The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the findings of a consultation on proposals for a Scottish Climate Change Bill. The consultation took place from January to April 2008 and the formal process consisted of two main strands: written submissions to 33 specific questions posed in a consultation document, and 4 consultation events with key stakeholder groups.

A total of 318 written responses were received. Almost 21,000 people responded through 8 campaigns and 420 campaign responses contained additional material to the campaigns' suggested texts. The numbers attending each event ranged from around 30 to 60. The highest number of responses was from individuals. Amongst other respondents, the highest numbers were from public sector respondents, NGOs, and trade and professional organisations. Responses were also received from business and industry, and small numbers from academic and research institutions, schools and a political party.

The material provided was largely qualitative, and generated a vast amount of information, around 4 main themes which the consultation explored: targets; supporting framework; reporting and scrutiny framework; and supporting measures.

Targets

The consultation examined issues relating to how a statutory target for the reduction of emissions should be designed. Specific questions explored:

• Whether a Scottish target should be based on CO ₂ alone or the basket of 6 greenhouse gases.
• Whether the Bill should contain provisions to alter which gases are included.
• Whether the targets should be based upon source emissions, an end-user inventory, or on individual targets for energy efficiency and renewable electricity.
• Whether the Bill should allow the means of measuring the target to be changed through secondary legislation to reflect international developments or unforeseen consequences.
• Whether the emissions reduction target should take account of the abatement effort made by companies under emissions trading schemes.
• Whether international credits should be counted towards Scottish targets.
• Whether the Bill should allow the level of the 2050 target to be changed through secondary legislation.

A large majority of respondents ¹ stated a preference for using the basket of 6 gases as the basis of the target, rather than CO ₂ alone, with the most common reason being that each makes a contribution to climate change, and should be part of the target. There was overwhelming support for the Bill to contain provisions to alter which gases are included. There was a broadly even split in views of whether the targets should be based upon source emissions or an end-user inventory amongst those who expressed a view, but around a third of respondents who supported the use of a source-based methodology suggested that at least some form of reporting of end-user emissions was also required, even where this was not suggested as the basis of the target. Whichever basis was advocated, around a third identified a need to include measures for energy efficiency and / or renewable electricity (generally in addition to the main target). The importance of incentives to encourage action in these areas was acknowledged by a number of respondents.

There was strong support for the view that the Bill should allow the means of measuring the target to be changed through secondary legislation, to reflect international developments or unforeseen consequences. In relation to whether the target should take account of the abatement effort made by companies under emissions trading schemes, around twice as many respondents agreed than disagreed, although a range of observations, concerns and qualifications were also identified (even where respondents supported this in general terms). Most organisations believed that international credits should be counted towards Scottish targets, although under half of the individual respondents agreed and most respondents also offered some qualifications or reservations. There was strong support for limits on credits counted towards Scottish targets.

There was strong support for the Bill to allow the level of the 2050 target to be changed through secondary legislation, with virtually unanimous support for the view that any proposed change should be on the basis of scientific advice. Views were more mixed about whether any changes to the target should be limited to an increase (although the overall balance was in favour of this). A large number of respondents raised additional issues relevant to targets (e.g. expressing support for the level of the target or making additional comments about the nature of any targets). Although no question was asked about international aviation or shipping, around a third of respondents suggested the inclusion of these sectors in the target.

Supporting framework

The consultation explored issues relating to the framework for emissions reductions. Specific questions covered:

• The factors which should be taken into account when setting the level of budgets.
• How long interim budget periods should be.
• How many years in advance emissions budget periods should be set.
• The limit on the amount of emissions which the Government can borrow from a following budget period.
• Whether the Bill should include an interim point target.

Around a fifth of those who commented on the factors to take into account when setting the level of budgets simply supported those identified in the consultation document. It was also suggested that budgets should reflect the need for: early action; a realistic approach; leadership; flexibility; equity; and that they should be related to the shadow price of carbon ². A small number suggested budgets at levels other than Scotland (geographical and / or sectoral) and some considered that the budgets should follow what is required to achieve the required reduction or desired trajectory.

Five years was the most common interim budget period suggested and only a very small number of respondents proposed longer interim budgetary periods. There was also support for annual interim budget periods, and a large number of respondents suggested that there should be annual point targets to ensure a focus on progress and to promote early action. In terms of how many years in advance emissions budget periods should be set, the most common suggestions equated to setting budgets 5-10 years in advance, although some supported a longer period and some argued that the budgets should be mapped out for the whole period to 2050.

