Chamber and committees

I have a final question on this. At the moment, how are individuals able to challenge the treatment that they receive or that they are not receiving but would like to receive? What redress do they have just now? How do they realise their existing rights in domestic law?

That is helpful.

Can the cabinet secretary outline what steps the Scottish Government is taking to support investment in renewables, particularly through the 2025-26 Scottish budget? How is that investment expected to help to grow and develop that vital sector across Scotland, especially given how well placed we are as a nation to harness our renewables potential?

I thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing this important and urgent debate to the chamber, and I fully support her motion.

The RTS switch-off is of great concern to people across the UK, but the impact is particularly acute for those in rural communities, such as in my Carrick, Cumnock, and Doon Valley constituency, where many homes are off the mains gas grid and there remain many socially rented homes with electric heating tied to this antiquated technology.

As Scotland has nearly 135,000 RTS meters, we are set to be the hardest hit by the change by population share. We know from the briefing that was provided by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations that it is very concerned for its tenants, who are disproportionately impacted.

I will share with members the experience of one couple who contacted me. They have an older-style meter, which uses RTS, to supply their heating, electricity and hot water. They were contacted by Scottish Power last August to inform them that they were eligible for a smart meter. They diligently booked their appointment, but it was cancelled by the engineers at the last minute, as it was decided that their meter would not be compatible for replacement. They tried again; another appointment was booked, and there was another cancellation. Then, there was absolute radio silence, with no updates and no solutions, which led to my office becoming involved.

An appointment to replace the couple’s meter has now been set for June—which is really close to the switch-off date—but, understandably, they are very worried about whether that will finally resolve the situation, given the complexities that so many have faced. For example, in some cases, engineers have arrived to discover that the existing set-up has too many cables for them to be able to complete the swap-out. That seems to be a common denominator in people’s experiences—there are too many cables in the old meters.

If there is no fix, either the couple will have no electricity or hot water come the switch-off or they will be forced to pay a higher rate as the meter defaults to that rate without any applicable discounts. Conversely, as we heard from Ms Wishart, the heating might be stuck on, with no respite for the household from continual heat. Even if the couple are able to have their meter replaced, Scottish Power is unable to assure them that they will stay on their current tariff. That goes against Ofgem’s pledge that

“no customer should be worse off”

as a result of the change. As we have heard today, stories like that are repeating themselves across the country, with members of the public doing their best to prepare themselves but experiencing constant pushback that is outwith their control.

Suppliers and consumers are now facing a ticking time bomb ahead of an ever-nearing cut-off date. Unfortunately, I and many of the people from whom I have heard have no confidence that the change will go smoothly. Beatrice Wishart referred to the situation as a “shambles”, and it absolutely is. It is completely unacceptable, and the UK Government and Ofgem must take action immediately. The switch-off date needs to be postponed, or there needs to be an assurance that anyone who is financially impacted will receive full compensation.

I welcome the Acting Minister for Climate Action’s comment that

“the Scottish Government is doing everything it can, within our limited devolved powers, to mitigate the impact.”

Ultimately, however, this is a reserved issue, so the United Kingdom Government must take responsibility and control and step up to the plate to ensure that no one is negatively impacted by the change. I also agree with Beatrice Wishart that local resilience partnerships should be preparing themselves for what might happen come the shut-off.

Households across the country are already struggling financially with the cost of living crisis and economic uncertainty, so this really is the last thing that they need to be dealing with right now. The situation is especially urgent given the number of individuals with such meters who are already in poverty and are dealing with unrelenting fuel poverty.

I hope that members in the chamber can unite today to send a clear message that the situation cannot be allowed to spiral any further. Action is urgently needed to protect our constituents and give them the peace of mind that they deserve.

I speak today not just as a member of the Scottish Parliament and an unapologetic European but as someone who knows deeply and personally the cost of disconnection—disconnection from community and kin, from opportunity, from progress and from partnership. That is the true cost that Scotland is paying as a result of Brexit—a Brexit that we did not collectively vote for, that was imposed on us and that continues to inflict damage on our communities and economy.

At one point, not that long ago, the Parliament agreed—let me be clear: it was a deeply held belief for most members across the chamber—that the best relationship that Scotland and, indeed, the entire UK could have with the European Union was to be a full member. To my deep shame, and it should be to all our deep shame, we now find ourselves in an island of strangers and a Farage-esque, inward-looking, little Britain nightmare.

I find it deeply frustrating and very distasteful that, as economic migrants to Canada, when I was six, my family were known as expats, as if we were something exceptional, which I think had a lot to do with the colour of our skin.

I do not for one moment believe that the people of Scotland truly want us to accept that there is no way back for us to become part of the EU—not just to rebuild what we had but to rediscover who we are. They do not recognise the politics of Westminster any more. The EU was never just about trade or tariffs. It was about solidarity and shared values. It was about standing shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours to face the challenges of our age: climate change, social inequality, global health crises and conflict. At a time when we see war once again raging in Europe, we should be doing everything in our power to reignite that solidarity. We will not do that by tinkering about the edges, and I do not believe that it should be contingent on access to our fishing waters.

