that is, that it does not have a damaging impact on, in particular, vulnerable citizens. It should also not impact regressively on competitiveness—I do not think that that has had nearly enough attention in policy terms.
There are real reasons for the Treasury to look at the issue. The environmental taxes that have delivered very high revenues for a while—fuel duty for example—will not be there in future, as we switch to electric vehicles, so the Treasury will have to think about that, if only in relation to the revenue issues. I would love to see the Treasury approach that work strategically, as it once did with the Nick Stern review. The Treasury commissioned the Stern review, which still provides the basis and economics for a lot of the work that we do, 12 years ago. At that point, the Treasury viewed the review as a big strategic and economics challenge, and I think that now is the moment for the Treasury to re-engage with the issue on that basis. I am optimistic that, if Treasury does so, the whole thing can be managed in a way that is not regressive and does not impact on competitiveness. However, that requires proper thought.
The Convener
It will take political will to look beyond the election cycle.
Chris Stark
Absolutely. In the past, the Treasury has been good at doing that. It generally takes the long view on the UK economy. If we do not take a long view, the transition will not be successful. Piers Forster made a point about the importance of the just transition. The second part of our recommendation to the Treasury was that we should think about not only the fiscal issues and the big, strategic issues but, alongside them, the regional impacts and the impacts on vulnerable communities.
11:15Mark Ruskell
At this point, we are not fully into stage 2, so it is early days, but do you have any reflections on the early response from the Scottish Government to your report?
Chris Stark
I am delighted that our recommendation was accepted so early. I think that it was at two minutes past midnight; I will allow them 60 seconds. That was wonderful. Given the stage that the bill is at, in many senses the Government had to respond quickly. However, it matters immensely that it chose to accept the recommendation as quickly as it did, because that gives the rest of the UK a much better lead to follow. It is now much clearer that we need to stop talking about targets and start talking about delivery. To my mind, that is fantastic for Scotland.
Professor Bell
That sends a fantastic signal. It highlights some of the things that we have already talked about this morning—the action that is needed and the interdependency with other actions. We must consider the fact that meeting the proposed and recommended target for Scotland depends on UK-wide action. It also goes the other way—meeting UK-wide targets depends on action in Scotland. We have to get on with it.
How do we prioritise action in the short term? Mark Ruskell has asked fair questions about that and, as we have said, the report will aim to answer them. However, some of the actions will be the political choices that we have talked about.
Mark Ruskell
Ahead of stage 2, what can you do to inform that critical 2030 target? Is there more work that you can supply to the committee?
Chris Stark
No, I do not think that there is.
Mark Ruskell
So, at the end of the day, is it a political choice?
Chris Stark
There is always a political choice to be made about the level at which to set the target, but we do not yet have a basis on which to offer a more comprehensive assessment of that target. I am sorry, but that relies on a set of things for which we do not yet have evidence.
Professor Forster
We pushed everything as far as it could go, so it is not worth going back to do revised modelling. We did that throughout the six months. Time and again, we went back over the figures, but things changed by only 1 or 2 per cent, because we were asking the calculations to do everything. The results do not change hugely.
Mark Ruskell
What chance would meeting the 2045 target that the Government has adopted give us of keeping the world below warming of 1.5°?
Professor Forster
It gives us a really good chance of doing that, because things are now poised internationally. Scotland, as a well-developed economy, is the first such country to set such a strong target. Things are carefully poised in EU countries, so the EU adopting a net zero 2050 target now becomes more credible. When the EU adopts a target, other countries will fall into line. If the UK wants to hold the next conference of the parties—COP—meeting in 2020, what better place to do it than Edinburgh or Glasgow? The opportunity exists; it would be good to set a target for the rest of the world to follow.
Mark Ruskell
I read somewhere that the target gives us a 50 per cent chance of meeting 1.5°. Is that right?
Chris Stark
If the target is replicated across the world and coupled with ambitious near-term reductions, it will deliver a greater than 50 per cent chance of limiting temperature increases to 1.5°.
Mark Ruskell
That is still a big gamble.
Chris Stark
We do not have pathways that would deliver much more than that: we have drawn on the best evidence. We are not conceding and throwing in the towel. At the moment, that target is as good as we can give and is as ambitious as we feel we can be.
Mark Ruskell
There are big risks, however.
Chris Stark
Of course there are risks, and we expect that the committee will be all over that.
Professor Forster
The IPCC has said that we should prevent every bit of warming possible. In June, warming will begin to go up—indeed, it is going to do so from today—which is why it is important that we set the most ambitious targets.
The Convener
Before I bring in Claudia Beamish and Stewart Stevenson, I want to make an early bid for Aberdeen to host the COP.
Stewart Stevenson
I was just going to make an almost frivolous comment. At the COP in Copenhagen, which, if I recall, was COP 15, there were 45,000 people. Is it not time for the COP to start using videoconferencing instead of people being transported all around the world?
Chris Stark
The event is enormous—it is a sort of mini Olympics. It would be much bigger if we were to host it in 2020. As a good Glaswegian, I make a bid for Glasgow to host it.
Claudia Beamish
I was not sure that I would have the time to ask this question, but I want to go back to the 2030 targets. I was very pleased that the CCC acknowledged the UK’s historical climate debt. Has equity been, or will it be, factored in to the 2030 interim targets, as well as the 2045 net zero targets and, if so, how?
Chris Stark
When we come to make a more detailed assessment in the light of better information at UK level, we will boil up a number of things, including, I am sure, equity considerations.
The Convener
We have talked about various opportunities in development of technology in various sectors, and the just transition to a carbon-neutral economy. What can Governments do to ensure that all the opportunities for work and industry stay in the countries that take on the challenges early, as Scotland is doing, and as the UK might do?
Chris Stark
It is hard to give a quick answer to that question, except to say that it is important that such strategies be put in place. I suppose that we could just lurch at the targets with policies that get us some of the way there in the short term and which we hope will still be there in the long term, but that is not an effective strategy. It would damage the overall task of reducing emissions. Instead, we need for the whole economy a set of strategies, including for growth and jobs, that are compatible with reaching net zero emissions.
This is just a personal reflection on the story of renewables in Scotland, but if 10 or 15 years ago we had been as ambitious as we are now being about growth of the offshore and onshore renewables sectors, we would have developed a bigger homespun industry for them. Of course, there would have been some parts of the industry that we still would not have developed. The UK and Scotland have been pretty good at catching the high-value bits of those sectors—a topic that is not oft discussed—but we could have had more. The most successful strategies are those that bring everyone along, so I would love it if we were to think about net zero not just as an emissions reduction challenge, and not even just as a whole-economy question, but in terms of how to build in the right jobs and get the right skills to achieve it.
The Convener
I realise that we have asked a lot of questions this morning, but is there anything that we have not covered that you would like to mention in final points? We can give you a good seven minutes.
Chris Stark
With regard to some of the coverage that we have received, I just want to make it clear that we have not been fighting with Nigel Lawson and that we have been having a good discussion with the extinction rebellion movement. That, to me, represents remarkable progress, because it demonstrates that we are discussing climate change in a way that we were not doing 20 years ago. There is now broad consensus that the issue needs to be focused on and fixed.
That said, a parallel point to make is that, although the discussion since our report was published has been good, there is still a feeling that we can do something even more quickly. I would love to see that happening, but I would also love to see us focus on a credible strategy to do that, because we are, in many respects, talking about a set of physical barriers that prevent us from reaching the target sooner. We should not just lurch into considering that we can put a policy in place—we have to think carefully through its implications.
The report is as ambitious as the CCC has ever been, and gives us a platform from which to say credibly that we are among the most ambitious countries in the world when it comes to emissions reduction. We might, in the future, be able to bring forward the target date, but the evidence at the moment does not support that.
I have occasionally seen the strategy being described as “unambitious”. That is very far off the mark, which I want to put on the record here. Were we to deliver the strategy globally, that would be a huge statement. The Scottish Government has done the right thing by setting the 2045 target in the bill. When the UK does the same, we will be in a remarkable position.
However, the task of delivering that is enormous; we have never successfully achieved the kind of transition that is required. The policies to deliver it are not in place at the moment, so we need a different sort of integrated discussion between the UK and Scottish Governments if we are to achieve the target.
Professor Bell
I am an engineer, so I am interested in the system and its elements working. We have to get a much better understanding of the interactions between them and the detailed engineering challenges. As a nation, we are tackling that piecemeal at the moment, so we need to get much more serious about that. A system-level perspective includes understanding how the different investments might happen and how they are influenced by policy levers such as market mechanisms and regulations.
We are very slow in making progress in understanding things at system level, which we really have to do. Any changes in Ofgem are generally about thinking in silos about electricity or gas and are very rarely about the interaction between them, and change seems to take forever. Unfortunately, I do not have a magic wand to wave to speed it all up. We have to take those things much more seriously.
The Convener
Does the same go for Government departments?
Professor Bell
Yes.
Chris Stark
There is a huge integration task. The Scottish Government has a more integrated approach generally, because it does not have the Whitehall system. However, I can say from bitter experience that there are still silos in the Scottish Government. There is, however, a more integrated discussion in Scotland about what needs to be done. For example, in my former role as director of energy and climate change in the Scottish Government, I was able to make housing policy, which was amazing. We would not find that happening in Whitehall.
I do not underestimate the overall governance challenges. We did not try to draw out that point in the report, but it is definitely an inference that can be drawn. Achievement of net zero emissions requires a level of integration, at every level of the Government and between Government departments, that does not exist at the moment. We say in the report that net zero needs to be among the top priorities in all departments that have key levers, but that is not the case at the moment. Net zero will not be achieved if it is only a second-order priority in BEIS, for example. Good as the stuff that has been coming out of BEIS is, net zero must be given a much more prominent role overall in the Government’s mission.
Professor Bell
Can I ask Chris Stark a question?
Professor Forster
I will just make a point. The issue is not just Government integration: we have to get better at taking integration out to the community—the agricultural community, the towns and cities of the UK and even palaces and villages. We have to get better at integrating and communicating opportunities across all levels of the community. It is not a role that is just for central Government. There are also opportunities internationally, which we have talked about. Adoption of a clear target is one thing, but we must also set up the ambition to realise the early opportunities.
The Convener
I am interested to hear Keith Bell’s question.
Chris Stark
I am, too.
Professor Bell
Do the Government departments have support behind them in terms of analytical capability and expertise?
Chris Stark
It is so easy for me to sit here and say that they do not. One of the great services that the Committee on Climate Change offers is the integrated view, but it is not acceptable that we are the only people offering that at the moment.
I would love the Government to invest in the analytical underpinning that will deliver net zero emissions. That would mean that we would have to be much more conscious of one Whitehall department’s decisions’ knock-on impacts on other departments. There needs to be a force in the middle that co-ordinates that properly. It does not need to be the Treasury or number 10, but it needs to be someone who has an interest in each bit and each layer of Government and how they co-operate.
None of that will be achievable unless there are in Scotland and Whitehall fully fledged strategies that work together. Again, I say that I am optimistic about the ability to do that and to bring it all together, but it will require everyone—civic society and Governments—to focus on the overall goal.
The Convener
I thank you for your time this morning.
11:30 Meeting suspended.11:40 On resuming—
14 May 2019
14 May 2019
21 May 2019
28 May 2019
Changes to the proposed law
MSPs can make changes to a proposed law - these are called 'amendments'. The changes are considered then voted on by the lead committee. All MSPs get to vote on the final set of changes.
The lists of proposed changes are known as a 'marshalled list'. There's a separate list for each week that the committee are looking at proposed changes.
The Groupings document groups amendments together based on their subject matter. It shows the order in which the amendments will be debated by the committee and the Chamber. This is to avoid repetition in the debates.
How is it decided whether the changes go into the law?
When MSPs want to make a change to a proposed law, they create an 'amendment'. This sets out the changes they want to make to a specific part of the law.
The group of MSPs that are in charge of checking the law (the lead committee) vote on whether they think each amendment should be accepted or not. All MSPs then get a chance to vote on the changes the committee have allowed.
Depending on the number of amendments, this can be done during one or more meetings. Each set of amendments has been considered at a different meeting of the committee.
First meeting on amendments
Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting held on 18 June 2019:
First meeting on amendments transcript
The Convener
Item 2 is consideration of amendments to the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2.
I welcome members who are joining us today. We have Maurice Golden with us, and we will probably see Liam McArthur and Alexander Burnett at some point. Claudia Beamish will speak to David Stewart’s amendments.
I also welcome Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, and her officials. Tom Russon is the bill manager, Eleanor Stanley is the deputy bill manager, Heather Wortley is from the parliamentary counsel office, and Norman Munro is from the Scottish Government legal directorate.
We should note that officials are not allowed to speak on the record during the proceedings.
Members might find it helpful to have a reminder of the process. Everyone should have a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshalled list of amendments, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be disposed of, and the groupings. There will be one debate for each group of amendments.
I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment, and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call other members who have lodged amendments in the group to speak to their amendments and to others in the group, but not, at that time, to move their amendments.
Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that to me or the clerk, and we will make sure that you are called. If the cabinet secretary has not already spoken on the group, I will invite her to contribute to the debate just before we move to the winding-up speech. There might be times when I allow a little more flexibility for members to come back on points, but members should be mindful of time, given the number of amendments. We want to get through everything, so I have already been in touch with members to suggest the duration of their speaking times.
The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on the group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote, or to seek to withdraw it. If the member wishes to press it, I will put the question on the amendment. If the member wishes to withdraw it, I will ask whether any member objects to that. If any member objects, the amendment is not withdrawn and the committee must immediately move to a vote on it.
If any member does not wish to move their amendment when it is called, they should say, “Not moved”—and should do so audibly. Any other member who is present may move the amendment. However, if no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.
Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in divisions is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote.
The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point.
I hope that that is all clear to everybody.
Before we start consideration of the bill, I advise that I intend to suspend the meeting for a comfort break, or perhaps two, at appropriate points—probably around 11 o’clock and then, because we are sitting until 2 o’clock, at 12.30.
Before we move to the first amendment, I should mention that, on the bill’s introduction, the Presiding Officer determined that a financial resolution was not required. However, under rule 9.12.6C, the Presiding Officer has determined that the costs that would be associated with amendments 113 and 114 would exceed the current threshold for the bill to require a financial resolution. Therefore, amendments 113 and 114 may be debated during stage 2, but may not be agreed to, in the absence of a financial resolution.
I also want to say at the outset that, if we have tied votes on any amendments, I will, as convener, vote as I voted in the division. I will do that consistently throughout the process.
Before section 1
The Convener
Amendment 91, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 104, 93, 103 and 50.
Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)
I thank the convener at the start of a long and important process.
My amendments in the group are deeply significant in that they will ensure that Parliament produces an act that fully delivers on climate justice, and which holds Scotland to a standard that we can be proud of when we consider justice for our workers and for our standing in the global community, and our responsibility to generations still to come. The amendments are strongly supported by Stop Climate Chaos Scotland. Climate justice is about recognising that climate change affects first and worst those who have done least to contribute to the problem.
Amendment 91 lists six principles, and gives further definition to the just transition principles. The principles come mainly from the work of the Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice, which was set up by the former President of the Republic of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Amendment 91 would create a new section setting out the climate justice principles, and would require the Scottish ministers and the relevant body—the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change—to have regard to those principles as they carry out their functions under the act of setting targets and preparing a climate change plan.
Amendment 93 would add the principles to the target-setting criteria, and amendment 103 specifies that
“the Scottish Ministers must have regard to the ... principles”
when preparing the plan. The principles include protection of human rights, respect for international development goals when setting domestic policy, action being proportionate to historic emissions, equitable sharing of costs and benefits here and abroad, transparent democratic climate decision making, challenging of gender inequality, intergenerational justice and promotion of a just transition. The just transition element is further explained in terms of fair and sustainable jobs, protection of affected workers in communities, social justice, equitable sharing of costs and benefits, and engagement involving unions, workers and employers.
I do not believe that any politician in this modern Parliament should have difficulties with those principles. The Mary Robinson Foundation states that they are
“rooted in the frameworks of international and regional human rights law and do not require the breaking of any new ground on the part of those who ought, in the name of climate justice, to be willing to take them on.”
Unabated or rampant climate change will create and exacerbate terrible inequality here and across the world. It is right that the bill seeks to set an ambitious and globally responsible net zero target, but the principles must be at the front of our minds in carrying out the bill’s functions: the amendment would send an important signal, as Scotland’s understanding of our moral obligation to act on climate change in a just and fair way develops.
I hope that members will agree to the amendments in order truly to mark Scotland out as a world leader in conscientious climate action. I also remind the committee that the principles of intergenerational justice were noted in its stage 1 report.
I move amendment 91.
Maurice Golden (West Scotland) (Con)
The purpose of amendment 104 is to ensure that, in the interests of transparency, the bill sets out clear objectives with regard to the functions to be exercised under it. The four proposed subsections would, I think, help to do that. I think that the whole committee would agree with them. It would, therefore, be helpful if they were put in the bill.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Amendment 50, in my name, is perhaps the simplest amendment that we will consider today. Although it is being debated as part of the first group, it will be voted on at the very end of stage 2.
Amendment 50 would not actually change the bill’s legal effect, but it would give a context that is important to the legislation and could influence interpretation of it in the courts. It also sets out something that I would like every other signatory to the Paris agreement to incorporate in their statutes—that we are not acting alone. It says that we will do our share of the heavy lifting that is demanded by the climate emergency, and it recognises that we have a duty to our successors and that we are repaying a debt that has been created by our predecessors.
I think that there are some difficulties with the drafting of amendment 91, which is in the name of Claudia Beamish but, for the sake of clarity, I should say that I have no difficulty with confirming my support for the principles that are articulated in it. First of all, proposed new section ZA1(2)(b) would constrain the actions of “the relevant body”. That body would be the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change, which was established under part 2 of the UK Climate Change Act 2008; I am uncertain that we have the powers legally to direct that committee—that is probably ultra vires. In any event, the drafting would not limit the effect of the change to the Committee on Climate Change’s advice to Scottish ministers, but is more broadly drawn and seems to cover advice that would be given to all Administrations.
Claudia Beamish
Will the member give way?
Stewart Stevenson
Let me say a little bit more, and then I will give way.
Claudia Beamish
It is just to clarify—
Stewart Stevenson
Just a tiny wee second. I just want to point out that section 41 of the 2008 act, which relates to the powers to give guidance, says:
“The national authorities”—
which would include us—
“may give the Committee guidance as to the matters it is to take into account”.
Does the member still wish to intervene?
Claudia Beamish
I would like clarification. Was the reference to the proposed new subsection a reference to
“ensuring domestic policies and strategies do not undermine international development goals”?
09:45Stewart Stevenson
My position, which can be challenged, is a much more general one. It is that the Scottish Parliament simply does not have the power to mandate what the UK Committee on Climate Change should do. However, under the 2008 UK act, we have the power to give guidance to it. It is just the drafting of the amendment that I am taking issue with—not the policy principle.
There is also a difficulty with proposed new section ZA1(3)(b), to which Claudia Beamish has just referred. It does not make it clear which particular “international development goals” are being referred to. I think that it is referring to the Scottish Government’s goals, but in my view, that needs to be a little bit clearer.
Moreover, with regard to proposed new section ZA1(3)(c), it is unclear how we would ensure that
“costs and benefits”
are
“shared equitably ... internationally”,
given that we have no power to determine what happens outside our borders. Again, the issues are with the drafting, not with the principle.
I encourage members to accept amendment 50 in my name—and, indeed, to remember that they are in favour of it when it is considered as the second-last vote in stage 2. I hope, too, that some account will be taken of my comments on the other amendments in the group.
Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
I want to make a few comments about the amendments in the group. It is important to realise that the bill is not only about reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere: it is also about a climate mission to make our world a better place for people to live in. On that basis, the climate justice principles are very important in recognising that we, as a developed nation, have a debt to countries around the world, as well as a debt to future generations. The principles that are outlined in amendment 91 are, therefore, important. I take on board Stewart Stevenson’s comments on specificity in the principles, but as a generality, the amendment sets the context of the bill’s mission, which I think is important.
On amendment 104 in the name of Maurice Golden, we took a lot of evidence on the bill’s actual purpose. It is, as Stewart Stevenson’s amendment 50 makes clear, about meeting the Paris agreement, but it is also about going beyond that and seeing how we can, as part of a global effort, pin global temperatures to a maximum increase of 1.5°C. It is important to state that in the bill and to make it explicit that, if the bill is passed, that is what we will be working towards. I think that that makes a lot of sense.
In closing, I have a question for Claudia Beamish about sustainable development. I know that amendments relating to sustainable development will be considered later, but I am curious as to why it does not form part of the principles—particularly given the current biodiversity crisis, as outlined in the recent report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. How do we tackle the climate crisis and deliver the mission in a way that will restore the environment, which is so important for tackling climate change and delivering a viable planet?
The Convener
Claudia Beamish will be able to address those points when she winds up. I call the cabinet secretary.
The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (Roseanna Cunningham)
I am sympathetic to Claudia Beamish’s amendments in the group, and I acknowledge her consistently strong voice on the matter. The Scottish Government is supportive of the principles of climate justice; indeed, Scotland is already a world leader, as the first country in the world to champion the approach through our climate justice fund. We therefore recognise that effectively tackling climate change requires an approach that is based on human rights, and which acknowledges the real inequalities between and within countries, as well as the multifaceted dimensions and impacts of climate change.
My concerns with amendment 91, which seeks to place a set of climate justice principles at the start of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, are not with its sentiment but with how it would operate in practice, and particularly how a set of principles would interact with other elements of the framework in the amended act. That act already contains target-setting criteria, including a range of matters that are related to international and social justice, so there is a risk of creating legally unclear hierarchies of competing sets of criteria and principles.
As I set out in my letter of response to the committee’s stage 1 report, the Government has lodged amendments that will put in the bill internationally recognised just transition principles as matters to which ministers must have regard when preparing climate change plans. The amendments feature in a later group. There is considerable overlap between the principles in my amendments and those in amendment 91.
A more technical and substantive concern is that it seems that amendment 91 would place duties directly on to the CCC. That approach would deviate from the approach under the 2009 act, in which duties are placed on ministers to request advice from the CCC on specified matters, so it would significantly alter the statutory nature of the relationship with the CCC.
I invite Claudia Beamish to seek to withdraw amendment 91 and not to move associated amendments 93 and 103, on the basis that I commit to working with her over the summer to explore how all the key elements and intentions of the proposed set of principles can be embedded in the act’s framework in a way that is fully functional.
In the case of the just transition principles, I hope that the Government amendments that appear in a group that will be debated later provide an acceptable way to achieve that. However, I will be happy to explore with the member any differences in wording between what she has proposed and the Government’s set of amendments.
On the international climate justice and intergenerational aspects of amendment 91, we can explore additions to the target-setting criteria and/or adjustments to the climate change planning duties. As the amendment stands, I cannot support it.
On Stewart Stevenson’s amendment 50, which would add to the long title a reference to the Paris agreement, I understand that it is unusual to amend a bill’s long title unless significant new material has been added that is not covered by the long title.
However, I am sympathetic to amendment 50. The Government has made it clear throughout the process that the bill is intended as a response to the Paris agreement. That is borne out in, for example, the provisions on the high level of ambition on the targets, in line with the CCC’s advice on a Scottish contribution to the aims of the Paris agreement, and the provisions on regular review of the targets to ensure that they are always the highest achievable on a timescale that is aligned to the Paris stocktaking cycle.
Government amendments in a later group will seek to link directly the definition of the fair and safe emissions budget to the global temperature aim of the Paris agreement. Although I am not sure that amendment 50 is strictly necessary, I will be happy to support it, as a further reflection of our commitment to the Paris agreement.
I cannot support amendment 104, in Maurice Golden’s name, which would introduce a purpose clause to the 2009 act. That would result in a hierarchy of potentially competing duties being placed on ministers when exercising their functions, and the legal consequences of that are not clear. In particular, it is unclear how it is intended that the objectives that are set out in amendment 104 would interact with the target-setting criteria, which set out a range of issues that ministers and the CCC are to take into account in a balanced way, when considering what the targets should be.
It is also not clear what the legal consequences would be of a perceived failure to meet the objectives. Amendment 104 might have unintended consequences if, for example, there was a potential conflict between the CCC’s advice to ministers and one of the objectives. Although the Scottish Government supports the objectives, the legal ambiguity that would result is such that I cannot support amendment 104. I urge members to reject what we think is a legally problematic amendment.
In general, there is a risk of overburdening legislation with good intentions and thereby inadvertently diminishing its effectiveness. I have no doubt that all the amendments in the group are well intentioned. However, they pose risks of that kind. I have, in responding to them, set out what I think is a fair and collegiate approach, in particular by offering to work with Claudia Beamish to ensure that climate justice is fully reflected in the most effective elements of the amended 2009 act.
Claudia Beamish
This has been a helpful debate, but I say to the cabinet secretary that this is not about good intentions; it is important that climate justice principles are underpinned in the bill. Having said that, I respect and value the offer of discussion on these important issues, so on that basis I will be pleased to arrange—somehow—discussions over the summer, perhaps with other members who have an interest in the matter. I will not press amendment 91 or move the other amendments.
Mark Ruskell asked why I left out sustainable development. After taking advice from a number of groups, I decided to adopt principles of climate justice that are already recognised internationally. In that context, I felt that simplicity and proven worth were appropriate, which is why I did not include sustainable development. However, we will come to amendments later that highlight that issue.
I am happy to support amendment 50. Stop Climate Chaos supports Maurice Golden’s amendment 104, but the cabinet secretary has pointed out its potential legal consequences. It is a pity that she did not offer to meet Maurice Golden, but that is not for me to intervene on. Although there are important issues in amendment 104, I will abstain if there is a division on it.
Amendment 91, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 104 not moved.
Section 1—The net-zero emissions target
The Convener
Amendment 1 is grouped with amendments 1B, 2, 3, 105, 4 to 6, 92, 39, 7 to 13, 13B, 14 to 20, 40, 41, 21, 42, 22, 23, 43, 24, 44, 25, 26, 45, 27, 28, 28A, 29 to 38 and 88. I draw members’ attention to the procedural information on the amendments in this group.
Roseanna Cunningham
Following the special report last year from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the impact of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the Scottish Government, along with other Governments in the UK, asked the Committee on Climate Change to provide further advice on target levels. The Committee on Climate Change’s advice was published on 2 May and recommended that Scotland should set 2045 as the target year to reach net zero emissions. The Scottish Government has accepted the CCC’s recommendation and has therefore lodged amendment 1 to set 2045 as the net zero emissions target year for Scotland. Members will note that amendment 1 also makes provision for modification of the target year by way of secondary legislation, which I will address later.
The CCC’s advice is clear that a 2045 net zero target represents the “highest possible ambition” for Scotland, as called for by the Paris agreement. When he gave evidence to this committee on 14 May, Professor Forster of the CCC said:
“I think that we can say with confidence that the ... 2045 target ... for Scotland will be the most ambitious in the whole world”.—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 14 May 2019; c 9.]
Such a target matches the committee’s recommendation that the Government should act in line with the CCC’s advice. The CCC’s advice is clear that the delivery of net zero emissions in Scotland by 2045 depends on UK ambition increasing in line with net zero by 2050 and increased UK-wide action across policy areas that remain reserved. I am pleased that the UK Government last week accepted the CCC’s advice and followed us in beginning a legislative process to change its target accordingly.
Mark Ruskell has lodged amendment 1B to set 2042 as the net zero target year. I urge members not to support that, as it would mean going beyond what the CCC has advised is the “highest possible ambition”. The CCC does not “currently consider it credible” to aim to reach domestic net zero emissions any sooner than 2045.
I am aware that Mark Ruskell may seek to argue that that target reflects the CCC’s analysis, as set out in the 20 May letter to the committee, if known future changes to the greenhouse gas inventory are ignored. If members wish to consider legislating for a target on that basis, they need to be absolutely clear in two regards. First, it means discounting the independent expert advice of the CCC. The CCC’s recommendation is for 2045. During the meeting on 14 May, Chris Stark advised the committee:
“We have offered you the best assessment of what is achievable in Scotland.”
He went on to ask Parliament
“to take the advice that we offer in the report, which is very ambitious.”—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 14 May 2019; c 15.]
10:00Secondly, setting a target now that ignores the inventory changes that we know are about to happen would mean that it would be necessary to modify the targets again very soon. In particular, it would mean that we would need to push the net zero date backwards in one to three years’ time. That would require a process of secondary legislation that would further occupy the time of the Government, the Parliament and the CCC when we would all be better focusing on delivering emissions reductions. That cannot be the right approach.
I am also aware of claims being made in this morning’s press by Friends of the Earth Scotland that the CCC has
“admitted you need to set the date at 2042 to really deliver in 2045.”
That is a straightforward misrepresentation of the CCC’s advice. The chief executive of the CCC confirmed—and I will quote exactly from his letter:
“we recommend that the net zero target date that should be legislated is 2045; and not 2042.”
Given the importance of the issue to today’s decision, I have sent the full text of Chris Stark’s letter to the committee.
The technical landscape around the on-going revisions to the GHG inventory, decisions on which are made at United Nations and UK level, is clearly very complex. In the face of that complexity, the right approach is to be guided by independent expert advice that is based on the full range of available evidence. The CCC has provided that advice, and the Government has accepted it.
I have lodged amendment 6 to increase the 2030 target to a 70 per cent reduction, and amendment 7 to increase the 2040 target to a 90 per cent reduction. Those targets are also in line with the CCC’s advice of 2 May.
Claudia Beamish has lodged amendment 92, which is in direct opposition to amendment 6, seeking to change the 2030 target to 76 per cent. I understand that she might deploy similar arguments to those that I expect to hear from Mark Ruskell on the 2042 net zero date regarding technical matters to do with the GHG inventory. I strongly advise members against setting a 76 per cent target for 2030 for the same reasons that I have set out previously. The CCC has been clear, including in the evidence that it gave directly to the committee on 14 May, that it has provided the best possible assessment of the highest possible ambition for Scotland based on the full range of available advice and evidence. That advice is a 70 per cent target for 2030.
I recognise the particular importance of the 2030 target, as action in the next decade will be vital in light of the IPCC’s special report on the global climate emergency.
I emphasise to members that the 70 per cent target recommended by the CCC would be the most ambitious statutory goal for 2030 of any country in the world. It also more than meets what the IPCC’s special report says is needed globally over the next decade to prevent warming of more than 1.5°C. Meeting such a target will be very challenging and will require a step change in policy action here in Scotland. It will depend on the UK Government doing more, given the importance of reserved levers. The Scottish Government recognises the challenge and will rise to it.
I expect Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell to argue that the CCC’s recommended target is not ambitious. That is simply untrue, and it fails to recognise that the target builds on the already world-leading goals for 2030 that are set out in the bill and in the 2009 act.
I now turn to the other functions of the amendments. Amendment 1 also imposes tighter restrictions on the ability of the Scottish ministers to amend the date of the net zero emissions target year. Under section 1 as introduced, ministers may, by secondary legislation, propose to Parliament the modification of the net zero target year either to an earlier date or to a later year, subject to certain restrictions. The Scottish ministers may propose a later date only if such a change has been advised by the CCC. Those conditions were already strict to ensure that the net zero emissions target year could be pushed back only if independent expert advice said that that should occur due to circumstances having changed.
When giving stage 1 evidence to the committee, environmental non-governmental organisations welcomed the safeguards. Nevertheless, the stage 1 report recommended a further tightening of the limitations placed on this and similar powers. Therefore, I have included provisions in amendment 1 that further restrict the power to push the net zero target date back, with the effect that the Scottish ministers can propose such a change to Parliament only if the CCC advises that that should occur specifically due to considerations of
“scientific knowledge about climate change or ... international carbon reporting practice”.
Amendment 12 imposes tighter restrictions on the power to modify the interim targets in the same way as described for the net zero target date through amendment 1.
As I hope that I have demonstrated through the many amendments that I have lodged, the Scottish Government has listened to and considered the committee’s recommendations and attempted to address committee concerns as far as possible. The tightening of the power to amend target levels and dates is just one example of that.
Finally, amendment 1 also introduces a duty on the Scottish ministers to have regard to the target-setting criteria, as well as the most up-to-date advice from the relevant body, when preparing draft regulations to modify the net zero target year. That has been brought forward to implement a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that making that duty explicit would be more consistent with other provisions in the bill.
Amendment 4 removes the 2050 target from the bill and the 2009 act. I have proposed the change because, by way of amendment 1, a net zero emissions target date for a date earlier than 2050 will now be set in the bill. Under those circumstances, I have proposed that the clear end point for Scotland’s statutory framework should be the achieving of net zero emissions, rather than any particular fixed date.
Section 8 makes provisions to hold the Scottish ministers to account if they choose not to amend target levels in line with advice from the relevant body, which is the CCC. The bill as introduced includes a requirement for ministers to make a statement to Parliament 12 months following receipt of advice that targets should be changed if they do not act on that advice. In my response to the committee’s stage 1 report, I explained that the 12-month timeframe is intended to reflect the time that it would take to undertake policy consideration of the advice as well as any public and stakeholder consultation that might be required. It would be difficult to envisage a situation in which Parliament was not well aware of the Government’s intention earlier in that period, even without a statutory duty requiring a formal statement of that intention.
However, I listened to the concerns of the committee on those matters and I have lodged amendment 17. In addition to the obligation for a statement after 12 months if advice that targets should be changed is not followed, the amendment requires ministers to publish a statement within three months of receiving such advice, setting out how they intend to respond to it.
Amendment 19 imposes the same obligation on ministers to publish a statement within three months of receiving advice from the CCC to the effect that the interim targets should be modified.
I have also lodged a set of technical amendments in relation to annual targets to ensure their sensible calculation following the setting of a net zero emission target year in the bill through amendment 1 and the removal of the 2050 target through amendment 4.
Although complicated to explain, the amendments will ensure that there continues to be a clear way to calculate annual targets and recalculate them if the interim targets are amended or if the net zero emissions target year is modified. The approach to calculating the annual target levels as a straight line between the two nearest headline target levels remains the same as in the bill as introduced.
I will summarise the more substantial amendments as briefly as I can. Amendment 21 creates a new “final annual target period”. Instead of 2041 to 2049, that period will be from 2041 until the year before the net zero emissions target year, which would be 2044 in the first instance. Amendment 20 amends the section heading of section 3 of the 2009 act as a consequence.
Amendments 24 and 25, taken together, set out how the annual targets in that period will be calculated. Amendment 24 inserts a reference to a “100%” reduction, which is equivalent to net zero emissions, instead of “the 2050 target”. Amendment 25 ensures that the annual targets are equally spaced over the relevant time period. Amendments 17 and 28, taken together, will ensure that annual targets continue to be calculated in the same way if the net zero emissions target year is modified.
Mark Ruskell’s amendments to section 9 in relation to annual targets follow on from his amendment to set a net zero emissions target year of 2042. The Government’s amendments are designed to work with a net zero emissions target year of 2045, with a separate interim target for 2040. If the committee agrees to the Government’s approach to the net zero target date and rejects Mark Ruskell’s approach, I urge him not to move amendments 40 to 45 and 28A.
The remaining Government amendments in the grouping are consequential to amendments 1 and/or 4 or are otherwise purely technical. Amendments 5, 8 to 11, 14 to 16, 18, 33, 35 and 38 are consequential to the removal of the 2050 target through amendment 4. There are so many of them because the 2050 target appears so frequently across the current 2009 act framework.
Amendment 13 is consequential to the setting of a net zero emissions target in the bill. It will remove the reference to the enabling power for making regulations to specify a net zero emissions target year of 2050 or earlier and replace it with a reference to modifying the year to one that is earlier than 2045.
Amendments 22, 23, 26 and 29 to 31 are consequential to the setting of a net zero emissions target in the bill and the resulting removal of the 2050 target.
Amendments 32 and 34 are again consequential to the setting of a net zero emissions target in the bill. They amend the ministerial duties to publish information about the targets.
Amendment 36 is consequential to both amendment 1 and amendment 4. It amends the definition of “emissions reduction target” to mean an annual target, an interim target or the net zero emissions target.
Amendment 37 is consequential to the setting of a net zero emissions target in the bill. It updates a cross-reference to the section that sets the net zero target year.
Turning to the final amendment in the group, I cannot support amendment 105, in the name of Maurice Golden, as it is completely unnecessary. It would place a duty on ministers to make regulations under the affirmative procedure to specify a definition of the term “net-zero”. The net zero emissions target is already clearly defined through the provisions of the bill. The committee raised the issue in its stage 1 report. In my response to the report, I clearly set out how the bill defines the term. For the benefit of any colleagues here who have not read my response to the report, I will reiterate the relevant points.
The net zero emissions target is defined in the bill to mean a 100 per cent reduction from baseline levels in net emissions of all greenhouse gases. The various elements of the definition are all further defined in the 2009 act. Section 13 of the 2009 act defines the concept of the net Scottish emissions account, which is the aggregate amount of net Scottish emissions, reduced by any credits purchased by ministers. Of course, the bill sets a default limit of zero on the extent of credit use for all future years, unless Parliament decides otherwise. In particular, sections 10 and 11 of the 2009 act set out the greenhouse gases that are included, which are all seven gases covered by the Kyoto protocol.
In summary, I urge members to support the Government amendments in this group, which will set world-leading targets in line with the independent expert advice of the CCC. That is the approach that the committee called for in its stage 1 report and has welcomed in its stage 2 report. I urge members to reject the amendments that would mean rejecting that independent advice and an evidence-based approach.
That was quite long, but this is of course the key group of amendments for the bill.
I move amendment 1.
The Convener
I call Mark Ruskell to move amendment 1B and to speak to all amendments in the group.
Mark Ruskell
Thanks. How long have I got? It is an emergency, isn’t it?
The Convener
Five minutes.
Mark Ruskell
Great. I am sure that I will not need all that.
Amendment 1B is an amendment to amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary. I accept the broad thrust of amendment 1, but amendment 1B would change the target date to 2042. I will briefly set out the reason for wanting to do that. It is about bringing absolute clarity to the bill and removing a glaring inconsistency in it. The amendment is not about changing the effort. The cabinet secretary made a number of comments about how we cannot go beyond what the Committee on Climate Change has advised on effort. Amendment 1B is not about changing the effort; it is about bringing consistency to the legislation. It forms a matching pair with amendment 92, in the name of Claudia Beamish, which would change the 2030 target on the same basis.