There were a range of views on enabling borrowing from a following budget period, including those who: agreed that borrowing should be permitted with no additional restrictions; agreed that borrowing should be permitted, but only in specific circumstances; or did not agree that borrowing should be permitted. Views were broadly split, although slightly more overall favoured the provision to enable borrowing from a following budget period than did not. A number suggested either conditions which should apply to borrowing (including the application of an "interest rate"), or ways in which it should otherwise be restricted. A wide range of possible percentage limits on borrowing were suggested, but the most common view offered was that this should be restricted to not more than 1%, and most of those who expressed a view favoured 5% or less. Some respondents offered comments on banking, with slightly more respondents in favour of banking than against it.

Most respondents agreed that point targets should be specified (although a small number did not, or suggested using cumulative rather than, or as well as, point targets). Many argued that the Bill should contain an annual target (with many suggesting the need for a 3% per annum reduction) and only a very small number supported the arguments made against annual targets in the consultation document. Some proposed that point targets should be established for specific years to 2050 (with 2020 mentioned most commonly) and a small number suggested recurring targets for periods between 2 and 10 years. The most common approach for the definition of the point target was to extrapolate from the trajectory required to reach the target by 2050.

Reporting and scrutiny framework

The consultation explored issues relating to the reporting and scrutiny framework. Specific questions covered:

• Whether the Scottish Ministers should be required to report on any other issues related to climate change in addition to the requirements already set out.
• Whether a process of Parliamentary scrutiny is the appropriate way of holding the Scottish Government to account if targets or budgets are not met.
• What the primary source of advice should be to the Scottish Government for setting emissions targets or budgets.
• Which organisation should be tasked with monitoring the progress of the Scottish Government on reducing emissions.
• Whether additional independent mechanisms for scrutinising the effectiveness of the Scottish Government's policies in reducing emissions should be created by the Bill.
• Which organisation is best placed to carry out the scrutiny.
• Whether there are any other functions related to climate change which should be carried out at arm's length from the Scottish Government.

Overall, there was a very high level of support for a requirement upon the Scottish Ministers to report, and there was a general preference for annual reporting of most issues wherever possible. Almost all of the respondents agreed that the Scottish Ministers should be required to report on issues related to climate change. A number suggested a duty on Ministers to report on the emissions implications of any significant Ministerial decisions, policy proposals or new spending plans, or to explain to Parliament any decision to allow emissions incompatible with a Strategic Environmental Assessment.

There was a very high level of agreement that a process of Parliamentary scrutiny is the appropriate way of holding the Scottish Government to account if targets or budgets are not met (although just under half of these respondents suggested that this would not be sufficient in itself, or would need to be supported by other arrangements).

There were mixed views of which organisation should be the primary source of advice to the Scottish Government for setting emissions targets or budgets, and slightly over half of those who addressed this issue favoured the use of the proposed UK Committee on Climate Change, while slightly under a third favoured a new Scottish Committee (or Commission) on Climate Change. Many of those who favoured the UK Committee approach believed that this should be adopted in the first instance as an interim measure, or that the Bill should allow for the creation of a new Scottish Committee at a later stage. A very small number suggested that this role should be undertaken by an existing public body in Scotland or another body. Some believed that there should be some role (albeit generally not as the primary source of advice) for an existing Scottish public body, and the two mentioned most frequently were the Sustainable Development Commission ( SDC) Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency ( SEPA), sometimes in combination, or supported by others.

Similarly, the largest number of respondents favoured the proposed UK Committee on Climate Change (for many in the first instance) to monitor the progress of the Scottish Government on reducing emissions, although others again expressed support for the formation of a new Scottish Committee or Commission. A slightly higher proportion than was the case for advice suggested that an existing public body in Scotland should have a role in the monitoring function, and those mentioned most frequently were SEPA, Audit Scotland and SDC Scotland.

More than two thirds of those who expressed a view believed that the Bill should create additional independent mechanisms for scrutinising the effectiveness of the Scottish Government's policies in reducing emissions (in addition to any scrutiny already provided by the Scottish Parliament). Some also highlighted the need for the Bill to make provision for additional sanctions and enforcement mechanisms. In terms of which organisation was seen to be best placed to carry out the scrutiny functions, most again favoured a role for a new UK or Scottish Committee or Commission, although fewer mentioned the UK Committee as being best placed to undertake this role than was the case for advice or monitoring (although this may partly reflect that a lower number of respondents commented on this, and that the UK Committee was not offered as an option in the question). A number of respondents saw a role in scrutiny for existing public bodies, and the two mentioned most frequently were Audit Scotland and SDC Scotland.

