Chamber and committees

Over the course of last week, I had an opportunity to engage with the unions, and I visited the factory to speak to workers on Monday. It is clear from all the discussions in which I have participated that they see a way through the short and medium-term challenges that the company faces, but the only way in which that will be achieved is if the Scottish and UK Governments work together to find it.

I therefore ask the Deputy First Minister two specific questions. First, will she set out what measures the Scottish Government is looking at taking forward to address the short-term challenge that the company has with a lack of orders? Secondly, what action is being taken to address the fundamental challenge that the company faces with the uneven playing field whereby the Chinese bus sector will go from having a 10 per cent share of the UK market at the end of last year to a 35 per cent share this year? How will we deal with that challenge under the Subsidy Control Act 2022, and what measures is the UK Government saying that it will consider to address the uneven playing field that the company faces?

—if we are to secure those jobs, and I ask the First Minister to do so.

The First Minister will be aware of the deep concern in my constituency at the announcement that Alexander Dennis made yesterday. Given the risk that is posed to more than 400 jobs in my constituency, and having listened to the earlier exchange in the chamber, I would say that the last thing that the workforce and my constituents need is for their future employment to be turned into a political football. Indeed, they deserve much better. Now more than ever, the workforce needs the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments to work together to prevent the closure of the Camelon and Larbert sites. Those jobs are not lost yet, and everything should be done to secure them for the future.

Bus manufacturing has taken place in Camelon for more than a hundred years; it is part of the local community’s DNA. I have listened to the exchanges so far and I ask the First Minister to commit to taking forward two points with the UK Government. First, will he commit to look at maximising the potential for new orders from across the UK for Alexander Dennis in the weeks and months ahead? Secondly, will he address the fundamental point that the company has highlighted, which is the uneven playing field that it faces in competing with overseas manufacturers as a result of the Subsidy Control Act 2022? That needs to be addressed—

The minister has already referred to the repeated delays that we have experienced with the progression of the Acorn project: delays that were caused by the previous Conservative Government and indecision, causing further delay, by the present Labour Government. Does the minister recognise that one of the real risks of those repeated delays is that investors in the project might start to back out, such that the partnership could break up? If the Acorn project does not move forward at an urgent pace, what does the minister believe will be the economic implications for the north-east of Scotland and for the rest of the country? What will happen to the economic importance of carbon capture and storage in the North Sea to meeting our net zero targets?

Like a number of those who have made contributions so far, I have witnessed at first hand the benefits of the CARES scheme in my constituency, and when I was the energy secretary, I saw at first hand the installation of Archimedes’ screws, wind turbines and solar panel facilities.

One of the benefits that I have noticed over recent years has been CARES renewable energy projects in which a local community has managed a community asset in order to generate its own energy and become much more energy efficient. The scheme has a lot to commend it. I welcome the fact that the UK Government is now moving down a route in which it is looking to support community energy programmes much more extensively in England and Wales. The CARES programme is very good, and we should continue to develop it.

It is also worth reflecting on some of the challenges with the CARES programme. In my constituency, some of the challenges relate to a lack of knowledge about what is available, being able to develop a project and understanding how to go about doing that. That brings me to the issue that some of the community assets that have been transferred are in communities where, to some degree, there is a lack of capacity to take on a complex renewable energy project. We can see at first hand the benefits that communities get from such projects, but some of the communities that would benefit the most from them are the ones that struggle to have the capacity to take on what can be fairly complex projects. Although I know that Local Energy Scotland does a tremendous amount of work with communities and community groups, the issues can be complex not just from a technical perspective but, often, from a funding perspective, because such projects involve multiparty funding. There can be funding through the CARES programme or Scottish Power’s community programme, and other philanthropic organisations might be making contributions to the project. Aligning all that funding can, at times, be challenging.

I want to reflect on some of the wider issues relating to community energy and the ability to expand and develop shared ownership of energy assets. We are at a crucial time in our energy transition. We have an abundant amount of renewable energy potential and a significant pipeline of renewable energy projects that are in development or being progressed. Although we can see the value of those projects, the renewable energy industry faces challenges and questions from communities and the public about what benefit they will get from those assets. That is understandable, because some of the communities that experience the greatest levels of fuel poverty are the ones where assets are being built. That might be wind turbines, or it might relate to the transmission network, which has an impact on those communities, too. There is a genuine issue with communities feeling that, too often, things are being done to them rather than with them in the transition of our energy sector. We need to do much more to address the concerns that communities have and the challenges that they face.