10:15I will give a bit of background. In the evidence that it gave to the committee in May, the Committee on Climate Change outlined the assumptions that it made when it developed its advice on Scotland’s net zero and interim targets. It became clear that its recommendations had been based on the assumption that there would be a future inventory change that would include extra emissions from Scotland’s peatlands. As it stands, the bill specifies that targets should be set on the basis of current reporting practice, which excludes peatlands, but it has mechanisms in place for targets to be revised at the point at which the inventories are updated.
The bill will not change the 2020 target, which will be set according to the current inventory. The cabinet secretary’s amendments to set a net zero date of 2045 and interim targets for 2030 and 2040 are based on an anticipated future inventory, not the current inventory. There is a lack of coherence here, which could be confusing when the inventory eventually changes in one to three years’ time. It will require the same effort to get to net zero in 2045—the target that is set out in the Government’s amendment—under the future inventory as it will to reach it by 2042 under the current inventory. There is a risk that, when the inventory changes, a future Government will ignore the fact that the target has already been revised down and will do so again. That might be seen as a slight risk, but it is a risk, given the way in which the bill has been drafted. To avoid future confusion, I believe that the targets that are set in the bill should be based on the current inventory.
I note the cabinet secretary’s comments about the letter—or, rather, the email exchange—that was forwarded to the committee at 11 o’clock last night. I read it when I was tucked up in bed. The main concern that I took from that is that it could give
“the appearance of loosening Scotland’s ambition”—
to use Chris Stark’s words—if, on the back of an inventory change, we have to push the net zero target date back to 2045. I see the politics in that, although it is not strictly an issue for the bill in terms of the technicality of setting the right target date. I am prepared to put on record now that, if the Government had to do that as a result of a technical inventory change, it would not be criticised by my party for doing so. The discussion that we had at stage 1 and the discussion that we are having at stage 2 would put such a future change on the basis of inventories into context. Therefore, I think that the political risks for the cabinet secretary, or a future cabinet secretary, would be very slight; the intention would be very clear. Amendment 1B is a technical amendment.
If my amendments are not agreed to, it would be interesting to hear how the Government could include in the bill safeguards against the lowering of future targets as a result of an inventory revision and whether the cabinet secretary would consider doing that at stage 3 to bring consistency to the bill.
I move amendment 1B.
Maurice Golden
The intention of amendment 105 was purely to provide increased clarity on the definition of “net-zero”. However, having listened to what the cabinet secretary said, and recognising that it is 14 years since I graduated with a masters degree in environmental law, I will be happy not to move amendment 105. I agree with the position that has been outlined.
Claudia Beamish
I support amendment 1, which seeks to set a target of 2045 for reaching net zero, and the cabinet secretary’s consequential amendments.
My amendment 92 seeks to set the 2030 interim target as a 76 per cent reduction in emissions from the baseline. That target is based on today’s greenhouse gas inventory. My aim is to provide a consistent approach to baseline changes and to set the most reliable interim targets that are possible at a time when it is important that we also send a signal about rapid transformational change. As we have heard, changes to the inventory will soon be made as it seeks to take account of methane and emissions from degraded peatlands. It is possible that, in the coming years, there will be further inventory changes that cannot be foreseen today, which will be based on increased scientific understanding and improved methods of accounting for emissions.
A more robust scientific basis is to be welcomed, although it causes some inconvenience in setting annual targets, as it can lead to fluctuations. As members will know, the picture is somewhat confused, with the UK Committee on Climate Change using an estimated future accounting system instead of—I stress—the current one. My amendment is based on the current inventory, which is in line with the bill’s reference to “target-setting criteria” including “current international reporting practice” as defined in section 19 of the 2009 act and
“the most up-to-date international carbon reporting practice”.
That clearly suggests that targets must be set on the basis of today’s inventory.
Mechanisms have been built into the bill to adapt its provisions to apply for many years into the future. As the cabinet secretary confirmed in her recent statement on Scottish greenhouse gas emissions in 2017,
“Our new Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill includes changes to the target framework in order to improve transparency and allow for clearer scrutiny of progress. The bill proposes targets that are based on actual, rather than adjusted, emissions, and ... includes mechanisms to manage the year-to-year effects”.—[Official Report, 12 June 2019; c 31.]
It seems clear that the mechanism to implement any necessary changes is in section 4, on page 2 of the bill, which introduces section 2A to the 2009 act and will be retained if amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is agreed to.
Targets will need to be reviewed and revised downwards in the future, but—crucially—that will not affect the overall effort. Amendment 6, in the cabinet secretary’s name, sets a target of 70 per cent, but the legislation does not clarify to which inventory—current or future—that refers. That approach would create some dangers. We must recognise that there will be a Scottish election between the targets being set and the possible inventory changes coming into effect, and we therefore cannot accept that legislation with caveats will be upheld in good faith. There are no guarantees in the bill around the inventory to which the Government is working, nor are there any safeguards against further revisions downwards that would weaken the effort. We must protect against the possibility that a lack of clarity now will have consequences for the future.
There is also a more positive angle. Updated advice from the CCC at the time of the inventory change may only shift the target back to 73 per cent, for example, and we should not work against that possibility. I can understand why Governments would be reluctant to be seen to be weakening targets when climate change is a growing public concern, but we must bind Scotland to the right numbers and simply explain the reasoning now, and again at that time. I want the issue to be clarified in legislation and legislative safeguards put in place, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will agree with the arguments that I have made.
Stewart Stevenson
It is probably important that I put something on the record right now as a matter of principle: we should simply not change dates or percentages when that puts us at odds with the UK Committee on Climate Change. We absolutely must not get into a position in which politicians choose the dates and associated targets. For me, it is science or nothing. If we do not trust our adviser—we could fall out with them at some point—we need to start a consultation process on who our new adviser should be and take advice in that regard. It is very simple. That is a principled point.
There has been confusion in this area. I have been confused, as others have—I accept that. However, the helpful letter from Chris Stark makes absolutely clear what is being recommended by the Committee on Climate Change. In particular, I latch on to the quote that I think the cabinet secretary used. The amendments lodged by Mark Ruskell and Claudia Beamish would result in Scotland facing a set of emissions reduction targets that went beyond the committee’s advice. Therefore, in the context of what I have said, I cannot support them.
In their contributions, they both made the important point that none of this would affect the effort. In a sense, therefore, this is “angels dancing on the head of a pin” time, because changing the dates would not have any practical effect. However, there is a real danger that, if we put in dates that we already know we would have to change because of changes to the way that the inventory is going to work, we would create a perverse incentive for future Governments of whatever complexion, whether north or south of the border, to resist inventory revision, and I do not think that that would be a helpful thing to do.
When I was the climate change minister, I found inventory revisions—which are a regular feature of this area of policy—most irritating, because, on more than one occasion, they caused us to miss numerical targets. That is why we should stick with what we know is going to happen. We know that there are going to be inventory changes—indeed, we support them in relation to peatlands, forestry and so on. We should incorporate in the bill the amendments that the cabinet secretary has lodged, which reflect the inventory changes that we know are going to be made. The optics of reducing numbers at a future date when today, in considering setting the numbers, we already know what the future looks like, are not good.
Mark Ruskell
Will the member take an intervention?
Stewart Stevenson
I will, if that is permitted.
The Convener
Mark Ruskell will have a chance to wind up, so I would like him to park his comments for now. Another member wants to speak to the amendments.
Mark Ruskell
I did not realise that I will have a chance to wind up.
The Convener
You will. Mr Stevenson, have you finished?
Stewart Stevenson
Yes.
The Convener
I call John Scott.
John Scott (Ayr) (Con)
I wish to speak briefly. Before I do, I declare an interest.
I believe that the 2045 targets and the IPCC advice are sufficient, although the targets will be immensely difficult to achieve. I do not believe that we have the capability to go further at this time. As the cabinet secretary has said, we already have the most ambitious targets in the world, and I will not be able to support the amendments lodged by Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell.
Nevertheless, I share Mark Ruskell’s and Claudia Beamish’s concerns, and I ask the Scottish Government to make certain that the inventory charge changes are as elegantly expressed as possible before we come to stage 3. As Stewart Stevenson has said—and as, I think, the whole committee has felt—there is a huge amount of confusion over that. I would like the Government to be as certain as it can be that the changes are as well expressed as they can be.
At this stage, I will support the Government’s position on the targets, but I want us to make certain that they are absolutely watertight and sensible for stage 3.
The Convener
Just to clarify, I note that Mark Ruskell will have a chance to wind up after the cabinet secretary has wound up.
Roseanna Cunningham
The key question for all of us is whether we trust the Committee on Climate Change. Either we trust it or we do not. If we do not trust it and we seek to go behind what it is saying, we will get ourselves into a terrible mess. The second-last paragraph in the email from Chris Stark, which committee members received last night, says quite explicitly,
“I would not wish to see the numbers in that letter”—
that is, the previous letter to the committee—
“misinterpreted to leave Scotland with legal targets that are not supported by CCC analysis.”
That is a pretty fundamental statement.
It is known that substantial inventory revisions will happen in the next few years that will be associated with the incorporation of peatlands into the inventory and changes to the global warming potentials of certain gases, arising from the IPCC reports. The UK Government has committed to the UN to implementing the peatland changes within the next three years, and that may happen as early as next year’s set of statistics. The CCC’s advice on future targets therefore reflects those known future changes to the inventory. The technical landscape around on-going revisions to the GHG inventory, decisions on which are made at UN and UK levels, is clearly complex. In the face of that complexity, the right approach is to be guided by independent expert advice that is based on the full range of available evidence—we either trust that advice or we do not.
10:30I have already set out clear statutory safeguards. Targets can be lowered only if the CCC advises that that should occur specifically as a result of scientific understanding. Again, we are back to the science and the fact that the CCC is our scientific advisor—and we either trust it or we do not.
The Convener
I call Mark Ruskell to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1B.
Mark Ruskell
As mine is not the lead amendment in the group, I did not think that I would have a chance to wind up, which is why I sought to intervene on Stewart Stevenson. However, the convener is giving me extra space, which is fine.
It is a little bit disappointing that we continue to conflate issues in this debate. It is not about changing the effort but bringing consistency into it. At the moment, the bill is inconsistent. In my opening comments, I said to the cabinet secretary that I wanted to hear from the Government about what safeguards it would put in place if it did not vote for these amendments, which are against the lowering of future targets due to inventory revisions.
Although I appreciate the email exchange with Chris Stark, I would have liked to see from the CCC an actual response to our second committee report, which detailed some of the issues that the CCC might have with changing targets, as is proposed in my amendments. However, we do not have that response and, unfortunately, we do not have a well-rounded debate, which is a real pity.
The issue is about the inventory change going forward. Obviously, there is a political risk in relation to how it will be perceived if the target date is pushed back to 2045. We need a bill that is legally competent and legally consistent; at the moment, it is not. I do not see any moves from the Government to ensure that the bill will become legally competent and legally consistent. Therefore, to bring about that consistency, I will press my amendment. If the Government finds a way to ensure that there is security around future inventory changes in the bill ahead of stage 3, I will be very interested to hear about it.
I press amendment 1B.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 1B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Abstentions
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 1B disagreed to.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Abstentions
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 105 not moved.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2—The 2050 target
Amendment 4 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3—The interim targets
Amendment 5 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 6 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
The Convener
I remind members that amendments 6 and 92 are direct alternatives.
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Against
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment 92 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 92 disagreed to.
The Convener
I remind members that, if amendment 39 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 7.
Amendment 39 not moved.
Amendment 7 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Abstentions
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4—Modification of the 2050 and interim targets
Amendments 8 to 12 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 13 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
Amendment 13B not moved.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendment 14 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5—The target-setting criteria
Amendment 93 not moved.
The Convener
Amendment 107, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with amendment 94.
Maurice Golden
The purpose of amendment 107 is to have a presumption against the overshoot scenario. The committee heard evidence regarding the implications of overshoot on climate change and the financial implications associated with overshoot. The amendment seeks to ensure that we guard against it.
Stewart Stevenson
I am in sympathy with what is being attempted, but let us be absolutely clear about the meaning of “ecosystem” as set out in the amendment. We extract gravel, and that is not renewed by the ecosystem in any meaningful timescale. I suspect that we are trying to deal with an ecosystem that is more restricted in its definition than the general term. Is that the member’s understanding?
Maurice Golden
Yes. I encourage committee members to support the amendment. If there are particular aspects of it that require clarity, I am happy to consider those and to take Parliament with us at stage 3. However, the intention of the amendment is as I have described.
I move amendment 107.
Claudia Beamish
Amendment 94 would amend the bill to request the UKCCC to have regard
“to the likely impact of the target on public health”
when providing regular advice to ministers, and to request ministers to do the same when setting targets. My fellow committee members will recall that that was among the committee’s recommendations in its stage 1 report. It was also recommended by WWF Scotland, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland and Unison Scotland.
Amendment 94 is another important amendment to ensure that the impacts of our climate change action are just. The bill could secure a number of health multibenefits and co-benefits. A number of stakeholders referenced such benefits in evidence, including air quality improvements, a reduction in fuel poverty and mental health benefits.
It was also noted that a better evidence base for the impact on public health is needed, and amendment 94 could help to deliver that. Although there are a number of potential positive outcomes for our health, it is right that the impact is monitored. I hope that members will vote for amendment 94.
Roseanna Cunningham
I am happy to support Claudia Beamish’s amendment 94, which adds public health to the target-setting criteria provided in section 5. Improving public health has been noted by those giving evidence on the bill as a major co-benefit of climate change action.
When we introduced the bill, our view was that improving public health was arguably covered by the social circumstances criteria, and that there was not a strong reason to add it as a separate criterion. However, I have taken on board the feedback from the committee in its stage 1 report and further representations from stakeholders, and I am happy to support the provision in amendment 94.
I see merit in Maurice Golden’s amendment 107, which seeks to add considerations of ecosystems and waste management to the criteria. The recent global assessment of biodiversity highlights the serious impacts of biodiversity loss, which is happening around the world. The report underlines the links between biodiversity loss and climate change, and members will have heard the First Minister say in response to a question from Claudia Beamish that biodiversity loss is as important as climate change.
10:45However, the calculation of the capacity of Scotland’s ecosystems to regenerate what we consume is a complex and fluid one to undertake. I understand that many existing measures have shortcomings that might mean that they are not robust indicators for Scotland. I would like the opportunity to consider the technical aspects further with the member—and with the CCC, given that all such amendments have implications for the CCC’s advice. Although my officials have had an opportunity to gauge the CCC’s views on the public health addition to the criteria, there has not yet been time to do so in relation to the addition that we are talking about in amendment 107.
I urge Maurice Golden not to press amendment 107. I commit to working with him to explore options for lodging an amendment at stage 3 or taking the matter forward through the review of environmental monitoring to which we have committed as part of our recent environmental principles and governance consultation. I hope that Maurice Golden will be reassured by my offer, because I cannot express support for amendment 107 as it stands.
Amendment 107, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 94 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.
The Convener
Amendment 108, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 127 to 129, 152, and 153.
Claudia Beamish
The amendments in this group are a set; they are designed to improve our approach to climate change in the context of international development. They are supported by the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, which helped to design them, and, more broadly, by Stop Climate Chaos Scotland.
Amendment 108 would add to the target-setting criteria international development, and in particular the ability of other nations to meet sustainable development goals. There is clearly value in such an approach, which would not be onerous to apply.
The Paris agreement is, of course, a global agreement, which successfully brought together developed and developing countries for action on climate change, and its implementation will require constant collaboration between developed and developing countries. Therefore, if the bill is truly to enshrine Paris, it is vital that it includes a requirement to consider the impacts on developing countries of targets that are set in future. We have an historic responsibility to consider the challenges that are faced by developing countries, which, it is recognised, did so much less to contribute to the climate change challenge. Given that context, I very much hope that members will support amendment 108.
Amendment 127 would add a reference to developing countries’ efforts on climate reduction, in the context of the climate change plan’s requirement to explain how it will compensate for excess emissions. It is important that we focus our minds on where the effects are likely to be experienced disproportionately. The 2009 act includes provision for Government support for climate change adaptation in Scotland, which is a vital part of addressing climate change, because holding global temperature increases even to 1.5°C will require adaptation. However, the 2009 act does not include commitments to support adaptation internationally or to help countries to develop low-carbon and net zero economies.
The Scottish Government provides climate finance, through its well-recognised climate justice fund. However, that is a Parliament-to-Parliament approach. Such an important contribution to global efforts to tackle climate change should be in legislation, to prevent a future Government from easily reneging on commitments. Amendments to the 2009 act are required to protect an important contribution to climate finance and ensure that money is spent appropriately.
Amendment 128 would include in the bill a commitment to supporting developing countries with adaptation and mitigation through the transfer of “expertise and technology”. Articles 10 and 11 of the Paris agreement set out the requirement for developed countries to support developing countries through the sharing of technology and expertise and through capacity building.
The bill was introduced to implement in Scottish law the Paris agreement, and amendment 128 seeks to enshrine in the bill a specific aspect of the agreement. At present, the 2009 act contains no provisions on how Scotland will support global efforts to challenge climate change, with the exception of the emissions reduction targets and the commitment that those are to be set in line with the “fair and safe” principles set out by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Amendment 128 is needed to enshrine the whole of the Paris agreement in law and to formalise the requirement for developed countries to support developing countries with regard to climate change adaptation and mitigation.
For the world to achieve its ambitions of limiting warming to well below 2°C and to pursue efforts to reach 1.5°C, it is vital that all countries work together and collaborate. The Scottish Government has considerable expertise in and knowledge of climate change adaptation and mitigation, and Scotland has a world-renowned renewable energy sector. As a result, amendment 128 seeks to ensure that the Scottish Government would, over the years, commit to continuing to share its technology and expertise with developing countries to help them tackle the climate emergency.
Amendment 129 seeks to enshrine the principle of policy coherence with regard to sustainable development, because the application of the principle in the climate change plan will help ensure that Scotland responds to the climate crisis with other countries in mind. The bill is uniquely global, and the amendment attempts to reflect that. With its devolved powers, Scotland has been able to make a significant contribution to tackling the climate emergency beyond our borders, and the amendment reflects the important role that devolved Administrations can play in this global issue by ensuring that policies are written in line with UN commitments such as the sustainable development goals.
Amendment 152 refers specifically to the need for Scottish ministers to recognise Scotland’s global responsibility
“in relation to ... international climate change adaptation in line with international best practice”,
while amendment 153 highlights the need to
“have regard to ... the ability of other countries to achieve global commitments on climate change”.
The approach serves as a marker and, indeed, a valuable tool for focusing attention on the implications of a range of our actions as a developed nation. The fact that many—though not all—of us are high consumers frequently has implications for where in the world we source materials and products and how we manufacture things.
Finally, amendment 153 sets an expectation on relevant persons in the exercise of functions in relation to
“the ability of other countries to achieve sustainable development”.
As members will no doubt know, there is a well-recognised definition of sustainable development in common usage that comes from the Brundtland commission report.
I believe that this set of amendments will indeed place Scotland at the forefront of excellent practice in international development and climate change action as we progress towards net zero emissions in a globally just way. The amendments will single us out and clearly signal to the world an important way in which developed nations can send a clear, straightforward and positive message to others of our like, and I hope that members will support them.
I move amendment 108.
Stewart Stevenson
I have listened with care to Claudia Beamish and broadly support what she has said. However, there are some drafting difficulties with what is before us.
With regard to amendment 127, Jack McConnell was very wise to take a slightly different approach to such issues by ensuring that our international efforts supported not “developing country parties” to the UNFCCC but projects in those countries. Such a difference might sound slightly academic, but the approach has been successful precisely because it has partly bypassed Governments in some countries that are pretty ineffective in ensuring that money reaches projects. I am therefore uncomfortable with the wording of amendment 127, but not at all resistant to the sentiment that Claudia Beamish is seeking to pursue.
Amendment 129 says that the proposals and policies should be
“aligned with global agreements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”.
That is, again, broadly something that I can support. The difficulty is that not all such global agreements are current. For example, the Copenhagen agreement has been supplanted and overtaken by the Paris agreement. The wording of amendment 129 needs further attention.
I recognise that there is broad agreement around sustainable development, but I am not sure that it is expressed in our law in a way that is appropriate. In amendment 50, which refers to the Paris agreement, I refer to something that is published, invariant and accessible to anyone who requires to refer to it so that it is clear what is being pointed at. We should take that approach when we refer to external things. However, the simple way in which “sustainable development” is expressed in amendment 129 perhaps does not meet those tests.
By the same token, amendment 152 talks about “international best practice”, but that is unlikely to be a constant—it will evolve over time. We have to be clear about what we are saying. Again, I am not resisting in any sense the underlying attempt to align with international best practice; I am just not clear about the construction of the amendment.
Roseanna Cunningham
I am sympathetic to all the amendments that Claudia Beamish has lodged in this group. As I said in my remarks on the first group, the Scottish Government recognises the international dimensions of climate change. There is a global climate emergency, and internationally co-ordinated, just and sustainable action to tackle it is essential.
The Scottish Government’s commitment is reflected in the alignment of our national performance framework to the UN sustainable development goals, and our commitment to policy coherence for sustainable development in our international development strategy. I see climate action, including the bill, as being an important element of that approach.
I offer to work with Claudia Beamish on technical aspects of most of her amendments. In relation to amendment 108—this is similar to my proposal in relation to Maurice Golden’s amendment 107 in the previous group—I would like to have an opportunity to seek the CCC’s advice and views, given the impact that the amendment would have on its advisory functions.
In relation to amendments 127 to 129, which relate to adding links to international efforts to tackle climate change to Scotland’s domestic climate change plans, I would like the opportunity to explore exactly how that would best be done within the framework under the 2009 act.
In relation to amendment 153, which relates to section 92 of the 2009 act, I am again content in principle but would like to explore technical aspects of its implementation.
I invite Claudia Beamish not to press amendment 108 and the other amendments in the group at the present time in favour of my firm commitment to work with her to bring back her proposals at stage 3 in a form that respects her intentions in full but is better technically aligned to the wider framework. If she presses the amendments, I cannot support them in their current form. The exception is amendment 152, on adding references to international matters to adaptation planning, which I am happy to support outright.
Claudia Beamish
I am conscious of the time and how much we have to get through, but I want to respond briefly to one or two of Stewart Stevenson’s comments.
I respect Jack McConnell as someone who went to Johannesburg and was involved with environmental justice, rather than specifically climate justice. However, I do not agree that working to support countries excludes working with specific projects. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Stewart Stevenson
I was purely seeking to exclude any suggestion that we could do that only via Governments. I think that we are aligned.
Claudia Beamish
On amendment 129, if some areas of the UNFCCC are not current, we would not refer to them. I do not really understand that point.
11:00I am delighted that the cabinet secretary is able to support amendment 152.
At some point over the summer, I would be pleased to work with the cabinet secretary and others on technical aspects of the other amendments. I take the point about UK Committee on Climate Change advice. It is not for me to tell it what to think, but I would be surprised if it did not think that, as a developed nation, we should take these issues into account in the current global climate crisis. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary and I are on the same page, and I look forward to that engagement.
Amendment 108, by agreement, withdrawn.
The Convener
We will move on to quickly dispose of amendment 51 in the next group and then have a break.
Amendment 51, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 53, 56, 68, 69, 71, 87, 89 and 90.
Roseanna Cunningham
The amendments in this group make minor technical amendments to the bill and to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, for consistency and alignment. I will briefly describe their technical operation.
Amendment 51 makes a small correction to the bill to ensure consistency with the terminology that is used elsewhere in section 5. It has no effect in practice.
Amendment 53 inserts the words “of greenhouse gases” after the reference to “Scottish emissions” in proposed new section 2B(2) of the 2009 act, which is inserted by section 5 of the bill. Amendment 56 inserts the same words after the reference to “Scottish emissions” in proposed new section 2C(3)(c), of the 2009 act, which is inserted by section 6 of the bill. Amendments 68, 69 and 71 insert the same words after the references to “Scottish emissions” in section 34 of the 2009 Act, which is amended by section 17 of the bill. Amendment 87 amends paragraph 5 of the schedule to the bill to insert the same words after the reference to “Scottish emissions” in section 9(2)(d) of the 2009 act.
Amendment 89 is a minor typographical amendment to paragraph 17(b)(iii) of the schedule to the bill to reflect that the amendment that is made by that provision is a substitution of text—I hope that members all grasped that particular technical amendment.
Amendment 90 amends the schedule to the bill. It substitutes “30” for “27” in subsections (2) and (3) of section 100 of the 2009 act. That is required due to the repeal of sections 27 to 29 of the 2009 act under paragraph 11 of the schedule to the bill, and it ensures that there is a correct reference.
I move amendment 51.
Amendment 51 agreed to.
11:03 Meeting suspended.11:16 On resuming—
The Convener
Welcome back. I welcome Liam McArthur, who has joined us.
Amendment 52, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 95, 54, 96, 55, 98, 99, 70 and 85. I remind members that amendment 95 pre-empts amendment 54.
Roseanna Cunningham
This group of amendments relates to the fair and safe Scottish emissions budget. Section 5 sets out the target-setting criteria that ministers must request the relevant body—that is, of course, the CCC—to have regard to when providing its advice on targets, and that ministers must take into account when modifying the net zero emissions target year or an interim target percentage figure. One of the criteria is:
“the objective of not exceeding the fair and safe Scottish emissions budget”.
The bill mirrors the definition of the fair and safe Scottish emissions budget found in the 2009 act. That definition is:
“the aggregate amount of net Scottish emissions for the period 2010-2050 recommended by the relevant body as being consistent with Scotland contributing appropriately to stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
I have listened to calls from stakeholders and the committee to align that definition more closely with the Paris agreement. I have therefore lodged amendment 54, which directly links the definition of the budget to the Paris agreement global temperature aim, set out in article 2.1(a) of that agreement, of
“Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”.
I have also lodged amendment 55, which would require ministers to seek regular updates—at least every five years—from the CCC on the appropriate level of the budget. The budget is not set at the discretion of ministers—it is determined solely by the independent expert advice of the CCC.
Amendment 70 would require annual reports on emissions reduction targets to include information on the current level of the fair and safe Scottish emissions budget, and to set out alongside that the cumulative level of net Scottish emissions since 2010.
Amendments 52 and 85 are consequential and would ensure that the new definition would be applied throughout the updated act.
Claudia Beamish has lodged amendments 95, 96, 98 and 99, which also relate to the fair and safe emissions budget. In particular, the first of those proposes an alternative redefinition of the budget; the remainder are largely parallel to the Government amendments in the group.
I recognise the well-meaning intent of her amendments. However, our respective amendments on the definition of the budget cannot both be agreed at this time. The essential difference between them is that my amendment 54 includes the full wording of the Paris agreement global temperature aim, whereas Claudia Beamish’s amendment 95 refers to that aim in a general sense and also makes references to certain UNFCCC principles in relation to how a Scottish share of the global budget should be determined.
There are also more technical, but not unsubstantial, differences between the two sets of amendments. For example, my amendment 55 specifically requires the CCC to be asked to set out a new budget if the current one is no longer appropriate, whereas Claudia Beamish’s amendment 98 does not specify what should happen in that situation.
As I said in the debate on earlier groupings, I would be happy to work with Claudia Beamish towards achieving a sensible and effective way of reflecting considerations of climate justice and international development in the bill at stage 3. In particular, I would be happy for that work to find a suitable way to reflect the UNFCCC principles, as well as the wording of the Paris agreement temperature goal, in the definition of the fair and safe emissions budget.
On that basis, I urge Claudia Beamish not to press any of her amendments in the group and I ask members instead to support the Government’s amendments.
I move amendment 52.
Claudia Beamish
I seek clarification of the cabinet secretary’s remarks on my amendment 95 and her amendment 54, which have left me slightly confused. The amendments seem to be mutually exclusive, so I am not quite sure why she would offer to work with me on amendment 95 over the summer if I were to consider not moving it now.
Roseanna Cunningham
I am suggesting that the Government’s amendments be agreed to now, but that we have a conversation about the wording that might then be in the amended bill and whether a different amendment at stage 3 might make Ms Beamish a little happier about what is proposed.
Claudia Beamish
I thank the cabinet secretary for that clarification.
It is difficult for me to withdraw my amendment 95 at this stage, despite the offer of discussions over the summer, because it and amendment 54 mirror each other. With respect, I suggest that it might be more appropriate if amendment 54 were to be withdrawn as well, so that there could be a substantive conversation. However, I will highlight my amendment and I will take it from there.
The amendments in my name strengthen the commitment to a fair and safe Scottish emissions budget that was established by the 2009 act. That term was recognised by the committee and the Government at stage 1 as being important. My amendments are supported by Stop Climate Chaos Scotland.
Amendment 95 would improve the definition of the fair and safe emissions budget in the proposed section 2A of the 2009 act, so that it would read:
“the aggregate amount of net [zero] emissions for the period 2010 to 2050 as recommended by the relevant body as being consistent with Scotland’s share of the global emissions budget that accords with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities, to limit global temperature rise to the agreed goals of the United Nations climate agreements.”
That better reflects the “fair” element, as the existing definition considers only the “safe” element, which prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Amendment 96 clarifies the meaning of “global emissions budget” as calculated by the respected IPCC.
Amendment 98 adds the fair and safe emissions budget to the factors that the relevant body—the CCC—should consider in its regular advice.
Amendment 99 is about ensuring that there is regular reporting, via the CCC, on how Scotland is doing against the fair and safe emissions budget.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendment 70, which adds reference to reporting on emissions reductions. I also welcome her statement at stage 1 about being open to further discussion on the definition, and the Government’s more general statement that it is “absolutely central”.
Although amendment 54, with its mention of the target of 1.5°C, is an improvement on the current drafting, the cabinet secretary’s definition does not go far enough, as it does not enshrine a commitment to recognise and act in accordance with our historic contribution to climate change by acting more quickly than developing nations.
As I came in this morning, I had a very positive conversation with members of extinction rebellion—although I do not think that it is a formal, organised membership group. In the material that they handed to me, they highlighted that we—I use that word in the global sense—
“face floods, wildfires, extreme weather, crop failure, mass migration and the breakdown of society.”
I know, from what has been reported to me by SCIAF, ActionAid and other groups, that that is not an exaggeration in any sense. I saw in my news feed last week that a village in Wales will have to be moved away from the coast in the next 20 years, so such things are happening here. We may not define that as “mass migration”, as mentioned in the leaflet, but there will be migration with serious consequences not only in the global south but here in Scotland and in Trump’s United States, sadly.
I urge members to support my definition in amendment 95, which addresses our fair share of global emissions. I was going to say that I would vote for the cabinet secretary’s amendment 54 if mine falls, but I would welcome further discussion on a wide range of the amendments ahead of stage 3 and I am interested to hear what members have to say before I make my final decision.
Roseanna Cunningham
Whatever happens today, I hope that we will be able to have a conversation about this issue further down the line. I reiterate that the committee has called for global temperature numbers to be in the bill; the Government’s amendment 54 does that but Claudia Beamish’s amendment 95 does not. The Government’s amendment fulfils the committee’s request in a way that is not done by her amendment. I ask committee members to be consistent with their requests earlier in the proceedings.
Amendment 52 agreed to.
Amendment 53 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 95 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Convener
I remind members that if amendment 95 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 54. The question is, that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 95 disagreed to.
Amendment 54 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Abstentions
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 54 agreed to.
Amendment 96 not moved.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6—Duty to seek advice from the relevant body
Amendments 15, 55 and 56 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
11:30The Convener
Amendment 57, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 109, 72, 73, 73A, 74 and 77.
Roseanna Cunningham
I have lodged amendments 57, 72, 73, 73A, 74 and 77 in response to the committee’s stage 1 report recommendation that a defined set of chapter headings for climate change plans, aligned to international emissions classifications, should be set out in the legislation.
Amendment 73 defines that set of chapter headings, based on the chapters of the national communications submitted biannually to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The list is:
“(a) energy supply,
(b) transport (including international aviation and shipping),
(c) business and industrial process,
(d) residential and public (in relation to buildings in those sectors),
(e) waste management,
(f) land use, land use change and forestry,
(g) agriculture.”
In essence, that list replaces the much simpler fourfold list of sectors that was set out in the 2009 act:
“(A) energy efficiency;
(B) energy generation;
(C) land use;
(D) transport.”
Amendment 77 allows ministers to modify the list of sectors introduced by amendment 73 by regulations under the affirmative procedure. That is so that, in the future, they can be updated to reflect any changes in the international emissions classifications.
To ensure that any such changes remain consistent with those classifications, a limitation is placed on the powers, such that any proposed modification
“must be consistent with international carbon reporting practice.”
That is the term that is used in the 2009 act and in the bill to refer to greenhouse gas inventories and emissions classifications.
Amendment 72 amends proposed new section 35(2)(b) of the 2009 act, which sets out that ministers should structure climate change plans around such chapters and topics as they consider appropriate. The amendment would ensure that substantive planned chapters must be included on each of the sectors set out in the list in amendment 73. Other chapters might be included on such other sectors and topics as ministers consider appropriate.
Amendment 74 means that climate change plans must set out the respective contributions made by the sectors in the list introduced by amendment 73. A further consequence of these amendments is that the associated sector-by-sector climate change plan monitoring reports will follow the same structure.
Amendment 57 is linked to new section 2C of the 2009 act, which sets out provisions in relation to seeking advice from “the relevant body”, which is the Committee on Climate Change. Again, as recommended by the committee, that duty is amended so that ministers must seek the CCC’s views on the respective contributions that each of the sectors in the list introduced by amendment 73 make towards meeting targets. That will ensure that CCC advice is provided on a comparable structure to that used in climate change plans and their associated monitoring reports.
The approach of defining a set of planned chapter headings that are directly aligned to international emissions classification schemes is in response to the request of the committee. That is why I ask Liam McArthur not to move amendment 73A. Although I am sure that it is well intentioned, the proposed change would deviate from the UNFCCC national communication categories and create issues of consistency. If amendment 73A is moved, I urge the committee to reject it, as it is contrary to the committee’s technical recommendations.
I also invite Maurice Golden not to move amendment 109. If it is moved, I urge the committee to reject it. Amendment 109 would allow sectors to be added to the current fourfold list by regulations. Such a power would be rendered unnecessary by the Government amendments in this group. The list of sectors in the legislation, as introduced by amendment 73, is comprehensive. It covers all currently reported Scottish emissions. Amendment 77 means that the list can be updated by regulations if needed. Under those circumstances, I do not see what the provision in amendment 109 would add to the legislation.
I move amendment 57.
Maurice Golden
Amendment 109 is relatively minor and technical. Its purpose is to allow the Scottish ministers to add by regulation additional sectors to the bill for the purpose of seeking advice. The amendment was developed in response to the committee’s stage 1 recommendations and ultimately provides, in a small way, a degree of flexibility going forward.
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
I listened with interest to the cabinet secretary’s explanation of her amendments. Amendment 73A is an adjustment to her amendment setting out the list of sectors in broadly generic terms. The intention of my amendment would be to make certain that low-carbon heat is properly taken into account. Scottish Renewables quite rightly described renewable heat as
“the next frontier for emissions reduction and new industrial opportunities.”
For any climate change plan to be credible, it will need to take proper account of the contribution of low-carbon heat, and that is what amendment 73A seeks to ensure happens. However, as I said, I have listened to what the cabinet secretary said and I am inclined to not move amendment 73A at this stage. Perhaps I can have further discussions with the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 3 about whether there will be any possible adjustments to the amendments that she is moving today.
Claudia Beamish
It is important that the list of chapters is included, as it is recognised more widely than in Scotland. I am pleased to see that the cabinet secretary has lodged an amendment to say that it can be added to.
Although I am completely aware that textiles are part of an industrial process, it would be in one of the categories that we focus on in the future, but we do not know what other discrete categories there might be in 20 years.
Roseanna Cunningham
I do not want to say too much more. I am always happy to have further conversations and I will be happy to speak to Liam McArthur about some specifics around amendment 73A. Maurice Golden is coming from the same place as we are; we are not a million miles apart. If he wants to have a conversation about it, I am also happy to do that.
However, what we have proposed is a pretty comprehensive update of the 2009 act. Claudia Beamish makes a good point about our not having a crystal ball and not being able to predict what some of the key issues might be in 10, 15 or 20 years.
Amendment 57 agreed to.
Amendment 109 not moved.
The Convener
Amendment 58, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendment 59.
Liam McArthur
Amendments 58 and 59 would require ministers to seek regular advice from the UKCCC on the so-called aviation multiplier, which seeks to address the fact that fossil fuel emissions, especially non-CO2 emissions, are known to have a greater impact when emitted at higher altitudes. That obviously has a bearing on emissions from aviation.
We need to ensure that the bill draws on the most up-to-date and leading-edge science when assessing how emissions contribute to global warming. Although the 2009 act already allows for an aviation multiplier, to date it has been set at one, although we know that aviation emissions have a greater impact at altitude than they do when they are closer to the earth’s surface.
Scientific understanding of those issues is now such that ministers should have confidence in using the multiplier to reflect that fact. Amendment 58 would ensure that the level of the aviation multiplier is based on the most up-to-date independent expert advice, while amendment 59 would introduce a duty on the Scottish ministers to set an aviation multiplier that is based on that advice or to explain the reasons why they have opted not to do so. That is not an unreasonable proposition and it will allow decisions to be based on best evidence and science.
Stewart Stevenson
For clarification, when the member talks about advice on the multiplier, is that advice from the UK Committee on Climate Change?
Liam McArthur
Yes, it would be from the Committee on Climate Change.
Stewart Stevenson
So it “would be” from the CCC—it is not yet available.
Liam McArthur
Yes. I welcome that point from Stewart Stevenson. It is about future proofing as best we can. The provision on the multiplier was set in the 2009 act but, for understandable reasons, ministers have been reluctant to use that in the absence of the scientific advice that is needed to underpin it.