Amongst those who addressed the issue of whether there are any other functions related to climate change which should be carried out at arm's length from the Scottish Government, most believed that there are. Specific suggestions included: research; some aspects of target-setting and budgeting; aspects of environmental work; the production and assessment of a strategic plan; some additional functions relating to overall reporting and review; leadership and direction; and consideration of some specific issues or actions.

A number of respondents made additional comments about the reporting and scrutiny framework, relating to issues such as: the importance of clear and robust reporting and scrutiny; the general nature of reporting requirements; the nature of Parliamentary arrangements for reporting and scrutiny; measurement issues; the need for transparency; the nature and operation of any bodies involved in the provision of advice, monitoring or scrutiny; and the provision of incentives.

Supporting measures

The consultation explored measures which might be included in the Bill to enable particular action to be taken. Specific questions covered:

• Whether the Bill should contain enabling powers to introduce a duty on certain parts of the public sector to take specified actions on climate change or other specified environmental issues.
• What the duties should include.
• Whether the Bill should contain enabling powers to introduce statutory guidance for certain public bodies on specified climate change or other environmental measures.
• What the guidance should include.
• Whether the Bill should contain enabling powers to create a requirement for certain public sector bodies to make regular reports on specific measures they are taking to tackle climate change.
• Whether current Best Value guidance should be amended to take specific account of climate change mitigation and adaptation.
• Whether any amendments to existing legislation or enabling powers are needed to allow for variable charging.
• Whether there are any provisions to help Scotland adapt to the impacts of climate change which should be included in the Bill.
• Whether provisions within the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 should be amended in order to provide clearer links with emissions reduction.
• What the equalities implications are of the measures in the proposals for the Scottish Climate Change Bill.
• Whether there is any existing legislation within the competence of the Scottish Parliament (devolved) which needs to be amended so that appropriate action on climate change can be taken by sectors in society.

There was a very high level of agreement that the Bill should contain enabling powers to introduce a duty on certain parts of the public sector to take specified actions on climate change, and most of reasons focused on the perceived importance or benefits of having duties for public sector bodies. In relation to what the duties should include, a wide range of suggestions were made, varying from some form of generic duty (e.g. to require public sector bodies to consider climate change across the range of their policies, strategies, plans, decision making and delivery functions) to duties in more specific areas (e.g. to produce an adaptation strategy or plan, or to commission and conduct an energy audit), not necessarily exclusively. A number of respondents suggested that a duty should only cover those issues which are within the direct control of an organisation, and a number stressed the importance of linking the duty to existing provisions.

The majority of respondents who addressed the issue of whether the Bill should contain enabling powers to introduce statutory guidance for certain public bodies on specified climate change or other environmental measures agreed with this. A number of reasons were given, amongst which were the need for strong guidance to accompany the Bill (or a duty), to aid implementation or to promote good practice. A number of respondents identified gaps in current guidance, such as a perceived lack of a specific focus or priority for climate change issues, or a lack of a single statutory guidance vehicle summarising all climate change issues. In terms of what the guidance should include, the focus tended to be on giving direction and clarity about the measures required to ensure that all bodies take the necessary actions.

A large majority of respondents agreed that the Bill should contain enabling powers to create a requirement for certain public sector bodies to make regular reports on specific measures they are taking to tackle climate change. The issues identified most frequently as those on which public bodies should be required to report, included: the measures and actions undertaken; progress; emissions; obstacles; and actions planned. The most common view expressed about the frequency of reporting was that annual reporting should be required. The need to take account of other measures which are in place and to link to other reporting structures was also a common theme (with examples including the need to take account of Scotland's Climate Change Declaration and the Single Outcome Agreement process).

A large majority of those who responded agreed that current Best Value guidance should be amended to take specific account of climate change mitigation and adaptation, and many provided suggestions about how this could be done. Many respondents also emphasised the importance of implementation and enforcement of the guidance. A number of comments were also made on issues which related generally to the framework of supporting measures, including: the need for clarity, direction, consistency and fairness; sanctions and mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement; the need for incentives; measurement and data collection; the need for training and resources; links to other measures impacting upon public bodies; and the general nature of supporting measures.