Greater community ownership will assist us in achieving that. It does not necessarily need to be whole ownership; there could be shared ownership of some of the significant assets that are being built. We need to consider not just small onshore wind farms but offshore assets and significant assets such as hydro pump storage. How do we ensure that communities have genuine ownership of such assets alongside the commercial developers of them? The evidence shows that, if we can achieve that much more effectively by embedding the principles of community wealth building in relation to such assets, communities will be much more willing to see the benefits that they could get from those assets. It might be that they bring money into the local area, and shared ownership of assets has, in some cases, resulted in reduced energy costs for the local community—I am happy to share information on those schemes with Christine Grahame. Therefore, shared ownership can help us to overcome some of the challenges.

As others have mentioned, progress has been made in other countries. For example, the Community Energy Scotland briefing shows starkly the way in which Denmark has been able to embed community ownership of wind assets since 2008; 52 per cent of its wind assets are now community owned. The figure is less than half a per cent here in Scotland. Although we have been making progress, we could do much more. The industry recognises that it is helpful to communities if they feel that they are partners and have some ownership.

The final point that I would make is about the way in which we can use Scottish Government-owned facilities and assets. How can we utilise the land that is owned by Forestry and Land Scotland and Scottish Water to support local communities considering community energy-based projects? Collectively, we are doing well, but we can do better. I have no doubt that the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary will be determined to make sure that we drive that forward in the process of widening out the way in which the CARES programme is operating.

Like others here, I compliment Liam McArthur on the way in which he has progressed his bill on what is a hugely sensitive issue. I am also grateful to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for its detailed report. Having served on a committee that dealt with the Parliament’s first end-of-life bill, I know how complex the issue is and the challenges that go with it.

Like all members here, I share the deep concern experienced by people who are dying, and recognise the fear associated with that. In no way do I wish to minimise that anxiety or that fear, which, in common with many in the chamber, I have personal experience of in my family. However, I am also conscious that there are many people whose voices we cannot hear in this debate and who would be vulnerable to the consequences of the incredibly significant change that the bill would bring about. If the challenge is to provide better end-of-life care, I believe that we can do much more by investing in better pain management and in therapies to minimise the suffering that can be experienced at the end of life.

I turn to some of my specific concerns about the bill and what I think are the deficiencies in its safeguards. First, the bill’s definition of terminal illness has no expected timeframe. It includes any

“progressive disease, illness or condition”

that is

“expected to cause ... premature death”

and is, in my view, extremely broad. That definition could catch patients with dementia and anorexia nervosa, as well as those with a chronic illness or disability, and it was rightly highlighted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists as having serious implications for those with dementia and with anorexia nervosa. The RCP specifically pointed out that anorexia nervosa, no matter how severe, is not a terminal condition.

My second, and probably greatest, concern relates to the provisions around coercion. The bill states that a person requesting assisted suicide must do so “voluntarily” and must not have been

“coerced or pressured by any other person”

but the reality is that some individuals will be subject to coercion and pressure, whether directly or indirectly.

As justice secretary, I introduced the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. We were one of the first countries in the world to legislate to make coercive and controlling behaviour an offence as a form of domestic abuse. In considering the policy options for that legislation, it was very clear to me that coercive and controlling behaviour was going to be extremely difficult to prove, because it is often subtle and it can be difficult to identify it without the right expertise and detailed investigation. Individuals often experience it without even knowing that it is happening.

I believe that, under the provisions in the bill, detecting coercion and control would be a very serious challenge, even for the co-ordinating doctors, and I believe that it would be impossible for the independent practitioner who is to deliver the lethal substance as they, by design, will have very little knowledge of the patient or their family. We should be in no doubt that individuals will experience coercion and pressure from others. No words on the face of the bill and no intent in the bill to prevent it from happening will do that. Given the stark consequences of the bill, I believe that that is a risk too far.

The challenge, I believe, is that it is very difficult to identify, and the reality is that it will occur.

The bill crosses the Rubicon. Despite reassurances, the evolution of such provisions in other countries is a real concern for the future. The scope of the bill, in my view, is not the end point. It is the beginning of what I believe will be a gradual extension of its provisions over time, and this Parliament cannot tie the hands of any future Parliament. The bill will not just create a new option for a few, with everyone else in society being unaffected. It will impose a new reality for every person towards the end of their life—the option of assisted suicide. It will, in effect, change life and death for everyone, and we should be particularly mindful of the impact that that could have on some of the most vulnerable members of our society who lack agency in decision making.

