Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, November 3, 2022

Official Report 1151KB pdf

---

Portfolio Question Time

---

Net Zero, Energy and Transport

The next item of business is portfolio question time, and the portfolio this afternoon is net zero, energy and transport. I ask members who wish to ask a supplementary question to please press their request-to-speak button or to indicate so in the chat function by entering the letters RTS during the relevant question.

As ever, I make a plea for succinct questions and answers so that we can get in as many members as possible.

---

Water Rates 2023-24

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will instruct Scottish Water to freeze water rates for 2023-24 to help with the cost of living crisis. (S6O-01492)

I do not think that the minister’s card is in.

He said yes.

It will be for the cabinet secretary to indicate what his response is, Ms Baillie.

There we go.

The decision on water charges is a matter for Scottish Water’s board, but it must be taken with due regard to the principles of charging for water services that have been set by Scottish ministers, including the key principle of affordability.

My understanding is that the cabinet secretary intervened last year, and I encourage him to do so again this year, because inflation was at 10 per cent in September and is expected to be at least 11 per cent by the end of the year. The pricing formula agreed between the cabinet secretary, Scottish Water and the Water Industry Commission for Scotland is that prices will rise by the consumer prices index plus 2 per cent. That will mean an eye-watering rise of 12 or 13 per cent for every household in Scotland. With Scottish Water having reserves of more than half a billion pounds and paying senior executives eye-watering bonuses of £90,000 each, it can clearly afford to freeze water bills. Households are struggling.

Ms Baillie, could we have a question, please?

It is entirely within the cabinet secretary’s power to freeze bills, so let me try again. Will the cabinet secretary freeze water bills?

Let me try to deal with some of the facts. Ms Baillie will be well aware that Scottish Water payment levels are some of the lowest in the United Kingdom because of the way in which the organisation operates.

It is wrong for Ms Baillie to portray the cash in hand with which Scottish Water operates as spare money that sits in a bank account. That money is substantially allocated to projects in order to meet Scottish Water’s net zero targets, improve services overall and deal with emergencies.

The third thing that Ms Baillie chooses to ignore is that our substantial water rates reduction scheme discount was extended to 35 per cent from the 25 per cent that was in place previously, which means that almost half a million homes benefit from the scheme—I think that some 460,000 homes benefit, of which 370,000 will pay less in water rates in this financial year.

I assure Ms Baillie that we will continue to ensure that there is the right capital investment in Scottish Water, while making rates affordable for Scottish households.

Unlike the situation elsewhere in the UK, Scottish Water is publicly owned. The Scottish Government continues to use its limited budget and constrained powers to cushion the impact of UK Government policies, which are at the heart of the cost of living crisis.

My understanding is that the water charges reduction scheme discount has increased from 25 to 35 per cent. The scheme targets support to households with the lowest income, which is clearly a key priority during the cost of living crisis.

Can I have a question please, Ms Don?

How many households does the Scottish Government estimate are being helped through that initiative?

We have extended the water rates discount scheme, which aligns with the council tax reduction scheme. Overall, about 460,000 homes will benefit from the scheme. As a result of an extension of the scheme by Scottish Water and the Scottish Government, some 370,000 homes—those households that have a full council tax reduction discount—will pay less this year than they did in 2020-21, and a further 130,000 households that benefit from some level of council tax reduction will have enhanced reductions in their water charges.

That is how we have sought to ensure that the support targets households that are the most vulnerable financially. The scheme, alongside the other discount measures to support customers, costs us in the region of £182 million each year.

Question 2 is from Alex Cole-Hamilton, who joins us remotely.

---

Sewage Discharge

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to address the discharge of sewage into rivers, lochs and waterways. (S6O-01493)

In a statement to Parliament in December 2021, I set out how, backed by more than £600 million, Scottish Water had upgraded 104 waste-water treatment works and 279 storm overflows since 2010, and how that had taken us to a figure of 66 per cent in relation to good water quality in Scotland, compared with only 16 per cent in England.

I went on to confirm that Scottish Water, backed by another half a billion pounds, would undertake another suite of works in the 2021 to 2026 regulatory period. The work focuses on improving remaining waste-water treatment works and 26 priority storm overflows, and on developing solutions for the others.

Scottish Water intends to publish its first progress report on its “Improving Urban Waters—Route Map” by 21 December, which will be the first anniversary of my statement to Parliament that set out the route map.

In my members’ business debate last week, at which the minister was present, I highlighted the issue of raw sewage, sanitary towels and wet wipes being routinely discharged into Scotland’s waterways. We know that that happened at least 12,000 times in 2020. However, as Scottish Water monitored only 3 per cent of releases or spills, the actual figure is likely to be exponentially higher.

