Net Zero and Energy, and Transport
The next item of business is portfolio questions on net zero, energy and transport. As always, I call for brief questions, brief supplementaries and brief answers, in order to get in as many members as possible.
Question 1 has been withdrawn.
Net Zero Emissions Target
To ask the Scottish Government what recent assessment it has made of the feasibility of its target to achieve net zero emissions by 2045. (S6O-04403)
The Government’s commitment—[Interruption.]
We need your microphone moved.
A schoolboy error, Presiding Officer.
The Government’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2045 is absolutely unwavering. We are continuing to develop and take forward climate policies ahead of the Climate Change Committee’s advice on new carbon budget levels, which is due this May. Once we have received that advice, we will bring forward the carbon emission targets via secondary legislation, which will set a deliverable course towards net zero, with the aim of publishing a draft climate change plan to achieve those targets in the autumn.
We are beginning to see what happens when the Scottish Government sets ambitious targets for the climate without any concrete plan for how to achieve those goals.
Last year, the Scottish Government ditched its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75 per cent by 2030, and, in January, Audit Scotland said that the Scottish Government is unlikely to meet its 2030 target to reduce car use by 20 per cent, due to a lack of leadership. It has now been reported that environmental consultancy Ricardo-AEA has told the Scottish Government that its 2045 net zero target is at risk of being missed. Can the minister assure the Parliament that the Government’s failure to keep the 2045 target on track will not lead to higher net zero costs being imposed on Scottish households?
It should be said, by way of response to those important questions, that some of the commentary that anticipates the missing of the 2045 targets is applicable only if emission reductions from land use, for example, are not considered and if no further policies are brought forward.
As I said, the Scottish Government is entirely committed to the 2045 target. In 2022, the Scottish Government commissioned an analytical report on the estimated projection of Scottish emissions from 2019 to 2045, which is published on the Scottish Government’s website. That was a snapshot in time, and since then we have been developing policies for the next climate change plan. The figures for that are available.
Technology reductions were excluded from emission reduction considerations, and land use will form an important part of our forthcoming climate change plan.
When the Scottish Government dropped its annual and interim targets, Màiri McAllan announced a package of 19 reheated old policies to show that the Scottish Government is supposedly taking action. However, I have received a response to a freedom of information request in which the Scottish Government admits that only four of the 19 policies have been delivered, and that even some of those are questionable. Can the minister outline the measurable actions that are being taken now? Our constituents cannot afford our missing the 2045 target, given the impact on their lives and businesses.
I can certainly list measurable activities in many areas, such as peatland restoration, where good progress is being made, with more than 75,000 hectares having been restored to date. I can also mention forestry—in relation to which we have the most ambitious woodland creation targets in the United Kingdom—farming reform, and many other areas where progress is being made.
As I said, the Scottish Government is committed to the 2045 target, and the next climate change plan is being developed to ensure that we get there.
Scotland is on a journey to becoming a renewable energy powerhouse, facilitated by our just transition to net zero. However, that will require the co-operation of the United Kingdom Government on initiatives such as the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. Will the minister provide an update on engagement with the UK Government on the Acorn project, which is of huge importance to the north-east?
The member is right. Scottish ministers regularly engage with our counterparts in the UK Government to push for a decision on Acorn. Carbon capture is vital for achieving our climate targets—the Climate Change Committee described it as being a necessity, not an option, that we achieve net zero emissions. The Scottish cluster is essential not just to Scotland’s target of reaching net zero by 2045, but to the UK’s 2050 target.
So that progress and investor confidence can be maintained, we are pushing for the UK Government to make a clear and meaningful public announcement by return, and certainly ahead of June, confirming that the UK Government is committed to awarding track 2 status to the Acorn project and the Scottish cluster.
Proposed Heat in Buildings Bill
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when it plans to introduce its proposed heat in buildings bill. (S6O-04404)
We are considering the responses to our consultation on proposals for a heat in buildings bill and will respond as soon as is practicable.
