Official Report 1222KB pdf
Net Zero and Energy, and Transport
The next item of business is portfolio question time and the portfolio is net zero and energy, and transport.
Rail Services (Trains Between Fife and Edinburgh)
To ask the Scottish Government when it estimates that ScotRail will end the use of short-formed trains that run on rail services between Fife and Edinburgh. (S6O-04209)
ScotRail has taken a number of steps to improve the service for rail passengers travelling to and from Fife. Diesel trains newly released from some of the intercity routes are now serving Fife, thereby increasing fleet resilience, and additional stops will continue to be made at Dalmeny and Burntisland to reduce pressure on the busy morning and evening Leven services.
I acknowledge that there was a challenging autumn, with disruptions being significantly higher than they were in the previous year. Despite that, ScotRail achieved a strong recovery, and available seat capacity for Fife during the four weeks covering the festive period was 92.9 per cent, which was higher than the 90.3 per cent that was recorded in the same period the previous year.
We want that recovery in performance to continue and I have asked for close monitoring of the Fife service in order to continue to improve capacity where possible and to end the use of short-formed trains.
As the cabinet secretary knows, I have been raising that issue for years and have been promised for years that it is going to get better, but it does not. Even in the past few weeks, two-carriage trains have pulled into Inverkeithing station already packed, with passengers standing. Those trains are therefore not able to take on any more passengers and people who are waiting to get to Edinburgh are left stranded on the platform and are late for work. That happens time and again, so can we please have a timescale for bringing the practice to an end?
I appreciate the concerns that are being raised. The Deputy Presiding Officer frequently raises those concerns in her correspondence to me. I absolutely sympathise with the situation, which is not acceptable for passengers. I remember regularly being on short-formed trains prior to electrification of the Glasgow-Edinburgh line. However, the timescale will depend on fleet replacement. I will, of course, update members from Fife, and members more widely, when that occurs.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that ScotRail must retain the operational independence that is necessary for it when responding to emerging situations, such as in relation to the availability of drivers and trains, and keeping trains running? Can she set out the importance of links between Fife and Edinburgh and how the Scottish National Party Government is committed to maintaining and improving them?
ScotRail, as the train operator, has the necessary level of expertise to allocate its resources to meet passenger demand as suits it best. The link between Edinburgh and Fife is very important, particularly for Fife passengers commuting or travelling for education or leisure.
Electrification work that is under way between Edinburgh and Dalmeny is the first step towards electrification of the Fife route. A rolling programme of decarbonisation and new-fleet procurement strategies will reduce the need for diesel trains across the network, and will bring in new trains with improved reliability. In addition, we are investing £35 million in a new feeder station at Thornton in Fife to facilitate the future electrification of Fife services.
In November, the cabinet secretary said in a letter that she had made it clear to ScotRail that the situation in Fife must improve as quickly as possible, but figures from ScotRail show that, in November, the 07:16 service from Perth to Edinburgh was short-formed on more than half of its timetabled journeys, which left passengers unable to board. The use of short-formed services is not reflected within the public performance measure, so do the Scottish Government and ScotRail take those services into account when assessing and improving service delivery for passengers?
I am clear that improvement is needed. It is an issue that I constantly raise with ScotRail. I have asked for regular reports on the number of trains that are booked and on seat availability, and I have received them. That is why I can relay that there have been improvements in seat-availability performance, particularly over the past four weeks. However, I acknowledged in my first answer the situation in November. As I said, there were significant disruptions, during the period, due to a variety of factors, including infrastructure.
Road Improvements
To ask the Scottish Government how it will work with local authorities to address road improvements. (S6O-04210)
We all recognise that it is important for there to be a safe and resilient road network throughout Scotland. However, as local roads are the responsibility of local authorities, it is for individual councils to allocate resources based on their local needs. The Scottish Government will provide over £15 billion in the 2025-26 local government settlement, increasing the resources that are available to local government by £1 billion, which represents a real-terms increase of 4.7 per cent. At the same time, in the budget for 2025-26, we propose to increase expenditure on trunk road maintenance to £714 million.
