|
Energy Efficiency
A debate on motion
S2M-2462, in the name of Shiona Baird, on an energy efficiency strategy in
Scotland.
The
Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): Good
morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2462, in the
name of Shiona Baird, on an energy efficiency strategy in Scotland.
Shiona Baird (North East Scotland) (Green):
There is universal consensus among all but the most die-hard
anti-environmentalists that climate change is a major threat, but there is
not universal consensus on the solutions, apart from on one — energy
efficiency. There are no losers in the drive for energy efficiency; it
produces a win-win situation. Conversely, if the current trends in
consumption and waste continue, everyone will lose in the long run.
The Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong
Learning (Allan Wilson): For the avoidance of
doubt, the amendment that is before members is an Executive amendment, not a
Liberal Democrat amendment, regardless of what might happen after today's
debate.
Energy is an essential commodity for Scotland's society and economy. It
heats our homes, lights our schools and hospitals and powers our factories
and offices. We must supply and manage energy in ways that are sustainable
and that minimise the adverse impact on our environment that our use of
energy causes. In that regard, I share entirely the Scottish Green Party's
agenda.
Members are probably aware that only last week, on 16 February, at midnight
New York time, which is 5 o'clock in the morning Greenwich Mean Time — I was
in San Francisco last week, so I am familiar with the genre — the Kyoto
protocol became a legally binding treaty. It demands from the industrialised
world a 5.2 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 and imposes
other targets that are to be met before that date. I am pleased to say that
Scotland is making an equitable contribution to meeting the targets, as we
must do, because as part of the global community we must play a full and
proactive role in meeting that global commitment.
The topic for today's debate — energy efficiency — is entirely
apt. The issue is climbing higher on the political agenda, as are the more
general issues of energy supply and demand. It is entirely appropriate that
we discuss energy efficiency in that wider context. Therefore, I welcome the
opportunity that the Green motion gives the Parliament to discuss such a
vital topic.
As we always stress in debates on energy matters, renewable energy, energy
efficiency and the development of innovative energy products and techniques
are fundamental in the fight against climate change, which, as Shiona Baird
correctly said, all but the most extreme anti-environmentalists accept is a
challenge that we must face.
To face it, we must adopt a sustainable approach to energy supply and
demand. The Executive is strongly committed to increasing the amount of
electricity that is generated from renewable sources — members will be
familiar with the ambitious targets that we have set our nation in that
regard.
However, the key theme of today's debate is energy efficiency. The issue is
often overlooked, but it is one of the most valuable tools in the armoury of
measures to mitigate the effects of climate change. Demand-related measures
such as energy efficiency are easily the most cost-effective means of
reducing emissions from energy consumption. Energy efficiency produces a
truly virtuous circle and a win-win situation. For example, by reducing
emissions through simple measures that often cost little to implement,
businesses can reduce running costs.
The United Kingdom Government's energy white paper, which I commend, argued
that energy efficiency has a vital role in addressing our future energy
needs and tackling fuel poverty. Energy efficiency is expected to deliver
half of the UK's target of a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by
2050. Energy efficiency measures are generally easily affordable and do not
depend on major or complex technological innovations. The widespread
implementation of today's affordable technologies would have a significant
impact on Scottish energy consumption. I am talking about measures that are
relatively easy to take, such as fitting draught excluders to windows and
doors, using energy efficient light bulbs and not using standby power.
We are fully committed to promoting measures that will reduce day-to-day
demand and there are many examples of our doing so. The classic example is
the warm deal, through which we have thermally insulated 200,000 homes — or
10 per cent of Scotland's housing stock — to reduce bills for some of the
most vulnerable people in our communities. Through the central heating
programme, we have insulated and heated 43,000 homes. We are taking a wide
range of measures to help businesses and domestic users to reduce energy
consumption through better energy efficiency measures.
It gives me great pleasure to move the Executive amendment to the Green
motion. I hope that the amended motion will receive unanimous approval later
in the day.
