Net Zero and Energy, and Transport
Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions on net zero and energy, and transport.
Public Transport (Rural Communities)
To ask the Scottish Government what support it will provide to ensure that rural communities have access to public transport. (S6O-04792)
The Scottish Government fully recognises the vital role that transport plays in our rural communities. We spend more than £2 billion annually to support public transport across Scotland. That includes direct support to operators and local authorities to help to extend the transport network, alongside initiatives to make transport more affordable for passengers, such as the national concessionary travel schemes.
We continue to support the provision of services in rural areas through the network support grant, the bus powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and funding for the Community Transport Association Scotland, which supports local community transport operators.
Given the essential role that buses play in rural communities such as Galloway and West Dumfries, what urgent steps will the minister take to address the collapse of services and potential job losses following the withdrawal of Stagecoach? Current funding models such as the network support grant and the concessionary fare schemes fail to meet the unique needs of rural authorities. Will the minister consider reforming those models, including by directly funding bodies such as the South West of Scotland Transport Partnership, to better support local transport and unlock wider social and economic benefits?
I absolutely accept the point that Finlay Carson has made, but the local authority is the body that is responsible for providing bus services in his area. I take on board his point about the job losses that there could well be. My hope is that provision will be made available as the process between Stagecoach and Dumfries and Galloway Council goes on. It is for local authorities to decide how they spend their funding, but the Scottish Government spends about £2 billion a year on supporting transport.
The minister will be aware that the MV Lord of the Isles was out of service again this week, leaving the people of South Uist without any ferry service—again. The Scottish Government announced a resilience fund. Will the people of South Uist, who are bearing costs for this week’s cancellation, be able to apply for compensation from that fund?
As Rhoda Grant has pointed out, there is a resilience fund, which is still in the process of being developed. As soon as a decision is made on how funding will be distributed, either the Cabinet Secretary for Transport or I will let her know.
Reflecting the concerns that Finlay Carson raised, I advise the minister that Orkney Disability Forum is partnering with the local council to pilot a new service in South Ronaldsay, where no public transport currently exists. A small electric vehicle that can hold fewer than nine passengers has been bought, which can operate on a section 19 permit but not as a scheduled service on a section 22 permit. As a result, it is ineligible for the network support grant and passengers cannot use concessionary cards. Will the minister take action to ensure that regulations do not prevent important initiatives that are tailored to meet the specific transport needs of rural and island communities from accessing the funding that they need?
The regulations that Liam McArthur has talked about are outwith the powers of the Scottish Government, but, if he wants to give me the details, I am more than happy to look at the issue to see whether there is anything else that we can advise.
In my Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley constituency, reliable rural bus services are vital. Does the minister agree that it is wholly regrettable that the privately run business Stagecoach, on which my constituents rely, has failed to broker a deal with its employees over the strike period to ensure not only that they receive equitable pay in accordance with fair work principles but that such fragile transportation links are resumed?
Many constituents across rural Ayrshire, who, in the main, support the calls of the drivers, are now cut off from accessing health appointments, attending work and accessing food—the basics that we all take for granted. That simply cannot continue, so I ask the Scottish Government to work with local areas urgently to create sustainable bus services.
I absolutely sympathise with Elena Whitham, who will be aware that Scottish ministers simply cannot intervene directly in such matters. We absolutely recognise the critical importance of bus services, particularly in more rural areas, which—as she rightly points out—provide a lifeline service for access to healthcare, education and work, as well as helping with social inclusion. I appreciate the disruption that has been caused and sympathise with all the communities that are affected by the process. I encourage Stagecoach and the unions to work together to resolve the issue as soon as possible and to come to a fair and sustainable agreement that not only supports the employees but ensures the long-term viability of those important services in the area.
As SWestrans and Dumfries and Galloway Council have responsibility for local bus services, the scope for the Government to directly intervene is clearly limited, particularly given that a tender process is on-going. However, will the Scottish Government consider providing local transport authorities with technical and professional support to equip them with the capacity to ensure that areas such as Dumfries and Galloway have a vibrant and sustainable bus network, regardless of the commercial decisions that are taken elsewhere?
Emma Harper is absolutely right to point out that the Scottish Government cannot directly intervene, but my officials in Transport Scotland are there to give the technical support that the local authority might need in order to progress things.
