Official Report 1069KB pdf
Net Zero and Energy, and Transport
Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions on net zero, energy and transport. I advise members that there is a lot of interest in supplementaries, so I ask that we please have questions with limited preamble and answers that are as brief as possible.
Bus Patronage (South Lanarkshire)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to increase bus patronage in South Lanarkshire. (S6O-04306)
Our commitment to bus travel includes the investment of almost £465 million to support concessionary bus travel and to help to ensure that bus operators can continue to provide access to affordable transport through the network support grant in the deregulated market right across Scotland.
The concessionary travel scheme is instilling the habit of choosing the bus as a principal form of transport among young people, helping to sustain services while supporting our net zero ambitions. In December alone, 140,000 card holders from South Lanarkshire made more than 600,000 journeys under the national concessionary travel scheme.
I know that members will have welcomed the recent announcement from the Scottish Government that, as part of the budget, a £2 bus fare cap pilot will be introduced in one regional transport area. At the moment, more than 2.3 million people—everyone under the age of 22 or over 65, and disabled people and carers—benefit from free bus travel, and the £2 cap could build on that good work.
As the scheme is set to be introduced from January 2026, will the minister outline the criteria on how the pilot will be measured? I take this opportunity to encourage the minister to consider introducing the pilot across South Lanarkshire and Glasgow, to benefit my Rutherglen constituents.
I congratulate Clare Haughey on that straightforward pitch to the minister. She is absolutely right to highlight how many people are benefiting from free travel, thanks to the Government, and I very much welcome her interest in the £2 flat fare.
Although we are at the early stages of the fare cap pilot development, we are committed to delivering it on time and ensuring that travelling by bus is as attractive and affordable as possible. The work on the proposals will continue this year and will include continued dialogue with stakeholders, including local transport authorities and bus operators. As part of that process, we will determine suitable criteria for the pilot location.
The minister knows that I think that the £2 bus fare should be a national thing and that there is no need for a pilot. However, if we are to have one, clearly the best place for it is where most people live—the Strathclyde region. That is where it should be. What does the minister need to have happen? Does he need to have a formal bid from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport in order for Strathclyde to win that pilot?
I say well done to Graham Simpson for making his pitch for the pilot scheme. I am delighted that the scheme is getting so much coverage from members. However, I repeat that we are going through the process of working out what the pilot needs to do and what the criteria will be, and that we will announce that in due course.
One aspect of increasing bus patronage is ensuring that buses and bus stations are places where people, including the staff, feel safe. Following the cross-party meeting and the Labour debate on antisocial behaviour on buses, how is the minister progressing work to improve safety on buses for passengers and drivers?
The member is absolutely right to bring up that on-going issue. We are continuing to consider it. We are still looking at the things that we need to do in order to progress some of the issues that we talked about in the past, and I will update the chamber and the member as we come to some conclusions.
Question 2 has been withdrawn.
A96 Dualling (Compensation)
I apologise to members, as I may have to leave before the end of question time. I am grateful for permission to do so from your good self, Deputy Presiding Officer.
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how much it estimates will be paid in compensation for the properties to be compulsorily purchased to further the progress of the dualling of the A96 between Inverness and Auldearn, including the Nairn bypass, and when that process will be completed. (S6O-04308)
Completion last year of the statutory process for the A96 dualling from Inverness to Nairn, including the Nairn bypass, clears the way for the Scottish ministers to take forward the final stage of the process to acquire the land that is required to construct the scheme, and Transport Scotland is pressing ahead with the procedural steps to make that happen.
It is currently expected that the process to take title to the land will be completed in the coming months. The current estimate of compensation for land to be acquired for the scheme is approximately £12 million.
Scotland was promised in 2016 that the made orders for that project would be published in that year. They were published last year—eight years later. Even now, there is no timetable, no plan and no indication of when the Nairn bypass will be completed.
Will the cabinet secretary, at last, give a statement to Parliament setting out such a plan? If she will not, does she not think that an apology is due?