I thank WWF Scotland for the support that it has provided with the amendments, and I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their constructive engagement on the issue. I look forward to hearing comments from colleagues.
I move amendment 58.
Mark Ruskell
I support amendment 58. We took a little evidence on the issue and the committee discussed how to incorporate the matter into our stage 1 report. The issue of the aviation multiplier is one of the great uncertainties in how we tackle transport emissions. The issue is concerning, but there is emerging science on it and the CCC is interested in it. We need the best scientific evidence to be factored into the way that we set targets and plan for the sector. I support amendment 58, as it would be remiss of us not to address such a critical issue in the bill.
Roseanna Cunningham
The inclusion in our targets of a fair share of emissions from international aviation and shipping is one of the reasons why Scotland has the toughest climate change target framework in the world. To date, the only other country that I am aware of as having joined us in doing so is Wales, although that was a recent announcement so the practicalities have not actually happened yet. I note that the UK Government’s recent statutory instrument to set a net zero emissions target does not add such emissions to UK targets, in spite of the CCC advising that that be done.
Returning to Scotland, I am conscious that some stakeholders are keen to ensure that there is a regular review of the technical methods by which emissions from international aviation are calculated for the purpose of reporting progress to targets. I am therefore happy to support amendments 58 and 59, which will ensure that there is a strong evidence basis, based on regular independent expert advice from the CCC, for the way in which those calculations occur.
Liam McArthur
I am conscious of the pressures of time in the committee, so I simply thank Mark Ruskell, the cabinet secretary and Stewart Stevenson for their comments and confirm that I will press amendment 58.
Amendment 58 agreed to.
The Convener
Amendment 97, in the name of Angus MacDonald, is grouped with amendment 106.
Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Amendment 97 seeks to ensure that the importance of the 1.5°C temperature target appears in the bill and that the bill backs up the statement in the committee’s stage 1 report that
“The environmental and social impacts of the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C are very significant.”
The report goes on to say:
“The Committee recommends the Bill include an explicit reference to the temperature the targets are seeking to achieve. The Committee recommends this should be 1.5°C”.
Amendment 97 would help to highlight the importance of ensuring that warming does not exceed 1.5°C, which is in line with international evidence. However, it is worth stressing that it is of particular relevance to our natural environment, where an overshoot scenario in which warming exceeded 1.5°C and temperatures then fell would create irreversible damage to biodiversity.
As I pointed out during the world environment day debate last week, we need to find solutions to the climate and nature crises. A recognition of the 1.5°C target in the bill will help with that, especially as environmental NGOs are extremely concerned about an overshoot scenario in which emissions surpass the target and then climb down. Such an overshoot will already have caused irreversible damage to our wildlife.
11:45With your indulgence, convener, it is worth pointing out that WWF Scotland ran a petition in support of my amendment, which was signed by 2,165 people in a short space of time. It is clear that there is public support to put the 1.5°C target in the bill.
I move amendment 97.
The Convener
Would any other members like to speak to amendment 97?
Mark Ruskell
Just briefly—I do not want to reiterate all my earlier comments about the 1.5°C target. Angus MacDonald raises a hugely important point about the overshoot scenario. I think that I heard the cabinet secretary, in evidence at stage 1, rule out such a scenario. We are actively trying to avoid that scenario, and as such we should ensure that that is in the text of the bill.
Roseanna Cunningham
I am a little puzzled. Are we going to hear about amendment 106?
The Convener
Maurice Golden appears to have left the committee, so he has given up his chance to speak to amendment 106; the amendment has not yet been moved—I hope that he will come back and make a decision on whether he wants to move it.
I ask the cabinet secretary to speak only to amendment 97, in the name of Angus MacDonald.
Roseanna Cunningham
The Government’s approach has been to link the bill’s provisions to the Paris agreement temperature goal. I recognise that, since the publication of the IPCC’s special report last year, there has quite rightly been a great focus on the element of that goal that relates to limiting global warming to a 1.5°C rise above pre-industrial levels. Amendment 97 would mean that ministers must ask for the views of the relevant body—the CCC—on the extent to which Scotland’s targets are consistent with global efforts to keep global average temperature changes to 1.5°C.
I understand Angus MacDonald’s reasons for lodging the amendment, and I am content to support it in principle. I have some minor concerns about its drafting and how the request would sit in the current framework—for example, it uses somewhat different wording from the Paris agreement. I ask Angus MacDonald not to press amendment 97 in its current form today, but I would be happy to work with him on a slightly refined version at stage 3.
The Convener
Now that Maurice Golden has returned, I would like to give him the opportunity, because I am a very nice person—
Stewart Stevenson
Hear, hear.
The Convener
Thank you. I will give him the opportunity to speak to amendment 106.
Maurice Golden
I have always thought that you were a very nice person, convener.
The Convener
That was said through gritted teeth.
Maurice Golden
No, not at all.
Amendment 106 is another relatively minor technical amendment. It proposes that Scottish ministers must, by regulations, define the word “achievable”. That would provide clarity in the bill.
The Convener
Thank you. Would the cabinet secretary like to respond to amendment 106?
Roseanna Cunningham
I am interested in Maurice Golden’s characterisation of the amendment as minor and technical. Nevertheless, I urge members to reject it, for similar reasons that apply to amendment 105, which was discussed earlier and also seeks to require ministers to legislate to define terms.
Amendment 106 seeks to require a definition of the term “achievable”. I consider the amendment to be potentially damaging to the function of the legislation, as well as unnecessary. I set out my reasons in my response to the committee’s stage 1 report. I explained that the term “achievable” is used in the particular context of seeking independent expert advice with regard to a range of specified criteria. In particular, the relevant body—the CCC—is requested to make its independent expert assessment based on the earliest achievable date for net zero emissions, with regard to the list of statutory target-setting criteria. Any attempt to define that term further would unduly constrain the CCC’s role as an independent adviser.
I strongly urge members not to support amendment 106 on the grounds that it is both unnecessary and potentially detrimental to the CCC’s independent advisory role.
Claudia Beamish
I understand the intention behind Maurice Golden’s amendment 106, but I agree with the cabinet secretary. Given that the CCC worked to a clear definition of the term “achievable”, amendment 106 might cause some confusion. What is achievable tomorrow is not the same as what will be achievable in five years, and I am worried that the use of the term “achievable” in that way might risk limiting innovation.
Angus MacDonald
I came in this morning determined to press my amendment 97 no matter what happened. However, given the cabinet secretary’s commitment to look at the wording in advance of stage 3, I am happy to not press amendment 97, in order to allow further work to be done. It remains imperative that the 1.5°C target be included in the bill.
Amendment 97, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 98 and 99 not moved.
Amendment 16 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 106 not moved.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8—Ministerial duties following request for advice
Amendments 17 to 19 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 59 moved—[Liam McArthur]—and agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Section 9—Annual targets: 2021 to 2049
Amendment 20 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendments 40 and 41 not moved.
Amendment 21 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Abstentions
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Amendment 42 not moved.
Amendments 22 and 23 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 43 not moved.
Amendment 24 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Abstentions
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
Amendment 44 not moved.
Amendment 25 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Abstentions
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendment 26 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 45 not moved.
Amendment 27 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 28 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
Amendment 28A not moved.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Abstentions
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Amendments 29 to 31 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Section 10—Annual targets: 2017, 2018 and 2019
The Convener
Amendment 60, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 61 to 63 and 66.
Roseanna Cunningham
Section 10 specifies annual targets for the purpose of reporting. The target that is set out for 2017 is a 52.4 per cent reduction; for 2018, it is a 54 per cent reduction; and, for 2019, it is a 55 per cent reduction. Those targets were included in the bill to allow the transition to the new target framework of percentage targets based on actual emissions to occur as soon as possible after the bill has been passed, and they include years that have already passed, due to the two-year lag in the availability of emissions statistics, upon which target outcomes are assessed. As such, they were only ever for the purposes of reporting. As members are aware, emissions statistics covering 2017 were published last week, and reporting on the annual target for that year occurred under the 2009 act arrangements. I made a statement to the Parliament on those matters last Wednesday.
12:00Due to the extension of the bill’s timetable since its introduction, it is now necessary to remove the updated percentage target for 2017 from the bill. If that does not occur, a situation will arise whereby Parliament is asked to vote at stage 3 on the level of a target for which the outcome is already known. That would clearly be nonsensical. Amendments 60 and 61 remove the annual target for the purpose of reporting for 2017. The related amendments 62, 63 and 66 ensure consistency with that change in other areas of the bill. There is no change to the targets for the purposes of reporting for 2018 and 2019. I expect the more transparent reporting regime to be in place in time for reporting on the 2018 target next June.
I move amendment 60.
Amendment 60 agreed to.
Amendment 61 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
After section 11
The Convener
Amendment 110, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is grouped with amendments 112, 120, 121 and 123 to 125.
Mark Ruskell
This is a critical area in relation to how we are going to meet climate targets in the future, how we analyse our budgeting and how we ensure that Government moves forward together and meets targets. We took a fair amount of evidence on the subject at stage 1, and, over the past couple of years, we have heard evidence on how important the budget is in relation to meeting our climate targets and how important it is that we do not lock in emissions for generations to come, particularly through inappropriate infrastructure spending.
I applaud the Government for agreeing in the most recent budget deal to increase the percentage of infrastructure investment that is directed to low-carbon infrastructure in the annual budgets for the current session of Parliament. That is a welcome move forward. Amendment 110, on a low-carbon infrastructure target, is an attempt to strengthen that commitment by placing it in legislation to ensure that future Governments follow that approach in making long-term changes to the direction of Scotland’s infrastructure investment. Taken together with Claudia Beamish’s amendment 124, amendment 110 would help to make low-carbon projects the priority for Government.
In 2015, Scotland’s low-carbon infrastructure task force suggested that about 70 per cent of the Scottish infrastructure budget should be directed to low-carbon projects. That suggestion was based on international research findings. Amendment 110 requires ministers to set a target for low-carbon infrastructure investment. It does not specify exactly what that target should be, but there is now a consensus, perhaps even in Government, that we need to move forward on the matter and work towards a target. Amendment 110 also asks ministers to devise a methodology for doing that. The current high-to-low carbon methodology, which the committee has discussed previously, is considered a bit too simplistic. My amendment would require Government to develop and adopt a more robust method.
Amendment 112 is on reporting on emissions in Scottish public bodies’ budgets. If we are to meet the targets in the bill, one of the main challenges that we are going to face lies in holding the public sector to account. The amendment seeks to ensure that non-departmental public bodies, executive agencies and the like move forward in investing in low-carbon infrastructure and, indeed, ensure that their revenue spending is in line with the bill’s objectives. Those organisations clearly have a pivotal role to play. Their budgets require ministerial approval, and we need to know how budget decisions at a Scottish Government level affect our carbon emissions as per my amendment 120 and Claudia Beamish’s amendment 123. We also need to apply the same logic to the organisations that are identified in amendment 112, which would help to support those Government objectives.
If we want a proper response to the climate emergency, no part of the public sector can be exempt. We heard interesting evidence in committee from public bodies, particularly the national health service, about how they are starting to move carbon accounting and thinking much more centre stage. There is, of course, also the opportunity to reduce cost, and the savings could be reinvested in front-line public services. Therefore, we would improve the quality of public services by cutting some of the waste. When I was a councillor at Stirling Council, I pushed very hard for investment in low-energy lighting infrastructure. That saved the council hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, and that money could be reinvested in front-line public services.
Amendment 120, on predicted net emissions in the Scottish budget, would add national requirements to the information presented in the carbon assessment that accompanies the annual budget. Under section 94 of the 2009 act, the Government is required to report annually on the indirect emissions from Government spending. At the time, those were considered to be “second-round” emissions such as the emissions that would arise from an increase in cars across a bridge or the savings from investment in insulation in housing stock. However, in practice, that meaning has been lost. My amendment would require that spending lines in the budget down to level 2 report on forecast emissions that would arise in future financial years from spending in the financial year under consideration. We need to get to grips with that issue—it is important that we do not lock in emissions for generations to come.
Amendment 121 attempts to give us a better understanding of the carbon emissions associated with the budget and the split of emissions between capital and revenue spending. The carbon assessment that accompanies the budget document does not break down whether emissions arise from capital or revenue spending. Amendment 121 would require that, for each portfolio, the level of emissions from capital and revenue spending be reported. Amendment 121 also ties in with amendment 110, on low-carbon infrastructure. If we see that the bulk of the emissions arise from capital spending, we will know that changes need to be made to our infrastructure investment, which could facilitate the huge behavioural changes that we need if we are to meet the bill’s objectives.
I move amendment 110.
Claudia Beamish
Amendment 123 is designed to allow Parliament to conduct better scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s budget proposals and to require the Government to take more direct account of the carbon impact when preparing those budgets. The existing section 94 of the 2009 act is a looser requirement than the one that amendment 123 would place on the Scottish ministers, although the detailed tables that the Government publishes as part of the carbon assessment go beyond the requirements in that section.
Amendment 123 would make three changes. It would put on a statutory footing the requirement to set out the carbon impact of budget proposals down to level 2 detail; it would require ministers to show how each budget line had changed since the previous year—that information is not currently provided by the Government’s carbon assessment; and it would require ministers to set out how those changes would help Scotland to meet or exceed the targets set elsewhere in the legislation. If we want to be a world leader in practice as well as in aspiration, we need to go beyond having the targets and have the mechanisms by which we can meet them and be seen to meet them. The use of financial resources in any one year will be hugely important in our emissions reduction progress. Amendment 123 would increase scrutiny of that process by any future Government and, in my view, would truly bring climate change out of the silo and into all portfolios.
Amendment 124 is designed to improve the scrutiny of infrastructure investment plans in relation to our climate change targets. It places a duty on ministers to lay before Parliament a document
“setting out the direct and indirect impact on ... emissions”
from those infrastructure investments and how those investments are consistent with our climate change targets. I stress that that includes their indirect impact on emissions. Amendment 124 also adds the option for ministers, by regulation, to appoint a person who can carry out that assessment on their behalf, as some independence may be beneficial and sophisticated methodologies may be required. That is just a possible option.
Scotland’s low-carbon infrastructure task force, which was convened by WWF in 2015, found that to be compatible with the global low-carbon investment scenario, which is aligned with the goal of keeping global warming below 2°C and would require a minimum of 72 per cent of public infrastructure investment to be directed into low-carbon projects. I stress that we are now looking to keep global warming below 1.5°C. In relation to the Scottish Government’s direct infrastructure investments in its 2018-19 budget, the task force found that, although the proportion of spending on low-carbon infrastructure was increasing year on year—which is what the Government had committed to—low-carbon investment still accounted for only 29 per cent of the Scottish Government’s total capital spend. Current levels of investment in low-carbon infrastructure fall short of meeting current climate change requirements, let alone the more exacting emissions reduction targets that will be set in the bill.
I raised those themes at stage 2 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill, and I was pleased to hear the minister for planning suggest the climate change bill as an alternative place for innovative ideas such as this one. Amendment 124 would mean that infrastructure projects would be properly scrutinised against our emissions reduction targets, focusing minds on infrastructure that would serve us well into a net-zero future. Scrutiny of the alignment of the Scottish Government’s infrastructure plans with climate change targets needs to be improved, and I urge members to support amendment 124.
Amendment 125 continues that level of scrutiny in relation to the introduction of bills and the laying of Scottish statutory instruments. It would require
“an estimate of the ... emissions resulting from”
any bill in the first five years after royal assent or any SSI in the first five years after it came into force and each bill or SSI’s
“contribution to meeting or exceeding the emission reduction targets”.
I support Mark Ruskell’s amendments 110 and 112. I particularly want to focus on them because, in the previous parliamentary session, I represented the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on the then public sector climate leaders forum. Public bodies make fundamental contributions in this area, and, although public sector duties are, as we know, already mandatory, the provisions in amendments 110 and 112 would clearly set out and give guidance on how the proposed use of resources would help or hinder the situation.
On amendment 121, I note that revenue is important, as well as capital spend.
Stewart Stevenson
I will not engage with the policy issues; rather, I will focus on how the amendments are constructed.
In Mark Ruskell’s amendment 110, the phrase “low-carbon projects” is used in proposed section 8A(1)(a). I guess that I know what that means, but I am not sure that the legal system does. In other words, we would need a definition of “low-carbon projects”. It may well be that there is a definition somewhere that I have not seen, but the amendment would not take us anywhere if the phrase is not defined.
I do not know what “international carbon reporting practice” means in proposed subsection (3)(1B) in amendment 120. It might be a sideways reference to the international inventories, which are clear, unambiguous and defined, but I am not sure that “international carbon reporting practice” is defined. In accounting, there are the international financial reporting standards, but I do not think that there is anything with the same degree of objectivity and certainty for this area, so I have a wee issue with that.
12:15I have bigger issues with amendments 121 and 123, which make reference to the
“indirect impact on greenhouse gas emissions”.
I simply do not know what that is supposed to mean. It seems to me that that is likely to carry with it a substantial risk of double counting, because it can only be saying that we should include in portfolio area A effects that arise as a result of action in portfolio area A that occur in portfolio area B, where they should properly be reported. Thus, they would be reported in portfolio areas A and B, unless I misunderstand what is implied by “indirect impact”.
I can see the analogy with second and third-level effects in economic terms. For example, when the fishing fleet in the north-east of Scotland shrank, a third-level effect was that half of the butchers’ shops closed.
On amendment 125, it is worth considering how many statutory instruments we progress. When I was a minister, I was responsible for 132 statutory instruments, some of which were very substantial while others were of breathtaking triviality. There is a great corpus of statutory instruments that have no effect whatsoever, and I think that the way in which amendment 125 is constructed means that the duty that it would impose would be unduly onerous. The amendment refers to statutory instruments, but I wonder whether the 11 other types of instruments should be included, such as acts of sederunt, which could have an impact in this context. Again, I am not sure about the definition.
John Scott
I will be brief. I support amendments 112 and 124 in principle. They advocate the principle that public bodies should assess how their use of resources contributes to meeting the emissions reduction targets. The amendments would not necessarily bind public bodies, but they would focus their attention on the use of resources, with a view to reducing emissions. There might be a more elegant way of delivering the same end. From what has been said, I am not entirely sure whether the language and the drafting are as they might be, but I think that the principle is worth supporting.
Roseanna Cunningham
I am sympathetic to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 110 and Claudia Beamish’s amendment 124, given the importance of infrastructure decisions in relation to tackling climate change, but there are limitations to the current methodologies for assessing the impact of infrastructure spend and decisions on emissions.
My concern about amendment 110 as it is currently drafted is that annual percentage of spend does not provide an accurate reflection of investment profile, does not capture the full range of low-carbon infrastructure investment and does not reflect the private sector investment that will be required.
The current methodology is a very blunt tool that categorises broad areas of spend as low, neutral or high from the point of view of carbon impact. Any investment in roads is categorised as “high” regardless of any detail, such as how well the road supports ultra-low-emission vehicles or how a new road could reduce journey length and thus emissions. Similarly, all investment in schools and hospitals is categorised as “neutral”. Therefore, if we built an energy-efficient and low-carbon school or hospital that was carefully designed to use only renewable energy and to encourage and enable low-carbon behaviours, although that investment would be important for a net zero country, it would not be recognised as low-carbon infrastructure spend. I would be very concerned if the current approach was put into primary legislation, as that would prevent us from developing a more sophisticated and more helpful methodology of the kind that is needed to address those shortcomings.
For the same reason, amendment 124 concerns me. Work is needed to develop a suitable methodology for assessing the impact of infrastructure spend and decisions on climate change, and it is important for the long-term outcomes that we are all trying to achieve that that can be done properly.
To be clear, I whole-heartedly agree that the links between infrastructure decisions and greenhouse gas emissions need to be carefully analysed and understood. I invite Mark Ruskell not to press amendment 110 and Claudia Beamish not to move amendment 124 at this time, and to work with the Government to bring an amendment at stage 3 that will more effectively deliver the sought outcomes.
On amendment 112, again, I am very sympathetic. Public bodies have a vital role to play in responding to the global climate emergency and I am content in principle with the proposal that ministers should be satisfied that public bodies are contributing to reduced emissions prior to their agreeing resources. I would like to take the opportunity to work with Mark Ruskell to refine the wording and to bring back an amendment at stage 3. My intention here is only to ensure that the final agreed wording is proportionate to the differing remits, needs and scales of our public bodies and, crucially, drives the delivery of the positive actions and outcomes that we expect from all our public bodies.
Amendments 120, 121 and 123 all seek to improve upon the requirements of section 94 of the current 2009 act. Again, I am sympathetic to the desire to improve that section. The carbon assessment of the budget is produced every year but, to the best of my understanding, is not used by the Parliament in its scrutiny process. The reason for that relates to amendments that were made to the bill in 2008 that were without a sufficient understanding of what information exists in relation to both budgets and emission projections—I guess that that is a cautionary tale. It is quite simply not possible to produce a carbon assessment of the budget that would achieve all the aims that are sought here, and the proposed amendments would not change that fact. Endeavouring to produce the documents that the amendments would require would pose a wholly disproportionate administrative burden on the Scottish Government, and it is extremely unlikely that the resulting documents would be of value. Therefore, I strongly urge Mark Ruskell and Claudia Beamish not to press the amendments.
Should that be agreeable to the committee, the Scottish Government would be willing to commit to working with the Parliament and stakeholders to review the current processes and outputs around budget information as it relates to climate change. Such a review would aim to identify feasible steps to deliver meaningful improvements in cross-portfolio processes and transparency. The review would also need to cover the role of the climate change plan monitoring reports. Should the committee wish to pursue that course, I would also ask that Mark Ruskell not press amendment 147 when it arises in a later group. To be clear, I am offering a review of the current processes and outputs, which has also been discussed with the finance minister.
Amendment 125, in the name of Claudia Beamish, would require ministers to assess the impact of any legislation on greenhouse gas emissions. In the context of a global climate emergency, that is exactly what we should be doing. However, a legislative requirement already exists. The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires that any policy or proposal that is likely to have a significant environmental impact should be subject to a strategic environmental assessment, and that those assessments, where relevant, include elements that are likely to impact on climate change.
It is right that only those policies that are likely to have a climate impact are subject to assessment. The aspect of amendment 125 that most concerns me is that every piece of legislation, including those that could not feasibly have any emissions impact, would require the additional piece of bureaucracy. I suspect that that was not Claudia Beamish’s intention.
Instead of creating additional bureaucracy and overlapping legislative requirements, the Scottish Government offers to review the way in which environmental assessments address climate issues, in particular communication of the impacts, building on guidance that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency produced in 2010, which looked closely at climatic factors in strategic environmental assessments. Improving our existing processes and making existing statutory requirements work better would be a preferable way of ensuring that proper consideration is given to climate change across all of Government. I would be happy to work with Claudia Beamish on that.
The Convener
I invite Mark Ruskell to wind up and to press or withdraw his amendment.
Mark Ruskell
That was a very positive exchange all round. Everybody on the committee and the cabinet secretary agree that we should align the objectives of the bill with our financial plans and spending. That is a really big step forward for this Parliament.
The questions are around the detail and the methodologies. In my opening comments, I acknowledged the issues around the current methodology of assessing carbon impact as high, neutral or low, which is why my amendment keeps it open to develop that methodology. Stewart Stevenson welcomed the minutiae of the analysis, and, as the member who put forward the 2009 bill, he will be aware that it has not really had its intended effect. The carbon assessment is much more focused on the upstream effect—the carbon impact of the supply chain through spending—rather than the downstream or second-round effect of usage, infrastructure and spending, as that comes through. We have to find a way to get better at forecasting the impact of our budget decisions. We do it all the time with environmental impact assessments of infrastructure projects, so we should be applying that approach to our budget much more.
On that basis, I am happy to continue the discussion over the summer to see where we get to. I appreciate Derek Mackay’s engagement too. I still believe that this bill needs to fix what did not work in the 2009 act. I am interested in discussing approaches outside legislation that might be committed to, and I will take up the cabinet secretary’s offer to enter into discussions—with Ms Beamish, I hope, too, if she is around over the summer.
The Convener
Gosh.
Amendment 110, by agreement, withdrawn.
The Convener
Amendment 111, in the name of Alexander Burnett, is in a group of its own.
Alexander Burnett (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
I ask members to note my entry in the register of members’ interests regarding housing.
I have liaised with many organisations and constituents on the bill, and I am pleased to be here to speak to amendment 111, which seeks to improve housing emissions across Scotland.
Members will be aware that I have been working for many months to improve homes across Scotland to at least an energy performance certificate C by 2030. Stop Climate Chaos Scotland has long supported a 2030 target for improving the energy efficiency of all existing homes.
By increasing the scale and pace of Scotland’s domestic energy efficiency programmes, the target would see climate emissions from homes cut more quickly and would give proper effect to the 2015 designation of energy efficiency as a national infrastructure project. The Scottish Government’s “Energy Efficient Scotland” route map sets an all-homes target of 2040, but we believe that there could be a more efficient timeline for our aim to reduce carbon emissions.
We have already managed to successfully introduce interim targets, before 2040, into the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill. The Scottish Government is currently consulting on an earlier target date, as the Parliament voted in favour of my amendment proposing a 2030 target date.
Emerging evidence from the Existing Homes Alliance suggests that an accelerated programme can be delivered in response to the climate emergency if firms in the supply chain are given a clear direction and support to expand their skills base.
Although the wording of my amendment does not immediately reflect the EPC C objective, I understand that an amendment of that nature would be technically out of the scope of the bill. Members should note that WWF Scotland, Unison Scotland, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland and the Existing Homes Alliance were among the organisations that, in their evidence at stage 1, called for an objective of supporting all homes to reach at least an EPC C.
I encourage MSPs to vote for my amendment and to require the Scottish Government to return at stage 3 with more appropriate wording to give a legislative basis to the energy efficient Scotland programme.
I move amendment 111.
Stewart Stevenson
I am in favour of sectoral plans, but I am strongly opposed to sectoral targets, because to make the fastest progress towards our overall targets, we must choose actions that give us the quickest and most effective returns on our efforts.
If we set sectoral targets that prioritise one sector over another and if we legislate to say that action must be taken on housing, the risk is that the opportunity that is before us at a particular time to deliver a much bigger benefit for the same expenditure and effort is in another sector, such as transport. That is why targets by sector make things worse, not better. However, plans are needed.
12:30I absolutely support what amendment 111 is trying to achieve, because there is significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from housing and buildings more generally. However, the EPC banding system is poor, particularly for many rural dwellings, where putting in some things on the tick list that requires to be completed to achieve band C is impossible. The house in which I live has walls that are a couple of feet thick, which provide the most ferociously effective insulation from the outside weather and prevent the loss of heat from the house but do not meet the tick list for band C, so we will never achieve that band. We need something that measures the actual efficiency of houses rather than relying on a tick-box list, but that is a broader issue that we are not solving in the bill.
My key point is yes to strong resourced plans but no to targets by sector.
The Convener
I call Claudia Beamish.
Claudia Beamish
Thank you—I did not realise that I would get a chance to speak again.
The Convener
We are on amendment 111.
Claudia Beamish
I was hoping to respond to points about my previous amendments; I do not know whether I will have that opportunity.
The Convener
Those amendments are not being discussed at the moment. Do you want to speak to amendment 111?
Claudia Beamish
No, thank you.
Roseanna Cunningham
I assure Alexander Burnett that the Scottish Government is taking forward plans to set ambitious and realistic targets to improve the energy efficiency of all Scottish buildings and to tackle fuel poverty. Through the “Energy Efficient Scotland” route map, we have set out a clear framework of standards. By 2040, the energy efficient Scotland programme will have transformed our buildings so that they are warmer, greener and more efficient.
However, I cannot support amendment 111, from Alexander Burnett, and I urge the committee to reject it. As part of its response to the committee’s stage 1 report, the Scottish Government set out in detail the reasons why setting sector-specific emissions targets is not desirable. I will summarise those reasons.
The existing statutory framework of economy-wide emissions reduction targets provides the necessary flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, particularly as new technologies develop. As we cannot predict accurately the costs, advances or timescales for all the technologies that might be involved, sectoral targets could result in the cost of reaching climate change targets being greater than it might be if there were more flexibility about each sector’s contribution.
It is therefore important to keep the balance of sectoral effort under regular review. The packages of policies and proposals across all sectors, including housing, that will be set out at least every five years through statutory climate change plans will provide the right place to do that. As the committee noted in its report, the bill adds a sector-by-sector approach to annual monitoring of the delivery of climate change plans. I have committed to updating the current climate change plan within six months of the bill receiving royal assent, and we are looking across our range of responsibilities to ensure that we continue with the policies that are working and that we increase action where that is necessary.
Setting sector-specific emissions targets would necessarily pose challenges in how effort and emissions reductions were classified between sectors. Many measures cut across sectors—for example, energy-efficiency measures contribute to reducing emissions from the energy supply and from residential and public sector buildings. There are multiple interconnections between sectors, and we are concerned that sectoral targets could make those substantially more difficult to factor in, to the potential detriment of overall success. What is most important is that all of Scotland pulls together to tackle this crucial global issue.
I also note that the present amendment 111 proposes an emissions target only for the housing sector, which amounts to singling out one sector for additional duties. It is not clear why that should be done. Buildings represent a significant source of emissions in Scotland but not the largest source. I also note that the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill has passed stage 3, setting a target date of 2040 to eradicate fuel poverty. Amendment 111 carries the risk of leading to potentially contradictory statutory targets across the two pieces of legislation. For all those reasons, I urge the committee to reject amendment 111.
Alexander Burnett
I thank the Labour Party and the Green Party for their previous support for similar amendments around the EPCs and similar amendments in the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the support of the cabinet secretary and Stewart Stevenson for planning in general and their recognition of the importance of the sector. Although it is not part of this amendment, I also acknowledge Stewart Stevenson’s criticism of the EPC. However, I hope that everybody will see that amendment 111 is a minimum for improvements and not a cap.
I press amendment 111.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 111 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 111 disagreed to.
Section 12—Publication of targets
Amendments 32, 33, 62 and 34 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
12:37 Meeting suspended.12:53 On resuming—
After section 12
Amendment 112 not moved.
Section 13—Net Scottish emissions account: restriction on use of carbon units
Amendment 63 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Section 14—Permitted use of carbon units purchased by the Scottish Ministers
The Convener
Amendment 64, in the name of Angus MacDonald, is grouped with amendment 65.
Angus MacDonald
I lodged amendments 64 and 65 in order to meet the recommendations in our committee’s stage 1 report that any future regulations seeking Parliament’s agreement to use of carbon credits as a way of meeting climate change targets should be subject to an enhanced affirmative procedure. At this point, I thank the Government for its assistance in preparing the amendments.
Section 14 will introduce a new section 13A to the 2009 act, setting a limit of zero for use of carbon units but allowing regulations to raise that limit. As committee colleagues are aware, the cabinet secretary has stated that the Government’s policy is not to use carbon credits.
Section 97 of the 2009 act sets out an enhanced pre-laying procedure for certain regulation-making powers under that act—for example, in relation to a deposit return scheme. Amendment 65 ensures that the regulation-making power in proposed new section 13A of the 2009 act, which relates to carbon credits, will come under the same enhanced procedure.
That means that the following requirements will apply. An initial draft set of regulations must be laid in Parliament and consulted upon over a representation period of at least 90 days, including at least 30 sitting days. Ministers will have to have regard to any representations that are made to them during the representation period, including any parliamentary resolution or report and, when the draft regulations are subsequently laid in Parliament, ministers must lay a statement setting out details of any representations, resolutions or reports and any changes that have been made in response.
My amendments 64 and 65 retain from the provisions that are set out in the bill an additional safeguard to ensure that it will be made clear whether the proposals in any such regulations are consistent with up-to-date advice from the Committee on Climate Change.
Amendment 64 is consequential to amendment 65 and will remove subsection (5) from proposed new section 13A of the 2009 act, as inserted by section 14 of the bill. That provision would have required ministers to publish a statement alongside the regulations. Such a provision will now be made under the amended section 97 of the 2009 act.
The amendments will ensure a very strong level of scrutiny, as was called for by the committee, should any future Government seek to raise the permitted level for use of carbon credits from the default position of zero.
I move amendment 64.
Roseanna Cunningham
As the committee is aware, the Government’s policy is that Scotland’s emissions reduction targets should be met through domestic effort alone, without use of carbon credits. We have been absolutely clear on that. The bill establishes a statutory default limit of zero on use of credits for all future target years. Nonetheless, the advice from the Committee on Climate Change has been that we should retain a limited ability to use credits in the future, should circumstances change, so we have allowed for that possibility in the bill, subject to the CCC so advising and Parliament agreeing to regulations under affirmative procedure. That means that Parliament’s explicit approval will be needed for any proposed increase in the limit from zero.
The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee has asked for even higher scrutiny for any such regulations. As I said in my letter last week, I am content to support Angus MacDonald’s amendments 64 and 65. They require any such regulations to be subject to an enhanced pre-laying procedure, which is already defined in the 2009 act. I hope that that provides the committee with full assurance that any change in Scotland’s approach to meeting its climate targets under a future Government will be carefully scrutinised.
Amendment 64 agreed to.
Amendment 65 moved—[Angus MacDonald]—and agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
After section 15
The Convener
Amendment 113, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 113A, 114, 115, 141, 75, 143 to 146, 150, 151, 83, 86 and 154. I remind members that, in the light of the Presiding Officer’s determination on the costs associated with amendments 113 and 114, the amendments can be moved and debated, but the questions on them cannot be put.
Claudia Beamish has had to step out, so Mark Ruskell has agreed to step into her shoes, briefly.
Mark Ruskell
Amendments in the group, including amendments in my name, concern the establishment of a just transition commission, so I will get started on that.
Amendments 113 and 114 would establish in statute a just transition commission, and would put in place a range of planning, reporting and consulting processes. They are aimed at integrating the just transition with the bill’s existing processes.
13:00The commission would, in addition, have the power to
“publish ... reports, as it considers appropriate”,
in relation to its functions and the just transition principles, and it would also publish an annual report.
As committee members know, we believe strongly that a just transition is an imperative in every response to climate change, and should be at the core of all actions. The bill was introduced as a direct response to the Paris agreement; of course, the Paris agreement requires parties to increase action to reduce emissions while
“Taking into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs”.
The vital importance of the just transition approach to realising the transformation to a low-carbon economy and net zero emissions has been recognised in the establishment of the current just transition commission. I welcome its work and I congratulate the Scottish Government on setting it up. However, its two-year term is not sufficient to enable it to contribute adequately to assisting ministers to deliver on the targets in the bill, or to respond properly to the climate emergency. We all know that there is a need for urgent action in the coming decade, and then for further action continuing onwards to 2045.
I want the bill to enshrine just transition processes in a meaningful and long-term way. Doing so will also help with regard to generating and maintaining public support for the action that will be required in order to meet the targets. Workers across a range of sectors who are worried about their jobs, communities that will be affected, and the young people who are striking for their future all want to know that we recognise their fears and concerns, and that we will ensure that the transition is fair for all. A statutory long-term commission for the duration of the target periods in the bill would be a practical and, in our view, absolutely necessary demonstration of commitment to the just transition.
Advice from an independent body on implementing the transition is something that we have all welcomed. Trade unions—through the Scottish Trades Union Congress—and environment groups, working together through the JTC partnership have argued for a statutory just transition commission, which is what amendments in the group seek to establish. Stop Climate Chaos supports the proposal, and I know that many people across the country are watching today to see whether the committee supports the amendments.
If we are to create fair and high-value work, and deliver socially and environmentally sustainable jobs while meeting our targets, planning will be key, and expert advice on how to do that, delivered in an on-going robust and helpful way, will be fundamental, regardless of who is in Government.
The Scottish Government suggests that putting the transition reporting in the climate plan will be sufficient for the longer-term action, but we disagree, and see a clear need to build on the work of the existing commission. However, the amendments would not affect the work of Professor Jim Skea and his colleagues. It will be feasible to transition from the existing commission, when it reports at the end of the two years, to the new statutory commission. We have the example of the poverty and inequality commission in that regard, with the Public Services Reform (Poverty and Inequality Commission) (Scotland) Order 2018 that will come into effect on 1 July this year. The Scottish Land Commission—the appointment of whose members this committee approved, so you will be aware of what I am saying—also sets a confidence-building precedent.
The JTC would have to have regard to the principles that are listed in amendments on climate justice and the just transition, with regard to creating quality jobs, protecting the rights of the workforce in affected communities, enhancing social justice while sharing the costs and rewards fairly, and engaging workers, their unions and employers with the plans that are needed for a just transition. I commend those principles to the committee. The functions seek to ensure that the commission would be enabled to deliver on those principles by providing crucial advice to ministers, by having important reporting duties and powers to ensure the best possible advice for a just transition in which the costs and rewards are shared fairly, and by reporting on measures that are put in place to ensure that the livelihoods of workers and communities are protected and social equity is enhanced.
Would Claudia Beamish like to speak to the other amendments?
Claudia Beamish
Perhaps I can deal with the ones at the bottom of the page, with the convener’s agreement. I apologise for having to go, but I had a—
The Convener
You will have the opportunity to wind up, so perhaps you can pick up on those issues then.
I ask Mark Ruskell to move—
Claudia Beamish
I am sorry, convener—there is more to say.
The Convener
Oh, is there? Okay.
Claudia Beamish
That is what I was saying. When Mark Ruskell gets to the bottom of this page of notes, with your agreement, I will continue to speak to the amendments.
The Convener
I see. At an appropriate point, Mark Ruskell can hand over to Claudia Beamish, and she can finish off.
Mark Ruskell
Okay; it is a double act today.
A just transition commission could assist the Scottish Government in overcoming barriers to change, and in engaging workers, trade unions, businesses, the public sector and wider civic society in active participation. It would also be important that the commission be able, with relevant organisations, to conduct research and to advocate for the adoption of measures to support the just transition.
We have included provisions on procurement, which would be extremely helpful in preventing the kind of betrayal that happened to the Burntisland Fabrications workforce. Those provisions would support our renewables industry and ensure that quality jobs were created in Scotland, thereby helping to ensure that individuals and communities would not be left behind. Fife is ready for renewal, and we must ensure that Scotland as a whole is ready, too. We must respond today to the demands of the workers, the communities and trade unions and environment groups who come together to demand a just transition for the benefit of everyone.
