Chamber and committees

There is regular official-level dialogue on border health measures, and there is due to be a four-nations ministerial meeting this week that will address the regular review of country risk ratings and look at wider policy issues. We expect that that meeting will take place on Thursday morning, as usual. I know that there is a lot of speculation in the media about the UK Government’s intentions. That speculation is happening before those intentions have been properly discussed with counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We want to work on a four-nations basis wherever we can, and we will aim to make further announcements on any future changes on a four-nations basis after, I hope, proper consideration and discussion.

Most people who are watching this will probably breathe a sigh of relief that Anas Sarwar is not standing here. Clever quips might sound good in a student union, but when we are trying to deal with a global pandemic, it is more important that we have the solutions that help to keep people safe.

Let us take some of Mr Sarwar’s points in turn. He appears to be saying that negative test results should be used in place of proof of vaccination. We suggest to people that they test themselves regularly. Lateral flow device testing is an important part of our overall response, but one of its constraints, which means that it does not make sense to put too much reliance on it for the kind of thing that we are talking about here, is that it is a self-reported test. I heard the United Kingdom vaccines minister make that point yesterday in the House of Commons. We have to be careful that we do not introduce false security around such a system.

The other point is that people can still get the virus if they are vaccinated. Anybody looking at the current statistics knows that, but vaccination reduces people’s risk of getting the virus. Do you want to be in a nightclub in which some people are unvaccinated or do you want to be in a nightclub in which everybody is vaccinated? In the latter, your risk of getting the virus is going to be significantly lower than in the former. Is the risk eradicated? No, but no single measure will eradicate risk.

This is about having a basket of measures. It is about testing and making sure that people isolate when they are required to. It is also about ensuring that we use vaccination to its fullest effect. We need to drive up vaccination rates and then ensure that we use the protection of vaccination as effectively as possible. This measure is one part of a solution.

Anas Sarwar says that we are rushing this through in Scotland. Actually, in Scotland we are behind the curve on this, as so many countries in Europe are already doing it and finding the benefits of doing so. Let us get on with it and discharge our responsibility to keep this country as safe as possible.

I do not know whether Jim is watching, but he might be, so I will address him directly. First, I am extremely sorry that the wait that you had happened, and I do not think that that is acceptable. I am trying to address the issues genuinely, because I do not think that the cases that Douglas Ross has cited are acceptable, and nothing that I have said today suggests that they are.

We know the reasons for the pressure on the Ambulance Service. There are a variety of pressures on our national health service. Of course, some of those pressures were there before Covid, but they have been significantly exacerbated. We know that our accident and emergency departments are under pressure and we know that there is a backlog of treatment. One of the issues that the Ambulance Service faces is longer turnaround times, which puts a lot of pressure on ambulance resources. I acknowledge all that, and we are working hard with the Ambulance Service to address the situation. Nothing that I have said or that I am saying is intended to suggest in any way that the kind of waits that we have heard about today are acceptable.

However, I would also say—I refer to the figure that I cited in my previous answer—that the median response time for the most urgent calls in the most recent week was just over nine minutes. That is not good enough, because it should be within seven minutes. For amber calls, the median time was 21 minutes 26 seconds. Again, that is slightly above the target. There is work to be done here, but that is exactly why we are making the investment. We are supporting recruitment of additional paramedics and technicians to bring waiting times down again.

Perhaps even more important to note is that some of the pressure on the Ambulance Service comes from pressures elsewhere in the health service, which is why the NHS recovery plan and the investment that supports it are so important. We will continue to focus on the service with health boards—including the Scottish Ambulance Service—every day to address the very serious issues.

We need to ensure that vessels are safe and well maintained. Every CalMac vessel requires essential annual maintenance over the winter months. Scheduling of the overhaul programme, including the relief vessels that are used, is complex and must take account of a range of factors. CalMac now has a long-term strategy in place for dry docking.

We continue to encourage CalMac to do everything possible to minimise the impact that is caused by maintenance work over the winter period, and we continue to support CalMac to deliver services in the face of the challenges that Covid continues to pose for us all.

Although that is a matter for Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, it is clear that the Scottish Government has a strong interest in it. We are liaising and monitoring the process closely.

