 The next item is a bill on the historic environment of Scotland. Pawawil House We will therefore provide no interventions or interruptions. I will give a few moments for everyone to settle. Paul Wheelhouse Minister is now calling for 10 minutes. The climate change is the biggest challenge facing global society today. It poses threats to both our way of life and the ecosystems in which we depend. The clarity of the case for the global community to step up its action to contain worldwide temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius was strengthened with the publication this weekend of the inter-governmental panel on climate change synthesis report, which makes it clear that if the world fails to act decisively, then the economic and social costs will be severe. The Scottish Government will play its full part in international efforts to bring global emissions down to a level consistent with containing increases in global average temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius or less, but let me say quite clearly the targets that have been set for Scotland to help achieve that outcome are not only the Scottish Government's targets, they are Scotland's targets. When our world-leading climate change act was passed unanimously by this Parliament, all MSPs took on the responsibility to deliver Scotland's targets. In that context, it's disappointing that, to date, during budget negotiations, the three largest opposition parties have not come forward with any low-carbon suggestions as part of their budget asks. I cite this not to be accusatory, but rather to encourage members and parties in their future actions. I am therefore asking colleagues across Parliament today to rekindle the same unanimity shown when passing the act and to strive to work in concert on this most important challenge. I believe that we can deliver a consensus on the way forward and in doing so, send the strongest possible signal to Scotland's people of the necessity for change and the hope that change can be achieved. Last week, I laid the annual report in Scotland's 2012 annual greenhouse gas emissions in Parliament. Let's be clear, Scotland is making good progress with a substantial net emissions reduction of 26.4 per cent from the 1990 baseline. That, it should be noted, compares with a 24.2 per cent reduction assumed when the 2012 target was set, based on the 1998 to 2008 greenhouse gas inventory, or in other words, we were ahead of our target in percentage terms. Indeed, our actual unadjusted source emissions fell even further by 29.9 per cent over this period. Those percentage reductions demonstrate that we are over halfway to achieving the Climate Change Act interim target of reducing emissions by 42 per cent by 2020. However, as I told Parliament in June, that percentage decrease does not correspond to Scotland's statutory annual target, which is set in carbon tonnage terms. Achievement of Scotland's targets is formally measured against the level of the net Scottish emissions account, or NSEEA. That accounts for the greenhouse gas emissions from sources in Scotland, Scotland's share of emissions from international aviation and shipping, the effect of any relevant emission removals, and the effect of sale and purchase of relevant carbon units, or tradable emission allowances. In 2012, the NSEEA figure, after adjustment for the EU ETS tradable allowances, was 55,665,180 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. That was 2,439,180 tonnes of CO2 equivalent more than the statutory 2012 target. However, crucially, Scotland's actual or source emissions, recorded in the same year, were 52,895,245 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. That is not 0.33 megatons better than the target. In 2011, similarly, source emissions were again lower than the statutory NSEEA target. My statement today sets out the actions that we are taking to redress the shortfall in abatement relative to the NSEEA statutory targets and to keep Scotland on track to achieving the ambitions of the climate change act. In June, in addition to further measures that we took, I announce that the cabinet had agreed to the creation of the Scottish Government's cabinet sub-committee on climate change. At our first meeting last week, we discussed action that Scotland is already taking to tackle climate change and how we can drive forward efforts to ensure that Scotland remains on track to meet this Parliament's world-leading climate change ambitions. We have made significant progress against the low-carbon vision that is outlined in our second report on proposals and policies, as demonstrated in the RPP2 monitoring framework that was published earlier this year. We continue to lead the UK on renewable power with more than 46 per cent of Scotland's gross electricity consumption generated from renewables in 2013. Scotland is on track to its interim target of 50 per cent by 2015. We are also on track to meet Scotland-wide target to reduce energy consumption by at least 12 per cent by 2020. Energy consumption in 2012 was 2.2 per cent lower than in 2011 and 11 per cent lower than the relevant baseline. In 2012, renewable heat generation equated to 3 per cent of Scotland's