Since 2022, there have been more than 26,000 reported potholes on Fife’s roads, including 224 on the six roads that lead in and out of the village of Saline in west Fife alone. The cost of fixing the backlog of repairs in Fife has increased by more than £23 million and now sits at £100 million. Despite the slight uplift in councils’ budgets this year, which the minister mentioned, they have been struggling with underfunding for almost two decades, and the higher bills for repairs mean simply that they have less resources for other priorities.
Does the minister accept that the money that local authorities spend on filling the thousands of road defects would be better spent on long-term road surface improvements? How will the Scottish Government work with local authorities to establish a fairer funding process that will allow our councils to fix the backlog?
As I said in my previous answer, the Scottish Government is increasing local authority funding by more than £1 billion. I fully accept the frustration that Roz McCall expresses, but decisions about how local authorities are going to repair the roads are really for them to take.
From 1 January to 12 November last year, North Ayrshire motorists endured 2,457 days of closed roads. The minister will understand the frustration of many road users about the duration of the closures, especially when no visible work is being carried out or there is no one on site. What more can the Scottish Government do to work with local authorities and, indeed, on its own network, to diminish the negative impacts of lengthy closures and minimise their occurrence?
I absolutely understand the frustration about road closures in the same way as I understand the frustration about potholes, especially when sites appear to be empty. However, there are, generally, good engineering and safety reasons for closures. They are used only when they are unavoidable, and they are implemented to protect either Scotland’s road workers or the public.
Local authorities have powers to direct that unreasonably prolonged works be completed by a given date and they have inspectorate powers in relation to utilities works. When I and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport met the Scottish Road Works Commissioner recently, we raised the issue of co-ordination of works. Since April 2024, the commissioner has also had inspectorate powers, use of which will be reported on in the next annual report. I and the cabinet secretary emphasised to him that the frustration is causing real concern.
Borders Railway (Extension)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government transport secretary regarding the £5 million contribution that the previous Administration made towards a feasibility study into the extension of the Borders railway. (S6O-04211)
I last raised concerns with the UK Government transport ministers in October, and I was assured that overall growth deal funding commitments in Scotland would continue, which was reflected in their budget. The Scottish Government has agreed in principle to the proposal for a project manager to oversee the business case for the extension of the Borders railway. Similar approval is still awaited from the UK Government. I have requested a meeting with the new Secretary of State for Transport and I intend to raise the matter then.
As this is a pressing matter, I hope that we will shortly have from the UK Government a timeline for delivery of its half share of the £10 million for the feasibility study on the extension. The cabinet secretary mentioned the proposed senior project manager, and I note that Scottish Borders Council has agreed to appoint one from April. Although it is prepared to fund the post from that time if it has to, I do not think that that would be fair to the council. I hope that the cabinet secretary will impress that on the UK Government.
Indeed, I will impress that on the UK Government. It has to be recognised that the borderlands inclusive growth deal is a cross-border arrangement. It is important that the Scottish Government does not bypass the governance of that deals or others. The arrangement requires project proposals to be approved by both Governments. Scottish Borders Council is keen to progress the study, as am I, so I will raise with the UK Government the point that I do not think that it is fair that Scottish Borders Council has been left for such a length of time. Obviously, the council is carrying some risk, if it wants to appoint a project manager in April.
I agree completely with what the cabinet secretary said. There is a risk that Scottish Borders Council will be bankrolling that funding for a feasibility study project manager. Would it be helpful for us to work in a cross-party manner so that we can put pressure on the Labour Government to release the £5 million in funding that has already been promised in the budget?
Members will continue to do that, cross-party. As Rachael Hamilton is aware, I visited Galashiels and met the campaign group there. However, I have a role as Cabinet Secretary for Transport, so I have raised not only that matter, but funding support for general growth deals. In October, during my first meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland, we considered other issues—for example, the union connectivity fund and what was going to happen with it. I will carry out my responsibilities when I get an opportunity to meet the Secretary of State for Transport. If members from all parties help by supporting the case, that would be very helpful.