We also know that further action by the United Kingdom Government in reserved areas is essential for the heat transition. That includes rebalancing gas and electricity prices, clarity on its intentions for phasing out gas boilers in existing homes and a swift decision on the future role of the gas grid, in line with the Climate Change Committee’s recent advice.
I say to the minister that we have only 14 months left, but the housing sector needs certainty about substantial proposals and changes that the Government has suggested. The fact that the Government is no further forward with introducing the bill in the Parliament leaves unanswered serious questions about energy performance certificate ratings.
I understand that the Government is consulting on EPCs. However, the current deadline for landlords to comply with the requirement to have an EPC rating of C is 2028. Is that target achievable when less than half of private homes are EPC C rating compliant and the Government might shift the goalposts on the scope of EPC ratings? Will the Government consider the current timelines to ensure that what it proposes and what it expects of private home owners are in sync?
It is important to separate two issues in that question. The first is EPC reform, which is progressing and on which the Scottish Government has been taking views and will ensure that change is made.
The second issue to which Meghan Gallacher alluded is, I think, whether legislation should require a certain EPC rating of home owners and those who rent out properties. That is a separate question. It is connected to some of the questions around the proposed heat in buildings bill. The Scottish Government will return to that as soon as is practicable.
Approval of Renewable Energy Developments above 50MW (Community Consultation)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that the process for approving renewable energy developments above 50MW encourages developers to carry out high-quality consultations and gives communities sufficient information and opportunity to engage meaningfully. (S6O-04405)
Meaningful consultation of local authorities, communities and members of the public is key to the determination process for renewable energy developments above 50MW. Developers are instructed to follow our good practice guidance on pre-application consultation involving communities, as that is the best stage for communities to help to shape a development before an application is submitted.
The Scottish Government is committed to further strengthening the engagement process for communities by making pre-application consultations a statutory requirement, as part of the United Kingdom Government’s proposed reforms to electricity infrastructure consenting in Scotland.
As the minister might be aware, the proposed Rogerhill solar farm near Blackwood is set to be one of the largest solar sites in the UK if it is approved. However, I have been struck by concerns from the community about the impact that the development could have on the area’s children, because it borders an outdoor learning facility.
Concerningly, there appear to be conflicting views as to whether the development should trigger a child rights and wellbeing impact assessment under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. The energy consents unit argues that the decision on the development is exempt and is not strategic in nature, while the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has said that it sees no reason why the ECU would not conduct such an assessment.
Will the minister consider instructing the ECU to carry out an assessment? If not, will he confirm what the unit considers to be a decision of a strategic nature, if the construction of one of the country’s largest solar farms does not qualify?
As Brian Whittle identified in his question, the case is a live planning application. I am part of the planning process, so he will understand why I simply cannot comment on a live application. He is, of course, entitled to raise issues that are of concern to him and his community as part of that process, but I cannot prejudice matters by commenting on it. I am afraid that that is all that I can add.
The ability to make pre-application community engagement mandatory is reserved to the UK Government under the consenting regime in the UK Electricity Act 1989, which limits our ability to reform energy policy. Will the minister advise me what engagement the Scottish Government has had with the new UK Government on reforms to ensure that planning processes can be taken forward swiftly while giving local communities a voice?
Scottish Government officials have been working—I should say that they have been working positively—with their UK Government counterparts on proposed reforms to the Electricity Act 1989 since February 2024, which is before the current Administration took office.
We helped to inform the content of the UK Government’s consultation, which was published in October last year. One of the most important proposals is that we give local communities a stronger voice in the consenting process. For the first time, a pre-application consultation would be statutory, thereby guaranteeing that communities can express their views early in the process to help to shape developments.
Ultimately, the legislation is reserved, so we must wait to see how the proposals are managed through the Westminster parliamentary process.
New renewable energy developments across north-east Scotland are crucial for Scotland and for the UK if we want to decarbonise our energy supply and ensure that we meet Labour’s goal of making the UK a clean energy superpower by 2030.
