Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, February 9, 2023

Official Report 1064KB pdf

---

Portfolio Question Time

---

Net Zero, Energy and Transport

The next item of business is portfolio questions on net zero, energy and transport. Question 1 was not lodged.

---

Recycling Facilities (Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to help modernise recycling facilities in Glasgow. (S6O-01885)

I recently awarded Glasgow City Council more than £21 million from the recycling improvement fund to improve recycling in the city. The investment will support the introduction of a new twin-stream kerbside service for the separate collection of recyclable materials, making it easier for households to recycle and improving the quality and quantity of recycling. The council’s investment in a new material recovery facility will also mean that more materials will be reprocessed rather than thrown away.

I thank the minister for her response and welcome it. It would also be helpful if the minister would outline what other steps the Scottish Government is taking to improve recycling across the country, as it will be an essential tool in the fight against the climate crisis.

The recycling improvement fund is one important part of our overall efforts to improve recycling. It is already making a big impact across Scotland, with 17 councils benefiting from an award. We will soon publish a circular economy bill for the Parliament to scrutinise, as well as the final version of our waste route map. Together, those will support and empower local authorities to drive forward the modernisation and improvement of recycling facilities across Scotland and to cut the overall amount of waste that is produced through, for example, incentivising reuse over disposal products. That will help to cut emissions, tackling the climate emergency, and it will mean that everyone benefits from less litter and better public services.

Although efforts to modernise recycling facilities across Scotland are welcome, there are some items, such as disposable vapes, that simply should not be clogging up our waste management systems in the first place. The Scottish Government has announced a review into those items, which is welcome, but we cannot afford to wait for action. Does the minister support the proposal in Dundee for a pilot ban of disposable vapes to help to inform national policy?

That is a bit wide of the question, which concerns modernising recycling facilities in Glasgow.

---

West Coast Main Line (Network Rail Discussions)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has held with Network Rail regarding passenger services on the west coast main line, including services calling at Lockerbie. (S6O-01886)

Transport Scotland has regular meetings with Network Rail and train operating companies regarding passenger services at railway stations on the west coast main line in Scotland.

Lockerbie services are provided by TransPennine Express and Avanti West Coast, which are train operating companies that are specified and funded by the United Kingdom Government. I discussed TransPennine services when I met the UK Government rail minister recently. TransPennine services at Lockerbie have been affected by an unacceptable level of cancellation and delay, which has been compounded by industrial action.

The TransPennine service at Lockerbie is in a complete fankle. Trains are consistently cancelled or delayed with no notice, no replacement bus and no alternative options. That has a major impact on my constituents who rely on the service to travel to the central belt and south of the border. Currently, only 43 per cent of TransPennine services run on time, with CrossCountry, Avanti and LNER occasionally picking up the slack by making unplanned stops at Lockerbie. Will the minister agree to make representations to TransPennine regarding how unacceptable the situation is, and will she commit to facilitating a meeting with me and Network Rail regarding the contract for the service?

As I have previously outlined, TransPennine is a cross-border rail operator, so the contract is run and managed by the UK Government Department for Transport. It is, ultimately, a matter for the UK Government to resolve and, as I alluded to in my response to Emma Harper’s initial question, I have very recently raised her concerns with the UK Government rail minister directly. Huw Merriman acknowledged the poor performance of TransPennine, and I am advised that the DFT is working closely with it to improve performance levels.

Separately, I have written to the previous minister for rail, Kevin Foster, on the matter of cross-border performance in relation to the Avanti contract, which is managed by the DFT, too. The member may recall that Mr Foster provided Avanti with a contract extension last year, despite Avanti’s poor performance. I am happy to make the direct representation that Emma Harper has asked me for, and I will ask my officials to facilitate the meeting with Network Rail that she has requested.

The situation is worse than “a fankle”—there is nothing to get tied up or tangled. Will the minister consider a solution that is closer to home? Given that ScotRail is now in public ownership, will she take forward discussions about running a passenger service that actually calls at Lockerbie?

