Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Official Report 856KB pdf

---

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Annual Target Report)

The next item of business is a statement by the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Paul Wheelhouse, on “The Scottish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual Target 2012” report. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should be no interventions or interruptions.

15:32  

Climate change is the biggest challenge facing global society today. It poses threats to our way of life and to the ecosystems on which we depend.

The clarity of the case for the global community to step up its action to contain worldwide temperature increases to 2°C was strengthened with the publication this weekend of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “Climate Change 2014—Synthesis Report”, which makes clear that, if the world fails to act decisively, the economic and social costs will be severe. The Scottish Government will play its full part in international efforts to bring down global emissions to a level that is consistent with containing increases in global average temperatures to 2°C or less. However, I state clearly that the targets that have been set for Scotland to help to achieve that outcome are not only the Scottish Government’s targets, but Scotland’s targets.

When the world-leading Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 was passed unanimously by the Parliament, all MSPs took on the responsibility to deliver Scotland’s targets. In that context, it is disappointing that, to date during the budget negotiations, the three largest Opposition parties have not come forward with any low-carbon suggestions as part of their budget asks. I cite that not to be accusatory, but rather to encourage members and parties in their future actions.

I therefore ask colleagues on all sides of the chamber today to rekindle the same unanimity that was shown in passing the 2009 act, and to strive to work in concert on this most important challenge. I believe that we can deliver a consensus on the way forward, and in doing so send the strongest possible signal to Scotland’s people about the necessity for change and the hope that change can be achieved.

Last week, I laid before Parliament the annual report for 2012 on Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions. To be clear, Scotland is making good progress, with a substantial net emissions reduction of 26.4 per cent from the 1990 baseline. That compares with the 24.2 per cent reduction that was assumed when the 2012 target was set, based on the 1990 to 2008 greenhouse gas inventory. In other words, we were ahead of our target in percentage terms.

Indeed, our actual, unadjusted source emissions fell even further, by 29.9 per cent over the period. Those percentage reductions demonstrate that we are over halfway to achieving the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 interim target of reducing emissions by 42 per cent by 2020. However, as I told Parliament in June, that percentage decrease does not correspond to Scotland’s statutory annual target, which is set in carbon tonnage terms.

Achievement of Scotland’s targets is formally measured against the level of the net Scottish emissions account. That accounts for the greenhouse gas emissions from sources in Scotland, Scotland’s share of emissions from international aviation and shipping, the effect of any relevant emissions removals and the effect of the sale and purchase of relevant carbon units or tradeable emissions allowances. In 2012, the NSEA figure, after adjustment for the European Union emissions trading scheme tradeable allowances, was 55,665,180 tCO2e. That was 2,439,180 tCO2e more than the statutory 2012 target. However, crucially, Scotland’s actual or source emissions recorded in the same year were 52,895,245 tCO2e, which is 0.33 MtCO2e better than the target. In 2011, similarly, the level of source emissions was again lower than the statutory NSEA target.

My statement today sets out the actions that we are taking to redress the shortfall in abatement relative to the NSEA statutory targets and to keep Scotland on track to achieve the ambitions of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. In June, in addition to further measures that we took, I announced that the Cabinet had agreed to the creation of the Scottish Government’s Cabinet sub-committee on climate change. At our first meeting last week, we discussed actions that Scotland is already taking to tackle climate change and how we can drive forward efforts to ensure that Scotland remains on track to meet the Parliament’s world-leading climate change ambitions.

We have made significant progress against the low-carbon vision that is outlined in our second report on proposals and policies, as is demonstrated in the RPP2 monitoring framework that was published earlier this year. We continue to lead the United Kingdom on renewable power, with more than 46 per cent of Scotland’s gross electricity consumption generated from renewables in 2013. Scotland is on track to reach its interim target of 50 per cent by 2015. We are also on track to meet the Scotland-wide target of reducing energy consumption by at least 12 per cent by 2020. Energy consumption in 2012 was 2.2 per cent lower than in 2011 and 11 per cent lower than the relevant baseline. In 2012, renewable heat generation equated to 3 per cent of Scotland’s non-electrical heat demand, up from 2.7 per cent in 2011. In 2013, renewable heat capacity increased by 18 per cent and heat generated from renewable sources increased by 17 per cent compared with 2012, so we are making progress towards achieving our 2020 renewable heat target of 11 per cent, albeit that challenges remain.