First as the Minister for Transport and now, as Cabinet Secretary for Transport, I have progressed the A96 Inverness to Nairn project, including the Nairn bypass. I have ensured that we have made progress on completing the made orders and acquiring the land. We are acquiring the land because we intend to dual that part of the A96 first. That is what is happening.
As I explained to the public meeting in Nairn last summer, the timetable for dualling will be determined by two things. The first is the method of procurement, whether it is capital procurement or through a mutual investment model. We are considering the mutual investment model for the A96 part of the road—which we have just been discussing—and for the A9. On completion of that consideration, we will be in a position to determine the timetable, which I will be happy to share with the Parliament.
The other consideration is whether one procurement process will be completed for the whole project or whether the contracts will be separated for different parts. A strong argument was put to me at the public meeting in Nairn that the Nairn bypass might be done separately and differently. All those things will impact on the timetable, and we will consider them. When we have managed to assess all those points, I will come back to the Parliament.
A737 (Assessment)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the importance of the A737 to North Ayrshire. (S6O-04309)
We appreciate fully the importance of the A737 to North Ayrshire and, indeed, to Scotland. That is why the Government has invested approximately £14 million in the construction of the Dalry bypass and the Den realignment project.
Through the second strategic transport projects review, we have assessed the future needs of the Ayrshire and Arran region. That has resulted in a number of recommendations, including to focus on maintaining the trunk roads in the area—including the A737—so that they remain safe, resilient and adapted to deal with the impacts of climate change.
Despite having levels of traffic comparable to those on the busiest sections of the A9 and despite serving some of Scotland’s most deprived communities, the mostly single-carriageway A737 will receive a fraction of the investment made in dualling the A9, which is forecast to total £3.7 billion.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that enhanced safety and improved connectivity boosts economic growth? Will she commit to ensuring that the new Head Street and Barmill Road junctions in Beith, which are essential for public safety—and have been promised for many years—are progressed to completion?
The Scottish Government is committed to taking forward the design of the traffic signalisation of the A737 Head Street and Wardrop Street junctions. The member is correct to identify the impact on the economy of good transport connections.
As part of the detailed design for the scheme, further geotechnical investigation is required to accommodate the upgraded traffic signal junction on the A737 at Head Street and Wardrop Street. That investigation is programmed to commence later in 2025 and will inform the design and construction of the signalised junction. Construction is currently programmed for the 2026-27 financial year, subject to available funding and completion of the design.
Grangemouth Refinery
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding Ineos proceeding with the closure of Scotland’s only refinery at Grangemouth, in light of the UK Government’s reported £600 million loan to the company for a project in Belgium. (S6O-04310)
I continue to engage very regularly about the closure of the refinery. I met UK Government ministers on that aspect last week. I am disappointed that that loan has been made to Ineos, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered nothing in her speech that would avoid an abrupt and unnecessary closure of the refinery or that would support Grangemouth’s transition to play its part in Scotland’s green economy in the future.
We need the Labour Government to start doing what it said before the election that it would do and to bring forward real investment to save Grangemouth and the jobs, businesses and livelihoods that depend on it.
This is a sorry situation. Hundreds of highly skilled jobs will be lost, probably for ever, and there will be no refinery capability in Scotland, which is a top 25 oil-producing nation. The results will be worse for the environment, because imports have a higher environmental cost.
Minister, this has been coming for months. We have warned and warned about the situation. The Scottish Government might be happy to sit round pontificating about a just transition, but, to everyone outside the Parliament, it looks passive and pointless. Will the latest UK Government betrayal finally push the Scottish Government to urgently use its devolved powers creatively?
I assure Ash Regan that I am not sitting round passively. Since my tenure as Minister for Energy, I have done nothing but engage on this issue with the previous UK Government, with Petroineos and with the current UK Government. I have engaged in good faith with the UK Government on our joint efforts to fund work on the future of the site. I am doing what I can with our enterprise agencies, my officials and partners in the Cabinet to encourage investment in the site.