I recognise Mr Mundell’s frustration. We have heard similar frustration from Emma Harper about the service. However, ultimately, the service is a contract that is managed by the DFT, so I urge the UK Government to help TransPennine to resolve the issues. I raised the matter with the rail minister only a few weeks ago, but I am more than happy to make further representations. If Mr Mundell is able to persuade his colleagues down south—because, as I said, the contract is managed by the DFT—to give the necessary focus to resolving the situation, I am sure that his constituents would welcome that.

I hope that, in her representations, the minister will back my calls for TransPennine Express and Avanti West Coast to lose that franchise, which, frankly, is a failed one.

Last month, I asked the minister whether the plans to remove peak fares would cover all routes in Scotland. She said yes. Lockerbie might be a ScotRail station but, as we know, the services are provided by TransPennine and Avanti. Is the minister raising that issue in the discussions that she is having with those companies to ensure that passengers who go from one Scottish station to another, irrespective of who delivers those services, also benefit from the removal of peak fares? Passengers from Lockerbie should not be treated as second class just because, at the moment, ScotRail chooses not to run services from there.

I recognise Colin Smyth’s observations. The peak fares promotion that will be forthcoming in the coming months will apply to ScotRail services. I do not have responsibility for the services in question, which sit outwith the Scottish Government’s control. I am more than happy to raise such matters directly with the train operating companies, as I mentioned in my response to Ms Harper, and directly with the UK Government.

---

Railway Industry in Scotland (Transport Scotland Discussions)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Transport Scotland about the future of the railway industry, including its supply chain in Scotland. (S6O-01887)

I have regular discussions with my officials in Transport Scotland about a wide range of rail matters affecting the Scottish railway industry.

At the end of last year, I spoke at the Railway Industry Association conference, which considered the supply chain in the rail industry in Scotland. Last month, I met the railway unions to discuss the issue, particularly in the context of public ownership of ScotRail.

The minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport will be aware of the Caley railway works in Springburn, which was forced to close in 2019, despite being profitable, having a highly skilled workforce and being of strategic importance to Scotland’s railway infrastructure. Since that closure, ScotRail trains are routinely sent to England and Wales for maintenance, repair and overhaul, due to a lack of capacity to do that work in Scotland.

There is interest in returning the Caley works to use as a railway engineering and maintenance site, but it is likely that intervention from the Government and its agencies will be required to make that happen. Will the minister agree to meet me and representatives of the trade unions, alongside Scottish Government agencies such as Scottish Enterprise, to find a workable and viable solution that will bring long-term benefits to Scotland’s economy through the reopening of the Caley railway works?

I suspect that Paul Sweeney’s question probably cuts across the responsibilities of different ministerial portfolios and, as he will appreciate, I was not in post at the time of the closure of the Springburn works.

However, I recognise the need to encourage our having Scottish jobs in Scotland to support the rail industry, particularly as we move forward with our decarbonisation agenda. I have discussed that at length with the railway unions in recent times, and I would be more than happy to meet the member and, more broadly, other ministers who might also have responsibilities in this space to look at what more we might be able to do to sustain jobs in Scotland, as the member has asked us to do.

The Railway Industry Association, which represents the supply chain in the sector, has welcomed the publication of the high-level output specification and statement of funds available for Scotland’s railway infrastructure for control period 7.

The Scottish Government’s vision for our railway is one of an attractive, environmentally friendly mode of transport, and a wholly publicly owned, fully integrated rail network. Does the minister agree that, if Labour shares those aspirations, it is time that it backed the calls for the full devolution of rail powers, to bring track and train together and ensure that Scotland has the levers that it needs to create a sustainable rail service in the future?

Yes, I do. Earlier this week, the third UK Secretary of State for Transport in my time as Minister for Transport presented a vision for the railways of Britain that sits fundamentally at odds with the approach that we have taken in Scotland. Mark Harper wants to use more private sector investment in our railways, whereas we want there to be less private sector investment in our railways. That is why, last April, we took ScotRail into public ownership.

It is worth saying that the Scottish Government has consistently presented a clear case for the full devolution of rail powers. The Conservative UK Government’s plans for rail will not deliver that. Public ownership of ScotRail means that our railway should work for the people who own it, not for shareholders, and that is exactly why powers over train and track must be fully devolved to Scotland.

The minister mentioned the UK transport secretary’s vision. We have yet to hear her vision for ScotRail. Perhaps it could include lower fares and a simpler ticketing system. Would she agree?

