Chamber and committees

That is very interesting. I recently visited Inverness prison, where staff were having to do all prisoner transfers by hand because the call system does not link in with the prison’s system—it was interesting to see that.

I do not know whether Simon Pittaway and David Phillips want to cover anything quickly in that area.

Is that engagement happening on other sites?

My question is on critical energy infrastructure. You said that you would have liked to have conversations about Grangemouth about five years ago. There is energy infrastructure, particularly in my region, the Highlands and Islands, that is probably not going to be operating until the middle of the next decade. We have just seen job losses at the Flotta oil terminal, and it will go into new ownership next year. What lessons have you learned from the process around Grangemouth that you think will help to make sure that we do not find ourselves in the same situation again? Also, are you having discussions with operators of terminals such as Flotta now to ensure that, as I said, we do not end up in the same situation as we currently find ourselves?

Members will be delighted to hear that I will focus only on my amendments 552 and 555, which are particularly pertinent to my Highlands and Islands region.

I was pleased to lead opposition in the Parliament to the Scottish Government’s ban on wood-burning stoves in new-build homes in Scotland. We held a members’ business debate on the issue, which was supported by MSPs from across the Parliament, bar those from one party. In that debate, we recognised the importance of wood-burning stoves to households in the rural and island communities across the Highlands and Islands that I represent, especially in emergencies or when power is lost, as is too often the case.

Another issue that was highlighted repeatedly in that debate was the role that wood-burning stoves can play in helping to alleviate some of the worst impacts of fuel poverty for households. Again, that is an issue particularly in the northern isles, where I live, where fuel poverty rates are far too high.

I was very pleased when we forced or encouraged the Scottish Government to look again at the issue and to U-turn on what was a potentially impactful and dangerous ban, especially for my region. However, there remains the risk that such a ban could be reintroduced. My amendments would mean that, when ministers consider the regulation of direct emission heating systems that provide secondary heating, such as wood-burning stoves or other forms of emergency heating, there should be a presumption in favour of allowing those heating systems to be installed in any dwellings in remote rural and island areas.

I believe that my amendments would give my constituents and others who live in such communities, especially in the Highlands and Islands, the reassurance of knowing that, when the power goes out or their mains heating breaks, they will not be left in the cold.

I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention, and I apologise for having to pop out quickly.

Recently, the Government brought in a ban on wood-burning stoves in new-build homes, then, recognising the real concerns of communities, particularly those in my region, immediately reconsidered and withdrew it. Surely that suggests a lack of clarity, which my amendments would provide a bit more of.

Yes, it does. Those aspects were focused more on what can be delivered, but I agree with what you say.

Okay—I come to everyone else.

There are concerns that come up time and time again. During apprenticeship week, I met with Serimax, and it raised housing and transport as issues of real concern that presented difficulties in various areas. That aspect concerns me. It is all right for those in the central belt to take decisions and say, “This is what we want to deliver in this area”, but we know that there will be some overheating around the Cromarty Firth, for example, given that there will be—it is hoped—so much work going there. I suppose, Paul Campbell, that you would say that you are not confident that the potential new approach, with the loss of SAAB, will be able to deliver that input.

I will make a statement and ask the witnesses to agree with it—[Laughter.]—or disagree with it. Sorry—I am not trying to push you either way.

It follows up on previous questions, in particular from Murdo Fraser. Previous witnesses have said that the system operates in the following way. There is not enough funding for apprenticeships, so there are not enough places, and people apply for apprenticeships and do not get them. They then go to college—they might even go on to university—and they end up roughly where they would have been if they had simply been able to do an apprenticeship, as would have been the case in the past. That is potentially costing more money, and it also means that we do not get much-needed people into the workplace.

Would you agree or disagree with that, and do you have any additional insights?

Does anybody else want to come in on that?

I thank the witnesses for coming in—the session has been extremely interesting. I will look at a couple of areas and then finish with a follow-up question on what Daniel Johnson asked about.

First, I come back to Paul Campbell on the SAAB question. The Cromarty Firth development was touched on just now. Delivering skills, apprenticeships and training in areas such as my region of the Highlands and Islands is very different from doing so in other parts of Scotland. The Withers report included proposals for regional skills councils. Would that be enough to ensure that there is regional input, or do you—or any of the other witnesses—have concerns that we will lose some of that regional input and expertise?