Net Zero and Energy, and Transport
Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio question time, and the portfolio today is net zero and energy, and transport. As always, I call for succinct questions and answers in order to get in as many members as possible.
Question 1 has been withdrawn.
Public Transport Connectivity (South-west Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to improve public transport connectivity in south-west Scotland. (S6O-04601)
We continue to work with local authorities in south-west Scotland regarding the powers around partnership working, franchising and running their own bus services. Furthermore, the new bus infrastructure fund provides local authorities with the opportunity to improve the connectivity of buses, making them more attractive to passengers.
We are investing more than £1 billion in rail infrastructure and its maintenance. Examples of recent investment in the region include the £1.9 million upgrade of the Stranraer line, which involved replacing more than a kilometre of track at Laggansarroch viaduct near Girvan, and the provision of step-free access at Dumfries station.
Although I welcome any steps to improve public transport in the south-west, the reality for many communities in rural Ayrshire is that options remain severely limited. I recently joined the Cumnock and Mauchline railway stations action group to back its campaign to reopen both stations, which closed in 1965, and I saw at first hand the strength of community support.
I appreciate that the cabinet secretary wrote to me this morning to point out that a Scottish Government study in 2022 did not back those plans and that there is no money in this year’s budget for them. With that in mind, does the cabinet secretary believe that the campaign has any chance of succeeding next year or beyond?
The constituency member, Elena Whitham, and other campaigners have also contacted me. I welcome the campaigners’ enthusiasm in supporting transport interventions that could bring benefits to the Mauchline area.
New local rail proposals are considered subject to the development of a strong business case with clear alignment to the Scottish Government’s priorities, with the affordability of such proposals being set out. I note that the evidence that has been provided to date is not in line with Transport Scotland’s published guidance, with a transport appraisal using the Scottish transport appraisal guidance still to be undertaken. That is required in order to inform a robust strategic business case for transport projects.
My officials have recently written to the campaigners to note the points that have been suggested. They have suggested that, as other campaigners have done, they should discuss their proposals with their local council or Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, their local regional transport partnership, and determine how to take forward the necessary appraisals.
I should note that the study that Sharon Dowey referred to was the strategic transport plan for the whole of Scotland. It was not just a study on one issue; it covered the whole of Scotland.
Transport connectivity is important for people in the south-west of Scotland. How many free bus journeys have been made to date by young people in the south-west of Scotland as a result of the action of the Scottish National Party Government?
The Scottish Government’s launch of the young persons free bus travel scheme has most definitely improved connectivity, particularly for young people. As of 30 April 2025, through the young persons free bus travel scheme, 3 million journeys have been made in Dumfries and Galloway, 3.1 million in South Ayrshire and 5.4 million in East Ayrshire. The figures refer to smart journeys that are recorded and are attributed to the local authority in which the card was issued. Therefore, some of those journeys will have been undertaken outwith the local authority areas that I mentioned, and figures are subject to change due to late data being received. However, the figures represent a brilliant result for young people. The scheme is making those connections more affordable and, I hope, helping to develop positive travel patterns for young people.
Emission and Energy Cost Reductions (Support for Households)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the measures that it is taking to support households to reduce emissions and energy costs. (S6O-04602)
We have committed to investing more than £300 million in our heat in buildings programme in 2025-26. That funding will be spent on reducing emissions from heating and improving energy efficiency in homes and other buildings across Scotland, as well as on developing heat networks.
We will continue our successful warmer homes Scotland and area-based schemes, which are aimed at people in fuel poverty, as well as our generous Home Energy Scotland advice, grants, loans and funding for social homes. Householders who want to take action should contact Home Energy Scotland, which can help those who are interested to navigate the available support.
The minister will be aware that large rural areas of Scotland, such as my constituency, have unique challenges that can make decarbonisation financially prohibitive for many home owners, be that due to the age and fabric of their home or their home being positioned in a conservation area where options such as solar panels are not allowed. Does the minister agree that citizens who live in such homes must be supported to find a balance between reaching net zero and reducing fuel poverty? Can the Scottish Government assist them in that?