non-electrical heat demand up from 2.7 per cent in 2011. In 2013, renewable heat capacity increased by 18 per cent and heat generated from renewable sources by 17 per cent compared with 2012. We are making progress towards achieving our 2012 renewable heat target of 11 per cent, albeit that challenges remain. Forestry planting rates have increased with some 8,300 hectares planted in 2013-14, according to around 16 million trees. We aim to raise rates to 20 million trees per year from 2015. We are phasing out biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill by 2020, the first ban among any administration in the UK. By 2015, 64,000 tonnes of food waste per year will be diverted to anaerobic digestion or composting. On the home energy efficiency programme for Scotland, or HEAPS, we have gone beyond our original commitments. We estimate that almost 20,000 private sector households will benefit from energy efficiency measures through HEAPS in 2013-14 and between 2013-14 and 2015-16. I am sorry, Mr McNeill. This is a statement. There is no interventions. Minister, continue. Between 2013-14 and 2015-16, we will spend around a quarter of a billion pounds on fuel poverty and energy efficiency. It is disappointing that the UK Government's flagship green deal policy has had limited take-up, however Scotland accounts for a very large proportion of GBY delivery. The UK Government's changes to eco announced last December and only confirmed after consultation this autumn created great uncertainty. The removal of part of the energy company obligation from bills has not resulted in UK Government fully backing backfunding energy efficiency measures. In comparison, the Scottish Government has essentially funded energy efficiency programme, enabling us to secure more than our pro-ratus share of eco to date. The cabinet sub-committee committed to work with officials on climate change delivery board to monitor progress on implementing RPP2 and, where necessary, to identify new abatement opportunities and to address excess cumulative emissions over the 2010-2012 period. It is our intention that RPP2 will be delivered in full, and where policies and proposals are not delivered, we agreed to look to bring forward new policies that would have the same, if not greater, level of emissions abatement. We will work collectively to scrutinise each portfolio opportunities to support them in delivering their best contribution to tackling climate change and to ensure that Scotland's example is as positive as one for others to emulate as possible. We would welcome and indeed encourage other parties in this Parliament to come forward with constructive, positive suggestions that we can all support to keep Scotland on track and accelerate our transition to a successful low-carbon economy. The cabinet sub-committee is clear that we must significantly accelerate and focus our domestic efforts if we are to avoid dangerous climate change, but RPP2 only takes us to 2027. Last week, I was able to set out for the cabinet sub-committee the steps that we intend to take to deliver the next report on proposals and policies, or RPP3. Preparatory work has already commenced in the production of the next RPP due for publication in 2016, and we aim to lay the next RPP as soon as reasonably practical. This will be a complex, wide-ranging project that is necessary to ensure that the final report is sufficiently robust to remain relevant for at least five years. The cabinet secretary for finance and sustainable growth has already agreed to fund a new macroeconomic modelling capability to help in the preparation of RPP3, and we anticipate that this model will be available for use by early autumn next year. Our independent advisers to committee on climate change earlier this year advised that underlying progress remains on track in most sectors. As I have mentioned, the key factor now impacting on Scotland's ability to meet annual targets is upward revisions to the baseline against which our targets are measured, although the EU's failure to agree greater pre-2020 ambition is also a concern. By summer 2014, the baseline had been revised up by 5.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent compared to the data available when the annual targets were first set. Revisions are the result of improvements in methodology, as they are more accurate monitoring of emissions and understanding of the impact of greenhouse gases improves over time. As a result of those revisions, the fixed annual targets are now considerably more challenging than when they were set and may yet get harder still. We remain committed to delivering a 42 per cent reduction by 2020 and a minimum of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. However, overcoming methodological issues arising from improvements in data and estimation techniques rather than material changes in emissions remains challenging, not least because changes are not notified until after the year being measured. At the end of this month, I am meeting the new CEO of the Committee for Climate Change, Matthew Bell, when he visits Scotland. I will be asking Mr Bell how the independent quitting climate change can best help us to address the challenges