Scottish Parliament, 15 January 2019
41 contributions from 19 members. The official report.
Time for Reflection
Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)
Good afternoon. Our first item of business today is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader is the Rev Wilhelmina Nesbitt, rector of St John the Evangelist church in Greenock.
The Rev Wilhelmina Nesbitt (Rector, St John the Evangelist Church, Greenock)
Presiding Officer, members of the Scottish Parliament, thank you for the invitation to be here.
In the town of Greenock, where I live and work, we have a well-known viewpoint called Lyle Hill. From the top of Lyle Hill, you can overlook the Firth of Clyde and look across to the islands and the hills beyond. It is a beautiful and uplifting sight, even on the many rainy days that we get in Greenock. However, although I often stop on Lyle Hill during my rounds to enjoy the views, the time always comes to go back down to where my fellow people are and to get back to work. In Christian tradition, even Jesus Christ himself could not stay on the mount of transfiguration enjoying God’s glory but had to return to where people were in need of his service and his love. His mission was to walk shoulder to shoulder with others, especially the exploited and voiceless.
In our little Episcopal church congregation, as many of the other Greenock churches do, we try to model that practical care in our community involvement. Our hall is given over to Compassionate Inverclyde, which provides a place for the lonely and bereaved to meet for food and friendship and a trained listening ear if needed. We offer support to Mind Mosaic, a charity that takes under its wing young people from toddlers to teenagers, putting their lives back together again after abuse, family break-up or mental illness. Similarly, we support Starter Packs Inverclyde, where families and single people are referred so that they can be equipped with basic housekeeping necessities when they make a new start in a flat or house after being homeless or out of work. We try to walk with our fellow creatures through the rough times.
Sometimes, those of us who have the privilege to lead others also have more opportunities to enjoy the uplifting views from the hilltop of that privileged position but, actually, it is down on the level, side by side with our fellow men, women and children of every condition, where we can ultimately be most valuable in what we can offer. This is where humane and enlightened public service to others leads us—to where the vulnerable and the less powerful require our support and agency to enable them to live fuller and more hopeful lives.
Today is a crucial day in our national political life. In the potential uncertainties of the months that lie ahead, may you be enabled in your endeavours through this Parliament to work with courage and wisdom in your vocational task of walking shoulder to shoulder with the people of Scotland. May God bless you all.
Prison Population
Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)
1. To ask the Scottish Government what its projections are for the prison population, in light of statistics showing that the majority are at or above capacity. (S5T-01435)
Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)
After a number of years of relative stability, the average prison population has increased over the past year. Scotland currently has the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe, with around 144 per 100,000 of the population incarcerated.
The most recent projections suggest that, over the next 12 months, population levels are likely to average around 8,000. Scottish Government officials are working with the Scottish Prison Service to consider the immediate issues that are associated with that. In addition, we have committed to take action to reduce the numbers of people entering prison for short-term periods. In the budget, we confirmed additional funding to local authorities to increase the availability of alternatives to remand. We have also increased funding over recent years to support the availability of community sentences.
Once provisions in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 come into force from April this year, we will also bring forward the necessary secondary legislation to extend the current presumption against short sentences from three months to 12 months.
Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)
I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Justice for the candour of his response and for his confirmation that, as was the case back in June, the Government is
“committed to reducing the use of imprisonment”.—[
Written Answers
, 12 June 2018; S5W-16923.]
Fast forward six months from that parliamentary answer and the average prison population is up by around 300, meaning that the number of prisons operating at or over capacity has more than doubled. Prisons are jam packed and staff are warning of the impact that that is having.
The Scottish Government has said that it has acted on “almost all” the recommendations of the decade-old Scottish Prisons Commission, but the experts then were critical of a prison population of just over 7,000 and wanted to see a reduction to 5,000. As the cabinet secretary has confirmed, the number of prisoners is now 8,000. Can he therefore explain the reason for that failure?
Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)
Let me in turn thank Liam McArthur for the general tone of his question. I know that he takes the issue seriously.
Around the chamber there is quite a lot of consensus that we do not want the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe—it is not a statistic to be proud of.
There are complex reasons for the rise in the prison population—one relates to the types of offences that we see, for example. There are more and more sexual offences coming to our courts, and more people are being found guilty and going into our prisons. There are a number of reasons for that, which I will not go into. However, the behaviour of the judiciary must also be taken into account. For people who are given long sentences—particularly life sentences—the punishment part is now substantially longer than it was a decade ago. There are also more recent trends. At this morning’s meeting of the Justice Committee, we talked about the changes in home detention curfew. Of course, the less that that is used, the more the prison population rises.
There is a lot that we will do to tackle the issue. If it passes through Parliament—on which I will look to the Liberal Democrats for support—the presumption against short sentences of 12 months or less could be a significant tool to help us to reduce the prison population.
Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)
I turn to the women’s estate. Last year, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons for Scotland, David Strang, warned that
because the new female prison estate would hold only 230 prisoners,
“much work is still required to reduce the number of women in custody ahead of the new prison’s opening in 2020”.
The female prisoner population currently stands at 381. It is little wonder, therefore, that organisations such as the Howard League Scotland, Sacro and others are so concerned.
Will the cabinet secretary now confirm that the timetable has slipped and that three of the community custody units will not even be started by the 2020 deadline initially set by his predecessor for the completion of the new estate? Will he confirm how many women will benefit from the new estate in 2021?
Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)
I will look to provide the member with fuller detail as a follow-up, as I do not have it all in front of me.