I did not quite catch the end of Mr Simpson’s question but, of course, Scotland has lower rail fares than other parts of the UK do. I think that, on average, rail tickets in Scotland are about 15 per cent cheaper than they are in other parts of the UK.

It is worth pointing out that we have an offer coming forward in relation to the removal of peak fares, which another member asked about. I absolutely want to drive the provision of a more accessible and affordable railway for the people of Scotland, which is what public ownership should be about. That is the vision for Scotland’s railways.

We have long been promised investment at Longannet by the rail industry. We have the right infrastructure sitting there to provide thousands of green jobs and reopen an important freight and passenger route on the back of any potential investment. Does the minister agree that regeneration at Longannet remains key to the future of Scotland’s railways and the supply chain that is based in Scotland?

Yes, I agree with the sentiment of the member’s question, and I strongly support attracting railway industry suppliers to the strategic Longannet site. At the time, I thought that it was deeply disappointing that Talgo was unsuccessful in securing the rolling stock order for high speed 2 from the UK Government. That would have allowed Talgo to quickly confirm its plans for a manufacturing facility on the site, so it was a real missed opportunity.

More broadly, my officials, working alongside Scottish Enterprise, remain available to discuss relocation opportunities with rail industry suppliers that are looking for a strategic development site, particularly in relation to Longannet.

---

Coastal Erosion (North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what steps it is taking to address coastal erosion in the North East Scotland region. (S6O-01888)

Through our dynamic coast project, we have worked closely with local authorities to help them plan for coastal adaptation, and in our programme for government 2020 we announced a new £11.7 million capital budget over four years for coastal change adaptation, which starts in 2022-23.

In the north-east, in 2023-24, Aberdeen and Angus will each receive £150,000 and Aberdeenshire will receive £206,000 for coastal change adaptation, making a total commitment of more than £500,000. In addition, the Montrose dune and beach replenishment project has also received £350,000 from our nature restoration fund.

Thank you, minister. It is really good to hear that some money is on its way. It would be good to see that actually delivered. The reality is that councils have never had the money to make multimillion-pound investments to turn the tide. Now that the revenue position has worsened, the people of Montrose are telling us that there are scant years left in the dune system and the historic golf course. A few fairways have already been lost to the sea, and there are huge implications with regard to flooding. When will the Scottish Government grasp the nettle and decide whether it will support a sand motor at Montrose?

I am absolutely aware of the serious erosion issues with the sand dunes in Montrose and the impact that that can have on residents in terms of flooding. I completely understand their concern about flooding. Equally, I understand how important the golf course itself is to the people of Montrose. I have narrated exactly how the Scottish Government is responding to that, not least through a research programme, dynamic coast, which maps risk. Working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we have agreed to assign money directly to those risks as they are identified.

Officials in Marine Scotland’s licensing team are working with the port authority to investigate whether it could be beneficial to use dredged material to shore up the situation there. Angus Council has also worked on a flood risk management plan that seeks to address erosion and flooding in a co-ordinated way. In all those ways, we are seeking to rise to the undoubted challenge of movement in our coastlines.

---

Clean Air and Net Zero (UK100 Report)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is, regarding any impact in Scotland, to the new report by UK100, which highlights the benefits of clean air and net zero approaches. (S6O-01889)

Our cleaner air for Scotland 2 strategy recognises the significant benefits of aligning approaches to address climate change and improve air quality, particularly in areas such as transport, agriculture and industrial emissions. Our strategy sets out an explicit commitment to ensure that the policies that we pursue to reduce climate change also deliver co-benefits for air quality. We have done much work in that regard, not least on our low-emission zones, and a lot of work to decarbonise public transport. It is paying off because, for the first time outside recent lockdown periods, no monitoring sites are exceeding air quality objectives.

I thank the minister for that response. In respect of CANZ, the environmental organisation UK100 has said that

“wider progress is being hampered by the government’s lack of a coherent national strategy, disjointed short-term funding and a refusal to recognise the importance of CANZ.”