However, the developments must have the informed consent and support of the communities in which they are built. A best-case example is Aberdeen Community Energy’s Donside hydro, which was established and is owned and run by the local community to generate clean electricity for nearby homes. How is the Scottish Government working to promote community ownership and control of new renewable energy?
Mercedes Villalba has raised interesting and important points on those issues. One of the things that the Scottish Government is seeking to do is to open a conversation with the UK Government about mandating community benefits. That is a reserved issue, but I hope that we can have a fruitful conversation on it. The Scottish Government is supportive of all communities that seek, in various ways, to ensure that they get community benefit from projects in their areas.
Road Safety
To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to improve road safety. (S6O-04406)
The Scottish Government is committed to making Scotland’s roads safe for all. Backing this commitment is a record £36 million investment, which is set to increase to £48 million in 2025-26, to fund targeted initiatives that are aimed at reducing road casualties and enhancing safety. This includes national behaviour change campaigns, targeted road safety schemes on trunk and local roads, and effective speed management through the national strategy for 20mph and the national speed management review. We are also strengthening expertise by training more than 500 road safety practitioners in the internationally recognised safe system approach by June 2025.
Addressing driver behaviour must be part of the approach to reducing fatality rates. National speed awareness courses have been in place in England and Wales for a number of years, and studies have shown that they can be more effective at reducing reoffending than a fine and penalty points. The Scottish Government has been asked about this on a number of occasions—most recently today at First Minister’s question time—but we still do not have an answer as to why those courses are not available in Scotland. Is the Scottish Government committed to introducing the courses, and what are the next steps?
As the transport secretary, I am very supportive of speed awareness courses as part of the process of addressing the issue. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs is taking the matter forward with justice and police colleagues, and I will report to Parliament when there is progress.
On the importance of speed awareness courses, I think that they are required as a diversion. After this question session, I will chair the road safety strategic partnership board. Police Scotland is a member of that, and I will press it in order to understand what progress is being made.
It is clear that councils are doing important work this year, using the Scottish Government budget, on road safety, enforcement of pavement parking restrictions and the roll-out of 20mph limits. However, does the cabinet secretary agree that the success of those measures comes down to improved driver awareness, particularly in built-up areas and particularly about the dangers of speeding and dangerous parking? What national road safety campaigns can be deployed to get the message across that speeding kills, that we should slow down in town and that drivers should park responsibly?
I have just indicated that there are a number of national behaviour change campaigns, the most recent of which is on distracted driver behaviour. It is alarming that some people think that it is acceptable to look at their phones while they are driving; that is a concern on any of our roads.
There are also campaigns on speed, which highlight among other things the fact that the impact of travelling at speed—in some cases, people also do not even wear their seat belts—not just on the driver but on other people can be extremely severe and result in death and harm. Those aspects are part of the campaigns that I am talking about, and that is why we are putting a record amount of funding into road safety.
ScotRail Services (Cancellations)
To ask the Scottish Government how the proportion of ScotRail trains that were cancelled in 2023-24 compares with other rail operators across the United Kingdom. (S6O-04407)
ScotRail performs better than most operators in Great Britain. ScotRail cancellations in the previous financial year averaged at just over 2 per cent of all services. That means that there were fewer cancellations than there were immediately before public ownership and that the rate was lower than the 2023-24 GB average of 3.8 per cent.
Most recently, ScotRail cancellations were recorded to be at 1.9 per cent, whereas they are at 4.2 per cent for the GB network as a whole. That demonstrates ScotRail’s continued progress and its commitment to providing a reliable service for the people of Scotland.
ScotRail also compares favourably with other operators in Scotland. For example, for privately operated Avanti West Coast and CrossCountry, recorded cancellation rates in 2023-24 were around 7 per cent and 8 per cent respectively. For London North Eastern Railway and TransPennine Express, cancellations were recorded at 4.8 per cent in that year.
Figures from the Office of Rail and Road show that ScotRail has one of the lowest cancellation rates for train operators in the UK, as we have just heard, and that Network Rail was responsible for more than half of the delayed minutes on ScotRail, with 551,873 minutes being lost last year. Given that responsibility for Network Rail lies exclusively with the UK Labour Government, will Scottish ministers continue to raise with that Government the need for improvements?