I move amendment S2M-2462.1, to insert after "improve quality of life":
"and increase competitiveness of businesses in Scotland".
Richard Lochhead (North East Scotland) (SNP):
Given the impact of climate change, the cost of energy for households in
Scotland today and the scandalous level of fuel poverty in Scotland, it does
not take a genius to work out that the Parliament will debate energy and
environmental matters time and again over the coming years.
If we compare just the past few months with the first four years of this
Parliament, we find that we have had energy debates sponsored by the
Conservatives, the Scottish Green Party and the SNP; a climate change debate
has also been sponsored by the Executive. That indicates the direction that
the debate is taking in Scotland and the wider world. However, we have to
inject a dose of reality into the debate because we live in energy-rich
Scotland where, at present, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people
suffer from fuel poverty.
That is a national scandal.
I noticed a couple of stories in the press this morning, one of which was a
comparison between Westminster and this Parliament in terms of the hot air
that is produced. The result was that less hot air is produced by this
Parliament — something that the SNP has been trying to tell other MSPs for a
long time.
The other headline in today's news was the profit announcements by a number
of companies in the UK. Centrica plc, which owns Scottish Gas, has announced
profits that have increased by a lot more than was expected, yet it has
fewer customers. That tells us that the company is squeezing more profit out
of a smaller customer base and that its customers in Scotland are being
fleeced. That is why so many people are moving into fuel poverty and we have
to do something about that in this Parliament.
The Government has set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per
cent by 2050. As the minister and others have said, it is hoped that we will
get halfway to that target by improving energy efficiency. That illustrates
why energy efficiency must have a much higher profile in the energy debate
in Scotland. As many people have said, we can improve energy efficiency
through measures such as demand reduction, better buildings, more
energy-efficient equipment in our businesses and households and energy
efficient heat and power supplies.
Those measures will bring economic benefits to Scotland by creating green
jobs and they will enhance energy security in Scotland, which has not yet
crept into the debate. Energy efficiency enhances energy security for a
country. With regard to the environment, energy security will cut emissions,
and socially, as many members have said, it will help us to tackle fuel
poverty.
There is a huge way to go, however, and we should not become complacent or
congratulate ourselves on steps that have already been taken when we have
not done enough and a huge task remains before us.
I contacted Communities Scotland yesterday to speak about the local
authorities that have not submitted a fuel poverty strategy as they were
supposed to do by March 2004 under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. In
February 2005, Aberdeenshire Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council, East
Ayrshire Council, Midlothian Council, North Ayrshire Council, Scottish
Borders Council, Shetland Islands Council, South Lanarkshire Council and
Western Isles Council, which cover some of the coldest parts of Scotland,
had still not submitted their fuel poverty strategies to the Government via
Communities Scotland. Given that we are in that ridiculous situation, we
cannot stand here today, congratulate ourselves and say that we are making
huge progress. I urge the minister to speak to those local authorities,
because their lack of action is not acceptable.
Only a few local authorities in Scotland have dedicated officers working on
fuel poverty or on the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. That situation
must be addressed, because local authorities are cash-strapped and unable as
a result to play their full role in tackling fuel poverty and improving
energy efficiency in Scotland. If there is one message that I ask the
minister to take away, it is, "Please speak to our local authorities and
give them more support."
Building standards have been a major issue in the debate. As I said, the UK
Government's target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by
2050. As part of our climate change inquiry, a witness told the Environment
and Rural Development Committee yesterday that Switzerland has adopted a
target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90 per cent — not 60 per cent
— and that it plans to achieve that by one major route, namely better
building standards. We must learn from other countries, because the
appalling standard of much housing in Scotland contributes to our energy
inefficiency and addressing that must be our priority. I urge members to
support the SNP amendment.
Allan Wilson: I
will respond first to that last point. We can all agree that there is
nothing self-congratulatory about the motion or the Executive amendment; I
would not support them if there were.
