Scottish Parliament Climate Change Speech

Ms Wendy Alexander (Paisley North) (Lab): Like others, I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom and, with the passage of the bill, Scotland are providing leadership in the strategic framework for tackling climate change. As others have said, the bill is a vital start, but it still leaves us with a choice: either we can stop at setting ambitious targets for tomorrow’s policy makers or we can challenge ourselves now to start setting targets for the current generation and to put in place policies to deliver those cuts in emissions. As Angela Constance said, people all over Scotland and at every level will be disappointed if the height of our ambition is not to set any short-term statutory duties for the current parliamentary session, for the next parliamentary session, between 2011 and 2015, or for the subsequent session, from 2015 to 2019. That is not what the people of Scotland want from us. The important thing is that we work with the bill to ensure that we act now rather than later. As the Stern review concluded—and as others have alluded to—it is clear that
“the benefits of … early action far outweigh the … costs of not acting.”

However, the bill as it stands manifestly lacks strong early action.
Our second challenge with the bill is that we need not simply to set the right targets but to put in place the hard policy measures to make things happen. As we have learned to our cost over the past decade—Robin Harper alluded to this in a very powerful speech—simply defining the problem does not necessarily lead to the solution. To make that happen, the bill must tackle the system failures that are slowing the rate of green transformation. That means that the bill must go further in addressing market failures, providing the right financial incentives and ensuring that we take brave decisions on regulation.
The need for us to do that can be demonstrated by looking no further than our near European neighbours. We might now have the most ambitious strategic framework for the next 40 or 50 years, but the size of the green economy in each of our European neighbours—including Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain—is significantly larger than that in Scotland. That is not because people in Scotland have a lesser wish to be green; it is about our responsibility to create the right policy framework. I hope that the Government will try to meet the environmental ambitions of the people of Scotland by giving serious consideration to the advice of the three parliamentary committees and by making some of the brave decisions required for actual delivery.
Stewart Stevenson: Does the member regret, as I do, the loss of the pre-combustion CO2 sequestration opportunity at the Peterhead plant that is now being developed in the middle east?
Ms Alexander: I certainly welcome the fact that there are to be four CCS plants across the UK and a much larger number in Europe. CCS is an example of an area in which we need to work together and not try to score points if we want to secure the scale of investment that is required. I refrained from saying that we had been leapfrogged by the UK on targets, but I predict that we will be leapfrogged again unless we deal with the issue of short-term targets.
I return to the areas in which we need policy action. As has been mentioned, energy efficiency has been the Cinderella of the energy and climate change debate for decades, and it would be a shame if we allowed it to be a Cinderella in the bill, but that is the position as things stand. The provisions on energy efficiency, the energy performance of buildings and renewable heat lack the necessary policy bite. In the case of energy efficiency and renewable heat, there are no targets at all. The bill should include new financial incentives on energy efficiency and renewable heat. When that has been done, those new commitments must be reflected in a revised financial memorandum.
As the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee suggested, we would like local tax rebates to be provided to incentivise the take-up of energy efficiency, renewable heat and microgeneration. In the case of microgeneration, one need look no further than the evidence of Ian Marchant, who chairs the Government’s business advisory group, on the wisdom of the provision of financial incentives in that area. That has been requested by the coalition that supports Sarah Boyack’s proposed member’s bill on energy efficiency and microgeneration, and it would be respectful to the member, the coalition and Parliament if the Government could set out its intentions with regard to that bill—and, in particular, the proposal that general permitted development rights should be extended in the ways that the committee described—as soon as possible.
I am aware that time is pressing. The state of our domestic housing stock should shame us all. We cannot achieve the climate change targets unless we make it fit for purpose. That is an area that the bill leaves behind, and it is one that should dominate our thinking at stage 2.
Scots do not want to be less green. We are less green because of an inadequate policy framework, for which we should all take responsibility. The bill represents the only opportunity that we have to pass primary legislation that will address that inadequate policy framework. The next generation will judge the bill not on the ambition of our targets but on whether it fixed the policy framework so that we could deliver. I hope that we will put in place the necessary policy framework by amending the bill as it goes through its parliamentary stages. If we fail, we will have failed the many Scots who look to us not simply for targets but for delivery.