All delays are disappointing. My officials at Transport Scotland are working closely with Network Rail to ensure that it delivers value for the £4.2 billion that the Scottish Government is providing to it between 2024 and 2029.
Responsibility for Network Rail is reserved to the UK Government—that has not stopped the Conservative MSP Douglas Lumsden asking excessive numbers of written questions about it, and I am not sure whether we will get a rebate on them—but I expect ScotRail and Network Rail to work together under the alliance agreement to deliver the best service possible for the people of Scotland. However, I know that the only way to truly ensure the best outcomes for Scotland’s railway is through the full devolution of rail to Scotland. That is why Scottish ministers continue to call for that.
Rail services that stop at Newburgh in Fife have been cancelled for decades. Will the cabinet secretary update the chamber on when she plans to reopen that railway station?
I compliment Willie Rennie’s attempt to make a question about cancellations over a period, which amount to a closure, into a pitch for a station. He raises an important point. If we look ahead at investment in rail, there are issues not only around the track and the procurement of fleet services but around availability and accessibility. In a cost benefit analysis and in the consideration of a multimodal approach and other alternatives, assessments of investment in stations such as Newburgh should be looked at in the round.
Last week, 70 passengers were evacuated from a ScotRail intercity train, and trains between Edinburgh and Aberdeen were suspended, after a power car caught fire near the Tay rail bridge, which caused disruption for hours. In the light of that, what actions are being undertaken to foster resilience in the ScotRail fleet, particularly at a time when key routes often rely on older trains? Will the cabinet secretary provide a timeline for when the new inter7city fleet will be procured?
I assume that the focus of that question is on cancellations.
As a result of that incident, there was clearly an impact in terms of cancellations across the network. I take the opportunity to compliment the professionalism of everybody who was involved in dealing with that incident and the safe evacuation.
Lessons have to be learned. There will be reporting on the cause of the particular fire, but I was extremely impressed by everyone who was involved in ensuring safety, and I put on record my thanks to them.
On the replacement of fleets, I will be able to update Parliament appropriately. It is important that we progress that to ensure that we have the train services that we require for the modern age.
How many ScotRail trains were axed in 2022 and 2024 when the temporary timetable was introduced? How does that figure compare with service reduction in the rest of the UK?
Issues around industrial action were not reserved to the Scottish situation. There were long and on-going extensive cancellations and industrial action in the rest of the UK.
As for the number of services that were cancelled, that was adjusted to by an appropriately amended timetable. The member will be aware that, when changes in timetables are planned, as was the case over the summer, those changes are not counted as cancellations, so I am quite happy to be transparent about the comparison.
The figures that I just relayed still stand. They show service performance by ScotRail that is better than in the rest of the UK.
The cabinet secretary knows that the performance measure does not take account of short-form trains. It is in effect a cancellation for passengers if they are unable to board a train. In my region, across December and January, one train was short formed 65 per cent of the time. Why are those routes targeted for short forming, and when can we see improvements?
There will shortly be an important improvement in the Fife service, with two trains running an hour, which will relieve pressure on the availability of spaces in trains. That will be an improvement.
For the period that ended on Saturday 1 February, the Fife circle service was performing at 90.2 per cent. That is a stronger performance than in other parts of the network, such as Mr Gibson’s area. The short forming will also be relieved by diesel availability from other parts of the network once electrification takes place, which is more imminent in relation, for example, to the East Kilbride line.
Hydrogen Production and Usage
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to promote hydrogen production and usage in Scotland. (S6O-04408)
Hydrogen is key to our net zero journey. We remain committed to developing a world-leading green hydrogen sector in Scotland. Alongside our enterprise agencies, we are engaging closely with the sector to support hydrogen production and use. Over recent months, I have chaired the Scottish hydrogen industry forum. That group ensures that Government and industry, working together, can support growth and identify barriers to deployment.
Many levers that are required to develop the hydrogen economy are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. We will work closely with that Government to ensure that the interests of the Scottish hydrogen sector are recognised.
