Chamber and committees

We want the dialogue to be respectful. We want services to be restored. You made a distinction between the Scottish Government’s approach and what happens elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government is very committed to fair work, and I know that you have a good relationship with the trade unions on that matter. You mentioned rest days. The public want services restored for everyone’s convenience, but we need those services to be safe. Therefore, what is the position on rest days? You said that it is a historic practice that happens elsewhere. However, in your mind, is it good practice for workers to feel under pressure to work on rest days?

Over the past decade or so, there have been reforms to the planning system. We have seen that in primary legislation. There has been an emphasis on front loading so that there is lots of dialogue with applicants, developers, communities and planning authorities at the early stage. That is supposed to be the place where some of the detail can be thrashed out to ensure that the information is robust and reliable for everyone involved.

Is that part of the process working as well as it should? As an industry, are you reflecting on what more you could do to build confidence at the start of it? We know that planning has a difficult job to do in taking into account all sorts of competing interests. We also know that studies on, for example, biodiversity or flooding are expensive and take time. Could more be done to front load planning, and could you guys contribute to that?

You made an important point about time constraints. Perhaps I could come to David Hammond about those in a second. First, though, Morag Watson, you spoke earlier about community benefit funding, and you gave an example involving £900,000 of funds. Do you agree that there is an opportunity for such funding to increase? Could it perhaps plug some of the gaps that we see—for example, by facilitating capacity building and engagement both in communities and with public sector partners, not just planning authorities? As the committee has seen and heard during this inquiry, in the contexts of the role of local government on the journey to net zero, and of financing, we seem to need a cross-sectoral approach. Could more be done to make community benefit funding a bit more generous?

There are no questions left. It has been a long and interesting discussion.

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. In their opening remarks, Morag Watson and Stephanie Anderson talked about planning as a barrier to development and described a process that can be long and slow. To put that into context, do you have any up-to-date figures on how many applications are successful? The impression that I have is that we still have a pro-development culture in Scotland and the majority of applications are approved. Is that fair to say?

I imagine that we do not have much more time for this agenda item, but I wonder what advice was given to ministers on those issues, ahead of 1 April 2022. Did anyone foresee what would happen—that services would be reduced by one third a month after the move into public ownership?

Good morning to the minister and her officials. Thank you for your opening remarks, minister.

People who welcome the nationalisation of Scotland’s rail services want to see improved accountability and clearer lines of responsibility. On a point of clarification, although I welcome your intention to have good relationships with the trade unions, I noticed that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—the RMT—accused you in the press of lying, which was obviously not a good allegation to hear. It also said that “the buck stops” with you, minister. On that point of accountability, which is what we are here to look at today, how can the public be reassured that it will not be a case of officials and managers taking responsibility when things are going badly and ministers taking credit when things are going well? How can we be sure that the lines of responsibility are clear? How do we very quickly get to a place where trade unions, which I know you respect, have confidence in you and are not accusing you of lying, which was an unfortunate headline to see at this early stage of the project?

Yes.

Good morning, everyone. We have heard about the key barriers that local authorities face when they are trying to maximise their involvement and success in making homes warm, healthy and aligned with net zero aims. Professor Webb, you talked about a lack of technical expertise. What expertise do local authorities have to buy in? What skills and expertise need to be advanced in Scotland?

That is worrying. In evidence that it took from experts from various charities that have advisers on the front line speaking to people across Scotland, the committee heard that unless both the UK Government and the Scottish Government do more, there will be

“a catastrophic loss of life”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 26 April 2022; c 23.]

this winter. Do you recognise those concerns? Are you willing to do more to work with the UK Government and others to try to save lives this year?

It would be helpful if you could keep the committee updated on that, because we have heard concerns about an increase in the number of people self-disconnecting. It is a real concern.

Earlier, we talked about the need for both the UK Government and the Scottish Government to do more as part of a four-nations approach, and you said that you were in regular discussion with Ofgem, the energy regulator. When did you last have a discussion with the UK minister, Greg Hands, from whom the committee heard last week? How often are ministers in Scotland in dialogue with the UK Government about these really important matters, which are affecting everyone in the country?