Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is really interesting. In Estonia, people in the ministry responsible spoke to us about the procurement process and how they do procurement. In this country, lots of organisations seem to come up with a need, go out to tender for a bespoke solution and then provide that solution but, invariably, it goes wrong or does not quite work. In Estonia, people work with potential tender companies before putting something out to tender. They go through all the problems first, and then only when they have a workable solution do they go to a tender. Could or should that be done here? Is it being done in some cases?

David, do you want to come in?

Thank you, convener. I will ask some questions about digitalisation a little later, but first—to follow up on what the witnesses have talked about—I want to ask about the public sector side.

There are some things nowadays that everybody will have experienced. For example, road works seem to take a lot longer than necessary, and there does not seem any great demand to get them finished. Turning to the health sector, I was trying to book patient transport for a family member—it took six calls, and at the end, I was told that I had to ring directly. I then spent 25 or 30 minutes on the phone to somebody else to book something that, in the private sector, I probably could have booked online in a matter of minutes. We see that again and again across the health service, councils and other parts of the public sector.

Bearing in mind that there are—as has been suggested—some good examples as well, do you think that there is enough demand, or desire, in the public sector to move more quickly to improve productivity, both for the people who work in the sector and for those who have to engage with it?

That is very interesting. I recently visited Inverness prison, where staff were having to do all prisoner transfers by hand because the call system does not link in with the prison’s system—it was interesting to see that.

I do not know whether Simon Pittaway and David Phillips want to cover anything quickly in that area.

Is that engagement happening on other sites?

My question is on critical energy infrastructure. You said that you would have liked to have conversations about Grangemouth about five years ago. There is energy infrastructure, particularly in my region, the Highlands and Islands, that is probably not going to be operating until the middle of the next decade. We have just seen job losses at the Flotta oil terminal, and it will go into new ownership next year. What lessons have you learned from the process around Grangemouth that you think will help to make sure that we do not find ourselves in the same situation again? Also, are you having discussions with operators of terminals such as Flotta now to ensure that, as I said, we do not end up in the same situation as we currently find ourselves?

Members will be delighted to hear that I will focus only on my amendments 552 and 555, which are particularly pertinent to my Highlands and Islands region.

I was pleased to lead opposition in the Parliament to the Scottish Government’s ban on wood-burning stoves in new-build homes in Scotland. We held a members’ business debate on the issue, which was supported by MSPs from across the Parliament, bar those from one party. In that debate, we recognised the importance of wood-burning stoves to households in the rural and island communities across the Highlands and Islands that I represent, especially in emergencies or when power is lost, as is too often the case.

Another issue that was highlighted repeatedly in that debate was the role that wood-burning stoves can play in helping to alleviate some of the worst impacts of fuel poverty for households. Again, that is an issue particularly in the northern isles, where I live, where fuel poverty rates are far too high.

I was very pleased when we forced or encouraged the Scottish Government to look again at the issue and to U-turn on what was a potentially impactful and dangerous ban, especially for my region. However, there remains the risk that such a ban could be reintroduced. My amendments would mean that, when ministers consider the regulation of direct emission heating systems that provide secondary heating, such as wood-burning stoves or other forms of emergency heating, there should be a presumption in favour of allowing those heating systems to be installed in any dwellings in remote rural and island areas.

I believe that my amendments would give my constituents and others who live in such communities, especially in the Highlands and Islands, the reassurance of knowing that, when the power goes out or their mains heating breaks, they will not be left in the cold.

I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention, and I apologise for having to pop out quickly.

Recently, the Government brought in a ban on wood-burning stoves in new-build homes, then, recognising the real concerns of communities, particularly those in my region, immediately reconsidered and withdrew it. Surely that suggests a lack of clarity, which my amendments would provide a bit more of.

Yes, it does. Those aspects were focused more on what can be delivered, but I agree with what you say.

Okay—I come to everyone else.

There are concerns that come up time and time again. During apprenticeship week, I met with Serimax, and it raised housing and transport as issues of real concern that presented difficulties in various areas. That aspect concerns me. It is all right for those in the central belt to take decisions and say, “This is what we want to deliver in this area”, but we know that there will be some overheating around the Cromarty Firth, for example, given that there will be—it is hoped—so much work going there. I suppose, Paul Campbell, that you would say that you are not confident that the potential new approach, with the loss of SAAB, will be able to deliver that input.