Official Report 680KB pdf
14:12
River Dochart (Diesel Pollution)
To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water regarding the serious diesel pollution incident that has taken place in the River Dochart and the environmental risk to the wider River Tay system following reports that diesel spread to Loch Tay over the weekend. (S6T-02909)
The Scottish Government was advised of the incident on Friday and has received regular updates throughout the weekend. Clearly, it is a serious incident, and I thank those who responded for their very quick actions.
I am pleased to hear that Scottish Water and the health board have agreed that, as of this afternoon, all remaining restrictions on using tap water can be lifted and the water is safe to drink. I understand that the environmental situation is stabilising and that efforts to contain the pollution at source are, thankfully, proving effective. SEPA inspections suggest that the east end of Loch Tay remains clear, and no impacts have been identified in the River Tay.
The diesel spill from the Certas fuel station at Lix Toll has led to a complex multi-agency response. How will the Scottish Government support the agencies to assess and mitigate any on-going impacts of the incident on wildlife and public health in a timely manner?
SEPA, Scottish Water and Public Health Scotland have supported the multi-agency response since the incident happened. In relation to impacts on the environment, SEPA has attended incident management team and local resilience partnership meetings, which have helped to co-ordinate the complex response. SEPA is undertaking ecological surveys and wider assessments to understand the impact on wildlife, and it will continue to work with public bodies to assess and mitigate impacts of the incident on public health and the environment.
In relation to public health, Scottish Water and the health board have agreed that, as I said, all remaining restrictions on using tap water can be lifted as of this afternoon. The water is safe to drink. In line with drinking water regulations, Scottish Water will continue to check the drinking water in Killin to ensure that it meets the strict public health requirements that are in place. Once the immediate incident has been resolved, the drinking water quality regulator for Scotland will undertake an investigation into the incident, and its report will be published in due course. We will continue to work with SEPA and Scottish Water to support considerations and activities as appropriate.
The local community has expressed its gratitude for Scottish Water’s swift response, and I put on record my thanks to Scottish Water. The incident has had a huge impact on the local community, including on the operation of care homes, dentists and hospitality businesses. Can the Scottish Government outline what support is available to businesses that have been impacted?
Evelyn Tweed is absolutely right. Throughout the weekend, the residents of Killin have been impacted and have been unable to use water for the purposes for which it is there. I am very grateful to SEPA, Scottish Water and other public bodies for their very swift response to the pollution incident. However, while that has reduced the potential impacts, there have undoubtedly been challenges for the local community and businesses.
Scottish Water worked to ensure that customers had the supplies and the support that they needed, including through door-to-door bottled water deliveries. I am pleased that the remaining restrictions on using tap water have now been lifted, which will ease a lot of the impact on businesses. However, I appreciate that some businesses will need additional advice. Where that is the case, I would encourage them to contact Scottish Water’s customer support team.
Given that Police Scotland has indicated that no criminality can be established, what regulatory enforcement action is SEPA now considering under environmental protection legislation? Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether SEPA had previously inspected the site in question, when that inspection took place and whether any compliance concerns were recorded?
I will need to write to Stephen Kerr about the latter part of his question, because he is asking about things previous to the incident. I can catch up with SEPA, which can let me know whether that was the case.
I understand that SEPA is engaging with Police Scotland, and anyone who believes that a crime has been committed in this instance should report it to Police Scotland, which will be able to investigate appropriately. However, I cannot comment on live police investigations.
Over the weekend, I visited Killin, and I saw a community of people who are doing an incredible job of supporting each other. They are also very grateful for the work of Scottish Water. However, the community is angry with Certas Energy, the owner of the Lix Toll filling station, which has left that facility vulnerable and abandoned for months on end.
Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether Police Scotland has uncovered any evidence of a theft of diesel at the site, as alleged by Certas? What actions are open not only to SEPA but to other regulators in order to punish Certas and seek compensation if the company is found to be liable for this pollution incident?
Mark Ruskell will appreciate that I cannot share any detail about anything that is happening with regard to a police investigation, but SEPA is engaging with Police Scotland. If people have witnessed anything that they believe might have been illegal activity, they should, of course, contact the police. Indeed, if anyone wants to contact Scottish Water’s customer support staff about anything in relation to the whole situation, they should do so on 0800 0778 778. However, with regard to anything that they think is suspicious around the causes of the incident, it is the police they should contact.
