The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Consultation on Proposals for A Scottish Climate Change Bill - Analysis of Responses

Between January and April 2008, the Scottish Government consulted on proposals to bring forward a Scottish Climate Change Bill to establish a long term framework for Scotland to achieve a target of an 80% emissions reduction by 2050. The consultation explored views of: targets; the supporting framework; the reporting and scrutiny framework; and supporting measures. This document summarises the analysis of responses to the consultation, which included 318 written responses, views expressed at 4 stakeholder events, and over 21,000 responses derived from 8 campaigns.

Main Findings

• Many respondents explicitly welcomed the consultation, the commitment and intention to introduce legislation or establish a framework; and/or the leadership shown by Scotland.
• A large majority of respondents ¹ stated that the target should be based on the basket of 6 gases, with support for the Bill to contain provisions to alter which gases are included, and to allow the means of measuring the target, and the level of the target to be changed by secondary legislation.
• Views of whether the targets should be based upon source emissions or an end-user inventory were split, but around a third of respondents who supported using a source-based methodology suggested that at least some form of reporting of end-user emissions was also required.
• Most respondents believed that the target should take account of the abatement effort made by companies under emissions trading schemes, and most organisations believed that international credits should be counted towards Scottish targets.
• The most common interim budget period suggested was 5 years, and the most common proposed period in advance for budgets to be set was 5-10 years. Most agreed that point targets should be specified and many suggested an annual target. Some suggested point targets for specific years to 2050.
• A small majority of respondents favoured provision to enable borrowing from a following budget period. A number suggested conditions, and most suggested that borrowing should be restricted to 5% or less.
• There was a very high level of support for a requirement upon the Scottish Ministers to report on issues related to climate change, with a general preference for annual reporting of most issues wherever possible.
• There was also a high level of support for a process of Parliamentary scrutiny, although not necessarily as the only means of scrutiny. More than two thirds believed that the Bill should create additional independent mechanisms for scrutiny, and most believed that there should be other functions carried out at "arm's length" from the Scottish Government.
• There were mixed views of which organisation should be the primary source of advice to the Scottish Government, or monitor progress. In both cases, the highest level of support was for the proposed UK Committee on Climate Change, although there was considerable support for a new Scottish Committee (or Commission), and some saw a role for existing Scottish public bodies.
• There was a 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; introduce statutory guidance for certain public bodies; and create a requirement for certain public sector bodies to make regular reports on specific measures they are taking to tackle climate change.
• A large majority agreed that current Best Value guidance should be amended.
• Most respondents expressed (or implied) support for variable charging.
• Many identified the need for adaptation, and to prevent further harm to the environment. Most agreed that the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 should be amended.
• A large volume of material was provided relating to actions needed, some of which would require amendment of existing legislation within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Background

In June 2007, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth announced the Scottish Government's intention to bring forward a Scottish Climate Change Bill. It was envisaged that the Bill would: set a mandatory long-term target for Scotland to achieve an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050; establish a legal framework through which to enable the required reduction; and set the context for action to mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects.

The consultation

A formal consultation to seek views about proposals took place from January to April 2008 and involved two main strands: written submissions to 33 questions posed in a consultation document ², and 4 events with key stakeholders. Responses included: 318 written responses; almost 21,000 campaign responses; 420 campaign responses containing additional material to the campaigns' suggested texts; and material from the 4 events.

The highest number of responses were 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.

A vast amount of largely qualitative information was provided around four main themes: targets; supporting framework; reporting and scrutiny framework; and supporting measures. A summary of the issues raised by those who expressed views at each question is provided below.

Response analysis

Common themes

Some common themes or core messages arose repeatedly in respondents' consideration of the consultation 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.

Targets

A large majority stated a preference for using the basket of 6 gases as the basis of the target, rather than CO ₂ alone. The most common reason was that each makes a contribution to climate change. 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, but around a third of those who supported the use of a source-based approach suggested that at least some reporting of end-user emissions was also required, even where it was not the basis of the target. Whichever basis was suggested, 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 Bill to allow the means of measuring the target to be changed through secondary legislation, to reflect international developments or unforeseen consequences. Around twice as many respondents agreed that the target should take account of the abatement effort made by companies under emissions trading schemes than disagreed, although a range of observations, concerns and qualifications were identified. Most organisations believed that international credits should be counted towards Scottish targets, although fewer individual respondents agreed and many respondents expressed 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 by secondary legislation, on the basis of scientific advice. Views were more mixed about whether changes to the target should be limited to an increase, although the balance was in favour. A large number of respondents raised additional issues relevant to targets, such as expressing support for the level, or making additional comments about the nature of 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

Around a fifth of those who commented on factors to take into account in 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 ³. A small number suggested local or sectoral budgets, and some that budgets should follow what is needed 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 suggested longer periods. There was also support for annual interim budget periods, and a large number suggested annual point targets to ensure a focus on progress and 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 suggested mapping budgets for the whole period to 2050.