The Executive has been consistently proactive in introducing initiatives to
accelerate uptake of energy efficiency measures in the local government
sector and elsewhere. Last year, we announced funding of £20 million to
improve energy efficiency in the sector and 31 of 32 local authorities have
signed up to that agenda; indeed, I addressed a Convention of Scottish Local
Authorities conference on the subject in order to raise awareness among
local authority energy efficiency officers of the availability of that cash
to spend to save in the local government sector.
Other programmes — such as the central heating programme and the loan action
programme, which preceded the public sector programme — provide valuable
practical assistance to householders and small businesses. In response to
Alex Johnstone's point, I say that it is true that the Tory emphasis in the
programme that preceded the new one has been changed.
The warm deal programme properly targets what are obviously finite resources
at people who are most needy so that they can enjoy the same quality of life
as other people who have more resources — we in the Executive parties make
no apology for that. As ever, Richard Lochhead calls for more resources, but
he does not give a figure for how much more ought to be spent.
Alex Johnstone referred to the Scottish Executive's not practising what it
preaches about energy efficiency.
Alex Johnstone: I
was blaming Allan Wilson for the Parliament building.
Allan Wilson: I
will come to the member's second point. In fact, since 2001, Scottish
Executive buildings have shown a 5 per cent reduction in carbon output and
there has been a 25 per cent energy saving overall as a result of the
increase in standards that we instituted in 2000.
Unusually for Alex Johnstone, he took a rather cheap shot at the Scottish
Parliament building. As he knows, I am not responsible for it; the Scottish
Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Presiding Officer are capable of
speaking in favour of it. However, it is a fact that the design of the
Parliament building has been assessed by Building Research Establishment Ltd
Scotland using its environmental assessment method. It awarded not one but
three certificates at the highest level of excellence to the MSP building,
Queensberry House and the assembly building — indeed, the very chamber in
which we speak. Alex Johnstone took a cheap shot that was unworthy of him.
Richard Lochhead:
On securing resources to tackle energy efficiency, the climate change levy
is, of course, collected throughout the United Kingdom. Has there been any
attempt to measure how much has been collected in and returned to Scotland
through energy efficiency measures?
Allan Wilson: As
Richard Lochhead is aware, we intend soon to announce plans about the fossil
fuel and climate change levy as well as about resources from landfill tax
credits, which we will use to introduce more effective energy efficiency
measures. Watch this space.
I will respond to the points that were made by Richard Lochhead's colleague,
particularly in relation to hydrogen cell technology. As Rob Gibson might be
aware, the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland has
established a sub-group to examine the potential of hydrogen cell
technology, which we expect will report in May on development of the
technology.
A significant reference was made to the process of individual energy audit
for domestic properties. As members might be aware, the European Union is
considering that issue in the context of its directive that will introduce
certification. We will be required to transpose that directive into domestic
legislation in Scotland.
I was unable to make my next points in the short time that was available
earlier. We established an energy study to examine not only generation and
supply of electricity in Scotland, but demand for that supply, which is the
crucial extra part of the equation that we have discussed today. It is
important that the study will establish a Scottish baseline so that we are
not constantly extrapolating from UK figures. That work has been undertaken
for us by AEA Technology in Glengarnock.
We also intend to develop an energy efficiency strategy. I hope that this
debate and everybody who has participated in it can feed into that strategy
so that it can be developed consensually. That will be a strong focus, as
was envisaged in a UK-wide paper on energy efficiency, and it will give
everybody the opportunity to make their points from today and have them
considered as part of a nationwide strategy.
In conclusion, we believe in a sustainable approach that includes managing
energy supply as well as demand and which places as much emphasis on energy
efficiency as on other measures such as renewables. If there has been an
emphasis on energy generation rather than on energy efficiency, it has come
from the media; it is not an emphasis that we in the media would subscribe
to. Energy efficiency is cost-effective and it works. We intend to continue
to ensure that it plays a key role in our sustainable development strategy.
To view the entire debate -
Please
Click Here
|