Service Quality Inspection Regime Data (ScotRail Ticket Offices)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to ScotRail ticket offices scoring one out of five in the most recent service quality inspection regime data. (S6O-04212)
Those scores are disappointing, and I expect to see facilities provided that meet the needs of passengers. However, those scores demonstrate that SQUIRE is one of the most rigorous regimes of its kind. Many of the target levels are set at 90 per cent or higher. It audits 362 stations and 250 trains in every four-week period. That rigorous approach to inspection by the Scottish Government helps ScotRail to achieve consistently higher passenger satisfaction scores when compared with other rail operators in Great Britain, and most recently, ScotRail scored 90 per cent for overall passenger satisfaction.
The failures that the member mentioned are linked to ticket offices when staff are not present to open the office when expected, and therefore, to provide access to facilities. ScotRail has advised us that the opening times for ticket offices will become more reliable once the revised opening times have been agreed and all necessary arrangements to implement the changes have been put in place.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Transport Scotland stated that the low scores for ticket offices were due to the pending outcome of the station opening hours staff consultation, but the issue is long standing: ticket offices scored one out of five in almost every inspection since 2023. What action has the Scottish Government sought from ScotRail to resolve the issues? Can the ongoing consultation be considered a fair assessment of the service if it is not currently being delivered?
I am concerned that, when 78 per cent of tickets used to be bought at ticket offices and that figure has gone down to 14 per cent, there will be circumstances—whether for reasons of maintenance or other issues for which staff want to be elsewhere—in which an office is closed when it is meant to be open. That has not helped the scores. That should and could be resolved with more certainty and reliability about when ticket offices will be open.
Will the cabinet secretary set out how the pending outcome of the ongoing station opening hours consultation would have affected those scores, how the Government expects to see significantly improved scores and how all that will drive efficiency and improvements on our publicly owned railway?
We need efficiency and improvement on our railways. The management of that is the responsibility of ScotRail. However, as I have said in a previous answer, the new regime will ensure that staff are made available at stations. They might not be in ticket offices, but they will be at stations after the vast majority of changes have taken place. Indeed, stations where there are increases in scores are where there is accessibility to allow use of ticket barriers and so on.
Things move on, change and need to be improved. The SQUIRE inspectors will use the agreed times for inspection purposes, so we would expect ticket offices and facilities to be open and fully functional. As I explained in my previous answer, that is to provide certainty and reliability that is not there at the moment.
Decarbonising Social Housing (Rural Areas)
To ask the Scottish Government what additional measures will be introduced to support rural housing providers to achieve the net zero emissions target by decarbonising social housing. (S6O-04213)
We are committed to delivering vital support to decarbonise homes through the social housing net zero heat fund, which has been supporting social landlords to retrofit their housing stock since 2020. To date, the fund has helped to decarbonise more than 13,000 homes. To support rural housing providers, the most recent fund refresh included a grant per property uplift for rural and remote rural locations of 11 per cent and 22 per cent respectively. That acknowledges the increased costs in rural locations and heeds calls from the sector to ensure a just transition to net zero.
Rural housing providers face unique and complex challenges that set them apart from providers in urban areas. When they attempt to meet net zero targets, they are faced with high retrofit costs due to traditional construction, lack of access to skilled labour and materials and, as the minister cited in his response, funding gaps. The grants that are given by the Government often fall short of covering the substantial costs of decarbonising rural housing. That is not to mention the difficulties of complying with the energy performance certificate system, due to the issues that I have just raised. Such issues need to be fully addressed in the heat in buildings framework when the relevant bill comes to the Parliament. Will the minister commit to working towards a tailored strategy for rural communities that does not leave them at a disadvantage?