It is a great pity that some of the reserved issues are holding back investment in production and usage in Scotland. We are still waiting for the UK Government to update hydrogen storage and transportation regulations, and that continues to cause investment uncertainty. What discussions or communications have Scottish ministers had with the UK Government to urge it to get its finger oot on this issue?
It is true to say that the establishment of a robust regulatory framework is key to the deployment of hydrogen as an important part of our future energy mix. With that in mind, we continue to urge the UK Government to accelerate its consideration of the regulations that are required to enable the development of hydrogen infrastructure and the establishment of business models that would support hydrogen transport and storage, in order to provide clarity and confidence to developers who are investing in driving forward hydrogen production projects in Scotland.
I would also urge the UK Government to set out the timeframe for an accelerated decision on hydrogen blending in the gas grid.
Hydrogen production is reported to be a key part of project willow, yet the Scottish Government has failed to publish the report on it that was promised last week. Although Colin Mackay of STV has seen the report, none of us in Parliament has. When will that important hydrogen report finally be published?
The report will be published in due course. However, the member will be aware that the two Governments have been working closely together to strain every sinew to ensure that, in both the long term and the immediate term, intervention is there to support the workforce and businesses at Grangemouth. Hydrogen is part of that. Decisions about carbon capture that are taken at the UK level and the work that we are doing in the Grangemouth community are also clearly part of that.
Reducing Car Use
I remind members of my voluntary registration of trade union interests.
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what steps it is taking to reduce car use by 20 per cent by 2030. (S6O-04409)
The Scottish Government is supporting the reduction of car use by providing free bus travel for 2.3 million people in Scotland, giving £1.6 billion to rail in this financial year, and supporting regional transport partnerships and councils to develop affordable, available and accessible alternatives to car use. We continue to press the United Kingdom Government for a four-nations approach to the reform of fuel duty.
I recognise that car use will remain an important part of rural life. There will be different routes to reducing car use in different parts of Scotland, and I do not expect car use in rural areas to reduce at the same rate as in urban areas.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has agreed to publish in Spring 2025 a renewed policy statement on car use reduction. Behaviour change takes time. Following the Audit Scotland recommendation to clarify our commitment, we will review the existing target, informed by the advice that we are due to receive from the Climate Change Committee, and develop a new, longer-term target.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. However, I ask her: will next month’s rise in all rail fares, last year’s reinstatement of peak rail fares and this year’s cut in railway ticket office opening hours move us closer to, or further away from, the Government’s target of a 20 per cent reduction in car use by 2030, or has the Government secretly abandoned the target altogether?
We have not secretly abandoned anything. It was indicated in May 2024 that it would be challenging to hit that target. I urge the member to note that I will attend the Public Audit Committee on the issue shortly, to explain the progress and what we will do in response to the Climate Change Committee’s imminent report.
We are now expecting there to have been 88.5 million passenger journeys in the year to the end of March 2025, which is an increase from the 82 million passenger journeys in 2023-24. Although the peak fares pilot scheme has ended, demand has grown by an average of 4.5 per cent in each four-week periods this year, compared with the same period last year in which the peak fare removal pilot scheme was running.
Despite the end of the scheme, we are seeing passenger growth, which should be welcomed.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Scottish Government has absolutely no chance of achieving that target?
As the member heard me say in my answer to Richard Leonard, we indicated to the Parliament in May 2024 that there was a serious risk that that target would not be met. I have addressed that in Parliament: I think that we will have to revise our target. To do that, we need advice from the Climate Change Committee. There will be changes that will impact on where we get to in terms of emissions. We need to ask whether that extremely high and challenging target is still required in order to deliver the emissions and changes that we need.
We need a reduction in car use to help to ease congestion. That is a reason why investment in public transport is so important. I point the member to the Climate Change Committee’s forthcoming advice, which will help us to shape the way forward.
That concludes portfolio questions on net zero, energy and transport. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow the front bench teams to change position, should they wish to do so.
Air ais
Covid-19 Day of Reflection