However, the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to learning lessons from the variety of reviews that have taken place of the specific issue of female offending. We know that women offend and are imprisoned for very complex reasons that can often be quite different from those that apply to the male offending population. Our plan for CCUs right across Scotland is taking shape. We have planning permission for units in Glasgow and Dundee, which is an important step forward.
From the numbers and the data that I have seen, the presumption against short sentences will have a disproportionately positive impact on the female offending population in comparison with the male offending population. However, that is just one measure that we wish to implement. We have to look at the male offending population as well—of course, men make up the vast majority of the prison population—to see what radical measures we need to introduce to reduce the prison population. It is important that we, as a society, do not get comfortable—and we, as a Government, certainly are not comfortable—with just imprisoning people and seeing the prison population continuing to rise.
The Presiding Officer
There is a lot of interest in the subject: five members wish to ask questions. We will try to get through them all if members and the cabinet secretary are able to make progress.
Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)
Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in light of the fact that the Ministry of Justice is considering banning prison sentences of less than six months in England and Wales, the whole chamber should get behind the presumption against short sentences, as he outlined in his answer to Liam McArthur?
Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)
Yes. I was interested to hear Rory Stewart’s commitment. In some ways, it goes further in that we would have a presumption against short sentences whereas he is talking about banning short sentences. The United Kingdom model relates to sentences of up to six months whereas, under our model, there would be a presumption against short sentences of 12 months, so there are differences. However, Rory Stewart and I agree that it is inarguable that the data and the empirical evidence show that a community payback order or other alternative to custody will do a lot more for the individual in terms of reducing offending and rehabilitation than a short custodial sentence would do. I hope that the chamber can get behind that.
Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)
My party would have concerns about plans to reduce the prison population if the practicalities of doing that were not taken into account. How can the cabinet secretary seek more use of community sentences when the current statistics show that a third of such sentences are never completed and that a third of work placements fail to start within the required seven days?
Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)
The member makes the very valid point that we need to ensure that the public, politicians, and I, as the cabinet secretary, have confidence in our community payback orders. Despite some of the difficulties and flaws in the current regime that he has pointed out, the evidence speaks for itself. Someone who is serving a short sentence is twice as likely to reoffend than someone who is on a community payback order. The evidence is indisputable. The UK Government has acknowledged that, given its proposals to ban short sentences of six months or less, except for violent and sexual offences.
If all the political parties are on board and agree that the prison population and the rate per head are far too high, let us put our minds together and think about what other radical steps we can take. It is not only ourselves that we need to take on this journey; as the member’s question alludes to, we also need to take with us members of the public, who might not consider alternatives to custody to be a particularly robust sentence disposal at the moment. There is a lot of work for the Government to do but, equally, there is a role for all of us to play collectively.
Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)
I thank the cabinet secretary for being as candid as he has been, which contradicts the response that I got when I raised these issues in the summer. There are consequences of prisons running at above capacity, particularly in relation to double-bunking in cells. How many prisoners are in cells that are operating beyond their designed capacity in so-called double-bunking conditions?
Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)
I do not have the exact figures to hand, but I will provide them to Daniel Johnson.
I would go further on the member’s point: overcrowded prisons—prisons that have more people in them than they were designed to have—have an effect on rehabilitation. There are only so many members of staff who can take prisoners on rehabilitative programmes. Overcrowding also has an effect on morale in a prison. For example, it will affect the amount of time that prisoners have out of their cells. Frustrations can build up and there can then be issues for staff safety. Therefore, there is a range of reasons why we do not want our prisons to be running above their designed capacity.
We will do a lot to tackle the issue, such as introducing the presumption against short sentences and other measures. However, if we want to make the change, which might take 10, 15 or 20 years, as was the case in Finland and the Netherlands, which successfully made the change, we will need to work collectively and take the public with us on the journey. We need to put the appropriate safeguards in place and look for some radical solutions to how we reduce the prison population.
John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)
The cabinet secretary enjoys cross-party support in looking for robust alternatives to custody. There are a range of options, including restriction of liberty orders, drug treatment and testing orders, community payback orders, sexual offence prevention orders and, most recently, home detention curfews. All those measures require an active role for criminal justice social work. I noted carefully what the cabinet secretary said but, nonetheless, the local authority budget is being cut. Is that compatible with his fine words?
Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)
It is compatible because the £100 million for that work is protected in the budget, as was outlined by my colleague Derek Mackay, so the resource is available.
However, I do not get away from the central point that, if we are going to use alternatives to custody, they have to be resourced. Actually, from an economic point of view, they are cheaper, so there is an economic argument why we should want to use them. That should not be the primary argument, of course. The primary argument should be about public safety, the reduction in reoffending and the rehabilitative nature of alternatives to custody, but there is an economic argument to be made.
I will continue that conversation with local authorities and third sector organisations. I note that my colleague Derek Mackay is in the chamber and I am sure that he was listening carefully to the remarks that the member made about adequate resourcing.
Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the importance of rehabilitation when it comes to prisoners maintaining contact with their families—something that itself has consequences for prison numbers in the future. Given the extreme difficulty and expense that island families face in visiting prisoners, what can the Scottish Government do to be of help to families in this situation in Scotland’s islands?
Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)
The member raises a very good point. I am, of course, aware of these discussions from my previous ministerial role as Minister for Transport and the Islands. If the member would like, I can give him information on the assisted prison visits scheme, which helps those who have to travel a distance with the travel costs.
Making more use of technology is also hugely important, and the Scottish Prison Service is doing that. Of course, it does not replace face-to-face, physical visits, but nonetheless it can play an important role in family contact. A range of work is being done. If the member would like, I will furnish him with further details in writing.
