Covid-19 Recovery and Parliamentary Business
Good afternoon, colleagues. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is Covid-19 recovery and parliamentary business. There is a fair bit of interest across all the portfolios, so I make the usual appeal for brevity in questions, and for similar brevity, as far as that is possible, in the responses. Members who wish to ask supplementary questions should press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question.
Covid Recovery Strategy (Financial Security for Low-income Households)
To ask the Scottish Government how it is progressing its Covid recovery strategy commitments to improve financial security for low-income households. (S6O-02063)
The Scottish Government prioritises funding to help household finances across the country. We are taking action to increase financial security for low-income households by, for example, increasing the Scottish child payment to £25 per week per eligible child, doubling the fuel insecurity fund to £20 million and providing local authorities with additional funding for discretionary housing payments. In total, the Scottish Government has allocated around £3 billion this financial year to contribute to mitigating the increased-cost crisis. More than £1 billion of that support is available only in Scotland, with the remainder being more generous than what is provided elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
As the minister says, the pandemic and the cost of living crisis have exacerbated the situation for low-income households. Last week, devastating poverty statistics for Scotland were published. The strategy was published on 5 October 2021, and a lot of the commitments were delivered within 18 months, but there are still gaps in delivery of free breakfasts and wraparound childcare. Will there be a revaluation of the remaining commitments? Will they be brought forward with new timescales, and is the strategy still relevant?
I refer Claire Baker to recent ministerial statements on those aspects of the strategy. There is a continued process of work in relation to wraparound childcare and school meals, which is coupled with the £428 million that the Government has allocated to uprate by 10.1 per cent all the benefits for which the Scottish Government is responsible. There is also £442 million for the Scottish child payment to be increased to £25 per week per eligible child, as well as action being taken with regard to rents and a continued social housing programme, to tackle the high cost of housing.
A huge amount of work has been done, and more work will need to be done in order to meet the obligations, to continue to provide for low-income families in Scotland and to lift children out of poverty, which is a priority for us all.
Given that inflation is at 10.4 per cent and many families are struggling to pay increasing bills, does the Scottish Government have all the powers that it needs to deal with the issue, or does Westminster need to act as well?
The Scottish Government’s position is that the UK Government’s statement does not fully address the cost of living crisis or provide the support that people in Scotland need, and that more can be done. The Scottish Government, in some of the policy commitments that I have outlined, has used its limited powers and constrained financial resources to provide more help and to ensure that people receive the help that they need.
Although the constraints of the current devolution settlement prevent the Scottish Government from borrowing, the more that we as a Parliament argue collectively for borrowing powers, the more we will be able to do.
Covid Recovery Strategy (Impact of Increased Inflation on Delivery of Priority Outcomes)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact it anticipates that the increase in inflation to 10.4 per cent will have on the delivery of the priority outcomes set out in the Covid recovery strategy. (S6O-02064)
The current financial situation, including the high levels of inflation, is particularly challenging due to our lack of fiscal powers. The Scottish Government has prioritised spending that supports people who need it most, guided in part by the principles of the Covid recovery strategy. The 2023-24 Scottish budget provides funding that helps families, backs businesses and protects delivery of public services.
The Scottish Government is committed to making progress towards the shared Covid recovery strategy outcomes, in partnership with local government and other partners, and will continue to prioritise spending that is targeted at supporting people who are in most need.
One priority of the Covid recovery strategy is financial security for low-income households, but recent Department for Work and Pensions figures reveal that poverty has risen in the UK, with the number of people on a relative low income having increased by 1 million, from 13.4 million in March 2021 to 14.4 million a year later. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact of the continued obsession with Brexit of the Tory Government and Labour Party on its ability to deliver on the strategy’s priorities?
I am sure that Audrey Nicoll will recall that the Scottish Government made representations—as did many people in Scotland—to the UK Government not to come out of Europe in the midst of the pandemic because doing so would only compound the hardship that people faced. Subsequently, we have inflation and the cost of living crisis.
Despite that, the Scottish Government continues to support low-income households. We increased the Scottish child payment to £25 per week, doubled the fuel insecurity fund to £20 million and provided local authorities with additional funding for discretionary housing payments. Those are just some of the actions that we have taken, with our limited powers, to help to mitigate the detrimental impacts of Brexit and the cost of living crisis.
A Glasgow Centre for Population Health report on life expectancy highlighted that mortality rates have stalled since 2012, and the Scottish Government’s recent health inequalities report found that the gap in health outcomes between the most deprived and least deprived communities is the widest that it has been since monitoring began in 1997. Can the minister advise how the Government plans to tackle the unacceptable disparity between the health outcomes of the best off and those of the worst off people in our communities, in line with its commitment to address systemic inequalities through the Covid recovery strategy?
Paul Sweeney has highlighted some of the challenges that we have faced in recent years, and he will be aware that there have been many reports about the widening gap between the rich and the poor throughout the UK. It is not an issue that is unique to Scotland; it is largely down to austerity from the UK Government since 2010, compounded by Brexit, for which Scotland did not vote. Of course, as I said, there is also the impact of the pandemic and the inflationary cost of living crisis.
Many such external factors have impacted on poverty in Scotland, and we do not have full powers to address them. Indeed, inflation has affected the Scottish budget. There has been a 4.8 per cent reduction in the Scottish budget in real terms from the budget for 2021-22 because the UK Government has not allocated to Scotland money to reflect inflation.
A number of issues need to be addressed. We agree with the sentiments of Paul Sweeney, but we want the Parliament to have all the powers that would enable us to address poverty in Scotland and the life-expectancy challenges that exist in many parts of the country.
“Covid Recovery Strategy: For a fairer future” states:
“The pandemic has highlighted the importance of our parks and libraries particularly for those on low incomes.”
Will the minister join me in condemning the SNP administration at Aberdeen City Council for closing six libraries, which will hit people on lower incomes hardest?
I do not know whether Douglas Lumsden was listening to my previous answer, when I explained that the UK Government has not allocated funding to Scotland to reflect the impact of inflation. There has been a 4.8 per cent real-terms reduction in the Scottish budget.
We gave a fair settlement to local government in the recent budget. I do not know whether Douglas Lumsden’s party suggested alternatives to address some of the issues that he wants to be addressed. We believe in local democracy and we believe that it is for local government to make local decisions in this country, so I urge him to make representations to his Conservative colleagues in the UK Government to ensure that we get a much better settlement in Scotland to support our local councils and central governance.
Long Covid
To ask the Scottish Government how its cross-Government co-ordination of Covid recovery policies is addressing the needs of those affected by long Covid. (S6O-02065)
The Scottish Government is supporting a recovery that is focused on supporting individuals and communities who were most affected during the pandemic—including people with long Covid—and on reducing systemic inequalities across Scotland. The Scottish Government recognises the impact that long Covid can have on the health and wellbeing of those who are affected, and it is investing in scientific efforts to understand long Covid. We have made an initial £3 million available to NHS boards and their partners to deliver the best local models of care for assessment of and support for ongoing management or treatment of symptoms.
One of my Motherwell and Wishaw constituents, who had a horrendous Covid experience and is suffering from long Covid, is unable to get back to work as a pilot due to hearing loss. He has had one cochlear implant fitted following Covid complications, but that does not meet the requirements for his profession.
Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, which are followed by Health Improvement Scotland, stipulate that he must have another condition that impacts on cognitive ability for him to be eligible for a second bilateral implant. Those guidelines are from 2019—before the pandemic. As part of Covid recovery, is the Scottish Government committed to working across Parliament to review the guidelines that are in place so that people like my constituent, who have been made economically inactive due to long Covid, have their circumstances considered?