Claudia Beamish
I extend my thanks to Mark Ruskell. This is a double act, and perhaps rightly so. Amendments 113 and 114 happen to be in my name, but we are both—our parties and us as individuals—committed to the just transition.
Late last year, when the cabinet secretary announced the appointment of Professor Jim Skea as chair of the current commission, she said that it was important that
“no-one gets left behind as the employment landscape shifts.”
Putting the commission on a statutory footing is a major building block in our delivering on that commitment.
I will highlight the financial issues. Members will know that the Presiding Officer has ruled that amendments 113 and 114, which would establish the commission, would go beyond the costing of the bill and would, it is estimated, cost more than £700,000 in the longer term. The Scottish Government voted to “give consideration” to a statutory commission, so it is disappointing that the cost rules that out today, although I respect that that is where we are because there is not a financial resolution. I strongly request that the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary commit today to publishing a financial resolution to the bill ahead of stage 3, which there is, fortunately, ample time to do.
We know that the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of action on the issue of fairness, and the estimated cost would not be excessive for the kind of commission that is required. I would appreciate the cabinet secretary reviewing her approach on a long-term statutory commission in that context. The commission is very much needed to ensure that we deal with the climate emergency in a fair way. In my view, it would be money well spent.
Amendment 114 makes further provision for the commission. On membership, it would require that one member should
“be a nominee of the trade union movement”.
That is the case with the existing commission. It makes sense to continue the provision, given the important role that trade unions play in making the case for a just transition internationally, as they have done for many years, and given the importance of involving workers in plans for the just transition in Scotland specifically.
Amendment 114 also asks that one member
“be a representative with experience ... of ecological and environmental matters.”
Again, that is the case with the existing commission. The commission as a whole should, as one would expect, have
“experience in or knowledge of ... the formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies relating to the environment and climate change”
and
“to the economy, industrial transition and social inclusion.”
Amendment 113 would establish the commission, and amendment 114 would make further provision for it in schedule 3. The other amendments in the group speak to the invaluable advice and monitoring that the commission would be in a position to provide over the longer term.
Taken together, the amendments would ensure a robust process whereby ministers must consult the commission in relation to emissions target reports, climate plans and annual progress reports. They specify how accordance with the just transition principles should be integral to climate planning and annual progress reports, and how those reports should include the views of the commission.
Amendment 151 would ensure that the Scottish ministers consult the commission when they prepare a climate change annual report. Amendment 115 would require that
“Ministers must consult the Commission”
in preparing a report on emissions reduction targets.
Amendment 141 states:
“The plan must also set out ... with reference to the climate justice principles ... how the proposals and policies ... in the plan are expected to affect different sectors of the ... economy and”
—importantly—
“different regions, including any effect on employment”.
The plan should also set out
“the measures that will be put in place to support the transition of the workforce and related communities”
in affected sectors and regions, as well as
“the investment needed to implement the proposals and policies set out in the plan and the anticipated sources of the investment.”
Amendment 143 would ensure that ministers must consult the proposed commission before preparing a climate change plan. Its advice would be crucial to integrating the just transition into all that we do to meet the targets.
We would need ministers to take account of the proposed commission’s advice: amendment 144 would ensure that ministers do so and that the statement that lays the plan before the Scottish Parliament would set out details of the views of the commission and changes, if any, that have been made as a response and the reasons for such changes.
Amendment 150 would ensure that the annual progress reports that cover each substantive chapter of the most recent climate change plan must include the views of the commission. Those are all crucial parts of monitoring progress justly.
Amendment 154 would add the establishment of the just transition commission to the long title of the bill.
Let us all consider support—not today but leading to stage 3—for net zero emissions in Scotland being underpinned by the thrust of the amendments, which are supported by the just transition partnership including a range of unions and non-governmental organisations, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, the STUC and many more people across Scotland.
I move amendment 113.
Mark Ruskell
Amendment 113A is part of a set of amendments for which the framework has already been introduced. It establishes a citizens assembly, for which many hundreds of people outside Parliament today are calling, as members are aware. It is about the heart of democracy and ensuring that we will take people with us on the very difficult journey that we will have to make, with massive behavioural change and controversial decisions to be made about our society.
Excellent work has been done in Scotland to engage with the wider population. This committee engaged with recent citizens jury work, which has been very positive—I am sure that it will report in due course. A citizens assembly will be extremely important, by taking some of the harder choices that we will have to make out to ordinary people, so that they can consider the options and think about how to make the changes.
We do not want a response to climate crisis that will result in a gilets jaunes-type movement. We have to take people with us—workers, communities and citizens more widely. The concept of a citizens assembly is good; the First Minister has reflected on it with regard to our future constitutional decisions in Scotland and it is being used in many other global contexts. For the climate crisis, we need to understand the views of citizens and how they may react to some of the hard choices that will be required.
Amendments 145 and 146 are to ensure that the climate plan covers the just transition issue, so that it would be integral to the way in which we plan and report on our progress on tackling the climate emergency.
I move amendment 113A.
Roseanna Cunningham
I will begin by describing the Government’s amendments to place internationally recognised just transition principles in the bill. Scotland’s transition to net zero must be just and fair to everyone. To ensure that the concept of just transition will be at the heart of future climate change plans, I have lodged amendments 75, 83 and 86.
Amendment 83 sets out the just transition principles. Although there is not a universally accepted single definition of “just transition”, the principles that are contained in the amendment are an accurate reflection of International Labour Organization principles as they apply in the Scottish context. Such principles were, of course, agreed by the Parliament as the right ones for Scotland following January’s debate on just transition.
13:15Ministers may modify the principles by secondary legislation as provided for in amendment 83. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will have to explicitly agree any changes.
It is important that the just transition principles have a clear application in practice. Amendment 75 therefore requires ministers to have regard to the principles in preparing climate change plans. It also imposes a duty on ministers to set out how the just transition principles were taken into account in preparing the plan.
Finally, amendment 86 is a minor amendment to insert the definition of principles into the interpretation section of the 2009 act.
I now turn to Claudia Beamish’s suite of amendments to establish a statutory just transition commission. At the outset, I emphasise that there is already an active non-statutory commission, to which others have referred, undertaking this important work in Scotland. The commission will be providing practical advice by early 2021.
The Government has been carefully considering the establishment of a just transition commission on a statutory footing, and exploring ideas with stakeholders. However, it remains unclear what additional value would be gained by establishing a body on a statutory basis.
Although the committee will not be voting on amendments 113 and 114 today, I thought that it would be worth setting out my position on the set of proposals for a statutory commission. First, I am not persuaded that a commission would need body corporate status to be effective. I further note that such an approach has likely been a factor in the significant cost estimates that the Parliament has arrived at.
The Parliament’s estimates and our estimates are not exactly the same, but I need to make members understand that those are annual costs. The cost is not for a one-off set-up; it is the annual cost for running a statutorily-based just transition commission. The estimated annual cost is significantly greater than the current Scottish Government contribution to the CCC’s costs.
Secondly, I am not sure that I see the value of adding a specific duty for the commission to consult a citizens assembly. The current commission is already working across the country, engaging with those who are likely to affect and be affected by the transition. We have ensured that dialogue and engagement are crucial to the current commission’s remit. Amendment 113 would provide for an extremely broad role for the proposed commission, including functions that are already delivered by the CCC and others that are delivered by the Government or the Parliament.
I hope that Claudia Beamish will not move the other amendments in the group that are directly associated with the establishment of the proposed commission, given that it cannot be voted on today.
I see merit in amendment 141, in the name of Claudia Beamish, to require climate change plans to include assessments of how the policies and proposals to reduce emissions will affect matters relating to a just transition. There is a degree of overlap between it and amendment 75. I have some concerns about aspects of amendment 141 as drafted, but I appreciate the desire for more specific reporting requirements in this space. If Claudia Beamish would be content not to move amendment 141, I would be pleased to work with her over the summer to bring back some elements of it in a revised form for stage 3. However, I could not support the amendment if she moved it now.
Similarly, I see merit in amendments 145 and 146, in the name of Mark Ruskell, to require climate change plan monitoring reports to include an assessment of progress towards a just transition, as defined by a set of just transition principles. My only substantial difficulty with those amendments is that there are, of course, now multiple sets of principles being discussed around the various amendments. I therefore also invite Mark Ruskell not to move the amendments at this time, on the understanding that the Government will support amendments with the same intention at stage 3.
There is no doubt about the importance of ensuring that Scotland’s journey to net zero emissions is a just one. My amendments place these matters squarely in the bill and will ensure that they are embedded in policies developed through climate change plans. I am open to working with members to further refine these approaches in advance of stage 3.
Stewart Stevenson
It is worth saying that there are more words in the amendments than those said when we discussed the just transition commission at stage 1. I come from the viewpoint that, if we required something of this scale and complexity to establish the just transition commission, it should have a bill of its own with a proper consultation to come up with a result. However, that is for another day.
My calculation of the cost is between £3 million and £5 million per annum, because around 50 civil servants will be required to deliver the workload. I have run groups with fewer responsibilities, so I am using personal experience to come up with that. However, that is only a guess and it is nothing like the final word on it.
Turning to the detail of the amendments in front of us, I note that paragraph 2 of proposed schedule 3 in amendment 114 says:
“In performing its functions, the Commission is not subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Government.”
That seems to run against the Scottish Government being able to ask for advice, because that is a form of direction or control. I am not terribly clear how paragraph 2 works in relation to other parts of the proposed schedule.
Paragraph 4, under the “Resources” heading, states:
“The Scottish Ministers are to provide the Commission with such staff and other resources as it requires to carry out its functions.”
That seems to suggest that the commission itself would be in control of staff and resources, which represents a blank cheque. We might find that the commission required 100 civil servants, rather than 50, yet the legislation would require the Government to provide them.
In paragraph 3(2), under the “Membership” heading, I do not in any sense object to representation by
“a nominee of the trade union movement”,
but I am not entirely clear why there is not a nominee from, for example, farming, academia, young people or business. I have no objection whatsoever to the trade unions being represented on the commission, as they are in the present commission. Incidentally, the convener and I had lunch yesterday with a young member of the existing commission—I am sure that she is making an excellent contribution.
Claudia Beamish
I appreciate that amendment 113 will not be voted on today and paragraph 3(2), under “Membership”, could be developed if there was a will to take it forward. I particularly wanted to include
“a nominee of the trade union movement”
and
“a representative with experience and knowledge of ecological and environmental matters”,
because those are the groups that have pushed this forward and are at the heart of where we are going. Sometimes the trade unions, in particular, are left out, so I wanted to ensure that they were included.
Stewart Stevenson
I will briefly pick up on that. When I was the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, the first group that I went to speak to in 2007 was the Confederation of British Industry, which, with 80 people in the room, was very enthusiastic. Members should not imagine that other parts of Scotland are not deeply interested in this subject.
Claudia Beamish
I am talking about who I worked with.
Stewart Stevenson
We are not disagreeing on the subject or, at least, I am not seeking to disagree.
I am quite content about the list of people who would be disqualified from being on the commission, except for the significant omission of members of the House of Lords. Much as George Foulkes would be welcomed back to decision making in Scotland, he and other members of the House of Lords are lawmakers and their role as such would conflict with their being on the commission.
The way in which insolvency and company director or charity trustee disqualification is dealt with in amendment 114 is unfortunate, because it says
“is or has been insolvent”
and
“is or has been disqualified”.
Therefore, even if someone’s insolvency was discharged or their disqualification as a company director had been dealt with, they would still be barred.
More fundamentally, paragraph 6(2)(c) includes those who have
“been disqualified ... anywhere in the world”,
but I am extremely uncertain how it would be possible to know about that with any reliability. A similar issue exists with the appearance of the phrase “anywhere in the world” elsewhere in the amendment.
Amendment 114 states that members of the commission can resign to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, even though the Presiding Officer has no role in appointing members, which I found baffling. I am only dipping into my wide range of concerns about the way in which it is drafted. I am not seeking to engage the broad principle, because I strongly support a just transition commission. However, I am certain that what is in front of us is not the way to do it.
John Scott
Although I support the work of the just transition commission, I believe that it should not be on a statutory basis. I welcome the Scottish Government’s offer to look further at that at stage 3. I hope that the Government will look at putting it on a voluntary basis. I support most of what Stewart Stevenson said, although I am not sure what he said about his friend and mine George Foulkes.
Claudia Beamish
I will comment on what Stewart Stevenson has said, although not on the detail. Setting up the new commission is a complex matter. I think that this bill is the place to do it. If a financial resolution is published over the summer, with the agreement of the Scottish Government, the issues that have been raised can be refined.
I turn to amendment 113A, in the name of Mark Ruskell. I hope that none of the consequential amendments to amendment 113 will be pressed to a vote today, because, if we go forward with it, it would be helpful if the issues to do with how a just transition commission is crafted could be looked at together by all those who have shown a strong interest and support for it, such as Mark Ruskell.
I have one concern about extinction rebellion’s declaration and request, but extinction rebellion is not the only group that is asking for a citizens assembly on climate change. The concern is that one of the group’s aims is that politicians should be led by a citizens assembly but, in a parliamentary democracy, we should be inspired, informed, and encouraged but not led by the citizens. At the moment, some clarification is needed on that. I am not against the idea and I am keenly aware that, whether or not, under the auspices of the Scottish Government, the commission proceeds as a wider issue, there is to be public engagement by the Scottish Government over the summer. Therefore, it might be appropriate for the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary to consider more detachment from the Scottish Government in that process, such as happened with the citizens jury of 12 people, which was connected with our committee and which I found interesting and important. One of the most important aspects of it, which I have not highlighted in my remarks, is behaviour change across not only affected workers and communities but society.
I support the cabinet secretary’s principles for a just transition. If the amendments are moved, I will support them today but I am wary that they will become an alternative that is not good enough, and that, as we drive forward one of the most challenging issues of our day, if not the most challenging global and Scotland-wide issue, that this approach will replace the commission rather than run in parallel with it. I am wary of doing it but I will support the principles because I believe in them.
When it comes to the reporting requirements, I am pleased to have the offer from the cabinet secretary to discuss the issues in relation to amendment 141 over the summer.
I have written a note about the House of Lords. I started off with Stewart Stevenson’s comments. Despite my respect for George Foulkes, I had no intention that members of the House of Lords should be part of this.
13:30The Convener
I invite Mark Ruskell to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 113A.
Mark Ruskell
I do not have much more to say. I agree with what Claudia Beamish said about how a citizens assembly would work. I think that we in this Parliament have a clear role as decision makers, and there will be some extremely tough decisions for us and our successors to make in the decades to come. However, that process must be informed by the lived experiences of people out there. That is the critical lesson from the gilets jaunes movement in France, where the Government did not listen to what the people had to say about the impact on them.
It is hugely important that we reach beyond the individuals in this room and that we go beyond conventional forms of consulting people, such as through the use of email and so on. We need to go to affected communities, bring back information on people’s lived experiences and use it to inform the decisions that we take as elected politicians. I think that that is the right way round to do it, which differs from what the extinction rebellion movement is calling for. It is critical that we involve the citizenry in the decisions that we take.
I have one last point. Whatever the Government decides to do—it looks as though it is minded not to put the just transition commission on a statutory basis—we must learn the history of what has happened to similar commissions, particularly at Westminster, where the coalition Government abolished the Sustainable Development Commission. The Sustainable Development Commission could have been extremely useful in providing advice on the bill and looking at the biodiversity crisis. That Government decision resulted in the loss of a hugely important part of our advisory infrastructure, and I do not want the same thing to happen to the just transition commission. I suspect that that would not happen under the present Scottish Government, but I worry about a future Government coming in and just wiping away the commission.
Amendment 113A, by agreement, withdrawn.
The Convener
I remind members that I cannot put the question on amendment 113, for the reasons that I have already given.
I invite Claudia Beamish to move or not move amendment 114.
Claudia Beamish
Am I allowed to move it? I do not understand.
The Convener
Yes, you can move it, but we are not voting on it.
Claudia Beamish
In that case, I will move amendment 114.
The Convener
Are members—
Claudia Beamish
I am sorry—I will not move it, because of the comments that have been made by some members. I am very committed to the just transition commission being put on a statutory basis, but I do not want to move amendment 114 at this stage.
Amendment 114 not moved.
Section 16—Reports on emissions reduction targets
Amendment 66 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
The Convener
Amendment 67, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, is in a group on its own.
Stewart Stevenson
I lodged amendment 67 to remove the wording
“in so far as reasonably practicable”
from section 33(3)(a) of the 2009 act, as substituted by section 16 of the bill. The section in question relates to the methods that the Scottish ministers must use when they report targets, which must be in line with
“target-relevant international carbon reporting practice”.
In other words, it relates to the technical implementation of the inventory freeze calculation that was recommended by the Committee on Climate Change in December 2017.
One of the provisions in the bill as introduced was that such calculations should be done
“in a manner as would be, in so far as reasonably practicable, consistent with the most up-to-date advice provided by the relevant body”—
in other words, the Committee on Climate Change. In our stage 1 report, we noted the concern that the Government might not use the calculation method that was specified by the CCC.
The cabinet secretary stated in her response to our stage 1 report that the Government’s intention was always to follow the method recommended by the Committee on Climate Change and that the bill provision represented “a standard failsafe”. However, my amendment will put that beyond doubt by removing the wording
“in so far as reasonably practicable”,
which will have the effect that the Scottish ministers must follow the calculation method set out by independent expert advisers fully and exactly. That is consistent with my comments on group 2 on taking the Committee on Climate Change’s advice. That provides assurance that this important but relatively complex aspect of the bill target framework is entirely objective in its implementation.
I move amendment 67.
Roseanna Cunningham
I am happy to support amendment 67, which relates to the technical calculation methods that are used for the purpose of reporting target outcomes under the inventory freeze method advised by the CCC in its December 2017 report. I thought that it would be helpful if I briefly set out the Government’s position, although that might mean that I cover some of the ground already covered by Stewart Stevenson.
In its stage 1 report, the committee raised concerns about section 16 that suggested that the Government might choose to follow an alternative calculation methodology for applying the inventory freeze method from the one advised by the relevant body, the CCC. Our intention was always to use the calculation methodology that has been advised by the CCC for these matters.
The inclusion of the reference to doing so
“in so far as reasonably practicable”
in new section 33(3)(a) of the 2009 act was intended as a safeguard in the very unlikely event that the CCC recommended in future an alternative method that was technically impossible to deliver, for example due to data availability considerations. However, given the very low magnitude of that risk and the committee’s desire for assurance on these matters, I am content to support amendment 67. That will mean that the calculation methodology used will always be exactly as recommended by the CCC. Until such time as the CCC may update its advice on the method, it will be the one that was set out in the CCC’s December 2017 report, a worked example of which was provided to the committee in my response to the stage 1 report.
Nothing that I have said leads in any way to my agreeing with the pronunciation of “inventory” suggested by Stewart Stevenson.
The Convener
That is noted.
Amendment 67 agreed to.
Amendment 115 not moved.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Section 17—Reports on emissions reduction targets: further content
Amendments 68 to 71 moved—Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
The Convener
Thank you, everyone. That concludes the committee’s business for today. At our next meeting on 25 June, the committee will continue its consideration of amendments to the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2.
Meeting closed at 13:38.18 June 2019
Second meeting on amendments
Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting held on 25 June 2019:
Second meeting on amendments transcript
The Convener (Gillian Martin)
Welcome to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s 22nd meeting of 2019. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones or to put them in silent mode because they might affect the broadcasting system.
The first agenda item is consideration of amendments to the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, at stage 2. This is our second day of considering amendments. We will be joined by Maurice Golden and Liam McArthur, who will move their amendments.
I welcome Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, and her officials: Tom Russon is the bill manager, Karen Clyde is the deputy bill manager, Heather Wortley is from the parliamentary counsel’s office, and Norman Munro is from the Scottish Government’s legal directorate. Good morning to you all. I note that officials are not allowed to speak on the record in these proceedings.
Before we begin our consideration of the bill, I advise the committee that I intend to suspend the meeting for a comfort break at an appropriate point.
After section 17
The Convener
Amendment 116, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is grouped with amendments 117 to 119, 126 and 47.
Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
I thank the Government for its assistance with this set of amendments, the purpose of which is to reinstate section 36 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which deals with what happens when annual targets are not met.
Section 36(2) of the 2009 act requires ministers to set out
“proposals and policies to compensate ... for the excess emissions”
as soon as is reasonably practicable following an annual target being missed. The bill will repeal section 36 of the 2009 act without providing an adequate replacement; it proposes only that plans in relation to missed emissions targets be included as part of the climate change plans. Non-governmental organisations and a number of stakeholders have raised concerns that that could leave a seven-year time lag between the year in which a target was missed and publication of the next climate change plan.
The amendments in the group will ensure that ministers report to Parliament on what policies they will introduce to curb excess emissions soon after reporting on the annual target, and well before new climate plans are compiled.
I move amendment 116.
The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (Roseanna Cunningham)
I would like to take the opportunity to briefly recognise and celebrate the fact that yesterday marked the 10-year anniversary of Parliament unanimously passing the 2009 act. Over those 10 years, much progress has been made: emissions have been almost halved over the long term, some annual targets have been met, some have been missed and three climate change plans have been produced.
The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill builds on the 2009 act’s already very strong and world-leading framework, and the decisions that the committee makes today will be important in that respect. As part of that process, I am happy to support all Mark Ruskell’s amendments in group 1.
The bill contains a range of proposals that are intended to improve the provisions in the 2009 act that relate to the target framework and reporting on targets. One of those involves replacing section 36 of the 2009 act with an alternative catch-up duty, such that Governments must set out how they will compensate for the excess emissions following any missed targets, as part of the next climate change plan.
I am aware that various organisations are unhappy with the proposals. Having listened carefully to their concerns, I am happy to support reinstatement of section 36 of the 2009 act via amendment 47. That will ensure that ministers will continue to be required to set out their additional policies and proposals
“As soon as reasonably practicable”
after any missed target is reported, rather than to a fixed timeframe. The remaining amendments in the group are sensible measures to ensure consistency across provisions, so I also support them.
Amendment 116 agreed to.
Section 18—Provision of further information to the Scottish Parliament
Amendments 117 to 119 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
After section 18
The Convener
Amendment 122, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is in a group on its own.
Mark Ruskell
Amendment 122 seeks to improve the reporting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions arising from Scottish consumption of goods and services. The 2009 act established a requirement to produce a carbon footprint report on emissions attributable to Scotland’s consumption, which is also a national performance framework indicator. Crucially, that includes emissions that are associated with importing of goods and services from overseas, which are not accounted for in greenhouse gas emissions reports.
The carbon footprint report tells us a slightly different story to the story in reports on our annual targets. Although Scotland’s domestic production emissions have been falling, emissions that are embedded in imported goods and services have been increasing. The United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change’s “Net Zero: The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming” report noted that trend and stated that
“actions that the UK can take to reduce its consumption emissions could be as effective in tackling climate change as actions to reduce territorial emissions.”
Our consumption emissions declined by only 8.5 per cent from 1998 to 2014. We are a rich country and our consumption emissions are far higher than those of the poorest countries, which stand to lose the most from climate change. We cannot focus solely on emissions that arise within our borders; we must consider the impact that our consumption is having on global greenhouse gas levels.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
I am very sympathetic to Mark Ruskell’s words. However, proposed new subparagraph (b)(c) of section 37(2) would insert the words
“state the actions taken by the Scottish Ministers to reduce”
emissions in this area. Does the member agree with me that, in relation to Scottish ministers’ ability to take such actions, it is rather unfortunate that we have no control over import duties or excise duties, which might be significant contributors to effective action on controlling the flow of carbon-intensive goods into Scotland?
Mark Ruskell
I agree that if Scotland had all the powers of a normal country or state, we would have more levers. However, we can take action on an intranational basis and on a supranational basis, within the UK and within the European Union, respectively.
In order to understand better what is driving Scotland’s consumption emissions and how to tackle them, more useful information needs to be presented in carbon footprint reports, and ministers should be obliged to act on that information. Amendment 122 would require that that report list the most significant categories of goods and services that are driving the trend in Scottish consumption emissions. By knowing the main sources, we could implement policies to curb those emissions.
The cabinet secretary has often referred to unintended consequences in relation to offshoring emissions; amendment 122 is a way for us to get a handle on those potential unintended impacts. It is done in Sweden—we all like Sweden, don’t we? Following pressure from NGOs, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency was instructed in 2017 to develop targets and indicators for consumption-based emissions. I advise members to look at the policy-relevant indicators for national consumption and environment—PRINCE—project that Sweden has established, which looks at 59 categories across 48 countries. Food and construction are the product groups that involve the highest level of emissions. There are many other such product groups, including textiles, chemicals and electronics. We import many such products into Scotland.
Amendment 122 would also require ministers to make a statement to Parliament alongside the carbon footprint report, which would pay greater attention to this area of our emissions and detail the actions that we can take to reduce consumption emissions.
I move amendment 122.
Roseanna Cunningham
I have considerable sympathy with the intentions of Mark Ruskell’s amendment 122, for reasons that he outlined. The Scottish Government recognises that the official statistics on Scotland’s carbon footprint provide a valuable measure that is complementary to the territorial statistics on which targets are based.
However, I do not think that amendment 122 is necessary, because the “Code of Practice for Statistics” ensures that Government analysts respond to any expression of user interest in there being additional specific content in a statistics bulletin. Nevertheless, I do not see any harm in placing the additional content requirements in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, if that provides assurance to Mark Ruskell and others.
I invite Mark Ruskell to not press amendment 122, however, because there is scope for it to be improved in advance of stage 3. In particular, adding a timing frequency requirement to the reporting duty might be welcome. I also have concerns, which I would like to discuss with Mark Ruskell, that a separate statement in relation to consumption statistics might be disproportionate. We must bear it in mind that international reporting practice is based on territorial rather than consumption-based emissions, and that there are substantial uncertainties around the data and methods that are involved in the latter.
If Mark Ruskell is prepared not to press amendment 122, I am happy to meet him to discuss those issues further, and to bring back a similar amendment for stage 3.
Mark Ruskell
I welcome the commitment from the cabinet secretary. We need to leave no stone unturned in our fight against climate change, and consumption emissions are an important part of that picture. I will welcome discussion on that and other topics over the summer to see whether we can bring back something more elegant for stage 3.
Amendment 122, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 120 not moved.
Amendment 121 not moved.
Amendment 123 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 123 disagreed to.
Amendments 124 and 125 not moved.
Section 19—Climate Change Plan
The Convener
Amendment 46, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is grouped with amendments 78, 82 and 48.
Mark Ruskell
This group of amendments deals with the timing of the climate change plans. My amendments 46 and 48 would set in legislation a requirement for ministers to publish an updated climate change plan within six months of the bill receiving royal assent. As has already been discussed, I welcome the Government’s previous assurances to committee members that it will do so. My amendment would simply place the requirement in law.
I move amendment 46.
09:45Roseanna Cunningham
First, I will speak to the two Government amendments in the group, both of which are in direct response to recommendations by the committee in its stage 1 report.
Amendment 78 will increase from 90 to 120 the minimum number of days that a draft version of the climate change plan must be laid before Parliament. Although the committee expressed an interest in there being an open-ended scrutiny period, it heard in evidence a clear desire from stakeholders that there be a time limit to ensure that, in the words of a panel member, the process for climate change plans
“does not drift on open-endedly.”—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 20 November 2018; c 28.]
The bill was already increasing the period from 60 to 90 days, because 90 days was the most popular length of time in the consultation. However, 120 days was also popular, so given the committee’s feedback, it represents a sensible compromise that will allow a significant and increased period for parliamentary scrutiny, and will ensure that the process of developing and finalising plans keeps moving.
Amendment 82 will bring forward the timing of the annual publication of climate change plan monitoring reports so that they must be laid before 31 May of each relevant year. The previous timing requirement was by 31 October. That will give Parliament, its committees and stakeholders more time to consider the monitoring reports as part of the new all-year-round budget process. I hope that that satisfies the committee’s recommendation.
The Convener
Thank you. I do not think that any other member wishes to speak to the group.
Roseanna Cunningham
I am sorry—I need to speak to Mark Ruskell’s amendments.
The Convener
Ah, yes.
Roseanna Cunningham
Thanks.
I turn to amendments 46 and 48 and the timing of the next climate change plan. I strongly urge the committee to reject the amendments because they are entirely impracticable. I listened to what Mark Ruskell had to say, and I am not sure that he is aware that his amendments, as drafted, call for a full climate change plan—not simply an updated climate change plan—and process to be completed within six months of royal assent. There might be an issue with that. Obviously, that proposition is significantly different from the committee’s recommendation that there be an update to the current plan within that same period, which the Government has accepted.
Extensive statutory requirements govern a full climate change plan process. A draft version of the plan would need to be laid and scrutinised by Parliament within Mark Ruskell’s proposed six-month window. If the amendments that I have lodged in response to the committee’s recommendations on the length of that period are accepted, the scrutiny period will occupy at least four months of that six-month period. That would leave the Government with less than two months to design the plan, which is clearly untenable.
Several statutory assessment and advisory duties relating to plans would also be undeliverable in that timescale. Draft plans are subject to strategic environmental assessment, which has statutory minimum timescales attached to it. Amendments in a later group that I lodged in response to other committee recommendations, which we will discuss, will require that the CCC’s views on draft plans be sought. It is unclear whether that would be possible within the window that is offered by Mark Ruskell’s amendments 46 and 48. It seems that that window would also leave no time for effective engagement with stakeholders during the plan preparation period.
There is a global climate emergency, and meaningful targeted action is needed in response. The current climate change plan was published less than 18 months ago, following its scrutiny by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and other committees. The committee called for an updated plan, and the First Minister and I have made clear commitments to delivering that. Delivering such an update within the timescale will be extraordinarily challenging for the Government, but we are committed to doing so.
I recognise that, in lodging amendments that go far beyond what the committee recommended, Mark Ruskell might, in their drafting, have gone far further than even he intended. To be absolutely clear, amendments 46 and 48 pose the real risk that a less effective set of policies and proposals will be brought forward over the next year, because of the sheer impracticality of the time that would be available to the Government. I urge the committee in the strongest possible terms to resist the amendments. If I am correct that Mark Ruskell did not intend what the amendments would do, I urge him not to press them.
Mark Ruskell
I shall reflect on those comments. I seek to withdraw amendment 46.
Amendment 46, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 126 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.
Amendments 127 and 128 not moved.
Amendment 72 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 129 not moved.
Amendment 73 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
Amendment 73A not moved.
Amendment 73 agreed to.
Amendments 35 and 74 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
The Convener
Amendment 138, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendments 139, 100, 130, 134, 140, 101, 136, 102, 133, 137, 131, 132, 135, 49, 49A, 49B, 148 and 149.
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
I am conscious of the time pressure, so I will speak to the purpose and case for my amendments and perhaps touch on other amendments in closing.
Section 19 details the way in which climate change plans will be set out. The purpose of climate change plans is to provide
“strategic summaries of policies across all sectors of the economy that relate to decarbonisation.”
However, as it stands, the bill fails to require the inclusion of any specific policies, even those that we know will be pivotal going forward. Ambitious targets are not, in themselves, enough. The targets that are contained in the bill mean little without ambitious policies to back them up. To date, we have not seen the sort of clear, radical initiatives that are needed to achieve those targets. My amendments seek to get us closer to that point.
Amendment 138 would require the climate change plan to include details of how it will encourage the use of low-carbon heat in new buildings. Although I appreciate that that must be combined with a commitment to reducing the energy demands of any given property, it can help to ensure that the plan addresses what Scottish Renewables described as
“the next frontier for emissions reduction.”
Chris Stark said:
“If there is a test of whether we are serious, it is on heating. We have an extraordinarily useful energy system delivering heat to every home in ... the UK at the moment and it works extremely well. Sadly, it is based on fossil fuels in the main. It is not going to be easy to change that, but it is necessary that we do so.”—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 14 May 2019; c 22.]
My amendment is not overly rigid, recognising that different solutions will be appropriate in different situations and will include a mix of existing and future technologies, but it makes clear the intent and the urgency.
Amendment 139 makes a similar provision for district heating in relation to new developments. I appreciate that, in part due to the extent of the reliance on gas in the existing network, the transition to low-carbon alternatives is not straightforward. However, that is an area in which other countries have been leading the way for some time now and Scotland needs to up its game.
If amendments 138 and 139 are agreed to, future climate change plans will include an assessment of the implementation of those policies. Amendment 148 would strengthen that further by requiring the annual progress reports to assess the extent to which low-carbon heating policies have contributed towards climate change targets.
Turning to amendments 134 and 149, if heat is the new frontier in our fight to cut emissions, transport remains the unfinished frontier. As the cabinet secretary’s recent statement in the chamber highlighted, progress in that sector has been poor. Emissions remain broadly in line with 1990 levels, and some aspects of Government policy appear to be at odds with turning that round. Solutions will need to be broad ranging, but electrification will be crucial.
Amendment 134 would require the climate change plan to set out proposals for public procurement of ultra-low-emission vehicles, which have been stuck in the slow lane. The public sector should take a lead—there are laudable examples of that, including some in my Orkney constituency, but the approach has been patchy and falls well short of where we need to be.
Amendment 149 would strengthen accountability by requiring the Government to report on levels of investment and providing an impetus for increasing investment over time. The UKCCC was clear about how quickly the shift to ULEVs needs to take place; it also noted the cost, air quality and competitive advantages of an earlier switchover. I welcome Maurice Golden’s similar amendments, but I suggest that my amendments are more robust.
I look forward to the debate and I move amendment 138.
Maurice Golden (West Scotland) (Con)
I will set out the scenarios and the position in which the amendments in the group sit. The view could be taken that no amendments should be made to the provisions on the climate change plan, because that would be too prescriptive and too onerous for this and future Scottish Governments, or the view could be taken that anything can be included, because that would bind this and future Scottish Governments to a variety of tactics.
Our view, which is a bit more nuanced, is in the middle of the two views that I have described. It is that members should be willing to consider amendments that would feed into and help with meeting existing commitments and targets. The specific wording can be looked at but, in general, amendments that would facilitate the achievement of existing commitments should be considered and are in scope.
I, too, am conscious of the time. Amendment 100 would require the Scottish ministers to include the public procurement of electric vehicles in the climate change plan. That would make a lot of sense, given the Scottish Government’s commitment on electric vehicles. Amendment 130 would promote the provision of electric vehicle charging stations for those who live in tenements, which looks to solve a weakness in our infrastructure.
Amendment 137 covers the agricultural sector’s requirement to receive support for measures that will help us to meet our targets. Amendment 131 recognises that we will have to develop technology and do research and development work to find ways of improving our overall academic backdrop and our ability to deliver more sustainable energy. The amendment suggests the establishment of a sustainable energy innovation centre.
My final amendment in the group is amendment 132, which would set out a requirement in the climate change plan for the Scottish ministers to increase funding for energy efficiency measures. Such a provision would help us to meet existing targets and is not a deviation from the current approach or too prescriptive for current or future Scottish ministers.
10:00Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)
I will try to keep my remarks brief—I want to speak to one or two other amendments in addition to my own. I will speak to my colleague David Stewart’s probing amendment 140, as he is unable to be here because he is at a funeral.
Amendment 140 seeks to put in the bill a target to tackle transport emissions by banning fossil fuel cars and vans from city centres by 2030. That sounds like a radical idea, but it is well established in individual cities around the world. It could be a significant intervention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, and it would go further than the Transport (Scotland) Bill’s LEZ section. As we know, transport emissions are on the increase, and road transport is the biggest source of emissions. Poor air quality hits the most vulnerable—the oldest, the youngest, and those with various co-morbid health conditions—the hardest. There is also the issue of socioeconomic bias; I will not go into more detail on that just now. I know that David Stewart would welcome comments from the cabinet secretary on how road transport emissions are being considered in the bill and in the plan.
I move on to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 136, which I will support today. As members may know, I have for some time had an interest in bettering our understanding, protection and enhancement of blue carbon. Our environment’s ability to sequester carbon is a key requirement in achieving net zero by 2045, and blue carbon should be receiving much more focus given its significant potential impact on our emissions targets if there is appropriate and sustainable management.
In 2011, a report that was commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage—I would not have highlighted it if Mark Ruskell had spoken before me, but I think that it is important—found that marine sediments alone equate to 52 per cent of Scotland’s 2011 carbon emissions. Unlike many other marine and terrestrial habitats, marine sediments can lock up carbon for many thousands of years. There were two info boxes that referred to blue carbon possibilities in the two most recent climate change plans—the first was supported in particular by the then Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Paul Wheelhouse. We have abundant sea grass and kelp beds around our coasts. The time for action is in the next plan and in successive plans, in the same way that peat research was developed and action then followed. That would send a clear signal of the importance of blue carbon, and I ask members to support amendment 136 today.
I lodged amendment 133, on land use, to establish a new duty on ministers to set out, within one year of the bill receiving royal assent, policies and proposals for the creation of regional land use partnerships and frameworks. The amendment seeks to strengthen the mandate of the land use strategy and facilitate its delivery on the ground. When the land use strategy was first published in 2011, it was world leading in its recognition of the important role that land can play in climate mitigation and adaptation. However, since the strategy was revised in 2016, little progress has been made. Although there have been two pilot schemes, there has been no roll-out of regional land use frameworks.
One of the challenges with the current legislation is that no duty to deliver the policies and proposals exists in the land use strategy; there is only a duty to produce and revise the strategy itself. As a result, the strategy has been sidelined and overlooked, despite the crucial role that it could play in addressing the climate emergency and shaping future rural policy. The CCC has highlighted the key role that land use will play in greenhouse gas removal, and regional frameworks could provide a mechanism to deliver that. They would also aid the targeting of future rural support to activities and areas that contribute most to our climate ambitions. Regional land use frameworks should identify opportunities to prioritise land use and management practices that optimise greenhouse gas removal. The Scottish Government’s plan for the rural funding transition, “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period”, runs to 2024, and I feel that the amendment’s provisions fit well with it. We need to act fast in order to contribute meaningfully and usefully to that transition.
