The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 614 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 6 February 2025
Edward Mountain
[Made a request to intervene.]
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 6 February 2025
Edward Mountain
Sorry, Presiding Officer—I did not want to make an intervention. I just wanted to indicate that I want to speak in the debate. I misread the instructions on the keypad.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 6 February 2025
Edward Mountain
I am pleased that I am now coming in at the right moment.
I am pleased to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Before getting into the detail of the devolved elements of the bill, I wish to outline some serious concerns about the process that the legislative consent motion has brought to light. We are debating the motion barely 48 hours after our committee’s report was published, which has left little time for anyone to consider our findings.
I recognise that the issues that we experience in scrutinising legislative consent memorandums are often unavoidable. We are part of a process taking place not only in this Parliament but in another Parliament, with its own deadlines, with two Governments negotiating in a way that we cannot track. Parliamentary scrutiny too often falls victim to unsatisfactory process that sidelines committees. I strongly believe that committees should never be bystanders, providing a last-minute rubber-stamp on inter-Government negotiations. We should be active participants. To that end, I urge the Governments to work harder together to ensure that the Parliament is given its proper constitutional role in the process.
Our report sets out a clear position. When the Scottish Government lodges a memorandum that sets out a holding position, it should lodge a more substantive memorandum as soon as possible. That should not wait until the final amendments are lodged. Committees need proper information at an early stage of their scrutiny, so that they can make an impact.
I will move on to the detail of the bill. Clauses 5 and 6 were the ones that raised issues. Clause 5 requires the secretary of state to
“prepare a statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy.”
Initially, the bill required the Scottish Government to be consulted about that. The Scottish Government requested that that be changed to require its consent. Intergovernment negotiations went well, as we have heard, and the bill is to be amended in line with that request. The committee has often called for the Governments to work together, so we are pleased to see that co-operation, although I reiterate that we should have had a much clearer statement much sooner than we did about what the Government was pursuing.
Clause 6 of the bill grants the secretary of state the power to issue directions to GB Energy. The committee and the Scottish Government have received assurances that that power would be used only rarely, in limited circumstances—for example, in relation to national security—but the bill provides no such limitations.
We have been assured that the UK Government will consult the Scottish ministers before issuing directions that engage devolved interests. The Scottish Government says that it is content with those assurances, but the committee remains concerned. If both Governments agree that the Scottish Government should be consulted, we are unclear why such a provision has not been included in the bill. The inclusion of such a provision would provide a firm, permanent legal footing, as opposed to a non-binding assurance from the Government of the day. Our report calls on the Scottish Government to request that change in whatever time remains of the process.
With that one reservation, the committee agreed, by a majority, to recommend that consent be given. However, what we have seen underlines the importance of ensuring that committees are involved at an early stage so that their concerns do not end up being sidelined because we have run out of time. I urge the Scottish Government and the UK Government to do what they can to improve the process in the future.
17:11Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Edward Mountain
To ask the Scottish Government what the total monthly running cost of Ferguson Marine is. (S6O-04285)
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Edward Mountain
Let me help the Deputy First Minister in answering that question. The monthly under-recovery, as quoted by Ferguson Marine, is £1 million per calendar month. It has been suggested that it costs £20 million a year to run Ferguson Marine if there is no recovery of any works. That is £84,000 per job. How will the Scottish Government fund that if it does not give the small vessels contract to Ferguson Marine?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Edward Mountain
On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Deputy First Minister just referred to letters that should be sent to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I would like it noted on the record that the letter that was due at the end of January has not yet been received, nor has there been any reason given for why it was late.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Edward Mountain
The budget theme pursued by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee this past year has been on whether major public spending decisions are in line with the balanced pathway to net zero modelled by the Climate Change Committee. Our scrutiny has been of the big-picture variety in many big spending areas of energy and transport. Budgets are about tough choices; given that I have six minutes, that applies to this speech, too, so I can run through only the main areas that the committee discussed.
Turning to the energy portfolio, one of the headline commitments is the increase in offshore wind supply chain funding from £10 million to £163 million. We have seen genuinely impressive progress in offshore wind in recent years, but there is still a feeling that it is an opportunity partly missed, with not enough value added domestically, especially in manufacturing.
We would like to know what Scotland’s percentage return on that investment is. If that investment is good news, the other side of the coin is the use of ScotWind revenues for general spending. I will not use this speech to enter into the debate on whether the Scottish Government had no choice but to dip into the fund. I will simply say—I hope that I am being objective—that it was not good news. It communicated a skittishness rather than consistency in the Government’s long-term financial commitment to growing the green energy sector. In January, the acting cabinet secretary expressed what I understood to be a commitment to replenish that funding source. The committee will be watching to see what that actually means.
