Chamber and committees

Good morning. I want to ask about the offshore wind environmental improvement package, which has been mentioned a couple of times. Is the Scottish Government content with the actions that are being planned by the UK Government to reduce the consent periods for offshore wind projects that are being adopted as part of the offshore wind environmental improvement package?

I think that people in Scotland will be wondering what that could mean for ScotWind and for a potential ScotWind 2. What is the Scottish Government’s view on that? Have there been discussions with stakeholders in Scotland on the ScotWind agenda?

Are those meetings just nice chats or do you get into the detail at them?

Thank you. We all want to have clarity.

I read a note of a meeting of the interministerial group for environment, food and rural affairs that took place on 5 December, at which the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands, Mairi Gougeon, and the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, Lorna Slater, were representing the Scottish Government. The note is on the UK Government website and it is written from that perspective, but it sounds quite positive or constructive. It says:

“Devolved government ministers set out the importance of delivering the provisions in way that supports our shared offshore wind ambition whilst respecting devolution. Defra minister agreed that there is a need to work with devolved governments to ... achieve our mutual objectives.”

Are you aware of whether the concerns that you have raised were discussed at that meeting on 5 December?

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I have enjoyed listening to the speeches of colleagues from right across the chamber. We have heard about some challenges and concerns, but overall we are optimistic about our island communities and islanders, and about the talent and ideas that they bring to the debate. I hope that island communities feel that their voices are being heard.

As a member who represents the Central Scotland region, I am a bit of an outsider in the debate. However, many of my constituents in Lanarkshire and Falkirk are from island communities and have family, social and business connections to our islands. I have come to appreciate and understand that more as a member of the Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

Similar to Fiona Hyslop and Liam Kerr, who are colleagues on that committee, I take the issues of the debate seriously. We are looking for innovative ways to ensure that island communities are heard in the Parliament. I have in recent months enjoyed the opportunity to spend time in Orkney and the Western Isles in order to hear directly from islanders. We had online engagement this week—including with young people, in order to ensure that they are represented. I am glad that the cabinet secretary touched on that important point in her opening speech.

The diversity of Scotland’s islands enriches our culture. Alasdair Allan touched on that point well.

My interest in the carbon neutral islands project and the decarbonisation journey is in relation to transport. Liam McArthur, in his amendment and speech, touched on a vital point about the decarbonisation of

“lifeline ferry services across all routes that serve Scotland’s island communities”,

which Labour members feel strongly about, too.

I welcome the progress report. The very first sentence, which is in the cabinet secretary’s name, says that

“Climate change and nature loss are the greatest threats facing our planet.”

I hope that we all focus on that during the debate. I agree with the cabinet secretary that island communities should be

“front and centre in the journey to net zero.”

The report talks about “net zero gap skills”. I think that it should be “skills gap”—Liam Kerr made that point. In our work in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, we hear about the need for more training, more investment and more joined-up working and partnership working. Those are issues that the Government cannot fix alone. We need collaboration and partnership, but investment is absolutely key. I have not yet met anyone who is resistant to the net zero agenda, but we require more practical support and sustainable investment, including for third sector organisations, which bring many skills to the table.

I mentioned young people; the Young Islanders Network is clearly important. It is good that we have visitors from it in the public gallery today.

As for all such debates, the publication of a strategy and report is welcome, but it is through actions and in delivery that change really happens. I understand why there is some concern from Conservative members about that; Liam Kerr made some important points, as did Jamie Greene. I know that the action plans will be published later in the year, but that work is crucial.

As a citizen of Scotland, I do not particularly like to hear the UK Climate Change Committee, when it comes to the Parliament, warning us of the danger of “magical thinking”. We must pay attention and wake up to that. I am not sure that Lord Deben was saying that Scotland has been overambitious. I am not sure whether that was exactly what he said—perhaps Liam Kerr got that a little bit muddled. However, the point is well made that we can be ambitious and have targets, but we need the delivery plan to ensure that we deliver and work at pace. It is a warning to us all that there is no room for complacency on this issue.

The Labour amendment is really important because we must frame the debate in the context of what is happening in the here and now—the cost of living crisis and our efforts to achieve a just transition. Mercedes Villalba made important points about the need to have the right investment and the right job creation so that we can tackle wealth inequalities and the fuel poverty that many colleagues have mentioned. When I visited Orkney and spoke to some of the constituents whom Liam McArthur talked about, I was extremely concerned to hear about the high levels of fuel poverty there. We must grapple with such issues.

It is worth repeating Rhoda Grant’s point about the fact that the carbon emissions from interisland ferry services will not be included in the audits. Other colleagues are more familiar with the issue than I am, but I recognise the frustration and disappointment around that. Ministers say that the reason for that is that local authorities, not the Government, have responsibility for those services, but we know that four of the six islands in question are served by CalMac. More credible responses are required.

I agree with colleagues who are optimistic and who can see the opportunities, but we must ensure that the delivery plan and investment are up to scratch.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

It is good to hear about the work that is intended to improve the situation, but the cabinet secretary knows as well as I do that, in Lanarkshire, we have had a code black situation for quite a long time now—hundreds of days—and we are not seeing that improvement. We talk about wellbeing and safety for patients and staff, but it is not fair work if people have to go to their work every day and work at the highest possible level of risk in the NHS. When will we see improvements in Lanarkshire? Is there any chance that we will de-escalate from code black any time soon?

I am keen to come on to buses but, for the moment, I will stick with rail and the six-month pilot in relation to peak rail fares. Does the Government hope that the proposed measure will help to widen access? Will any work be done during the pilot or in advance of it to make people aware of it so that more people from different backgrounds use rail?

Good morning. I will begin by asking about the fair fares review. There has been a lot of interest in peak rail fares and the announcement about their abolition as part of the fair fares review. Given the public’s and the committee’s interest in that, could you explain the rationale behind the abolition of peak rail fares? Some people have pointed out that rail travel is most frequently used by men, people who are on higher incomes and older age groups, so can you provide some comment on the socioeconomic rationale behind that decision?

Thank you. You said how important bus services are to our communities, and in respect of achieving net zero, which is the focus of this committee. Does the Scottish Government feel that enough progress is being made in establishing municipal bus companies in Scotland? What further action can the Scottish Government take to support such a development? We know that there are funding pressures. You have itemised some of the amounts here, including £5 million of capital resource, but I do not know how far that goes when spread across all the local authorities. Are you content with the progress so far?