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

Most respondents agreed that point targets should be specified, although a small number did not, or suggested using cumulative targets instead of, or along with these. Many suggested that the Bill should contain an annual target, with many suggesting the need for a 3% per annum reduction. Only a very small number supported the arguments made against annual targets in the consultation document. Some suggested point targets for specific years to 2050 (most commonly 2020) 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

Overall, there was a very high level of support for a requirement upon the Scottish Ministers to report on issues related to climate change, and a general preference for annual reporting wherever possible. 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 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. Just under half of these respondents, however, suggested that this would not be sufficient in itself.

There were mixed views of which organisation should be the primary source of advice to the Scottish Government for setting emissions targets or budgets. 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). Many of those who favoured the UK Committee approach believed 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 a role (albeit not generally 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 to monitor the progress of the Scottish Government on reducing emissions, although a number of respondents again supported a new Scottish Committee or Commission. Some respondents suggested that an existing public body in Scotland should have a role, 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 to scrutinise the effectiveness of the Scottish Government's policies in reducing emissions (in addition to any scrutiny already provided by the Scottish Parliament). Some highlighted the need for the Bill to make provision for additional sanctions and enforcement mechanisms. Most again favoured a new UK or Scottish Committee or Commission as the organisation best placed to carry out the scrutiny functions (although fewer mentioned the UK Committee as being best placed to undertake this role than was the case for advice and monitoring) ⁴. Among those who saw existing public bodies as having a role in scrutiny, the two mentioned most frequently were Audit Scotland and SDC Scotland.

Among 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 suggested that there are. Specific suggestions included: research; some aspects of target-setting and budgeting; aspects of environmental work; production and assessment of a strategic plan; additional functions relating to 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 nature of reporting requirements; Parliamentary arrangements; measurement issues; the need for transparency; the nature and operation of bodies involved in advice, monitoring or scrutiny; and incentives.

Supporting measures

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 or other specified environmental issues. Most of reasons focused on the perceived importance of such duties, with a wide range of suggestions about what these should include. These varied from a 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 suggested that a duty should only cover issues within the direct control of an organisation. Some stressed the importance of linking the duty to existing provisions, such as Scotland's Climate Change Declaration; existing Best Value and community planning duties; the sustainable development duty under the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006; and Single Outcome Agreements.

The majority of respondents agreed that the Bill should contain enabling powers to introduce statutory guidance for certain public sector bodies on specified climate change or other environmental measures. Amongst the reasons given 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 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 direction and clarity about the measures required.

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 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 also emphasised the importance of implementation and enforcement of the guidance.

A number of comments were also made on the general nature of supporting measures, including: the need for clarity, direction, consistency and fairness; sanctions and mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement; incentives; measurement and data collection; training and resources; and links to other measures impacting upon public bodies.

Most of those who addressed the issue of variable charging expressed (or implied) their support for this. 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) or made suggestions about the issues that might be addressed, how charges might be levied or how to take variable charging forward.

A large number of respondents suggested that the actions taken to implement the Bill should not cause further harm to the environment, and a wide range of suggestions were made about potential adaptation measures. Most of those who commented on provisions to help Scotland adapt to the impacts of climate change focused on the general need for adaptation, and/or provided suggestions about activities which may be required, such as, for example: 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.

Most respondents agreed that provisions within the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 should be amended 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 proposed. 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 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. 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.

Among responses to the question exploring whether any existing legislation within the competence of the Scottish Parliament should be amended, many did not distinguish between work requiring legislative change and that which could be taken forward in other ways. Most focused generally on what they believed should be done, and a very large volume of material was provided. Comments focused on: issues relating to overall legislation, regulation and taxation, and specific areas for action.

Other issues

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 are 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, such as, for example: 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 suggestions were made about the approach, emphasis or tone of the Bill. These included 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 developments; a focus on delivery and action; and, for some, further reference to ways of achieving the targets. Some identified that the Bill, actions and processes should be: strong and bold; clear, transparent and simple; radical, creative and ambitious; science-based; fair and equitable; based on principles of sustainable development; and well-publicised. Many identified a need for leadership or political will. It was also suggested 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 importance of joined up working and thinking, and 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 seen to be needed; or suggested that a longer timescale for the consultation would have been beneficial.

This document, along with "Consultation on Proposals for a Scottish Climate Change Bill: Analysis of Responses" the full research report of the project and further information about social and policy research commissioned and published on behalf of the Scottish Government, can be viewed on the Social Research website at:www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch. If you have any further queries about social research, please contact us atsocialresearch@scotland.gsi.gov.ukor telephone 0131 244 7573.

« Previous | Contents | Next »