It is my view that the CANZ approach aligns with much of what we are seeking to do in Scotland, but recent exchanges with Westminster demonstrate that that is not a view that the Tories share. Does the minister therefore share my concern that that is, regrettably, another example of where the UK Government’s obstinacy regarding net zero might hold Scotland back?

I absolutely agree with the sentiment of Michelle Thomson’s question. We need faster action and higher ambition from the UK Government on delivering net zero and doing so justly.

The Scottish Government has repeatedly called on the UK Government to act, and we will continue to do so. It must take the necessary actions.

Better still, we want Scotland to be an independent country with powers over our own resources so that we can tackle climate change and, at the same time, build the clean, green and prosperous economy of the future that we know that Scotland can have.

Liam Kerr, who is joining us remotely, has a supplementary question.

Strangely, Michelle Thomson failed to mention the report’s second recommendation, which mentions local authorities getting to net zero needing longer-term dedicated funding commitments to allow proper planning and implementation. A report in The Press and Journal last week showed that, as Transport Scotland no longer subsidises the repair and maintenance of the public electric vehicle charge point network in the Highland Council area, it will be cheaper to run a petrol car than it will be to run an electric car. Does the minister think that Transport Scotland is demonstrating exactly the sort of short-termist and short-sighted thinking that the report counsels against? Have similar cuts been made in any other Scottish local authorities?

I do not agree with that whatsoever. In fact, I know that our EV infrastructure coverage is among the best in the UK. I think that we have among the most coverage per head of population outside London.

The 2023-24 draft budget prioritises the Government’s commitment to a just transition to net zero, climate-resilient and biodiverse Scotland. It does that backed by, I think, some £2.2 billion of funding.

---

Deposit Return Scheme

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress towards the launch of the deposit return scheme. (S6O-01890)

Scotland’s deposit return scheme will be a major part of our efforts to reduce littering, cut emissions and build a more circular economy. It is a bold, complex and transformational scheme that is in line with the scale of the climate emergency that we face, and it will mean a significant change for everyone in Scotland.

I am pleased that industry has made significant progress towards implementation. That finding is echoed in our recent independent review.

This week, I am writing to all MSPs to provide a detailed update on progress and to highlight the additional actions taken by the Scottish Government and the scheme administrator, Circularity Scotland, to provide support for businesses to get ready for the DRS. The momentum that is under way is a testament to the efforts that are being made by businesses, Circularity Scotland and the Scottish Government to ensure that there are pragmatic approaches to launch. I will continue to engage closely with industry to ensure that the transformational scheme is a success.

I sense that, with less than six months to go, the minister is still woefully complacent about the impact of the deposit return scheme. The owner of Broughton brewery in the Scottish Borders has said that it will pose real challenges to the business. They said that the brewery competes

“with other small brewers based across the UK and the different system will leave small Scottish brewers at an economic disadvantage.”

They added:

“We will have to invest in producer fees, revised packaging and an increase in our stockholding, which impacts on our cash flow and our ability to innovate and protect jobs.”

Will the minister now act in light of the voice of small brewers by postponing the introduction of the DRS for small producers and putting in place a permanent low-volume exemption scheme, or will she push small producers to the brink and wilfully carry on regardless?

I am very aware of the concerns of small producers. We have worked closely with Circularity Scotland, and we have already published new producer fees that are lower than originally planned for the scheme and that reduce the overall cost. Day 1 payments for producers using United Kingdom-wide barcodes will be reduced by two thirds, from 2.4 months of fees to three weeks of fees. There will be no registration fee for producers with an annual turnover of less than £85,000 and for producers that only fill and sell single-use drink containers at the point of sale. For all other producers, the registration fee will be £365.

I am keen for the scheme to work properly for small producers, and I will meet small producers tomorrow morning to find out what more we can do to support them to fully participate in it.

I share Craig Hoy’s concerns about Broughton brewery, which is in my constituency.

Dryden Aqua, which is a very profitable company and is also in my constituency, recycles glass for innovative water filtration systems. The proposed DRS, as it stands, puts that business at risk. Will the minister meet that company to discuss its concerns?

Including glass in our scheme will save more than 1.2 megatonnes of CO₂ over 25 years and will significantly increase the quantity and quality of glass recyclate. Like similar schemes around the world, our scheme in Scotland is being delivered and funded by industry, so the materials that are generated by the scheme, and their disposition, are matters for industry—that is, for Circularity Scotland—not the Scottish Government.