Forestry planting rates have increased, with some 8,300 hectares planted in 2013-14, which equates to around 16 million trees. We aim to raise the planting rate to 20 million trees per year from 2015. We are also phasing out biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill by 2020—the first ban of any Administration in the UK. By 2015, 64,000 tonnes of food waste per year will be diverted to anaerobic digestion or composting.

On the home energy efficiency programme for Scotland—HEEPS—we have gone beyond our original commitments. We estimate that almost 20,000 private sector households will benefit from energy efficiency measures through HEEPS in 2013-14, and between 2013-14 and 2015-16 we will spend around a quarter of a billion pounds on fuel poverty and energy efficiency.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I am sorry, Mr McNeil, but this is a statement. There will be no interventions. Minister, continue.

It is disappointing that the UK Government’s flagship green deal policy has had limited take-up; however, Scotland accounts for a very large proportion of Great Britain-wide delivery. The UK Government’s changes to the energy companies obligation, which were announced last December and confirmed only after consultation this autumn, created great uncertainty. The removal of part of ECO from bills has not resulted in the UK Government fully back-funding energy efficiency measures. In contrast, the Scottish Government has a centrally funded energy efficiency programme that is enabling us to secure more than our pro-rata share of ECO to date.

The Cabinet sub-committee committed to work with officials on the climate change delivery board to monitor progress on implementing RPP2 and, where necessary, to identify new abatement opportunities and to address excess cumulative emissions over the 2010 to 2012 period. It is our intention that RPP2 will be delivered in full and, where policies and proposals are not delivered, we agreed to look to bring forward new policies that would have the same, if not a greater, level of emissions abatement.

We will work collectively to scrutinise each portfolio for opportunities to support them in delivering their best contribution to tackling climate change and to ensure that Scotland’s example is as positive a one for others to emulate as possible. We would welcome—indeed, we would encourage—other parties in the Parliament coming forward with constructive and positive suggestions that we can all support to keep Scotland on track and to accelerate our transition to a successful low-carbon economy.

The Cabinet sub-committee is clear that we must significantly accelerate and focus our domestic efforts if we are to avoid dangerous climate change, but RPP2 takes us only to 2027. Last week, I was able to set out for the Cabinet sub-committee the steps that we intend to take to deliver the next report on proposals and policies—RPP3. Preparatory work has already commenced on the production of the next RPP, which is due for publication in 2016, and we aim to lay it as soon as is reasonably practicable. It is necessary for that project to be complex and wide ranging to ensure that the final report is sufficiently robust to remain relevant for at least five years. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth has agreed to fund a new macroeconomic modelling capability to help with the preparation of RPP3, and we anticipate that that model will be available for use by early autumn next year.

Earlier this year, our independent adviser, the Committee on Climate Change, advised that

“underlying progress remains on track in most sectors”.

As I have mentioned, upward revisions to the baseline against which our targets are measured are the key factor that is impacting on Scotland’s ability to meet the annual targets, although the EU’s failure to agree greater pre-2020 ambition is also a concern. By summer 2014, the baseline had been revised up by 5.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent compared with the data that was available when the annual targets were first set. The revisions are the result of improvements in methodology, as there is more accurate monitoring of emissions, and understanding of the impact of greenhouse gases improves over time. As a result of those revisions, the fixed annual targets are now considerably more challenging than they were when they were set, and they may yet get harder still.

We remain committed to delivering a 42 per cent reduction by 2020 and a minimum of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050, but overcoming the methodological issues that arise from improvements in data and estimation techniques rather than material changes in emissions remains challenging, not least because the changes are not notified until after the year that is being measured.

At the end of this month, I will meet the new chief executive officer of the Committee on Climate Change, Matthew Bell, when he visits Scotland. I will ask Mr Bell how the independent CCC can best help us to address the challenges that Scotland faces in delivering on our annual as well as our longer-term targets.

I know that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has been looking to help on this matter. Several independent experts and I gave evidence to that committee earlier this month, and I very much look forward to receiving its report on its inquiry into RPP2.

Climate change is a reality; it is happening now. The Scottish Government is committed to working with the Parliament, civil society, the business community and the people of Scotland to deliver Scotland’s world-leading greenhouse gas emission targets. Scotland is making good progress, but I agree that more needs to be done. Perhaps the greatest leverage that Scotland can have on tackling global climate change is by acting as an international exemplar of ambition and delivery, even when it is tough to do so.