that Scotland faces in delivering on our annual as well as our longer-term targets. I know that the Racky Committee has been looking to help in this matter. Several independent experts and I also gave evidence to that committee earlier this month and I very much look forward to receiving the report of the Racky Committee on its inquiry into RPP2. Climate change is a reality. It is happening now. The Scottish Government is committed to working with Parliament, civil society, the business community and the people of Scotland to deliver to Scotland's world-leading greenhouse gas emissions targets. Scotland is making good progress, but it will also agree more needs to be done. Perhaps the greatest leverage Scotland can have on tackling global climate change is by using Scotland as an international exemplar of both ambition and delivery, even when it is tough to do so. I call on all in this Parliament to recognise Scotland's progress, recognise the scale of challenge that Scotland faces and to join with us in showing the leadership and the teamwork that Scotland expects and needs in facing up to the climate challenge. Let's be a true example to the world. Thank you very much. Thank you minister for that. We will now take questions and issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we move to next business. It would be helpful now if members wish to speak, could press a request to speak button and I call Claire Baker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. We can all spin the statistics one way or another, but we cannot get away from this being the third year in a role without analysing why we are missing the statutory targets. That is hugely disappointing. Actual emissions have increased between 2011 and 2012, and we know that the first three targets were the easiest to hit and that the next one is all going to be very challenging. The actual drop in emissions needed for us to meet the next target is greater than the total number that was needed for the first three, so we are in a difficult place. Just as it was last year, it is clear that we have the potential to meet the targets if the Government would use the levers that it currently has to make a difference. Every year that the target is missed, it is more difficult to achieve the low-carbon economy that we all want to see in this chamber. To use the minister's phrase not to be accusatory, but Labour have in this session asked for over £300 million during the budget process to be allocated to housing and retrofitting. I know that the Government is in trouble when it starts to ask for consensus, but if the Government were to bring forward the step change needed, we would of course be willing to work with them. The Cabinet Sub-Committee must be more than just a talking shop. We need to see concrete policies emerge from it. One thing that is missing from this statement is new proposals, particularly in housing and transport, which are identified as the weak points. Does the minister have any confidence in the Government's ability to meet the 2013 target, or any yearly targets, up to 2020? I am afraid that I am disappointed in Clare Baker's response to the question. We have put down a pretty open goal for consensus to be built around this issue, but it has to be said that, once again, Clare Baker has displayed a misunderstanding of the nature of the statistics. I have made very clear that we have had a 7.7% increase in the business-as-usual projection for the Scottish economy in terms of climate change targets. If Ms Baker is unable to understand the basis in which that impacts on her performance to hit fixed statutory targets, I am afraid that that is a matter for Ms Baker to resolve. If Ms Baker wants to ask further questions, she can do so, but from a sedentary position it is difficult for me to answer original questions. Ms Baker has made a point about new proposals. I welcome her comment about being willing to seek consensus. It is the strength of the act. I have used this example in international forward when discussing the issue of Scotland's performance and Scotland's legislative framework with colleagues around the world. They genuinely admire Scotland for the fact that we had a political consensus in 2009. I do not think that it is too late to recreate that. I hope that this is a one-off blip than perhaps Clare Baker is wanting to get her punches in early. However, I hope that we have the chance to work together to try to deliver on very stretching targets if the Labour Party is sincere about wishing to be an alternative Government in Scotland. They will face exactly the same challenges that the Scottish Government does today with the methodological issues that I have outlined in my statement. Therefore, it is important that we work together to try to get around that and work in a way that we can develop a strategy together to achieve our targets. That is in everyone's interests, but I welcome her comment about being willing to be part of a consensus if we can achieve that. I hope that we can do that after today. Recent figures show that the poorest one-fifth of the UK population spend 11 per cent of their income on energy, and it is probably more than that in Scotland. Reducing