Sorry, but not all young people—

Simon Coop mentioned manufacturing. Berwick Bank and the Pentland project have just been approved, as well as loads of onshore wind projects, but we are not producing the infrastructure in Scotland. Is there more that you think that we need to do to not only create new jobs but have a joined-up approach?

Do you not want to answer any of the specific questions that I posed about the safety issue and travel safety officers? The travel safety officers issue is not just about the code of conduct. It is also about how we get the SSI implemented effectively as a new piece of legislation that ensures that there are consequences for antisocial and disruptive behaviour on our buses.

I would like to ask a question about joined-up thinking, which follows from John Underhill’s comment about getting confidence for investment. The draft energy strategy was published three years ago and we now have a draft climate change plan. Do we need more joined-up thinking so that we can generate investment for the private sector, whether that is for the manufacture of renewables, investment in CCUS, or hydrogen—preferably green? How do we encourage investment and confidence that such investments make sense, given the comments about heat, transport and waste? I will start with John Underhill before I go to other witnesses for a brief comment.

What extra resources is the Scottish Government allocating to local councils to enable them to invest in new infrastructure so that they can separate household waste and maximise recycling, given their key role as waste producers, waste collectors and waste managers, and given the duty that they will have to take all reasonable steps to separate collections for metals, glass, plastics, paper and card? Will food be included?

I, too, thank Maggie Chapman for securing today’s debate, because it could not be more important. As colleagues from across the country have highlighted, we need a fire service that is fit for purpose, now and for the future. With the growing impact of the climate emergency and extreme weather, the need to have an effective fire service for my constituents has never been more vital, especially after the fire last summer on Arthur’s Seat and other fires that have happened across the city.

As Lorna Slater highlighted, the proposal to close Marionville fire station has been met with widespread opposition from the community and from our firefighters. We know that the building has RAAC, but closing Marionville without a replacement facility in the area will leave our brave firefighters overstretched and underresourced.

The proposed closure makes even less sense when we consider that it is not even the option that the SFRS had recommended. In the 2020 options appraisal report for Marionville station, which I acquired through a freedom of information request, neither of the options that were evaluated even considered not replacing the station. The report recommended exploring the idea of maintaining the operation of the current station while building a replacement station on another site. Last year, it emerged that there are two potential council-owned sites in the area. Therefore, we need to know whether the SFRS has discussed those options with the council.

Five years after the options report, why has no station been built? Why do we now face the prospect of Marionville being closed with no plan to replace it? Those questions are especially important because there is a growing number of homes in the area and developments at the port of Leith.

Since the creation of the SFRS, Scotland has lost almost a sixth of our firefighters, and Scottish Government budget cuts have left the SFRS with one hand tied behind its back. As the FBU’s excellent briefing notes show, that has created huge pressures on firefighters, and response times have increased. That is not acceptable. My constituents are now facing the consequences of those cuts, potentially losing a fire station without getting a replacement in their area. The closure of Marionville is opposed by a staggering ratio of 10:1 in the local community, which has been consulted and was clear that we need the station to be replaced.

The SFRS needs to support our local communities. If the Scottish Government wants to ensure that our fire service is fit for purpose, it must invest in services, not cut them. It must give the SFRS the tools that it needs to grow our fire safety infrastructure. We should not be in the situation of losing key stations after a summer when there were major fires.

The problem is not just wildfires; our communities will also face more flooding incidents in which people will need to be protected. Last month, a Scottish Environment Protection Agency report estimated that 400,000 homes and buildings are now at medium risk of flooding. This week, we learned that the Scottish Government’s budget will cut funding for the flood resilience strategy from £14 million to under £1 million. Worryingly, there is no clear budget line for flood defence scheme funding in the local government budget. Although the budget will increase funding for the SFRS, there is still an £800 million capital backlog, as Richard Leonard highlighted. That is utterly unacceptable.

I will continue to work with our local community, MSPs across Parliament and councillors to ensure that our vital emergency services in Edinburgh and the Lothians are not hollowed out. The Scottish Government and the SFRS must urgently listen to the communities and—as is being asked for across the country—give us the investment that Edinburgh and the Lothians urgently need. I hope that the minister will take up the issue with the SFRS and talk with her Cabinet and ministerial colleagues. We need to make progress, not to go into reverse.

I have two amendments in the group, which would ensure that

“promoting the creation of a Community Wealth Fund and the strategic use of community benefit payments from land use change and renewable energy projects”

to

“support the development of community-led projects”

was prioritised and included in the bill.

By embedding the promotion of such a fund in the bill, we would create a pathway for communities to benefit directly from the economic activity that takes place around them, not as an afterthought but as a core principle. That approach would ensure that the wealth that was generated from our natural assets and the transition to renewables was recycled back into local priorities, so that it supported projects that communities design, lead and control.

Last night, the cross-party group on islands and the cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency held a joint meeting. We heard directly about the huge benefits to local communities of co-operative, community-owned and municipally owned renewables and heat projects investing in Scotland. Rather than wealth being exported, the communities directly benefit and shape the benefits. The statistic that was used last night was that less than 1 per cent of the wind energy that is produced in Scotland is from community-owned facilities. We need to make the most of that huge opportunity.

Richard Leonard’s amendments are really important. Amendments 50 and 51 make particularly important points. The importance of Co-operative Development Scotland and the Scottish National Investment Bank needs to be higher up our agenda. Both could and should play an important role, which should be reflected in legislation.

Amendment 51, which sets out that ministers must encourage Scottish Enterprise, South of Scotland Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to practically support employee-owned companies, is crucial, because we need to ensure that such opportunities are available.

I am keen to support Lorna Slater’s amendments 41 to 45 on procurement so that local community co-operatives and social enterprises can benefit from the transition to renewables. Paul Sweeney’s amendment 119 seeks to empower and support communities through credit unions and community wealth funds.

There are many good amendments in the group. I take the minister’s point that we cannot use them all, but the ambition behind the amendments that I have mentioned is critical, and they should be included in the bill. A community wealth fund and the strategic use of community benefit payments will be crucial and will create many opportunities.

I have two amendments in the group, which are both aimed at strengthening accountability in the community wealth building statement process.

Amendment 82 would ensure that the annual statement reports on not just the actions that are taken but their impact in delivering the aims that are set out in section 1(2). That would shift the focus from activity to outcomes so that we can see whether community wealth building is genuinely making a difference on the ground. I welcome Lorna Slater’s support for that amendment.

Amendment 83 would require ministers to set out how they have responded to any recommendations from the independent review, and, if they have not acted on them, to explain why. That would prevent recommendations from being ignored and ensure a clear line of accountability between independent scrutiny and Government action.

Together, those amendments would make the reporting process more transparent, more meaningful and more responsive to evidence. Richard Leonard’s points about transparency and inclusivity are also important. The amendments in this group are about strengthening the legislation, and I hope that colleagues can support them today.

As a member of the Unison and Community trade unions, I want to note that is good to have you in front of us today.

There is a real issue around who pays for what and when, and you have talked about job losses and people not having opportunities. How can we ramp up the potential opportunities across every community? You talked about energy, too. I have seen a comment on the need for regional just transition planning, so that people are involved across the country and know where the new jobs are. What is your thinking on that? You mentioned the manufacturing opportunities in new transport infrastructure and sorting out people’s homes to make them energy efficient. How do we ensure that there are jobs that go with those opportunities, now and in the future?

That is really helpful, thanks. I will hand back to you, convener.