I call on all in this Parliament to acknowledge Scotland’s progress, to recognise the scale of the challenge that Scotland faces and to join us in showing the leadership and the teamwork that Scotland expects and needs in facing up to the climate challenge. Let us be a true example to the world.

The minister will take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We can all spin the statistics one way or another, but we cannot get away from the fact that this is the third year in a row that we have had to analyse why we are missing the statutory annual targets, and that is hugely disappointing. In fact, actual emissions increased between 2011 and 2012. We knew that the first three targets were the easiest to hit and that the next one was always going to be very challenging. The drop in emissions that will need to be achieved for us to meet the next target is greater than the total reduction in emissions that was needed for the first three, so we are in a difficult place.

However, as was the case last year, it is clear that we have the potential to meet the targets if the Government would use the levers that it has to make a difference. Every year that the target is missed, it becomes more difficult to achieve the low-carbon economy that we all want to see. To use the minister’s phrase, not to be accusatory, but this session Labour has asked for more than £300 million to be allocated in the budget process to housing and retrofitting. I know that the Government is in trouble when it asks for consensus, but if it were to make the step change that is needed, we would of course be willing to work with it.

The Cabinet sub-committee must be more than just a talking shop. Concrete policies must emerge from it.

One thing that was missing from the statement was mention of new proposals, particularly in housing and transport, which were identified as the weak points. Does the minister have any confidence in the Government’s ability to meet the 2013 target or any yearly targets up to 2020?

I am afraid that I am disappointed by Claire Baker’s response to the statement. We put down a pretty open goal there for consensus to be built around this issue, but once again Claire Baker has displayed a misunderstanding of the nature of the statistics. I have made very clear that we have had a 7.7 per cent increase in the business-as-usual projection for the Scottish economy in terms of climate change targets. If Ms Baker is unable to understand the basis on which that impacts on our performance to hit fixed statutory targets, I am afraid that that is a matter for her to resolve. [Interruption.]

If Ms Baker wants to ask further questions she can do so, but when she interrupts from a sedentary position it is difficult for me to answer her original questions.

Ms Baker made a point about new proposals. I welcome her comment about being willing to seek consensus, which I think was a strength for the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. I have used that as an example in international fora when discussing Scotland’s performance and legislative framework with colleagues around the world, who genuinely admire Scotland for the fact that we had political consensus in 2009. I do not think that it is too late to recreate that.

I hope that this is a one-off blip and that Claire Baker wants to get her punches in early, because I hope that we will have the chance to work together to deliver on very stretching targets. If the Labour Party is sincere about wishing to be an alternative Government in Scotland, it will face exactly the same challenges as the Scottish Government does today with the methodological issues that I outlined in my statement. It is therefore important that we work together to try to get round that and work in a way that will enable us to develop a strategy together to achieve our targets—that is in everyone’s interests.

I welcome Claire Baker’s comment about being willing to be part of a consensus, if we can achieve that. I hope that we can do that after today.

Recent figures show that the poorest one fifth of the UK population spend 11 per cent of their income on energy; the figure is probably higher than that in Scotland. Reducing emissions from the residential sector, which is so influenced by cold snaps, especially here in Scotland, must continue to be a priority. Is the minister happy that enough is being done to improve the energy efficiency of Scotland’s existing housing stock and that adequate funding is in place to achieve that? What progress is being made in helping elderly and vulnerable residents in the most remote and rural areas to access support for energy efficiency schemes? Is the minister aware of WWF’s concern that the Scottish Government is not doing enough to support district heating and combined heat and power projects? Does he have any plans to do more in that area? Finally, can the minister give us any update on progress in the carbon capture and storage sector?

I hope that Mr McGrigor has left some questions for other members.

I will do my best to answer the questions as quickly as possible, Presiding Officer.

I recognise the point that Mr McGrigor makes about the importance of tackling residential emissions. They are a very large share of Scotland’s emissions and are proving quite persistent in terms of the level of emissions that we have per capita in Scotland. It is therefore an important area for us to target for action, not least because of the fuel poverty issue that Mr McGrigor quite rightly highlighted as a key consideration.

However, it is encouraging that we know from the Scottish house condition survey that by the end of 2011, 88 per cent of lofts had at least 100mm of insulation and that 54 per cent had 200mm or more; and that two thirds of properties with a cavity wall, including my house, had been fitted with cavity wall insulation. There are good signs and we are making a lot of progress. Housing colleagues are working very hard and, indeed, are trying to look at how we get to the harder-to-treat properties in rural and island communities; there are serious challenges there, as I am sure the member recognises, because of solid-wall construction and non-conventional construction techniques.