I have listened to Maurice Golden’s comments and I will not—although I could—go into detail on those because of time.
Members well know that there is a strong mandate for Mark Ruskell’s amendment 135 on fracking, as the Parliament has agreed to prohibit fracking in Scotland. I have been joining campaigners across Scotland for a number of years now, pushing the Government and considering all pathways to block those damaging techniques and give peace of mind to communities once and for all.
I urge the cabinet secretary to clear up her Government’s intentions and be crystal clear, given that we are currently on the third Government public consultation on fracking—the fourth if we include my member’s bill. Agreeing to Mark Ruskell’s amendment would further indicate the Scottish Government’s determination to prohibit onshore fracking in Scotland by enshrining the commitment to address it in each climate change plan as we progress. Fracking is not a transition fuel and we should take every opportunity to say no to it for the sustainable future of our communities, our industries and the jobs that they will bring without that inappropriate destructive distraction, and, of course, for the future of our very planet.
I support amendment 49 but, again, I will not go into the details as Mark Ruskell will highlight those himself. I have lodged amendments 49A and 49B.
Amendment 49A is on carbon sequestration. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill legislated for a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions, and the “net” part of that is fundamental if we are to reach that target. In its advice on net zero targets, the UK Committee on Climate Change states that it is confident that Scotland could feasibly achieve the higher target than the rest of the UK because of its greater sequestration capabilities. With increasing global recognition of the need for carbon reductions from land use activities, this addition to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 49 offers a relatively straightforward and cost-effective opportunity to address the issue in the public interest. The process of carbon sequestration will also contribute significantly to our biodiversity targets and to the tackling of flood mitigation.
The committee has often discussed the complexities of reducing farming sector emissions at a greater speed, with only a 1.9 per cent decrease between 2016 and 2017. Such a holistic approach is right. Sequestration of carbon is a very important part of the role of farmers as the custodians of our land, and I am aware that farmers can feel as though their hard work in sequestration often goes unrecognised. It is essential that that is rectified, and that we all understand the significant contributions that can be made.
Agroforestry, which is the subject of amendment 49B, is proven to make a significant contribution to addressing the challenges of climate change. Agroforestry can be implemented in a number of ways. However, it is important to note that approaches can be designed in a way that avoids a trade-off between food provision and other ecosystem services. Trees can be planted along riverbanks and the edges of fields, and rows can be planted among arable crops, on separate parcels of land, and integrated with livestock and woodland pasture systems.
Among co-benefits, beyond the sequestration of carbon, is shelter from more extreme temperatures. Trees can be sun shades in summer and wind, rain or snow breaks in winter, which is valuable for our beasts. Browsing the low branches and the overhangs of tall native hedges can provide them with a range of nutrients and minerals.
Last week, I visited Whitmuir Organic Farm near Lamancha to see an inspiring and successful range of methods for myself, accompanied by owner Pete Ritchie and supported by the Woodland Trust. Adding agroforestry to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 49 will focus minds on the value of that method of farming.
Support is need for percentage capital payments, design advice, planting advice and at least partial funding through a scheme. In the climate and environment emergency, we all have a responsibility to contribute as best we can.
John Scott (Ayr) (Con)
I declare an interest as a farmer and landowner.
Amendment 101 is a probing amendment that seeks to create a new class of land that will identify and group types of land that have a particularly beneficial effect on climate change mitigation. In time, I would expect to create a hierarchy of land capability for the existing storage of carbon and active sequestration.
Peat bogs would be at the top of that hierarchy, which would work down to deep peat, forestry and landscapes capable of renewable energy production, through to grasslands managed for the sequestration of carbon. That would allow that type of land to be targeted for the attention or support of Government when using public money for the delivery of public good. Such a classification might also attract a new type of investor in land to Scotland, such as pension funds that want to hold and maintain land with the ability to store or sequester carbon to offset other less carbon-friendly assets in their portfolio.
Private finance for the delivery of natural capital is a concept that is supported by the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Edinburgh centre for carbon innovation, Crown Estate Scotland, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Water and Virgin Money, and which already has a name—the Scottish conservation finance project. The £1 billion challenge to deliver on that concept was launched at the Royal Society in London on 28 February 2019.
My probing amendment would give a name to the type of land that many agree needs to be supported.
Mark Ruskell
I will speak to amendment 136, in my name, as well as amendments 135 and 49, and others.
Picking up on Maurice Golden’s comments, I note that perhaps all the amendments deal with a number of weaknesses that exist in the climate change plan. They attempt to put in place policy frameworks to drive progress and, in some areas, break new ground.
That leads to amendment 136 on blue carbon. I recognise that Claudia Beamish has demonstrated leadership in this area. We have needed to take a leap of faith with blue carbon, but the evidence base on it is now building up. Amendment 136 seeks to increase the requirement on ministers to consider the role of marine carbon stores, such as kelp forests and salt marshes, in reducing Scotland’s emissions. Those blue carbon features not only process and store atmospheric carbon but play a physical role in helping us to adapt to the effects of carbon change such as the rise of sea levels and, by buffering coastlines, storm events.
The recently reviewed climate change plan briefly refers to blue carbon and indicates that evidence on which action could be based is lacking. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has set up a blue carbon forum and is prioritising research in that field, but it is important that that research translates into meaningful policy action when the time is right.
Amendment 136 would require ministers to state their policies and proposals for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through the good management of blue carbon features in marine areas.
Amendment 135 is on unconventional oil and gas. The debate on fracking of recent years is familiar to us all and I will not reopen arguments on that today—we could spend weeks on it.
The Government has announced an indefinite moratorium on fracking and coal-bed methane extraction in Scotland. That prohibition or moratorium—let us be careful which words we use—takes the form of statements in the national planning framework and energy strategy that rule out the development of operations in Scotland. Amendment 135 would require a similar statement to be included in the climate change plan to ensure that Scotland’s opposition to fracking was embedded across the Government’s full suite of policies.
It is important that there is a reference to unconventional oil and gas in the climate change plan, given that much of the context for the Scottish Government’s policy position on it has come out of concerns about climate change and fugitive emissions, among other associated issues. Detailed scientific studies and other work have been done on that so, given the science base behind the Government’s position, it is appropriate that it is reflected in some way in the climate change plan.
Amendment 49 is on what I am calling a whole-farm climate action plan, which the Government would be required to produce. It would be separate from but embedded in the main climate change plan.
Members are well aware of the discussions and evidence that we have had on this issue. I appreciate that John Scott’s amendment is similar. The system that is used to calculate Scotland’s climate change emissions separates agriculture from land use, which often means that farming gets credited with emissions that come from agriculture but not with the positive sequestering effect of good land management and forestry that also take place on our farms. The action plan that would be required under amendment 49 would bring those two areas together for the first time and would give a net figure for the impacts that our farms have as a whole on climate change.
10:15The provisions that the amendment would introduce would require a plan to be set out for how emissions reductions from our farms will progress, taking account of a range of areas. My intention is to bring forward a framework. It would be tempting to have targets for this and that, but the framework that I have set out will be familiar to many members. We have spoken about the importance of research, knowledge transfer, advice, land management accreditation and nutrient resource budgeting. I do not want to set exact policy prescriptions in the bill, which would have to stay there for ever; I want to ensure that good, joined-up action is being taken by the Government to bring those elements together in a sector plan that is focused and turns agriculture from being, perhaps, one of the problems that we have with climate change to one of the strong solutions.
Amendment 101, in the name of John Scott, is very similar to amendment 49—we are almost on the same page. However, I do not believe that putting a requirement into the climate change plan does what is necessary. There are already elements in the climate change plan that could be said to address the area of whole-farm emissions, but that does not deal with many of the concerns that we have had in committee about the joined-up nature of the policies that we need. I think that a separate plan needs to be built out from the main climate change plan that goes into the detail of how we are joining up that work.
I am happy to accept amendments 49A and 49B, which highlight the importance of sequestration and of agroforestry, which is massively undervalued with respect to climate change and how we make agricultural systems more resilient in the face of climate change and its impacts.
Amendment 101 would create a separate land category, using the idea of “mitigation land”. I know that John Scott is keen on that, and there is a lot of merit in what he talks about, but I would be a bit concerned about what would in effect be unintended consequences if we created a climate change set-aside. That could have impacts on biodiversity. Part of the solution lies in integrating land management, for example by integrating carbon sequestration into how we graze pasture through mob grazing techniques. That is not about setting aside land and telling people that they cannot grow anything on it any more, because that is the climate change bit; it means ensuring that agricultural management as a whole delivers carbon sequestration. There may be scope to have peat bogs and particular habitats that are set aside for climate sequestration. However, the proposals are more integrated and more holistic, to use John Scott’s word from the stage 1 debate. That is what we are trying to get out of this process.
Turning to the other amendments in the group, I would say that heat is the big issue here. It was a huge issue in 2009, and an amendment was made to the bill then to require a heat target. I do not think that we have seen enough progress as a result of that. At the time, the industry believed that a target around heat would be enough to drive things, but I do not think that that has happened at a sufficient level. We now require to get more specificity and focus through the bill, as we have not had as much progress as we thought we would get.
As regards the focus on electric or ultra-low-emission vehicles, we must move quickly on that in a very short period of time. There are big issues there, and a focus on that in the bill would be welcome and beneficial.
The Convener
John Scott wishes to speak to amendment 102.
John Scott
Thank you, convener. I should have spoken to amendment 102 earlier—forgive me.
The intention behind the amendment is to give recognition, now and in the future, to farmers and land managers who are taking a whole-farm or whole-holdings approach to climate change and greenhouse gas reductions. Currently, farmers, crofters and estate owners get little or no credit for maintaining or restoring peat bogs or planting trees as part of agriculture’s contribution on climate change.
That needs to be better understood and recognised, perhaps by a scheme that would run in parallel with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change measurement practices. Amendment 102 would also allow for the delivery of public or private funding to support, enhance and record the measures that are taken by managers or owners of farms and estates, so that they would be recognised for their actions and how much farmers are part of the solution to the climate change challenge would be demonstrated. The amendment is in response to recommendations 405 and 406 in the stage 1 report.
I agree with the sentiment of amendment 49, but it is too prescriptive. It introduces a sectoral approach that we were not in favour of previously, so we will not be supporting it. Notwithstanding that, I agree that the issue will need to be addressed in future, probably in a similar way to Mark Ruskell’s proposal.
Stewart Stevenson
I am not entirely clear that amendment 136, in the name of Mark Ruskell, can cover the things that we want to cover. In particular, proposed new section 19(4B) refers to
“protection and enhancement of areas within the Scottish marine area appropriate long-term storage of carbon.”
I assume that that includes pipelines and drilling platforms, because new holes would need to be drilled into the geology if we are to put carbon dioxide or carbonic acid down into the rocks. However, there appears to be a specific retention of power in schedule 5(D2)(c) to the Scotland Act 1998 that relates to “offshore installations and pipelines” and may mean that we would not be able to legislate, if that is the intention—I am not clear whether it is. That is a wee technical point.
My other point may simply reflect an inefficiency in my reading. I am not sure what “carbon” means in legal terms. The 2009 act includes “carbon units”, which include all the greenhouse gases in the definition—not simply carbon dioxide; “carbon dioxide”, which is self-defining; and “carbon accounting”, which again includes not simply carbon but carbon equivalents including all the greenhouse gases. I know what the amendment is trying to say but I am not absolutely sure whether the use of the word “carbon” is sufficiently precise. The storage in the Scottish marine area would be carbon dioxide or, in its liquid form, carbonic acid, rather than other greenhouse gases, which are probably not suitable for storing in that area. I hasten to add that I strongly support storing carbon dioxide.
On amendment 49, again in the name of Mark Ruskell, I am strongly in favour of sectoral plans but strongly against sectoral targets—members will have heard me say that before. In some ways, we are sneaking up on sector targets by the way in which the amendment is constructed. For example, I do not know at this moment whether we need to do anything in agriculture. Instinctively and logically, I feel that we do, but scientifically, I do not know whether we need to do anything, because we might—this is an extreme view—be able to do all that is required to get to a carbon-neutral Scotland by doing it all in energy. I simply do not know, so I am reluctant to travel with this—
Mark Ruskell
Will the member give way?
Stewart Stevenson
I will just say one more thing. Mark Ruskell used the words
“the importance of research and advice”.
I agree with him about that.
Mark Ruskell
Can you point out anything in amendment 49 that would require ministers to set targets? I agree that targets might be necessary, but surely it is the actions that underpin targets that are important, which is why I did not seek to set yet more targets in the bill. You might be right; it could indeed be the case that agriculture is making a wonderful contribution and we do not need to set a target to drive further action.
Stewart Stevenson
Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that what amendment 49 provides for approaches being a target; it is not directly a target. However, it is so prescriptive, in the advance of our having the scientific advice to inform us, that I am reluctant to support it. I will leave it at that.
Roseanna Cunningham
Of necessity, it will take a few moments to speak to the amendments in this group.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of the amendments reflect well-intentioned desires to see particular policy priorities reflected in the next climate change plan. However, I am firmly of the view that placing such requirements in primary legislation is the wrong approach.
The purpose of climate change plans is to set out, across all sectors of the economy, an overall package of policies and proposals for meeting future targets. The development of that overall package represents a key function of the Scottish ministers. The Parliament already has substantial input to the process, through scrutiny of a draft version of the plan.
Amendments that I lodged in response to committee recommendations, which we will debate in a later group, will make more transparent the role of independent, expert advice from the CCC in the plan process.
It is absolutely right that Parliament and the CCC have a strong role. It is also necessary, given the strategic and cross-portfolio nature of plans, for ministers to be able freely to consider the full range of policy options available to them in setting out an overall package that works best for the climate and for the people of Scotland.
The amendments in this group would have the effect of prescribing a set of policy areas that must be set out in all future plans. Such an approach would significantly restrict the process for preparing plans, making it unwieldy and less effective.
The proposed approach also raises fundamental questions, including of a legal nature, about whether there would then be a hierarchy of policy options, with those that were chosen to be set out in the primary legislation taking precedence over all others. Climate change plans are statutory in nature and their content requirements are subject to legal interpretation. The placing of a set of particular policies in the bill now could well be taken to imply that ministers must give priority to those matters over others, regardless of changing circumstances, expert advice or indeed a future Parliament’s changing priorities. That could lead to a situation in which ministers in the future are compelled to prepare plans that provide neither the most beneficial nor the most cost-effective overall package of measures.
The placing of a particular set of policies in the bill also poses the risk of sending unclear signals. Although I am sure that this is not the intention of members, I worry that stakeholders, including businesses, might interpret such a legislative step as a signal that all other policy options are less favoured by the Parliament—or even, in the extreme case, as a signal that no other options will be needed to meet future targets. Such unintended signalling could undermine the Government’s current message, which is that, in the light of the global climate emergency, all policy options need to be kept under review, to see where more can be done.
In considering those risks, I invite members to reflect on the fact that the proposed amendments would bind the content of all future climate change plans from now until the 2040s. They would not bind just the update to the current plan that will be prepared immediately after the bill’s passage.
I appreciate that there are entirely legitimate particular interests at this time around support for electric vehicles, energy efficiency and low-carbon heat, which are reflected in amendments 134, 138 and 139, from Liam McArthur, amendments 100, 130 and 132, from Maurice Golden and amendment 140, from David Stewart. I assure members that policies and proposals on all those matters will feature in the updated plan. However, it is not unreasonable to suppose that other priorities and key issues will have emerged by the time of the next plan in five years’ time, or certainly by the time of the one after that.
10:30The amendments may be overly restrictive in the context of the long-term nature of the statutory framework on climate change. They carry the risk that ministers and Parliaments during the 2020s, 2030s and 2040s would be compelled to focus their efforts on matters that are no longer pressing, at the expense of those that are. If that list of priorities is placed in primary legislation, it would be difficult to update or amend.
In light of those general points, I urge members to not press—
Claudia Beamish
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Roseanna Cunningham
Yes, of course.
Claudia Beamish
From my perspective, the reason for not going for targets—to be frank, there has been a lot of encouragement from people and organisations outwith the Parliament to have targets—is that things should be more fluid than that. However, frankly, we are dismal on all the areas that the cabinet secretary mentioned. I did not mention Liam McArthur’s amendment on heating, but we are far behind the curve on renewable district heating compared to what is happening in Europe.
My understanding is that the purpose of the amendments is to set down markers, to focus minds in Government and to send messages to industry and others. Nobody is saying what has to be done on any of the areas covered by the amendments; nobody has proposed a target for any of them. However, if the amendments are accepted today, which I still hope very much that they will be, those issues would have to be considered.
If in 2040 we are so brilliant on district heating or we have found other methods of heating that mean that we do not need to take action on heating any more, it would be quite straightforward to justify that. However, that is where we are, and that is where we need to be.
Roseanna Cunningham
That is not what would happen if the amendments were to go into primary legislation. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and the effect of primary legislation. The effect is really important. You say that in 2040, we could choose to say, “That’s already done; we don’t have to develop that in the climate change plan, because we’ve been so good.” That is not what the legislation would say. It would say that you would have to do that, even in those circumstances. That is the difficulty of the reality of primary legislation, as opposed to anything else.
I return to my comments on the generality of this group of amendments. I reiterate that there is a risk that ministers in the 2020s, 2030s and 2040s would be compelled by law to focus efforts on matters that might no longer be pressing, at the expense of those that are pressing, that might become pressing or that we might not be able to anticipate at this point. If we place that list of priorities in primary legislation, it would be difficult to update or amend.
In the light of those general points, I urge members not to press any of their amendments in this group.
Although those general points have guided my approach to responding to this group, I offer further remarks on aspects of certain amendments. Most of my comments are on those amendments relating to land use matters, and I will begin there.
I am sympathetic to the underlying intention of Claudia Beamish’s amendment 133, which is on regional land use partnerships and frameworks to support better land use decisions. However, I have concerns about the practical implications and the timing requirements set out in the amendment, as they do not reflect current uncertainties to do with EU exit.
The Scottish Government remains committed to the vision, objectives and principles of the second land use strategy, “Getting the best from our land: A Land Use Strategy for Scotland 2016-2021”. We are making progress on a number of its policies and proposals, including through publishing in 2017 the “Scottish Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement”, which is the world’s first such statement, and publishing “Scotland’s Forestry Strategy 2019-2029”. In part because of the critical relationship between land use and our ability to meet our climate change targets—which we all accept—the Government has just established a new directorate to drive forward development of integrated, sustainable land use policy.
Crucially, the land use strategy was published just before the 2016 EU exit referendum. It is important that we take stock of its proposals, including those to encourage regional land use partnerships and frameworks, to identify actions that will best contribute to the strategy’s vision.
Previous land use strategy pilot projects in the Borders and Aberdeenshire demonstrated that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to developing regional land use frameworks or partnerships. It is therefore not clear that legislating for a regional land use approach will achieve better outcomes.
It is essential to allow sufficient time to consider and test the implications of a regional land use approach for local communities and the development of future rural policy after any EU exit. Introducing a timescale whereby ministers would have to publish their policies and proposals on regional land use partnerships and frameworks within a year of royal assent would not create space for the considered approach that is needed.
In relation to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 49 that would require the laying of an additional
“whole farm climate action plan”,
I have concerns about that pre-empting on-going data development work in this area. I also have concerns about the general approach of singling out one sector—in this case, agriculture—for more detailed reporting and planning. To be clear, the first of those concerns is not about the principle of trying to provide a better statistical representation of all that farmers do to reduce emissions across their farms, including in ways that are not credited to the agriculture sector in the greenhouse gas inventory—of course, the inventory is not an invention of ours; it is something to which we are bound. When I wrote to the committee on 2 May and when I gave evidence on 21 May, I set out our current position on such matters, and I think that it might be helpful to do so again.
I explained that the Scottish Government is currently exploring alternative methods to provide further estimates of emissions from the wider agriculture sector. I also undertook to report to the committee on potential approaches to reporting and the likely accuracy of estimates as soon as we have progressed the work so that it is sufficiently substantial. I am happy to reaffirm that the Government is committed to that on-going work, and I note that John Scott’s amendment 102 reflects a more measured approach to the matters in question than Mark Ruskell’s amendment 49.
Agreeing a statutory requirement for what exactly should be reported at this time, before the landscape of data availability and quality is even understood, runs a high risk of not ending up with the best possible information. Amendment 49 also seems likely to lead to reporting that would substantially duplicate the policy information that is already set out in the agriculture chapter of the climate change plans, albeit in a different format. It is not clear to me why the agriculture sector should be singled out for additional reporting and planning in the way that Mark Ruskell proposes.
I urge members to allow the current work to develop the evidence base on whole farm emissions reporting to continue to take its course. I assure members that I recognise the importance that they attach to such matters—indeed, I frequently discuss the issue in my speeches and conversations—and to the reduction of emissions from agriculture in general, which is reflected in John Scott’s amendment 102 and Maurice Golden’s amendment 137. I will provide further updates to the committee on the analytical work in this area as soon as possible, and I would be happy to meet any interested members directly to discuss these matters in more detail.
Remaining with land use matters, I am interested in John Scott’s amendment 101 on establishing a new land class related to climate change mitigation. I do not think that the bill is the right place for that, in part because I note that existing classifications are not statutory in nature. However, I would be happy to ask my officials to look into the idea further. I would also be happy to meet John Scott to discuss it further once that work has been done. I urge him not to move amendment 101 at this time, as it is simply too early to be making decisions on an idea that has been so little explored.
I also have sympathy for what I think might be the intentions of Mark Ruskell’s amendment 136 on marine carbon storage, which I have taken to be in reference to what is commonly known as “blue carbon”. Although the IPCC’s emission reporting guidelines—and, therefore, the Scottish GHG inventory and climate targets—do not currently include blue carbon, that does not mean that it is not important. The Scottish Government recognises the important role of our oceans in mitigating climate change. Indeed, our current climate change plan contains a section that sets out the Scottish Government’s approach to such matters. If I recall correctly, that was a late addition to the final plan, because the information had not been available when the draft climate change plan was produced. I assure Mark Ruskell and other interested members that blue carbon will continue to feature in the updated plan. I am happy to meet with any member to discuss the progress of work to develop the evidence base in the area.
Claudia Beamish
Will the cabinet secretary take a brief intervention?
Roseanna Cunningham
If it is brief.
Claudia Beamish
Well, obviously, it is—I said “brief”. I need clarification, so I hope that it is acceptable to ask for an intervention.
On amendment 133, in relation to land use, which is an important issue that Scottish Environment LINK and a number of other groups have raised with me, the cabinet secretary said that a period of a year from royal assent would not give time to enable the issues to be taken forward. Will she consider meeting me to discuss the possibility of making the period three or four years from royal assent and bringing a proposal back at stage 3?
Roseanna Cunningham
I am always happy to continue to have those conversations. The substantial point that I was making is that we do not have enough information right now to be able to establish a fixed way forward. I am happy to have that conversation with the member in the intervening couple of months.
Claudia Beamish
Thank you.
Roseanna Cunningham
On Maurice Golden’s amendment 131, which is on a sustainable energy innovation centre, I am unclear how that would be expected to interact with the various innovation centres that already support the renewable energy and low-carbon sector in Scotland.
As an aside, I point out that we usually hear from Conservative members about cutting down on duplication of effort. I will list some of the various innovation centres that currently exist. They include the energy technology partnership, which is funded by the Scottish Government directly; the Construction Scotland Innovation Centre, which gets Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and enterprise agency money; the Edinburgh centre for carbon innovation; the centre for energy policy at the University of Strathclyde international public policy institute; the Industrial Biotechnology Innovation Centre; the Oil & Gas Innovation Centre; and the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre. It might have been helpful to have understood how the sustainable energy innovation centre would fit into all of that. Again, I am happy to discuss the issue with the member if he thinks that there genuinely is a role for another centre. We could perhaps have a conversation about how that might be reflected.
Remaining with energy matters, the Scottish Government cannot accept Mark Ruskell’s amendment 135, which would require ministers to set out proposals and policies regarding the prohibition of the extraction of onshore unconventional oil and gas reserves in all future climate change plans. The Scottish Government’s preferred policy position is that it does not support onshore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland. Scottish ministers are entering the final stages of the policy-making process on that important issue. The preferred policy position is subject to a statutory strategic environmental assessment and other assessments before any policy can be adopted.
In the meantime, it is important to stress that, under the terms of the moratorium, no local authority can grant planning permission for any proposed fracking or coal-bed methane project without advising ministers, which then permits ministers to call in the application. The Scottish ministers would defer any decision on any planning application that came forward until the policy-making process on their preferred position is completed. The practical effect of the current moratorium and the policy-making process that is under way to finalise our position is that no fracking or other unconventional oil and gas activity can take place in Scotland at this time.
Mark Ruskell
Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the outcome of that preferred policy-making process will be reflected in the next climate change plan?
Roseanna Cunningham
I expect that it would be. Whatever the current state of it is—I am constrained in what I can say about it—I see no reason why it should not be. We should remember that the climate change plans subsist for a considerable period, and all that we can do is reflect our current position.
I turn to amendments 148 and 149 from Liam McArthur, who has been waiting patiently to have his amendments addressed. They relate to requirements for specific content within climate change plan monitoring reports rather than within plans, so this is a slightly different aspect. The purpose of the annual monitoring reports is to set out information on progress to delivery across all areas of whatever plan is current at the time.
Singling out specific policy areas for particular assessment could create the perception that it is less important to monitor progress in other areas. That goes back to the issue that I raised at the start of my comments. I have already assured Liam McArthur that the upcoming update to the current plan will include policies and proposals on both low-carbon heat and electric vehicles. I can further assure him that those will be monitored, using appropriate indicators, in the subsequent monitoring reports.
10:45To conclude, my view is that it is vitally important that the statutory climate change plan process continues to effectively support the delivery of Scotland’s ever more challenging climate targets. Seeking to pre-determine the content of future plans by placing particular delivery policies in the bill now runs the risk of leading to a process that is overly restrictive and outcomes that are less cost effective. It also risks creating legal hierarchies among policy options and sending unintended signals that will result in some options being prioritised at the expense of others.
I ask members to allow the effective approach to long-term delivery planning established by this Parliament’s 2009 act to continue. Placing a particular set of current delivery priorities, however well intentioned, in primary legislation risks fundamentally undermining that approach. As such, I reiterate my call for members not to press any of their amendments in the group. If they wish to press them, I will not be able to support them.
Liam McArthur
It has been a useful and interesting debate. At its root is the principle of finding a balance between prescription and the necessary flexibility to ensure that the legislation is future proofed. There is not necessarily any disagreement about the need to get that balance right, for a whole host of reasons. Mark Ruskell and Maurice Golden both pointed to the need for a policy framework to drive forward action. Simply assuming that action will take place is perhaps dangerous or naive. The only exception was in relation to fracking, where the amendment was less about enabling it and more about underpinning the concern that a number of us share about the state of the current prohibition of that.
I thank Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell for their strong support of my amendments on heat and transport. It is inconceivable that there can be any let-up in action on heat and transport for the duration of future climate change plans, not least given where we are starting from. There will be a continuing need to keep that under review, and I suspect that the public sector will continue to be required to take the lead and drive forward progress in both instances.
Stewart Stevenson made some interesting points about clarity in the amendment on blue carbon. Some of what we know about that is less perfect than we would like, but it is, again, inconceivable that blue carbon will not play a key part in the delivery of our climate change ambitions over the duration of the plans.
One of the debates that I found most interesting was on agriculture and land management. It was reassuring to hear people agree that, although agriculture has, to date, been misconstrued and misrepresented as simply part of the problem, it is a sector that presents opportunities as well as areas in which progress will need to be made. The various amendments seek to capture those points.
The situation boils down to whether we can assume, given the way that the bill is currently drafted, that the necessary action will be taken in those areas, or whether the effort to drive forward that action will be enhanced and buttressed by some of the amendments that my colleagues and I have lodged. I think that more detail could usefully be put into the bill, and on that basis I will press amendment 138.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 138 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 138 disagreed to.
Amendment 139 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 139 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 139 agreed to.
Amendment 100 moved—[Maurice Golden].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 100 agreed to.
Amendment 130 moved—[Maurice Golden].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 130 agreed to.
Amendment 134 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 134 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 134 agreed to.
Amendments 140 and 101 not moved.
Amendment 136 moved—[Mark Ruskell].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 136 disagreed to.
Amendments 102 and 133 not moved.
Amendment 137 moved—[Maurice Golden].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 137 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Abstentions
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 3, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 137 disagreed to.
Amendment 131 not moved.
Amendment 132 moved—[Maurice Golden].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Abstentions
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 3, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 132 disagreed to.
Amendment 135 moved—[Mark Ruskell].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Abstentions
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 135 disagreed to.
Amendment 141 not moved.
The Convener
Having finished that marathon, we will have a short suspension.
10:59 Meeting suspended.11:10 On resuming—
The Convener
Amendment 76, in the name of John Scott, is grouped with amendments 142 and 147.
John Scott
Amendment 76 seeks to amend section 19, which makes provision in relation to climate change plans and seeks to add a requirement that each plan that is prepared by the Scottish ministers
“must set out an estimate of the costs and benefits associated with the policies set out in the plan.”
It would also allow both the Government and the public to better understand the costs and benefits—as they could best be calculated and estimated—before each new plan was undertaken. The amendment responds to the recommendation in paragraph 656 in the stage 1 report.
I move amendment 76.
Maurice Golden
Amendment 142 would introduce a requirement for impact assessment within the climate change plan and would require the Scottish ministers to consider
“how the proposals and policies set out in the plan are expected to affect”
various groups including “island communities” and “local authorities”.
Mark Ruskell
Amendment 147 would require the annual progress reports on the climate change plan to include information on the level of spending that would be put towards the plans, policies and proposals. It picks up on a stage 1 report recommendation on the annual monitoring reports. They are of benefit to the pre-budget scrutiny process, but, without the associated financial information, not as much as they should be.
I will listen to the cabinet secretary. We had a conversation on budgets last week, and she offered more discussion on budget mechanisms, but I am inclined to move amendment 147, because it would be an obvious improvement.
Stewart Stevenson
Amendment 76 is so obvious that I doubt it will take long to make the decision to support it.
I am not sure that amendment 147 would add anything to it.
I want to pick up on Maurice Golden’s list in amendment 142. I do not know what is meant by “indigenous peoples”. In Scotland, we have had so many waves of migration over the years that I do not know whether any of us is indigenous in any meaningful sense. Certainly, my DNA suggests an extremely mongrel ancestry—as would that of most people, I suspect. I also do not know what “migrants” means. Does it mean immigrants or emigrants—in other words, people arriving or people leaving? Or are we talking about the old convention by which one migrated when one moved within the Commonwealth and one immigrated or emigrated when one moved into or away from the Commonwealth? I am not entirely clear what “migrants” are.
I know what “persons in vulnerable situations” is likely to mean, but is the amendment trying to refer to people with protected characteristics, or are they an omission from the list? If we must have a list—and I am not clear that we do—this is not one with which I feel comfortable.
11:15Roseanna Cunningham
I support John Scott’s amendment 76. I know that the committee was keen for there to be greater information about the costs and benefits that are associated with climate change plans. It would create a proportionate duty that would ensure that the plans were required to set out useful information on the estimated costs and benefits of policies to reduce emissions.
I have sympathy for the intentions behind Mark Ruskell’s amendment 147, which would require annual climate change plan monitoring reports to include assessments of expenditure during the delivery of the plan. As the committee is aware, through my responses to the committee’s reports, I have already welcomed further engagement with the Parliament on those matters. In the debate on the grouping of amendments on budget-related matters, the Scottish Government offered to work with the Parliament and stakeholders to review the current processes and outputs around budget information as it relates to climate change, including the roles of section 94 of the 2009 act and the climate change plan monitoring reports. I am happy that Mark Ruskell accepted the offer of a joint review process. Given the importance of that discussion, I hope that he will not move amendment 147, so that the process can proceed in the way that will be most helpful.
I cannot support Maurice Golden’s amendment 142, which seeks to require that plans include an assessment of their impacts on a range of groups, communities and organisations. Although I have no doubt that the amendment is well intentioned, it would be duplicative of existing impact assessment requirements—notably the statutory duties around equality impact assessments, children’s wellbeing impact assessments, socioeconomic assessments, the new islands impact assessment and business and regulatory impact assessments. In addition, I will be a little mischievous and take the opposite position to that of my colleague Stewart Stevenson. His view is that none of us is indigenous; however, I regard us to be the indigenous people of Scotland. That said, I was also a little puzzled by the amendment’s reference to “indigenous peoples”, because I cannot really work out what that would mean.
Stewart Stevenson’s point about the category of “migrants” was well made. In addition, there is no time bracket around it, and it is not in any way specific to particular groups of migrants. For 16 years of my life, I was a migrant—I just did not happen to be a migrant in this country. There are one or two issues around language, given the necessity to make absolutely clear in legislation exactly what is being discussed. There might be some other issues in and around that point as well.
For the reasons that I have flagged—particularly the variety of existing impact assessments that are required—I do not regard the amendment as being at all necessary. Even leaving aside the question marks over some of the categories in the list, amendment 142 would add a further administrative burden to the process of preparing climate change plans with very little—if any—added value. I therefore urge Maurice Golden not to press the amendment. If he does, I urge the committee to reject it.
John Scott
I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s consideration of the need for analysis of the costs and benefits, which the committee discussed at length. I press amendment 76.
Amendment 76 agreed to.
Amendment 75 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 142 not moved.
Amendment 103 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 103 disagreed to.
Amendment 143 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 143 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 143 disagreed to.
Amendment 77 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 49 moved—[Mark Ruskell].
Amendment 49A moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 49A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 49A disagreed to.
Amendment 49B moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 49B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 49B disagreed to.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 49 disagreed to.
Amendment 78 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
The Convener
Amendment 79, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 80, 81 and 84.
Roseanna Cunningham
These amendments bring clarity and transparency to the role of independent, expert advice from the relevant body—which is the CCC—in the preparation of climate change plans. They represent a sensible and proportionate response to the recommendations in the committee’s stage 1 report.
Currently, the CCC provides its views on any draft climate change plan through its annual reports on Scottish progress in reducing emissions, which are provided for under section 9 of the 2009 act. The current legislation already requires that ministers must have regard to any representations, resolutions or reports from Parliament on the draft plan. In addition, ministers must publish a statement alongside the final version of the plan, detailing those representations, resolutions and reports as well as any change that is made in response to them. The amendments build on those arrangements.
Amendment 84 will insert into section 9 of the 2009 act a duty on ministers to request the CCC’s views on any draft climate change plan that has been laid in the previous 12 months. As the CCC’s independent progress reports are annual but are not tied to a fixed date in the year, that will ensure that the CCC is requested to set out its views on each new draft plan promptly.
Amendment 79 will require ministers to have regard to any views from the CCC on a draft plan before laying the final version of the plan before Parliament. Amendment 80 will ensure that ministers must set out the detail of any views that have been received from the CCC in the statement that accompanies the final plan. Amendment 81 will ensure that ministers must set out in that statement any changes that they have made in response to the CCC’s views, similarly to how they must set out what is required in response to any representation, resolutions or reports from the Parliament.
The amendments serve to make clearer the CCC’s independent advisory role in the climate change plan process. They will ensure that the CCC’s views on delivery planning are sought and taken into account in an effective, proportionate and transparent manner.
I move amendment 79.
Amendment 79 agreed to.
Amendment 144 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 144 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 144 disagreed to.
Amendments 80 and 81 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendments 145 to 149 not moved.
Amendment 150 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 150 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 150 disagreed to.
Amendment 82 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 151 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 151 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 151 disagreed to.
Amendments 83 and 84 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
After section 19
Amendment 152 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.
Amendment 153 not moved.
11:30Section 20—Meaning of certain terms
Amendments 36, 85, 86 and 37 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
Schedule—Modifications of the 2009 Act
Amendments 38 and 87 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 47 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.
Amendments 88 to 90 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.
Section 24—Commencement
Amendment 48 moved—[Mark Ruskell].
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.
For
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 48 disagreed to.
Sections 24 and 25 agreed to.
Long Title
Amendment 50 moved—[Stewart Stevenson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 154 not moved.
Long title, as amended, agreed to.
The Convener
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill and concludes the committee’s business in public today. The next meeting of the committee will take place on 3 September.
11:34 Meeting continued in private until 12:28.25 June 2019
Additional related information from the Scottish Government on the Bill
Revised explanation of the proposed law (Revised Explanatory Notes)
More information on how much the Bill is likely to cost (Supplementary Financial Memorandum)
Stage 3 - Final amendments and vote
MSPs can propose further amendments to the Bill and then vote on each of these. Finally, they vote on whether the Bill should become law.
Debate on the proposed amendments
MSPs get the chance to present their proposed amendments to the Chamber. They vote on whether each amendments should be added to the Bill.
Documents with the amendments considered in the Chamber on 25 September 2019:
- First Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 3
- First Groupings of Amendments for Stage 3
- Supplementary Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 3
Debate on proposed amendments transcript
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill.
In dealing with the amendments, members should have: the bill as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list; the supplement to the marshalled list; and the groupings of amendments.
I remind members that the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. A member who wishes to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group.
Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 3—The interim targets
The Presiding Officer
Group 1 is minor and technical amendments. Amendment 2, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 5.
The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (Roseanna Cunningham)
This group contains two very minor technical amendments, which need little explanation. Amendment 2 will fix a duplicative section heading in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Amendment 5 will ensure wording consistency between the provisions on calculating annual targets.
I move amendment 2.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
The Presiding Officer
Group 2 is on interim targets. Amendment 17, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendment 18.
I remind members that amendments 17 and 18 are direct alternatives. “Direct alternatives” means two or more amendments that seek to replace the same text in a bill with alternative approaches. A vote will be taken on both amendments 17 and 18 in the order in which they appear in the marshalled list. If both amendments are agreed to, the second amendment—that is, amendment 18—will succeed the first, and amendment 17 will cease to have effect.
Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)
At stage 2, it was momentous to see the cross-party consensus that a net zero target is right for Scotland. I am whole-heartedly delighted that that consensus has continued in relation to the setting of an interim target, to set our trajectory for the new decade. That is a measure of the bill’s strength and this Parliament’s success in stepping up to the climate emergency.