It is even happening at 49 of the 87 designated bathing waters, including Loch Leven, which has four layers of environmental protection. When I raised the issue with the minister last week, she said that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency had

“‘found no evidence of sewage debris or pollution in the’ water course before it entered Loch Leven.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2022; c 111-12.]

Would the minister be comfortable going for a swim in Loch Leven?

I would love to have the time to go for a swim in Loch Leven.

I reiterate what I said during Alex Cole-Hamilton’s members’ business debate, which is that, following the incident on 8 September, SEPA inspected the location and

“‘found no evidence of sewage debris or pollution in the’ water course before it entered Loch Leven.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2022; c 111-12.]

The discussion that he and I had during the debate was about the way in which we refer to the instances that happen and the very specific nature of what is and is not being discharged into the environment.

Alex Cole-Hamilton mentioned monitoring, which is an important point. As part of Scottish Water’s improving urban waters route map, we will design monitors for more areas and better communication with the public. We have taken a strategic decision in the past to invest in improving storm overflows, not just in monitoring the problem.

Loch Leven is a beauty spot in my constituency so, naturally, I followed with great concern Alex Cole-Hamilton’s claims following the reporting around the matter. There are figures that clearly indicate that Scotland’s water environment is classified as being in good condition and ahead of both the European average and the average south of the border. Can I ask the First Minister—sorry, I promoted her there; I meant the minister—what further work the Scottish Government will undertake to build on that and to ensure the continued protection of our water environment, including Loch Leven?

I clarify again that SEPA inspected the location and

“‘found no evidence of sewage debris or pollution in the’ water course before it entered Loch Leven”,

because there was no discharge of untreated raw sewage from Kinross sewage works into the adjacent water course.

On improving our water environment, our river basin management plans, which we published on 21 December, set out for each of the four key water environment themes how, by 2027, we will improve water quality from 87 to 92 per cent good, water quantity from 90 to 96 per cent good, fish migration from 88 to 99 per cent good and physical condition from 90 to 92 per cent good. Despite the overall picture in Scotland being very good, we are not complacent and are driving further improvements.

In last week’s debate, I made the point that, as only 10 per cent of sewage overflows are monitored in Scotland, it is likely that the data that is gathered underrepresents the problem, as Alex Cole-Hamilton has said. That makes the minister’s comparisons with England, where 80 per cent of sewage overflows are monitored, a completely false equivalence. Will the minister, having reflected on the debate, now look to increase monitoring to the 80 per cent level that we see elsewhere?

I have already confirmed that we have in place plans to improve monitoring as part of the overall picture of improving the situation. I do not need to reflect on the exchange during the debate, because my response now is exactly the same as it was then: the 66 per cent figure in relation to good water quality is not based on the monitoring of combined sewer overflows or the sewage system in general. It is based on the four constituent parts of a good water environment, which, as I have mentioned, are water quality, water quantity, fish migration and physical condition. All those factors together, not monitoring sewage overflows, create the 66 per cent figure.

Loch Leven is one of Scotland’s best wild swimming spots, but we are seeing unacceptable discharges and environmental quality. Down the road in Kinghorn, huge improvements in water quality have resulted from the beach being designated as a bathing water area. What consideration has been given to establishing Loch Leven and other freshwater sites in Scotland as bathing water areas?

I have rehearsed one or two of the points about Loch Leven, so I will not go over them again. Bathing water areas are designated by Scottish ministers for areas where they expect a large number of people to bathe, having regard to past trends, the infrastructure or facilities that are provided and other measures to promote bathing. Any organisation or individual can submit for consideration a bathing water area designation form, which is available on SEPA’s website. In Scotland, we currently have three inland freshwater bathing water areas, which are at Luss on Loch Lomond, Loch Morlich near Aviemore and Dores on Loch Ness.

---

Active Travel (Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Government what investment is being made in safe active travel routes in the Stirling area, including any missing links in the national cycle network at Manor Powis and between Doune and Callander. (S6O-01494)

The Government is investing up to £9.9 million in active travel routes in the Stirling area through the places for everyone programme and investment in the national cycle network. Projects at Manor Powis and between Doune and Callander have committed funding totalling £170,000. Additionally, in the current financial year, more than £600,000 has been awarded directly to Stirling Council through the cycling, walking and safer routes grant.

My constituent Christina Mackenzie recently suffered significant injuries while cycling near Kippen. Although active travel routes are welcome, there are still issues around awareness of cyclists. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to educate people on safe use of roads for all users?

I read about the incident that affected Ms Mackenzie. First and foremost, I extend to her my good wishes for a speedy recovery and a return to record-breaking ways.

