Chamber and committees

The member makes an important point about reliability and resilience. That lesson has surely been learned the hard way on the Borders railway, which was curtailed with significant sections of single-track line. That now presents a huge problem for the reliability of the line, with massive delays as a result of those single-track sections, which resulted from Transport Scotland’s value engineering of the project.

Greater Glasgow has the second-largest urban railway network in the United Kingdom, but it is fair to say that it is less than the sum of its parts. If we are to invest in it seriously, we must commit to a vision of a 15-minute service in all parts of the city. Shifting to that turn-up-and-go frequency would unlock true modal shift and move people on to the railways.

I do not know how many members frequently travel by rail. When I wake up in the morning and try to figure out whether I will miss my connection from the subway to the railway service by one minute, which would mean waiting half an hour for the next train, that is a significant deterrent to deciding to take the train rather than the car, particularly if I have to get to an appointment under time pressure.

Glaswegians make such decisions and calculations every day of every week. Because services in our transport system across the greater Glasgow region are so infrequent, the system is not up to metro-level standard, which is why it is not being fully utilised and why we are not reaping the full benefits of the great legacy of infrastructure that was built in the 19th and 20th centuries, even despite the 1960s Beeching cuts.

We need to look seriously at how to build the commitment. The strategic transport projects review that is coming up will look at the idea of a Glasgow metro. Surely a key and critical component of such a metro is connecting East Kilbride—the sixth-largest settlement in Scotland, which is in the greater Glasgow region—to the urban centre of the city region, which is Glasgow city centre, in a way that means that people do not have to look at their watches but can turn up at the station and see a train arriving within 15 minutes to take them to where they need to go.

Okay. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I am right on the cusp of my limit. Sorry about that.

I have seen the scores, and I am perplexed at the artificial rationing of resource and investment. We need it to all happen concurrently, not sequentially. That is the biggest problem. We are trying to advocate the benefits of pooling and sharing resources in the United Kingdom, so it really does not help when this sort of thing happens. Someone, somewhere in Whitehall, particularly in the Treasury, will surely have seen the political implications and made it clear that the Scottish Cluster had to be a priority.

It is because of the chancellor’s dogmatic adherence to the cap on capital investment of 3 per cent of gross domestic product that the investment has been rationed in this way. When UK borrowing and the debt burden that the country faces are at their lowest in history, why on earth would we not pump investment in now to unlock huge multiplier effects to increase employment and gross value added for the Scottish economy?

It is a one-way bet and it is baffling that the Conservatives have not seized the opportunity. I urge them to reconsider their position, because we really need the UK Government to look again at this. The decision will hamper long-term investment in the Scottish Cluster that is desperately relied on, and it will harm our chances of reaching our net zero target while providing a just transition for workers.

We need all five UK carbon capture and storage projects that are in the pipeline to happen simultaneously and now, not just HyNet and the Teesside Humber East Coast Cluster. Scotland has 60 per cent of the UK’s storage potential, so it makes sense to have a carbon capture and storage presence in Scotland. I urge the Scottish Conservatives to speak to their colleagues in Westminster to ask them to reverse the decision. That is the right thing to do for our economy and climate ambitions. If the Conservatives had any real ambitions for Scotland, it would be a no-brainer.

I thank the member for Aberdeenshire East for bringing this vital debate to the chamber and for emphasising how critical the Acorn project is to Scotland achieving its net zero target by 2045. That is why the Climate Change Committee described it as

“a necessity, not an option”.

The UK Government’s announcement last month that the Acorn project would not be selected in the first round of plans for carbon capture and storage was surely galling for all of us to witness. The cluster is widely regarded by industry leaders as providing the most comprehensive business plan, and the UK Government’s announcement was widely condemned. Sir Ian Wood described it as “deeply disappointing” and urged the UK Government to think again.

The carbon reduction benefits are clear. The proposal would also have seen more than 26,000 workers being transitioned out of the oil and gas sector into lower carbon alternatives over the next 10 years, which is a crucial aspect of achieving climate justice for workers. We all know how important the transition away from fossil fuels will be if we are to meet those targets, but we also know the importance of providing a just transition for workers. That is why the decision is particularly galling and disheartening.

Focusing on energy production, Peterhead power station is Scotland’s largest and only thermal generator. If we do not have the ability to capture carbon and we are not able to decarbonise the grid, that will put in jeopardy Scotland’s ability to meet the 2045 target for net zero. As an interesting adjunct to the debate about nuclear power during First Minister’s question time, if we do not decarbonise the base load, we will be in a really difficult position.

Perhaps we should not be surprised by the decision, given that the Conservatives rowed back on the commitment, spelled out in their 2015 manifesto, to the £1 billion carbon capture and storage programme that was proposed for Longannet and Peterhead. This year, we have seen the Tories break their promise on tax rises and rip up manifesto commitments on protecting the triple lock on pensions. Now we have this broken promise in the wake of COP26. It is hardly surprising, but it is certainly shocking. It is not just the broken promises and clear disdain for the Scottish Cluster that are galling; it is the potential cost implications that go along with that.

I have examined the criteria, which is why I am all the more perplexed at the decision that was made.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to address the reported backlog in at-home Covid-19 booster and flu vaccine appointments in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area. (S6O-00427)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer, but the reality of the backlog for vulnerable people is quite stark. One of my constituents, who is 83 years of age, waited for more than a month for a home vaccination appointment. When I made representations to the health board on her behalf, I was told that the vaccination team was simply too busy to provide her with an appointment date, which meant that she had to put herself at risk and attend a drop-in clinic to receive her vaccination. Vulnerable people who are not normally well enough to attend vaccination centres are being left behind and stuck at home in the run-up to Christmas.

What assessment is the Government making of the number of people who are either waiting for an at-home appointment or are forced to go to a facility and put themselves at risk? Will the Government commit today to ensuring that every one of them is vaccinated at home in time for Christmas?

It is a real pleasure to join the debate, and I congratulate my friend Foysol Choudhury from the Lothian region on securing a discussion on the issue at this apt moment.

I am very proud that Glasgow gives its name to the declaration, which is so vital for the survival of mankind. It is also a great opportunity for our collective economic potential. It is often overlooked that this is not about making a sacrifice but about realising entrepreneurial spirit and a potential opportunity for our cities and regions across the world.

Colleagues have already rehearsed many of the issues to do with waste. Although that is apparent in our society, when we realise the sheer scale of the problem, it is staggering: the UK alone produces 36 million of tonnes of greenhouse gasses from food waste out of a total of 1.3 billion tonnes that is produced globally each year. Waste also has financial and economic costs. In the UK, businesses, homes and food manufacturers throw away 9.5 million tonnes of food a year, which is worth £19 billion. What an amazing opportunity there is to address that and at the same time to contain emissions.