We are 10 years on from the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, and we are armed with a wealth of new research and improved understanding of the task ahead. The Parliament well knows that the United Nations says that we have 11 years to stop irreparable climate damage and that what happens in the next decade is crucial.
The Opposition parties came to agree that the Scottish National Party’s proposal for a 2030 emissions target of 70 per cent lower than the baseline—only a little up from what was set for that date back in 2009—was not good enough. The evidence base for that decision came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the climate catastrophes that we have witnessed and the public mandate from the brilliant climate strikers. It is a political decision, but it is based on science.
In amendment 17, I propose a 75 per cent target, in the hope that we can find a consensus on the mid-point of the fair shares calculation—Scottish Labour has come down from our initial position of 77 per cent. I am delighted that our approach has been successful and that all parties have come to agree on it.
I am proud of the energy and vision that were shown at United Kingdom Labour’s conference this week and of the motion that was agreed to on the green new deal.
Labour is sympathetic to amendment 18, but we will abstain in the vote on the amendment. We look forward to consulting on a unique Scottish position, including on how we can take action to deliver more than 75 per cent by 2030, the interim target year.
14:45Across the parties, there is a clear grasp of the challenges that the agriculture and land use sectors face in relation to the need for funding and advisory support in a just transition. Many also acknowledge that the carbon accounting system for farms must be altered to recognise peat restoration and tree planting.
We have all received significant numbers of emails that call for bolder interim targets. Many of us have been in dialogue with extinction rebellion members about their radical, brave demands.
I also expect that members from across the parties were at the climate strike last Friday, and I hope that the demonstrators’ enthusiasm, frustration and unity rocked us all. Above all, the interim target is about justice for those young people. If we set a business-as-usual target, we will shake their trust in this Parliament—another of the institutions that, so far and for too long, have failed to take the issue seriously. I do not want this Parliament to shake its head and turn its back on those brilliant young people, on the generations to come and on the global south.
I urge members to support a stronger interim target for Scotland, to show that we are world leaders and to go on from there.
I move amendment 17.
Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
We have 10 years left—just two parliamentary sessions—in which to tackle the climate emergency. That is the challenge that has been laid down by the scientists and by the thousands of young people who are protesting on our streets. The emergency is the debt that we carry from our industrial history and it demands that we do our fair and equitable share. If we do not come out of today with a bill that rises to that challenge, we will have spectacularly failed ourselves, the young and future generations.
The Greens have led the call to strengthen the 2030 targets in the bill. Eighty per cent by 2030 would dramatically improve our chances of keeping the world within 1.5° of warming. That would give us the best hope that we can survive extinction. A lower target and the advice from the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change are based on a gamble—a 50:50 chance of keeping the world safely within 1.5° of warming. Presiding Officer, would you gamble your children’s future on the flip of a coin? I would not.
In its stage 1 evidence, the UK Committee on Climate Change was clear that ramping up action now in areas such as tree planting, agriculture, housing and energy means that we can go much faster. Many of the amendments that we will consider later today will drive that greater ambition.
Parliament is waiting for the Scottish Government to fully review all policies and propose new actions. We cannot wait for yet more delay and years of analysis of our options. We know what needs to be done. We know that a Scottish Green new deal, using every lever available to transition to a zero carbon economy, is the transformational change that we need.
Labour proposed a moderate increase—to 75 per cent—to the 2030 target. I welcome that and the commitment from the SNP today, but it is not enough. We need a clear and bold direction today: to do what is necessary and fair; to reduce the risk; to send the strongest signal that the climate emergency demands an emergency response—the only response. It starts here, by raising that ambition to 80 per cent by 2030.
Maurice Golden (West Scotland) (Con)
Business as usual will only make worse the dangers presented by the climate emergency declared earlier this year by the UK and Scottish Governments. That is why the Scottish Conservatives supported the Scottish Government’s commitment to setting a more ambitious emissions target for 2045 and, earlier this year, voted in favour of amendments to bring forward interim targets. We recognise that urgent action is needed to tackle the climate emergency and to make real progress on reducing emissions. Today, we will vote for the more ambitious interim target of 75 per cent by 2030.
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
My five years as the climate change minister fundamentally changed my life. When we set a 2050 target, I told colleagues that I hoped to be 104 years old then. I am very grateful that we have brought the target forward by five years—I will be only 99 years old in 2045. In 2030, I hope to be 84. That tells members that this is not about a wrinkly old soul such as me, but about the generations who will follow.
I admire unambiguously and without reservation the efforts of youngsters. At the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, we had a primary-age school student come to talk to us. She was a most impressive person. We owe it to her and to all the youngsters who have been campaigning to set targets that are realistic, that are founded in science and that will be hard for us to deliver on.
Initially, I had reservations about the 75 per cent target. The 70 per cent figure is already a world-leading target, but a 75 per cent target would entrench Scotland’s position as a world leader in climate change. However, there is nothing good about being a world leader if we do not use that leadership to persuade others, because we produce but one seven hundredth of the world’s emissions.
I hope that the Parliament will unite, because, at the end of the day, if we have a unanimous view, we will have the credibility to persuade others. We must do that to support future generations.
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
I rise to support amendment 17, in the name of Claudia Beamish, which I was delighted to co-sign. I commend her on her shuttle-diplomacy efforts over recent days, which I think have reaped rewards.
It is widely recognised that we face a climate emergency. Some reached that conclusion earlier than others, but we must now use that general acceptance as a platform from which to launch a more ambitious response to the challenges that we face.
Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that, during its scrutiny of the bill, Parliament has already chosen to adopt a target of net zero emissions by 2045. That represents an important step forward in ambition and urgency, and it is supported by the UKCCC’s advice.
However, setting such a target is largely symbolic unless we also commit to greater ambition and urgency in the early stages—that is, over the next decade. The IPCC report in 2018 could not have been clearer when it said that
“Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”.
It also said that
“What happens between now and 2030 is crucial”.
In response to that advice, setting a target of a 70 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 is inadequate. It represents only a marginal increase in what we set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, and, as the UKCCC has itself acknowledged, it emerged from the approach of simply
“drawing a straight line from emissions in 2020 to the date of net-zero”.
Setting a more ambitious target for 2030 still needs to be based on what is realistic and achievable. If nothing else, that will allow us to take people with us, to ensure that they can and will play their part in the necessary transition.
There has been much discussion with colleagues across the parties about what an appropriate figure might be, and I welcome the cross-party engagement that has characterised the scrutiny of the bill. I believe that 75 per cent sets the right balance. It is stretching—it will be extremely challenging—but it is achievable and sets us on course for net zero emissions by 2045.
Of course there should be scope in the bill for targets to be reviewed as evidence and opportunities change, but to go beyond 75 per cent at this stage would lack credibility. I support the amendment in Claudia Beamish’s name.
Roseanna Cunningham
Throughout the bill process, the Government has remained committed to following the independent expert advice of the Committee on Climate Change on what constitutes the most ambitious, yet credible, targets.
We immediately lodged amendments at stage 2 to put the CCC’s recommended targets, including net zero by 2045 and a 70 per cent reduction by 2030, into the bill. The approach of following the CCC’s advice is also what the ECCLR Committee called for in its stage 2 report on the bill.
One of the key strengths of Scotland’s approach to emissions reductions—and one of the reasons why it has been so successful to date—is the reliance on an evidence-based approach that is based on the best available scientific advice. The Government remains committed to maintaining that link between the evidence and the pathway that we place Scotland on for the years to come.
The CCC has set out the most robust scientific assessment of the right targets for Scotland and the UK. It is clear that our 2045 net zero target is correct and the most ambitious scientifically feasible. The CCC has also set out that there is a gap in its detailed analysis of the path for emissions in the years up to 2045. In the absence of that detailed work, which the CCC has committed to undertake, its initial analysis suggested that the right target for Scotland for 2030 was 70 per cent. The CCC explicitly said that it had chosen a “prudent” target of 70 per cent, and we have always been clear that we believe that that meets the requirements of the Paris climate agreement.
Mark Ruskell
Will the cabinet secretary reflect on whether it is credible to seek advice that is based on only a 50 per cent chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5°? Is that not selling out future generations?
Roseanna Cunningham
I will ensure that the Committee on Climate Change is aware of Mark Ruskell’s views of its expertise.
It is clear that now is the time for even greater ambition in tackling the world’s climate emergency and that signals matter. That is why we will commit, today, to going further and will adopt a target of a 75 per cent reduction in Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 by supporting Labour’s amendment 17. However, we will also commit to seeking further, more detailed, advice from the CCC next year on that new 2030 target. A reduction of 70 per cent and a reduction of 75 per cent both more than meet what the IPCC special report says is needed globally over the next decade to prevent warming of more than 1.5°.
All parties supporting amendment 17 must understand how enormously challenging a 75 per cent target will be and must be prepared to join us in making the difficult delivery decisions that will follow. In agreeing to what is by far the most ambitious statutory target for 2030 of any country anywhere in the world, Parliament is committing itself to supporting the pathway that is set out in the bill and the tough policies that that pathway requires.
Let me say clearly to the Opposition parties that when recent proposals have been put forward to tackle emissions—the introduction of a workplace parking levy, for example—they have been met with fierce opposition. For us to have any hope of achieving a higher target for 2030, the parties that call for that higher target and claim to be serious about tackling climate change will need to back such assertions with action. If Parliament sets a higher target, it is no longer an option for any party to stand in the way of the measures that we need to take to tackle climate change.
The 75 per cent target also represents a clear challenge to the UK Government to step up and match Scotland’s high ambition. The current UK target for 2030 of a 57 per cent reduction will not support the delivery of a 75 per cent reduction here in Scotland. I invite members to note that the CCC’s recommended 70 per cent target—let alone a 75 per cent target—for 2030 would be the most ambitious target in law of any country in the world. I have already referred to the UK’s current target of 57 per cent; the EU’s current target is 40 per cent, and Sweden’s main target for that year, which applies to some sectors only, is 63 per cent. I therefore urge members to reject the Green Party’s amendment 18.
The Presiding Officer
I call Claudia Beamish to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 17.
Claudia Beamish
I thank Liam McArthur and the Tories for supporting the Scottish Labour amendment. I recognise that the Greens have gone further today, and Scottish Labour will consult on an 80 per cent target, partly in view of what happened at the Labour Party conference yesterday in relation to the green jobs revolution. We will see where we go with that. It is imperative that, across the chamber, we all continue to assess whether we can go further than we will go today. However, I have listened to what the cabinet secretary said. We have to do this in a way that supports communities, workers and the global south. That is important.
Stewart Stevenson highlighted that we call ourselves world leaders—I certainly think that we are up there.
Very excitingly, next year, the COP—the conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—will be coming to Glasgow. We should all push forward as hard as we can to ensure that we are the very best so that we are a strong example to the world. As a developed country, we must ensure that we do not impact heavily or, if possible, that we do not impact at all on the global south.
I am sitting next to Sarah Boyack, who was involved in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, as was Stewart Stevenson. I recognise their work and the work of others who introduced that law. I recognise how far we have come, but I also recognise how far we have to go. Sarah Boyack has just reminded me we will have three sessions of Parliament before the targets come to fruition, as we hope and expect they will. Which of us will be here? In a sense, that does not really matter. What matters is that our children and our children’s children will be more likely to have a real future and real quality of life, and that children across the world will be less likely to be climate migrants. We hope that, wherever they are, they will be able to stay there and have a good quality of life.
Let us be sure that we reach the targets in an equitable way. I press amendment 17.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Mark Ruskell].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division. As it is the first division of the afternoon, I will suspend the Parliament for five minutes while I summon members to the chamber.
15:01 Meeting suspended.15:06 On resuming—
The Presiding Officer
We will proceed with the division on amendment 18.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 92, Abstentions 19.
Amendment 18 disagreed to.
Section 5—The target-setting criteria
The Presiding Officer
Group 3 is on sustainable development and climate justice. Amendment 19, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 3, 20, 4, 1, 6, 9, 10 to 12, 12A, 14, 14A and 16.
Claudia Beamish
Are we on group 3, Presiding Officer?
The Presiding Officer
Yes.
Claudia Beamish
Thank you. I am sorry—I am feeling overwhelmed, already. Okay. On we go.
My amendments in group 3 are designed to ensure that Scotland stands up for climate justice, and that ministers act with respect to Scotland’s historically high emissions and support the global south in its climate action. Members will recall that I lodged amendments that covered those issues at stage 2, so I thank the Government for the dialogue that we had over the summer.
We must play our part and do no further harm. Amendment 10 seeks to add to the bill a “climate justice principle”, which the amendment defines as
“the importance of”
mitigation and adaptation to climate change
“in ways which ... support ... people who are most affected by climate change but who have done the least to cause it and are the least equipped to adapt to its effects, and ... help to address inequality.”
Amendment 10 is significant: the importance of adding that principle to the bill cannot be overstated. Climate change is inextricably linked to human rights, and it exacerbates inequality by disproportionately affecting people who are already marginalised. In the global south especially, people’s lives, health, housing, sanitation, food and water are all put on the line by developed countries dragging their feet and making decisions that suit themselves.
Amendment 10 would add the climate justice principle, which would mean that ministers would have to have regard to it when preparing climate change plans. That would be welcome, so I urge all members to support it today.
I also urge members to support amendment 19, which would add reference to the principle to the target-setting criteria. That would be a much more meaningful way to deliver climate justice—by including it in the approach to the overall ambition and speed of tackling climate change, rather than just in our domestic emissions reduction plan.
Amendment 4 would further amend the definition of
“fair and safe Scottish emissions budget”,
which is already in the bill, to include reference to article 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which includes extremely worthy principles, including
“equity ... common but differentiated responsibilities ... special circumstances of developing country Parties”,
the precautionary principle, sustainable development and support for sustainable economic growth.
Amendment 20, however, goes somewhat further than amendment 4, and I hope that there will be support for it from across the chamber. It makes explicit reference to the principles of
“equity and ... common but differentiated responsibilities”.
Those principles are the essence of ensuring the “fair” part of a “fair and safe ... budget”. I understand that the cabinet secretary has concerns about competing hierarchies, but without amendment 20, those vital aspects will be absent from the face of the bill, and will exist only in a reference.
Amendment 6 is also a result of dialogue with the cabinet secretary following stage 2, and would add
“supporting ... action in developing countries”
to tackle climate change to the scope of climate change plans. It would specifically require ministers to set out how they will do that
“by the sharing of expertise and technology”.
That is more in line with Scotland’s delivery of climate justice, on which we have a strong record, led by the Scottish Government, and with supporting those who are least equipped to deal with a crisis that is not of their own making.
Finally, I have in group 3 a number of amendments relating to sustainable development. Amendment 3 would add sustainable development considerations, including the UN sustainable development goals, to the target-setting criteria.
Amendment 12 would require that climate change plans set out how they are expected to contribute to achieving sustainable development goals, and amendment 14 would add reference to those goals to the general duty in relation to sustainable development in section 92 of the 2009 act.
Amendments 12A and 14A would add the stipulation that considerations should be given to ensuring that Scotland’s actions
“do not negatively impact on the ability of other countries to achieve sustainable development.”
The amendments would add a much stronger duty to properly account for the “do no harm” principle, which, in reality, is “do no more harm.”
Amendments 9 and 11 are minor consequential amendments, and amendment 16 includes a definition of the UN sustainable development goals.
I will also support Angus MacDonald’s amendment 1, which makes important reference to the 1.5°C limit, under which we must all stay if we are to have a safe and prosperous world in the future.
I urge members to agree to the amendments in group 3 to show the world that Scotland is a member of the global community and is taking a moral approach to the climate emergency.
I move amendment 19.
Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Amendment 1 is similar to amendment 97, which I lodged at stage 2. I thank the Government for its assistance in refining the amendment.
Amendment 1 will ensure that regular independent expert advice will be sought and published on how Scotland’s targets relate to global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. Needless to say, I am pleased that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and the Scottish Government have recognised the importance of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report “Global Warming of 1.5°C”. The UKCCC describes its subsequent target recommendations for Scotland, which are reflected in the bill, as being
“towards the high end of the estimated range of necessary reductions for a limit of 1.5°C”.
Therefore, it is incredibly important that the targets continue to be kept under regular review in the light of further developments in science, and progress through efforts that are made in other countries.
15:15The bill will ensure that updated advice from the Committee on Climate Change is sought at least every five years. Those requests for advice will include requests for the CCC’s views on the appropriate level for the fair and safe emissions budget for Scotland, which is defined in relation to the internationally agreed global temperature aim that is set out in the Paris agreement. That aim references “well below” 2°C, as well as 1.5°C.
In effect, amendment 1 will provide a way to ensure that expert advice on how Scotland’s targets relate to the 1.5°C limit in the Paris agreement will continue to be sought and made available.
I urge members to support amendment 1.
Mark Ruskell
I thank Claudia Beamish and Angus MacDonald for their amendments. The bill is a response to the Paris agreement, and the spirit and substance of that agreement must be delivered in the heart of the bill.
Our industrial revolution created a huge climate debt that has been passed on to communities around the world, including ones that have barely begun their own development journeys. We have to allow countries in the developing world the room to breathe in the climate emergency. Our target setting must be equitable, and we have to be mindful of the climate injustice and suffering that is happening with just 1°C warming, let alone what might come in the decades ahead. Our role must also be to smooth the path to sustainable development for all countries, and not put barriers in their way through our actions at home.
For those reasons, Greens strongly back all the amendments in group 3.
Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab)
I support all the amendments in group 3 because they are about cross-cutting and global action. The key issue with the UN sustainable development goals is that there is no one policy lever. We have to ensure that climate action cuts right across all the relevant issues around the world—housing, transport, energy, economy, biodiversity, flooding and equalities. All the SDGs must be acted on.
At the forefront, we need the concept of global justice, so that when we work, through the United Nations, on support for the global south, we acknowledge that it is already facing huge poverty issues and inequalities. Action must be factored into all our trade, aid and business policies.
I thank the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund for the work that it has done in promoting amendments. I am thankful for the work that many of our charities do in supporting countries and people who are already experiencing what climate change will eventually be like all around the globe. Groups including Oxfam, Tearfund and Christian Aid do essential work.
As sea levels rise, people will be shifted from their countries. We already see the impact of rising sea levels in places such as Bangladesh, and there are already climate refugees. This year is being seen as one of the worst and most disastrous in memory with regard to the number of people who have had to leave their homes because of climate change. We need to focus on that. Floods, landslides, tornadoes and other natural disasters are not all direct results of our climate emergency, but they give us an insight into what the future holds if we do not act.
Let us all support the amendments in group 3. I hope that colleagues in every party will support them, because they are practical and they are ethical. They are what we need to do. If we are going to say that we are one of the most radical countries in the world in terms of tackling the climate emergency, we have to follow through in all our policy delivery and Government actions.
Maurice Golden
Conservatives support the principles of international environmental law and the intention behind many of the amendments in group 3. I am not fully convinced that codification in the bill of international environmental law is necessary or required, but we are sympathetic to many of the amendments in group 3, nonetheless.
However, we have grave concerns that amendments 12A and 14A, which seek to “not negatively impact” the sustainable development of other countries could create a legal precedent, whereby Scottish ministers and the Scottish Government would be unable to make necessary changes to tackle climate change and instigate the creation of new sectors, industries or jobs, because those changes might have an impact on other countries. I do not want the bill to lead to further legal disputes or constrain our ability to tackle climate change. On that basis, we will not support the amendments.
Roseanna Cunningham
I am happy to support amendment 1 from Angus MacDonald, which represents a sensible way to further reflect in the bill the importance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The Scottish Government has accepted the vital message of the IPCC’s special report on 1.5°C, and is committed to contributing to global efforts to reach that goal.
We must, however, be realistic about what one small country can do to affect global emissions levels. The statutory framework around targets needs to reflect that reality, as well as Scotland’s leadership. At stage 2, we amended the bill to explicitly link the definition of Scotland’s fair and safe emissions budget to the Paris agreement global temperature goal, which is to limit warming to “well below 2 °C” and to pursue
“efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C”.
Angus MacDonald’s amendment provides a useful and complementary addition to the target framework, by requiring ministers to regularly ask the CCC for additional advice on how Scotland’s targets will contribute to global efforts on the 1.5°C aspect of the Paris goal in particular.
I turn to the suite of amendments from Claudia Beamish, with whom there was constructive engagement over the summer. I was, however, just a little disappointed to see that she had lodged further amendments that undermine some of the areas in which I thought that we had established consensus.
I am sympathetic to the underlying purpose of this group of amendments. Climate change is a global challenge and it is right that that is clearly reflected in our domestic legislation, including through recognising the interactions between actions to reduce emissions and sustainable development. Scotland is a responsible global citizen and we recognise our moral obligation to contribute to the challenge of climate change, and to influence others to do the same.
I am content to support Claudia Beamish’s amendments where they will work to reflect those considerations in the target framework of the bill in a workable and appropriate way. The Scottish Government’s national performance framework is Scotland’s way to localise and implement the UN sustainable development goals. The framework has a focus on tackling inequalities so that no one in Scotland is left behind as we work together to achieve the goals.
Amendments 3, 11, 12, 14 and 16 from Claudia Beamish provide a strong package to reflect the importance of that policy coherence around sustainable development at the heart of our climate change legislation.
Amendment 6 ensures that climate change plans will include a section on action to support developing countries on tackling climate change, as well as the actions to reduce emissions here in Scotland.
Amendments 9 and 10 place Scotland’s proven commitment to climate justice on the face of the bill, recognising that those who have done least to cause climate change are often the ones who suffer the most from its effects. As I have said, tackling inequalities must be central to our approach and these amendments further recognise that.
Amendment 4 updates the definition of Scotland’s fair and safe emissions budget, the level of which is recommended independently by the Committee on Climate Change, to link to the internationally agreed set of principles that are set out by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Those amendments will significantly strengthen the role of sustainable development and climate justice in Scotland’s climate change legislation. However, I cannot support amendments 20, 19, 12A or 14A and I urge members to reject them. Amendment 20 seeks to further amend the definition of the fair and safe emissions budget to highlight specific and selective wording from the UNFCCC principles. That approach risks creating presentational and legal hierarchies, by suggesting that those elements of the principles are more important than others. It also fails to recognise all aspects of article 3.1 of the UNFCCC, in which those principles are outlined, which sets out that developed countries should lead action to tackle climate change—precisely what Scotland is doing.
As I have indicated, I urge members to support Claudia Beamish’s amendment 4, which refers to the UNFCCC principles in the round, and to reject amendment 20. The two amendments cannot both be sensibly agreed to.
Amendment 19 is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. It seeks to add the climate justice principle to the target-setting criteria. Although I am supportive of the principle, I consider that that ground is sufficiently well covered by the existing set of criteria and that adding further principles to that would at best add no value and could at worst cause confusion.
The statutory target-setting criteria already include economic circumstances, including a particular requirement to consider jobs and employment opportunities; social circumstances, in particular the likely impact on those who live in poorer or more deprived communities; and the likely impact on those who live in remote rural and island communities. If amendment 4 is agreed to, the UNFCCC principles will also be referred to within the criteria through the fair and safe emissions budget.
I invite members to consider that the statutory just transition principles, which we will discuss further in a later group, do not form part of the criteria. It would seem inconsistent to highlight one of our climate change plan principles over the other ones in the way that is proposed.
Amendments 12A and 14A, which seek to directly amend Claudia Beamish’s own amendments, are entirely impractical. I cannot support proposals that would require, in law, assessments to be made of the impact of Scottish policies on the ability of other countries to achieve sustainable development outcomes. It is entirely unclear from the amendments how such assessments could robustly and meaningfully be undertaken. For example, it is unclear whether that duty should apply to all other countries and, if not, to which ones it should apply. Amendment 6 requires ministers to set out the positive actions that they are taking to support developing countries in tackling climate change, and we think that that is the right way forward.
To be clear, I could not support amendment 12 or amendment 14—which are otherwise positive measures—if amendments 12A and 14A were to be agreed to.
In summary, I urge members to support all the amendments in the group other than amendments 20, 19, 12A and 14A, which risk undermining the positive effects that will be achieved by the other amendments.
Claudia Beamish
I was, indeed, pleased to work with the cabinet secretary over the summer on the amendments. We went as far as it was possible to go together. However, in discussion with SCIAF and other groups, we decided that we wanted to go further, and the Parliament will have to decide whether it wants to join us in supporting the global south in what we see as the most robust way possible.
As Sarah Boyack highlighted, the sustainable development goals have no single policy lever. Climate justice encompasses all our actions and policies, and as a developed country our actions should be judged against those.
I was puzzled by what Maurice Golden said about being prevented from supporting our amendment because it would affect the global south negatively. However, he gave no examples of what he meant. If he wants to clarify that in any way, I would be happy to listen.
The Presiding Officer
Briefly, please—we are running out of time.
Maurice Golden
I can give the member an example. If a new circular economy product is produced in Scotland, that could clearly have an impact on other countries that might be producing a similar product. Therefore, putting the principle in statute could be counterproductive.
Claudia Beamish
I thank Maurice Golden for that explanation, but I still do not agree with him. I do not think that creating a product that is similar to an existing one will prevent anyone else from producing that existing one. The idea of global climate justice is not that we seek not to impact on people by producing a product that they might want to produce, but that we do not impact on them by doing things that will affect them negatively in terms of climate change. We have a global responsibility to ensure that we do not impact negatively on the ability of other countries to act.
I disagree with the cabinet secretary regarding the UNFCCC principles that she mentioned. Those principles are so important that we should highlight them in the bill.
It is fundamentally important that we recognise the issue of climate justice in the setting of every target, so I hope that members will support the provisions that I have proposed on that, as well as all my other amendments in the group.
15:30The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 34, Against 87, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 19 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.
Amendment 20 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 34, Against 86, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 20 disagreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.
Section 6—Duty to seek advice from the relevant body
The Presiding Officer
I call amendment 1, in the name of Angus MacDonald.
Angus MacDonald
Firmly pressed, Presiding Officer.
Amendment 1 moved—[Angus MacDonald]—and agreed to.
The Presiding Officer
It is passed, Mr MacDonald.
After section 8
The Presiding Officer
Group 4 is on a citizens assembly. Amendment 21, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is the only amendment in the group.
Mark Ruskell
Angus MacDonald’s amendment 1 was indeed firmly pressed—I could hear it from here.
I am pleased to be moving amendment 21 on the establishment of a climate citizens assembly. I welcome the cross-portfolio discussions that have been taking place, which have involved Patrick Harvie, Michael Russell, Roseanna Cunningham and me. I thank activists from outside the Parliament—some of whom might be inside the Parliament today—who have pushed hard for such an assembly to be set up.
It is clear that we will face unprecedented societal change in the years ahead. How we take people with us in designing and preparing for hard choices will be critical. A citizens assembly is essential if we are to understand the issues, set agendas and test the solutions that will go beyond our current thinking on what is possible.
The Irish Citizens’ Assembly’s work on climate should be a strong inspiration for our own. By feeding its work to ministers and Parliament, it set in train new actions for Ireland’s climate action plan, and it was able to consider issues such as tax policy that were too thorny at first for the politicians to consider, although they eventually caught up on that.
I look forward to the establishment of Scotland’s first-ever climate citizens assembly, and I hope that it will light the path to tackling the climate emergency.
I move amendment 21.
Liam McArthur
I thank Mark Ruskell for lodging amendment 21 and for setting out very clearly the case for a citizens assembly. The Scottish Liberal Democrats very much support the amendment. The circumstances are precisely the sort in which the use of a citizens assembly is justified. As Mark Ruskell has said, such assemblies can make a real contribution in identifying ways of achieving a genuinely shared objective. Perhaps the circumstances are in contrast to other instances in which such assemblies are currently being proposed.
How such citizens assemblies would interact with other sources of advice, evidence and expertise is an obvious question. However, there seems to be nothing in what Mark Ruskell has proposed that would preclude that from happening in ways that would inform and support the citizens assembly’s work and ensure that ministers are able to draw on the advice that they will continue to need when they need it.
I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s comments, but I very much welcome Mark Ruskell’s amendment.
Claudia Beamish
In the climate emergency, a climate citizens assembly is a necessary step to be inclusive and in terms of behaviour change. It will help people to connect with the Parliament.
We invited young people into the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, and that was really effective. Sometimes, people do not feel that they can come to the Parliament, so we need to take a further step to allow people to have such discussions beyond the Parliament. We therefore support the proposal.
I want to look back to the Supreme Court’s decision on parliamentary sovereignty on Tuesday, which is not far back. I feel uncomfortable about the view of some people who have approached us in relation to a citizens assembly on climate change: they would like the Scottish Parliament to be bound by its deliberations. We cannot possibly support that in a parliamentary democracy. We can be inspired and influenced by a citizens assembly, but in a parliamentary democracy we cannot be bound by it. I simply wanted to highlight that point. However, we will support the proposal.
Roseanna Cunningham
The Scottish Government supports the use of deliberative democracy in Scotland. When a problem requires a longer-term approach, a change of perspective or a development in the way that we as a country discuss the issue, involving the people of Scotland directly in the debate is the right thing to do. We will not solve the most challenging issues of the day if we do not listen to one another and hear and understand what the experts have to say and what the people are most concerned about, or if we do not as a country commit ourselves to a more respectful, balanced and informed dialogue.
The Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations set out the case for citizens assemblies generally in a recent debate in the chamber. There was support from across the parties for assemblies to look at the most challenging issues of our day, including support for an assembly on climate change.
Climate change is an issue that is well suited to a citizens assembly. It is certainly one of the most challenging issues of our day. It requires difficult decisions to be made, and it affects the daily lives and futures of every one of us.
I am happy to support the amendment to mandate the establishment of a Scottish citizens assembly on climate change. Assemblies work when they are independent, and the amendment requires that. More than anything else, citizens assemblies need to be established with a strong commitment by a country’s Government and Parliament that they will take seriously the evidence that the assemblies have gathered and the recommendations that they have produced. The amendment guarantees that, too. It requires the assembly to lay its report before Parliament and to provide the Scottish ministers with a copy, to which they must respond.
I therefore support the amendment and look forward to working with parties across the Parliament to establish Scotland’s citizens assembly on climate change during the remainder of this parliamentary session.
Mark Ruskell
I thank members across parties for their support for the amendment.
We are seeing deliberative democracy really taking off in Scotland. There is participatory budgeting and, in the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, we have held our own citizens jury on the future of agricultural subsidies. The approach is genuinely engaging. It accesses views that we would not otherwise hear and brings new voices into decision making and thinking, which is hugely important.
When such initiatives are established, there is sometimes a danger of expectations running incredibly high. In this case, the expectations of the citizens assembly are very clear. It will not be a decision-making body; it will produce reports, advice and thinking that the Government and committees of Parliament will then be able to consider. I do not believe that the citizens assembly should have the responsibility of taking decisions; that responsibility rightly lies with us in Parliament. However, we should actively engage with and consider the results and work of the citizens assembly through our business in Parliament.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Section 9—Annual targets: 2021 to year before net-zero year
Amendment 5 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
After section 12
The Presiding Officer
Group 5 is on the approval of relevant public body budgets. Amendment 22, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is the only amendment in the group.
Mark Ruskell
Last year, I think, the national grid noticed a sudden huge drop in electricity consumption in Dundee. It took the national grid a while to work out that it was due to something happening at Ninewells hospital. A few phone calls later, there was confirmation that the hospital was okay. There was no problem, but the hospital had had its new energy system switched on, which immediately had a massive impact on the grid.
The decisions that public bodies make, particularly in relation to their infrastructure, are significant in how we tackle climate change. Such decisions can either lock in emissions for decades or make big emissions savings, which can deliver equally big financial savings. Tackling the climate emergency means getting every institution’s actions and spending going in the right direction. We need to understand how public bodies contribute to the solution through both the capital and revenue sides of their budgets. Amendment 22 will drive the conversation between public bodies and Government in support of delivery of the targets in the bill.
I move amendment 22.
Sarah Boyack
We support amendment 22, because every single one of our public bodies should, as a matter of course, be mainstreaming action on climate change. That should be agreed before their budgets are agreed. It is about leadership, culture and thinking proactively about public procurement, so that there is consideration of the impact on climate change of every investment and expenditure decision, whether it is about resilience to climate change or lowering carbon emissions.
We very much support amendment 22. It is a short amendment, but it could have a big impact on leadership and delivery on the ground.
Roseanna Cunningham
Although I have sympathy for the motivation behind amendment 22, I cannot support it, because a better way forward is not only available but already in train.
The Scottish Government is consulting on the role of public sector bodies in tackling climate change. That work includes asking a specific question about whether such bodies should report annually on how they use their resources to contribute to reducing emissions. Once the consultation is complete, the Scottish Government will introduce secondary legislation to update the statutory reporting duties under the 2009 act.
There are several reasons why taking that approach, rather than the one in amendment 22, is the right way to progress the entirely legitimate questions about how the public sector supports emissions reductions. First, the review covers the full range of public sector bodies in Scotland. In contrast, amendment 22 would exclude many significant players by being framed in terms of only those bodies for which ministers must approve
“proposals for the use of resources”.
Secondly, amendment 22 would not capture any United Kingdom public bodies that operate in Scotland, such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions. Just yesterday, I wrote to the UK Government to ask it to decarbonise its estates and operations in Scotland in time to allow our net zero date of 2045 to be met, rather than its target date of 2050.
Sarah Boyack
How does the cabinet secretary think that the Scottish Parliament can legislate to instruct UK Government agencies to do something? We can influence them, but it is up to them to decide.
Roseanna Cunningham
Perhaps the member should listen to what I have said. I have written to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, at Westminster, to ask the UK Government to agree to what we will discuss in relation to public sector bodies. Of course we cannot legislate for UK public sector bodies, but their emissions will add to our emissions stats. I am asking the UK Government to come on board with what we are doing.
15:45My point is that there is a group of public sector bodies that do not submit their budgets to us. Amendment 22 would not even capture all public bodies in the devolved arena—it would exclude those such as Scottish local authorities, health boards and Crown Estate Scotland, whose budgets are their own to set. In contrast, all such bodies are captured by the public sector reporting duty, so pursuing that route forward would be substantially more effective.
For those reasons, I urge members to reject amendment 22.
Mark Ruskell
I feel as though I have been listening to this debate for some time now. Sarah Boyack has talked about mainstreaming and public procurement, which we talked about in the second session of the Scottish Parliament, yet the Government is still not taking significant action to crack the issue. The bill was the Government’s opportunity to put in provisions around public bodies and in a raft of other areas in which action needs to be taken to ensure that all institutions in the country work together to tackle the climate emergency.
The opposition to my amendment is disappointing. We had a discussion on the matter over the summer. I respect the fact that consultations are under way, but this is the moment to put something into legislation. Amendment 22 might not capture absolutely all public bodies, but it would move the situation forward significantly. The committee received evidence from the national health service in particular about the importance of reducing energy use, tackling climate change and improving the financial bottom line of many of our public institutions. We should be driving that forward right now. Just because amendment 22 is not complete in its scope does not mean that we cannot agree to it now and then consult on other areas that are not covered by it with a view to improving action over time.
I press amendment 22.
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 28, Against 93, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 22 disagreed to.
After section 15
The Presiding Officer
Group 6 is on a nitrogen balance sheet. Amendment 23, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with manuscript amendment 23A.
Maurice Golden
Amendments 23 and 23A seek to introduce a requirement on the Scottish ministers to create a balance sheet to measure nitrogen flows across all sectors and media in Scotland within 18 months of the bill being passed. I thank the Presiding Officer for accepting my manuscript amendment, which seeks to change the relevant timescale from 12 to 18 months. I think that a period of 18 months is more appropriate, as it will allow more time for research, modelling and consultation.
Nitrogen balance sheets are an established technique for understanding nitrogen flows across all sectors of the economy. A nitrogen balance sheet would allow us to calculate nitrogen use efficiency across Scotland and to develop a baseline figure for it, as well as showing areas where nitrogen should be used more efficiently. That would help us to develop fair and evidence-based policies to identify and tackle nitrogen loss across the whole of the economy, and to ensure that nitrogen efficiency is monitored and reported on, so that policy always reflects practice.
In this year’s programme for government, the Scottish Government committed to developing a national nitrogen balance sheet. I hope that we have support for these amendments from not just the SNP, but members across the chamber.
I move amendments 23 and 23A.
Stewart Stevenson
I very much welcome amendments 23 and 23A. In particular, I welcome the change to 18 months. It is worth saying that in committee, John Scott and I have been concerned about the way that the international greenhouse gas inventory works in relation to agriculture. The inventory is very unfair in reflecting the cost and benefit of agriculture, because it does not attribute to agriculture things such as forestry and renewable energy.
The balance sheet will play its own part in giving us a better understanding of the positive impact that agriculture—and, for that matter, agroforestry—can have on this particular agenda. Outwith this chamber, there has been too much lazy commentary—to put it bluntly—which has not considered the full facts relating to agriculture. I am happy to support Maurice Golden’s proposal on that basis, and for many other reasons as well.
Mark Ruskell
I welcome the amendments. The case for a nitrogen budget for Scotland has been building for several years, and this approach will cut pollution, waste and energy usage while saving money—especially for farmers.
Our fields are currently drenched with a staggering excess of 87kg of nitrogen per hectare. Not only is that an expensive waste of inputs; the subsequent costs of pollution and clean-ups of water and air are then, of course, borne by taxpayers.
I hope that the starting point of the budget will be compulsory soil testing, which is one of the recommendations of the UK Committee on Climate Change that the Scottish Government has not yet adopted. It should also lead to innovation and new technologies that value nitrogen as the important resource that it is.
Claudia Beamish
I will speak very briefly in support of Maurice Golden’s important amendments. I identify myself with the remarks of other members who have highlighted the issues. It is a challenge for farmers when a lot of what they do is not recognised, and the nitrogen balance sheet will help. Of course, the issue affects other sectors as well.
For quite a time in committee, in this parliamentary session and in the previous one, we have grappled with nitrogen. It is not before time that we are able to support these amendments, and I really hope that they are agreed to.