I make it very clear that involvement in a hit-and-run incident such as the one that affected Ms Mackenzie is a serious offence. It is in all road users’ interests that those responsible are held to account for that crime and that they face the consequences of their actions.

Road Safety Scotland has developed a significant number of social marketing campaigns to address those behaviours that cause the most harm on our roads. We also invest £400,000 a year in the give me cycle space campaign, which raises awareness among drivers of the need to give at least 1.5m when overtaking people on bikes. The campaign, which runs on television, radio, social media and physical advertising, recorded more than 140 million impressions last year. Post-campaign analysis shows that awareness of the issues raised has increased significantly, with more than 90 per cent of respondents agreeing with the overall message.

The Government is committed to the vision and aspirations of the road safety framework to 2030. Fundamental to that is the adoption of the safe system approach. One of the five pillars of that system is safe road users.

Minister, will you please wind up your response?

Recognising that road safety is also a life skill, the Scottish Government, through Road Safety Scotland, has invested in a suite of online learning resources for young people.

Thank you, minister. We are a wee bit pressed for time.

---

Rail Workers (Pay)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is regarding the impact in Scotland of calls by rail workers for fair pay settlements. (S6O-01495)

I agree with those calls. It is unacceptable that Network Rail employees have not had a pay rise in the past two years, unlike workers at ScotRail. I have written several times to United Kingdom Government ministers to urge them to support negotiations to encourage the reaching of a settlement.

The Westminster Government’s position contrasts with ours. We managed to secure a pay settlement with the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen—ASLEF, the train drivers union—and we continue to work with ScotRail to reach an agreement with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. I encourage the RMT’s UK leadership to allow its ScotRail members the opportunity to vote on the newly enhanced offer.

Back on 21 June, the Scottish Government resilience room was assembled, the Minister for Transport wrote to the UK Government and the Deputy First Minister took to the media to denounce the UK Government. Let me quote him. He said:

“there needs to be more urgency”.

He warned the UK Government to

“get this situation fixed—and fast.”

The lack of action by the UK Government over rail strikes was, he thundered, “a dereliction of duty”, and he was right, but now, four months later, ScotRail workers have been forced to take industrial action for fair pay—they were on strike just last Saturday.

Where, now, is the Scottish Government, which owns ScotRail and is the sole shareholder in ScotRail Trains Ltd? The Scottish Government called for urgent Government action in the UK rail disputes. What about urgent Government action in the current ScotRail dispute? Is it not time that the Scottish Government got that situation fixed, and fast, showed more urgency, recognised its own serious dereliction of duty—

Mr Leonard, is that the question finished?

—and stepped up to settle this dispute?

Please respond, minister.

Where the Scottish Government is is assisting in trying to get us to a resolution with the unions and ScotRail. That is really important.

I spent some time meeting the railway unions only three weeks ago and, last week, I met ScotRail to talk about its approach to engaging and working with our trade union partners. I again put on record the difference between the approach of the Scottish Government, which is working with our trade union partners, and that adopted by the UK Government, which is bringing forward anti-trade union legislation. Only two weeks ago, it came forward with additional anti-trade union legislation in an attempt to ban legitimate trade union action, which is quite despicable, as I hope the member would agree.

Back in June, the RMT’s Mick Hogg was quoted as saying that he wanted to work with the Scottish Government, and that perhaps the UK Government should take a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s approach to union engagement.

It is important to recount that the pay offer that was put to the RMT represents a 5 per cent increase in basic pay, plus an excess revenue share premium that is worth up to £195 every four weeks if targets are exceeded. I accept that the RMT took a decision not to put that to its membership in Scotland. That is in its gift. Last week, on top of the 5 per cent that had already been offered, ScotRail proposed consolidating a technology payment into basic pay. That was worth up to £500 per member for all general grades of staff and would have been 7.4 per cent for a gateline member of staff, or 6.5 per cent for a conductor.

Minister, I must ask you to bring your answer to a close by summarising some of your points.

It is untrue and unfair to characterise the Scottish Government’s involvement in the process as lacking urgency. We have consistently engaged with trade union partners. I have undertaken much of that work myself and ScotRail continues meeting regularly with trade unions. However, it is worth saying that the wider UK dispute is no doubt playing into what we are seeing in Scotland at the moment.

ScotRail has made what I would describe as a fair and affordable offer to RMT staff. Is it not time for the union barons of the RMT to put that offer to their members and to stop holding the country to ransom?

I will not associate myself with Mr Simpson’s language, but I do think that it should be for RMT members in Scotland to have a democratic say on the offer that was put on the table.

