Official Report 1092KB pdf
Good morning. The first item of business is general question time.
Conservation Area Restrictions (Energy-saving Initiatives)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on relaxing any conservation area restrictions that prevent the installation of solar panels and other energy-saving initiatives. (S6O-04266)
In May last year, the Scottish Government amended permitted development rights to allow solar panels and replacement windows to be installed on domestic and non-domestic buildings in conservation areas without the need for a planning application. That important change strikes an appropriate balance between tackling climate change and protecting important historic buildings and townscapes. Those rights are subject to specific restrictions, such as allowing solar panels to the rear of buildings in conservation areas.
I am regularly contacted by my constituents who are understandably frustrated, as the restrictions mean that they are unable to install solar panels. What support does the Scottish Government have in place to help my constituents in conservation areas contribute to our journey to net zero?
Even in circumstances in which proposals for solar are not covered by the generous permitted development rights that I have mentioned, people still have the option of applying for permission to install panels. That will be a matter for the planning authority, and such applications will be considered, taking account of and weighing up the very supportive renewable energy policy in national planning framework 4, alongside policy relating to heritage objectives and any other relevant considerations.
The recent change in permitted development rights has led to significant degradation in the country’s built environment, particularly in conservation areas, due to the loose nature of the regulation. It means that, for example, PVC windows can be installed, which have poor life-cycle performance compared with timber.
Will the minister therefore consider putting in place more codified guidance for conservation areas to ensure that people make the right decisions with best-informed practical information that is based on best practice across the country? That could bring down the unit costs of installations such as timber sash-and-case windows, as more people would be encouraged to buy them.
I thank Paul Sweeney for his question. I know that he is very interested in built heritage.
With regard to the member’s point about windows, the permitted development right for the alteration or replacement of windows in domestic or non-domestic buildings primarily means that, in most conservation areas, the front elevation of properties will continue to be under restrictions. There are different rules for listed buildings, too. However, as I say, local authorities have a degree of authority on this matter when approached by people in such situations.
Corridor Care and Temporary Escalation Spaces (NHS Boards)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last discussed plans to reduce corridor care and the use of temporary escalation spaces with national health service boards. (S6O-04267)
Health boards operate their own escalation policy for the management of in-patient capacity, which includes well-established processes with locally agreed trigger points for maintaining a safe service and ensuring patient safety.
Capacity challenges can necessitate the provision of care in non-standard areas for some patients. That decision is not taken lightly and is made to relieve pressure on other parts of the system, in particular to prevent ambulance stacking and to allow crews to respond promptly to the most serious incidents. Every effort will be made to accommodate patients in an in-patient ward, and we are working with boards to free up capacity in acute sites.
The Royal College of Nursing’s corridor care report revealed harrowing truths about the current realities of NHS patient care. For a start, the pressure of overcrowding has forced staff to care for patients in unsafe and inappropriate areas. Corridor care compromises patient privacy and dignity, and it should not be accepted as the norm. To show that the Scottish Government recognises that staff across health and social care are at breaking point, I ask the cabinet secretary to commit today to publishing regular data on corridor care.
I recognise the pressure that there has been on staff, and I thank the RCN for its report. It was a snapshot that was taken during the peak of demand over the Christmas period, when we had an exceptional level of flu prevalence, but I do recognise that staff members who worked during that period were also feeling pressure before that and outside of the period when flu was prevalent.
We recognise the link between patient safety and capacity; those questions are incredibly important, and we continue to work with health boards on them. It highlights the importance of passing the budget, as it will allow measures to be taken forward to reduce demand on the system and free up capacity.
I declare an interest as a practising NHS general practitioner.
In the harrowing RCN report, one nurse explained that in a
“department with capacity for 13 beds, we had 40 in, with patients on chairs having treatments administered, also sitting in the waiting room on cardiac monitors, using privacy screens to put around patients to use the bedpan.”
Imagine the indignity, cabinet secretary.
The First Minister told journalists that multiple crises are “facing too many parts” of our NHS, but when he was pressed about which parts, he refused to answer. Can the cabinet secretary now be straight with us and tell us which parts of the NHS are in crisis?
I absolutely recognise the points that Sandesh Gulhane makes. As I did in answer to Carol Mochan, I would just reflect that the period in question was during the peak of the winter flu spike, when we experienced the highest level of flu incidents since, I believe, records began in 2010. We are talking about a period of exceptional demand.
I also recognise the picture that Mr Gulhane has portrayed with regard to the indignity that patients in such situations have suffered. That is why passing the budget will be so important; it will ensure that we are able to relieve pressure, increase capacity and ensure better flow through our hospitals, so that our patients and staff are able to get better service. Too many people are waiting too long or are being treated in inappropriate places.
Non-residential Care (Charges)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its stated commitment to end charges for non-residential care by the end of the current parliamentary session. (S6O-04268)
The Scottish Government continues to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to identify options for the removal of non-residential care charges as part of wider work with partners on social care improvement.