I am particularly distressed that the UK chancellor announced last week that money for sustainable aviation fuel is going to places that are not Grangemouth, when both the UK Government and the Scottish Government have invested in a study that has shown that the Grangemouth refinery is ripe to be transformed into a sustainable aviation fuel hub.
There are a number of supplementary questions. I hope to take them all.
Both the UK and Scottish Governments have failed to make any decisive intervention to support Grangemouth. People in Central Scotland will not be impressed with the blame game that we hear in the chamber today. They want real answers and they want action.
I will ask the minister some very simple questions to which she will surely know the answers. Who is writing the project willow report? When is it due? She must know when it is due. Will Petroineos see the report before the UK and Scottish Governments see it?
I have answers to all those questions. The project willow report is being written by Ernst & Young, which has been brought in as consultant on the issue. The report is backed by both Governments and will be available by the end of this month, more or less. We will ensure that both Governments and Petroineos get sight of the full report—more than that, we are teeing up potential investors to see the report.
I have been working very hard on the issue with my colleagues in Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International. We have had considerable interest in what project willow will bring up. Although I would like the refinery to continue, with Petroineos and its shareholders making a different decision about its closure, I am feeling hopeful that, through project willow, we can get investors involved in the future of the site.
Those are the answers to the questions that Stephen Kerr has put to me. I am happy to give him any more details that I can.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests with regard to trade unions.
Many people are angry about the Petroineos decision, the way that the company has gone about it and the fact that redundancy notices have been issued this week. They are also angry about governmental failure—the failure of both Governments. Does the cabinet secretary understand that anger? Does she accept that this is not over, that this is not the last word and that the fight to save these jobs carries on?
I accept that the fight is not over. The First Minister has written to the Prime Minister and, this morning, to Sir Jim Ratcliffe about the issue. I continue to work with partners in the UK Government to ask Petroineos to make a different decision. We have had almost weekly meetings with them on progress, and we are making sure that Petroineos is doing the right thing by its workers. Where it is not doing the right thing, I want those workers to know that I have an open ear to any of their concerns, so that I can put them directly to Petroineos.
It is very clear that the UK Government has abandoned the workers at Grangemouth. The workers are rightly angry that both Governments have left them to the will of a billionaire who would rather play fantasy football than look after his workers. The decision has the potential to devastate the town that I grew up in, and I am angry on behalf of all of those workers. With the greatest of respect to the cabinet secretary, I note that anything that might be generated by project willow, and by others, is potentially too far down the road to solve the immediate and urgent issue facing us.
I have not yet lost hope that the Scottish Government will meaningfully step in, save the jobs and ensure a sustainable future for the site. Will the cabinet secretary now step in to address this increasingly urgent situation?
Members, we listened to all the other questioners with courtesy. We should do the same for Ms Mackay.
The Government has already stepped in to get reassurances about the redundancy payments for the workers and the level of compulsory redundancies. I have in front of me details of a substantial number of voluntary redundancies having been asked for. The member will forgive me if I do not give the detail of that in the chamber, because I need to check whether it can go into the public domain. People have also been redeployed across the site.
It is still our position that we would like refining to continue, to allow project willow to bear fruit and attract investment. The refinery could be a going concern for anyone out there who wanted to invest in it. If the UK Government were to give the refinery track status for carbon capture and storage, it would make it eminently more investable and might even change the mind of the current owners.
Speed Limits (Mid Scotland and Fife)
To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to the potential impact on travel times in Mid Scotland and Fife of the proposed speed limit changes contained in the national speed management review consultation. (S6O-04311)
As part of the Scottish Government’s record £36 million investment in road safety, a national speed management review is under way. The review aims to ensure that speed limits across Scotland are effective and help to reduce the number of people killed and injured on our roads, including in Mid Scotland and Fife. Proposed changes contained in the review have been rigorously assessed and are expected to reduce casualties and fatalities.