---

European Hydrogen Week

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the outcomes of its attendance at the European hydrogen week in Brussels. (S6O-01496)

I visited Brussels last week at the start of European hydrogen week and engaged with a range of stakeholders, including the European Parliament and key hydrogen partners. That was an opportunity to showcase Scotland as a potential exporter of green hydrogen to the European Union and to highlight our extensive renewables capacity, skills base and energy experience. I also hosted a high-level round table at Scotland House in Brussels, where we discussed the importance of North Sea collaboration.

Outcomes from that visit will support the delivery of our hydrogen ambitions, particularly the realisation of Scotland’s export potential, as set out in our hydrogen action plan.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

For a number of years, I have heard, and have relayed to the Scottish Government, German interest in green hydrogen exports from Scotland. That was again emphasised to me in meetings held in Germany as part of an MSP visit during the summer.

How is the cabinet secretary ensuring that Scotland does not act merely as a supplier of renewable energy exported by international companies that are internationally owned? Can the Scottish Government assure me that it will be proactive in securing jobs, supply chains, value and benefit—which could include equity stakes and ownership—from renewable energy technologies and industry for people and communities here in Scotland?

There is huge potential for Scotland to maximise the hydrogen economy here, not only for our own domestic purposes but for export. That is why, in September, I published the hydrogen proposition, which helps to set out the scope of investment opportunities here in Scotland and the process that companies considering investing in Scotland can choose to use.

A supply chain event in September allowed us to bring together stakeholders and companies from across the country and abroad. There are more than 50 hydrogen projects in Scotland. If they all realised their ambitions, they would collectively deliver in excess of 5GW of hydrogen by 2030.

The key to that is to ensure that we are not simply a production base for hydrogen but that we are a manufacturing base for the capabilities that sit alongside that. That is why Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International have been undertaking a piece of work on electrolyser manufacturing with Scotland-based businesses and have been looking at the opportunity to attract inward investment to electrolyser manufacturing here in Scotland. I hope that we will be able to capitalise on that in the months and years ahead to ensure not only that we produce hydrogen but that we manufacture the component parts that go into that production process, particularly electrolysers.

---

Bus Drivers (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

To ask the Scottish Government what it can do to address any bus driver shortages across Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale. (S6O-01497)

I know that the shortage of bus drivers, which is more prevalent in some areas than others, is creating challenges for local communities. Short-notice cancellations affect people who have no other way to travel. I am acutely aware of how that disproportionately impacts lower-income workers—in particular, those who work unsociable hours—who are proportionately more reliant on bus travel than others are.

I have convened the bus task force to address the issues affecting the industry, which include establishing a sub-group that focuses on driver shortages. On Tuesday, I met the unions that represent the bus workforce to hear their concerns and ideas for addressing the shortages.

Whether I am speaking to representatives of Lothian Buses, the main company that serves Midlothian in my constituency, or Borders Buses, which serves the Borders, the answer to the driver shortage question is the same: Brexit. Apart from such meetings, what else can be done, under devolved Government, to remedy the impact that such shortages are having on delivery of bus services in my rural constituency?

Christine Grahame is absolutely right. There is increasingly clear evidence of just how harmful Brexit has been and will be for Scotland’s economy and communities. The current shortage of bus drivers has been exacerbated by Brexit, which has prevented people from the European Union from coming here to work freely. I discussed the issue with representatives of Lothian Buses when I visited one of its depots in Edinburgh earlier in the week.

We have repeatedly sought a formal role in determining which occupations are in shortage in the devolved nations, but unfortunately the United Kingdom Government has denied us that thus far. Bus drivers are not included in the shortage occupation list. I will shortly write to the UK Government to raise the issue again. We need the Conservatives at Westminster either to act or to hand over powers on that aspect to the Scottish Parliament to enable us to find our own solutions to the problem.

Also in the reserved competences space, fuel prices are becoming increasingly challenging for our operators. To that end, I have invited my UK counterpart to join the bus task force. She was unable to join its inaugural meeting, but I very much hope that she will be able to join the next one, which will be in December.

The shortage of drivers is hitting services in the Borders, as can be seen from the frequency of the X95 service, but so too is funding. The minister will know that the 101/102 service between Dumfries and Edinburgh through Midlothian and the Borders is under threat because the tender for that service came in 90 per cent higher than the previous contract, for the very reasons, such as fuel prices, that she has mentioned. Does she think that more or fewer services will be under threat as a result of her decision to withdraw the network support grant plus from bus companies?

I presume that the member is referring to the network support plus grant. Is that accurate?

Yes.