The balance that Ms Whitham mentions is crucial. Balancing the delivery of our net zero objectives with tackling fuel poverty is important, and there are significant opportunities to address those aims in tandem.
Through the investment that we are making, we can reduce poor energy efficiency, which is a driver of the fuel poverty that Ms Whitham described. Our schemes provide additional funding for households in rural areas in recognition of the additional and higher costs that they face. Last year, we amended planning rights to allow solar panels to be installed in properties in conservation areas without the need for a planning application, subject to specific restrictions.
Zonal pricing will discourage investment in net zero in Scotland but will lower Scottish consumer bills. Does the minister support zonal pricing?
That issue came up at First Minister’s question time. It is important that we get zonal pricing right. The current wholesale electricity market in Great Britain is not fit for the delivery of our net zero ambitions. The Government and I recognise the trade-offs and complexities that exist in the debate on zonal pricing, and we continue our conversations with the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the voices of industry and community are heard in that debate. Any reforms or policy interventions from the UK Government must reduce costs for Scottish consumers and businesses while protecting investment.
For too many of my constituents, poor-quality housing remains the norm. Lack of proper insulation can lead to damp and mould, which causes health problems, as well as to higher energy bills and greater emissions. The problem will only get worse as rainfall increases and temporary weather extremes become more common due to climate change.
Will the minister give his assurance that the Government will act swiftly to support those who are living in poor-quality housing and to capture pockets of excellence, such as the work that Loco Home Retrofit co-op is doing in Glasgow, to ensure that we level things up and make such excellence the norm for the nation rather than the exception?
I recognise the work that is being done by the community organisation that Mr Sweeney mentioned. I also recognise the issue that he points to, which is that climate change will, ultimately, make the problems more complicated to solve.
The Scottish Government provides a range of support to address some of those issues. I mentioned the £300 million investment. More specifically, we are seeking to ensure that landlords in the private rented sector are in a position to make life better for their tenants, and we are supporting the social housing rented sector.
2045 Net Zero Target
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether its 2045 net zero target is still credible. (S6O-04603)
We remain fully committed to meeting the target of net zero emissions by 2045, which every party in the Parliament voted for and is now enshrined in law.
This month, we will receive carbon budget advice from our independent advisers, the Climate Change Committee, which will advise us on a pathway to net zero by 2045. Thanks to the action of this Government, Scotland is already halfway to net zero and we continue to decarbonise faster than the UK average.
With the Scottish National Party Government ditching so many climate targets, let us be honest: it looks highly unlikely that Scotland will achieve net zero by 2045. Instead of setting ambitious targets with no plans for how to achieve them, will the cabinet secretary be honest with the public and confirm that the Scottish Government will deliver a sensible and affordable transition that will not come at the cost of jobs or through rising bills for households and businesses?
What is not credible are parties that vote for targets and then turn their backs when the action to meet those targets is taken forward. We have subsequent climate change plans in place that have a credible pathway to 2045. We are working on our next climate change plan as a result of the new carbon budgeting system, which is the system that the UK and Welsh Governments work to.
What is also not credible is the suggestion that a drive to net zero will be a negative thing. There are massive economic opportunities for the people of Scotland, particularly in relation to our technologies and natural resources, which will get us to 2045.
We know that our constituents are already being impacted by extreme weather, such as forest fires and flooding. Will the Scottish Government accept that it needs to up its game to support people and businesses to decarbonise, given the Royal Scottish Geographical Society report, which highlights:
“Climate change is already costing Scotland billions a year.”
If left unchecked, by 2050, those costs could rise to 5 to 20 per cent of gross domestic product, which is £11 billion to £45 billion a year. Do we not need to take the action that the cabinet secretary talks about now rather than dump our targets?
Until she said the last phrase—no one is dumping any targets; we are committed to 2045—I was 99 per cent in agreement with everything that Sarah Boyack said. She points to a danger in the discourse around net zero. All of a sudden, people, including the representatives of the Conservative Party at Westminster, are changing their tack on whether we should be trying to get to net zero.