Liam McArthur
Like others, I rise to speak in support of the amendments. The manuscript amendment is very welcome in that it buys a little bit more time. Although there seem to be concerns around flexibility over the longer term, none of them are insurmountable.
As Stewart Stevenson rightly pointed out, the issue of providing greater balance in relation to the pros and cons of the role that agriculture plays in helping us to meet our climate change challenges is—in part—addressed through the amendments. Therefore, I very much welcome them, and confirm that the Liberal Democrats will support them.
Roseanna Cunningham
As indicated by Maurice Golden, the Scottish Government committed in the programme for government to preparing a nationwide nitrogen balance sheet. We recognise the value that such information can have in relation to better understanding Scotland’s nitrogen cycle and allowing us to take a systemic approach to improving nitrogen use efficiency, and reducing nitrogen waste throughout the entire economy.
The first stage of the work to create a balance sheet is, necessarily, research to explore the available evidence, which will, if it is to be done well, take some time. The amendment as it was originally lodged posed some technical difficulties, as it would have meant that the Government had substantially less time to undertake the necessary initial research. I am, therefore, very grateful to Maurice Golden for being willing to listen to those concerns and lodging a manuscript amendment to make the timing requirement more realistic. On that basis, I have no reservation in supporting the amendments.
Maurice Golden
I welcome members’ comments and press amendments 23 and 23A.
Amendment 23A agreed to.
Amendment 23, as amended, agreed to.
After section 17A
The Presiding Officer
Group 7 is on emissions attributable to consumption of goods and services: reports and proposals and policies. Amendment 24, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is grouped with amendment 34.
Mark Ruskell
It would be blinkered of us to focus solely on cutting emissions at home while increasing emissions through the consumption of products that are made abroad. It is unfortunate that the picture in that regard is worsening. We live in a consumer society. Consumption emissions are not falling fast enough, and those that are embedded in imported goods and services are rising.
If we are to get a grip on that picture, we need consumption emissions to be reported by sector and we then need to consider how those emissions can be cut, addressing the matter through the climate change plan.
I welcome the constructive discussions with the Government on consumption and I thank the Government for its support for amendments 24 and 34.
I move amendment 24.
Roseanna Cunningham
I am content to support amendments 24 and 34 and I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for working with the Government on the amendments over the summer.
Consumption-based emissions associated with imported goods and services—commonly referred to as our carbon footprint—form an important part of the wider climate change picture. Scotland is already a leader in that it is one of the very few countries that publish regular official statistics on their carbon footprint. One of the national indicators is based on the metric.
It is appropriate that the bill should strengthen reporting duties, as is provided for in amendment 24, and that it ensures that measures to reduce consumption-based emissions are included in the scope of climate change plans, as is provided for in amendment 34.
We must remember that international practice, including under the Paris agreement, is to report emissions on a territorial basis, in part because doing so avoids risks of double counting. Reducing territorial emissions—that is, those from sources located here in Scotland—needs to remain the main focus of our target framework and efforts.
Amendments 24 and 34 strike a sensible balance between those considerations. They will strengthen the complementary role for carbon footprint reporting without jeopardising the necessary focus on reducing emissions at source.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
The Presiding Officer
Group 8 is on land use strategy. Amendment 25, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendment 27.
Claudia Beamish
Amendments 25 and 27 are designed to better align our land use strategy with climate change action. I am pleased that they have the support of a number of non-governmental organisations, including WWF Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates, NFU Scotland and Nourish Scotland.
A key part of the 2009 act was the recognition of the key role that land use plays in climate mitigation and adaptation. However, there has been little progress on policy delivery. There has been no reporting since 2016, and in our view the issue is underresourced. The Government has not taken seriously enough the need for the land use principles to underpin planning.
However, we welcomed the commitment in this year’s programme for government to develop proposals to establish land use partnerships by 2021 and task them with the creation of frameworks by 2023. The amendments in my name support that commitment, and I will be confused if the Scottish Government does not support them.
Amendment 25 would strengthen the mandate of the land use strategy to facilitate delivery of climate change targets. Amendment 27 would require the Scottish ministers to set out, in the climate change plan, proposals and policies on the establishment, support and resourcing of regional land use partnerships and frameworks.
Regional land use partnerships and frameworks are key to the identification of land use priorities, in partnership with landowners and communities, to bring multiple carbon dioxide benefits, through targeted public spending to support delivery. An appropriate land use strategy would support climate action and the transition to a carbon-positive rural landscape as well as the development of the important role of carbon sequestration, as the UK Committee on Climate Change has highlighted.
I move amendment 25.
16:00Roseanna Cunningham
The programme for government commits us to establishing regional land use partnerships and frameworks by 2023. Amendments 25 and 27 are broadly in line with those commitments, and I am content to accept them.
The development of regional land use partnerships and frameworks is likely to be complicated, and that is reflected in the phased approach that the programme for government sets out. To ensure that we get it right, it is important that we maintain that phased approach, so that regional partnerships and frameworks are as effective as possible in contributing to tackling climate change.
I am content that amendment 27 provides a reasonable way to ensure that progress on delivering those commitments is reflected in future climate change plans.
On amendment 25, in relation to annual reporting on progress on the land use strategy, I have concerns that such reporting might prove to duplicate what will be set out, in any case, in the monitoring reports on the climate change plan. Nonetheless, I recognise the desire for regular reporting on the land use strategy in its own right and, on that basis, I am prepared to support amendment 25.
Claudia Beamish
This has been a long time in the coming. I am delighted that the cabinet secretary is supporting the amendments and I hope that members across the chamber will do the same. As we go forward, it is vital that tackling climate change is at the heart of our land use strategies and regional partnerships. To have that commitment in the bill is significant.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Section 19—Climate change plan
The Presiding Officer
Group 9 is on the timing of the first climate change plan and monitoring report. Amendment 26, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is grouped with amendment 13.
Mark Ruskell
The past few months of this climate emergency have seen everybody, including the Greens, reassess whether our proposals are fit to deliver an unprecedented rate of change. The amendments that have already been passed today lay down fresh challenges. A revised climate plan is needed. A tweak here and there to a revised plan will not cut it. It has to be a priority for Government to deliver a fresh plan, with fresh ambition, in the next six months.
I move amendment 26.
Roseanna Cunningham
First, I will respond to amendment 26, which I was disappointed to see lodged again after the stage 2 discussions in the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. In line with what the committee called for in its stage 2 report, the First Minister has made a clear commitment to update the current climate change plan within six months of royal assent. Amendment 26 would instead require an entire new climate change plan process to be completed within six months. That proposition is significantly different from the committee’s recommendation and is not just unreasonable but flat-out impossible.
Extensive statutory requirements govern a full plan process. A draft version of the plan would need to be laid and scrutinised by Parliament within the proposed six-month window. Amendments that were agreed at stage 2 in response to the committee’s recommendations mean that at least four of those months must be occupied by parliamentary scrutiny. That would leave the Government with less than two months to design, prepare and consult on the plan. That is clearly untenable, particularly given the additional elements to the process that were added to the bill via amendments at stage 2.
For example, the bill requires that the CCC’s views be sought on draft plans. A reasonable amount of time would need to be given to the CCC to do that, and the Government would want to consider the CCC’s advice before laying the plan in Parliament. If we allowed a month for that process, we would be in a position where the draft plan would have to be produced, consulted on and to have all its statutory assessments completed in just one month.
The Parliament agreed to the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, which requires the Government to conduct strategic environmental assessments of plans and programmes that are likely to have significant environmental effects. It would not be possible to meet that statutory requirement and a statutory requirement to finalise a new climate change plan, including parliamentary scrutiny of four months, within a six-month period.
There is a global climate emergency and, in response, meaningful, swift action is needed. The current climate plan was published just over 18 months ago, following a process of parliamentary scrutiny. The ECCLR Committee called for an updated plan, and the First Minister and I have made clear commitments to delivering that. Doing so within six months will be very challenging, but that is what we are committed to.
Amendment 26 is not practicable or reasonable, and I strongly urge members to reject it. In contrast, amendment 13, in my name, represents a pragmatic adjustment to the timing of future climate change plan monitoring reports in light of the commitment to update the current climate change plan within six months.
The bill places annual reporting on a statutory footing. As recommended by the ECCLR Committee, the timing of the reports has now been moved to fall before summer recess each year. Our commitment to updating the current plan within six months of royal assent means that that can be expected in late spring next year. It would not make sense for there to be a requirement to lay a set of monitoring reports at the same time as we lay the updated plan. To avoid that scenario, under amendment 17, the first set of monitoring reports under the bill arrangements will be required in May 2021.
That does not mean that no monitoring of the current climate change plan will occur until 2021. Building from the first plan monitoring report in October 2018, I confirm today that we will publish a second annual report later this autumn. The monitoring information in that report will help to inform the process of updating the plan itself.
Maurice Golden
We will support amendment 13. However, I appreciate Mark Ruskell’s intention behind the amendment for a new climate change plan. The Conservatives agree that there should be a new plan. There is a requirement on the Government to set out and chart our progress towards the new targets that we have agreed to today. However, the associated timescale of six months is just too stretching. As the Opposition, we want to put as much pressure on the Government as possible, but we also want to be fair and reasonable. Amendment 26 does not meet that test.
Claudia Beamish
Anything new that comes forward in relation to the climate emergency can be put into an updated plan with the agreement of the ECCLR Committee and Parliament. Having reflected on what the cabinet secretary has said today—I understood her to say that there will be an updated plan within six months—we will abstain on amendment 26 and support amendment 13. I see that she is nodding in agreement—I thank the cabinet secretary.
Mark Ruskell
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s clarification about the Government’s plans for the process. We have to ensure that the revision to the climate change plan is meaningful and that there is enough time and involvement from committees to scrutinise what comes out of the bill. We are making big changes today, and the bill will have big implications.
I welcome Opposition parties’ support for the intention behind amendment 26 but, having reflected on the cabinet secretary’s contribution and her reassurances, I will not press it.
Amendment 26, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 27 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 92, Against 0, Abstentions 27.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
The Presiding Officer
Group 10 is on climate change plan: proposals and policies. Amendment 28, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is grouped with amendments 29 to 31, 31A, 31B, 32 and 33.
Mark Ruskell
There is a frustration among Opposition parties in the Parliament. For years now, we have continually highlighted what we see as poor ambition on climate change, especially in the areas of housing and farming. Stronger action, as called for by the UK Committee on Climate Change, should have been embedded in the climate change plan, but it was not and so we needed to take action through this legislation.
I will start with the amendments on farming in this group, all of which we accept. It is clear that, while countries such as France have forged ahead, creating ambitious agro-ecology action plans to cover emissions, restore biodiversity and support farm businesses, in Scotland we remain stuck in preserving the status quo. We know how to change, as we have excellent, if underfunded, research institutes. We can restore our soil by integrating trees into farm systems and we can expand organic production. We can design advice and financial support to drive the farming transition, while recognising the whole contribution that farm holdings can make to the nation’s carbon balance sheet.
On housing, draughty, cold homes are dragging down our efforts to cut household emissions, which need a fresh focus alongside a determination to end the disgrace of fuel poverty. A tolerable standard of energy performance certificate ratings of at least C must be the norm for the vast majority of households in Scotland. We can learn from mass retrofit approaches across Europe, as well as the targeted approaches to helping people in hard-to-heat properties to access advice and financial support.
We must also be pioneering and look to new frontiers in preserving and locking up carbon. Today, the IPCC has launched its new report on the oceans, demanding that future climate plans recognise and support those ecosystems in their role as carbon sinks, as well as their ability to help us to adapt to extreme weather. Kelp has never been more important.
Finally, we need clarity from the Government on its policies for fossil fuel extraction including unconventional oil and gas. There has been a welcome change in tone from the First Minister, but while we still wait for a legally watertight fracking ban to be delivered, the Government’s policies on fossil fuels cannot exist in a silo away from the climate plans. The need for transition has to be addressed in the heart of those plans, regardless of the level of ambition. I have therefore lodged amendments across a range of policy areas.
I move amendment 28.
Maurice Golden
I start with amendment 33, on an agricultural modernisation fund. It would introduce a requirement for the Scottish ministers to set out in the climate change plan their proposals and policies for such a fund to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on Scottish farms. This year’s programme for government set out the Scottish Government’s plans to consider such funding in the budget as part of a new agricultural transformation programme. Amendment 33 would ensure that policies and proposals for any future agricultural modernisation fund are considered in the next climate change plan. Taking forward policies and proposals for funding to support climate-friendly farming practices could contribute to on-farm carbon sequestration and emissions reductions. Funding is not at present available to support farmers and the up-front costs that are associated with reducing emissions from agriculture are often prohibitive.
Amendment 31 seeks to introduce a requirement for the Scottish ministers to set out in the climate change plan their proposals and policies for a whole-farm approach to emissions accounting on Scottish farms. The amendment would require the climate change plan to set out the Scottish ministers’ proposals and policies regarding the establishment of a whole-farm approach to emissions accounting on Scottish farms and regarding the reduction of Scottish whole-farm greenhouse gas emissions through the use of, among other things, research, knowledge transfer and advice, and circular economy initiatives.
16:15I am pleased to have cross-party support for amendment 31. However, I will not support amendments 31A and 31B, which are amendments to my amendment, as I believe that they would make the provision that will be inserted into the bill overly prescriptive.
Amendment 32 seeks to introduce a requirement on the Scottish ministers to set out in the climate change plan their proposals and policies on the potential for capture and storage of carbon when designating marine protected areas. The amendment would encourage the Scottish Government to take account of the potential for carbon sequestration alongside biodiversity concerns when designating MPAs.
Claudia Beamish
We will support amendment 28, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which will oblige us to have a discussion on the future of our fossil fuel industry. That discussion needs to be had across the Parliament in relation to the climate emergency and a just transition. The amendment also highlights the Parliament’s position on onshore fracking.
We support amendment 29, in the name of Mark Ruskell, because research is needed to build on what we know about marine ecosystems. We need to mirror the journey from research to action that there has been on peatlands. In the climate change plan, we have teetered around providing real support for marine ecosystems and blue carbon. That should be a priority, and there should be more research into the issue.
On amendment 30, in the name of Mark Ruskell, we are positive about the possibilities for measures on housing to reduce climate change emissions and about the multiple benefits that come to communities across Scotland, particularly rural communities, and to people who are in fuel poverty. Such measures will lead to a better quality of life for people and will support the UN right to a home, which in Scotland should of course be a warm home.
Amendment 31, in the name of Maurice Golden, which is supported by Mark Ruskell, builds on Mark Ruskell’s stage 2 amendment relating to whole-farm commitments and on work by colleagues on the committee, including John Scott—I send my good wishes to him—and Finlay Carson. It is an important amendment, because agriculture is one of the heaviest and most intractable emitters of greenhouse gases. The amendment would give cause for optimism, as it would clarify robustly the range of issues in relation to the way forward. It is valuable for those issues to be set out. The inclusion of support and advice mechanisms will help with a just transition for the land use and agriculture sector.
My amendments 31A and 31B are additions to amendment 31. They would add carbon sequestration and agroforestry to the list of areas through which Scottish farms can reduce whole-farm greenhouse gas emissions.
We will support amendment 31, as it proposes a worthwhile addition to the plan that will provide a more rounded approach to the understanding of farm emissions and ministers’ support for farmers in the climate emergency.
Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)
I am genuinely not clear about what amendment 31A on carbon sequestration by whole farms entails. Will she be a little more specific about what she is advocating?
Claudia Beamish
I will explain what I am advocating. Up until now, it has often been the case that farmers have been doing work on carbon sequestration and peatlands, but it has not been recognised or supported. It is important that amendment 31A is agreed to so that that work is recognised.
I find it disappointing that, if I understand it correctly, Maurice Golden is not going to support either my amendment on peatland restoration or my amendment on agroforestry, because those are ways forward through which farmers can contribute, and they can bring great benefits for farmers. My amendments are not overprescriptive. Peatland restoration and agroforestry are important methods of land management and they deserve attention. They should be included in the bill, and including them would bring further discussion and increase the common understanding of options for greener farming and working with nature.
Combining woodlands, tree planting and hedging for growing or grazing in agroforestry and seasonal shade and shelter as well as riparian planting to avoid erosion are only a few examples of the value that agroforestry can bring, and it should be at the heart of the bill given the climate emergency. I stress that, with the great deal of work that has been done by Nourish Scotland, my two amendments have been supported as strengthening additions to amendment 31.
Roseanna Cunningham
The amendments in group 10 all seek to constrain the content of future climate change plans by setting out policies and proposals on specific matters. Parliament already has substantial input to the design of plans through scrutiny of draft versions. The amendments in the group run the risk of overly prescribing a set of policy areas, restricting the process of plan preparation and introducing a hierarchy of policy options, with those that are chosen to be in the bill taking precedence over all others. Concerns about that remain.
Nevertheless, I have reflected on the decisions that the committee made at stage 2 and on the on-going desire for more such amendments. As such, I have looked closely at each of the amendments in group 10 with a view to supporting them when possible.
I can accept amendment 28, which will require our future climate change plans to include our policies on onshore and offshore oil and gas.
I am sympathetic to amendments 29 and 32 on blue carbon. Our oceans are vital in mitigating climate change, and Parliament’s interest in the marine environment is welcome.
However, it would not be sensible for both amendments to be agreed to. I am of the view that Maurice Golden’s amendment 32 reflects the status of the emerging and evolving evidence base better than Mark Ruskell’s amendment 29. In particular, I ask colleagues to remember that international scientific guidelines on measurement of carbon storage in marine environments do not yet support its being included in national greenhouse gas inventories.
Claudia Beamish
My understanding is that there is a vital focus on planning for and monitoring marine protected areas in Maurice Golden’s amendment 32, whereas Mark Ruskell’s amendment 29 is more widely drawn and highlights the whole marine environment and the opportunities there. That is why Scottish Labour will support both amendments.
Roseanna Cunningham
I am in the process of explaining why I think that Maurice Golden’s amendment 32 suits the present situation better. International scientific guidelines for measurement simply do not exist.
I am glad that Claudia Beamish mentioned the reference to marine protected areas in amendment 25, because it is welcome. If the MPA network needs to be adapted in the future, it is right that potential sequestration of carbon be a material consideration in site selection, designation and management. I urge members to support amendment 32 and to reject amendment 29.
I can accept amendment 30, which will require our climate change plans to set out measures that are linked to a majority of homes achieving energy performance certificate ratings of C or above, where practical, by the end of the plan period. The CCC has been clear that the Scottish Government has already put forward a strong plan for creating more energy efficient homes. We have also accepted the committee’s recommendation on heat decarbonisation, and we will publish a heat decarbonisation policy statement in the summer of 2020. We are currently developing our plan to ensure that any new build homes that are consented from 2024 will be required to use renewable or low-carbon heat.
The Scottish Government’s policy position is that, by 2040, our buildings will be warmer, greener and more efficient, so we will continue our strong delivery approach to achieving those goals as a key part of achieving net zero emissions by 2045 across Scotland’s economy as a whole. However, I make it clear that all those who support amendment 30 must also support any future necessary measures to compel homeowners to invest in the energy efficiency of their homes.
I can also accept amendment 31, and amendments 31A and 31B, on establishment of a whole-farm approach to emissions accounting. I must say, however, that I remain sceptical that legislation will deliver the best outcomes in that space. We are all eager to give proper recognition and credit to Scotland’s farmers and land managers for the wide range of activities that they undertake to tackle climate change. We are already developing a complementary reporting system of emissions accounting on a whole-farm basis. Amendment 31 would mean that such reporting would happen only every five years, with each new climate change plan. I am not sure that that is quite what stakeholders are looking for, and the Government would look to report rather more frequently than that.
Furthermore, as discussed at stage 2, members must understand that any such complementary accounting scheme cannot replace the greenhouse gas inventory, which is determined by international classifications.
Finally in group 10, I can also accept amendment 33, which is on an agricultural modernisation fund. Although there is a slight danger that that might prove to be too prescriptive in a bill that requires reporting to continue until 2045, we are content to factor that into development of the existing commitment to a long-term agricultural transformation programme, which was set out in the programme for government.
Mark Ruskell
I am sensing a good amount of consensus in many areas. I reassure the cabinet secretary and her officials that my amendments in the group are not about constraining the content of climate change plans, but about filling the very obvious gaps that have existed for years. The committee has reflected on them and is concerned that the Government has not filled them.
There is good consensus on the amendments on agriculture, particularly around the fact that our farms are a solution to climate change. We often look at them as if they are a problem, or as though farms have emissions problems, but there are also fantastic opportunities around carbon sequestration. A whole-farm approach to measuring carbon accounting is important. John Scott is not here today; his contribution to the issue in committee has been very strong.
On blue carbon and amendment 32, I am concerned that, as an alternative to my amendment 29, it focuses almost entirely on MPAs and the MPA designation process. Our kelp forests and blue carbon resources exist all around the coast of Scotland and in our seas; they are not restricted to MPAs, so I am concerned about supporting amendment 32. If it was combined with a broader strategic approach, as I propose in amendment 29, I would accept it, but not on its own. Claudia Beamish is nodding at that. The definition in amendment 32 is far too constrained.
On oil and gas, it is significant that the Labour Party and the SNP support the start of a discussion about oil and gas in the context of climate change in the climate change plan. That is not to build policies into the climate change plan for the future at this point, but to acknowledge that we need to start somewhere with the discussion. It is about the just transition, the future of that industry and taking communities with us in that transition. I welcome that.
On housing, I take the cabinet secretary’s point on board. If we are serious about delivering homes that are EPC rated C or better, there is a wider issue about budgets that will, of course, concern all parties.
16:30The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 93, Against 27, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Amendment 29 moved—[Mark Ruskell].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 34, Against 87, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 29 disagreed to.
Amendment 6 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.
Amendment 30 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 31 moved—[Maurice Golden].
Amendment 31A moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 31A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 93, Against 28, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 31A agreed to.
Amendment 31B moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 31B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 93, Against 28, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 31B agreed to.
Amendment 31, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment 32 moved—[Maurice Golden].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to? Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 114, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Amendment 33 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
Amendment 34 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.
The Presiding Officer
Group 11 is on just transition principles. Amendment 35, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 7, 8, 36 and 37.
Claudia Beamish
I have four amendments in this group designed to embed the just transition into the core of the bill, and I will speak to them shortly.
In Scottish Labour’s opinion, there is a glaring oversight in the bill in the exclusion of a statutory just transition commission.
We are embarking on a pathway to reach net zero emissions by 2045 at the latest, which is a hugely positive shift but one that will require change in all areas of life—for the individual, the worker, communities and businesses across all sectors.
That shift must benefit from the guidance of people in those industries and of those with relevant experience and expertise, and these questions of justice must be asked multiple times throughout the shift and beyond.
In Scottish Labour’s view, it is nonsensical that the Scottish Government thinks that its commission, through its membership, can provide the answers within three years. It is worrying, when it is so important to so many, that the Scottish Government will not protect its commission with legislation to shield it from any future Government or ministerial change. It is baffling that the cabinet secretary has disregarded that as too heavy, cumbersome and time consuming, when we are looking at such a long-term issue as the climate emergency. It is disappointing that, despite its warm words about a climate emergency, the Scottish Government refused to give this bill a financial resolution, thereby limiting the spend significantly.
That has meant that I have been unable to bring my proposals for a statutory commission to a vote at stage 3. I see the Scottish Government’s rejection of a statutory commission as a fundamental misunderstanding of the concerns of workers, communities and businesses.
I turn to the amendments that I have been able to lodge within the confines of the bill’s somewhat limited scope in this area.
Amendment 8 includes further information relevant to the just transition within climate change plans, requiring ministers to set out how the policies will affect “different regions of Scotland”, the employment in those regions and sectors of the economy. It also requires ministers to set out how they will support
“the workforce, employers and communities in these sectors and regions.”
Amendment 7 is a minor consequential amendment.
Amendment 35 includes specific
“reference to the just transition principles”
in the preparation of the plan, which is the section of the bill in which the consideration of the principles will be most significant. The setting of domestic policies to deliver those targets must be influenced by social justice.
Amendment 37 adds trade unions to those persons with whom the Scottish ministers must develop and maintain social consensus through engagement.
The existing list includes workers, communities, NGOs, representatives of business and industry interests and appropriate others. The just transition movement was born from the trade unions, so the fact that they were not on that list is a glaring omission, and I hope that members will support the amendment, and the others in the group.
These four amendments are important additions, and I am glad that they have received the backing of not only a number of NGOs but NFUS, in particular, as securing a just transition will be important for farmers, who potentially have a great role to play in solving the climate challenges, as custodians of our land who operate in an area—agriculture—that is one of the heaviest emitters.
However, I know that there will be many who will be disappointed that the just transition commission cannot be put on a statutory footing, not least the just transition partnership of NGOs, unions and the Scottish Trades Union Congress itself, all of which have done a lot of work towards putting the commission on a long-term and properly resourced statutory footing, for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
I move amendment 35.
Mark Ruskell
I have been pleased to work with Claudia Beamish on our attempts to embed the just transition principles in the bill at stage 2 and to establish a statutory commission. I share her frustration, and I will be returning to that issue in the debate that we will have after the stage 3 amendment phase.
The amendments in this group that have been agreed with the Government go a little way to ensuring that climate change is recognised in the climate plans. My amendment in this group, amendment 36, ensures that the reporting must also spell out how communities, workers and employers are being assisted in that transition. It is a small improvement, but I hope that it is a step towards the much wider approach to transition that is needed and the work that is needed on the ground to plan and progress the changes that are profound but also just.
Liam McArthur
Earlier, I talked about the importance of taking people with us as we seek to make the changes that we need in order to deliver our climate change ambitions. That is true in relation to the targets that we set and it underpins the case for establishing a citizens assembly. It is very much central to the concept of ensuring a just transition. Achieving net zero emissions by 2045 and achieving the interim target that we have now set for 2030 will be enormously challenging and will require significant changes in behaviour, practice and the way in which our overall economy functions. Recognising that and finding ways of mitigating the impacts where possible, allowing those who are directly affected an opportunity to shape the way in which that change happens, will be essential.
The amendments in this group are helpful in that respect, further fleshing out what a just transition should look like. I am particularly pleased to see amendment 8 in Claudia Beamish’s name, as it seeks to break down the process to a more regional and sectoral level, recognising that the effect of those changes will not be felt uniformly across the board.
I absolutely share the frustration of Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell about the failure to make progress on embedding the just transition commission in statute.
I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say, but I confirm that the Scottish Liberal Democrats are generally supportive of the intention behind the amendments in this group.
Roseanna Cunningham
I was not anticipating speaking to the amendments that have been lodged. The amendments in this group seek to further strengthen the emphasis on the just transition approach that is at the heart of our climate change plans. I am grateful to Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell for their constructive engagement with the Government over the summer to adapt their stage 2 amendments on these matters into a form that will better fit with the wider bill framework.
The amendments build usefully on the Government’s amendments at stage 2, which added to the bill a set of just transition principles that ministers must have regard to when preparing climate change plans. Those plans must also then set out how the principles have been taken into account. The principles outline the importance of taking action to reduce Scottish emissions in a way that supports environmentally and socially sustainable jobs; supports low-carbon investment and infrastructure; develops and maintains social consensus through engagement with workers, communities, non-governmental organisations, representatives of the interests of business and industry and others; creates decent, fair and high-value work in a way that does not negatively affect the current workforce and the overall economy; and contributes to resource-efficient and sustainable economic approaches that help to address inequality and poverty.
Amendment 37 adds trade unions to the bodies that must be engaged as part of those principles. That would have been the case anyway, and I am happy to support the change to the bill.
16:45Amendment 8 will ensure that existing assessments of the impacts of climate change plans on sectors of the economy will include regional dimensions, and employment in particular. The amendment also ensures that plans must include policies and proposals to support workforces, employers and communities through the transition to net zero emissions.
Amendment 36 ensures that such measures are also within the scope of the sector-by-sector annual monitoring reports on progress on delivering a plan.
All those amendments represent sound additions to the statutory framework.
I urge Claudia Beamish not to press her amendment 35, however. It seeks to require the specific element of a plan relating to assessing impacts on the economy to be prepared with reference to the just transition principles. My objection to amendment 35 is purely technical. I hope that I have been clear that I see the just transition principles as firmly underpinning climate change plans. However, the bill already requires that ministers take into account the just transition principles when preparing all aspects of climate change plans and that they set out how they have done so. It is those duties that give substance to the principles. As such, amendment 35 would be largely duplicative of the existing provisions and therefore does not represent good legal practice.
I encourage Claudia Beamish not to press amendment 35, for those strong technical reasons. If she does so, however, I will not oppose it.
As regards the amendment that is not before us, on putting a just transition commission into a statutory framework, I remind everybody that there is a just transition commission, which has been working hard over the past year and will continue to work hard. I look forward to the commission’s report when it comes.
Claudia Beamish
I have listened with care to what the cabinet secretary has said, but I am disappointed that she has not given a further explanation as to why a long-term, statutory and properly resourced just transition commission is not something that the Scottish Government can support. Net zero will be some time in the coming in the climate emergency. Mark Ruskell and Liam McArthur have also highlighted that point, and I am perplexed and bewildered as to why the cabinet secretary said what she did on the matter.
Perhaps the Scottish Government might reconsider the matter when the present commission presents its report. I understand that, at that point, it will not be necessary to have primary legislation in order to have a just transition commission in law. We need to have a robust, prioritised commission as we move, in the climate emergency, to a better way of working and a better way of life for workers and communities—I also note what Liam McArthur has said about the regions.
The just transition principles are more clearly laid out in the bill. I appreciate the work that we did with the cabinet secretary on that over the summer. I will be pressing amendment 35, however, and I make no apology for that, as it is very important that the just transition principles are enshrined, particularly in relation to the climate change plan—I have not been convinced by what the cabinet secretary said on that.
A just transition must be at the heart of the bill and at the heart of our plans for the future. All policies must be assessed against the effects that the climate change plans will have on our communities, workers and individuals, particularly those on lower incomes. I am glad that there is considerable support for the proposals in that regard across the chamber.
Amendment 35 agreed to.
Amendments 7 to 11 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.
Amendment 12 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
Amendment 12A moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 12A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 27, Against 91, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 12A disagreed to.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment 36 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 13 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.
Amendment 37 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.
After section 19A
Amendment 14 moved—[Claudia Beamish].
Amendment 14A moved—[Claudia Beamish].
The Presiding Officer
The question is, that amendment 14A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 27, Against 92, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14A disagreed to.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
The Presiding Officer
Our final group is group 12, on impact of infrastructure investment on emissions. Amendment 15, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is the only amendment in the group.
Claudia Beamish
Amendment 15 relates to the Scottish Government’s infrastructure investment plans. It emerged thanks to discussion involving Mark Ruskell, the cabinet secretary and me following our amendments at stage 2.
Infrastructure investments that are made from the public purse need to be fit for the future and for the public good. In the context of the climate emergency, that public good must be in alignment with emissions reductions efforts. Amendment 15 goes some way to achieving that by requiring ministers to set out an assessment of how the infrastructure investment plan will contribute to our targets.
I am pleased that that works in conjunction with my amendments in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which require an assessment of the lifecycle of emissions of major developments to give a much clearer picture of emissions resulting from their construction, usage and—I stress—decommissioning.
There is further work to be done to ensure the future proofing of our public infrastructure, but I hope that members will support amendment 15, which will give a better understanding of the strategic and financial decisions that are made.
I move amendment 15.
Mark Ruskell
I had hoped that we would have made greater progress on financial budgeting in the bill. At stage 2, we discussed the imperative of setting a clear target to shift infrastructure spend from high-carbon to low-carbon infrastructure, so that we lock out, rather than lock in, emissions for decades to come. Sadly, we are no further forward on that in the bill, but I welcome the fact that the Government is commissioning work to flesh out methodology for assessing high-carbon and low-carbon infrastructure projects and, crucially, the emissions that are generated from the use of such infrastructure. Amendment 15, which will help to reveal the climate impact of the infrastructure investment plans, is a welcome baby step forward, but there is still much work to do in this area.
Roseanna Cunningham
I am content to support amendment 15 as a pragmatic measure to improve reporting arrangements around how Scottish budgets support emissions reductions. However, the amendment should be seen as fitting into a wider body of work on these important matters. The Scottish Government has placed tackling climate change at the heart of the programme for government, and it will likewise be central to the upcoming spending review and budget.
A range of stage 2 amendments were lodged regarding the relationship between budget information and climate change action. I met Green and Labour MSPs over the summer to discuss matters in which it is recognised that there is scope for improvement. As a result of those discussions, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work and I have offered a review of climate change information in the budget. Such a review will necessarily take some time in order to be effective, but we expect it to be able to inform the 2020-21 budget.
I have also offered to commission programmes of research to better understand how capital expenditure can be assessed in relation to emissions impacts and how information on the emissions impacts of all relevant policies is currently being identified and communicated through existing statutory impact assessment processes. Those review and research programmes will help to identify steps to deliver improvements in cross-portfolio processes and transparency.
The first step—gathering and reviewing evidence—is the right one to take. There are real and very challenging issues of methodology that need to be resolved before we can determine the best reporting requirements.
In the meantime, I am content to support amendment 15, on the emissions impacts of the Scottish Government’s infrastructure investment plans. The amendment recognises the particular importance of strategic capital investment decisions for Scotland’s journey to net zero emissions, but it does so in a way that is not overly prescriptive, given the current uncertainties around methodologies for assessing such impacts.
Claudia Beamish
I welcome Mark Ruskell’s comments about our not having gone far enough. I also welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments and her commitment to the review to inform the budget and the review of assessment. I am sure that the two reviews that she highlighted will take us forward to future budgets. As she highlighted, strategic capital investment issues are profoundly important as we tackle the climate emergency.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Section 20—Meaning of certain terms
Amendment 16 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.
The Presiding Officer
That concludes consideration of amendments.
At this point in proceedings, I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter; that is, whether it would modify the electoral system or franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my opinion, the bill would not do so, so it does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.
I had hoped that we would be well ahead of time, but we have lost time again, so there will be a short suspension.
16:59 Meeting suspended.17:10 On resuming—
25 September 2019
Final debate on the Bill
Once they've debated the amendments, the MSPs discuss the final version of the Bill.
Final debate on the Bill transcript
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)
The next item of business is the stage 3 debate on motion S5M-19025, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill.
The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (Roseanna Cunningham)
We are 10 years on from the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Stewart Stevenson, who was the minister who took the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill through the Parliament then, has reminded me that stage 3 for that bill took a morning and an afternoon. I hope that members are pleased that stage 3 was considerably slimmer this time round.
The 2009 act established Scotland as a world leader in tackling climate change, and we continue to be a world leader because of the effective and rigorous framework that the act created. Scotland is still the only country in the world to set legally binding annual targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we were the first country to include in our targets a fair share of the emissions from international aviation and shipping.
Since 2009, three climate change plans have been brought forward. Some annual targets have been met and some missed, but—crucially—Scotland’s emissions are down by 47 per cent from the 1990 baseline. We are already almost halfway to reaching net zero emissions. Equally important, that progress has been achieved while we grew the economy and increased employment and productivity.
The bill makes the 2009 act stronger and more transparent. Crucially, it increases the ambition of Scotland’s targets. Last year’s special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on global warming of 1.5°, made clear that the world is now facing a climate emergency. That is recognised not only by the scientists but by the large numbers of citizens, here in Scotland and across the world, who have taken to the streets to demand more action and greater ambition.
In light of the IPCC’s report, the Scottish Government commissioned expert advice on targets from the independent advisory body mandated by this Parliament. The Committee on Climate Change recommended that Scotland set 2045 as the target year to reach net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases. The CCC also recommended that we increase our interim emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2040 to 70 per cent and 90 per cent respectively. The CCC advised that those targets represent the “highest possible ambition” that is called for under the Paris agreement and are a fair contribution towards what is needed globally to limit warming to 1.5°. I immediately lodged amendments at stage 2 to give effect to the CCC’s recommendations.
Today, we have committed to going even further and adopting a target of a 75 per cent reduction in Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. I have set out my reasons for that approach. It is clear that now is the time for even greater ambition in tackling the world’s climate emergency, and that signals matter. I will look forward to receiving further, more detailed, advice from the CCC next year on the 2030 target.
At stage 2, we accepted a large number of the recommendations that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee made in its reports at stage 1 and stage 2, which had the effect of, among other things, directly linking Scotland’s fair and safe emissions budget to the global temperature goal that is set out in the Paris agreement; tightening the safeguards around any potential lowering of target levels in future; clarifying and strengthening the CCC’s role in the climate change plan process; and requiring that climate change plans include estimates of the costs and benefits of the policies to reduce emissions.
Over the summer, we worked with colleagues on a cross-party basis to bring back amendments from stage 2 for discussion today, including amendments that will embed sustainable development considerations throughout the legislation and place climate justice at the heart of climate change plans; strengthen the reporting duties around consumption-based emissions; and ensure that the Scottish Government’s strategic infrastructure investment plans are assessed against emissions targets. Wherever possible, the Government has made every effort to accept Opposition proposals.
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)
The cabinet secretary says that the Government has tried to accept amendments wherever possible. However, she rejected the proposal for an 80 per cent target for 2030. I remind her that, in the longer debate in 2009, I put forward amendments for a 50 per cent target for 2030 and a 90 per cent target by 2050. At the time, I was told by the Government, which was falling back on the advice of the United Kingdom CCC, that those targets were unachievable and too ambitious to back.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Mr Harvie, this is a bit of a speech.
Patrick Harvie
Given that we were right before and that the Government has now accepted that it can go beyond those targets, is it not possible that we are right again this time?
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Cabinet secretary, I will give you your time back.
Roseanna Cunningham
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I hear what Patrick Harvie says; I understand and accept that he will want to say that. However, those of us who are in government at the time that we pass legislation must think about what will be realistic and achievable. We have done that.
If it is agreed this afternoon, the bill will set the framework and target pathway for Scotland’s journey to net zero. That represents a vital step, but it must be matched by actions to deliver on extremely challenging targets. The transition to net zero will require changes to virtually every aspect of everyday life for Scotland’s people. That will be achieved only if it is a national endeavour.