With less than 18 months of parliamentary time left in this session, it sounds to me that that is another promise made by the Scottish National Party in its manifesto that will not be met. Broken promises have consequences, particularly for people in many local authorities across Scotland who are looking at having to introduce care charges for the first time for people who have physical and learning disabilities.
It also sits on the back of a litany of promises that were made to disabled people, including access to a changing places toilet fund; annual health checks for people with learning disabilities; the proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill; the human rights bill; and the ditched national care service. We have also learned today that £20 million of the community living change fund has been wasted or is unaccounted for. When will the minister and her Government finally deliver on the pledge to end non-residential care charges and rectify a long list of broken promises to Scotland’s disabled community?
The Scottish Government and our partners remain absolutely committed to reviewing non-residential care charges as part of the broader reform of social care. I have heard directly from disabled groups and vulnerable individuals across Scotland about the significant impact that those charges have on their lives, and I have directed my officials to continue working with COSLA and local partners to explore any possible options to achieve that objective, considering the current economic climate. I recognise the member’s interests and advocacy in this area, but I think that it is quite rich for a member of the Labour Party to lecture me about broken promises.
Battery Storage Plants (Rural Settings)
To ask the Scottish Government how it protects the environment and the interests of local communities regarding the construction of battery storage plants within rural settings. (S6O-04269)
Scotland’s national planning framework ensures that the potential impacts of developments on communities and nature are important considerations in decision making. All applications are subject to site-specific assessments—[Interruption.] Are there problems with the microphone?
Carry on speaking, minister.
Details on the consenting process are set out in the Electricity (Applications for Consent) Regulations 1990 and the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. That is United Kingdom law that is applicable in Scotland.
Developments under 50MW are determined by planning authorities in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. We are considering recent advice and modelling published by the National Energy System Operator, along with the measures in the UK Government’s clean power action plan, to inform our approach.
We know that the consenting process for battery storage plants falls within the UK Government’s planning process under its Electricity Act 1989, which is totally inadequate. What concerns me is the lack of local consultation, the poor management of the installation of these facilities and the significant damage caused to the rural environment. Will the minister give me an assurance that the Scottish Government will act on those concerns and ensure that local communities feel that they are valued and that the place in which they live will be protected and enhanced for generations to come?
On the member’s point about maintenance, I do not know whether he is alluding to the question of safety, but the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is informed of such applications and does have input into the process.
As for the member’s wider questions about the benefit to Scotland and the community, despite the fact that powers to mandate community benefits are reserved to the UK Government, Scotland has made progress through our voluntary good practice principles framework, which encourages developers to offer community benefits as standard on all renewable energy projects. We are currently undertaking a joint review of and consultation on the Scottish Government’s good practice principles for onshore and offshore energy developments, as part of which our approach to community benefits from battery storage will be considered.
Ports and Harbours
To ask the Scottish Government whether feasibility studies and development expenditure for ports and harbours will be eligible for funding as part of the investment in maintaining and improving ports and harbours that is proposed in its draft budget 2025-26. (S6O-04270)
In the ferries budget for 2025-26, £80 million has been forecast for piers and harbours to support and enhance ports across the Clyde and Hebrides and northern isles ferry services. That includes committed projects, new works and early design and business case development. Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd leads delivery on that and works with third-party port owners when investment is required to support new vessels and other network improvements.
Other routes to funding are available for ports outwith the lifeline ferry network. For example, I am aware of on-going dialogue between Scottish Enterprise and Fraserburgh harbour about the port’s master plan and other economic opportunities.
Fraserburgh harbour has ambitious plans to develop its infrastructure and be the first port of call for supporting vital Scottish industries—especially offshore wind and our fishing fleet. However, the harbour must also fund, at risk, its necessary development and feasibility works. What reassurance and advice can the cabinet secretary give the harbour? Will she meet me and the harbour board to discuss that further?
Karen Adam is a strong champion of Fraserburgh harbour, and I have previously met the board with her. It is an independent trust port, and it is important to reiterate that discussion is taking place between Scottish Enterprise and the harbour on the master plan and the economic opportunities, including what new port infrastructure might be required to support the economic prospects. That has included Scottish Enterprise engaging with the port’s consultants to provide input on key market opportunities.
A meeting with relevant ministers can be considered at an appropriate stage but, depending on the potential funding sources, it may be more appropriate to meet economy, marine or energy ministers, as portfolio leads, when it is finally suggested what funding is best pursued.
It is crucial for its master plan that Fraserburgh harbour can leverage private finance, and that will be made far easier with the Government’s full support. Will the cabinet secretary confirm her Government’s unequivocal support for the Fraserburgh harbour master plan and promise to do all that she can to back it?
I have heard at first hand about the master plan and, as the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, I am enthusiastic about its vision and ambition. Members will be aware that there is £150 million in offshore development support, which is a tripling of the funding that has been available.
Decision making about the economic aspects of the master plan does not necessarily lie in my portfolio, but I was enthused and impressed when I met the harbour trust port board members, who do that work on a voluntary basis, and I think that they are doing a fine job.