Rent and Mortgage Arrears (Support)
Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)
2. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support the reported increasing number of people who are struggling to pay their rent or mortgage. (S5T-01438)
Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)
A decade of austerity, alongside the United Kingdom Government welfare cuts and benefits freeze, and the impact on local housing allowance and housing benefit, has taken its toll. That is one of the reasons why we established the financial health check service last year to support low-income families to maximise their household incomes.
We are also supporting people through a number of other actions. This year alone, we are investing over £125 million to mitigate the worst impacts of welfare reform—including, in effect, abolishing the bedroom tax—and to support those on low incomes.
In housing, our Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 has improved security for tenants, limiting rent rises to one per year with at least three months’ notice. It also provides tenants with the power to challenge unfair increases.
Since 2007, we have helped more than 28,000 households to buy their own homes through shared equity schemes. Vitally, we have delivered more than 80,000 affordable homes since 2007 and we are on track to deliver on our 50,000 affordable homes target for the current session of Parliament—a commitment that the UK Government’s approach to Brexit could jeopardise.
We, of course, do not want anyone to have to worry about paying their rent or mortgage or any other bills, and I urge anyone who is struggling to seek independent advice as soon as possible.
Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)
I thank the cabinet secretary for that comprehensive reply.
New research on behalf of Shelter Scotland found that 12 per cent of respondents were struggling to pay their rent or mortgage, which is equivalent to 200,000 households. Recent figures show that the cost of private rented housing has soared above inflation in many parts of the country. In a year, the rent for one-bedroom properties in Glasgow increased by an average of 4.2 per cent, the rent for two-bedroom properties in Edinburgh and the Lothians increased by an average of 6.5 per cent and, staggeringly, the rent for four-bedroom properties in the Borders increased by 25.6 per cent. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is time for more radical legislation that restricts high rents in order to protect ordinary people from such exorbitant increases?
Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)
I am well aware of the report and the research that Shelter carried out, which has some very important messages for everybody in this Parliament. I echo what Shelter says in its report about making sure that people seek advice as soon as they possibly can if they have financial worries.
Pauline McNeill is right to point out some of the imbalances around rent in the private rented sector. That is why I pointed out some of the legislation and work that we have taken forward to ensure that rent increases are limited to one in 12 months.
I also point out, though, that the latest data from the Office for National Statistics shows a 0.5 per cent annual increase in rents to November 2018 across all private tenancies in Scotland, which is lower than the annual increases that have been seen in England.
She is also right to point out the disparities between different parts of the country—she mentioned Glasgow and Edinburgh. Again, that is why we have provided local authorities with discretionary powers to apply to ministers to designate areas of high rent increases for existing tenants as rent pressure zones. That approach allows local authorities to cap rent increases at a minimum of the consumer prices index plus 1 per cent.
We must consider the basket of measures. I will be happy to work with Pauline McNeill to explore ideas that she might have. The Government has made a commitment to deliver 50,000 homes in this parliamentary session as well as taking forward the other measures that I set out in my answer to her original question, such as the 2016 legislation. If she has ideas about where we could do more, I will be happy to hear them. We have taken forward a comprehensive package of work to try to protect people in the private rented sector as best we can, but if Pauline McNeill wants us to do more I will be happy to have that discussion with her.
Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)
I thank the cabinet secretary for her offer to work with me on some ideas. She must now agree that the rent pressure zones policy has completely failed. It might have been right at the time, but it is no longer right. The City of Edinburgh Council has said that rent pressure zones have not been designed in a way that will work effectively and has asked for a review of the policy. Shelter found that currently no data sources are available that provide the information that is needed for a rent pressure zone application.
Whatever the intention behind the policy, it is not working; it has failed.
Given the issues, on which I think that the cabinet secretary and I agree, is it time for a more radical approach and to revise the legislation, to enable ordinary people to stop exorbitant rent increases by making applications as individuals, instead of having to rely on their local authorities?
Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)
The policy should be viewed in the context of our target to deliver 50,000 affordable homes, many of which are for social rent. I hope that the Labour Party views that target as important, along with the £800 million that is in the budget to deliver on it, and I hope that Labour members will support our approach in their budget negotiations with Derek Mackay, because it is important to ensure that people have security through the social rented sector as well.
I have set out the package of legislative measures that we have taken to protect tenants, and I will be happy to explore areas where we can do more. The most recent statistics show that annual rent increases are lower in Scotland than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Of course, that does not take away from the fact that, in the here and now, people are struggling. That is why the issue is linked to our work to tackle austerity and to mitigate the worst impacts of welfare reform and to our work to address people’s financial concerns through the financial health check service, which helps people on low incomes to maximise their incomes and manage their household budgets.
We are doing a huge amount of important work, across many portfolios, to help people to deal with the challenges that they face in the here and now. I again offer to discuss with Pauline McNeill what more we can do, if she thinks that there are other solutions that we can take forward on top of all the work that we are doing at the moment.
Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)
Pauline McNeill mentioned rent pressure zones. So far, not a single council has applied to have a rent pressure zone. It might be worth the cabinet secretary’s while to look at why that is.
The cabinet secretary has said that the Government is “on track” to deliver 50,000 affordable homes, but last year just over 5,000 homes were built, and if we continue at that rate, the Government will not meet its target until 2026. What is the cabinet secretary doing to get things on track? Can she pledge to build—not “deliver”—50,000 affordable homes during this parliamentary session?
Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)
We can get caught up in semantics here. My priority is to deliver 50,000 houses in this parliamentary session. The policy is backed up by £800 million in the budget and by £3 billion over the session. I hope that that garners support from members of parties across the Parliament, because we are on track to deliver that considerable and significant housing stock for the people of Scotland.
It is worth pointing out that, between 2012 and 2017, more council houses for social rent were delivered across 32 local authority areas in Scotland than across 326 local authority areas in England. That shows the success that the Government has had in housing and in delivering affordable housing for the people of Scotland. Graham Simpson might want to get caught up in the language, but I will get busy with ensuring that we make good on our ambitious target.
Carbon-neutral Economy (Just Transition)
Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-15380, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on securing a just transition to a carbon-neutral economy.
Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)
I have great pleasure in opening this debate on Scotland’s transition to a carbon-neutral economy, which is the first such debate for the Parliament. I expect that the Parliament will return to the issue of a just transition in one form or another many times, but I hope that we can reach consensus today on the type of transition that we want.
We all know that the central aim of the Paris agreement is to keep the global temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. However, this debate focuses on the part of the Paris agreement that says that we must also take into account
“the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs”.
That is central to the Government’s economic strategy. In a happy coincidence, it was when I was the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training in 2015 that we established the fair work convention to identify and promote existing good practice. We have endorsed the convention’s vision that
“by 2025, people in Scotland will have a world-leading working life where fair work drives success, wellbeing and prosperity for individuals, businesses, organisations and society.”
Our taking into account the imperatives of decent work and quality jobs as we increase our efforts to tackle climate change is a natural step. The First Minister had no hesitation in supporting the “Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration”, which was adopted at the climate talks in Poland last month. That declaration stresses the need for a shift in thinking to recognise that decarbonisation and economic growth can and must go hand in hand.
Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)
Is the cabinet secretary aware that, largely as a result of President Obama’s efforts, there are 800,000 people in the renewables industry in the United States and only 50,000 in the coal industry? Here, where we have a more favourable environment, will we ensure that there will be excellent jobs in the renewable and other energy-source industries to which people in the oil industry, which has many years to go, will be able to migrate?
Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)
I am not sure that I was aware of the specific numbers of people in those employment sectors in America, but I was aware of the general sense that coal plays a less great part than renewables and that the President was perhaps not entirely aware of that. It is important to remember that the kind of transition that we are talking about can be disruptive if it is not handled carefully and well.
As I was saying, it is very important that we see
decarbonisation and economic growth
going hand in hand.
The “Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration” notes the importance of social dialogue for promoting high employment rates and wellbeing in plans to reduce emissions, and it highlights the importance of sharing experience internationally. I will touch on all those points during my speech.
Emissions of greenhouse gases from Scotland have almost halved since 1990. During that time, we have seen Scotland’s gross domestic product increase by 55 per cent, and unemployment has fallen to 3.7 per cent, which is its lowest rate on record. Between 2007 and 2016, Scotland’s productivity growth was higher than that of any other country or region of the United Kingdom, including London. Evidently, then, we do not have to choose between tackling climate change and growing the economy. We can, should and must do both.
We need a carbon-neutral future in which domestic industry continues not just to exist but to thrive, and it will take global effort if we are to avoid industry just bailing out to low-regulation countries. That is why our economic action plan focuses on ways to enhance support to business, places and people across Scotland. The aim is explicit: to put Scotland at the forefront in the transition to a carbon-neutral circular economy. For example, the £12 million transition training fund that is targeted at the oil and gas sector and its supply chain is helping people who have been made redundant or who are currently at risk of redundancy to retrain or upskill.
In transport, we are working with the energy skills partnership and others to make sure that support is available to develop the skills that are required to maintain and service ultra-low emission vehicles. We are also working with energy-intensive industries, building on existing programmes of support, to incentivise decarbonisation so that it is seen as an economic investment opportunity rather than a threat.
There are economic opportunities from being at the forefront of the global shift to carbon neutrality, but there are also risks and challenges that we cannot just wish away. Previous economic shifts, such as those in the 1980s, have left scars on our communities. History must not be allowed to repeat itself; decarbonisation should not happen at the expense of our workforce and our communities.
There is a real opportunity for us, now, to think about how we want our transition to carbon neutrality to be effected. It is an opportunity to consider whether the changes that are needed to reduce emissions might also present opportunities to tackle inequalities and increase regional cohesion.
Whatever climate targets Parliament decides on as we debate the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, we know that there will be difficult but necessary decisions ahead as we do our bit to limit global temperature rise. Those decisions will impact all sectors of the economy and all our constituents. It is vital that we start a conversation now, and make sure that all voices are heard.
To begin that work, I have, as members know, established a just transition commission. Over an initial period of two years, it will explore how to apply the principles of just transition to Scotland: how we can plan, invest and implement a transition to environmentally and socially sustainable jobs, building on Scotland’s strengths and potential; how we can create opportunities to develop resource-efficient and sustainable economic approaches that help to address inequality and poverty; and how we can deliver low-carbon investment and infrastructure and create decent, fair and high-value work in a way that does not negatively affect the workforce and the overall economy. That work will show how overarching the just transition is.
Members now know that the finance secretary will close this debate, but equally it could have been closed by Aileen Campbell as the communities secretary. Our three portfolios have a strongly invested interest in ensuring that the just transition works as effectively as possible. These are cross-cutting issues, so the just transition commission will report to three separate cabinet secretaries, albeit that the issue primarily sits in my portfolio, which is for management reasons as much as anything else.
Our approach is similar to that of other states and countries that, like us, are at the vanguard of considering these issues. Last year, New York state established an environmental justice and just transition working group, and the Canadian Government set up a task force on a just transition for Canadian coal-power workers and communities. Both groups are non-statutory and tasked with providing advice to ministers.