I believe that we can do better. Rather than progress the bill, we should debate how we can deliver the best possible palliative care, recognising that we all have intrinsic value, that real choice and autonomy mean having access to the best possible care, and that true dignity consists of being cared for until the end. For those reasons, I will not support the general principles of the bill.

Jobs and livelihoods are being lost as we speak in the chamber today, which is placing workers and their families in an extremely difficult situation. Alongside that, we are losing important skills and knowledge from the workforce, which could be lost to Scotland for the foreseeable future. Such skills and knowledge will be critical in helping to deliver nine of the key areas that were identified in project willow in the medium to longer term. What priority has been given to securing investment in the short term that will help to maintain and support those critical skills and knowledge in the Grangemouth area?

There is an issue in that regard. I am strongly in favour of much more of a community wealth building principle for some assets to ensure that we move beyond the often superficial approach to community benefit. Community ownership can be part of community wealth building, but there are other models that could be developed and taken forward. Community Land Scotland recently produced an interesting paper on community wealth building in the energy sector, which has a lot of merit in it and is worth further debate and consideration.

I return to the issue of access to justice. Often, the factors that inhibit the ability to pursue an issue under environmental law are the same as those that inhibit people from taking action through civil law. Civil law is a difficult and expensive environment for anyone to access, and the principles around environmental litigation are similar to those for other areas of civil litigation.

The key way in which we can make progress in that area is through reform of our legal aid system to ensure that it is much more responsive and user centred, and that it supports compliance with the Aarhus convention. I recognise that the Government is undertaking work on improvement of the civil legal aid system. Given that that will involve a demand-led budget, if we are to expand the scope of civil legal aid to comply with the Aarhus convention, we must ensure that the resources follow that. We cannot have an expansion of the matters for which civil legal aid can be provided without a corresponding uplift in the funding to support it.

My final point is that we should be careful about going down the route of creating specialist courts. There is great merit in having a judiciary that has a broad spectrum of skills and ability. Justice is often delivered through the ability of judges and sheriffs to preside over a range of proceedings. We lose some of that facility when we go down the specialist court route. I am much more in favour of ensuring that we improve access to environmental justice rather than taking the narrower route of creating a court to deal specifically with environmental matters. Although it will be for members in the next session to consider the human rights bill that is planned, the Parliament will have the opportunity to ensure that we make progress towards enshrining environmental laws and complying with the convention. I hope that the incoming Government will achieve those aims.

Like colleagues, I welcome the debate and the considered way—which predates my joining the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee—in which the committees have scrutinised our lack of compliance with the Aarhus convention. Of course, the convention applies across the whole of the UK, which has not been in compliance with it for more than a decade. I welcome the fact that, despite having been in government for a considerable part of that time, the Conservatives now appear to be enthusiastic about ensuring that we are compliant with the convention in the years to come.

It is also worth reflecting on the fact that a balanced report has been produced, recognising that progress has been made in some areas but that there is deficiency in a number of others. For example, corrective action has been taken on cost protection and appeals, protective expenses orders, the types of claims that can be raised and the level of the cost cap. Those issues have all been addressed, and those are important steps—it is good progress. Nevertheless, more progress needs to be made.

I will pick up on the principle of access to justice, which we all, to some degree, take for granted and expect in any modern democracy. It is wrong to frame trying to pursue environmental rights as being a rural issue or an urban issue. Pursuing environmental rights in an urban setting is equally valuable and important as doing so in rural communities. It is not one or the other. My constituency has the Grangemouth refinery and petrochemical facility on its doorstep. At times, as there have been in the past, there are environmental concerns and issues in that regard. They are just as important as environmental concerns are for any rural area. It is fundamentally wrong to try to frame the issue as being urban or rural, and it does constituents a disservice if we try to present it in that way.

Even if we were to follow Douglas Lumsden’s desire to take us down the pylon line in relation to why we must now comply with the Aarhus convention, it would have to apply across the whole of the UK. There is no point in individuals in Dumfries and Galloway raising money to pursue action against a pylon going from Scotland into England if the only place that we can exercise that power is in Scotland and people who live in England are not able to pursue the matter through environmental law. It is in all of our interests to ensure that the UK as a whole is compliant with the Aarhus principle as soon as possible.