First, I am really sorry to hear about the impact that long Covid is having on Clare Adamson’s constituent. Healthcare Improvement Scotland is a national improvement organisation that supports the health and social care system to design and provide high-quality, sustainable and compassionate care for the people of Scotland.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines are developed by expert panels, taking into account relevant evidence. In Scotland, the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network—SIGN—guidelines contain recommendations for effective practice based on current evidence. However, NHS boards in Scotland can choose to consider other guidelines, including NICE guidelines, where there is no SIGN guidance. At present, I am not aware of any plans to review that NICE guideline.
A number of colleagues want to ask supplementaries. The appeal to members to be brief in questions and answers stands.
In November, Humza Yousaf wrote to me and outlined how much long Covid support funding was being provided to each health board. Although I was happy to see a roll-out of long Covid rehabilitation pathways, there remains a lack of dedicated long Covid clinics in Scotland. Will the minister heed the call of health professionals such as NHS Grampian head of health intelligence, Jillian Evans, and provide dedicated long Covid clinics across Scotland?
Sandesh Gulhane is aware that it is the role of NHS boards to develop and deliver models of care that are most appropriate for the needs of their local populations. We are providing resource to boards, through our long Covid support fund, to enable them to do that. Initiatives that are being supported by the funding include key elements of care that are being offered by long Covid assessment clinics elsewhere in the United Kingdom, including a single point of access for assessment and co-ordinated support from services, including physiotherapy and occupational therapy.
Sandesh Gulhane will also be aware that the SIGN guidance, which was developed collegiately on a four-nations basis across the whole UK, says explicitly that a one-size-fits-all approach—such as long Covid clinics—is not appropriate for all areas.
As of May last year, NHS England had allocated £224 million to support assessment and treatment of long Covid, with £90 million of that being allocated in 2022-23. Applying the Barnett formula to those figures would produce funding of £21.7 million in Scotland, but the Scottish National Party Government has provided less than half of that amount, despite the number of people with long Covid having grown threefold. Can the minister explain where the missing millions are?
Jackie Baillie will be aware that the long Covid support fund is a targeted additional resource for NHS boards to further enhance the assessment and support that they already provide for people with long Covid across a range of services.
In 2022-23, £18 billion was provided for the health portfolio, which is a record level of front-line health spending in Scotland. It is £323 per person, which is 10.6 per cent higher than the figure for England. We regularly engage with NHS boards regarding their capacity needs, and will continue to do so in order to inform allocation of the long Covid support fund.
According to media reports, a new study shows that one in 50 Scots has long Covid. On that basis, it could be estimated that around 460 people are living with long Covid in Shetland. What consideration will the Scottish Government give to providing specialist long Covid services in our rural and island areas?
One of the challenges that we have is in getting accurate data on long Covid prevalence, distribution and symptoms. We need that data to forecast and plan NHS services, but achievement of that objective is complex. Currently, we do not have the full picture.
The Scottish Government is happy to work closely with NHS Shetland and any other boards to help with providing information so that boards can plan adequately for their local needs. However, I emphasise—as I have in previous answers—that it is for local health boards to respond to need in their communities and to ensure that services can deliver for the people whom they serve.
In England and Wales, the NHS has set up long Covid clinics and the evidence so far demonstrates that that is definitely the right way to proceed to ensure that the individual comes first. Will the minister agree to look at that evidence and then come back to Parliament to state whether that is an approach that Scotland can follow?
In Scotland, we follow the clinical guideline that exists for long Covid, as was referenced in an earlier answer. It was developed rapidly and was published in December 2020 by SIGN, NICE and the Royal College of General Practitioners. That living guideline includes recommendations and guidance on clinical management of people who have long Covid, as well as recommendations for those who are planning services. I reiterate that that guideline notes that one model would not fit all areas. However, it is perfectly possible for local health boards to come forward with a long Covid clinic model, should they think that it fits their local needs. Development of such a model would be supported.
Future Pandemic Response (Public Confidence)
To ask the Scottish Government, as part of its cross-Government co-ordination of Covid recovery policies, what steps it is taking to ensure that the public has confidence in Scotland’s response to any future pandemic. (S6O-02066)
The Scottish Government is taking action to ensure that we are prepared for any future pandemic. For example, we are currently working on a four-nations basis to review the countermeasures and capabilities that are required to address new pandemic threats, and we retain stockpiles of consumables and pharmaceuticals to support a pandemic response, in the event that that is required. We are also engaging fully with the independent Scottish public inquiry into the handling of the pandemic in Scotland. The 2023-24 Scottish budget made provision for work to ensure preparedness, assessment and co-ordination of concurrent risk across the Scottish Government.
Revelations of lockdown parties and rule breaking in Downing Street have tarnished the United Kingdom Government’s Covid response. A recent YouGov poll showed that 82 per cent of Scots believe that former Prime Minister Boris Johnson is dishonest. [Interruption.] Given that, does the minister have any concerns that Boris Johnson’s blatant disregard of the Covid rules will have dented public confidence in all Governments’ planning for future pandemics?
On matters for which you are responsible, minister.
The member’s theory is perfectly plausible. However, I will put on record that the Scottish Government is grateful for how people across Scotland responded during the pandemic. They supported their families and communities as safely as possible during a challenging time.
We are working to ensure that we are prepared for any future pandemic. We will learn from our experiences during the Covid-19 pandemic in order to ensure that the public have confidence in any future measures that will be taken by the Scottish Government.
Perhaps we can get back to the Scottish Government’s responsibilities. Recently, national clinical director Professor Jason Leitch indicated that it was his view that the Scottish Government might have gone too far in closing schools during the Covid pandemic, because of the negative impact on education and on young people’s social development. Given that we are learning lessons for the future, does the Scottish Government agree with that analysis?
The process of learning lessons for the future will continue for many years to come as we look back on this period of our history, which has been one of the most challenging periods, globally, in modern times. Undoubtedly, there will be reflection, but the member’s view is somewhat simplistic in suggesting that there was an option between causing harm and causing no harm. When I have heard Jason Leitch elaborate on the subject, he has said very clearly that we are not sure at the moment what the unknown harms might have been had we not taken measures. I am absolutely certain that all decision makers made the best decisions that they possibly could, based on the incomplete information that was available at the time.
Question number 5 has not been lodged.
Covid Recovery and Parliamentary Business Portfolio
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has for the Covid recovery and parliamentary business portfolio. (S6O-02068)
The allocation of ministerial portfolios is a matter for the First Minister. The Parliament is due to consider the appointment of ministers tomorrow, when the First Minister will likely speak to his plans for portfolios across the Government.
The Covid recovery portfolio has had its difficulties during its short existence, ranging from the Covid passport scheme, which punished businesses, confused the public and cost taxpayers dearly, to the power grab bill that granted the Scottish Government permanent emergency powers. Can the minister say how he expects the Covid-19 inquiry to evaluate the performance of the portfolio over the past two years?
It is not for me to speculate on future inquiries. However, in answer to the question that has been asked, I can say that the Scottish Government's efforts and ambitions around Covid recovery have always focused on enhancing the wellbeing of children and young people; increasing financial security for low-income households; creating good green jobs and fair work; and supporting the reform of our public services. Those priorities are reflected in the 2023-24 Scottish budget, which focuses on reducing child poverty, making progress towards net zero and ensuring that public services are fiscally sustainable.
The Scottish Government, led by our new First Minister, will determine how best to support the people and communities across Scotland.
