Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it will reportedly not meet the target to reduce Scotland’s food waste by 33 per cent by 2025. (S6O-04426)

Missing the target to reduce food waste is bad enough, but it gets worse: the amount of food waste has increased by 5 per cent from the baseline. Given that, does the minister agree that it would be sensible to include a feedstock mapping exercise for organic waste in the waste reprocessing infrastructure report that the Scottish Government agreed to at stage 3 of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill?

The loss of so many jobs is a horrendous blow to higher education in Scotland and to Tayside in particular. In order to help to prevent an exodus of skills and to support the local economy, will the minister consider working with colleagues to create an innovation hub that is focused on emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence?

If we are to make progress on a just transition as a whole, the SNP needs to step up. Speaking for me and my colleagues in the chamber, I can assure the Scottish Government that we will be there to support it in that regard.

I welcome the opportunity to debate renewables. I will focus my remarks on how we deliver our low-carbon future, what it means for households and the effect that it will have on their bills, but I will start with a broader point about nuclear energy.

I find the nuclear power section of the motion slightly bizarre and lacking an evidence-based approach. Sarah Boyack described it as “negative” and “a retrograde motion”. She also made the case for a robust mix of low-carbon energy that serves us well in all conditions. I associate myself with those remarks.

Let us be clear that nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source. According to the United Nations, it has the lowest carbon footprint of any energy source, when we factor in construction and decommissioning. By all means, let us ensure that wind, solar, hydro and other renewables are the driving force in the energy transition. I would echo Gillian Martin’s comments regarding Scotland’s potential in that area.

I would like to point out to you, Presiding Officer, that it is indeed fake news to say that I or the Scottish Conservatives are against community benefit. In fact, in 2017, I announced a policy to expand community benefit.

Fergus Ewing has made a valid point. In the long term, we have to transition away from carbon-based fuels, however, which includes gas.

On transmission infrastructure, Douglas Lumsden highlighted the case that has been made by communities who are asking to be listened to by the Scottish Government. As well as being set out in the Nolan principles, that is also a requirement under the Aarhus convention of 1998. However, as Graham Simpson pointed out, there can be no transition without transmission, so a balance has to be struck.

We know that the SNP has a long-standing policy of arguing for Scottish households to pay more for their energy bills. For example, it has called for standing charges to be scrapped, but those charges help to pay for network costs. If we scrap them, higher unit costs would almost certainly make up the shortfall. In other words, those who use the most energy, such as households in rural areas such as the north of Scotland and those who rely on medical equipment, would pay more, although second-home owners would benefit significantly.

The SNP position for a floor approach to the forward-looking transmission demand residual charge would, according to the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, increase current charges, particularly for customers in the north of Scotland. Although many members have mentioned transmission network use of system charges, which is the current transmission charging regime, everyone should note that, although Scottish generators pay more, Scottish consumers pay less. If anyone is arguing for generators to pay less, the quid pro quo is that consumers in Scotland will pay more.

I have concerns about Ofgem’s decision to back the zonal pricing model. Although it is theoretically sound, splitting the country up into different pricing zones risks investment by creating unstable market conditions. We have to create a friendly environment for business, innovation and investment, which this Government struggles to cope with doing, whether it be around anaerobic digestion or heat-pump installations—which, unfortunately, I do not have enough time to go into.

I have not been in government, and I am not responsible or accountable for anyone who has been in government. Therefore, there is no point in Gillian Martin saying, “Somebody over there said something”, referencing people in the chamber. We can be responsible only for what we ourselves say and do, and it is fake news to suggest otherwise.

I agree with some of Patrick Harvie’s points. He said that we waste too much energy and that energy efficiency in our buildings must be improved, which I agree with.

Alex Cole-Hamilton made the point that Scotland should be leading the world in clean energy. He has a vision of Scotland as a renewables powerhouse, and I associate myself with his remarks.

We also need energy sources that are capable of generating energy 24/7 in order to maintain grid stability and avoid brown or black starts. We have already seen that a reliance on foreign gas imports can lead to huge energy bill spikes, not to mention its having implications for energy security. Building over capacity brings extra balancing, storage and transmission costs, which are all measures that risk increasing the price that people pay for their energy.

How much would consumers pay in that scenario?

I will use my speech today to talk about the role of public transport in general, but first let me address the motion that is before us and the specific issue of train travel.

I welcome the Greens’ motion. Quite rightly, it calls for public transport fares to be cheaper and more accessible, as well as for the introduction of integrated ticketing, which was promised more than a decade ago.

A survey for The Herald found that almost half the public—46.4 per cent—thought that rail fares were too expensive, and that more than 40 per cent rarely travelled on ScotRail. The latest Transport Scotland figures show that the level of satisfaction with public transport in general, despite a modest rise last year, is still lower than it was pre-pandemic. I suggest to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport that charging the public more than £30 for a return fare between Scotland’s two largest cities is unlikely to help to improve those figures, particularly when it is extremely difficult to purchase a flexipass at Edinburgh Waverley station.

However, if we want more people to travel via public transport, we have to make it both easy and accessible. That is not rocket science. In addition to keeping costs low, we should be doing sensible things, such as introducing smart travel cards that let passengers use all types of public transport with a single-access card. That would tick both boxes—easy and accessible.

This morning, I launched my proposed dog abduction (Scotland) bill at Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home, with the wonderful Cooper, who is available for rehoming. The bill seeks to deter and punish those who are involved in snatching people’s pets. Does the minister agree that it could also help to ensure more clarity and certainty in law for police and courts when advising the public, investigating cases and bringing prosecutions?