The member rightly points to the distinctive housing types in different locations, including in many parts of rural Scotland. We are committed to building on the progress that has been made in improving the energy efficiency of those houses. Although some rural and island households have made the transition, we recognise that, for some properties, there are limitations due to their location or building type or, indeed, due to grid capacity. In rural and island communities, Scottish Government support is available to improve the energy efficiency of homes and to switch heating systems through, for example, the social housing net zero heat fund and various other schemes. Many of those schemes include a rural and islands uplift to reflect the very issues that the member rightly points to.
I am frequently contacted by people in rural and island communities who are struggling to figure out what is available to them in order to make the improvements that they want to make to their homes. Will the minister lay out what additional support is available for energy efficiency improvements to households in rural and island areas, including through the Home Energy Scotland grant and loan scheme?
The Home Energy Scotland grant and loan scheme offers a £1,500 uplift to the grant funding that is available for energy efficiency measures in remote rural areas and islands. Through our area-based schemes, we provide an uplift to reflect higher delivery costs in those areas. Households in extreme fuel poverty in remote rural and island areas can benefit from insulation improvements worth up to £21,100. The warmer homes Scotland scheme operates a national customer price model to ensure equal access to grant-funded installation of energy efficiency improvements across Scotland, including in the areas that the member mentioned.
Conservancy Fee (Leisure Vessels on the River Clyde)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on Transport Scotland’s engagement with Peel Ports regarding the introduction of a conservancy fee for leisure vessels sailing on the River Clyde. (S6O-04214)
Although some of Scotland’s ports are publicly owned or owned by communities, most are owned by commercial entities such as Peel Ports. It is for port owners to determine how best to manage their assets and utilise their resources, within the boundaries of any statutory requirements or limitations. In relation to fees and dues, how, when and what to charge forms part of that consideration. However, I am aware that the proposal has raised a number of concerns from vessel owners across Scotland who access the Clyde estuary. I therefore wrote to Peel Ports on 18 December regarding that issue.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that helpful reply. She is very much aware of the concerns of the boating community. She will also be aware of the work that I have undertaken, alongside Kenneth Gibson and Clare Adamson, through the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism, which I convene. Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether she is prepared to meet members of the boating community in order to listen to their serious concerns about the proposal? What powers does the Scottish Government have to prevent such a fee from being imposed?
Ship, passenger and goods dues are charges that can be levied under the Harbours Act 1964. The levels at which such dues are set is, in essence, a commercial matter for the relevant port authority. Section 31 of the act provides that Scottish ministers have a right of objection to the imposition of such charges if certain criteria are met, but that right has never been used in the past 25 years. Therefore, any person who is considering making a formal objection should take independent legal advice. Given that ministers might have an adjudication role, it might not be appropriate for me to meet directly with anyone who seeks to make such a legal objection. However, I am sure that, as he is doing today, Mr McMillan will represent the interests of his constituents in the boating community.
I understand that Peel Ports has committed to conducting a consultation before considering introducing any new charges, so I encourage members of the boating community to engage with that. I am sure that, as he is doing today, Mr McMillan will continue to represent the interests of his constituents in the area.
As Peel Ports has jurisdiction from the River Clyde at Glasgow Green right down to the Firth of Clyde, it has a significant impact on about 450 square miles of inshore waters. It has claimed that the imposition of conservancy fees for leisure vessels is common practice on the part of other statutory harbour authorities. I asked the Scottish Government whether it could provide data on that, but it does not hold such data, which I find alarming. Does the cabinet secretary understand why that is the case? Will she look to gather data on other statutory harbour authorities’ charging of leisure vessel conservancy fees? Will she also examine the oversight and regulation of port authorities in Scotland more generally?
I set out the oversight and governance aspects in my previous answer. I must point out, though, that the vast majority of port authorities are commercial operators, and we do not hold information about commercial entities across a variety of areas. However, given the current concerns, I will see whether it is possible to identify whether other commercial port authorities would be prepared to share their information to enable us to gain a better understanding. I understand that other such authorities charge in a way that has not been done for some of the vessels that we are discussing.