In that respect HEEPS, which has a large component of £60 million of the £79 million in the coming year, is being allocated to area-based schemes. Within that, in discussion with non-governmental organisations, we have allocated money to target the harder-to-treat properties in rural and island communities. I assure the member that we take the issue very seriously.

My colleague Fergus Ewing is working hard to develop heat mapping in Scotland and to take forward a potential framework for a more rapid roll-out of district heating. I am sure that we can keep in contact with the member on that.

Will the minister join me in welcoming what seems to be EU agreement to reduce EU domestic greenhouse gas emissions to at least 40 per cent below the 1990 level by 2030? Can he provide assurances that the Scottish Government will continue to work with other ambitious countries in making the transition towards a low-carbon economy?

Absolutely. I agree with Angus MacDonald that we should welcome the package that has been announced. Perhaps it does not go as far as many of us would have liked it to go, but we have an offer of 40 per cent on the table from the EU, as the member stated, with the potential, open opportunity to perhaps go beyond that if there is a global deal.

The Scottish Government and the UK Government together have taken a consistent view that up to 50 per cent should be offered in the event of a global deal for 2030. As the member probably knows, Scotland already has a target of 58 per cent by 2027, so we have put our cards on the table and we hope that others will follow our ambitious lead.

The EU has made that move. I pay tribute to Connie Hedegaard, the commissioner, who worked extremely hard to strike the deal. It probably does not go as far as she would have liked it to go either, but it is progress nonetheless.

I hope that we can not only see genuine progress on the mitigation target but go further on the energy efficiency and renewables targets, which are perhaps more modest than the Scottish Government would have liked.

I am concerned that the minister seems to think that the annual targets are no longer important—perhaps because they are difficult and a challenge to achieve. Yes, the changes to the 1990 baseline mean that the 42 per cent reduction figure is more achievable in 2020, but does the minister agree that the yearly targets are still important and that they send a significant message beyond Scotland?

Absolutely. I am delighted to correct the impression that I may have given in my earlier response to Claire Baker on that point. I entirely agree with Claudia Beamish. Although the targets are difficult because of the methodological changes, we are still trying to hit them. It is important that we strive to achieve them, because that was the clear intention when Parliament set them. We said that they were important targets to meet. Like the targets on fuel poverty, they are a rare beast, being statutory annual targets, and we have to try to achieve them.

What I was trying to set out in my earlier response was that it is becoming more challenging in a practical sense to achieve those targets as they were expressed. Parliament’s intention when the act was passed was to achieve 42 per cent by 2020 and at least 80 per cent by 2050. We are absolutely and unequivocally sticking to those targets and we will do what we can to meet the annual targets between now and 2020. I recognise the point that Ms Baker made about the difficulty between 2013 and 2020 in achieving the targets, but the purpose of the Cabinet sub-committee is to try to get us back on track to achieve even those targets if we can.

The greenhouse gas emissions report for 2012 says that residential emissions in 2012 were increased by cooler temperatures and changes in the fuel mix for electricity production. Could Scotland’s emissions tumble if UK energy policy allowed more speedy renewable electricity development instead of the Tory fixation with the dash for unconventional gas?

I certainly agree with Rob Gibson that Scotland has a huge opportunity in renewables. We have a great opportunity to deliver sustainable energy for the future. It is a pity that, even though we achieved an impressive 46.4 per cent of our electricity demand being met from renewables in 2013, we are not achieving as much as we could if we had at UK level a more supportive environment for investment in renewables. Again, I do not say that to be accusatory, but it would be helpful if we had a more supportive regime for transmission charges. The hydro industry has particular concerns about degression rates in relation to support from the UK Government, and Fergus Ewing has raised that with UK ministers.

We deeply regret the dash for £35 billion of support for a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. We believe that it is the wrong decision and that it will lock in higher energy prices for the future.

We are also concerned that the House of Lords has removed Scotland’s ability to vary renewable obligation certificates at an important time for the industry. That breaches the spirit of respect for Scotland and flies in the face of statements that were made about giving Scotland more powers, in the wake of the referendum.

The minister has clarified that the targets are indeed important. Will he therefore clarify why the Cabinet sub-committee that he mentions has met only once since June—as he said, just last week? How many times does it plan to meet in the forthcoming months and how important is its role?