Brexit has not delivered the sunlit uplands that we were promised—far from it. It has delivered uncertainty for our businesses, anxiety for our young people and barriers for our farmers, our fishers and the food and drink sector, which is one of Scotland’s greatest economic assets.

Our creative industries, health system and universities have all been harmed by the red lines of past and present UK Governments—red lines that have become shackles. The refusal to even entertain access to the single market, the rejection of the customs union and the ideological opposition to freedom of movement were not inevitable choices; they were political choices that were made without the meaningful involvement of Scotland’s people or our Parliament. That continues to happen, and my colleague Emma Roddick highlighted how our Labour colleagues are just not able to challenge that.

When UK ministers speak of social care workers as being “unskilled”, it makes my hackles rise. Being a patient, caring, kind, compassionate and dedicated care worker takes great skill, and we should all do well to remember that.

It is time—indeed, it is past time—for the UK Government to drop its red lines. If it will not revisit its decision for the sake of principle, I ask it to do so for the sake of people: for the small business in Ayrshire that used to export cheese to France with ease but now faces paperwork delays and lost markets; for the nurse from Spain who used to work in our national health service but no longer feels welcome; and for the young person in Cumnock or Catrine who dreamed of studying or working in Europe but now faces borders, both literal and bureaucratic.

At the upcoming UK-EU summit, the UK Government has a rare opportunity—a chance to turn the page and to begin to rebuild trust and co-operation. I welcome all of that. However, that process must start with ambition.

Today, we must call on the UK Government to pursue a bold veterinary and food and drink agreement that can remove burdens from our farmers and producers, restore some measures of frictionless trade and bring immediate benefits to both sides of the channel. We must collectively call for closer energy and climate co-operation. We are in a climate and biodiversity emergency. Scotland is rich in renewable energy potential, and the climate crisis knows no borders. By aligning with EU standards and collaborating on innovation, research and resilience, we can deliver a greener and fairer future for us all.

We must call for greater freedom of movement, because people are not commodities. Our ability to live, work, study and love across Europe enriched our society and expanded our horizons. For our young people in particular, the loss of the Erasmus programme and the barriers to cultural and educational exchange are a wound that must be healed. We owe them better—we owe them the world.

I will be absolutely clear: it is not only the content of the UK Government’s approach that is unacceptable but the manner of that approach. The fact that the UK Government has not shared any draft summit text with the Scottish Government or any of the other devolved Administrations is an insult to the principles of devolution and democracy. It treats the Parliament and, by extension, the people whom we represent as afterthoughts.

We have unique issues surrounding depopulation and skills in Scotland. We should have the same powers over migration visas that a Canadian province has. I hear constantly that this is the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, but the Quebec province that I used to live in has more powers than this place does.

We in Scotland are not afterthoughts. Scotland has a voice, and today we must use ours here to amplify it.

I once supported young people with experience of secure care, and I understand just how vital early access to support is. Children in secure care often require multiple services, such as mental health support, education and vocational training, among others. Will the minister outline how the Scottish Government will work to foster greater collaboration between health services, local authorities, education providers and, importantly, the third sector to ensure that the wider support needs of these young people are met with a person-centred approach?

The first part of my question is about your views on the Scottish Government’s decision not to include a non-regression clause in part 2, but we have already heard your views on that quite clearly. Are there alternative approaches to framing the powers that you would like to see in the bill? For example, would you like things such as protection for certain aspects of the core aims of the regimes or a requirement for additional consultation, scientific input or, indeed, parliamentary scrutiny of changes that could arise? In the absence of a non-regression clause, would there be other ways to consider the powers in the round and to start to curtail where the powers could go? Alternatively, you could just come back and tell me your views on the absence of a non-regression clause.

The second point that I was going to come back to is about expertise. The issue is not just about capacity in terms of resourcing but about the individuals who undertake work in closer-to-shore activity in the marine space, especially those who work for local authorities. We are thinking about high-energy waters and trying to understand how a site could work in that space. Is there the expertise for that?

My original question was around the resourcing of local authorities to undertake that work. It was interesting to listen to Professor Tett outlining the issue around the wider strategic planning and how that could work in practice in regional partnerships.

I do not want to stray into other members’ lines of questioning, but I am interested to understand what Elspeth Macdonald thinks about that. Obviously, spatial conflict would arise, but it is about the complexity of how a local authority would undertake the assessment of what could operate beyond the 3-nautical-mile mark. How would that impact on your organisation and members?

As a former chair of a council planning committee, I understand how the system works, although I did not have marine in my planning authority. I can think about it in terms of being on a planning committee during the proliferation of wind energy and understanding that from its beginnings and as it expanded rapidly, with the planning committee members and officials having to increase their knowledge base rapidly. It is important to look at it in that respect, because the local authorities are not coming from a standing start. They have knowledge, but how do we ensure that, if this goes forward, they have knowledge beyond their current capacity as well as expertise that they can draw on to make the best decision in a very busy space? I guess that was what I was trying to get at.