The member will know that that funding came to an end this month. However, in an update that I provided to Parliament during a previous session of question time, I confirmed that I was urgently seeking assurances from my officials on what more we might be able to do to support the bus industry. I very much recognise the challenges that it faces at the moment, in particular in relation to fares and driver shortages, which we have touched on.

We are already investing in the bus network. The resource spending review has provided more than £2.1 billion for bus transport over the rest of this parliamentary session, so significant funding is there. However, I recognise the challenge, which is why I remind the member that, as I said in Parliament only a matter of weeks ago, my officials are urgently looking at options in this space.

The member needs to recognise the financial challenge that has been presented to the Government, and not as a result of its own actions. We will work within the competences of the Scottish Parliament to see what more the Scottish Government might be able to deliver. I hope to be able to update Parliament further in the coming days to that end.

---

Air Quality

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve air quality on Scotland’s most polluted streets. (S6O-01498)

Compared with the rest of the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe, Scotland enjoys a high level of air quality. Air quality objectives are being met across the vast majority of Scotland, and levels of the main air pollutants have declined significantly over the past three decades. The introduction of low-emission zones in our four largest cities is a key initiative in further improving urban air quality. Modelling predicts that there will be a significant reduction in harmful vehicle emissions on some of the most polluted streets within the low-emission zones when enforcement starts, which I welcome.

With landslides alongside the A77 being dealt with by long-term temporary traffic lights, which keep vehicles stationary for long periods of time, every stationary car, lorry, motorbike, camper van and other vehicle is releasing high quantities of pollution into the atmosphere there. What plans has the Scottish Government to reduce the pollution occasioned by that stationary traffic to help to meet our net zero targets, as well as for road safety reasons?

The Minister for Transport has just informed me that she met the action task force on this very issue yesterday. If the member is content for me to do so, I will confer with my colleague after the meeting and will update him in writing.

We know that air pollution in Scotland is often worse in deprived inner-city areas, which worsens existing inequalities, local environmental quality and human health. What impact is it anticipated that the low-emission zones will have on improving air quality in those highly affected areas?

Briefly please, minister.

There is no doubt that air pollution has a negative impact on health, and the introduction of the LEZs in our four largest cities is, as I said, a key initiative in improving the situation. Air quality assessments were undertaken by the local authorities in preparation for the introduction of LEZs. The assessments predict that the LEZs will deliver a significant reduction in emissions of harmful air pollution in those four cities.

I can squeeze in question 8 if I get brief questions and, from the minister, brief and succinct answers.

I call Jenni Minto.

---

Peatland Restoration

Thank you, Presiding Officer—I will try to be brief, or I will speak quickly.

To ask the Scottish Government how peatland restoration will be measured as a component of the proposed land management plans in the forthcoming land reform bill. (S6O-01499)

The forthcoming land reform bill is in its early days; we have just closed the consultation. That consultation included a range of proposals, including on land management plans, which will help to ensure that large-scale land holdings contribute to Scotland’s net zero and nature restoration goals.

Existing schemes to support peatland restoration have monitoring and reporting requirements, and landowners who are seeking financial support can apply to NatureScot’s peatland action fund, which sets out clearly how the project’s outcomes are measured.

Peatland restoration is fundamentally about restoring the habitat to its best possible condition. That can be tied into land rights and responsibilities where the Scottish Government wants to restore a community’s relationship with the land, while also ensuring that the community has certainty about its social and economic future.

What plans does the Scottish Government have to ensure that communities that get their land get full support and technical assistance to undertake peatland restoration?

The connection between people and land is important to me, as I know that it is to the member. The Scottish Government funds NatureScot to deliver the peatland action programme across Scotland. The programme welcomes approaches from all landowners and land managers who are interested in undertaking peatland restoration on their land, whether it is private, public or community-owned land. Through its website and network of project officers, the peatland action programme offers a range of both general and bespoke guidance and advice on the peatland restoration processes, from design to delivery.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During the preceding series of questions, there was not a single Conservative question officially down to be asked. Apart from the last question, I was the only member who was not allowed to ask a supplementary to a question.

I understand that some of the questions and answers were long, but after I tried to ask a supplementary, other members got supplementaries to other questions. I would like an explanation, please.

First, I think that the member is aware that questions are randomly drawn—and not by me; they are not a matter for the chair. Secondly, the management of a question time is up to the Presiding Officer in the chair, and a number of factors are taken into account.

I assure the member that of the supplementaries that were taken, three were taken from Scottish National Party members, two from the Conservative party, one from Labour and one from the Green party. I think that one can see that that is a fair allocation. As I said, it is a matter for the Presiding Officer in the chair, and I would hope that the member would accept the authority of the chair.