emissions from the residential sector, which are so influenced by cold snaps, especially in Scotland, must continue to be a priority. Is the minister happy that enough is being done to improve the energy efficiency of Scotland's existing housing stock and that adequate funding is in place to achieve that? Can he provide any updates on what progress is being made in helping elderly and vulnerable residents in the most remote and rural areas access support for energy efficiency schemes? Is the minister aware of WWF's concern that the Scottish Government is not doing enough to support district heating and combined heat and power projects? Does he have any plans to do more in that area? Finally, can the minister give us any update on progress in the carbon capture and storage sector? I hope that Mr MacGregor has left some questions for the other members. I will do my best to answer them as quickly as possible. The first thing to say is that I certainly recognise the point that Mr MacGregor makes about the importance of tackling residential emissions. It is a very large share of Scotland's emissions. It is one that is proving quite persistent in terms of the level of emissions that we have per capita in Scotland, and therefore it is an important area for us to target for action, not least because of the fuel poverty issue that Mr MacGregor rightly highlights as being a key consideration. It is encouraging that, in respect of Scotland's housing condition survey, we know that, by the end of 2011, 88 per cent of loss had at least 100 millimetres of insulation and 54 per cent had 200 millimetres or more, and two thirds of properties that had a cavity wall, including my own house, had been fitted with cavity wall insulation. There are good signs for progress. We are making a lot of progress, and housing colleagues are working very hard. Indeed, we are now trying to look at how we go to the harder-to-treat properties in rural and island communities, where that is a serious challenge, as I am sure the member recognises, with solid wall construction and non-conventional construction techniques. In that respect, HEAPS, which has a large component of £60 million or £79 million in the current year, is being allocated to area-based schemes. Within that, we have specifically allocated in discussion with the NGOs some money to target those harder-to-treat properties in rural and island communities. I assure the member that we take it very seriously. On district heating, my colleague Fergus Ewing is working hard to develop a heat mapping in Scotland and to take forward potential framework for a more rapid roll-out of heat district heating, and that is something that I am sure we can keep in contact with the member on. Will the minister join with me in welcoming what seems to be EU agreement to reduce EU domestic greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 per cent below the 1990 level by 2030? Will the minister provide assurances that the Scottish Government will continue to work with other ambitious countries in making a transition towards a low-carbon economy? I absolutely agree with Angus MacDonald that we should welcome the package that has been announced. It is not perhaps as far as many of us would have liked it to go, but we have an offer on the table from the EU of 40 per cent, as the member states, and with the potential open opportunity if there is a global deal to perhaps go beyond 40 per cent. The Scottish Government and the UK Government together have taken a consistent view that up to 50 per cent should be offered in the event of a global deal for 2030. As the member probably knows, Scotland is already at a target of 58 per cent by 2027, so we have already put our cards on the table and are hoping that others will follow our ambitious lead. However, the EU has made that move. I want to pay tribute to Connie Hedegard, the commissioner, who has worked extremely hard to strike that deal. It is probably not as far as she would have liked it to go, but it has progressed nonetheless. I hope that we can see genuine progress not only in the mitigation target, but I hope that we can go further on the energy efficiency and renewable targets, which are perhaps more modest than the Scottish Government would have liked. Claudia Beamish, followed by Rob Gibson. I am concerned that the minister no longer seems to think that the annual targets are important, difficult as they are to meet. Perhaps because they are a challenge to achieve, yes, the changes to the 1990 baseline means that 42 per cent reduction figure is more achievable in 2020, but does the minister agree with me that the yearly targets are still important and send a significant message beyond Scotland? Absolutely. I am delighted to collect the impression that I may have given in my earlier response to Clare Baker on that point. I agree entirely with Claudia Beamish that these are difficult targets because of the methodological changes. We are still trying to hit them. It is important that we strive to achieve those targets because Parliament gave a clear intent when they set the targets that they were important targets to meet. They are, aside from fuel poverty, a very rare beast statutory annual targets that we have. We have to try to achieve them. What I was trying to set out in my earlier response is that it is becoming more challenging in practical sense to achieve those targets as they were expressed in the target. The Parliament's intent when the act was passed was to achieve 42 per cent by 2020 and at least 80 per cent by 2050. Absolutely unequivocally, we are sticking to those targets and we will do what we can to meet the annual targets between now and 2020. I recognise the point that Ms Baker made about the difficulty between 2013 and 2020 in achieving those targets. However, the purpose of the cabinet sub-committee is to try to get us back on track in achieving those targets, if we can. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Greenhouse gas emissions report 2012 says that residential emissions in 2012 were increased by cooler temperatures and by changes in the fuel mix for electricity production. Could Scotland's emissions tumble if UK energy policy allowed a more speedy renewable electricity development instead of the Tory fixation with a dash for unconventional gas? I certainly agree with Rob Gibson that Scotland has a huge opportunity in renewables. We have the great opportunity to deliver sustainable energy for the future. It is a pity that we have at present, even though we have achieved 46.4 per cent of our electricity demand being met in 2013 from renewables. We are perhaps not achieving as much as we could do if we had a more supportive environment at UK level for investment in renewables. That is not again to be accusatory but it would be helpful if we had a more supportive regime in terms of transmission charges. The hydro industry has particular concerns about digression rates in support from the UK Government. That is something that has been raised by Fergus Ewing with the UK ministers. Of course, the dash for a £35 billion support for a nuclear power station and Englie point is something that we deeply regret. We think that it is a wrong decision and it will lock higher energy prices in for the future. We are also concerned about the fact that the House of Lords has removed Scotland's ability to vary rocks at a very important time for the industry. We think that that breaches the spirit of respect for Scotland and flies in the face of some of the statements in the wake of the referendum about giving more power to Scotland. The minister has clarified that the targets are important. Would he therefore clarify why the cabinet sub-committee that he mentions only met once since June was, as he said, just last week? How many times does it plan to meet in the forthcoming months and how important is its role? Would he also clarify for Parliament this accept conundrum for him that does he replace the existing policy mechanisms that he has under it? I grant you the existing devolution settlement or is he looking at new initiatives? If so, I was not clear from his statement as to what exactly they might be. In relation to the cabinet sub-committee point, we are taking this particularly seriously. It has taken a while to set up and to define the initial papers that we are going to the cabinet sub-committee. We agreed at the cabinet sub-committee that we would try and meet before the end of the year because of the urgency of the issue. In normal practice, there might be three or four meetings a year, so we are going to try and have a shorter gap to the next one because we have a lot of work to get on with us. I am sure that the member appreciates. On the issue that was mentioned in relation to the targets and the approach that we may take to addressing that issue, we need to have a conversation, as I say, with the incoming chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, who are our independent advisers, about what they recommend in terms of increased domestic effort, which is one of the two things that they highlighted in their earlier report in March, and what technical measures they might suggest, or none, to attack the issue that we have raised in terms of the methodological changes, which are important to recognise because they do improve the quality of the information that we have available to us, so they are not denying that they have to take place. It is important that we have as accurate an understanding as possible of our emissions and progress that we are making, but they present us some difficulties with the act that is currently constituted, so we will look to get advice from the Committee on Climate Change and then, obviously, report back to Parliament when we have had that, as to what the messages are that we have been given. I take the point that the member is making. The Cabinet Sub-Committee is a large Cabinet Sub-Committee, one of the largest that I believe that the Scottish Government has ever had, and it has a cross-disciplinary feel to it. There was good engagement from colleagues at the meeting, including Mr Mackay, who has joined us today for this session, and I look forward to having the next meeting in December. Maureen Watt, by Kevin Macleosh. Building on Jamie McGregor's point about our emissions from housing stock and the need to improve insulation and fitting renewable