Chamber and committees

Can the cabinet secretary outline how the 2025-26 budget has already earmarked funding for support to state schools and, specifically, how the Scottish Government is supporting the recruitment of additional teachers, which is a significant issue in my constituency?

Last week, the consul of Ukraine in Scotland told the Parliament’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee that Ukraine requires

“not only peace but a just peace.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 27 February 2025; c 5.]

Does the First Minister agree with that? What would his message be on that matter?

I am always very pleased to speak in any debate on energy. As I am a north-east MSP, today’s debate on Scotland’s renewables future is no exception.

Scotland’s offshore energy industry has been a success story for over 50 years. Although we do not need to rehearse the fact that our energy mix is shifting away from oil and gas, it is worth repeating that the tax regime that is connected to Scotland’s energy industry has seen hundreds of billions of pounds of tax revenue flow to the UK Government. Scotland has done its share of heavy lifting, heating our homes and businesses and keeping the lights on, and I hope that that continues.

However, as they say, progress is impossible without change, and we are now on a different trajectory, with a unique opportunity to repurpose our energy sector through a managed just transition. As the Deputy First Minister set out last week in a debate on increasing investment in Scotland, renewable energy generation reached a record high in the first half of 2024 and Scotland’s net zero sector has grown by more than 20 per cent since 2022. Scotland’s renewable energy industry supported more than 42,000 jobs and an economic output of more than £10.1 billion in 2021, according to the Fraser of Allander Institute. The UK’s net zero industry is growing three times faster than the overall UK economy, and it generated more than £83 billion for the UK in 2024. I call that a success story.

Some of that success is visible in my Aberdeen South and North Kincardine constituency. One business with more than 40 years of deep-water experience is scaling up its testing of offshore platform technology, which is offering important opportunities for foundation manufacturing in Scotland. Another business is developing a new type of hydrogen storage vessel to support projects that require a method of moving hydrogen to end users. Currently, there is no UK or Scottish manufacturer of that type of storage vessel; such vessels are all imported.

Port of Aberdeen continues on its journey to create an international hub for offshore wind, including by further deepening the south harbour, and the brilliant Net Zero Technology Centre’s TechX clean energy accelerator programme supports unbelievably talented clean energy start-ups to continue their journey in accelerating the transition to a net zero industry.

Of course, there are challenges relating to planning, regulatory processes and financial mechanisms. That last point has been raised with me recently by several businesses that are seeking to expand and would like a clearer shared investment strategy between the Scottish and UK Governments that will provide confidence to underpin the level of investment that is required to unlock infrastructure projects. That is particularly relevant to our port infrastructure in enabling authorities, including Port of Aberdeen, to support floating offshore wind projects. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and the minister for their respective engagement on that issue.

I also welcome the cabinet secretary’s acknowledgement that the good practice principles must be improved and that community benefit must be ramped up—football shirts and pocket parks do not cut it. However, I remind Mr Lumsden that he inserted an industrial development on a treasured green space in my constituency, known as St Fittick’s park, with absolutely no consultation when he was one of the leaders of Aberdeen City Council, so we must all be genuine in our commentary on community benefit.

At last week’s meeting of the cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency, we heard concerns about zonal pricing, which is being considered by the UK Government as part of its energy pricing mechanism review. We heard that industry bodies, trade unions and investors are very concerned that the proposal will have a material impact on the scale of the renewables sector’s investment in Scotland and on our ability to drive key projects and unlock jobs in the supply chain here. I would very much welcome an update on the Scottish Government’s position on that issue in the minister’s summing-up speech.

Reducing energy bills sits at the heart of our energy thinking. SSE’s detailed briefing sets out the challenges of our antiquated and absurd electricity charging system very well. It references analysis by Scottish Renewables that an average 1GW Scottish offshore wind project would pay £38 million a year to use the electricity network, whereas an identical wind farm in the congested seas off England’s south coast would get a £7 million payment for the same service. That is utterly unbelievable, so the regime needs urgent reform.

I do not know, but I would imagine that they would not pay any more—I would hope that they would pay less.

That allows me to segue to my final position on nuclear power, which was shaped in no small part by my working-class parents, who saw that energy option as an insult to Scotland.

The debate on nuclear has moved on, and although the new UK Government continues with its plans to boost nuclear power in England and Wales, I fail to understand the rationale for supporting an energy source that produces vast quantities of waste from which radioactivity takes decades to reduce to safe levels, is vastly more expensive than renewables, takes decades to build, cannot be switched on and off easily and is potentially dangerous and contaminating. I also agree with Patrick Harvie’s point—we must all get real about our own behaviour and our energy use.

To conclude, nuclear is not an option for Scotland; an exciting future supporting a world-leading renewables industry is.

It is helpful to confirm that point.

I am aware of the time and will finish up with a couple of questions. The first is about part 3 of the bill, which deals with special measures. I know that we touched on those earlier. My second question relates to a separate but interconnected issue that was raised during the stage 1 evidence and on which I would welcome the cabinet secretary’s response, which is the pilot of free court transcripts.

First, I come back to the special measures in civil cases. Will you give us a broad commentary on the thinking behind the proposed amendments to those provisions?

We need to change officials, so just bear with me.

That is no problem.

As there are no more questions on part 4, we will have a short suspension to allow for a changeover of officials.

A very good morning, and welcome to the seventh meeting in 2025 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies.

Our first item of business is evidence from the Scottish Government on its plans to amend the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill before we begin consideration of amendments to the bill at stage 2 on 12 March.

I am pleased that we are joined this morning by Angela Constance, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, and Scottish Government officials, including Heather Reece Wells and Lisa McCloy from the criminal justice reform unit and Nicola Guild from the legal directorate. Welcome to you all. Throughout the morning, as our discussion moves between different parts of the bill, the officials supporting the cabinet secretary will change, so we might need to have a couple of brief suspensions to allow that to happen. Thank you all for taking the time to attend the meeting.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow about 90 minutes for the session. I will structure questioning by focusing on part 4 of the bill first, then parts 5 and 6 and, finally, parts 1 to 3. I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks.

Thank you. I will bring in Rona Mackay before we move on.

As there are no more questions on parts 4, 5 and 6, we will move on to parts 1 to 3.

I am aware of the time. Cabinet secretary, can you confirm that you can stay on for a little bit longer to answer questions on parts 1 to 3?