Will the minister also clarify for Parliament what is, I accept, a conundrum for him? Will he replace the existing policy mechanisms that he has—I grant, under the existing devolution settlement—or is he looking at new initiatives? If so, I am not clear from his statement exactly what they might be.

We are taking the Cabinet sub-committee seriously. It is taking a while to set up and to define the initial papers. We agreed that the sub-committee would try to meet before the end of the year because of the urgency of the issue, so although normal practice might mean three or four meetings a year, we are going to try to have a shorter gap before the next one because we have a lot of work to get on with, as I am sure Tavish Scott appreciates.

On targets and the approach that we might take to them, we need to have a conversation with the incoming chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, which is our independent adviser, about what it recommends about increased domestic effort. That is one of the two things that it highlighted in its early report in March. The other is technical measures, if any, that it might suggest to attack the issue that we have raised about methodological changes. It is important to recognise those because they improve the quality of the information that we have available to us. I am not denying that the changes have to be made; it is important that we have as accurate an understanding as possible of our emissions and any progress that we are making. However, those changes present us with some difficulties with the act as it is currently constituted, so we will look to get advice from the Committee on Climate Change and report the messages back to Parliament when we have received them.

I take Tavish Scott’s point about the Cabinet sub-committee. It is a large sub-committee; I believe it is one of the largest that the Scottish Government has constituted. There is a cross-disciplinary feel to it and there was good engagement from colleagues who were at the meeting, including Mr Mackay who has joined us for this item today. I look forward to the next meeting in December.

To follow on from Jamie McGrigor’s point about emissions from our housing stock and the need to improve insulation and to fit renewable energy alternatives in homes, what steps is the Scottish Government taking to help people to understand how changing their behaviours can also help to tackle climate change?

Maureen Watt raises an important point. We know that roughly half the change that we have to achieve as a nation is behavioural change. That puts great emphasis on the efforts that we are making under the greener together campaign, which since January 2012 has highlighted the actions that people can take themselves to help us to deliver on our climate change targets.

We are also doing really important work through the climate challenge fund. This week, I was delighted to be able to announce the 500th community to receive funding, which happened to be in Falkirk—Angus MacDonald’s constituency—which is close to the central belt. Five hundred and twelve communities have now taken positive action to deliver on climate change at community level.

We can do a number of things. We are working with the business community through the 2020 climate group, which includes important high-profile businesses that are major listed companies in Scotland that are showing leadership and coming forward with their own ideas about how we can tackle climate change. There is good room for optimism on that front. With the political consensus that I hope we have in Parliament, we can maintain that unity and sense of purpose across civic Scotland, the business community, individuals and communities in order to reach our targets. However, Maureen Watt’s point is well made and I thank her for her question.

The minister will be aware, and probably shares members’ disappointment, that carbon emissions from business and industry have been on the increase since 2009. That suggests that any initial progress had less to do with any embedded commitment to change than with the economic downturn and, perhaps more worryingly, that any future economic growth might mean additional pressures. Why has the Scottish Government had such little success in reducing emissions from business and industry?

Ken Macintosh makes an important point. We see a close link between economic activity and emissions, and we have never denied that. On emissions since the recession kicked in in 2008-09, we were well aware that economic issues might have underlain the drop in emissions in transport and the wider business sector. In the longer term, since the 1990s, there have been huge structural changes in the Scottish economy, as there have been across western Europe, and they have played their part in our achieving the relatively high percentage drop in emissions to date.

Important measures have also been taken at local level, at Government level, and across other sectors and we should not deny that good work has also been done by the business community. That is why programmes such as resource efficient Scotland and organisations such as Zero Waste Scotland are very important, as is the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, in guiding businesses on what they can do to become more resource efficient, to reduce their carbon footprint, and to set an example. SEPA and other organisations in the Scottish Government family have done that through their own reporting on emissions and through acting as exemplars and showing the business community how it could achieve more.

However, I do not deny that we need to do more with the business community. That is why it is so encouraging that the 2020 climate group is supporting Parliament’s aspiration to lower emissions and is playing a very positive role in coming up with its own ideas as to how it can achieve more.

Let us not forget that one very big business sector is the power sector. I believe that it has dropped emissions by more than 5 megatonnes in the period since 2007. That is one of the biggest single contributions to our improved performance.

Can the minister advise whether revision of the baseline is to be an on-going process? That would mean that this “chasing” of “a moving target”, as Dr Ute Collier of the Committee on Climate Change described the situation to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, would continue. If that is the case, is there not an argument for adjusting the short-term targets post-2015 and for looking again at the trajectory through to 2032, while retaining our long-term ambitions?