However—[Interruption.]

Excuse me, could we have less sedentary chat?

I am always happy and interested to meet companies that work in my portfolio area, and I will contact Christine Grahame to make arrangements.

I feel a real need to stand up and plead with the minister to listen not only to members of her own party who are making the case for businesses but to businesses themselves.

As, I am sure, many other members are, I am deluged with correspondence from producers, retailers and the hospitality sector saying that they fear the scheme. They want the details, but they fear the calamitous impact that the scheme will have on their businesses. They fear going out of business. Will the minister therefore, please, listen to her colleagues and to people in the industry, who know what they are talking about, and will she assure us that she is open to change, so that the calamity that they fear can be averted?

I am very aware of the concerns of industry, and I regularly meet large retailers, small retailers, large producers and small producers. I am particularly aware of the concerns of small producers. As I have said, I plan to meet them again tomorrow to find out what else we can do.

Through listening to the concerns of industry, we have adapted and are adapting the scheme. The extension to the go-live date to this year, which was announced last December, gave industry additional time to prepare. On 27 January, Circularity Scotland announced an increase in the return handling fees for retailers in order to support them to collect the materials. I have already listed the reduced fees for producers to help them to participate in the scheme. I have also set out that I am meeting producers to find out what else we can do to help them to participate fully in the scheme. I am keen for all Scottish businesses that are affected to be able to participate successfully in the scheme.

At First Minister’s question time, we heard about the 600 producers who have raised concerns. Some of them are from my Orkney Islands constituency, where the logistical challenges of the DRS are even greater. Over the past year, I have worked with many local stakeholders to try to get answers to their questions about how the scheme will work in practice. Now that it is clear that those questions cannot be answered in the timeframe that has been set, I urge the minister to think about pausing the scheme in order to avoid damaging businesses, public confidence and even the case for the DRS itself.

The scheme in Scotland will go live on 16 August this year. The extension to the go-live date, which was put back to this year, was announced in December 2021 in order to give industry more time to prepare.

As with similar successful schemes around the world, our scheme is being delivered and funded by industry. Those organisational matters are for industry to resolve. I am working very hard to facilitate the ability of industry to have the answers to that organisational blueprint, so that we can move forward with a successful scheme. Much progress has been made to deliver the scheme, and we are building momentum towards the go-live date of 16 August.

---

Energy Affordability (Support)

To ask the Scottish Government, in relation to support that it can provide for households in Scotland, what recent discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding energy affordability. (S6O-01891)

We have urged the UK Government to ensure that the interests of Scottish consumers are represented in the decision making around future support with energy costs, and we have called repeatedly for support to be targeted towards those who need it most.

Last year, the First Minister chaired two energy summits, which were attended by energy suppliers, advice agencies and third sector representatives. We continue to build on those and subsequent discussions with stakeholders and to identify further actions that we can take, within our devolved powers, to mitigate the impacts of high energy costs on Scottish consumers.

It has been reported in the past week that, while most people are struggling to heat their homes, big energy companies are making record profits. Given that energy pricing is reserved, will the cabinet secretary urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tax share buy-backs, expand the windfall tax and scrap plans to raise the energy bill cap by a further £500 in April?

In relation to the member’s final point, yes, I would ask the chancellor to revisit the price cap, which is due to be increased in the next couple of months.

Given that consumers face hikes in their energy costs, it is galling to households right across the country to see major energy providers making record profits. I cannot think of a better example of the sheer failure of the UK Government to regulate and manage our energy sector than the example that we have seen in the past week. It is a clear example of systemic failure by successive UK Governments to manage the energy markets in a way that reflects the needs of consumers.

The situation is made all the worse for consumers here in Scotland given that our energy costs are greater than those in any other part of the UK. As a result of that systemic failure by the present UK Government on the issue, even more households in Scotland find themselves in fuel poverty or extreme fuel poverty. That is why the UK Government should take urgent action to extend the windfall tax on companies that are making record profits off the back of households throughout the country that face extensive price increases as a result of Westminster Government failure over many years.

That concludes portfolio question time.