Covid Recovery Strategy (Impact of United Kingdom Government Spring Budget)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact the UK Government’s spring budget will have on implementing the Covid recovery strategy. (S6O-02069)
The UK Government’s budget statement is another missed opportunity that has failed to tackle the cost of living crisis and to provide the support that people in Scotland need. We have consistently called for the UK Government to provide additional support to people in relation to the cost of living crisis. The Scottish Government has prioritised spending that supports those who need it most, guided in part by the principles of the Covid recovery strategy. The 2023-24 Scottish budget provides funding that helps families, backs businesses and protects the delivery of public services.
This week, the chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the scale of the impact of Brexit on the UK economy was of the same magnitude as that of the Covid pandemic and energy price crises. Will the minister comment on what assessment the Scottish Government has made of that comparison and on how the on-going effects of leaving the European Union will impact on the delivery of the Covid recovery strategy?
The OBR is forecasting the largest two-year fall in real living standards since Office for National Statistics records started in the 1950s. That would mean that, by 2027-28, living standards in the UK would still be around 0.5 per cent lower than pre-pandemic levels.
The UK’s decision to leave the EU—something that Scotland did not vote for—is forecast to reduce the UK’s productivity by 4 per cent, and the UK’s trade intensity is set to be 15 per cent lower in the long run. Despite those challenges, the Scottish Government will continue to prioritise spending that is targeted to support those most in need and make progress towards the Covid recovery strategy outcomes.
Green Jobs Workforce Academy (Ministerial Statement)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to propose the scheduling of time for a ministerial statement on the green jobs workforce academy. (S6O-02070)
Since its launch in 2021, the green jobs workforce academy has been supporting people in green careers. The Scottish Government will publish an update to the climate emergency skills action plan this year, setting out the next steps to deliver skills for a just transition.
As always, proposals for Government business in Parliament are agreed by the Scottish Cabinet; they are then subject to consideration by the Parliamentary Bureau and, in turn, approval by the Parliament.
Green skills are vital in Scotland’s fight against the global climate emergency and in equipping our workforce with the skills of the future. Last week, I visited Borders College’s Hawick campus, which is teaching building to passive house standards, solar panel and heat pump installation and maintenance, and the use of emerging technologies, such as heat scanning and 3D printing. Will the minister provide an update on how the green jobs workforce academy will help to enhance that work and how it will support people living in Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders?
The heat in buildings strategy, which was published in 2021, set out our vision for decarbonising the heat supply of Scotland’s buildings. Having a skilled workforce in all areas of Scotland is central to the delivery of that strategy. We are already taking action to ensure that the education and skills system is providing individuals with the right skills and pathways into careers in green heat, including through the green jobs workforce academy, and we will set out our next steps in the climate emergency skills action plan update.
Finance and the Economy
We move to portfolio questions on finance and the economy. I make the usual appeal for brevity in questions and responses. Any member who wishes to ask a supplementary should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question.
Government Projects (Value for Money)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure value for money in Government projects. (S6O-02071)
The Scottish Government is committed to managing taxpayers’ money efficiently and effectively while delivering on its commitments. Accountable officers are responsible for ensuring that resources are utilised economically, efficiently and effectively. The Scottish public finance manual, which applies to the Scottish Administration and bodies that are sponsored by the Scottish Government, sets out the framework for securing best value and value for money. That is underpinned by the utilisation of business cases and pre-expenditure assessments for significant projects. The Scottish public finance manual also sets out our programme and project management principles, as well as guidance on procuring, monitoring and major investment projects. Those are embedded in the project assurance processes, which are supplemented by robust analysis of data to help drive value for money.
I am grateful to see the minister in his place and thank him for his reply. I will not mention ferries or so-called free bicycles, but I will mention an institution that is owed money by GFG Alliance, which collapsed last week—I am not referring to the Scottish Government, despite the evidence of the past chaotic weekend.
What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact of the UBS rescue of Credit Suisse on GFG Alliance’s refinancing efforts? What impact might UBS’s takeover of Credit Suisse have on GFG’s operations in Scotland and GFG’s ability to repay the loans from the Scottish Government?
The member is absolutely correct to raise the important issue of the recent disturbing and destabilising developments in the international banking sector. In related areas, there has been engagement from Scottish Enterprise, particularly around the issues pertaining to the tech sector. On the specific points that Mr Kerr raises, I am not in a position to give a detailed answer at this point, but I will ensure that a written response is given to the member to provide him with an update.
The National Audit Office has reportedly warned that the revised plans for the high-speed 2 Euston terminus would cost almost £5 billion, and the trains are not expected to run into Euston until 2041, which is 15 years late. Crossrail was late, and the Elizabeth line was billions of pounds over budget, too. Does the minister share my view that we do not take lessons from the Tories, who are wasting billions of pounds of public money and hoping that nobody in Scotland notices?
I am sorry, Mr Coffey—that is not relevant to the previous question.
United Kingdom Government Spring Budget
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK Government following the announcement of the UK spring budget. (S6O-02072)
My colleague John Swinney, the former Deputy First Minister, spoke to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the morning of the UK spring budget, having earlier written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set out Scottish interests. The spring budget was a missed opportunity to lift families out of poverty, invest in our public services and help businesses. In addition, it was hugely disappointing that, despite earlier commitments that were given to the Scottish Government, the spring budget was silent on the carbon capture, utilisation and storage Scottish Cluster. As such, we wrote to the Prime Minister to call for a concrete timeline for the Scottish Cluster. I assure Parliament that I will take up those issues with the UK Government in the days and weeks ahead.
I thank the minister for that response. Instead of fixing the doctors’ pension issue, the chancellor increased the pension lifetime allowance across the board, which resulted in a massive giveaway for the wealthiest people in society—yet another example of Westminster’s poor pensions policies. The UK has one of the lowest state pensions in Europe and high levels of pensioner poverty, and the rise in pension age negatively impacts poorer people in Scotland. Does the minister agree that, with control over pensions, this Parliament could make a system that works for the people of Scotland, and does he agree that the only way to guarantee that is for Scotland to become independent?
Minister, please answer the parts of the question that relate to the responsibilities of the Scottish Government.
Collette Stevenson raises very important issues with regard to the decisions that are taken around pensions.
The Resolution Foundation has called the changes to the pension tax allowance
“an unneeded tax break for wealthy pension savers.”
It suggests that scrapping the lifetime allowance could cost around £1.2 billion, that the employment gains might be “overstated”, and that the changes could even encourage some people to retire earlier. It is simply a tax break for high earners, while low-income households are left behind.
I agree with Collette Stevenson that we need the pension system to meet the needs of all people in Scotland. As with so many other issues, the needs of Scotland can be best addressed if this Parliament is in a position to do so.
Local Authority Pay Awards (Tax Implications)
To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to any potential tax implications of pay awards currently being administered by local authorities. (S6O-02073)
The tax implications of pay awards, particularly relating to those agreed later in the financial year, are routinely discussed throughout pay negotiations with relevant parties.
Employers are responsible for administering pay deals through their payroll operations. We understand that, due to resource pressures, some local authorities might not be able to process payments before the end of the tax year. Any employee who is concerned about that issue should contact their employer and engage with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
Last week, Tes Scotland reported that teachers in half of all Scotland’s councils will not receive their back pay until the next financial year. That delay will prove costly in tax terms for teachers.
