Chamber and committees

To pick up on a theme of the debate, anyone who spends too much time with Maurice Golden will get themselves into choppy waters.

Members: Oh!

Actually, I will not, because I think that I am out of time, and I do not have any extra time.

There are things that we can do, but we are not doing them. We need to consider examples such as that one in order to create a market in hydrogen. If we can create a market in hydrogen, we can benefit places such as Grangemouth. It is the same with sustainable aviation fuel.

It is clear that, despite what the cabinet secretary claimed earlier, the Scottish Government’s record in climate change is poor. It has missed target after target, as Maurice Golden said. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill will not change the climate—the title is a misnomer. We do not know when carbon budgets will be set, we do not know what the new level of emissions reduction ambition will be, and the Government will be able to produce a climate change plan whenever it likes. Warm words will not cool the climate, but action might.

The Deputy First Minister talks about good, well-paid jobs in Scotland. She may be aware of today’s announcement by Alexander Dennis that it could be shedding about 160 jobs. It is blaming the Scottish bus fund, which has funded more vehicles being produced in China than anywhere else—or certainly than in Scotland. Will she say something about that serious issue?

As a member for Central Scotland, I, too, have to mention Grangemouth today, because the news has been devastating. I hope that our two Governments can work together to save that facility. I think that it has a future, and I will go on to say why.

The title of the debate is “Growing Scotland’s Green Economy.” Earlier, I asked the Deputy First Minister about the announcement by Alexander Dennis, which is also in my region—it has two plants, in Falkirk and Larbert—that 160 jobs are at risk. In its press release announcing that terrible news, it mentions phase 2 of the Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund—ScotZEB 2.

Members may not be aware of what ScotZEB 2 is. It is a Scottish Government fund for zero emission buses or coaches, so it is very much in keeping with the debate. Alexander Dennis says that

“government zero-emission bus funding has disproportionately benefitted competitors from lower-cost and lower-security economies.”

In a letter to me, Fiona Hyslop confirms that 66 per cent—the majority—of the orders from that fund have gone to China and 17.6 per cent have gone to Alexander Dennis, which is Scotland-based. For me, that is a problem. We have Scottish Government money going to China and not to Scotland or even the rest of the UK. There is an issue there, and the Scottish Government needs to take a good look at it.

Paul Davies, the managing director of Alexander Dennis, said:

“We are deeply disappointed that the ongoing effect of various government policies”—

he mentions the UK Government, too—

“is now threatening some of these jobs.”

He went on to say:

“Competition ... is healthy, but when taxpayer money is spent with little domestic industrial, economic or employment benefit and bus companies effectively are incentivised to buy from lower-security economies, it creates an incomprehensible dynamic and an uneven playing field.”

That is the effect of that Scottish Government fund. When we are talking about growing Scotland’s green economy, we really need to look closer to home.

I read with interest the green industrial strategy, which was published yesterday. There is some well-intentioned stuff in there. It talks about

“Maximising Scotland’s wind economy ... Developing a self-sustaining carbon capture, utilisation and storage sector ... Supporting green economy professional and financial services, with global reach ... Growing our hydrogen sector”

and

“Establishing Scotland as a competitive centre for the clean Energy Intensive Industries of the future”.

That all sounds good enough, but let us take just one of those examples—hydrogen. The strategy lays out the actions that the Government will take:

“Identify barriers to hydrogen production development ... Encourage domestic demand for renewable and low carbon hydrogen and hydrogen products ... Support the sector to develop new place-based hubs of co-located hydrogen production and demand”

and

“Maximise export opportunities for hydrogen and hydrogen products.”

When we see words such as “identify”, “encourage” and “support” in Government documents, it often means that nothing will actually happen.

I can give the Deputy First Minister another idea. I have quoted in committee European Union regulation 2023/1804 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. Members will never have heard me say, “Let’s follow the EU”, but I do so on this one, because the regulation says that, by the end of December 2025, there should be one recharging pool at least every 60km—that is 37 miles—on the main road network in the EU.

The regulation also does a number of other things in relation to hydrogen infrastructure for road vehicles, liquefied methane for road transport, electricity supply in ports, electricity for aircraft, and railway infrastructure to include hydrogen and battery power. We are seeing hydrogen fuel stations being installed along main routes throughout Europe—measurable outcomes with measurable carbon emission benefits. If we do that, we create a market. If we create a market, people start to change behaviour.

It is the same with—

When the cabinet secretary announced the decision, she admitted that, in some cases, people had saved thousands of pounds through the pilot. Does she agree, then, that ending it will cost people thousands of pounds?

Will the member take an intervention?

Would Ben Macpherson not accept that this is about the way that ScotRail is run? It is now nationalised. Surely he would accept that putting fares up—as is about to happen, in just over two weeks—is not what should be happening. Does he accept that?

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason rainforests were excluded from the deer management incentive scheme pilots. (S6O-03688)

I regularly use the train, and my staff use the train all the time. It is just going to become more expensive for them now. That is a real shame, and Mr Stewart should know that.

Fiona Hyslop should have sent back the evaluation for the reasons that I have outlined. In addition, the evaluation measured passenger demand in terms of journey numbers rather than distance travelled, which could give a different picture. The transport secretary has said that the trial cost around £40 million. The RMT suggests that the actual figure is nearer to £20 million, because without the trial, passenger numbers would have increased, similar to the rest of the United Kingdom, and I think that the RMT is right. It is not small change, but it should be seen as investment.

Public transport should be seen as a service, and it should become the go-to choice. When times are tough for people, we should not be making things harder. The reintroduction of peak fares should be reversed, as the motion in my name says. I call on Parliament to do the right thing and back the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament calls on the Scottish Government to reverse its decision to reintroduce peak fares on Scotland’s railway.