Question 2 has been withdrawn.
Seafield Waste Water Treatment Works (Investment)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on planned capital investment in the Seafield waste water treatment works, including the no regrets funding commitment and what consideration is being given to further investment after the private finance initiative contract ends, to meet the needs of population growth, climate change and the Edinburgh waterfront development. (S6O-04794)
The Seafield waste water treatment works involves a PFI contract that was awarded in 1999, and contractual obligations for its delivery and operations lie with the PFI company until 2029. The contract is funded by Scottish Water.
Some £34 million has been invested in Seafield since 2011 and, in 2020, Scottish Water committed a further £10 million to provide additional sludge storage capacity to improve odour performance. Scottish Water remains committed to delivering improvements for customers and will keep community representatives updated through the Seafield stakeholder group. Scottish Water is at an early stage in developing its plans to ensure a smooth transition of operational responsibility once the PFI contract expires.
For many years, people in the north-east of Edinburgh have, unfortunately, experienced unpleasant odours at times. Although the situation is much better than it was in the past, that still happens. When I took the chair of the stakeholder group in 2016, I was determined to make improvements and deliver the necessary investment.
It is unfortunate that the no regrets funding investment has been delayed due to wider economic circumstances. However, it is reassuring to hear the minister clarify that the Government and Scottish Water are committed to that no regrets investment and that planning is already under way to meet the needs of our growing city and to ensure that the plant becomes a state-of-the-art 21st century facility once the PFI contract ends. I would be grateful if the minister could confirm that, in the months and years ahead, ministers will continue to engage with me, as the local MSP and chair of the stakeholder group, along with community organisations.
First, I recognise the efforts that Ben Macpherson has made as the constituency MSP in raising the issue with the Government and others. Scottish Water remains committed to delivering the investment through its PFI partner. I understand that the delays relate to the PFI company’s difficulty in procuring a suitable supplier in the busy United Kingdom marketplace. He will know that the PFI system was the creation not of this Government but of previous ones. I understand that Scottish Water has confirmed to the Seafield stakeholder group that the procurement strategy has been revisited accordingly. I am sure that Ben Macpherson will continue to raise those issues assiduously with future ministers.
Net Zero (Supply Chain and Skills)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent report, “Energy Transition: 41st Survey”, by the Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce, which reportedly demonstrates that the United Kingdom is losing the supply chain and skills necessary to deliver net zero. (S6O-04795)
Ensuring a just transition for Scotland’s oil and gas sector is at the heart of our green industrial strategy. Those supply chains and workers will deliver net zero and unlock growth.
We are supporting businesses, including through our £500 million 10-year just transition fund. Our investment of up to £500 million over five years in offshore wind will leverage private investment and anchor Scotland’s supply chain. A just transition depends on United Kingdom Government action across reserved areas, including providing clarity on the fiscal and regulatory regimes for oil and gas, as well as support for the Acorn carbon capture and storage project.
Aberdeen and, indeed, the rest of Scotland have the highly skilled workforce and natural resources to become the world leader in net zero, but independent experts are increasingly warning that that ambition is at risk due to UK Government energy policies. Does the minister agree that Westminster cannot continue to stand in the way of Scotland’s just transition? What is the Scottish Government doing to secure Scotland’s economic growth and thriving energy sector?
As Jackie Dunbar rightly points out, both Governments have a role in that regard. I am pleased that, even in the minutes before I got to my feet, there was again discussion in Westminster about the Acorn project and a commitment to some part of that. However, timescales and funding for the whole project need to be allocated if we are to have confidence that it will go ahead. Clearly, both Governments have a role to play and, as I have indicated, we in the Scottish Government have not been shy to play ours.
We have now been waiting more than two years for an updated energy strategy. The chamber of commerce’s survey has revealed that 90 per cent of firms believe that the absence of a Scottish Government energy strategy is damaging investor confidence. Will the minister wake up and listen to businesses in the north-east?
As I indicated, we have not been waiting for a plan to take action—important as a plan undoubtedly is. I have mentioned the £500 million investment over 10 years and the many actions that the Government is taking.
Douglas Lumsden is right to point to the real anxiety that exists about ensuring that the north-east has the economic future and just transition that it deserves. The reason why I also pointed to the UK Government is that, for instance, the policy on the energy profits levy is continually raised by the industry in the north-east as something that is making life more difficult. That is why we raise it with the UK Government.