During the pay campaign, I heard from teachers who were barely managing to make ends meet—some were even resorting to food banks. It was this Government that treated our teachers with disdain throughout a year-long pay dispute; now, teachers are having to pay the price for the tactics of delay and dither from this Government. What advice does the minister have for the people who are suffering as a result?
We have always sought to engage constructively with our trade union colleagues, and, in doing so, we have delivered a pay settlement for Scottish teachers. I recognise the issues that the member raises pertaining to the report in Tes Scotland last week. Of course, the matter of administration of payrolls is for the employer—in this case, the local authority.
The Scottish Government is not in a position to intervene. However, I am sure that the Parliament will join the Government in encouraging local government to address those payroll issues in as quickly and timely a fashion as possible.
United Kingdom Government Digital Strategy
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether Scotland’s digital economy will benefit from the UK Government’s revised digital strategy. (S6O-02074)
Although we welcome any commitment by the UK Government to strengthen the UK’s digital economy, we believe that lessons can also be learned from our approach here, in Scotland. Our digital strategy and the “Scottish Technology Ecosystem Review” advance ambitious programmes of work, including £42 million to deliver our national Techscaler network, of which no equivalent exists elsewhere in Europe.
We also welcome the work by the British Business Bank that is under way to create a new £150 million investment fund for Scotland, to provide growth capital for high-potential companies. We will continue to work with it and with the UK Government to boost our tech sector.
As the minister will know, the digital single market that we were part of in Europe is worth £400 billion each year, and it provided access for Scottish companies to huge opportunities to develop their tech sectors. The UK Government’s digital strategy does not make a single reference to establishing the promised digital single market in the UK, and its claims for growth in the tech sector in the UK are paltry in comparison.
Will the minister assure me that, despite the significant barrier, we will continue to make every effort to grow and develop the tech sector here, in Scotland, and to provide support to Scottish companies that wish to access European and international opportunities in the digital and technology sectors?
I give the member that assurance. That is why, back in 2020, Mark Logan was commissioned by the then Cabinet Secretary for Finance to undertake his short-life review into how Scotland’s technology sector can contribute to Scotland’s economic recovery following the Covid pandemic. That resulted in the “Scottish Technology Ecosystem Review”, which was an acclaimed industry-led blueprint for the growth of the Scottish tech sector.
The loss of the digital single market at the time was very regrettable. The European Parliament estimated that the potential gains of a digital single market could be in the range of €415 billion to €500 billion per year as a result of higher productivity due to faster flow of information, greater efficiency in traditional economic sectors and higher levels of e-commerce. At the time, our most recent analysis in Scotland suggested that that would provide a 1.9 per cent boost to gross domestic product in this country, which is equivalent to £2.9 billion.
It is an exceedingly important sector, and I hope that the member can take assurance from the steps that we have taken since to ensure that the importance of the sector is recognised and that it is supported.
Public-private Partnerships (Review)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will commit to carrying out a review of the use of public-private partnerships for public infrastructure projects. (S6O-02075)
We have been clear about our concerns around the flexibility and value for money that historical PFI contracts offer. The Scottish Futures Trust is working in partnership with public bodies to realise contract management improvements including rescoping services, sharing insurance cost savings and optimising risk transfer in legacy contracts.
As the minister will be aware, even the United Kingdom Treasury is now describing public-private partnerships as inflexible, overly complex and a source of significant fiscal risk to Government. However, Scotland is still entering into versions of such arrangements. Will the Scottish Government stop such partnerships and commit to a model that puts quality, value for money and accountability at its heart?
We seek to put quality and value for money at the heart of all infrastructure projects in which we engage. However, it is important to recognise that options that are available to the UK Government and, indeed, to other sovereign Governments, are not available to the Scottish Government. For example, the Scottish Government does not have the significant capital borrowing powers that would allow for a different approach. I am sure that the member will have reflected on this, following our recent discussion about the future of our town centres and retail, but, although there is much that the public sector can do, there is also a need to bring in private investment, and we want to do so in a way that ensures the best value and the best outcomes.
As I said, we have asked the Scottish Futures Trust to undertake work on that area, which will look at the legacy of PFI contracts. We are committed to engaging constructively, to ensure that all of our infrastructure projects deliver best value.
In 2006, North Ayrshire Council signed up to a public-private partnership deal to build four new schools at a capital cost of £81 million. The people of North Ayrshire will pay more than £400 million in charges over three decades to pay for that, after which the financiers will own the schools. Does the minister agree that, given that we had a Labour-controlled council, a Labour Government at Westminster and a Labour-led Administration at Holyrood when that shady deal was done, it is astonishing that the Labour MP at the time, Katy Clark, is now asking this Scottish National Party Government to sort out a mess of her own party’s making?
I ask the minister to respond to matters on which the Scottish Government is responsible.
I am very grateful to the member for his supplementary question. [Interruption.] It is an enduring frustration that we must contend with the legacy of PFI contracts that the previous Administration signed, although, admittedly, that Administration was in power 16 years ago. Compounding that frustration is the fact that, at a time when there was a Labour Government at Westminster and a Labour-led Government here, there was access to resources and capital powers that are not available to this Parliament in isolation. Indeed, that was a time when Labour was routinely returning to Westminster money that had been allocated to the Scottish Parliament.
As I said, we must contend with that legacy, unfortunately, but those are mistakes that we will not repeat.
The mismanagement of public infrastructure projects has real consequences for communities on the ground. The Scottish Government’s incompetence is leaving islanders without working ferries and highlanders with a lethal, undualled A9. Infrastructure is not a priority for this Green-SNP Government. When will it start taking seriously the waste in Government and the desperation of the people of Scotland, who have been so badly let down by it?
The member raises a lot of questions to do with infrastructure. I often reflect on infrastructure when driving on the M8, which was completed under an SNP Government; when driving on the M80, which was completed by an SNP Government; when driving on the Aberdeen western peripheral route, which was completed by an SNP Government; when crossing the Queensferry crossing, which was completed by an SNP Government; when riding on the Borders railway, which was completed by an SNP Government; and when enjoying the electrified line between Queen Street and Haymarket, which was completed under an SNP Government. I will be delighted to see completed the electrified line between Barrhead, in my constituency, and Glasgow Central station. Those are all examples of this SNP Government delivering infrastructure for the people of Scotland.
I notice that a member who asked a question earlier in this portfolio has since left the chamber without an explanation. I remind members that, if they have a question, either in the Business Bulletin or as a supplementary, you are expected to remain in the chamber for the duration of that portfolio question time.
Superfast Broadband Programme (Update)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its commitment to deliver superfast broadband to 100 per cent of premises by 2021. (S6O-02076)
As I outlined last month in response to the same question from Mr Rennie, all homes and business across Scotland had the ability to access a superfast broadband connection by the end of 2021. I am also pleased to announce that, by the end of February 2023, the reaching 100 per cent—R100—contracts had built connections to more than 20,000 properties across the length and breadth of Scotland, with almost 3,000 connections also delivered through R100 vouchers.
Yes, I asked exactly the same question as last time, and that is exactly the same insulting answer that I got last time. R100 has not been delivered, and the minister fine well knows that. My home still does not have superfast broadband, despite numerous attempts to get it. Thousands of other homes across the country do not have it either, and many of them are not going to get it until 2028. That is seven years late.
The First Minister said that he wants to reach across the chamber and bring transparency to Government. Rather than read out the official answer, will the minister tell me exactly what he really thinks?
The member might wish to recall that the Scottish Government’s very ambitious and huge commitment to this roll-out was the result of a lack of action by the United Kingdom Government, which has responsibility for telecommunications.