The Scottish Government’s commitment is clear. Tackling climate change lies at the heart of our programme for government, and we have committed, in line with the committee’s recommendations, to update our current climate change plan within six months of the bill receiving royal assent. We are looking across our full range of responsibilities to make sure that we continue with the policies that are working and identify areas where we can go further, faster. In my closing remarks, I will return to specific actions that we are already taking.
Central to our approach is a just transition, in which no one is left behind. To reflect that commitment clearly in law, the bill was amended at stage 2 to place a set of internationally recognised just transition principles in the bill and at the heart of climate change plans. Amendments that have been agreed to today have further strengthened those arrangements.
Public engagement will be vital. Building from the big climate conversation over the summer, we have committed to a national forum on climate change and, today, we supported an amendment to mandate the establishment of a citizens assembly.
I express my special thanks to all the members of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee for their contributions to the bill process. John Scott would have wished to be here to see the bill through to the end, because he took a great interest in it.
The bill maintains Scotland’s position as the country with the most stringent framework of statutory climate change targets anywhere in the world. Sometimes, when we are discussing climate change, we should remember that. If agreed, the bill will mean that Scotland’s contribution to climate change ends within a generation. Today will mark the start of the second half of Scotland’s journey to net zero emissions.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
17:18Maurice Golden (West Scotland) (Con)
The Scottish Conservatives are committed to tackling climate change and protecting our planet for future generations.
We know that human activity has caused around 1° of global warming, and that, if we do not drastically cut our emissions, temperatures will continue to rise. Those increases in temperature will have a devastating impact on humanity.
Today, a new IPCC report warns us that the earth’s oceans are already under severe strain from climate change. Our seas have become hotter and more acidic, and contain less oxygen and fewer fish, because of human activity.
The report warns that, if emissions continue at their current rate, there will be enormous risks to food security, and coastal communities around the world will be in danger from a rise in sea level and tropical cyclones. Scotland will not escape unscathed—our communities will face increased flood risks, putting our coastal towns, villages and homes at risk, and extreme weather will endanger our wildlife, flora and fauna.
Scotland is performing well on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we should be proud of what we have achieved as a nation in almost halving our emissions since 1990. Large emission reductions, particularly across the energy and waste sectors, are a welcome achievement made possible by a range of public, private and third sector actions and a favourable policy landscape from the UK and Scottish Governments.
However, our success so far hides a lack of progress in major areas, such as the housing sector, where emissions are down only by 21 per cent. Last year, we won cross-party support to enact stronger energy efficiency targets for homes by 2030, to help drive down emissions from our housing sector. Alexander Burnett has worked hard to promote that issue, and I was pleased that the Scottish Government has listened to the will of the Parliament and pledged in this year’s programme for government to introduce a commitment to that end. We were pleased to support a Green amendment from Mark Ruskell, which will ensure that the climate change plan sets out measures for improving the energy efficiency of housing across Scotland.
We must continue to ensure that we take action that creates opportunities for individuals and businesses. As the only Opposition party to have released policy ideas in a comprehensive policy document, we have always been clear that we want actions to limit global warming that provide for the creation and sustainability of jobs, support for innovation and investment in cutting-edge technology.
We have always supported the bill in principle, and believe that many of the changes that have been made throughout the legislative process have strengthened the bill and made it better. Our amendments at stage 3 seek to promote and support the transition to a low-carbon economy and encourage further action.
We recognise the importance of supporting all sectors of the economy to transition to a low-carbon economy. That is why I lodged an amendment on an agricultural modernisation fund. I was pleased that that gained cross-party support this afternoon. The fund will support investment in mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on Scottish farms. We want to make sure that farmers are supported as part of a transition to a low-carbon economy—and supported to produce better environmental and economic outcomes.
We also recognise the importance of supporting emerging technologies. We lodged an amendment that would require future climate change plans to set out proposals and policies regarding the consideration of carbon capture and storage when Scottish ministers designate marine protected areas. I was pleased that that amendment gained support, too. Development of such technologies has the potential to create and sustain jobs across Scotland, which is particularly important in the north-east.
The bill and the achievement of the targets that are set in it will help Scotland meet its duty to protect present and future generations from climate change. However, it is important that the targets are achievable, so that the bill does not become a missed opportunity.
The Scottish Conservatives are pleased to be supporting the bill at decision time, and we will continue to support actions that work towards achieving the targets that are set out in it.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
One thing about having a quiet debate is that I can hear a conversation at the back of the chamber. I suggest to those members that they should go away, get a cup of tea and have their wee chat elsewhere, and not let me eavesdrop.
17:24Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)
Scottish Labour’s vision for the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 has, from the outset, been about meeting ambition and about being just. It has also been about confessing what we see before our eyes and responding honourably. The climate emergency is here, and it is a terrible threat to millions of lives. The cost of ignoring it vastly outweighs the cost of tackling it head on, and the transformational change that is required will deliver a better and fairer society, if it is managed for the many and not the few.
I express my utter admiration for the young climate change strikers and extinction rebellion and for all those voices in the global chorus who are calling for us to do better. Who can dismiss a mandate from millions around the world and the indomitable Greta Thunberg, who was frustrated to tears when speaking at the United Nations this week?
I am proud today to be in the Labour Party. It is the first major political party to set ambition at a level anywhere near what needs to happen, which it did at our national conference yesterday, accompanied by a raft of proposals fit for our future. Members of the Scottish National Party Government have called me gung-ho a number of times. I dare them to use that line today, with the eyes of thousands of climate strikers and the global south on us all.
The fact is that the SNP’s interim target was not ambitious enough. The IPCC demanded rapid and transformational change to prevent irreversible damage. Already, children in Iceland have held a funeral at the site of the first glacier lost to climate change. Some irrevocable damage is already happening and affecting ecosystems and humans across the globe, yet the Government’s 70 per cent target was only a few numbers off the target that was set 10 years ago in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
I am proud that, this week, the Labour movement demonstrated the utmost commitment to taking on climate change, and Scottish Labour will now consult on our position. Climate strikers, the Labour Party is listening to you; in many ways, this whole Parliament is listening. I am heartened that the Opposition parties came together to go some way towards ensuring that. I lodged my amendment for a 75 per cent reduction by 2030 with the intention that consensus could be found to show that the Parliament is serious and is listening. It will also send a signal to all—innovators, financiers, people gathering research funding, businesses, communities, public bodies and individuals across Scotland and, I hope, across the world, with the Glasgow conference of the parties coming up next year.
Let us all commit today to going further as soon as we can. The SNP Government says that the pathway to net zero delivery is not clear, but it also intentionally limited the scope and budget of this bill and denied the establishment of a statutory long-term just transition commission specifically designed to guide that pathway ethically. That is a lost opportunity for the bill. Knowing that the voices of people in the affected industries, communities and regions were front and centre would have been a comfort to those who feel uncertainty. The Government’s refusal to give the bill a financial resolution, thus limiting its budget, has denied the establishment of a just transition commission the chance even to go to a vote.
We will not have the answers to an equitable pathway by 2021, when our economy and society will be transitioning through the coming years. We need input from unions, businesses, workers and communities into the equitable transition for workers in oil and gas, farming, transport and other sectors and people in every home and community, whatever income they are on. Those people would be grateful if the cabinet secretary would make clear her reasons against having a statutory and long-term just transition commission. Is it because she is not willing to meet its cost? Is it because she thinks that it would take too long to set up? Those issues should be addressed, and I hope that, at the end of the two years that the present just transition commission still has to run, they will be and we will move forward together and make the commission statutory.
I am delighted that there was collaboration with the Government on securing more meaningful climate justice for the global south. We now have the principle of climate justice in statute, and duties set out to ensure that Scotland always stands in solidarity with those on the climate front line. It bears repeating that those people who have done the least to cause climate change, and are least equipped to tackle it, are the people who are being struck first and worst by its terrible effects.
Scottish Labour will vote for the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill today and celebrate what successes it has delivered for our transition, knowing that we have much more to do. For decades, individuals have been turning down their thermostats at home to save the planet. Let us no longer rely on the individual alone to keep the heating down. It is time for structural and collective action to keep temperature rise below 1.5° and to protect the future of this planet for all.
As the saying goes,
“Treat the earth well. It was not given to us by our parents, it was loaned to us by our children.”
17:29Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
It would be remiss of me not to thank everyone who has lobbied, protested and provided evidence on the bill. There is an incredible youthful climate movement out there, which is certainly inspiring Green members. Those involved in the movement are a huge strength and testament.
As many of the hundreds of emails that I have received this week spell out, the science shows that, at the current rate of emissions, Scotland will have used our entire carbon budget for 2°C in the next 10 years. There is no turning back from that—we will be locked into a world with more suffering. The climate crisis is deepening. A new report that the IPCC published today warns that accelerating impacts on the oceans put 1 billion people at risk. This week, the UN has said that, even if all the Governments around the world meet their targets, we will go well beyond manageable levels of climate change.
This crisis demands political risk taking. However uncomfortable it may feel to challenge sectors such as farming or oil and gas to change, that will pale by comparison to the outrage that will be felt in the years to come as the real impacts of climate breakdown kick in. As many other members have done, I can look at the long list of improvements to the bill and recognise that, 10 years ago, they would have felt like big wins and steps of progress that we could all celebrate together.
The tweaks to budgeting and how we measure things, the recognition of key principles around global justice and equity, the focus on action in sectors such as farming and housing, and the involvement of people in designing solutions through a citizens assembly are all welcome gains. However, when I look at the enormity of the challenge that we face, the worsening scientific picture and the risks that we are taking with our children’s future, I am saddened and angry that an opportunity to deliver real transformative change has been passed up. Instead, we have a narrow piece of legislation that sets distant targets while failing to deliver the rapid, transformational and unprecedented change that the IPCC has demanded.
Even within the narrow scope of the bill, big opportunities have been missed. A statutory just transition commission should have been the centrepiece of the bill. We should have had a body with the teeth and the focus to take on the challenges of change while ensuring that no community is left behind in the transition.
Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Will the member take an intervention?
Mark Ruskell
If I can get the time back, Presiding Officer, I will take the intervention.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
You certainly can, if it is a brief intervention.
Finlay Carson
It sounds from what the member is saying that he will not support the bill at decision time. Why is that, when we have all worked so hard across the parties, when there is now so much more to agree on in the bill and when it will be so much more robust and enforceable if we all agree? Why is the member making grandstanding comments when it is more important to have a consensus?
Mark Ruskell
That is disappointing from Mr Carson. Did he not listen to any of the evidence that was given to the committee? The nature of the crisis demands an emergency response. Mr Carson’s party might be happy with this weak legislation, but my party is not.
Let me get back to action, because we need to talk about the action that comes from the bill. A just transition commission should be at the heart of a Scottish green new deal to plan new regional strategies to rebuild and reindustrialise communities in a low-carbon age. Instead, it has been left to the Green and Labour parties in the Parliament to try desperately to amend the bill to give it the tools that it needs on transition. As a result, we are left with virtually nothing. Monitoring reports and principles in plans will not create the lasting change that is needed in the Fife communities that I represent.
We will not stand in the way of the small steps of progress that have been made through the bill, but we will not endorse a bill that is preoccupied with distant targets but does nothing to deliver transformative action and does not go far enough for the critical period of the next 10 years. Time is running out and, although the targets in the bill are eye-catching, they are not backed by anything that suggests that the status quo is being challenged. When we look back at the bill in the years to come, we will see missed opportunities to drive strong progress, but there will be no time machine to call on. It is Government’s job to lead and to deliver the change that is necessary. If we do not see that necessary change, politics and democracy will have failed.
17:34Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
It is regrettable that Mark Ruskell has chosen to take the tone that he has. I respect very much the differences of opinion that he has not just with the Government but with those of us in other parties. However, as Claudia Beamish mentioned in an earlier comment, the Parliament’s united front has been a strength. There has been evidence to suggest that we should do many things and, on many issues, the evidence has not been unambiguous, so Mr Ruskell does a disservice to the work of the committee and the Parliament.
Mark Ruskell
Will the member give way?
Liam McArthur
No.
At stage 1, I quoted Jessie Dodman, a young constituent from Papa Westray in Orkney, who wrote to me saying:
“The ... Climate Change bill offers a good first step but needs to be delivered more quickly and effectively before the predicted deadlines for irreversible change in 2030.”
Jessie’s plea, which has been echoed by young people from across Scotland and beyond in recent weeks and months, stems from an understanding that urgent action over the next decade is essential if we are to have any realistic prospect of averting the catastrophic consequences of climate change, if we are to hit our net zero emissions target by 2045 and if we are to deliver an appropriate response to the IPCC’s latest report.
I am delighted, therefore, that Parliament has voted today to increase the interim target to 75 per cent by 2030. I again congratulate Claudia Beamish on lodging the amendment, which I was happy to co-sign, that has enabled that highly significant change to be made to the bill. Some have argued that we should be going further and faster, and those debates have been happening within as well as between parties.
I am conscious, though, of what the chair of the UKCCC said to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee on target setting. Lord Deben cautioned that
“It is not sensible to espouse a target without being clear about what it really means.”
He added:
“You can have any old target, but it will not work if you cannot come down to the terms for how you will get there.”—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 23 October 2018; c 33.]
We need to be ambitious, challenging and resolute, and we need to adapt as the evidence and opportunities that are available change. Ultimately, though, the public must have confidence in the basis on which we set legislation.
I think that the more ambitious 75 per cent target for 2030 strikes the right balance for now in terms of ambition, urgency and achievability. Meeting it will not be easy. It will require greater effort and more resources and it will involve many difficult decisions. We will need to change our cars, retrofit our homes and industry and plant more trees than ever before, and we will still rely on technology that does not even exist yet, but it is the right thing to do.
It is right, too, that we are taking steps in the bill to better reflect the principle of equity and climate justice. As a developed nation, Scotland bears a larger responsibility for global warming, so it should be doing more in response. The Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, Mercy Corps, Tearfund and others are right to remind us that those in the global south, who have contributed the least to the creation of climate change but are already experiencing its worst impacts, have a right to expect us to step up to the plate.
As with the 2009 act, the process of scrutinising the bill has genuinely been a cross-party effort. I thank colleagues for their efforts and constructive engagement, as I thank the many external stakeholders and members of the public who have engaged so passionately and enthusiastically over recent months. I am pleased to have been able to help to strengthen the bill in areas such as international aviation, public procurement of low-emission vehicles and the use of district heating schemes. Others will point to their own successes, among which I warmly welcome the addition of a climate assembly. Overall, however, as in 2009, it has been a collective effort, and that is one of the bill’s strengths.
Of course, as with any piece of legislation, passing it is the easy part. Delivering on the commitments in the bill—and delivering them on time—will be enormously challenging. However, the clear and present threat that is posed by climate change here and internationally has been laid bare by the IPCC. The expectation of the public—Jessie Dodman and millions like her—could not be clearer. Scottish Liberal Democrats are determined to make sure that we rise to that challenge, and we look forward to supporting this historic bill at decision time.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
We turn to the open debate. I ask for speeches of four minutes.
17:38Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
I start by wishing John Scott well. I hope that he will be sitting beside me when we look at the climate change plan update, because his wise counsel—which is not to say that I agree unequivocally with everything that he says—will be important at that stage.
Farming has been an important part of the discussion, and John Scott has contributed to that debate, as have others across the political parties. I very much welcome the fact that we have, as a result of agreement to a Maurice Golden amendment, incorporated nitrogen accounting. That will help us to get a proper understanding of farming emissions.
We have had a bit of talk about the role of young activists in relation to climate change, which is entirely proper, but I want to take us back to something that I have not heard mentioned this afternoon, even though it is of equal and immediate importance. It is that this is a feminist issue as well as a youth issue.
In parts of the world, particularly in Africa, where aridification is taking place because of the diminution of rainfall and the drying up of wells, it is generally the women who are the farmers and who do the hard labour. They now have to walk many times the distances that they previously had to walk to get water or kindling. It is a feminist issue and it affects women across the world.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
I agree, but does Stewart Stevenson think that maintaining the existing road-building programme will be a positive or negative contribution to women in sub-Saharan Africa?
Stewart Stevenson
If sub-Saharan Africa had better roads, I suspect that climate change would be less of a feminist issue, but I expect that that is not really the point that John Finnie was trying to make.
Patrick Harvie correctly said that the Greens advocate a 50 per cent target for 2030. However, we also need to think about the fact that there have been several changes to the baseline, which has added to the inventory of CO2. We therefore need to translate the targets that were set in 2009 to what they would be against today’s baseline: they would be rather different. In 2015, we added another greenhouse gas—nitrogen trifluoride—to the inventory. There have been various changes that affect how the numbers work, so the situation is a bit more complex than we sometimes like to pretend.
I also want to talk briefly about unanimity. I strongly believe that we must be driven by scientific consensus and not by individual scientists who are at one edge or the other of the argument. That is not because those scientists are wrong—they might be correct, within their areas of research. However, the consensus that comes through the IPCC—I welcome the report that came out today—will drive further change, as it must. If we start to pick scientists who take extreme positions, valid though they are, we will allow others to choose scientists who disagree with the whole agenda altogether. That is why we should always go with the consensus.
There is nothing to stop us exceeding scientists’ recommendations, so I encourage my Green Party colleagues to think carefully about withholding their support for the bill while continuing to campaign for more.
I will conclude by saying that, like others, I have been inspired by Greta Thunberg and the millions of young activists around the world. When I cast my vote shortly, I will be thinking of her and her young companions. I will be deid before it all matters: they have to inherit a world that is worth inheriting.
17:42Alexander Burnett (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
First, I acknowledge the hard work on the bill by our clerks and researchers, as well as all the constituents and organisations who have contributed. I also thank members who have worked across party lines to strengthen the bill in respect of our shared goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. We are all committed to protecting our planet for future generations.
As members will know, I have been a strong advocate in Parliament of improving residential homes’ energy efficiency to EPC rating C or above by 2030. In addition to winning a debate on the matter with cross-party support, I lodged stage 2 amendments to similar effect. I am glad to see that despite the SNP having opposed it for the past two years, our position has been adopted in the programme for government. The Scottish Conservatives have backed the proposal by committing 10 per cent of capital spending to energy efficiency.
I was delighted to support the Green amendment to reduce emissions from housing, and requires the climate change plan to set out what measures Scottish ministers propose to ensure that emissions from housing are reduced, and that housing achieves EPC rating C or above, when that is practicable. I refer members to my register of interests in relation to renewable energy and housing.
I also add my particular thanks to the Existing Homes Alliance, which has worked on finding ways to achieve the target. In its report last month, the alliance touched on some of the many benefits of the approach. They include: reducing carbon emissions and fuel poverty; reducing household energy bills by more than £400 a year; creating economic growth, with every £1 of investment giving a return of £5 in gross domestic product; creating more than 6,000 new jobs because we need to double the current rate of upgrades to 200 per day; and tackling the costs of poor housing to health and wellbeing, which costs us up to £80 million a year.
The report also sets out many policies and programmes that would ensure that we find a successful pathway to zero carbon by 2045. I was particular interested to read the five recommendations for programme development, delivery and support for a zero carbon future. The Scottish Conservatives are strong advocates of devolution of powers: we believe that delegation and distribution of powers are important to ensure maximum success. Therefore, we welcome the first recommendation, which is to
“Extend the local authority-led area-based programmes to deliver both energy efficiency and heat measures.”
As the report states,
“Procurement should prioritise community benefit and local economic development”,
so introducing a programme to
“incentivise deep renovation where appropriate”
is important.
The Scottish Conservatives believe that actions to limit global warming will have a higher probability of success if they create jobs and support innovation. Therefore, we welcome the suggestion about increasing support for self-funding households by expanding the energy efficient Scotland pilots, which will
“deliver community engagement, develop local supply chains, and ensure quality control combined with the availability of loan finance.”
Therefore, we must work with the supply chain to provide support in training and skills development in order to address gaps in certain trades and geographic areas.
The move to a zero carbon future is one that all of society must work towards in a co-ordinated effort. I look forward to working with the energy sector to make that a reality.
17:46Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
There is no greater political cause than climate change, and there is nothing in which there is more urgent need for action. In that context, the bill is to be welcomed. It is vital that our action on tackling climate change be put on a legal footing, with clear and practical steps towards achievement of our goals.
We cannot ignore the tenor of the debate and the calls to go further, although I understand the Government’s caution. We all know how the political game works: the Government sets a target, the Opposition parties chase to demonstrate that it was not achieved, and the Government comes back with claims that it was. Things cannot be like that in this case, because it is not a normal target. It is much more important. That is why we must set targets that are based not on what we think we can achieve, but on what we must achieve to save the planet.
The science could not be clearer. Just today, more reports have been put before the UN that demonstrate what will happen and what has been happening: ocean temperatures have been continually rising since 1970 and there has been accelerated loss of polar ice and glaciers. The consequence will be rising oceans and the possibility of a catastrophic snowball effect with warming, thawing and the release of more greenhouse gases, which would lead to irrevocable climate change. That is why we need a challenging target, even if we do not know how to deal with it or measure up to it.
I will draw a parallel, because other political projects have presented such challenges. In 1962, John F Kennedy gave a groundbreaking speech setting out the seemingly impossible objective of landing human beings on the moon, but just seven years later, it was achieved. Ever since, politicians have butchered quotes from that speech to their own ends, and I will do exactly the same now. We choose to tackle climate change not because it is hard, but because it is essential. Net zero must be treated as our moon shot. We have a decade to reshape our economy and save our environment and planet. We must treat that with the same urgency, imperative and collective effort, because failure is not an option.
When I was thinking about and preparing for the debate, Greta Thunberg’s words rang in my ears. To the politicians assembled at the UN, she said:
“You all come to us young people for hope. How dare you?”
Although I understand that being cautious and pragmatic is how government must be done in normal times for normal issues, that cannot be how we approach climate change. We have to listen to people. We must not only strive for a 75 per cent reduction by 2030, or even for 80 per cent; we must also listen to the calls that we must achieve net zero emissions by 2030, and set ourselves the challenge of doing everything that we can towards that target.
That is the tenor that the remarks in the chamber this afternoon should have. Criticisms and observations should not be taken by the Government as rebukes. They are not political points. I regard them as collective criticisms and collective observations of our collective failure to do what is required to tackle climate change.
That is our imperative, and we must play our part. As the nation of coal and steel, and of the locomotives and ships that ushered in the first wave of globalisation on this planet, we have moral responsibility to do our bit to tackle the climate change that they set in motion. We must take the practical steps to ensure that investment is made, so that what we achieve in Scotland is an example to the rest of the world.
17:50Gillian Martin (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
We are on the cusp of passing legislation that will have a massive impact. The hugely ambitious and challenging targets set out in the bill will cross every sector in Scotland, every business, every household and every person. The targets are the goal that we cannot miss, and committing to and achieving them will require massive system and behavioural change. Scotland will need to change and we will need to take those targets into account in so much of what we ask for from our Government, from now on, across all portfolios.
System change will have to happen urgently, and nowhere more than in my area, where public transport is not an option if you live in Rothienorman but work in Ellon, or if your surgery appointment is in Oldmeldrum but you live in Cross of Jackston.
Your choices are limited if you want a home made of materials that lock up carbon, rather than add to the carbon burden. You might be able to heat your home only by burning oil from a big tank out in the garden. You might live in rented accommodation where you have no choice about how you heat your home at all. Heat pumps and electric vehicles are still the preserve of the wealthy, and you can only dream of such choice.
You might want to cycle to work, but given that you do not live on a cycle route, you cannot take the risk of being hit by a car on the dark winter mornings.
You might want to rid your home of single-use plastics, but the supermarkets are full of them, and even though you recycle everything that you can, you find yourself with two or three bin bags of mixed refuse a week that you know is going to landfill.
Your job and the money that you take home to pay your mortgage and feed your kids depend on oil and gas. That applies to a lot of people in my area. You hear people campaigning to keep it in the ground, but you know that if we do that too soon, your city will be a ghost town and unemployment will be rife. You only just got a decent job after losing one in 2016, so you have first-hand experience of what that is like. You want to take your skills and work in an organisation that will be part of the low-carbon revolution, but that is not happening as fast as you had hoped.
Where you can change your life, you do; you make all the choices that you can make to reduce your carbon footprint. You holiday at home instead of flying. You modify your diet and you minimise your food waste. You try to fix things rather than replace them. You go round the house switching off lights, turning down the heating and shouting at your children to put jumpers on, but the big things that you want to do are outwith your hands.
Those big things are up to us, here in this chamber, and the choices that we urge the Government to make. I look forward to the updated climate change plan that will set in place what we need to do to achieve the aims of the bill, because we have no option but to achieve those aims, and the people of Scotland want to play their part. They have told us that.
Before I sit down, I pay tribute to my colleague and friend John Scott, who would have loved to be sitting with us here, but who I know for a fact is at home, watching us debate the bill. He made a tremendous contribution. I thank my committee colleagues for the contributions that we all made as we went forward together, not always agreeing with one another, but reaching a consensus, as Finlay Carson mentioned. I also want to thank the clerks who have steered us through the progress of the bill, and the many people who contributed. We probably opened our doors a little wider than we had time for, but I think that it was very important to have everyone with a locus in this issue round the table, including the many young activists from across Scotland, who sat round the table with us and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I am very proud that we all sat in the same room.
I am proud to vote for a bill that has ambitious targets, but, from tomorrow, it is all about action, just transition, system change and asking tough questions of every business, corporation and agency that the citizens of Scotland rely on for work, food, transport, health and housing. That change starts with a Government bill but the actions lie with us all.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
We come to closing speeches, which must be kept tight to time. I call Sarah Boyack. You have four minutes, Ms Boyack.
17:54Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab)
The 2009 act was groundbreaking at the time, but it now looks old-fashioned, because things have moved fast. At that time, the Opposition party—my party—pushed the Scottish Government hard and ended up with a reduction in emissions of 42 per cent. We felt that that was radical, and I have a sense of that today. Today, we are going to support a bill that has a radical target, although I know that Claudia Beamish was up for 77 per cent, and that the Greens were up for 80 per cent. We do not know where we will be in a decade. The point is, what we have agreed today is not the limit; it is the absolute lowest bar that we can set for our emissions reductions over the next decade. If we can go further, we should.
To pick up on what Gillian Martin just said, it is the case that, in too many of our communities, people do not have the choices that we want them to have. They do not have the low-carbon present that they need and which they have the right to.
Patrick Harvie
Will the member take an intervention?
Sarah Boyack
I need to get on.
I was struck by the cabinet secretary’s comments in her opening speech. Through collective work on the part of business, Government and all the rest of us, emissions have been lowered, but there are key areas that need to be activated. However, the cabinet secretary was right to highlight that there has been economic progress in the past decade, and we need to look to the next period of economic progress. However, we also need to add in a requirement that our communities not be left behind in that process. If there is one thing that I would like us to focus on more, it is how we do that. Heating our homes, making them more energy efficient through renewable low-carbon technology and using that process to create real, decently paid jobs as well as eliminating fuel poverty is something that was described as a triple-win by Citizens Advice Scotland when it lobbied us today.
We also need to re-engineer our communities to deliver low-carbon, affordable and healthy active travel choices and to make that approach apply right across our cities, towns and villages—it needs to be taken right across the country. There must be better buses and more affordable and reliable trains. We need to focus on all those issues, not only on the target, although the target will help to drive us.
We must use our land to better effect, by investing in tree planting and sustainable flood management and by providing support for our farmers as they transition to low-carbon food production and land stewardship.
No one has mentioned urban food production today, but that must not be missed out when we are thinking about low-carbon communities. That needs to be focused on, too, and it can be empowering.
There is agreement across the chamber that we have a climate emergency. We face not global warming or climate change that we can get around to tackling at some point, but a climate emergency that we must tackle now. Even in the past year, lives have been lost and climate refugees have been created. Scotland will need to step up to the plate. Colleagues have, rightly, quoted from today’s IPCC report and from the work of the UKCCC.
The bill is important, but it is not the end. It is the start of the next push to ensure that we deliver in terms of climate change. We have to think about how we accelerate our investment in climate resilience as well as climate change. We have even had fires this year in Scotland. It is unthinkable that places such as Scotland and Siberia should have fires that go out of control. We are in an emergency.
There is a powerful call to action today. Last week, in Edinburgh, 20,000 young people marched in the city. Across the globe, we have seen the next generation doing likewise. They are challenging us. The placard that I remember from the march in Edinburgh said, “You will die of old age. We will die of climate change.” We need to act now and we need to act together. We need to compete with one another to ensure that we push one another further, but we must also sometimes work together.
I particularly want to thank the climate change coalition in Scotland, all its members, our constituents and members of the public, and I also want to thank the committee—
The Deputy Presiding Officer
I am afraid that your thanks will have to be global, if you do not mind.
Sarah Boyack
We have a duty to act—
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Sorry, no; your time is absolutely up.
Sarah Boyack
So, we do not get 30 seconds any more.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
No—you have not got 30 seconds. I would give them to you willingly if I had them.
Sarah Boyack
Let us support this legislation and get on with it.
17:59Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
I declare an interest as a member of NFU Scotland and as a partner in a former farming business.
I am pleased to be closing for the Scottish Conservatives in the final stages of what I believe to be the most important bill that the Parliament will pass this session. I believe that, now that the bill has been strengthened through committee amendments at stage 2 and through today’s stage 3 amendments, the legislation will be the springboard that ensures that Scotland continues to lead the way on tackling climate change, now and in the future. It is also important that the bill recognises, and goes some way towards addressing, the pressures that the targets will place on individuals and businesses across Scotland.
Despite the narrative from some climate change activists, I can say, as a member of the ECCLR Committee, that we have been listening and continue to listen. We are listening to a broad spectrum of experts, organisations and intergenerational panels to understand the measures that we need to and are able to take.
The committee took almost 25 hours of evidence and spent 20 hours deliberating on its reports. All that was long before the Government declared a climate emergency. I can assure members that the committee has taken its responsibilities very seriously. On that note, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the committee clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and my fellow committee members, past and present—in particular my colleague John Scott—for the commitment that they have shown in ensuring that the bill is fit for purpose. The bill will ensure that Government policies must now start to deliver.
The Committee on Climate Change outlined how Scotland can go faster and further in achieving net zero emissions. I support the principle that we need to go further and faster, for the good of both the economy and the global environment, so I fully understand the demands from many organisations, and indeed from some MSPs, to set interim targets of 80 per cent for 2030, but we must not ignore the importance of an evidence-based and realistic approach. That realistic approach favours an emissions reduction target that is 75 per cent lower than the baseline over the next decade. We cannot and should not set targets for emissions reductions that are not achievable, not sustainable and not believable. It is research and science that have shown us that there is indeed a climate emergency, and it must be research and science that lead us to the right policies to address that emergency.
Let me be clear: by setting a more ambitious interim target for 2030, we have not thrown our agriculture industry under a bus. Solutions to deliver the more ambitious 75 per cent target will be focused across a combination of all sectors, including industry and transport, each doing what it can.
As Stewart Stevenson touched on earlier, the impact of agriculture on the environment has been badly misrepresented. Most concerningly, much of that misrepresentation has emanated from our mainstream media sources, which have seriously misrepresented the IPCC report by naively and somewhat lazily applying its findings almost exclusively to the UK, rather than on a global basis, as was intended.
I can assure you that the best way for us, as a meat-eating nation, to address global climate change is not to introduce policies to put our livestock farmers out of business. It is important to be aware that Scotland is not self-sufficient in beef, so it is crucial that we do not displace meat production to countries with poor environmental credentials, but that we ensure that we eat meat that is always high-quality, grass-reared Scotch beef and lamb. Throughout the process, John Scott and I have continually reinforced that message, and I am delighted to see that, with amendments such as that on a nitrogen balance sheet, we now have the opportunity to recognise the hugely significant contribution that Scottish farmers make to tackling climate change right here, right now. With improved knowledge transfer and support, that contribution can be further improved in the future.
Over the years, the agriculture industry has faced many challenges, and I know that it will rise to this pressing challenge of climate change. My colleague Maurice Golden’s amendment calling for the creation of an agricultural modernisation fund will do exactly that for our farming sector, through knowledge transfer, the adoption of new technology and targeted support, which will allow farmers to enhance their underreported efforts in tackling climate change.
As an MSP with children in their 20s and also a four-month-old daughter, I have had future generations firmly in my thoughts as the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill has made its way through my committee and, ultimately, to the chamber where we will vote. This generation needs to get it right, and get it right right now for future generations.
The Scottish Conservatives and Unionists welcome the fact that the bill has been strengthened as it has progressed through the legislative process, and we are confident that it lays the foundations for a climate change plan that will support innovation, create jobs and use technology, as well as addressing the undeniable climate change emergency that we face.
18:04Roseanna Cunningham
I am grateful to members across the chamber for their mostly helpful and constructive contributions to the debate. I think that I am right in saying that all members who lodged amendments have had at least some successes—I refer to Maurice Golden, Claudia Beamish, Mark Ruskell and Angus MacDonald.
The Government has continuously sought consensus through the bill. We face a global climate emergency, and we must all work together to tackle it. It is my strong hope that the bill can now achieve the same cross-party support that the 2009 act has enjoyed and which has, I believe, contributed significantly to its subsequent success.
Claudia Beamish has repeatedly returned to the question of putting a just transition commission into legislation. I remind her that we are still the only country in the world that has a just transition commission. It is up and running, and it is working hard. I am not sure how many times I have already explained to Claudia Beamish why we are not inclined to put it on a statutory basis, but I will try again. That would cost at least £770,000 to set up. By comparison, the annual contribution that we make to the Committee on Climate Change is a mere £300,000. It is for Claudia Beamish to make the case about the value that putting the commission on a statutory basis would add. I do not think that that case has been made.
Claudia Beamish
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Roseanna Cunningham
I will move on, because I need to get through quite a bit.
I very much regret the tone of Mark Ruskell’s intervention. For goodness’ sake: the legislation is the strongest and toughest anywhere in the world. I find it extraordinary that Green Party members appear to be contemplating not supporting the bill, which sets the most ambitious statutory targets of any country in the world and includes many of their own proposals. No amendments were lodged at stage 3 to propose any changes to the net zero emissions target date, the 2020 target or the 2040 target. It appears that the sole sticking point is the exact level of the 2030 target. The Scottish Government has gone even further today and adopted a target of 75 per cent. To be absolutely clear, a 75 per cent target exceeds what is needed globally over the next decade to limit warming to 1.5°C. No other country—even recognised leaders such as Sweden—has set a higher target in law for that year.
Our focus must now shift to delivery. The Scottish Government will now update our current climate change plan in light of the debate today. The update will draw on the many new and emboldened initiatives that have already been announced since the First Minister’s declaration of a global climate emergency. Those include a bold package of measures on low-carbon transport, including investing £500 million to improve bus services; decarbonising passenger rail services by 2035; making a further £17 million available for zero-interest loans to support the purchase of ultra-low-emission vehicles; and working to decarbonise flights within Scotland by 2040. They include a range of actions to maximise the potential of every part of Scotland’s land to contribute to the fight against climate change, with increased funding for peatland restoration and even more ambitious tree planting targets. We will create an agricultural transformation programme that reduces emissions while focusing on sustainability, simplicity, profitability, innovation, inclusion and productivity. There is a lot more, up to and including the introduction of a new deposit return scheme.
Ambitious as those actions are, I am under no illusion that they will be sufficient. The second half of Scotland’s journey to net zero emissions will undoubtedly require different and, in many cases, much more difficult choices than has been the case to date. All of us here will need to step up our willingness to make those decisions if the targets are to be met.
No one should be in any doubt about the Scottish Government’s commitment to using all the policy levers at our disposal to rise to that challenge. However, I remind everybody, as I did earlier today, that, when the CCC provided its advice on targets in May, it was absolutely clear that
“Scotland cannot deliver net-zero emissions by 2045 through devolved policy alone.”
It is welcome that the UK Government has followed our lead to legislate for a net zero target, but UK-wide delivery policies must also now ramp up significantly.
Scotland is already recognised as a world leader in tackling climate change. By the time that the United Nations climate talks come to Glasgow in late 2020, we will have an even stronger message with which to welcome the international community to Scotland.
We will have the most stringent framework of statutory targets of any country in the world. All of us, whatever we think, should be proud of that and should support the bill. The bill maintains and strengthens Scotland’s place at the forefront of global efforts to do what we need to do to bring down emissions.
I am very proud to have moved the motion in my name.
25 September 2019
Final vote on the Bill
After the final discussion of the Bill, MSPs vote on whether they think it should become law.
Final vote on the Bill transcript
The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)
The first question is, that motion S5M-19025, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 113, Against 0, Abstentions 6.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees that the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
The Presiding Officer
The next question is, that motion S5M-19049, in the name of Graeme Dey, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The Presiding Officer
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The Presiding Officer
The result of the division is: For 89, Against 0, Abstentions 28.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees that the Debt Arrangement Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.
The Presiding Officer
As no member objects, I propose to ask a single question on the other six Parliamentary Bureau motions.
Motions agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees that the Additional Powers Request (Scotland) Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Historical Sexual Offences (Disregarded Convictions and Official Records) (Scotland) Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that, under Rule 12.3.3B of Standing Orders, the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee can meet, if necessary, at the same time as a meeting of the Parliament during Members’ Business and Portfolio Questions on Thursday 3 October 2019 for the purpose of considering the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill.
That the Parliament agrees that—
Jenny Gilruth be appointed to replace Stewart Stevenson as a member of the Justice Sub-committee on Policing; and
James Kelly be appointed to replace Daniel Johnson as a member of the Justice Sub-committee on Policing.
That the Parliament agrees that—
Sarah Boyack be appointed to replace Anas Sarwar as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee;
Claudia Beamish be appointed to replace Rhoda Grant as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee;
Alex Rowley be appointed to replace Neil Findlay as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee;
Neil Findlay be appointed to replace Daniel Johnson as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Education and Skills Committee;
Anas Sarwar be appointed to replace Pauline McNeill as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Local Government and Communities Committee; and
Beatrice Wishart be appointed to replace Willie Rennie as the Scottish Liberal Democrat substitute on the Equalities and Human Rights Committee.
That the Parliament agrees that the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.
25 September 2019