According to news reports, SEPA confirmed that a specialist clean-up contractor was working to reduce the environmental impacts of the spill. That is the latest in a long line of outsourcing decisions taken by the environmental regulator, and it comes at a time when other public sector organisations such as Scottish Water have been criticised for outsourcing core work to contractors, whose workers are on inferior conditions and suppressed pay and pensions, which, according to the Scottish Trades Union Congress, leads to post-retirement poverty.
Does the cabinet secretary expect the public to believe that an individual private contractor can deliver that service more efficiently than the national body? If so, is that not an indictment of the Government’s record on public services?
On the substantive question.
On the substantive question about the specific incident, SEPA has undertaken a visual inspection and has been able to say that the situation is stabilised and containment at source is proving effective.
SEPA received reports of oil in the River Dochart on Thursday evening and overnight, and it worked through Friday and over the weekend to identify the source and mitigate the impacts. A specialist clean-up contractor, contracted by the garage, has been working at the site and is carrying out works to reduce the environmental impact of the spill. SEPA officers will continue to assess the progress of the specialist remediation contractor’s clean-up.
Maternity and Obstetrics Care (Damages Payments)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported disclosure that £96.2 million has been spent by NHS Scotland on damages, legal expenses and associated costs linked to maternity and obstetric care. (S6T-02910)
Patient safety in maternity services is a key priority for the Scottish Government. That is why we established a new maternity and neonatal task force and it is why the Patient Safety Commissioner is a member of that task force.
The vast majority of women and babies receive excellent care, but, when things go wrong, we expect boards to investigate fully, be honest with families and ensure that lessons are learned. My heart goes out to any woman, or any family of a woman, who has not received the high standard of maternity and obstetric care that we expect.
It is very important to note that the number or value of claims settled in any year does not directly correlate to an increase in incidents. As Mr Kerr will appreciate, I cannot comment on the figures for individual boards, but, in the interests of transparency, a clinical negligence and other risks indemnity scheme report is published annually by NHS National Services Scotland.
The latest published figures show that there has been variability in the value of obstetrics and gynaecology claims. This reflects the fact that the expenditure on negligence claims in any year is often determined by a small number of high-value claims, which vary each year.
I pay tribute to Hannah Brown at The Herald, Marion Scott at the Sunday Post, Lisa Summers at BBC Scotland’s “Disclosure” programme and whistleblowers who are speaking up for keeping this troubling issue in the public eye. The safety of mothers and babies goes to the heart of our nation. When we debated the issue in November, there was broad cross-party agreement that the concerns warranted a national investigation. The figure of £96.2 million is not just a number—it reflects trauma and loss. Instead, we have a task force that has met once, with no published remit or timetable. The Patient Safety Commissioner said:
“I worry that a taskforce that is so heavily government and NHS Scotland will be marking their own homework”
and that
“If there’s anything I’m finding, it’s that closing rank and that attitude of ‘there’s nothing to see here’”.
When will the Government order a fully independent national investigation?
I agree that it is important that any situation in maternity services is highlighted and that we find the right way to improve services. I am very strong and clear on that.
I am pleased that the Patient Safety Commissioner is an independent public advocate for patients on issues of safety, and she is a key part of the maternity and neonatal task force. We had our first meeting at the end of January; we will have another meeting this month and a further one towards the end of March. We are working through exactly what we need to do, and specific work programmes will be led by a variety of people. I reiterate that it is important to have the Patient Safety Commissioner in the task force as an independent public advocate for patients on issues of safety.
In a sense, that answer goes to the heart of the concerns that many of us have. Reports from Healthcare Improvement Scotland reveal recurring weaknesses in how health boards learn from safety incidents.
The Patient Safety Commissioner says that many expectant mothers feel ignored by the system, and we know that staff feel unsafe to raise concerns because of the past treatment of whistleblowers. What specific measures is the minister now taking to end this culture of secrecy and cover-up and ensure that health boards are held directly accountable when they fail to protect mothers and babies?
It is important to recognise that the Healthcare Improvement Scotland reviews provide clear information about areas where health boards are doing well and areas where they need to improve. The reviews are on-going, and we are working together with the health boards to ensure that they learn from them. I was at NHS Ayrshire and Arran last week, and I specifically talked to the director of midwifery to ensure that there was cross-health board sharing of information and improvement measures.
I note that Mr Kerr referred to whistleblowing. He will know from the answers to previous questions that he has asked in this area that the cabinet secretary and I feel strongly that staff whistleblowing should be recognised and that we should ensure that the concerns of staff are listened to clearly. That is exactly what was done during the Scottish Government’s listening work.