At the moment, 95.4 per cent of premises across Scotland are able to access superfast broadband speeds. In total, the digital Scotland superfast broadband scheme has connected 951,000 premises across Scotland to fibre broadband. That includes 30,680 premises in the North East Fife constituency, 28,368 of which are capable of accessing speeds of 24Mbps and above.
I do not know whether the member has applied for the vouchers that are available or what conversations he has had with Openreach. I do know that Openreach has connected people over and above those in its contract. Work is continuing where issues have been come across in terms of the physical works, and in some cases that will take a bit longer than anticipated, once Openreach is on the ground.
That fantastic progress has been made by the Scottish Government over the years, plugging a gap that was left by the UK Government’s inaction. We should be very proud of what we have achieved in this country.
The Scottish National Party’s promised but delayed broadband access through the R100 programme remains years away. Access to fast, reliable broadband is still a postcode lottery for many homes and businesses across my Highlands and Islands region. What does the minister say to my constituents who, despite repeated promises from the Scottish Government, are still waiting for a service that delivers even the most basic of what they need?
I say to the member that the Scottish Government has been working flat out and has invested more than £600 million in this effort due to the fact that, despite telecommunications having been reserved to the UK Government for many years, little—if any—action on it was taken by the Government of the member’s own party south of the border. The 95 per cent of premises in Scotland that now have access to superfast speeds have benefited from the efforts made by the Scottish Government.
Yes, more needs to be done, and I mentioned some of the physical barriers that have been come across that Openreach still has to address, which are very complex in some parts of the country. I know that situation from my own constituency, which the member will be familiar with. A number of homes have particular challenges. In many cases, people could apply for vouchers, but there are different choices that they can make. It is important that we continue to work to overcome the barriers and make sure that everyone in Scotland has access to superfast broadband.
Residents in Shetland and other island and rural areas face being left behind in the roll-out of superfast broadband. One constituent of mine who runs a business from home has been told that she simply lives too far away to make a connection economical. Reliable internet is not a luxury, and it is certainly not economical for her business not to have it. The Scottish Government is responsible for the roll-out of superfast broadband. When will all my constituents be able to get it?
I am aware that, in Shetland, there are particular challenges for those who are very far from the infrastructure. It is important that those constituents are made aware of the help that is available through the vouchers. It is really important that Openreach and colleagues in the Scottish Government continue to focus on the properties that are the hardest to reach in Shetland. I am happy to ensure that the member receives an update on the situation on the islands as soon as possible.
Green Freeports Relief Proposals
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential reduction in taxation revenue from the land and buildings transaction taxation: green freeports relief proposals, which were published for consultation on 17 March 2023. (S6O-02077)
The green freeports LBTT relief will support the objective of encouraging investment in and regeneration of underdeveloped land within clearly defined tax sites. The Scottish Government will set out further information on the potential cost of the relief at the time when any legislation is laid before the Scottish Parliament.
The minister might be aware that there is a concern from trade unions that the proposal risks a race to the bottom on workers’ rights and tax. Therefore, can the minister provide an assurance that workers in Leith and around the Forth will not have any of their rights weakened? Can he confirm whether all employers in Scottish green freeports who receive public funding or tax incentives will be required to recognise trade unions?
On the latter point, because of the reservation of employment law, we cannot compel recognition of trade unions. However, both the successful bids have made clear commitments to fair work principles, and that will be subject to robust monitoring and reporting requirements.
Businesses Based in Scotland (Reduction)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to address the reported second year of consecutive contraction in the number of businesses that are based in Scotland. (S6O-02078)
The latest statistics show that, despite the challenging economic conditions, the total number of businesses in Scotland rose to 360,910 in 2022, which was a 5.2 per cent increase on the previous year.
However, we know that businesses in Scotland are struggling because of Brexit and the United Kingdom Government’s mismanagement of the economy. That is why the Scottish Government is doing all that it can, through our limited powers, to provide immediate support to businesses, including the lowest non-domestic rates poundage in the UK.
At the same time, we are delivering our national strategy for economic transformation to achieve our long-term ambitions for a stronger, fairer and greener economy. The activities that we are delivering are supporting businesses, encouraging and cultivating new businesses and attracting more businesses to Scotland. We are working closely with delivery partners, businesses, the third sector and trade unions to successfully implement the strategy and transform our economy.
The reality is, as the figures show, that Scotland is the only part of the UK with declining business numbers. However, perhaps that is not surprising, given that Kate Forbes and Ivan McKee were overruled and forced to remove the very word “growth” from the national strategy for economic transformation—and now they themselves are removed, not just their words. Therefore, it is perhaps also not surprising that in The Herald today, Ivan McKee said that it was
“frustrating having to talk to businesses every day ... without ... the ability to actually do anything about it.”
Ivan McKee is right. The Government needs to reset its relationship with business, does it not? In fact, is there anyone left on the Government benches with any experience of actually running a business?
Let me first commend my colleagues Kate Forbes and Ivan McKee for the tremendous service that they have given to the Government and the people of Scotland. They have certainly done more for business in Scotland than any member of the Opposition parties, and I know that they will continue to make a valuable contribution.
We are absolutely committed to supporting business in Scotland and ensuring that, in doing so, we work collaboratively and in partnership to build a wellbeing economy that works for all people in Scotland. It is a shame that the Labour Party cannot commend and support that, but the Scottish National Party-Green Government will be absolutely focused on it and will deliver it.
I have a couple of supplementaries. If I am to get them both in, they will need to be brief, as will the responses.
Considering the difficult economic circumstances, businesses need support right now to manage the pressures that they are facing. However, as we well know, many of the powers that are needed to provide that support are currently reserved. Can the minister provide any further information on what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the measures to support business in the UK Government’s spring budget? Does he share my concern that it does not go far enough?
I do. As I said earlier, we agree that the UK Government’s spring budget does not go far enough and was a missed opportunity. The reality is that we are in not just a cost of living crisis but a cost of everything crisis, which is having an impact on businesses not just the length and breadth of Scotland but across the UK. We are doing all that we can with the limited powers of the Scottish Parliament, and it is time that the UK Government stepped up to the mark and did the same.
When it comes to attracting more people to come to Scotland to work, what analysis is the Scottish Government doing into why we are not getting as much benefit from net migration as there is down south? Why are more people not coming to work in Scotland?
I recognise that Liz Smith raised that issue with the former Deputy First Minister in the past few weeks. The Government is undertaking careful analysis of the issue and we are committed to actively growing Scotland’s population. We want to ensure that Scotland is not only the most attractive place in the UK but one of the most attractive places in Europe for people to locate, work, contribute or start up a business.
Notwithstanding the points that Liz Smith has made, one of the challenges that we face is that the access that we had to a huge pool of labour—more than 500 million people—across the European Union has been lost, despite Scotland voting overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union in order to enjoy freedom of movement and the single market. That has been denied to us by the UK Government, but we will regain EU membership with independence.
That concludes portfolio questions on finance and the economy.
On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I apologise to you and other members for leaving the chamber during portfolio questions. I had to take an urgent phone call.
Thank you very much for that explanation, Ms Stevenson. It is worth clarifying that, if a member needs to leave the chamber at short notice, that is perfectly permissible, but I advise members that they need to alert the chair to that.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport
There is quite a bit of interest in the next portfolio, which is net zero, energy and transport. Again, I advise members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question.
Public Transport (Accessibility)
To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to ensure that public transport is accessible. (S6O-02079)
I will be covering a number of questions in place of the Minister for Transport.
