Official Report 822KB pdf
Climate Action and Energy, and Transport
::Good afternoon. The next item of business is portfolio question time, and the portfolios this afternoon are climate action and energy, and transport.
Wave Energy Scotland (Funding)
::To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact that withdrawing funding for Wave Energy Scotland from March 2026 will have on Scotland’s ability to leverage investment, including through horizon Europe, and on confidence in the marine energy sector. (S6O-05571)
::We are working closely with Wave Energy Scotland, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and other partners to sustain operations in 2026-27 while alternative sources of future funding are identified. That will give WES the opportunity to explore longer-term funding solutions while enabling on-going project work to continue.
The Scottish Government has invested more than £70 million in Wave Energy Scotland since 2014, which demonstrates a clear commitment to the marine energy sector. However, as the sector moves to its next phase, the main levers to enable the commercialisation of these emerging technologies lie with the United Kingdom Government, and I urge it to take immediate action to bring down the barriers to that commercialisation.
::I do not think that we can credibly speak of a just transition while confidence in our existing oil and gas sector is eroded by policy uncertainty and while emerging technologies, including those that are supported by Wave Energy Scotland, are denied the stable investment and the time required for them to become established and scale up.
Withdrawal of the funding might force WES to withdraw from EuropeWave, which would risk project collapse, legal exposure, financial penalties and reputational damage with European Union partners. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the decision to defund WES after 11 years threatens jobs, future investment and Scotland’s international reputation and competitive advantage in marine energy?
::I very much welcome Ash Regan’s new-found enthusiasm for renewable energy.
Our support for Wave Energy Scotland is designed to give it the opportunity to transition to a more sustainable financial footing, and WES is putting plans in place and working with us on how to do that. It has not been defunded. I have agreed that the Scottish Government will provide it with business-as-usual funding for the next year, subject to its providing a credible plan, including provision for its payment obligations to the EuropeWave and Mocean Energy projects. That will give WES the opportunity to explore longer-term funding solutions while enabling the projects and programmes that it is currently supporting to continue.
::What is happening to the employees of Wave Energy Scotland? They are distressed and worried that they will be made redundant. We absolutely need to save WES. Does the cabinet secretary agree that defunding it when we possess an estimated 10 per cent of Europe’s wave potential is absolutely the wrong way to go?
::As I said, we have put £70 million into Wave Energy Scotland since 2014. The obligations to other companies that it has put in place as a result of the grant funding that we have given it are a matter for WES.
On Sarah Boyack’s main point, which was about those who work for Wave Energy Scotland, that is why I am working with it and why we are funding it for the next year. There are other funders out there, including Great British Energy, which I have written to, because it is supposed to support nascent technologies, too. I am helping and reaching out to other funders. I am also looking at other ways in which WES can be supported in kind in the future to allow it to have more diverse funding. However, as Sarah Boyack will appreciate, the Scottish Government has faced a very difficult fiscal landscape this year.
::How many jobs will be lost throughout Scotland, in both the short term and the long term, as a result of the withdrawal of funding for Wave Energy Scotland from March 2026?
::As I have said, support for WES will be in place for the next year. I believe that 10 people work for WES, and we are looking to secure their jobs by helping it to source alternative funding to keep it as a going concern.
::In a statement to the press, the Scottish Government said that it is
“working closely with Wave Energy Scotland, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and other partners to sustain operations while future alternative sources of funding are identified.”
However, workers at Wave Energy Scotland have been unable to secure a meeting with the cabinet secretary to highlight their concerns about the withdrawal of funding, despite attempting to do so three times.
::Question.
::Will the cabinet secretary meet workers and their union—the Public and Commercial Services Union—to hear their concerns?
::My officials are having almost daily discussions on how WES can be best supported in the future. I am well aware of the concerns and of the very difficult decisions that I had to make as part of the budget process. I am looking at ways to secure money to help WES during the next year, and, with the help of my officials, I am considering how we can secure money from other funding sources in the future. WES should be a going concern and should be helped to secure funding, but, given the strained fiscal environment, sadly, we cannot commit to reliance on Scottish Government money year after year.
Local Transport Franchising(Strathclyde Partnership for Transport)
::) To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport regarding its plans to deliver a franchising framework assessment to support the potential introduction of local franchising, as required under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. (S6O-05572)
::Strathclyde Partnership for Transport has commenced work on its franchising proposals to enhance bus provision in the wider Strathclyde area. My officials remain in close contact with SPT on that work. Most recently, they met on 26 January to discuss SPT’s feedback on the draft franchising guidance, which will inform the development of SPT’s franchising framework and assessment.