Mr Dey is absolutely right. We already know that in June 2015, regardless of the outcome in relation to Scotland’s own emission figures, the inventory will be updated to increase the potency of methane gas through conversion to CO2 equivalent. It will go from roughly 21 times the potency of CO2 to 25 times the potency. That will have an impact on emissions, perhaps in the agriculture sector and in the waste sector as well. It will have an impact on baseline emissions and on the adjusted emissions. In some cases, the figures might be lower because of the changes, and in others they might be higher. We will have to see what impact that change has.

There will be on-going adjustments. We hope to see one positive adjustment in the future: more accurate information on peatlands, which may well help Scotland in coming up with a more strategic tool to address our climate change emissions. There are positives as well as negatives. We have been very unlucky as a country in that, in the past three years, we have had successive increases, whereas the UK has seen some decreases and some increases. We have had increases in emissions figures pretty much across the board. We have to discuss that issue with the Committee on Climate Change, including the impact that it has on RPP2, which is clearly something that has not taken into account those most recent revisions, and on our strategy to address climate change in Scotland. That is something that we are taking very seriously and we will of course keep the CCC informed of the measures that we take in that regard.

Since before the climate change legislation was passed, I have been concerned about this myth about Scotland’s consensus on climate change. Yes—we all voted for the targets, but there was never consensus on how to reach them or on their priority relative to other economic priorities.

Can the minister tell us what he means when he tells us today that

“RPP2 will be delivered in full”?

Does he mean that everything that is presented in RPP2 as a policy or as a proposal will in fact happen? In particular, will he heed the call to ensure that energy efficiency of the housing stock is designated as a national infrastructure priority project?

Patrick Harvie raises an important point. I apologise if I gave any cause for confusion in my statement. What we are trying to say is that we appreciate that we have to strive to achieve the policies and proposals that are set out in RPP2. If, for some reason, one proposal cannot be converted to a policy or if there is a problem implementing a particular policy that we have already adopted, we need as a Government to find a way to make up that shortfall on emissions. The responsibility is on us all within Government to try to share that burden and to find a way through that.

When I talk about delivering RPP2 in full, I mean that we need to deliver the abatement that we have set out, regardless of how we do it. We also need to try to ensure that we come up with compensatory measures if something is prevented from happening or, as we have discovered—to be fair to Patrick Harvie, he may have made this point during the passage of RPP2—in relation to the assumption about the EU target pre-2020. We need to try to adjust for these changes in the external environment, make sure that our strategy is fit for purpose and work together as a Government team to try to come up with alternative proposals, where necessary. I certainly give the member a commitment that that is what we will strive to do.

Given that emissions from transport are still at 1990 levels and account for a quarter of Scotland’s overall emissions, what action does the Scottish Government plan to take to have a strategic national plan for reducing car use and, in particular, to encourage car sharing schemes and other ways of easing traffic congestion during peak travel to work periods?

Cara Hilton is right that transport has certainly been one of the most difficult areas to address. That probably ties in with Mr Macintosh’s point. Where we have had a decline in economic activity, we also have a fall-off in transport emissions. However, we can probably expect, as the economy picks up and as people feel more wealthy and feel more able to afford to drive, that transport emissions may well increase again.

Part of the challenge that we have had—indeed, it is a Europe-wide challenge—is that vehicle emissions standards have improved greatly. That was expected to be the major strategy to tackle transport emissions, but it has failed to deliver in practice because people’s behaviour has changed in response to it. Perhaps they are able to drive more miles on the same budget, or perhaps they are using more efficient engines, but are still pumping out the same amount of CO2 that they pumped out previously with a lower mileage.

We have not quite crossed this Rubicon yet, but we are investing heavily in electric vehicles as one method by which we can try to decarbonise our transport. The transport minister, Mr Brown, has worked closely with people who are involved with sustainable active travel to try to set out what the vision of sustainable active travel in Scotland might be in 2030, and to work back from that for the steps that are required and the funding that needs to go with that to achieve the goals. I am confident that we are getting good buy-in from our stakeholders now on achieving that.

I hope that, by the end of this financial year, we will have up to 1,200 vehicle charging points across Scotland through combining Scottish and UK Government funding, and I hope that that will help to make it easier for people to use electric vehicles and to make a more rapid transition to low-carbon vehicles.

That ends questions to the minister on his statement. I apologise to the two members whom I could not call, but we have to move on to a short debate.