Chamber and committees

I thank the Lord Advocate for the detail in her response and I welcome her to her new role.

I do not have time to respond to all of that answer, but I note that this has been a deeply upsetting period for many families, because before the pandemic bereaved families experienced long and agonising waits for final post-mortem reports. Instead of being told that it could take around 12 weeks to receive a report, many were told that it could take 12 months and some were told that it could take two years.

I am pleased that there have been improvements, but under the new service level agreement between the Scottish Police Authority’s forensic services and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, what robust measures will be put in place, and are families being consulted? Will the Lord Advocate meet me and affected families to make sure that we never get the issue wrong again?

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports of a backlog in toxicology analyses, how many final post-mortem reports following a sudden or unexplained death were not issued within the 12-week target in 2020 and 2021. (S6O-00237)

The issue is important. Citizens Advice goes on to say that many more people will face fuel poverty this winter and could face

“turning off their fridges and freezers, relying on hot water bottles for warmth and requesting support to buy extra duvets and blankets.”

None of us wants to live in such a society.

Energy companies and charities have called for the introduction of a social tariff—that is different from what Anna Rossington has talked about—for those who are already in fuel poverty, which would offer a tariff below the price cap. How could that be implemented to ensure that the most vulnerable households are protected from the recent price increases? More generally, given our interest in net zero, how can we be sure that the journey to net zero will not push households further into fuel poverty?

I would like to bring us back to the UK energy crisis. A report that Citizens Advice published last week found that consumers who are moved to a new supplier typically pay £30 a month more than before.

Jonathan Brearley said that all of Ofgem’s work is about supporting the consumer. How can Ofgem ensure that effective competition is promoted in the wholesale and retail markets while ensuring that energy is affordable to all consumers?

Good morning to the panel and to Professor Turner’s cat, who made a nice appearance a moment ago.

I return to your report, Professor Docherty, about which Mark Ruskell has asked questions already. You were modest about the attention that the report has received and some of the headlines that it prompted, but you are a former non-executive director of ScotRail and Transport Scotland, so you are a person of influence.

Your report is correct in saying that Scotland’s rail network has a central role to play in our meeting Scotland’s climate change targets, and you made an important point about making the shift from car to train. I am not sure, and the public is confused, about how the proposed service cuts, closures of ticket offices and job losses will help us to meet those climate change targets. Surely, those measures will make that objective more difficult—making people feel less safe and secure, and making train travel less accessible to them—and run counter to the race to net zero.

There are also concerns about the equality impact of some of those proposals. We are hearing a lot in the media now about women’s safety and about the rise in hate crime against disabled people and people of colour on our railways. If we want to change behaviours and give people the confidence to get on the trains, how will all those cuts help?

Thank you, Professor Docherty. I have found my notes from earlier, when I was scribbling down what you were saying in response to Mark Ruskell. You talked about having a plan for doubling the number of rail passengers. I am not sure whether that plan exists yet, but I am interested in what you think it should include.

Going back to public confidence and mood, during the pandemic, people were advised not to use public transport and, if they were travelling by car, not to car share. How do we use public messaging to shift that advice? I have not heard a lot of new advice telling people to get back on the bus and train. Morale is very low among key transport workers including rail workers, there is an industrial dispute and the number of strikes might increase during COP26. How do the Government, Transport Scotland, ScotRail and the trade unions cut through all that and find some agreement, so that we can get the travelling public back on to public transport and out of private cars?

It is customary to say that I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I am pleased, but I feel frustrated. As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I have been following the issue closely and I put on record my thanks to the clerks of the that committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, colleagues in the Scottish Parliament information centre, who have been working hard, and the cabinet secretary for his time at committee.

However, here we are, and I am not sure that we are any further forward. Our situation partly reflects the collective failure of Scotland’s two Governments to work together in the interests of Scottish people. The impact of Brexit on the UK’s constitutional framework has been huge and it demands that we approach more areas on a common UK basis. It is in our interests and the climate’s best interests for the UK and Scottish Governments to build a stronger and more productive relationship to make that possible. The current governing structures are not fit for purpose.

To date, the Tories’ approach to Brexit has been a shambles and they have sought to undermine the Scottish Parliament on a number of occasions, but the SNP has not helped by engaging in megaphone diplomacy and resorting to banging on about independence rather than seeking to find consensus where we need it. I hope that that explains why we feel frustrated.

Scottish Labour has a proud record of standing up for our devolved powers and we will continue to do so. It is important that I emphasise that we share the Scottish Government’s opposition to the Tories’ contesting Scottish Parliament legislation in the way that they have. If the Scottish Government feels as strongly as I think it does, why was a challenge not taken to the Supreme Court to get clarity on the matter?

I am sure that the minister recognises that she is in a position in which she can do something. I heard from her colleague the cabinet secretary that she wrote a letter in June, I think, a month after she came into office. That is great to hear, but is that all that she has done—written a letter and sat back? What else is she doing to get a response from UK ministers?

I am grateful for that update. It is clear that it is not acceptable for correspondence from Scottish ministers to be ignored by UK ministers, and I hope that that issue will be resolved. However, it appears that there have been differences in how the Welsh Government has interacted with the UK Government. Perhaps colleagues on the other side of the chamber could provide insight into that, because that is another point of frustration. Scottish Labour does not have access to the legal advice that either Government gets, so we need more transparency on that.

The cabinet secretary and Donald Cameron spoke well and fairly about the fact that there is lots of agreement about what the bill seeks to achieve. There is little policy difference.

I turn to the amendments on forest risk commodities and deforestation. Alice Lucas, writing for the Fairtrade Foundation, reminds us that

“poverty and deforestation fuel each other in a negative cycle”

and that deforestation is

“wreaking havoc on the planet and its people”.

Today, many of us are wearing challenge poverty week badges. It would be good to be using our time to debate and discuss climate justice and to look at the impact of poverty, but here we are debating legislative consent instead.

To be honest, we are not quite sure how we have reached this point, but it seems to us that there should have been much earlier engagement and discussion between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It will not be for Labour members to solve that, but we urge people to work more closely together. To make real progress in tackling the climate and nature emergencies, we need both Governments to work together to deliver strong environmental protections.

I move amendment S6M-01512.2, to leave out from “further calls on” to end and insert:

“is disappointed that the UK and Scottish governments have failed to have early and constructive dialogue on the environmental protections that are required, and believes that parliamentary time would be better spent on measures to address the global climate emergency.”

Abortion rights are under attack around the world and, here in Scotland, women are being harassed as they try to access abortion clinics safely. The implementation of buffer zones around clinics has stalled, and campaigners such as Back Off Scotland are looking to the Scottish Government for leadership and support.

Does the First Minister agree that anyone who accesses abortion healthcare in Scotland should be able to do so safely and free from harassment? Will the Government reassess its position on legislating for abortion clinic buffer zones?