The Scottish Government is, of course, committed to ensuring that people with disabilities can travel with the same freedom, choice, dignity and opportunity as other citizens can. “Going further: Scotland’s Accessible Travel Framework” was launched in 2016 to help to achieve that. A number of delivery plans have been developed to provide a focus for action by working together with disabled people’s organisations and the mobility and access committee for Scotland. The third delivery plan is currently being prepared and will be published later this year. It will run until the end of the current accessible travel framework in 2026.
I have a constituent who, unfortunately, lost her sight during the Covid pandemic and can no longer drive, so she relies on public transport. She has been in touch because she really struggles to know what bus is coming along and where to get off the bus. Simple measures such as talking bus stops and onboard announcements would be helpful.
What measures is the Scottish Government taking to work with providers to ensure that people with vision impairments are supported to use public transport?
I thank Siobhian Brown for raising the experiences that her constituent and other people across Scotland have been having. Bus travel should, of course, be accessible for all. I agree very strongly that accessible audio and visual information should be provided on bus routes. However, powers relating to accessible information on bus routes are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. It used the Bus Services Act 2017 to amend the Equality Act 2010 to require operators to provide audio and visual information on bus services across Great Britain.
In 2018, the UK Government consulted on proposals to improve information for bus passengers. My colleague Michael Matheson, who, at the time, was Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, responded to that consultation. Given the importance of ensuring that clear and consistent information is provided to all bus users, it is disappointing that the UK Government’s proposed legislation has still to be introduced. However, I noticed that the Department for Transport confirmed in a written answer earlier this year that it intends to introduce regulations that will
“require the provision of audible and visible information on local bus and coach services across Great Britain”.
Transport Scotland officials continue to engage with UK Government counterparts on the issue.
Re-opening of Railway Stations (Dumfriesshire)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support the re-opening of railway stations in Dumfriesshire. (S6O-02080)
The regional transport partnership SWestrans has undertaken three transport appraisals, which have considered potential rail stations at Beattock, Eastriggs and Thornhill in Dumfriesshire. Transport Scotland officials have engaged with SWestrans on those appraisals and will respond on the three appraisal reports in the coming weeks.
I thank the minister for that answer but, along with campaigners, I am disappointed that the proposed new stations were not considered strategically important enough to feature in the second strategic transport projects review.
Following the recent cross-party visit that Beattock Station Action Group co-ordinated, will the minister commit the new transport minister—or, failing that, himself—to meet me, Colin Smyth, Emma Harper and representatives of the different campaign groups to better understand how those projects can be taken forward and how we can secure the funding to see those stations re-opened?
I am sure that the new transport minister will be keen to continue to engage on a cross-party basis with colleagues about those issues. As was discussed when we launched STPR2, some members might have been disappointed that a number of regional or locally important projects were not considered as part of the process, which is that of a strategic national review.
However, we have been clear throughout the process, and since publication, that paths remain open for regional and local projects to come forward and for consideration of business cases in relation to them. Therefore, officials have begun reviewing the appraisals that were previously submitted and, as I have said, are intending to respond on those appraisals in the coming weeks. I am sure that the member will continue to engage with the new transport minister on that process, too.
Does the minister not accept the real frustration of communities, which were told that new stations would be part of STPR2 and then were told that they would not be? It is not clear to me why there has been a delay in taking forward projects for new stations if they were never going to be strategic projects as part of STPR2.
The minister has said that the Scottish transport appraisal guidance report response will come from Transport Scotland in weeks. However, the STAG report has been with Transport Scotland since last August, so why has it taken so long? Clearly, the Government has not yet even allocated any funding for those pipeline projects. Exactly how much funding will go towards new stations in the coming months and years?
The member will be aware that there has been substantial investment in rail infrastructure, and that substantial further investment is to come in both new lines and the re-opening of stations.
I remind the member that STPR2—a whole-Scotland review of strategically important national infrastructure—generated more than 13,500 ideas, so, clearly, not every stakeholder or local campaign group would have seen their proposals included in it. However, members of Beattock Station Action Group are owed significant praise for their work and efforts in support of their aims, as are other campaigns around the country. Other paths for the development of local and regional significance projects are still open.
We will be coming forward with feedback to SWestrans on those issues, and I encourage Mr Smyth, as I have encouraged Mr Mundell, to engage with the new transport minister on those points.
Thank you, minister. I know that you are trying to be helpful, but a bit more brevity in responses would help. I need to get in a couple more supplementaries.
As Oliver Mundell has intimated, we are all very interested in improving the infrastructure and the rail in Dumfries and Galloway and across South Scotland. What additional work can regional transport partnerships such as SWestrans do to help make the re-opening of Beattock railway station, for instance, actually happen?
Emma Harper, too, will want to engage with the new transport minister. I hope that members understand that, in today’s context, I am not able to necessarily give as detailed an answer as the transport minister would be able to give.
Of the 45 STPR2 recommendations, 34 are applicable to South Scotland, which include a range of port improvements as well as the existing rail infrastructure and improvements to roads that are focused on safety, resilience, reliability and climate change adaptation.
Despite the Government’s commitment to improving transport links to encourage use of public transport, the poor bus and rail connectivity in Ayrshire is forcing drivers to remain on the roads. For example, Cumnock, East Ayrshire’s second largest town, lacks a train station. What plans does the minister have to improve public transport in Ayrshire, and will he consider supporting the reopening of train stations in Cumnock and Mauchline?
I appreciate that there is some linkage, but the original question related to railway stations in Dumfriesshire. However, if the minister can add anything to what he has already said, I invite him to do so.
The core answer in relation to all areas is that the opportunities exist for local and regional projects to come forward. Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government’s officials are keen to engage with any constructive proposals, and I am sure that the new transport minister will respond to all members who have expressed an interest in that as soon as possible.
Ferries (Specification)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will consider procuring a lower specification or standardisation of ferries. (S6O-02081)
The development of new vessels is led by Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd, Transport Scotland and the relevant operator. CMAL appoints naval architects and technical consultants to advise on design, safety, classification and route-specific issues. Various hull forms, propulsion options, fuel types and on-board arrangements are assessed. That includes opportunities for input from community voices and other stakeholders.
CMAL is aiming towards more standardised specifications as it continues to deliver significant vessel investments in the coming years. The four Islay class vessels under construction and the on-going work to develop the small vessel replacement programme are significant steps towards achieving that.
The minister will no doubt be aware that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has been undertaking a short inquiry into ferries. The committee has heard a substantial amount of evidence on the specification and relative expense of monohulls. It has heard that, for many routes, communities favour two smaller vessels over one large one—that is for many reasons, including, obviously, to aid resilience—and that catamarans might be more appropriate. Are alternatives to monohulls being actively considered? Which routes would be appropriate for those cheaper vessels?
I am aware that some people have suggested that the Government and CMAL in particular have a predisposition against the use of catamarans. I want to make it clear that that is not the case. As stated, CMAL and Transport Scotland are looking for the delivery of the most efficient and economic vessels that will reliably provide a service on the routes that they serve. The minister for transport will update members further on future vessel contracts when that is possible.
I want to fit in all the supplementary questions. Please keep questions and responses brief. Rhoda Grant is first.
Vessels need to be fit for purpose and comfortable for the travellers and crew. However, the lack of standardised designs leads to a domino effect of service changes in order to cover breakdowns. Just today, CalMac Ferries has announced service changes over six routes due to a domino effect, culminating in no services at all between Lochboisdale and Mallaig for six weeks and only one weekly service to the small isles. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Will the minister say what the Scottish Government is going to do to mitigate those effects? Instead of vanity projects, will he ensure that it builds ferries that are interchangeable, provide resilience and are fit for purpose?