As part of the process, SPT is expected to undertake early engagement on its proposals with various stakeholders, such as local authorities and operators, including those in Mr Doris’s constituency.
::I welcome SPT progressing plans for bus franchising, which I support. There will be a phased delivery of the franchising framework assessment, with a full business case anticipated for 2030, so we have time. A robust business case is crucial, but, whatever form that takes, substantial additional investment will be required. Given that there is likely to be a need for a strong partnership funding model if we are to deliver on bus franchising, will the Scottish Government continue its dialogue with SPT on potential funding models?
::Bob Doris is right that it is a partnership arrangement, so my officials will remain in close contact with SPT as it proceeds with the franchising process.
In a climate of increasing fiscal pressure, it is important that the business case for improving bus services is made robustly and in an evidenced way. That will support future considerations and decision making on funding, including the provision of funding in future years.
I am pleased that, as part of the Scottish budget, we are investing £4 million to support local transport authorities to build business cases for bus improvement through franchising. We will develop appropriate governance arrangements and details on administering the fund in consultation with stakeholders, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and regional transport partnerships such as SPT.
::It seems incredible that Scotland’s Highlands and Islands region, which has a population of fewer than half a million people, has been awarded £10 million for a flat fare trial, which has already been tested for years in England with great success, while SPT, which covers a population of more than 2 million people, now has to compete with other regional transport authorities for a pot of just £4 million to support the development of a business case for bus franchising. That is despite the fact that SPT has clearly stated that it will need between £6 million and £6.5 million to follow the complex development processes that are set out in the 2019 act. That is not good enough.
Does the minister agree that bus franchising in greater Glasgow has been delayed for far too long, and will he promise to commit the full £6.5 million that SPT has said it needs to develop the business case? It should have been happening six years ago.
::Yet again, what we hear from Mr Sweeney is that everything is bad. No, it is not. We have given powers to local authorities, and we have put in place funding to allow people to make a business case.
It is absolutely appalling for a Labour politician to slight people in the Highlands and Islands by suggesting that a bus project in their community is not warranted.
SPT and the Scottish Government are working together to develop bus franchising proposals, and we will continue to do so.
Energy Infrastructure(Impact on the Natural Environment)
::To ask the Scottish Government how people who are concerned with the impact on the natural environment of energy infrastructure can make their concerns known. (S6O-05573)
::The public have opportunities to raise concerns during the development of policies and plans that set national or local priorities for energy infrastructure and the natural environment. Our planning and consenting systems ensure that local communities can have their voices heard on potential developments.
In addition, I have tasked officials with taking forward plans to establish a forum to hear directly from communities on issues that matter to them across the energy landscape. The Scottish Government is committed to protecting our natural environment and achieving our net zero targets through careful, balanced decision making.
::My inbox is flooded with emails from constituents raising concerns about the lack of transparency during the consultation process for energy projects, with little to no consideration given to the needs of local residents. That situation has only been exacerbated by the decision to remove the right to object to the energy consents unit by email. I am informed by constituents that there are several issues with the new portal, which is making it harder for elderly residents, in particular, to make their voices heard.
Will the cabinet secretary commit to improving transparency in the consenting process, and will she guarantee that, in the future, energy projects will proceed only with the express consent of local communities?
::I would be very interested to get direct feedback on the specific issues that Sharon Dowey raised about individuals having difficulty with the portal, because, if there is a technical or accessibility issue with it, I imagine that that can be fixed. The portal, which is quite new, is there to make it easier for people to put forward their opinions—indeed, they can submit up to 20 pages of material.
We have also made it easier for communities to participate in planning and consenting systems. In the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the United Kingdom Government has afforded the Scottish ministers new powers to make regulations that mandate developers to engage with local communities and stakeholders at the pre-application stage for large-scale energy proposals. The national planning hub has provided additional grant funding to Planning Aid Scotland for training on renewable energy community engagement and place-based planning.
::Moving towards net zero, electrification and the upgrading of energy infrastructure are essential. Can the cabinet secretary say any more about the Scottish Government’s work to strike that balance for communities?
::As I said, we have put in place a number of things as a result of having more powers associated with us. Just this morning, I had a meeting on the refresh of the good practice principles. We are refreshing the principles, which are seen as leading in the UK and, indeed, in Europe, particularly in relation to community benefit and engagement.
However, the principles are not mandatory. I am pleased that the current UK Government is working with me on a consultation to make a lot of the principles mandatory; the previous UK Government was not interested in doing so.
