Chamber and committees

Sorry, how does that £4.7 billion relate to the ScotWind money?

Are you saying that you feel confident about the 2030 interim targets and the 2045 emission reduction targets?

It is okay—I am sure that you will give me all the time back anyway, convener.

Others may want to ask about the use of reserves, because there is a concern out there that reserves are being raided. I know that we have Alison Irvine from Transport Scotland here, but we have had representations from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport about the expectations on its reserves. I believe that it has set out in writing to the committee that the reserves that it holds are already allocated for infrastructure upgrading and other safety-critical projects, and others may want to come on to that.

I have a few questions to ask. We would welcome detail on Scottish Forestry’s reserves at a time when it is approving a record number of schemes for woodland creation, but it looks like there is a big budget cut, which is obviously a bit jarring.

I want to go back to confidence levels. How confident are you that the Scottish Government will be able to grow investment in low-carbon infrastructure to the £5 billion to £6 billion annually that the UK Climate Change Committee suggests will be required by the end of this decade? I will come to you first, Deputy First Minister.

Convener, I know that there are a lot of questions. We have not heard from Mr Gray, but I am happy to hand back to you and maybe come back in later, if that is okay.

Good morning to the cabinet secretaries and to all others on the panel. Thank you for your opening statements. You have set out the challenges and pressures, both in a global context and on more domestic issues. Deputy First Minister, how confident and certain are you that the spending decisions in the 2024-25 budget set a course for meeting the interim 2030 emissions reduction targets for Scotland?

Will the member take an intervention?

I have been waiting all day to hear that story at the start of Graham Simpson’s speech because he and I did the same school chat this morning and he promised that there would be a story.

The union that he refers to, PCS Scotland, commented in December that its members were given just an hour’s notice of the decision before it was announced on 7 December. As we have had the Christmas period and people, including trade union officials, have had time off work, we might hear more this week. Does he recognise that giving an hour’s notice for a plan that is not a real plan—because there is no named location in Glasgow for the move—is really ropey? Rather than have a go at trade unions for not saying more, we should be taking it back to the UK Tory Government in order for it to give a proper, coherent explanation.

Presiding Officer, I wish you, and colleagues in the chamber, a happy new year.

I, too, am grateful to Collette Stevenson for securing the debate. It feels like a debate, and I am grateful to Graham Simpson for taking some interventions. I will not repeat some of the things that have been said. In his thoughtful remarks, Ben Macpherson, who paid tribute to the workforce that has been in place over many decades, made us realise that not only are there local impacts and factors but there is also a global dimension to the issue. We should remember the important internationalist values that are in play.

I remind colleagues that I am a member of the PCS parliamentary group and I refer members to the voluntary heading in my entry in the register of members’ interests. Many of us recognise that there are important stakeholders involved, including the trade unions. I suggest to Mr Simpson that he does not have to wait to be approached; he can pick up the phone to workers as well.

I am here tonight because I am a Central Scotland MSP, so I represent East Kilbride, and I live next door in Blantyre. This is a big deal for us locally, and it is a real pity that we do not have unity among all the local elected members. I suspect that Graham Simpson probably feels the same way and would rather that we were in a different situation. However, we find ourselves in an election year and perhaps people feel that they cannot say what they really think.

People are concerned about the UK Tory Government’s announcement that it is closing the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office offices at Abercrombie house and moving those highly regarded civil service jobs out of East Kilbride. That is the key point that I will focus on tonight, because it is a hard pill to swallow.

The UK Tory Government promised more FCDO jobs in East Kilbride but, instead, it is moving them out of the town. It is doing that at a time when the council and others are working really hard to think about the future of East Kilbride, its regeneration and ways to give people hope and confidence.

As we have heard, Abercrombie house was first established in 1981, which happens to be the year in which I was born. The expansion of the Overseas Development Administration provided a massive boost to the area, giving East Kilbride residents access to stable and secure employment, at a time when communities across the central belt were suffering due to de-industrialisation and Thatcherism. Before his days playing for the Scotland football team, Ally McCoist worked at Abercrombie house part time while playing for St Johnstone Football Club, as one of the first 350 employees at the start of the 1980s. He said that when the building opened,

“It was a massive boost for East Kilbride”.

Abercrombie house is a central feature of East Kilbride’s economic and social life. Councillor Joe Fagan, who has been mentioned already, is the leader of South Lanarkshire Council. He said:

“I am frankly astounded by the announcement on the FCDO—both the decision itself and the way it has been made. These staff have been working, and in many cases living, in East Kilbride for decades and are important contributors to our local community and economy. The FCDO announcement has been made out of the blue, suggesting not just a failure of communication but also a lack of coherence in their decision-making process. The reasons given for the decision are also weak, to say the least.”

I know that some people who work there and live in Glasgow perhaps feel that the move might not be too big a deal, but others who live beyond East Kilbride—for example, in Strathaven or Stonehouse—including people with caring responsibilities, are worried about the commute. There are so many unknowns. The fact that staff were given one hour’s notice before the decision went public, just before Christmas, does not sit easily with me. A few of those points have already been made.

There is time to unite, to put East Kilbride first, to put those jobs first and to go back with questions for the Secretary of State for Scotland and other UK ministers, who have a plan that does not really add up. There is still time for Mr Simpson and Lisa Cameron to get behind the community and the workers. If we can speak with one voice, we will be much stronger.

I thank all colleagues for their support, and I thank Collette Stevenson for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I am really enjoying this meeting. It is nice to be back in the Parliament. If I reflect on the early questions about engagement, I think that you have all demonstrated why we need early engagement and genuine and meaningful co-production.

My question is about objective 5, which is to “Invest in nature”. The biodiversity investment plan was mentioned earlier and the draft plan commits to developing a biodiversity investment plan that will, or should, set out strategic priorities for public investment. I am keen to understand what has been learned to date about the effective public funding of nature restoration. Where does investment need to be prioritised? Perhaps you could also say a word or two about whether current funding commitments reflect the urgency of the nature crisis that has been articulated today.

My question is for Bruce Wilson first.

I am keen to bring in others, but I want to build on that by touching on the role of private investment. Bruce Wilson is right to say that that is the reality, but stakeholders have raised concerns about an apparent reliance in the draft plan on private investment approaches. Paul Walton’s points about regulation and the need for integrity are obviously key in that respect. Do you agree with the Government’s strategy of promoting responsible investment in natural capital, and what would that look like?

Moreover, the Government is, as you know, looking to expand the use of woodland and peatland codes and exploring biodiversity credits. We have also heard about some fears with regard to potential greenwashing, particularly with some of the big polluters. I know that Sarah Cowie wants to come in, but I also want to come back to Bruce Wilson on that question and, indeed, am keen to hear a range of views, if there are any.