As I said in my first answer, the development of new vessels is led by CMAL as well as Transport Scotland and the relevant operators. There is considerable debate about, and a number of factors need to be considered in relation to, the standardisation of specifications. For example, CalMac is already considering the debate about live-ashore and live-aboard models, which is one of a number of factors that are under active consideration.
I hope that the member will acknowledge that the new transport minister, once they are appointed, will be the person to engage with on some of the specific issues that she has raised.
Islanders need sustainable, decarbonised and reliable ferries—and some communities in Shetland need short tunnels between islands. Will the minister listen to island community groups around Scotland so that he can understand their needs?
I am certain that the Government as a whole, as well as the new transport minister, will be keen to listen to community groups that come forward with proposals as well as the views of the relevant local authorities.
A critical part of the problem is that CMAL has no mind for industrial strategy. We need more funding for Ferguson Marine, beyond hulls 801 and 802; we need to see Scottish Government plans to invest to meet the productivity standards set by First Marine International; we need the Scottish Government to offer builders refund guarantees to win export work and commercial work; and we need the Scottish Government to award the small vessel replacement programme on a standardised basis, or Ferguson Marine will collapse. Does the minister agree that those fundamental principles need to be at the heart of the strategy to get a sustainable shipbuilding industry in Scotland?
I am sure that all those issues and more will be at the forefront of the mind of the new transport minister.
Energy Developments (Community Benefit)
To ask the Scottish Government what community benefit citizens should expect from energy-related developments in their local area. (S6O-02082)
Scottish communities have received more than £88 million in community benefits from renewable projects since 2019, with a record £25 million paid out last year. That will continue to rise as we realise our ambitions for growth over the coming decades.
Our good practice principles promote the equivalent of £5,000 annually per installed megawatt for onshore developments, which is index linked for the lifetime of the project, although some businesses will choose to offer a more flexible benefits package.
We would prefer to mandate greater community benefits, but we have no direct powers to do so, as energy regulation is reserved.
I appreciate that energy regulation is reserved. Does the minister agree, in principle, that it might be time to consider updating some of the guidance so that it is not just companies that benefit from development, people in the vicinity of developments see reductions in their energy costs, and developments truly benefit the communities that they are in?
Yes, I agree with that. I think that all members across the Parliament should agree that not just communities but households in Scotland should see much greater benefits from the energy resources on their doorsteps. The issue is given a high profile in the current draft energy strategy and just transition plan, which is out for consultation until early May. There are a number of mentions in the plan of community benefit and the Government’s ambition to be much more radical on that agenda.
I would very much welcome the views of not just Ruth Maguire but members of all parties on how we can achieve that in Scotland. We have limited ability because of the lack of energy regulation that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but if there is more that we can do, we absolutely should do it. People should see the benefits of the energy resources on their doorsteps.
There are a number of requests to ask supplementaries. I want to get all of them in, but they will need to be brief, as will the responses.
Not every community is able to host a renewable project, so not every community can receive direct benefits. We need a system that allows everyone in Scotland, no matter where they live, to get a fair share of the rewards that renewables can bring. That is why, for the past six years, I have been calling for the introduction of a Scottish renewable energy bond. Does the minister agree that it is time to look at that proposal and ensure that everyone has the chance to invest in and benefit from renewables?
Yes, I have a lot of sympathy with that. Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago, I was on a panel with the chief executive of an organisation called, I think, Ripple Energy, which encourages communities to take shares in local energy projects. There is a case for the whole of Scotland to be involved in such initiatives.
Clearly, a lot of work has to be done to make that happen—I see the member nodding, so I think that he agrees—but we have to be a lot more radical and ambitious. The time is right for that, and I would be very much in favour of a wholesale review of community benefit and shared ownership in Scotland. There are many pointers to that in the draft energy strategy and just transition plan that is out for consultation at the moment.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s designation of Cumbrae as one of six islands that it will support to become fully carbon neutral by 2040. At the heart of the carbon neutral islands policy is the need for community engagement and benefit, but there has been no consultation or engagement on the proposed solar farm development on Cumbrae. Will the Scottish Government call for that development to be paused until proper engagement has taken place with islanders?
A few days ago, I returned from a wonderful weekend in Millport, so I am aware of the strength of the qualities of that part of the world, especially the local pubs, bars and hotels.
The member makes a very good point. As part of the just transition, it is important that the future energy profile of any community is co-designed with the community’s interests at heart, and with other factors taken into account, too.
As I do not know the detail of what is happening locally, I will be happy to look into the matter that the member raises and get back to her—albeit that it might have to be the relevant minister who gets back to her in due course.
The repowering and extension of onshore wind farms will result in a dramatic increase in capacity as we head towards the target of 20GW by 2030. Given that the cost of wind generation has fallen dramatically over the years, does the minister think that there is an opportunity for communities to renegotiate some of the historical community benefit deals that still exist? What support can the Government give to communities to help them to achieve that?
That is why such prominence is given to community benefit in the draft energy strategy and just transition plan, which is out for consultation at the moment. There should be renegotiation, where there is a case for that. Of course, the community benefit agreements are voluntary.
We also have the community and renewable energy scheme, which is about shared ownership. More than 600 communities and locally owned projects throughout Scotland have been offered funding of more than £58 million.
I would be sympathetic to such renegotiation.
Ferries (Support for Island Communities)
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
To ask the Scottish Government what measures it has put in place to support island communities in advance of hulls 801 and 802, and other ferries, coming into service. (S6O-02083)
While delivery of investments in new vessels and port infrastructure is being progressed, the Minister for Transport has authorised the purchase and deployment of MV Loch Frisa and has chartered MV Arrow for overhaul and resilience cover, and she recently agreed a nine-month charter of MV Alfred. Additional funding has been committed for enhanced maintenance of vessels, and work will continue with Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd and the operators to identify potential additional second-hand tonnage to support the fleet.
Those measures, combined with our fares freeze, demonstrate that the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to improving the lifeline ferry fleet and better meeting the needs of island communities. Of course, ministers—like everybody else—fully appreciate the level of anger and disappointment that some of the recent issues in relation to lifeline ferry services have caused in those communities.
New ferry capacity is, of course, welcome, if long overdue, but the trouble is this: the latest solution chosen by the Government, the MV Alfred, if it passes its berthing trials, will cost £9 million for a nine-month charter when it was bought outright for only £14 million. There are outstanding safety questions, following the catamaran’s grounding in the Pentland Firth last year, when at least six passengers were injured. It is being time chartered from an operator that refuses to recognise trade unions, whose crew are believed to be hired on terms and conditions that are significantly inferior to those of CalMac Ferries crews. It is no wonder that, last week, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers accused the Scottish Government of adopting P&O-style tactics through the back door.
So, what did the Government know of this? Can the minister today give an undertaking that, should the MV Alfred see service, there will be value for public money, its crew will be employed on the same terms and conditions as CalMac crew, they will be free to join a trade union and, at all times, the health and safety of the public and the crew will be paramount?
The Government takes extremely seriously the issues that Richard Leonard rightly raises. He is right to be concerned about those matters.
Of course, most people recognise that, while longer-term infrastructure is coming into place, the charter gives additional, very important capacity, which will be welcomed by most people who rely on the services. However, the terms and conditions for crews under a charter are a matter for the operator. CalMac has confirmed that the crew are receiving the living wage, and Transport Scotland officials are monitoring the situation and will keep the transport minister apprised of any further action that is required.