A96 (Inverness to Aberdeen)
::To ask the Scottish Government when the transport secretary, acting in her ministerial capacity, last travelled on the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen. (S6O-05574)
::Ministerial journeys are published quarterly in the proactive release. Routes taken by drivers are the most appropriate for the journey and are not captured in detail. I have travelled the A96 on many occasions, both in a ministerial and a personal capacity, and I have heard directly from those who rely on that vital route, including at the Nairn bypass event that I attended and at numerous other north and north-east engagements that I have attended in Inverness and Aberdeen. I am fully aware of the challenges and the reality of living with a trunk road such as the A96 cutting through the heart of towns such as Nairn, Elgin and Keith.
::The Nairn bypass event was almost two years ago. If that is the last time that the cabinet secretary travelled on the A96 in her ministerial capacity, it is shameful and shocking, because that road is getting worse. More people are dying, more accidents are occurring, and the entire length between Inverness and Aberdeen needs to be fully dualled.
We heard again in the answer about the Nairn bypass and other parts. We very rarely hear about Moray, although the minister mentioned Elgin and Keith. When will the Moray sections of the A96 be fully dualled, and when will the road be completed to dual standard, as was promised by the Scottish National Party?
::It is important that I reference the Nairn event, because one of the requests there was to advance the Nairn bypass as one of the early and stand-alone sections. That was done in direct response to requests that were made.
There will be funding in the budget for the ground works for Inshes to Smithton and the Nairn bypass next year. Funding will also be provided for construction on those two sections—Inshes to Smithton for 2028-29 and the Nairn bypass for 2029-30.
It is clear that the Government’s commitment is to improve the wider A96, and that commitment is unwavering. We want to see the A96 dualled, but the next steps—it is moving in the right direction—are to continue to progress improvements eastwards, including taking forward an Elgin bypass, which will include further route development and preparatory considerations. Douglas Ross will be aware that there are different views on the best approach, although work has been done to date.
The Elgin bypass is most definitely on the agenda, but we are doing things in a progressive way and when funding is available. The member will know that, after 14 years of austerity and continued fiscal challenges, securing funding for the A96 from the budget and the comprehensive spending review has been one of my achievements, on top of securing other funding for major roads, such as the A9 dualling.
::Question 5 has been withdrawn.
Public Transport Workers(Safety from Assault)
::I refer members to my voluntary register of trade union interests.
To ask the Scottish Government what action it takes to ensure that public transport workers can go to work without the fear of assault. (S6O-05576)
::The safety of public transport workers is a priority for the Scottish Government. The rail enforcement powers working group has published its report, which aims to improve safety for passengers and staff, and I recently accepted all its recommendations. We are already progressing several of those recommendations. Subject to parliamentary approval, secondary legislation will seek to increase the level of antisocial behaviour fixed penalty notices and widen the scope of offences covered to include the offence of threatening or abusive behaviour.
I recently met National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers general secretary Eddie Dempsey, who was very positive about our approach and expressed a wish to see similar progress across the United Kingdom.
Legislation to enable the suspension of access to the national concessionary travel scheme for those who behave inappropriately on buses is also advancing, supported by bus operators, who view that as an important step to improve driver and passenger safety.
I have also raised funding concerns directly with the British Transport Police, and my officials are exploring options to support greater visibility and safety of policing across Scotland’s railway.
::I thank the cabinet secretary for that comprehensive answer. Let us turn to the facts. There has been a 43 per cent annual increase in assaults on workers on Scotland’s railways. Two thirds of rail workers have experienced workplace violence, 90 per cent of them multiple times.
Securing stronger legal protections for public transport workers through the creation of a stand-alone offence is essential, but rail workers are telling me that what we also need is an end to driver-only operated trains, an end to the practice of lone working, a reversal of the cuts to staffing at ticket offices and in stations and a reversal of the cuts to British Transport Police. Will the cabinet secretary restore funding, restore staffing and back the demand of RMT’s action against assaults campaign for a stand-alone offence to be a priority for the next Scottish Government?
::Richard Leonard will know from his membership of the RMT that issues around driver-only trains particularly apply to the rest of the UK and that we have a policy in place with ScotRail.
On the funding of British Transport Police, the member is best to direct his attention to the UK Labour Government and, as I have done, to the British Transport Police board, whose decisions have not been positive for Scotland. They are the ones who have closed the offices, and, along with my colleagues and the rail operators, I am trying to see what we can do to rectify what I think is the wrong decision.
