Chamber and committees

My question is about the proposed criminal offence. The threshold for a criminal case is “beyond reasonable doubt”. The new offence is perceived to be about closing a loophole. It would have to be shown in court that someone was intending to avoid the law by destroying information. Do you think that the new offence would be used often, given that the criminal charges that already exist are rarely used?

I think that we have run out of time. Thank you.

The proposal for FOI officers to have a statutory basis has come from FOI officers over an extended period, long before I got involved in the issue. FOI officers in many organisations have said that they are having difficulties in getting their organisations to comply with the legislation. I appreciate that that does not sound as if it is at all the case in Glasgow, but it is the case in other organisations. FOI officers—who are often also data protection officers, particularly in smaller organisations—are saying that having a similar statutory basis to that for data protection would give them the authority in an organisation to insist that the law was complied with. Does that make sense to you?

I have a couple of questions for Kenneth Meechan. It is good to hear that the existing legislation is working well for a large organisation such as Glasgow City Council. The policy intention behind the bill is not to add costs to such organisations or to move away from the structure of the existing legislation, known as FOISA, which uses a designation approach—I think that you referred to it as a list process—but to build on that, based on 20 years of feedback from organisations, the public and information commissioners.

One of the suggested changes is a move towards proactive publication. Would the code of practice that the Scottish Information Commissioner is to issue assist local authorities such as yours in knowing what must be proactively published? We know from evidence that technology has the ability to drive down publication costs.

Have I got time for one more question, convener?

I will also ask about response times, because it is a focus of the Fire Brigades Union Scotland. Call-handling times for risk-to-life calls have increased by more than 20 seconds, and response times to risk-to-life incidents have increased by 1 minute and 20 seconds since 2016. FBU Scotland told us that, unless there is a better budget settlement, response times will continue to rise. That is a massive concern for communities across Scotland.

As Sharon Dowey said, there have already been a huge number of firefighter job losses. It is clear that the organisation has been attempting to make significant savings. There have been real-terms cuts of £56 million, so the fat, we presume, has gone. To what extent is the potential for further increases in response times linked to budgetary issues, to staffing and to the availability of the appropriate appliance for a particular incident, which is also a significant issue?

I have previously discussed response times with you, outside the committee, so I understand that the statistic refers to when the first appliance gets there. Sometimes, it might be that it is not possible to deal with the incident until a number of appliances and the right skill set are in place. I appreciate that response time is just a statistic, but it is indicative of something wider.

As you know, we will look at the proposals that come from the review that is taking place, which might propose significant changes to the service, such as the closure of stations, which is a particular cause of concern in many communities. Will the work on response times be available before decisions are taken, particularly on fire stations? We need to have the resource in place to ensure that response times do not increase and do not impact on safety. Will the work be completed in time?

Has the Scottish Government had any discussions with the UK Government about the proscription of Palestine Action? Have ministers received any security briefings or made any representations, given the arrests at protests in Scotland?

I welcome the fact that the Scottish Greens have brought this timely debate to the chamber. For life on this planet to be tolerable, we have to address the climate challenge and we must move away from our reliance on oil and gas. We cannot overestimate the challenge that we face. In 2024, the highest concentration—in human history—of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was recorded. The rise in global temperatures has meant that the past decade was the warmest on record. The International Energy Agency has said that, if we are to achieve the target of limiting the global temperature rise to within 1.5°C, there can be no new oil and gas developments internationally.

Scottish Government policy is in favour of a just transition. However, we have to be honest: the transition has started and it is not just. In the chamber, we have spoken about thousands of onshore and offshore jobs that have already been lost, despite oil companies continuing to pay massive dividends. One of those companies, Ithaca, has already been mentioned in the debate. In August, the North Sea oil giant paid £127 million in dividends for the first quarter of 2025, with total pay-outs set to reach around £388 million this year. There is no just transition for the workers who are losing their jobs.

As Liam Kerr said, in October, STUC research showed that only one job is being created for every £1 million in turnover in onshore and offshore wind. The figure across other renewables sectors is not significantly higher. We do not build wind turbines—we import them, and we are not reaping the economic benefits of any green industrial revolution. We have to be honest that not enough is being done to ensure good quality job creation and to develop the new sectors that would provide local benefits.

I do not accept that. I am happy to discuss it in more detail another day. I have already referenced some of the profits that are being made in the sector.

My primary role today is to hold the minister’s Government to account and talk about what this Parliament can do within our powers. I agree with the Greens that we cannot keep developing new oil and gas. However, we have to do that as part of a just transition, so I also support the offshore trade unions and the workforce in their demand for a plan.

A number of members have already made the point that we cannot respond to the challenge by importing foreign oil and gas to replace North Sea oil production. Norway and Denmark are issuing new oil and gas production licences alongside historically high investment in offshore renewables. It cannot be acceptable that we support extraction elsewhere.

The trade unions need to be centrally involved in developing a just transition. I do not believe that there has ever been a just transition for working class communities when industrial change has taken place. Working class communities see no sign of that happening now. We need to rise to the climate challenge by having a serious debate about how we ensure that we meet our climate challenges in a way that benefits our economy as part of an industrial strategy that delivers for every community in Scotland.