However, as Sarah Boyack rightly points out, we are already seeing the impacts of climate change in our communities in Scotland. It is not something that is just happening in the global south or that will just happen in the future—it is happening now. We have had wildfire warnings, we have had water scarcity in Scotland over the summer periods and we have had extreme weather events. It is incumbent on us all to consider all the actions that we can take. As a Parliament, we must recognise that we all voted for the 2045 target and we must now work together to vote for the actions that will get us there.
Rosebank and Jackdaw Developments
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the net zero secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the potential impact on Scotland of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas developments not proceeding, including on jobs, gross domestic product, tax revenue and funding for public services from the United Kingdom Government. (S6O-04604)
Across Government, we are all clear on our support for a just transition for Scotland’s oil and gas sector, recognising the maturity of the North Sea basin. At the heart of our approach is ensuring that just transition for Scotland’s valued and highly skilled oil and gas workforces to a net zero future. As the member will be aware, offshore oil and gas licensing and consenting and the associated fiscal regime are all matters that are currently reserved to the UK Government.
That does not really get to the heart of what I am asking. The risk is that Scottish funding might reduce by several hundred million pounds if Rosebank and Jackdaw are not consented. The reason is very simple: those companies have invested around £2,000 million because they have obtained the necessary consents and have complied with all the regulations, but they now find that the process is being changed mid-case and the goalposts might be moved. If that happens, there will be a fiduciary duty on the directors of all the companies to recover their losses, which will amount to the money that has been paid out—£2 billion—plus loss of profits.
If that happens, is the Scottish Government not worried that it is inevitable, whether through Barnettisation or otherwise, that the Scottish taxpayer will pay a heavy price? Therefore, should we not support Rosebank and Jackdaw to avoid those catastrophic consequences and gain the enormous economic advantages that the projects will deliver?
Fergus Ewing rightly points out that a lot of the regulatory challenges, including the court cases, involve the UK Government, because it has responsibility in that area. However, the Scottish Government’s stance on future licensing warned that the UK Government would have to be robust in how it assessed licences with regard to climate compatibility, because not doing so would open it up to criticism. Indeed, there have now been quite a few cases of court action.
We continue to call on the UK Government to approach decisions on offshore oil and gas in a rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case way, in which robust assessment of climate compatibility and domestic energy security are key considerations.
Recent court judgments mean that specific projects that the member refers to are subject to further consenting decisions from UK ministers. Those decisions will be based on enhanced environmental assessments of their climate impacts.
It would have probably been a good idea to listen to the SNP Government on this and ensure that robust processes were in place. If everyone knows the playing field, they can react to what is set out.
The draft energy strategy, with its disastrous presumption against oil and gas developments proceeding, was released more than two years ago. Last year, Aberdeen lost around 18,000 jobs, due in part to the uncertainty that was created. This year, BP, Apache, Hunting Energy Services and Chevron have announced further job losses.
I ask the minister for a straight answer to a straight question. When will the finalised energy strategy be published, and will that presumption be removed?
I have answered that question from Liam Kerr and from his colleagues over quite some time. I am still working on the energy strategy in the light of some of the developments that have taken place over the past year. Some of the developments that have been referred to—in particular, by Fergus Ewing—as well as other court decisions, have meant that we need to have another look at our energy strategy.
Gas from the Rosebank development will be exported through the west of Shetland pipeline system to Sullom Voe, ultimately ending up in the UK grid and contributing to the nation’s energy security.
Does the cabinet secretary recognise the importance of Rosebank to my constituency? Does she agree that it will be important for jobs in Shetland, where there are skilled workers and knowledge that has been gained from decades of working in North Sea energy developments?
No one has to remind me, as a north-easter at the heart of the oil and gas industry in Scotland for many decades, of the importance of oil and gas workers, and not just in terms of managing an industry that has served Scotland and the whole of the UK very well. I recognise that Shetland has had a very significant footprint.