Question 5 has been withdrawn.
Local Bus Services (Franchising Guidance)
To ask the Scottish Government when the statutory guidance for local bus services franchising will be published. (S6O-04797)
I confirm that the guidance is undergoing internal review prior to final engagement on the franchising process with key parties, including the Competition and Markets Authority and the office of the traffic commissioner for Scotland. Once that process is completed, and prior to the finalisation of the formal publication, it is my intention to share the draft guidance with the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, along with the affected parties, including local transport authorities, regional transport partnerships and operators’ representatives. The final timescales for publication will depend on the capacity of those stakeholders to consider and engage with the draft document.
I thank the minister for his response, but I am disappointed because the Government previously committed to issuing the guidance by the end of last year. Six months on from that deadline, we are still waiting, and, given the minister’s explanation this afternoon, we can expect to be waiting quite a while longer before we reach the final stage.
The length of time required for and the complexity of the overall franchising process in Scotland has been raised as a concern. In comparison with other parts of the UK, the process in Scotland is much longer and has additional requirements. Is the Scottish Government considering ways in which to speed up and simplify the process? Have lessons been learned from elsewhere, including on the potential removal of technical barriers?
I take Claire Baker’s point that there was a view to getting out the guidance sooner. We focused on getting the franchising legislation through, which has taken up considerable time. The guidance still has to go through the internal review process, and we still have to have discussions with all the stakeholders and people who will be affected by it. We will get it done and, as soon as we have done so, I will present it to the NZET Committee, and it will be there for further scrutiny.
A small island bus operator in my constituency is concerned about the potential impact of bus franchising on its business, as the uncertainties already make it more difficult to secure investment. The operator worries that the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport is not considering the impact of franchising on small island operators, with the model appearing to favour larger companies. What reassurance can the minister provide that the unique challenges of Scottish island communities and their local bus enterprises will be considered?
Franchising is not the only option that local authorities have available to them—the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 gives local authorities a number of different options to consider. If the member will provide me with the exact details of his concerns, I am more than happy to pick up the matter with him.
Research from the Get Glasgow Moving campaign suggests that there will not be a single franchised bus in the Strathclyde region until 2030. I think that that is being optimistic, actually. That will be 11 years after the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 was passed. What is the Scottish Government doing to expedite the process?
The member is well aware that the process will be long and rigorous. Claire Baker mentioned removing some of the issues that are making things difficult—I presume that that is to do with the role of the panel. The panel will be vital in ensuring that there is rigour in the franchising process. It is only right that there is a rigorous process to make sure that the franchising is done properly—that will allow us to ensure that we have a transport system that works.
Net Zero Target
To ask the Scottish Government what the implications and consequences of not achieving net zero by 2045 would be for Scotland, including the economy. (S6O-04798)
As I know that the member appreciates, net zero offers huge economic opportunities for Scotland. The changes that are needed will put money into people’s pockets, improve health and wellbeing and protect our planet for future generations. Net zero is a moral imperative and an opportunity to support future economic development.
Workers must be at the heart of a just transition. Our approach will maximise benefits of climate action and minimise impacts for workers and communities. Our next climate change plan will outline the costs and benefits of policies, supported by just transition plans, and our national adaptation plan is driving our response to climate impacts.
I concur with that answer. The consequences of not meeting net zero would drive farmers out of business, destroy the rural economy and put our food security at risk. Does the minister agree that it is common sense to meet the target of achieving net zero by 2045 and that it would be utter madness and an act of national self-harm not to attempt to do so?
I strongly concur with the member and agree with what he says about the essential nature of reaching net zero, and not only to save our planet—as if that were a small consideration—because doing so is also essential for our businesses, as the cost of adaptation to and coping with climate change will become increasingly expensive if we do not tackle the problem as we go. I very warmly concur with what the member has just said.
We know that urban and rural communities across Scotland are at risk from extreme weather and the impact of the climate emergency, with homes and businesses now at risk. What is the Scottish Government’s plan to deliver the sustainable jobs that we need locally, both to increase our resilience and to reduce emissions? I give the example of the manufacturing of renewables and again ask: when will we see the energy strategy and the just transition plan to give the certainty that developers and supply-chain businesses urgently need in order to deliver that sustainable, low-carbon economy?