Our commission is similar. It is chaired by Professor Jim Skea, an internationally renowned climate scientist and co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mitigation working group. Until the end of last year, he was also the Scottish champion of the Committee on Climate Change. Professor Skea will be joined by 11 others representing a broad range of interests and sectors. Two environmental groups are represented: WWF and the 2050 Climate Group, which is a youth-run charity that empowers young people to tackle climate change. Trade unions are represented by Prospect and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. There are two renowned academics, four businesspeople from the chemical, oil and gas, renewables and farming industries and an expert on fuel poverty from the third sector.
Although broad membership of the commission is necessary—and should result in some helpful if occasionally heated debate—it is not in itself sufficient. The commission needs to reach out to and hear the opinions and concerns of people across the country. For that reason, I have tasked it with engaging meaningfully with workers, communities, non-governmental organisations, business and industry leaders and others across Scotland. In addition to having a representative of a youth group on the commission, I have asked it to seek and consider young people’s views. I want the commission to hear and be open to all points of view.
The commission will provide a set of recommendations for maximising the social and economic opportunities of moving to a carbon-neutral economy, for building on Scotland’s strengths and assets, and for understanding and mitigating the risks that could arise. I know that there are calls for the commission to be established as a statutory body and for it to last for more than two years. The way in which we have established it means that it can begin its work later this month and provide its recommendations in early 2021.
Of course, the work that is needed to deliver a fair transition to carbon neutrality cannot be done in two years; the commission is a first step and, although I believe that the principles of a just transition are the right ones for the coming decades, whether a commission will be needed over the same timescale is not clear. There might be alternative ways to embed the principles across the public and private sectors.
To an extent, we are already doing that. The pace at which the energy efficient Scotland programme is delivered, for example, is being carefully considered because of the fine balance between tackling fuel poverty and reducing emissions from domestic heating systems. We can—and must—do both simultaneously, but that requires careful planning while low-carbon heat technology is still the more expensive option. We must avoid tackling climate change at the cost of increasing fuel poverty, and vice versa.
The transition to a carbon-neutral economy provides a huge opportunity for jobs and skills. Energy efficient Scotland alone is forecast to support 4,000 jobs across the country once it is fully operational, and it is estimated that more than £12 billion from public and private sources will be spent over 20 years. As much as possible, we want the supply chains and the skills that are needed to come from within Scotland, including rural and remote areas. That means delivering the programme at an ambitious and realistic pace that allows for training and upskilling of local people to undertake the work in people’s homes.
I hope that our progress with energy efficient Scotland, the just transition commission and programmes such as the transition training fund will provide useful exemplars for other countries as they consider what a just transition should look like for them. Scotland is recognised internationally as a world leader in tackling climate change, and our approach to a just transition is also attracting attention. Last month, the UK Energy Research Centre recommended that the UK Government
“should consider setting up a process similar to Scotland’s Just Transitions Commission”.
In Poland last month, at the 24th conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the First Minister and I heard directly about approaches that are being taken in other countries, including Spain and New Zealand. At an event that the International Trade Union Confederation convened, I spoke of my desire for the just transition commission to engage widely and provide practical advice on embedding just transition principles.
In parallel to that, I mention that a just transition is a key ask of the International Trade Union Confederation, so I was a little surprised to see the response to the debate that was posted on the GMB’s website today. I hope that that arose more out of a misunderstanding than anything else. As I expect other members are, I am willing and able to talk directly to the GMB should it require that.
It was clear at the COP in Katowice that our work in Scotland has been noticed. We must continue in that fashion, which involves learning from others and sharing our learning with others. Our approach needs to be positive and optimistic about the opportunities that stem from decarbonisation, while being honest and up front about the challenges and risks. We need to build on our strengths and potential, and decarbonise as we grow an ever more inclusive economy.
We must transition to carbon neutrality in a way that is fair for all. That approach has guided my response to the amendments. We will accept the Conservative and Labour amendments, but I have concerns about the Green amendment, which we will not accept.
I move,
That the Parliament supports the application of just transition principles in Scotland, acknowledging the need to plan, invest in and implement a transition to carbon-neutrality in a way that is fair for all.
Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I welcome today’s debate and the Government motion, and I agree with the cabinet secretary that we can tackle climate change and grow the economy.
The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C delivers a sobering assessment of what lies in store for humanity if we fail to combat
climate change, with tens of millions of people around the world facing drought, billions being subjected to extreme temperatures and biodiversity being dealt a devastating blow.
Scotland would not be spared: communities here would face increased flood risk. Our coastal towns, villages and homes would be threatened with oblivion—and that is before we consider the impact on our flora and fauna. Scotland is making progress, though, and our overall emissions are down by almost 50 per cent from 1990 levels, which is something that we can all welcome. However, progress has been lopsided: although we have seen our energy and waste sectors decarbonising, other areas—for example, transport—have seen little or no change.
More needs to be done if we are to meet future targets, but we must ensure that we are taking action that creates opportunities, rather than burdens and barriers, for individuals and businesses. The low-carbon future that we all want should be a future in which we all benefit.
Unfortunately, it has not always been the case that take such action. We should, for example, be proud of the remarkable growth in renewables that has allowed many communities across Scotland to access new funding streams to improve infrastructure and services. However, Scotland missed out on a massive opportunity when 20,000 low-carbon jobs that could have been created here in Scotland did not materialise. Our missing out on those jobs is a lesson that we should learn from, as we seek to establish a deposit return scheme and to decommission more North Sea oil and gas facilities.