Rail safety teams are expanding, as is the use of body-worn cameras. The 11 measures recommended by the working group, including exploring the potential for primary legislation to create a railway banning order, the work on antisocial behaviour orders and the work on fixed-penalty notices will provide greater protection. However, I agree with the member that the central issue is that the public must not treat our public sector workers—including our railway workers, as he has set out—in a way that causes them harm, either through assault or through criminal behaviour. We need British Transport Police to take action, and we need proper funding.
::Figures that were released last year revealed that there were up to nine incidents of antisocial behaviour on Lothian Buses in Edinburgh a day, with smashed windows and assaults on drivers the most predominant incidents.
In addition to the suspension of concessionary bus travel, which the cabinet secretary mentioned in her original response, can you outline how you and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs are working with Police Scotland and the bus companies to ensure that such incidents are quickly responded to and that offenders feel the full force of the law?
::Members should speak through the chair.
::The member will appreciate the difference between antisocial behaviour and criminal behaviour. Those are operational matters for the police, who work closely with our bus companies. I know that the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity also engages on the wider issue.
Bus operators can operate conditions of carriage. We already operate the travel safe initiative in our train stations, and there is interest in whether that could be applied to buses or bus stations. Buses are set up differently, on a deregulated basis, which means that the approach needs to be more co-operative, particularly with the bus companies. However, if there is criminal behaviour, that needs to involve the police.
Wull Muir Wind Farm(Court of Session Ruling)
::To ask the Scottish Government how the recent Court of Session ruling on the Wull Muir scheme in the Borders will impact on its energy policy and strategy. (S6O-05577)
::The Scottish Government notes the opinion of the Court of Session, which was delivered on 17 February. It would not be appropriate to comment further, as it is a live case and could be subject to further legal proceedings.
::I note my entry in the members’ register of interests regarding renewables.
It has not been a good week for the cabinet secretary, who has called people who do not want their communities destroyed by pylons “far right” and has deliberately misled constituents by trying to blame Westminster when she has confirmed in writing to me that the final decision lies with the Scottish Government. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that it is misleading for developers to exclude grid connection details and associated infrastructure when making applications? Will she support a moratorium until honesty is restored in the consenting process and the Scottish National Party’s overdue energy strategy reflects that?
::This is the second time that a Conservative MSP has made misleading comments about my article in The National this week, in which I was responding to the anti-net zero rhetoric that has been weaponised. Indeed, I was referring to Reform UK, which said that it would dismantle the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Frankly, it is desperate for the Tories to misrepresent my words and claim that they refer to constituents who have legitimate concerns about the siting of developments, which I completely and utterly understand.
On the ways in which constituents can get in touch about energy developments, as I said in my previous answers, we are trying to make it easier for people to get in touch and put forward their views. Training is available on that. I have mentioned the work of the planning hub and the new powers that are available to us through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. We are doing all that we can, but developers are best placed to engage with communities, as they should be respecting the views of communities when they put their plans forward.
::Gillian Martin attended the first quarter of the rural Scotland convention on major energy infrastructure on Tuesday, so she will know that communities are concerned that the SNP is not listening to their concerns about the energy industrialisation of communities across Scotland. Can the Government tell us how community participation will be strengthened while it simultaneously removes the automatic trigger for a local public inquiry?
::There has been no removal of a public inquiry option; that has not been relayed by the Government at all. I have outlined the new powers that have been given to the Government in order to strengthen community engagement. I am keen to strengthen good-practice principles around engagement and community benefits, so that communities can have more say and so that more communities can benefit from the revenues that come from energy projects.
I listen to the views of communities all the time. In the energy consents unit, all statutory consultees can raise their opinions, and anyone can raise any opinions on any development. I go back to my initial point, which is that it is incumbent on developers to engage with communities early and meaningfully. That is the best way for them to introduce plans for consent that are reflective of the views of communities.
::Parliamentary business meant that the minister could spend only 30 minutes with rural campaigners in Parliament this week, but is she aware that the south of Scotland convention will potentially be hosting two meetings in April, one most likely in Moffat? I extend an invitation to her to attend a meeting and speak to those community representatives, and I will issue a personal invitation to that effect.
::Those meetings will be held during the purdah period, I believe. This week, I met the convention of community councils, and we are establishing a forum for communities across Scotland to put forward their views on reforms that can take place.
::Question 8 has had to be withdrawn, which means that we have concluded portfolio business. There will be a brief pause to allow front-bench members to change over.