Again, there are a number of supplementary questions, and I want to get them all in. We will go beyond our time, but the questions and responses will need to be brief.
I was delighted to hear of the charter of the MV Alfred. Any measures to secure additional tonnage for the fleet and improve the resilience of our lifeline ferry services is welcome and demonstrates the Scottish Government’s commitment to the communities that rely on them. Given that Alfred’s design means that she can operate at only some ports, where on the network will the vessel be deployed, and what benefits does the Government envisage its charter will bring?
Please respond as briefly as possible, minister.
Emma Roddick is right to welcome the fact that the charter is now in place. The primary focus will be to support resilience across the Clyde and Hebrides network, which should help to mitigate the impact of disruption or where islands are reduced to a single-vessel service.
Berthing trials will be completed before the vessel enters service to confirm the routes on which it can operate, with likely deployment on Arran and Islay routes. CalMac will engage with network community representatives over the next few weeks to discuss deployment options to support resilience across the network.
Will the minister say who agreed to pay £9 million to hire a ferry for nine months?
I am not able to provide a name. The Scottish Government is responsible for the decision to charter the service, and I suspect that, if we had not put that extra capacity in place, we would be getting an earful from the member and others across the chamber for other reasons.
Very briefly, Willie Rennie.
Once, ferries were just late and over budget, but now they are on fire, and we are paying £9 million for a nine-month contract. This is an outrage. The MV Alfred cannot even run on all the routes. The minister has not answered the question: when will islanders be told who will lose out this summer because of this Government’s incompetence?
I have just explained to members that work will be on-going with community representatives to identify where the additional capacity will be deployed. I suspect that most people who rely on the service will be glad that it is there.
Torness Nuclear Power Station
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met EDF and the Nuclear Industry Association regarding the future of Torness nuclear power station. (S6O-02084)
The Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport met EDF on 16 December 2021. At that meeting, the cabinet secretary met EDF generation’s managing director and its head of onshore wind and solar. EDF’s decision to bring forward the closure of Torness power station was discussed at the meeting.
The Scottish Government has not met the Nuclear Industry Association regarding the future of Torness power station.
We are now in 2023. Does the minister accept that Torness nuclear power station has one of the lowest life-cycle carbon emission rates of any power plant in Scottish history?
If the member is making a point about whether the plant should be closing, I emphasise that the decision to bring forward the closure of Torness power station to 2028 was ultimately EDF’s. It made its decision on a range of factors, including, crucially, the future safety of the plant.
As the member will be aware, the Scottish Government does not support nuclear power in its current form in Scotland and believes that we have many other alternatives, but it is important that we support local workforces and the local community as the power station heads towards closure.
The minister knows that nuclear technology has advanced significantly since the most recent deployment of a nuclear power station in Scotland. Does the minister acknowledge the need for the Scottish Government to diversify its long-term energy strategy and that that should include consideration of advances such as small modular nuclear reactors and research into nuclear fusion, or is the Humza Yousaf Administration content to be led by a Scottish Green policy that is based on ideology rather than science?
It is important to note that National Grid conducted a study of the impact of the earlier-than-expected closure of traditional nuclear generation in Scotland, which concluded that the energy system in the country would remain secure. From looking at Scotland’s legacy of nuclear waste, we know that it is a very expensive and dangerous technology. If we were to choose to have new nuclear power stations in Scotland, it would take decades to build them, but we do not have decades to waste. We face a climate emergency, which is why Scotland should make the most of the abundance of renewable energy and green technologies that we have on our doorstep and have a clean, green and more affordable future.
Carbon Capture Projects (Discussions with United Kingdom Government)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding funding for carbon capture projects in Scotland. (S6O-02085)
There are regular discussions between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments on support for carbon capture and storage projects in Scotland, which I know are very relevant to the member’s constituency. The UK spring budget was therefore bitterly disappointing, as none of the £20 billion that was announced to support carbon capture and storage is for Scotland.
Further delays are impacting both investor confidence and employment opportunities for up to 20,000 jobs, and they are compromising both Scotland’s ability and the UK’s ability to meet our climate obligations. The UK Government must—as a matter of absolute urgency—provide the Scottish cluster with the certainty that it requires to advance.
For more than a decade, the Tory Government has promised carbon capture and storage to the people of the north-east, but we have been overlooked time and again. My constituency boasts great projects, including SSE’s plans for a new CCS station at Peterhead and the Acorn project. Today, The Times reported that the UK Government has, at the last minute, moved an announcement on further funding, which was due to take place tomorrow, from Aberdeenshire to England. Will the minister join me in calling on the UK Government to finally get behind the Scottish Cluster?
Yes, I join the member in calling on the UK Government to get behind the Scottish Cluster. I remember Sir Ian Wood saying that the previous announcement, which missed out and snubbed Scotland’s project, was like a football team leaving its best player on the bench.
We have found that the UK Government is very good at briefing the press about its intentions, but it has still not had the courtesy to share its plans with the Scottish Government. On Monday, officials from the UK Government requested meetings with our officials, but they provided no details beyond what they had already briefed to the media.
The Scottish Government backs the member’s call for funding of the Acorn project and the Scottish Cluster to be included in the upcoming announcements. It is vitally important to meet Scotland’s climate emission target to achieve net zero by 2045 and, as I said, to secure the future of up to 20,000 jobs.
The UK Government has put more than £41 million-worth of funding into supporting the Scottish Cluster so far. Precisely how much of the £80 million that the Scottish Government promised to put in in February 2022 has actually been paid over?
Due to a lack of support from the UK Government, the Scottish Government has made available an offer to progress the project in Scotland. I cannot believe that a member of the Conservative party, whose Government is holding up the project, has the audacity to stand up and criticise the Scottish Government. We are losing out on 20,000 jobs. I ask the member to make representations to his masters in London to press the green light and allow the project to go ahead for Scotland.
Winchburgh Train Station
To ask the Scottish Government when it next plans to meet with all parties involved in the proposed Winchburgh train station development. (S6O-02086)
The member might be aware that Transport Scotland is supportive of the proposal for a developer-funded station at Winchburgh. The Minister for Transport met Winchburgh Developments Ltd, Fiona Hyslop, Transport Scotland, Network Rail and West Lothian Council on 6 December 2022 to discuss progress in developing plans for the new station.
Network Rail has been working on an estimate for the next stage of station design development, which was handed over to Transport Scotland just this week. I anticipate that further meetings will be scheduled once the detailed estimate has been reviewed.
Winchburgh has been promoted as a commuter town for the city of Edinburgh, and it is forecast to have a population of 13,000 within the next eight years. A train station with a direct link to Edinburgh would provide a public transport link for Winchburgh’s growing population. Currently, with only the possibility of a motorway exit, residents have no choice but to commute by car. A train station in Winchburgh would directly contribute to the Scottish Government’s net zero targets and would improve traffic conditions in Edinburgh. Will the minister advise why the Scottish Government has not taken advantage of the opportunity to meet net zero targets and give residents the opportunity to opt out of private transport?
The member’s arguments are the reason why the Scottish Government is supportive of the proposals for a station. Additional communities have been reconnected to the rail network, with stations at Conon Bridge, Robroyston, Kintore, Reston and Inverness airport, and, over the next two years, new stations at East Linton, Cameron Bridge and Leven will open. That is a clear demonstration of the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland’s commitments to reconnecting as many communities as possible to the rail network; that includes newly growing communities, such as Winchburgh.
That concludes portfolio question time.
Air adhart
Court Maintenance Backlog