The skills that are associated with oil and gas are so transferable that there will be energy workers who will work between all the developments that are part of the energy mix that comes on stream. Shetland is home to many renewable energy projects, for which that workforce is ideally suited.
Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd and what issues were discussed. (S6O-04605)
The Scottish Government continues to meet CMAL on a regular basis. The most recent meeting was held on 24 April, when I discussed our strategic investments, including the delivery of the four new Islay-class vessels, the small vessel replacement programme procurement and other live ports projects.
GMB Scotland has been clear that future work for the Ferguson Marine shipyard is vital for its future. However, we have recently seen the offshoring of Scottish Government contracts to Poland, despite the Port Glasgow yard having a strong track record of delivering smaller vessels. Now it has lost out on the Western Ferries contract, too. The workforce should not have to pay for the Scottish National Party’s incompetence—it is the Government’s job to clear up the mess that it has presided over.
What is the Scottish Government’s plan to secure future work for the yard? Why do the Scottish Government and CMAL not insert minimum social value weighting into their ferry contracts, as is done in other parts of the United Kingdom?
The principles of what the United Kingdom Government refers to as social value are already embedded in Scotland. The Scottish Government has been increasing the scope of public procurement for two decades now, and we have complementary policies and legislation to encourage local business participation, growth and development as well as secure opportunities for and investment in jobs, skills and so on. I would point out that we operate under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014.
The member will be fully aware that direct award of public contracts is possible only in strictly limited circumstances under public procurement rules. Shipbuilding is a competitive global market and a designated sensitive sector under the United Kingdom Subsidy Control Act 2022. Any direct award of a public contract must comply with that act and must be capable of withstanding legal challenge. Unless the member is suggesting that the UK Government is about to abandon the UK Subsidy Control Act, he knows that there are limits to what we can do currently.
Can the cabinet secretary confirm that CMAL is working hard to ensure that Ardrossan harbour is purchased at a fair price for the Scottish taxpayer, while being proactive in engaging with community organisations such as save Ardrossan harbour and Arran for Ardrossan harbour? Will she also confirm that, without the 49.2 per cent increase—a whopping £78.2 million—in the ferry service’s capital budget, which was delivered by this Government this year, and which Labour did not vote for, the purchase and redevelopment of Ardrossan harbour would not be possible?
We are investing not only in vessels but in our ports and harbours across Scotland, and Ardrossan is key in that respect. With regard to the on-going negotiations, I am pleased that, in my meeting with them last week, Mr Gibson and colleagues Alasdair Allan and Jenni Minto, in their constituency capacity, were able to represent the strong views of their constituents but also recognise that negotiations, particularly on Ardrossan Harbour, are at a key stage. With regard to ensuring that we can invest in Ardrossan harbour, there is provision and support not only to purchase it but to do some of the initial work that is needed immediately.
Having secured that additional funding for our ports and harbours, I find it deeply disappointing that the Labour Party, of all parties, did not vote to support the investment in our ferries, ports and harbours.
Key vessels owned by CMAL, such as the MV Isle of Mull, are currently operating with passenger restrictions after failing a safety check. It is expected that the MV Isle of Mull will return to full capacity next month, but how is the cabinet secretary working with CMAL to ensure that all vessels in operation pass the safety requirements?
I will perhaps take the opportunity to ask CalMac Ferries, which is responsible for the safety aspects of the current vessels and how they are operating, to provide the member with a briefing. The member referred to the MV Isle of Mull; I met with the South Uist community, and certainly four—now possibly five—of their asks for help to support them through that difficult time will happen. However, I will ask CalMac to provide the member with a briefing on maintenance issues, particularly when incidents happen and vessels have to be put into dry dock for repair.
I can take a supplementary question from Paul Sweeney if he is very brief.
The minister mentioned that shipbuilding is competitive, but other countries use their state investment banks to provide credit guarantees, and Spain provides a tax leasing arrangement. That is why we are not winning this business. Will the minister look at those other countries and compete properly on the same basis?