The First Minister, the cabinet secretary and I are clear that health boards should follow up on the actions that have been taken on the recommendations that were made in each of the Healthcare Improvement Scotland reviews to improve things. I am pleased that NHS Tayside has already reached the conclusion of its actions.
Briefly please, minister.
This is an on-going process to ensure that we have safe maternity services in Scotland.
As ever, I appreciate members’ interest in these important matters, but I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.
Yesterday, the Patient Safety Commissioner warned that maternity services “urgently” need to be
“redesigned to address safety concerns”.
She also warned that practical measures to ensure proper risk mitigation for rural maternity services have not been fully explored.
The maternity and neonatal task force overruled the commissioner’s ask that rural maternity care be reviewed separately. That is disappointing, because we know that rural healthcare requires a distinct approach. Why was the commissioner’s ask overruled? Will the Government give an update on its recent engagement with NHS Dumfries and Galloway regarding maternity services in rural Stranraer?
I underline to Carol Mochan that the review of rural maternity services has not been stopped or cancelled; it is one of the key areas of progress that we will make with the work of the maternity and neonatal task force. The cabinet secretary has engaged with NHS Dumfries and Galloway, and the Scottish Government has continual engagement with rural health boards.
The Parliament, with the support of the Government, agreed that there should be an independent national investigation. What has changed since the Parliament agreed to that? What is different about the task force from what the minister has done before? Is there now an independent element?
The task force is considering how we can do an independent review if that is deemed to be necessary. Willie Rennie will note from the Patient Safety Commissioner’s comments to The Herald, which have already been referenced, that she has questioned the need for such a review. She said that the important thing is that there is continual improvement, which is exactly what the Healthcare Improvement Scotland reviews of maternity services will help to achieve.
The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, the former public health minister and the former health secretary are all in the chamber. They have heard over and over about the issues in Stranraer. We have held an independent inquiry, and three independent clinicians have suggested that midwife-led births should carry on in Stranraer, but that suggestion was ignored by the health board. The task force provides yet another review of a review. When will the Government start to take action and put women’s safety first?
The Scottish Government puts women’s health and safety at the centre of the decision-making process. As I have said in previous responses to Mr Carson, the decision on Stranraer was made by NHS Dumfries and Galloway. I also represent an island and rural constituency, and I have been clear that health boards must provide the best support that is possible for women during their pregnancy journey.
ScotWind (Audit Scotland Investigation)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Audit Scotland will investigate investment arrangements at ScotWind. (S6T-02917)
ScotWind reflects significant market ambition for offshore wind in Scottish waters, delivering more than £750 million in initial option fee revenues to the public purse. Over time, ScotWind could raise several billion pounds more in rental revenues when projects become operational. These revenues give us the flexibility to invest in long-term benefits for Scotland, helping to strengthen the limited financial levers that we have under the United Kingdom Government’s fiscal framework.
The Scottish Government looks forward to engaging with Audit Scotland once the full scope of its report is confirmed.
Scotland’s renewable sector is a huge economic opportunity, contributing more than £6 billion of gross value added to our economy annually. However, surely the £755 million in revenue that was raised through the auction—which many folk believe was massively undersold at the time—should have been focused on growing the economy, meeting our net zero ambitions and creating well‑paid jobs. The whole point of the ScotWind sell-off was to create a lasting legacy, not simply to use it as a short-term cash cow to fund public services.
Given Audit Scotland’s current interest in how the money is being spent, I ask the Government: what exactly is the business money being spent on?
We do not have the full scope of Audit Scotland’s audit of ScotWind.
I will outline some of the areas in which we are investing ScotWind revenues through the budget, which the Liberal Democrats are supporting. They include a range of projects that will deliver long‑term benefits for Scotland, helping us to tackle climate change, grow the economy, create jobs and drive forward reform.
ScotWind funding for capital investment supports a range of projects that tackle climate change and support our net zero ambitions. Specific examples include supporting a just transition, including at Grangemouth, safeguarding its role as the leading industrial cluster; supporting our investment in the nature restoration fund, which has been at record levels for two years in a row; investing in interisland connectivity; investing in our heat and buildings programme; and supporting woodland creation and peatland restoration.