This session of Parliament began in 2021 with big questions about the roles of industrial-scale electrolysis and carbon capture technology in the energy transition. Four years on, we are no wiser, which I have to say is frustrating. On the Acorn project, I recognise that decisive movement is needed on the UK side. However, the £80 million publicly committed by the Scottish Government remains unspent. The cabinet secretary gave us the reasons for that, so I will just leave that there.
As for green hydrogen, the Scottish Government must ensure that its commitments match up to the ambitious rhetoric. There are indeed technical challenges in scaling up production and establishing network capacity in the area, in respect of which seed funding could make a real difference. The Scottish Government’s announcement earlier in the parliamentary session of £100 million of support for the sector sounded impressive, but the vast majority of it is still unspent. That raises questions. Are the obligations in respect of the strings attached to the funding too onerous? Is there a problem with finding projects worthy of funding? I am keen to understand better what the blockers are, given that we all want a flourishing green energy industry. I hope that the committee can consider that further before the end of the session.
Transport accounts for more than a third of Scotland’s emissions. There is a job of work to be done to accelerate the switch over to electric vehicles and to get people in their hundreds of thousands to exercise a positive choice to use buses, trains, bikes and, indeed, their own two legs. Does the budget communicate that urgency? To take one strand, the Bute house agreement promised that 10 per cent of the transport budget would be allocated for active travel by 2024-25. That would translate to £320 million in the 2025-26 budget, but the amount this year is only £188.7 million.
On public transport, this financial year has seen the end of reduced fares for peak travel. Buses remain Scotland’s most used public transport, but uptake has declined by 25 per cent since 2006. The Government has allocated £440 million to concessionary travel, but there is less than £50 million for the network support grant that helps to keep less-used services running—we risk losing more routes.
On electric vehicles, the Scottish Government has committed to 24,000 new public charging points by 2030. The number of charging points currently stands at somewhat more than 6,000, so, as anyone can see, meeting that target will be particularly challenging.
A recent SPICe blog on the budget highlighted that, across its responses to committees, the Government had described itself as “committed” no fewer than 56 times, but that details on delivery were sometimes very sparse. That echoes the Climate Change Committee’s comments last year that the Scottish Government lacks a credible delivery plan for its climate ambitions.
I understand that money is tight, and that is true across the UK. Barring economic growth and a bigger tax base, all budget decisions look big and tough. That is a daunting and difficult backdrop for a just and fair transition to net zero. The forthcoming climate change plan, which we will finally see in September 2025, presents an opportunity for serious thinking about how the Government can deliver the change more smartly and bridge the gap between ambition and delivery; it will need to make sure that it puts enough financial resources into the plan to ensure that that happens.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 January 2025
Edward Mountain
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seem to be having problems with the app this evening. I would have voted no.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 January 2025
Edward Mountain
I want to debate the issue purely on technical grounds, but to put my comments into context, I mention that I have been training dogs for more than 40 years. In fact, I have successfully trained 15 dogs, and some of the puppies that I have seen bred from my dogs have gone to assist people as part of their treatment for cancer; some have become service dogs; and some have become buddies for children who have a short time on this planet. They are very placid dogs, and in most cases, they have been very easy to train.
Over the 40 years that I have been involved, training has significantly changed. I am glad that it has changed, because it used to be more about dominating a dog; now, it is more about rewarding a dog, which is the way that it should be. However, I have had two dogs that proved significantly difficult. For one of them, the only way to keep it in my garden was to put an underground electric fence around the garden and have a collar fitted to the dog. On the occasions that it did not have the collar on, it would definitely wander off. On one occasion, it was brought back to me by a friend who was a local farmer after it had had a go at his sheep. That, sadly, resulted in the death of the dog, because I felt that I could not keep it.
I am not sure that I agree that electric collars have much of a place, but I think that they have some place. I would like to debate that issue as a Parliament. I understand Mr Greer’s points about the previous evidence that has been taken, but let us debate it. The problem is that we did not debate the amendments at stage 2.
I specifically took part in stage 2—I debated various matters then and at stage 1. I am sure that I do not need to remind members that, during the stage 1 debate, Christine Grahame said that if I did not know where my marriage certificate was—because I had raised a question about certificates—my wife would surely tell me. I am delighted to confirm that my wife did tell me where it was—she keeps it under lock and key at home. My issue is—
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 January 2025
Edward Mountain
I will do so in just a moment.
My issue is that we have not debated these amendments at stage 2 and, in fact, they have not been debated at committee.
I give way to Mr Greer.