Arguably, the oil and gas sector is most emblematic of the need to ensure a fair transition to a low-carbon economy. As the just transition partnership has pointed out,
“There has been little planning to ensure the protection of the people most affected, in particular those who work in sectors reliant on fossil fuels”.
That will not be achieved by tinkering around at the edges of our current system. We need a new model that is fairer, more sustainable and intrinsically better for our environment.
Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)
Does Maurice Golden agree that perhaps the oil and gas companies could do a little bit more to invest in renewable energies and to fund research and development to preserve their future?
Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)
I agree that oil and gas companies could do a lot more, even in terms of helping us to decommission and to get the most value from decommissioning. For example, infrared coding of oil and gas platforms to signify what alloys the platforms contain would allow us to decommission those facilities better.
There is also a lot more that companies could do to improve things in terms of design of facilities. We see that in the aerospace industry regularly, but there has, in the oil and gas sector, been overall reluctance to embrace resale of assets and even to keep paperwork so that turbines and generators can be sold on to other markets. There is a lot more that oil and gas companies, and the sector as a whole, can do.
The overall solution that answers Gillian Martin’s question and the one that I have posed in my remarks is to have a circular economy strategy. That option is the one that is best placed to capture as much value as possible from the estimated £50 billion that could be spent on North Sea oil and gas decommissioning by 2040. That represents an opportunity to create jobs in the north-east, and supply chain jobs throughout Scotland. We must look to reuse assets such as pipelines either within the industry itself or in other sectors such as construction, to which they are worth more than five times their scrap value.
Across all sectors, and according to Scottish Government reports, an ambitious circular economy programme could add more than 40,000 jobs to our economy, on top of the estimated 56,000 jobs that already exist. The jobs would have the potential to reduce unemployment in areas where jobs are most needed, and would have a high degree of durability, so that they would be likely to survive the hollowing out of the labour market.
The size of the prize is massive, which means that we must be ambitious. We have rightly set the bar high for the environmental side of our low-carbon transition; the same standard should apply to the economic aspect. That will require us to reassess how the Government leads on low-carbon policy. A good start would be to embed circular economy practice across all portfolio areas, and to make it a marker against which to judge future policy decisions.
Beyond that, we must see a deepening of the relationships between education, business and the third sector. The Scottish Conservatives have proposed the creation of new institutions including a design academy and an institute of reuse to help to co-ordinate such activities. That unified approach would allow us to identify better where to focus our efforts, which would enable a low-carbon economy that is driven by problem-led challenges that are relevant to Scotland.
For example, constraint payments are at a record high, but why pay energy providers to turn off production when we could use excess power to facilitate an electric arc furnace that recycles steel, while giving Scots jobs? That is an example of the joined-up thinking that produces better environmental outcomes, further reduces waste and generates additional economic activity.
Rural Scotland also stands to benefit greatly from that approach, and the Scottish Conservatives recently announced a package of measures to support food producers. We believe that we can offer those businesses the ability to recycle more and to extract more value from the waste that they produce, all while driving down costs and offering rural communities a bigger stake in our low-carbon economy. That would involve setting up a microplastic recycling facility and waste hubs, which would solve the problem of what farmers do with plastic waste, now that there is a ban on incinerating it. It would also help the environment as well as create jobs.
We have also proposed helping farmers and other food producers to set up on-site anaerobic digestion, including providing capital and technical support, which would allow production of energy and heat that would directly help them to lower their bills. Across Scotland, the proposal has the potential to generate an extra £27 million in value from energy generation. There is also the potential to work cross-sector by using excess heat to dry food waste in order to make it easier to transport for biorefining—an industry that could be worth £900 million by 2025.
If we want a truly just transformation, surely the way to go about that is to focus our efforts on the needs of Scottish families and businesses, and to encourage innovation and economic activity that use Scottish insight, Scottish workers and Scottish resources, in order to provide everyone with an opportunity to grow and prosper.
Of course, transforming our economy is not without risk, so we must be alert to the obstacles that we face when we ask individuals and businesses to invest in Scotland. The most obvious obstacle is our size: on many fronts Scotland simply cannot outspend larger competitors or field initiatives of the scale that they can field. One solution is to specialise by progressing a handful of strategies that best suit our needs, while we also benefit from large-scale projects that operate at UK level.
Having looked at the other amendments to the motion, we are interested to hear from Scottish Labour, but overall we are comfortable with the current situation and do not feel that there is a requirement for a statutory commission. In respect of the Green amendment, the end of our oil and gas sector should not happen just by any manner or means, so we are not at all comfortable with the proposition that is set out in the amendment.
We believe that innovation is what drives economies forward. Hand in hand with transitioning to a low-carbon economy, we should be building a culture that rewards those who are willing to experiment and to push the envelope of success. Success is what we need to ensure that the transition to a low-carbon economy is positive for every family, community and business.
I move S5M-15380.2, to insert at end:
", and believes that implementing a circular economy strategy for Scotland is an effective and sustainable way to bring about this transition."
Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)
This debate on just transition principles is very significant for the fair future of Scotland’s economy and society in the global context. My party will support the Scottish Government motion, which recognises how essential a just transition is as we shift to carbon neutrality and net zero emissions. Just transition principles are fundamental to the international labour movement, and I am pleased to speak today on behalf of Scottish Labour.