I do not think that people have a problem with the money going back into the Scottish budget, but the point being made—this is why Audit Scotland has clearly taken an interest—is that the money should go into the renewables sector. It should also go back into the communities that host the infrastructure. If the principle is, as we believe, that private companies that make money from generating renewable energy should give back to the communities, the same should be true of the Government, which has also made money from renewable energy.
The reality is that communities are facing huge upheaval in order to host renewables infrastructure, and community benefit must be part of the social contract with them. Places such as Shetland have some of the highest fuel poverty rates, yet they will be hosting ScotWind energy developments and have not seen a penny from the windfall. Will the Scottish Government commit to giving the communities that host Scotland’s renewables infrastructure their fair share of the revenues generated from it?
We are doing a great deal of work at the moment on how we can ensure that we capitalise on the new powers that allow us to mandate community benefits for onshore renewables. We fund the community and renewable energy scheme, which enables communities to develop their own renewables projects as well as pursue repowering opportunities. I announced a pilot a couple of months ago that would place onshore renewables on public land that is up for repowering, giving those communities first choice on whether they want to bid for the projects.
Jamie Greene raised a wider point about how, as ScotWind developments progress, we can ensure that the associated community benefits are delivered. At present, that is not rooted in individual communities and is not within their direct line of sight. That work is on-going. We want to ensure that, over time—I have mentioned the billions of pounds of revenue that are involved—Scotland as a whole benefits, with particular advantages flowing to communities, especially in relation to the just transition.
I ask for concise supplementaries, please.
Scotland continues to lag behind the UK offshore wind farms’ local content target of 60 per cent. For example, there is no conditionality for local employment in the supply chain development statements that Crown Estate Scotland requires developers to produce. Those statements require developers to set out how much they spend in Scotland, the UK, the European Union and other countries, but they do not translate those capital commitments into local job creation. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, for Scotland to meet its ambitious local content targets and deliver meaningful employment, there must be conditionality for local employment and training in the ScotWind process?
I agree with that. One of the advantages of having the Crown Estate devolved to Scotland is that we were able to put conditionality into the licence options. However, I have been told that one of the biggest gaps in local procurement is in the transmission infrastructure build-out. There are no conditions around local procurement—or even UK procurement—for the build-out of transmission infrastructure. We are seeing contracts for cabling going to companies that are based in mainland Europe instead of companies that are based in Scotland. I have also been writing to the UK Government about that. [Interruption.] I seem to be being heckled by someone.
Let us hear one another.
One thing that we need to—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the cabinet secretary.
One thing that we need to see is consistency around procurement when it comes to all the contracts that could be available to local suppliers, and by that I mean not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK. A great deal of work is happening in the energy space around transmission infrastructure, and I would like to see conditionality in that area.
However, Katy Clark has a point. If we do not see companies proving that they have local procurement, there will be questions to ask about the viability of their licences.
When anyone sells anything at an auction, the purpose, surely, is to get the best price. That is the point of an auction. Why did the Crown Estate set a cap at all? Why did it set it at £10,000 per square kilometre of the seabed? Why did it then increase that cap by 900 per cent to £100,000? Was the Scottish Government involved in that, and did it agree to set a cap in the first place? If so, why on earth did it do so? That decision has cost the taxpayer in Scotland billions of pounds in wasted, lost revenue.
Obviously, we cannot compare licences for floating offshore wind with those for fixed-bottom-type options, so it is unfair to talk about the issue in those terms, if people are doing that. Some people are looking to what England and Wales are using as their cap, but those are different developments. A great deal more capital expenditure was involved in floating offshore wind, given the more challenging conditions.
As to the detail of what discussions the Scottish Government had with the Crown Estate about a cap or otherwise, I was not a minister at the time. If there is any information on that, we will provide it to Audit Scotland as part of the audit that it is taking forward.
Is the fundamental problem here that the fiscal framework is flawed in that we do not have the flexibility to save or borrow in the way that we should have, and that is why the ScotWind money is having to be used in this way?
It is only right that when ScotWind money is used, it is used for things that benefit the people of Scotland. I hope that I have illustrated some ways in which it has been used in the current budget. As the cabinet secretary who is associated with climate action, I think that it is a good use of money to involve ScotWind licensing revenues in things that ensure that we have a just transition and improve the skills in our country that enable us to adapt to the opportunities that we have.
I agree whole-heartedly with John Mason’s central point that Scotland should be able to make all its fiscal decisions as an independent country.
That concludes topical questions.
Previous
Business MotionNext
Business Motion