Chamber and committees

Many years ago, the Scottish Government announced £200 million to decrease journey times between Aberdeen and the central belt by 20 minutes by 2026. Was that discussed with Network Rail? Will the minister provide an update on how much of the £200 million has been spent to date and on when passengers in the north-east will start to see improvements to journey times?

I thank the minister for the advance sight of the statement, which rightly highlights the need for a transition—but not much else.

A recent report by the Robert Gordon University states that retaining the offshore oil and gas supply chain, its workforce and associated skills over the next five years will be crucial to the UK’s successful transition to renewable energies. That is because there is limited capacity for the UK offshore renewables sector to take on board the

“skilled oil and gas workers impacted by the predicted decline in the hydrocarbon sector until later this decade.”

The approval of Rosebank will help to manage that decline until more green jobs into which the workforce can transition are available. If we apply the brakes too quickly, the workforce will be lost and we will not have the people or skills to make the transition. The First Minister has condemned the approval of Rosebank. He wants to turn his back on £8 billion of investment and more than 1,000 jobs in his latest betrayal of the north-east. Does the minister support the First Minister’s position? Would she, too, like to see the back of thousands of jobs, many of which are in her constituency?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During a members’ business debate on 31 May, John Swinney intervened to say that I was incorrect in stating that United Kingdom swimming pool funding from the Treasury was in addition to the Scottish budget. Mr Swinney has now admitted to me that he was wrong, has apologised and has corrected the record, and I thank him for that.

On 29 June, I intervened on the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, Siobhian Brown—who is walking out of the chamber—to state the same basic fact. The minister responded that Barnett consequentials had already been added to the local authority block. She then wrote to me to apologise and corrected the record, and I thank her for that.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning, Joe Fitzpatrick, about the same UK swimming pool fund. In his response, he stated:

“As I said, the money has been allocated. It was allocated to budgets as part of £100 million of additional funding that went to local government at stage 3 of the budget bill.”—[Official Report, 27 September; c 20.]

Stage 3 of the budget was in February and, as John Swinney admitted to me in his apology, the money was allocated by the UK Government much later. For the SNP to make that mistake once was unfortunate. To make that mistake twice looks like incompetence. To make that mistake three times looks deliberate.

Presiding Officer, can you let me know if Joe Fitzpatrick has made any attempt to correct the record? Further, given the torrent of corrections that are now being issued by Scottish ministers, is there any action that you can take when such an important issue that affects our communities across Scotland has been obscured to such an extent?

To ask the Scottish Government whether the finance secretary plans to allocate to local authorities any funding from the block grant that has arisen as a result of Barnett consequential funding from the United Kingdom Government’s swimming pool support fund. (S6O-02565)

It is immoral of the Government to get funding for swimming pools from the UK Treasury and not pass it on for its intended purpose. In Aberdeen, Bucksburn swimming pool was closed and has been stripped back to the walls by the local Scottish National Party council, which is being taken to court by its own citizens over the closure. Is the minister happy that swimming pools in our communities are being forced to close?

My question is for Ewan MacDonald-Russell and is about unintended consequences. Is there a risk that retailers will simply move their distribution network south of the border, where reporting and penalties might well be different?

I guess that the Government would say that the more data you have, the more you can measure the problem and then try to improve the situation. Do you not feel that there are advantages to some Scottish businesses by reporting more? You mentioned software upgrades. Better use of technology might enable your members to reduce the amount of waste that they have and in return increase their profitability.

What criteria should the Scottish Government apply when deciding what waste streams should be subject to or exempt from reporting?

Was there any way to avoid Circularity Scotland going into administration? Could that have been avoided by having some sort of scheme?

The Scottish National Investment Bank’s annual report is out tomorrow. Should we expect heavy losses as a result of this?