The investment that is being made in air traffic control is essential to secure the long-term future of air services in the Highlands and Islands. The objective of the central surveillance centre in Inverness is to ensure safer, more sustainable and more reliable air services for the communities that rely on them. We know that the decision may affect where staff work in the future, and I understand that HIAL is engaging directly with the Prospect union on the detail of a commuting policy and other measures to mitigate that. However, we should not lose sight of what the investment and change are intended to deliver in the long term, which is security for the islands’ connectivity, with related social and economic benefits.

There are some serious and perfectly valid issues in there—complex issues. Of course we want to see the repopulation of our islands, but we must also ensure that there are sustainable services that support the connectivity of our islands. Those are often complex issues that require very careful thought.

On the Minister for Transport’s meeting with Prospect, my understanding is that he is due to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Prospect next month to discuss aviation generally, and I am sure that the issue that has been raised will feature in that. We will certainly look to see whether diaries can enable that meeting to be brought forward. It is important that that engagement takes place.

As I said in my original answer, it is also important that HIAL engages directly with Prospect to address issues that have been raised about how it can make changes that improve the sustainability of the services. The kind of model that is being discussed already operates at London City airport, for example. Obviously, that is very different from our islands, but this is about the sustainability of those services in the longer term.

Important issues have been raised by the union, and I expect HIAL to engage properly with it. As I said, I will ask the Minister for Transport to see whether the meeting can be accelerated.

When it comes to the jobs, the issues around relocation are important, and those were what I was alluding to. It is important that HIAL engages with the unions and with workers in considering the policies in place that allow workers who are working under the new system nevertheless to continue to live in and contribute to our islands. That will not always be easy, but that is the work that we are expecting HIAL to engage in properly.

On some of the other concerns, safety issues have been raised with me directly, for example in Shetland. Those issues must be taken seriously. Loganair, the main airline flying in the Highlands and Islands, which is already operating under the system at London City, is supportive of the changes and the safety benefits that it says will be delivered. New air-traffic control procedures and the operation of such a centre will go live only following a rigorous assessment and approval by the Civil Aviation Authority.

I understand the concerns that are being raised—it is important to say that. There is a responsibility on HIAL and indeed on the Scottish Government to seek to address those concerns as we move forward.

While oil and gas and issues around the licensing and exploration of offshore oil and gas are reserved to the United Kingdom Government, we have called for the UK Government to significantly enhance the climate conditionality associated with offshore exploration and production and to reassess licences that have already been issued but where field development has not yet commenced.

The programme for government includes a commitment to develop an energy just transition plan. We have committed to working with communities and with those who are most impacted across Scotland, including our very highly skilled oil and gas workforce, to co-design that plan, and we have committed to take forward a 10-year £500 million just transition fund for the north-east and Moray.

Yes—I am very happy to consider all constructive discussions. I am happy to ask the minister to engage directly with the member. Those are exactly the kinds of constructive proposals that we need. Will every constructive proposal be able to be taken forward? No—that is rarely the case—but, because we are so serious about a just transition, we will engage properly on all those issues.

I suspect that I am a fair bit older than the member, but I have first-hand memories of the devastation in the community where I grew up from the mistakes that previous Governments made around deindustrialisation. We must not repeat those mistakes in the process of decarbonisation, which is why the just transition process is so important. I thank Mercedes Villalba for that question, and I am happy to engage with her on the detail.

Where I agree with Liam Kerr—I will try to find points of agreement here—is that we must make the transition not only in a way that is just for workers, which is fundamentally important, but in a way, and at a pace, that does not become counterproductive because it inadvertently increases reliance on imports. In principle, that point is important; I have made it many times myself. Underneath that, though, there is greater complexity. Right now, we export a significant proportion of what is produced in the North Sea, and we already import a lot of the oil and gas that is used, so there is often greater complexity lying beneath the headline claim.

We need to engage properly with these issues. We are in a transition, whether we like it or not, from fossil fuels to renewable and low-carbon sources of energy. We owe that to the planet, and none of us can—nor should we try to—escape that responsibility, but we need to do that in a way that is fair and just and which actually has the intended effects.

These things require a lot of careful consideration and a large amount of careful work, but we cannot escape our moral and economic responsibility to make the transition and to meet our net zero targets. The Government is incredibly serious about doing that, and about, on occasion—not just on this issue but, I am sure, on a whole range of other issues—facing up to the difficult challenges that it entails.