energy alternatives and ohms, can I ask what the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to assist people to understand how changing their behaviours can also help to tackle climate change? It is a very important point that Maureen Watt raises, because we know roughly about half the change that we have to achieve as a nation is through behavioural change. Therefore, it puts great emphasis on the efforts that we are taking under the Greener Together campaign, which, since January 2012, has highlighted the actions that people can take themselves to help us to deliver on our climate change targets. We are doing important work through the climate challenge fund, and I was delighted this week to be able to announce the 500th community, which happened to be in Falkirk, Mr MacDonald's constituency, and close to the central belt. We have 512 communities that have now taken positive action to deliver on climate change at a community level. There are a number of things that we can do. We are working with the business community through the climate 2020 group. It is very important to have high-profile businesses, major listed companies in Scotland showing leadership and trying to come forward with their own ideas about how we can tackle climate change. There is good room for optimism on that front. I think that we have, with the political consensus that we have in the Parliament, I hope that we can maintain that unity and sense of purpose across civic Scotland, the business community, individuals and communities across Scotland to lengthen the breadth of the land to deliver on our targets. The point is well made by Maureen Watt, and I thank her for her question. The minister will be aware and probably share the chamber's disappointment that carbon emissions from business and industry have been on the increase since 2009, suggesting perhaps that any initial progress had less to do with any embedded commitment to change than the economic downturn and perhaps more worryingly that any future economic growth may add additional pressures. Why has the Scottish Government had such little success in reducing emissions from business and industry? Ken Macintosh is an important point. We certainly see a close link between economic activity and emissions, and we have never denied that. Certainly in terms of emissions that have happened, sadly, since the recession kicked in 2008-9, we were well aware that there were economic issues underlying, perhaps drop-off in transport emissions and emissions in the business sector have also been affected. In the longer term, since 1990, there have been huge structural changes in the Scottish economy as there have been across Western Europe, which have played a part in us achieving the relatively high percentage drop-off in emissions to date. However, there are also important measures that have been taken, as I say, at a local level, at a Government level and across sectors. We should not deny that there has been good work being done by the business community as well. That is why organisations such as Resource Efficient Scotland and Zero Waste Scotland are very important and SEPA indeed are guiding businesses as to what they can do to become more resource efficient to reduce their carbon footprint. To set an example, SEPA and other organisations within the Scottish Government family have done in terms of their reporting on emissions and giving exemplars to the business community as to how it can achieve more. However, I do not deny that we need to do more with the business community, and that is why it is so encouraging that the 2020 climate group is very much supporting the Parliament's aspirations to lower emissions and playing a very positive role in coming up with its own ideas as to how it can achieve more. Let us not forget that one very big business sector is the power sector, and it has dropped by over 5 megatons in the period since 2007, I believe, and that is one of the biggest single contributions to our improved performance. Can the minister advise whether revision of the baseline is to be an on-going process, which would mean that the chasing of a moving target, as Dr Utter Collier of the UK Climate Change Committee described the situation to the Rural Affairs Committee, will continue? If that is the case, is there not an argument for adjusting the short-term targets post-2015 and looking again at the trajectory through to 2032, while retaining our long-term ambitions? Mr Day is absolutely right. We know that already in June 2015, regardless of the outcome in terms of Scotland's own emission figures, the inventory will be updated to increase the potency of methane as a gas in terms of conversion to CO2 equivalent. That will go from roughly 21 times the potency of CO2 to 25 times, and that will have an impact on emissions perhaps in the agriculture sector and in the waste sector. Both in baseline emissions and the adjusted emissions, so in some cases it might actually be lower now because of the changes and in others it might be higher. We will have to see the impact of that, but there will be on-going adjustments. We hope to see one positive one in future, more accurate information on peatlands, for example, which