Most of those who addressed the issue of variable charging expressed (or implied) their support for this, although few identified what specific legislative amendments or enabling powers might be needed to allow for this, and nearly all concentrated on the issues raised by variable charging (e.g. perceived benefits), and made suggestions for how variable charging could be utilised (e.g. the issues that might be addressed, how charges might be levied or how to take this forward).

Most respondents who commented on whether there are any provisions to help Scotland adapt to the impacts of climate change which should be included in the Bill focused on the general need for adaptation, and / or provided suggestions about activities which may be required (e.g. the development of national or local strategies, action plans etc; review of potential impacts of climate change; the imposition of a "sustainability" duty; and the provision of resources). A large number of respondents stipulated that the actions taken should not cause further harm to the environment, and a wide range of suggestions were made about potential adaptation measures. Most respondents agreed that provisions within the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 should be amended in order to provide clearer links with emissions reduction, with the suggestion that the current legislation does not address climate change sufficiently. A number of amendments were suggested. Some respondents considered that amendment of the legislation is not required and / or that changes to the SEA guidance or toolkit may be adequate.

Relatively few respondents addressed the equalities implications of the measures in the proposals for the Scottish Climate Change Bill in detail, although some made broad statements about the importance of national and / or international equality issues, social and environmental justice. Poverty was highlighted frequently as a specific issue (and fuel poverty was mentioned by some), and a small number of other issues were highlighted for particular equality groups. Some respondents emphasised the need to promote equality, or gave examples of ways to do this.

Respondents to the question exploring whether any existing legislation within the competence of the Scottish Parliament needs to be amended to enable appropriate action on climate change by sectors in society tended to focus more generally on what they believed should be done. Many did not distinguish between work which would require legislative change and that which could be taken forward in other ways. A very large volume of material was provided relating to these issues, and comments focused on: issues relating to overall legislation, regulation and taxation, and specific areas for action (with a vast number of suggestions made across a wide range of policy areas).

Other comments

Respondents also made many additional points of a more general nature, or which did not link readily to a consultation question. Many provided background information about their organisation or response (e.g. the nature of their work; their overall commitment to addressing climate change; relevant activities; how the response was derived; whose views were represented; the focus of the response; their endorsement of other responses; or their potential role in taking action). A large number made general comments commending or offering congratulation on aspects of the Bill or the process (e.g. the consultation process or the opportunity to provide their views; the commitment and intention to introduce legislation or establish a framework; or the leadership shown by Scotland). A number of respondents stressed the overall importance of the issue of climate change, and the need for action was a common theme.

A range of comments were made about the overall approach of the Bill, or the emphasis or tone (e.g. the need for: a high priority; flexibility; scope for immediate and longer term action; continuing measurement; monitoring, review and development; a clear purpose, clear definitions and details of roles and responsibilities; links to other relevant developments; a focus on delivery and action; and, for some, further reference to ways of achieving the targets). Some also identified that the Bill and the actions and processes should be: strong and bold; clear, transparent and simple; radical, creative and ambitious; science-based; fair and equitable; based on the principles of sustainable development; and well-publicised. Many suggested the need for leadership, and some stressed the need for difficult decisions or political will. It was also stated that it would be helpful to learn from experiences elsewhere.

Many respondents identified a range of additional issues which would require consideration in taking action to tackle climate change. Many also identified opportunities in the Bill, either in terms of a general recognition that the Bill could have positive environmental, social and economic effects, or by providing more specific details of these positive effects.

Many respondents suggested ways of working, or the general approach which should be taken, and the most common issues were the need for joined-up working and thinking, and the need for working in partnership. The need for action by the private sector and by the wider public arose repeatedly. The need for financial resources also emerged frequently.

Some respondents made specific comments or observations on particular aspects of the consultation document or the overall consultation process, including respondents who: commented on particular paragraphs; took issue with some of the material or the focus of the document; presented alternative detailed arguments; highlighted perceived omissions or issues on which further clarity was needed; or suggested that a longer timescale for the consultation would have been beneficial.

Common themes

Some common themes or core messages were recognised repeatedly in respondents' consideration of the actual questions, including: the seriousness of climate change and the need for early action; a commitment to taking action in Scotland; the need for targets and actions to be specified; the complexity of the issue of climate change; the need for a basis in science, knowledge and advice; the need for research; the need for regular monitoring and reporting; the need for scrutiny within a flexible but robust framework; the need for everyone in Scotland to play their part in tackling climate change; the need for leadership, direction, clarity and certainty in the way forward; and the need for links to other relevant work.

« Previous | Contents | Next »