Renewable Energy Output (Value to United Kingdom Economy)
To ask the Scottish Government what the current value of Scotland’s renewable energy output is to the UK economy. (S6O-04215)
The majority of electricity that is generated in Scotland is from renewable sources, and Scotland plays a crucial role in the United Kingdom’s overall renewable energy landscape. As of 24 September 2024, Scotland hosted 27 per cent of UK renewable electricity capacity. Following work that was undertaken in 2023, the Fraser of Allander Institute estimated that, in 2021, Scotland’s renewable energy sectors and supply chains supported more than £10.1 billion-worth of output, more than 42,000 full-time equivalent jobs and more than £4.7 billion of gross value added across the Scottish economy.
It is vital that we continue to maximise Scotland’s renewables capabilities and take full advantage of our abundant natural resources. How much electricity demand is met by renewables, and how will the proposed budget continue to invest in and grow that capacity?
In 2023, an estimated 64.7 per cent of the electricity that was consumed in Scotland came from renewable sources, but that percentage continues to grow. In quarter 3 of last year, for example, it had risen by more than 8 per cent compared with the same period in 2023.
The path to net zero presents enormous economic opportunities through supporting a just transition that creates jobs, promotes private investment and brings communities with us. The recent budget statement announced that, in 2025-26, we will commit £4.9 billion in capital and resource spend for activities that will have a positive impact on the delivery of our climate change goals. We will almost triple our capital funding for offshore wind, to £150 million. Such investment comes under year 2 of our five-year commitment to invest up to £500 million to anchor the supply chain in Scotland, which is expected to leverage £1.5 billion of additional private investment in the infrastructure and manufacturing facilities that are critical to the growth of the sector.
It has been two years since the Scottish Government unveiled its draft energy strategy and just transition plan. Russell Borthwick, the chief executive of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, said:
“We’ve been promised numerous times since that the final version would be published but we are still waiting, strategy-less.”
The Scottish Government is asleep at the wheel, so when will the final strategy be published?
As I have said in many answers to similar questions from Conservative members, reserved policy in the area has been a shifting landscape, which has had an impact on some of our responses in our draft energy strategy. We are taking the time to look at that and, as the First Minister mentioned at First Minister’s question time, issues relating to the court cases, which have had an impact.
We want the energy strategy to be fit for purpose, and we are working and have been working very hard on it. We are taking into account all the consultation responses, and the strategy will be published shortly.
I can squeeze in question 8 if I get brief questions and brief answers to match.
Energy Efficiency Area-based Grants (Reallocation of Unused Funds)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the net zero secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding whether unused funds from energy efficiency area-based grant schemes could be reallocated, including to reduce fuel poverty in the coming financial year. (S6O-04216)
I met ministerial colleagues on 12 September 2024 to agree the issuing of grant offers for area-based schemes. We agreed that that was a priority and noted the challenge in completing some projects by March. The grant offer therefore extends to June 2025 to help to ensure ABS project completion.
We have also boosted fuel poverty support this winter by allocating an extra £20 million to the warmer homes Scotland scheme, taking its support to £85 million. Through the 2025-26 budget, we propose to invest more than £300 million in our heat in buildings programmes, including support for people in fuel poverty.
Area-based schemes are place-based approaches that can transform whole neighbourhoods by improving health, creating jobs and cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but, over the past three years, more than £60 million of a possible £192 million has gone unspent. That is because, as the minister highlighted, councils often do not receive their grant allocation until well into the financial year. Will the Scottish Government commit to making sure that the funding is made available to councils in time for the funds to be spent on vital services throughout the year?
As Mark Griffin identifies, area-based schemes are very valuable in addressing fuel poverty. Area-based scheme funding of up to £64 million was identified in the 2024-25 budget documents, as per the distribution agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. However, ABS 2025-26 grant offers were delayed until September 2024 due to the Scottish Government facing what I hope he and others will acknowledge was an emergency spending control situation. However, from what I have said, he will be aware of the value that the Scottish Government places on those schemes.
That concludes portfolio questions on net zero and energy, and transport. I apologise to members whom I was not able to squeeze in.