I certainly will. With the powers of independence, I would love to have the same powers and capabilities as other countries to do exactly what the member says.
Deer-related Road Accidents (Central Belt)
To ask the Scottish Government what estimate it has made of the number of road accidents involving deer in the central belt, including around the East Kilbride constituency, in the last five years. (S6O-04606)
The Scottish Government does not currently have data on road traffic accidents involving deer specifically in the central belt or for the requested five-year period. Transport Scotland is aware, from Police Scotland records, that 11 accidents involving deer in 2024 were recorded across all roads in Scotland where personal injury was sustained.
Estimates suggest that the deer population in Scotland has doubled in the past 35 years. In addition to the issue of road accidents, deer negatively affect biodiversity, so there is a need for more deer management to avoid collisions and protect the environment. Does the cabinet secretary agree that increased deer management is required? Will she meet with me and my constituent David Quarrell to discuss the Scottish Gamekeepers Association’s proposal for more pilot projects to expand that capacity while reducing road accidents in South Lanarkshire and the east end of Glasgow?
I agree with the member about ensuring that there is support for and incentivisation of deer management. Transport Scotland is working in partnership with NatureScot and the trunk road operating companies to better manage the issues relating to deer and road users, to improve road safety and to protect the welfare of deer. I will ask the appropriate officials to meet the member’s constituent, as they will be better placed to explain some of the challenges that they are facing and how the issue might be managed.
I accept that food management and so on is not part of the cabinet secretary’s remit, but can she assure us that there will be some cross-Government thinking and a cross-Government approach to the deer issue, as it is both a traffic and a food issue?
I am pleased to point out that my ministerial colleague Jim Fairlie has responsibility for both agriculture and connectivity, so I assure John Mason that cross-Government work is taking place on the issue across a number of areas. It is a very serious matter, as anyone who has been involved in an accident with a deer will know. Obviously, with the increased number of deer, there is continuous vigilance on the issue.
Humza Yousaf is joining us remotely.
Climate Debt (Global South)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what actions it is taking to help tackle climate debt in the global south. (S6O-04607)
Growing unsustainable debt puts pressure on countries in the global south, diverting resources away from investment in climate action and from broader public services. The Scottish Government recognises the need for good-quality, genuinely affordable climate finance, and we have consistently advocated for other countries to follow our example of giving funding for loss and damage as grants, not loans, which means that countries in the global south can recover from extreme climate events without taking on additional debt and that they are in control of how that money is spent most effectively. We will continue to champion that approach, including at forthcoming international events.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her comprehensive response. The loss and damage fund is a great example of how Scotland has shown global solidarity with the global south, which has shouldered the heaviest impacts of climate change.
The cabinet secretary might be aware of the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund’s call for debt cancellation, a new debt framework and a debt justice law, so that some of the poorest countries in the world can spend their money on making their countries more climate resilient, not on debt payments to wealthy creditors. Although I appreciate that direct responsibility for that matter might lie with other ministerial colleagues, will the cabinet secretary commend SCIAF for its excellent cancel debt, choose hope campaign? Will she ensure that the Scottish Government meets SCIAF and explores what action Scotland can take to ensure that debt does not continue to cripple the world’s poorest?
We recognise the huge pressure that escalating debt levels are putting on countries in the global south, particularly when compounded by the impacts of the climate crisis. There must be a fair, effective and long-term resolution to the global debt crisis, so that resources can be freed up to invest in health, education, climate action and the economies of those countries.
Scottish Government officials have had an initial meeting with SCIAF to discuss its jubilee 2025 campaign, and I look forward to meeting it again in the coming weeks to explore how Scotland can best play a role. I would point to Scotland’s important role in all the international events, such as the United Nations climate change conferences of the parties and the various environmental comings-together of countries, and our use of our soft power to influence other countries in taking a more sustainable approach to debt and the global south and to how we recompense those countries for the situation in which they find themselves as a result of climate change.
That concludes portfolio questions on net zero and energy, and transport. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change position, should they wish.
Previous
World Asthma Day 2025