International evidence, including France’s successful 2018 speed limit changes, shows how measures can lower speeds and reduce casualties. The assessment indicates that the changes will have a minimal impact on journey times, because reduced speeds contribute to smoother traffic flow, which reduces congestion, serious collisions and diversions, and improves journey reliability. A public consultation is under way and I encourage the member to share her views before it closes on 5 March.
I will do so.
The proposed arbitrary reduction in speed limits on 60mph roads will add to journey times and, undoubtedly, to the frustration that motorists are feeling. Many businesses across the region depend on the movement of goods and materials, and single carriageway roads are the backbone of the transport infrastructure in the area. Workers who live in rural areas often have no viable alternative to using their cars, and reducing speed limits on single carriageways could significantly increase commute times, thereby creating more challenges for employees and businesses alike. The disproportionate impact that the proposals will have on my constituents and on businesses should not be taken lightly. Will the cabinet secretary carefully consider the consequences for my region and scrap the proposals as soon as possible?
We will listen to the consultation, which closes on 5 March. I remind Roz McCall that, in 2023, 754 people were killed or seriously injured on single-carriageway roads. In France, the Government implemented a national speed limit reduction in July 2018, which led to a reduction in the average speed of vehicles, a 10 per cent decrease in fatalities and a minimal impact on journey times, of less than one minute in a 50km journey.
Union Bridge (Petition)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the petition, reportedly signed by hundreds of Keith residents and businesses, regarding the disruption caused on the A96 by the on-going works at Union bridge, including the calls for businesses to be compensated for any significant losses during these works. (S6O-04312)
We recognise the on-going impact that those vital and complex repair works are having on the local community and businesses in Keith, following a landslip that resulted in the failure of the wing wall at Union bridge. The operating company that conducts the repairs and road management discussed that with representatives of local elected members, Keith community council and the local traders association in September, and it plans to meet them again shortly to provide an update, once the repair contract is awarded in the coming weeks.
The temporary traffic lights and safety barrier were installed to prevent any further risks to pedestrians and road users, with “business as usual” signage added to continue to direct traffic into Keith and its businesses.
Douglas Ross will be aware that compensation is not payable to any businesses for disruption arising from road works on any trunk road and the motorway network that are required to keep them in a safe condition. Unfortunately, such work can sometimes result in disruption to local communities, but every effort is being made to mitigate impacts.
I do not think that residents and businesses in Keith feel that every effort is being made to mitigate the impacts, because the work has been on-going since last summer.
The cabinet secretary did not mention the petition. What is her response to the hundreds of business owners who have written to her, who have still not received a reply? I handed the petition over to the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity in December last year. We are now in February, and we do not know what Fiona Hyslop and the Scottish Government think. Will she look at alternative measures to compensate the businesses in question, if it is not possible to provide compensation for work on a trunk road? Those businesses are losing hundreds of thousands of pounds as a result of the works, and they deserve to be compensated.
I have set out the policy on compensation—or, rather, the fact that no compensation is payable in relation to work on trunk roads. I recognised the on-going nature of the problems: it is a complex issue to resolve. The contracting started before Christmas, but it has been delayed as a result of emergency work by utilities companies in proximity to the slope failure. That emergency work required a further review of the proposed design solution that is to be undertaken, so that any additional implications could be considered. The most up-to-date position can be provided to those who have petitioned the Government, although I do not think that we have the contact details for everyone who signed the petition.
On journey times, I understand from our operators that the maximum delay is 12 minutes. I know that a delay of 12 minutes can cause an issue. If Douglas Ross is able to provide information that shows that people are regularly waiting longer than 12 minutes, I invite him to do so, but the information that I have been provided with is that the delay is less than 12 minutes.
As a frequent traveller on the A96, I understand that it was a slope failure as a result of heavy rain that caused the damage to the bridge. What challenges exist in relation to the required remedial work? Given the complexities, is it not crucial that the work be carried out with the utmost care, which will, regrettably, inevitably lead to the work taking longer?
Be as brief as possible, cabinet secretary.