As I said, some of the plans are dependent on something that is happening in another sphere—that is, on the United Kingdom Government’s interaction with the courts. We must wait for some of the information from that. However, as I indicated previously, that fact does not keep us from action. For instance, we have allocated £125 million to the economy of Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland; on top of that, we have allocated £75 million to the just transition capital fund for the north-east and Moray. As a Government, we are committed to putting in real resources and effort to ensuring that the transition is a truly just one.
Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021 (Implementation)
To ask the Scottish Government what its plans are for bringing the requisite regulations—
Ms Slater, could you please resume your seat? The question that you are reading out does not reflect the language that is in the Business Bulletin. Could someone perhaps give Ms Slater a copy of the Business Bulletin? Thank you.
Could you start again, Ms Slater, for the record?
My sincere apologies, Deputy Presiding Officer.
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details of its plans for bringing forward the requisite regulations to fully implement the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021, including the special rights and powers that the act foresees for heat network developers. (S6O-04799)
We will provide more detail on the next steps in relation to the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021 alongside the introduction of the heat in buildings bill. However, I can assure Parliament that we intend to deliver the rights and powers that are detailed in part 6 of the 2021 act, and that we are working to ensure we do that in a way that avoids duplication with Great Britain-wide authorisations so as to minimise the regulatory burden on the heat network sector in Scotland.
Will the minister give an update on the timescale for that? The issue of heat networks is a fully devolved matter, so why do we need to wait for the UK Government? The development of heat networks was legislated for in 2021, and we are still waiting for the related secondary legislation. Will the minister give us a clear timeline for when the Scottish Government intends to complete that work?
I mentioned the heat in buildings bill, which we have committed to introduce in year 5 of this session of Parliament.
With regard to the points that were made about earlier legislation, it is worth saying that we are now exploring introducing an opt-in rights and powers licence via the heat in buildings bill, which would be akin to the installation and maintenance licence that is being introduced in the rest of GB. That is because many of the provisions of part 1 of the legislation, such as those to do with financial wellbeing, will be covered by Great Britain-wide authorisation. More detail will follow when the heat in buildings bill is introduced, but I assure Lorna Slater that that will happen in this parliamentary year.
When the Greens were in Government, we saw a massive expansion in incineration capacity, which is used to power heat networks, particularly in Scandinavia. Some might say that it was a case of, “Burn, baby, burn.” What is the Scottish Government’s view on using renewables to power those heat networks, as opposed to burning stuff?
As we have seen in other parts of Europe, the helpful thing about many heat networks is the move that has been made from “burning stuff”, as the member put it, to other forms of power. My officials are working jointly with the UK Government to commission guidance that will look at the issue of waste heat. We are also looking at how to ensure that the heat in buildings bill incentivises renewably powered heat networks in the future.
Do we not need to support local authorities to work together to deliver low-carbon heat networks? Local authorities are discussing the issue now. Given that we have such a huge excess of electricity, is now not the time for the Scottish Government to step in and help them to get there?
I am not sure that I would characterise the future situation as one in which we will have a huge excess of electricity, given the electrification of the country that is taking place. However, I understand Sarah Boyack’s point about the need to ensure that different local authorities work together. We are seeking to support such work in the part of the world that she represents, and we will do that elsewhere in the country.
That concludes portfolio question time.
On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. In the portfolio question time that we have just had, the fact that two Scottish National Party members had withdrawn questions meant that other members did not have a chance to question the Government. One question was about the £80 million that the Scottish Government has committed to the Acorn project and when that would be forthcoming. Will you advise on whether anything can be done to ensure that members who put themselves forward to ask a question actually ask it?
I thank Mr Lumsden for his contribution. As a general rule, members will withdraw or not lodge questions for a number of reasons. In the instant case, it might interest Mr Lumsden to know that one of the members is not well and the other member has a special dispensation to participate in a committee meeting that is taking place at the same time as this meeting of Parliament. I hope that that assists Mr Lumsden. [Interruption.]
Excuse me, Mr Carson. Do you have something to say further to that point of order, or do you just want to mump from a sedentary position? I have stated what the position is, and I hope that that is accepted by all members in the chamber.
Previous
Fornethy Survivors