Last year’s special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told us that 0.5°C of warming would put hundreds of millions of people at risk of climate-related poverty. Governments the world over need to really hear and heed that message and plan now for climate justice. That means safeguarding the rights of the most vulnerable and sharing the burdens and benefits of climate change mitigation equitably. It means Scotland delivering its fair share, on a global scale, and applying those principles to protect people here in Scotland, too, including future generations. That is the Scottish Labour way, which I and others will expand on.
As the cabinet secretary said, the climate change negotiations—or COP24—that were held in Poland
had a strong focus on a just transition. It is fantastic to see the mainstreaming of the term and to see the 54 world-leader signatories to the Silesia declaration, including the UK signatory and our First Minister. It is such human-rights based thinking that led to Scottish Labour’s target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 at the latest, and an interim target of a 77 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, in order to drive action with urgency. However, a statutory and long-term just transition commission is a vital companion to that ambition.
In that context, it is with relief that I hear today that the Scottish Government will support our amendment. I am eager to discuss with the relevant cabinet secretaries how the proposal might be considered. I feel so strongly about Scottish Labour’s position on the commission because, across the planet, there are too many tragic examples of communities and local people, both now and in the past, being deeply affected and left behind by fundamental change, both good and bad. Too many have lost out and been excluded. As an ex-community councillor in the Douglas valley, I witnessed the effects of the failure of Government to robustly intervene and support communities after the rapid closure of our deep mines. Such effects on communities have been callous, long lasting and unacceptable. We have a collective responsibility to plan strategically.
The updated membership of the commission is welcome, as Scottish Labour is absolutely clear that a commission without trade unions or those with current industry experience would be a sham. I recognise that the Government does not want to create an inexhaustible list of members, but I note a lack of direct representation for the transport, education and planning sectors. Having said that, I wonder whether the cabinet secretary highlighted today that there might be transport representation. Do the cabinet secretaries feel confident that the membership reflects all the key areas of concern?
The just transition commission must be statutory and long term. That will ensure that, whatever Government we have in Scotland until we reach net zero, fairness and climate justice—here at home, too—will be at the core of our decision making. There is Scottish Government precedent for that in the Scottish Land Commission, as land reform is an equally long-term shift.
To aid formulation of the just transition commission’s recommendations, we are also keen that it should be properly funded, with a well-resourced secretariat. It is really important that the commission is independent of Government and is accountable to our Parliament, which will aid the confidence and respect of all for its deliberations.
Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)
Will the member take an intervention?
Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)
Very briefly—this is an important part of the debate.
Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)
There is time for interventions, Ms Beamish. I call Stewart Stevenson.
Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)
Given that Claudia Beamish advocates a parliamentary line of responsibility, does she expect the appropriate member of the corporate body to be the person who would come to stand at the front to answer questions from members about the operation of the body? If it were a Government body, we would hold a minister to account.
Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)
I understand Stewart Stevenson’s point, about which there is a debate to be had. It is important that the commission is independent of Government—there is precedence for that—and goes beyond each Government. The whole Parliament should take responsibility for it. As for who would stand at the dispatch box, I cannot answer that at the moment.
On issues beyond the commission, the just transition partnership is a fundamental part of the way forward. I pay respect to the grouping and its collective positive work. The partnership is significant, not least because it has enabled unions and NGOs to work together and develop supportive strategies and engagement with politicians and others as just transition has evolved. Labour identifies strongly with its briefing.
We will not support the Green amendment, although we agree with Mark Ruskell on promoting renewable energy and building into Government policy the principles of a just transition. We look to the just transition commission to engage with all existing industries, including the energy industries, on what part they will play in the just transition.
All sectors are increasingly playing their part in the process. Of course, the heavy emitters will need the most support as we progress. The farming industry needs attention, and if the food and farming sector is to do the job that we want it to do, we should look to the 2030 sustainable development goals—the Government has to pick up the pace of change. The commission must also consider transport and our domestic and commercial buildings. My colleague Lewis Macdonald will talk further about the energy sector.
Skills are the best insurance for Scotland’s future, and providing support for education, skills and training is vital to maximise the opportunity to change the labour market. That is a central tenet of Scottish Labour’s industrial strategy. Such forward-looking planning with industry will avoid all-too-persistent skills shortages at many levels of industry.
There is clearly an obligation for businesses to engage positively with the process and a need for guidance and support from Government and from the enterprise agencies. Some form of obligation on businesses that are heavy emitters to actively contribute to the transition should be discussed further, and there is a need to support businesses of all scales that are developing new technology. There are two such businesses in my region: Sunamp, which manufactures heat storage systems; and MacRebur, which creates road surfaces with plastic input. We will support the Conservative amendment on the circular economy.
With appropriate financing, the shift to a net zero economy could be transformative. Scottish Labour’s industrial strategy sets a focus on developing the economy of Scotland
“by increasing its diversity with a focus on creating sustainable high quality employment, ensuring that the new jobs are environmentally friendly and broadening our export base.”
UK Labour’s industrial strategy follows suit, with the national transformation fund committing £250 billion over 10 years to be shared across all parts of the UK.
Setting the right investment criteria for the Scottish national investment bank is an opportunity to power innovation and accelerate the just transformation. A shift to reinvesting pension funds in local initiatives and sustainable industries is an opportunity to protect the funds that people will rely on after retirement while moving justly towards a fair, renewable future.
We must never forget that there are multiple benefits to getting the necessary shift right. I highlight three: cleaner lungs and better hearts as we move to less air pollution through the use of electric vehicles and more active travel; better mental and physical health as we move to more safe walking and cycling opportunities; and improved physical health through tackling fuel poverty and creating warmer homes, which is a UN right. However, none of that can happen in a fair way without a robust just transition process. Labour is fully committed to working with all who will work us and, of course, with the Scottish Government and others who have a similar vision for how Scotland can achieve that.