The work is a complex operation that needs to be done safely. The bridge wing wall failed due to a damaged drainage pipe that saturated the soil behind it. It is in an urban location and is next to a watercourse. The levels in the River Isla and the groundwater levels all have to be considered to ensure that the work is done properly and safely for all concerned.
Storm Éowyn
To ask the Scottish Government what lessons have been learned following the travel disruption and other impacts as a result of storm Éowyn. (S6O-04313)
Storm Éowyn caused major disruption. The immediate lesson learned is that the early issuing of the red weather warning for wind by the Met Office on Thursday 23 January, combined with the convening of the multi-agency response team, empowered Police Scotland to promptly issue early advice to road users to avoid any form of travel during the period of the red weather warning, which enabled the public, businesses, councils and schools to communicate clearly.
The sharing of proactive messaging at local, regional and national levels helped to bring about a huge reduction in traffic levels, of 80 to 90 per cent, across key trunk roads during the red warning.
The messaging also enabled specialist teams across the transport and energy sectors to be mobilised in advance of the storm. Intense co-operation between Network Rail and ScotRail supported recovery from unprecedented damage. I thank everyone for limiting their travel during the storm.
There will also be a more formal lessons-learned exercise, which will be closely considered by the Cabinet.
The cabinet secretary will be well aware that the south of Scotland—Dumfries and Galloway, in particular—was affected more than many communities, with the A75 being closed for some time.
Another lesson that can be learned is in relation to people in Dumfries and Galloway whose power was off for almost a week. One of the main issues was a failure to connect generators. Scottish Power was very reactive and responsive in ensuring that people on the priority list had generators, but some had to wait three or four days for electricians to connect the generators.
Will the cabinet secretary, given her remit, work with her colleagues to look at a potential scheme, whereby sockets could be provided in warm hubs and vulnerable people’s homes to allow generators to be connected as a matter of urgency, instead of the process taking three or four days?
I will discuss that suggestion with my Cabinet colleagues. We can always learn lessons—those that have been learned from storm Arwen helped to improve the response this time round. Lessons are learned from every storm, so I will take Finlay Carson’s suggestion to the relevant minister and ask them to respond on how that might be taken forward, if the energy companies think that it would be helpful.
There are a couple of supplementary questions and I will try to get them both in, but they will have to be brief, as will the responses.
Flood prevention schemes announced in 2015 have not been finished. Extreme weather is hitting people’s homes and our transport infrastructure increasingly hard, so what is the Scottish Government doing to accelerate investment now?
Regarding transport, which is my direct responsibility, the Scottish Government has produced a climate adaptation plan to try to tackle a number of the issues affecting the transport network. Flood defence schemes are the responsibility of one of my ministerial colleagues. I understand that extensive funding for that is available in this year’s budget. I do not know whether Sarah Boyack has decided to support that budget, but flood funding is part of the budget offer.
We know increasingly that adaptation, mitigation, flood prevention in general and tackling the implications of climate change for our road and rail networks all need action and investment. I am working with cabinet secretary Gillian Martin and others to ensure that investment can be brought forward to realise that. I hope that the member will support the budget and support flood prevention.
One of the United Kingdom’s largest food distributors, Bidfood, chose to ignore the warning of danger to life during storm Éowyn and told its workers that it would be a normal working day. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that was completely unacceptable, and will she review the legislative obligations to ensure that companies such as Bidfood ensure their workers’ safety in red weather warning situations, and are held to account if they do not do so?
I have seen those reports and think that that action was unacceptable. Workers and others were put in jeopardy, and overturned heavy goods vehicles prevented energy companies from getting to the very people whom we heard about in the previous question.
On the issue of workers being expected to travel in such conditions, some essential workers will, unfortunately, be required to support the emergency response. Paul Sweeney will know that the issue is part of employment legislation. I know that his party does not want this Parliament to have responsibility for employment legislation, but his request could be usefully pursued with the UK Government.
That concludes portfolio questions. There will be a brief pause to allow those on the front benches to change places, before we move to the next item of business.