may will help Scotland in terms of coming up with more of a strategic tool to address our climate change emissions. There are also positives and negatives. We have been very unlucky as a country that, in the past three years, we have had successive increases. Whereas the UK has seen some decreases and some increases, we have had pretty much across-the-board increases in emissions figures. We have to discuss with the committee on climate change the impact that it has both in terms of our RPP2, which is clearly something that has not taken into account those most recent revisions and also our on-going strategy to address climate change in Scotland. It is something that we are taking very seriously and it will keep the committee informed, of course, of the measures that we take in that regard. Patrick Harvie, followed by Cara Hilton. Thank you. Since before the act passed, I have been concerned about the myth of Scotland's consensus on climate change. Yes, we all voted for the targets, but there was never consensus on how to reach them or, indeed, on the relative priority compared with other economic priorities. Can the minister tell us what he means when he tells us today that our RPP2 will be delivered in full? Does he mean that everything presented there, as a policy or as a proposal, will in fact happen? In particular, will he heed the call to ensure that energy efficiency of the housing stock is designated as a national infrastructure priority project? It is an important point that Patrick Harvie raises and I apologise if I have given any confusion to the statement that I have given today. We appreciate the policies and proposals that are set out in RPP2 that we have to strive to achieve those. If, for some reason, one proposal cannot be converted to policy or there is a problem implementing a particular policy that we have already adopted, we need, as a Government, to find a way to make up that shortfall on emissions. The responsibility is on us all within Government to try and share that burden and find a way through that. In terms of delivering it in full, we need to deliver the abatement that we have set out regardless of how we do it. We need to try and ensure that we come up with compensatory measures if something is prevented from happening or, as we have discovered in terms of our—and it is probably to be fair to Mr Harvie—it may be a point that he made during RPP2 passage the assumption about the EU target pre-2020. We need to try and adjust for those changes in the external environment and make sure that our strategy is fit for purpose. To work together as a Government team to try and come up with alternative proposals where those are necessary. I certainly give the member a commitment that is what we are going to strive to do. Given that emissions from transport are still at 1990 levels in account for a quarter of Scotland's overall emissions, what action does the Scottish Government plan to take to have a strategic national plan for reducing car use and, in particular, to encourage car sharing schemes and other ways of easing traffic congestion during peak travel to work periods? Carr-Hilton is right that transport has been one of the most difficult areas to address. It probably ties in with Mr Mackintosh's point that, where we have had a decline in economic activity, we also see a fall-off in transport emissions as well. However, we can probably expect as the economy picks up the transport emissions as people feel more wealthy and they feel more able to afford to drive, they may well increase their emissions again. The challenge that we have had—and it is indeed a European-wide challenge—is that vehicle emissions standards have improved greatly. That was anticipated to be the major strategy to tackling transport emissions, but it has failed to deliver in practice because people's behaviour has changed in response to that. Perhaps on the same budget, they are able to drive more miles, but they are perhaps using more efficient engines, but they are still pumping out the same amount of CO2 that they were previously on a lower mileage. We have not quite crossed that rubicon yet, but we are investing heavily in electric vehicles as one method by which we can try to decarbonise our transport. Mr Brown, as the transport minister, has worked closely with those involved with sustainable active travel to try to set out what the vision of sustainable active travel in Scotland might be in 2030 and work back from that in terms of the steps that are required and the funding that needs to go with that to achieve those goals. I am confident that we are getting good buy-in from our stakeholders now on achieving this. I hope that by the end of this financial year we will have up to 1,200 vehicle charging points across Scotland when combining Scottish and UK Government funding, and that will help to make it easier for people to use electric vehicles and a more rapid transition to low-carbon vehicles. I thank the minister for his statement. I apologise to the two members that I could not call, but we have to move on to our short debate, which is a debate on motion number 11386, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the town centre action