I move amendment S5M-15380.3, to insert at end:
“, and further supports the just transition process through giving further consideration to the establishment of a statutory, long-term just transition commission, which should be well-funded, independent of government and accountable to the Parliament, building on the work of the present non-statutory commission.”
Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)
How we respond to the climate emergency while guaranteeing the economic security and wellbeing of everyone in our society is surely the most pressing issue of our age. We cannot afford to condemn whole communities to the kind of crippling intergenerational poverty delivered by the collapse of the coal-mining industry in the 1980s—a tragedy that we still live with today through the legacy in those communities. We have to put in place a just transition that leaves no one behind, and we must take the kind of strong human-rights based approach that Claudia Beamish spoke about.
That is why the Scottish Greens support the Scottish Government’s just transition commission, although we will work to ensure that the principles set out by the International Labour Organization are embedded in Scotland. That includes building a strong social consensus on both the goals and pathways of a just transition, getting the dialogue going within and between all levels of policy making, and taking action on the ground. However, the most important principle is that the transition creates decent jobs and provides protections against job losses as well as training and skills.
The work that the just transition commission will undertake is important and long term. It is inconceivable that it will be in place for just two years. That is why we will lend our support to the Labour amendment, which seeks to put the commission on a more solid, statutory footing.
The Green Party amendment deals with the principles of a just transmission and calls for them to be applied across all infrastructure planning, projects and policy. Stepping up investment in Scotland’s infrastructure, including low-carbon energy, transport and housing, while reducing or even eliminating investment in high-carbon infrastructure, is key.
We welcome the Scottish Government’s plans to establish a Scottish national investment bank and particularly welcome the reassurance that the bank would seize the economic opportunities of tackling climate change. We believe that the bank must adopt a mission-oriented outlook from the start. That approach has been defined by the economist, Professor Mariana Mazzucato, who is also a Scottish Government adviser. She said that, in a mission-oriented approach, the Government sets a broad direction for the just transition economy, introducing the top-down legislative measures that are required, while policymakers, stakeholders and businesses at the local level design bottom-up solutions to deliver the changes. Mazzucato argues that it was that kind of thinking that allowed the United States to put a man on the moon. The same big-picture thinking is needed to make the just transition a success.
The Green Party amendment addresses the context in which the just transition would have to happen. Our global dependence on fossil fuels is driving the climate to breaking point. All the Governments across the world now need to face up to tackling an emergency. We will not achieve that if we focus only on the opportunities presented by low-carbon technologies. We must also build independence from fossil fuels and act to ensure that at least some are left in the ground and out of the atmosphere.
Both the Scottish and UK Governments favour a policy of maximum economic recovery of oil and gas reserves, but at what cost? The science suggests that we must leave the vast majority of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground. A 2015 report in the journal
Nature
advised that one third of the world’s oil reserves and half of its natural gas reserves must be off limits if we are to have any hope of meeting the temperature targets set out in the Paris agreement.
Climate leadership is springing up around the world. In April 2018, the Government of New Zealand announced that it would grant no new offshore oil exploration permits. The New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, stated that that was part of her Government’s plan to transition to a carbon-neutral future. That is a plan that looks 30 years in advance. She said that it would bypass the risk of acting too late and causing abrupt shocks to communities. That is good planning. Will we have such climate leadership from the Scottish Government on that front, too? In the same week that the First Minister attended the climate talks in Bonn, her party’s members at Westminster voted for £24 billion-worth of tax relief for that industry over the next 40 years—yes, £24 billion is the right figure. That tax-break money would be better directed at renewables and decommissioning.
The Green report on jobs and the new economy highlighted some of the opportunities that might come as a result of taking that approach. Our research suggests that more than 100,000 new roles could be created in offshore wind, more than 20,000 in decommissioning and around 19,000 in building retrofitting. New jobs would also be created in training and education to support those roles and ensure that workers had the skills needed for the new economy. Those are high-quality, skilled jobs and, unlike those that rely on non-renewable resources, they are secure.
Ultimately, we need to take heed of the demands of the Paris agreement and the recent warnings from the IPCC. We have 12 years to drastically cut emissions and avoid the most devastating consequences of global warming. Our actions during the next decade will determine the impact of climate change here in Scotland and overseas. Setting stretching targets now could drive the innovation that is needed to spark the just transition and mitigate the most damaging effects of climate change.
We want increased ambition in our 2030 targets to hasten that drive to net zero. The purpose of targets is to send the strongest message to drive innovation, especially when future paths are unclear. The mission-orientated policy approach advocated by Professor Mazzucato can help to solve some of the most intractable challenges of our times, but that needs bold Government leadership.
The earlier the transition begins, the better our chance of achieving a fair and just approach to tackling the climate emergency—an approach that can deliver prosperity and wellbeing and the reindustrialisation of communities that were cast aside decades ago. It can mean a rebirth, not an ending, and a viable future for our world.
I move amendment S5M-15380.1, to insert at end:
“; recognises that global fossil fuel reserves far exceed the amount that can safely be used without causing catastrophic climate change; agrees therefore that the policy of maximum economic recovery of oil and gas, as advocated by both Scottish and UK governments, is incompatible with the Paris Agreement or with the goal of a just transition; supports an accelerated roll-out of renewable energy and decommissioning projects, creating secure and high-quality employment opportunities, and calls for the principles of a just transition to be embedded across all government infrastructure policy, planning and projects, including the national investment bank and publicly-owned energy company.”