Shawhead Flyover (Safety)
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with Transport Scotland regarding safety measures at the Shawhead flyover on the A725 in Coatbridge. (S6O-04271)
As a Government minister, I have had no specific discussions regarding Shawhead flyover with the Scottish Government’s transport agency, Transport Scotland. However, I am aware that Transport Scotland officials and the maintenance contractor are in dialogue with Mr MacGregor, as the local constituency MSP, regarding the operation and safety performance of a nearby signalised junction and potential remediation or action.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that the road is, unfortunately, a hotspot for accidents and has been a major concern for many of my constituents. As she said, she is also aware that I have had several meetings, which are on-going, with Transport Scotland, the Scottish Roads Partnership and Amey regarding improvements at the junction.
Transport Scotland and the other agencies that I mentioned have been excellent at communicating with me and have been open to improvements. I am pleased that, at the most recent meeting, it was agreed that further reviews would take place of the implementation of a filter lane at one of the junctions and that, following the results of a recent red-light survey, there would be further discussions with the Police Scotland safety cameras team. What can the Government do to support the transport agencies to ensure that any required improvements are undertaken as soon as possible?
I will ask officials at Transport Scotland to conclude the review work as soon as possible and to prioritise any recommendations for early delivery. I recognise Mr MacGregor, as the constituency MSP, for being a persistent and effective representative for his constituents in pursuing that important issue for them.
Carbon Literacy
To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the public and private sector to develop carbon literacy skills. (S6O-04272)
Promoting carbon literacy is essential to achieving net zero. That is why, through the work of our enterprise agencies and Business Energy Scotland, we have ensured that support and guidance are available to help businesses to understand and reduce their carbon emissions while aiding climate resilience. That is also why we are committed to working in partnership with public bodies, including through the Sustainable Scotland Network, to help them to fulfil their climate change duties and demonstrate climate leadership. As part of that work, we are drafting new statutory guidance that will improve climate literacy across the public sector.
Scotland was one of the first countries in the world to acknowledge that we face a climate emergency. Does the minister agree that, to inspire changes in behaviour and improve our environment and the quality of people’s lives and wellbeing, as well as the places that they care for, it is crucial that we take every step possible to support the upskilling of businesses and organisations, such as through the carbon literacy courses that The Way Forward 2045 delivered in my constituency?
I agree whole-heartedly with Ms Whitham about the need to support the upskilling of businesses and organisations across our economy. That is vital if we are to deliver the changes that are needed for net zero and if we are to realise the significant benefits of adopting more efficient and sustainable practices.
As I have said, the Scottish Government continues to provide support for carbon literacy through our enterprise agencies and our work across the public sector, but we also need to see action from outwith Government. That is why I welcome the efforts of businesses such as The Way Forward 2045, which Elena Whitham highlighted and which she has mentioned in parliamentary motions.
In the past year, that business has been shortlisted for a VIBES Scottish environment business award in the just transition category. That kind of recognition is a further way in which we are encouraging positive change and greater carbon literacy across our economy.
Grangemouth Chemical Cluster (Falkirk Council)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Falkirk Council is to consider a motion calling for immediate action by the Scottish Government to support the Grangemouth chemical cluster and the future of its industry. (S6O-04273)
I recognise the criticality of the Grangemouth cluster and its contribution to Scotland’s economy. We are committed to playing our part to secure a sustainable and long-term future for the complex.
We have jointly funded the project willow study, which seeks to develop a set of commercial propositions for the site, and we have committed £50 million to the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal. I am also working closely with Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International to identify and work with partners with an interest in investing in the cluster.
In the draft budget, £8.75 million is directly attributed to Grangemouth. I am committed to working with industry and the community through the Grangemouth future industry board to identify interventions and projects that maximise outcomes. I also call on the United Kingdom Government to go further in ensuring that it leaves no stone unturned in achieving our shared ambitions for Grangemouth.
A motion that has been lodged today by the Scottish National Party group calls, critically, for the Grangemouth future industry board to expand its scope to focus on the here and now. The workers in Grangemouth do not just want jam tomorrow; they want bread and butter today. Is the Scottish Government hearing the call for real action to protect the skills base and the vital chemical cluster? The UK Government is doing nothing. I implore the Scottish Government to do as much as it possibly can.
A number of the interventions that I just mentioned are very much about the here and now. The Falkirk Council motion and Michelle Thomson have highlighted the tension that is at the heart of what the partners are doing to ensure that Grangemouth has a key role to play in Scotland’s net zero future. However, as Michelle Thomson said, we must also consider the here and now. It was disappointing to hear nothing at all from the chancellor yesterday—not a single commitment or comment—that would either help to avoid an abrupt and unnecessary closure of the refinery or support Grangemouth’s transition to play its part in Scotland’s green economy.
We need all the partners on the Grangemouth future industry board to work together constructively and with real urgency to do all that they can to progress the project willow recommendations when the report is produced. Given that it will fall to the UK Government to use its reserved powers to progress many of those recommendations, and given that the UK Government co-chairs the board, we will need the Labour Government to do what it has said it will do.
That concludes general question time.
Air adhart
First Minister’s Question Time