Official Report 266KB pdf
Climate Action and Energy, and Transport
Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is climate action and energy, and transport.
Strathclyde Regional Bus Strategy
To ask the Scottish Government what interaction it has had with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport regarding the Strathclyde regional bus strategy. (S6O-05475)
I very much welcome the significant achievement by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport in the development and publication of the Strathclyde regional bus strategy. It provides a strong platform for its consideration of the new powers that were introduced by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019.
I last met Strathclyde Partnership for Transport in March, when it updated me on its consultation and the strategy at that time, and my officials have been in regular contact with SPT throughout its development and publication. The most recent meeting that my officials attended on that topic took place on 24 November, when SPT’s next steps following approval of the strategy were discussed.
The minister will be aware that the bus service in Paisley is primarily provided by the operator McGill’s Buses. The management of McGill’s might be busy with politics at the moment, but my constituents have had buses cancelled at the last minute and there have been on-going price increases from a company that has little interest in our community. That has to change. Does the minister agree that SPT’s proposals are currently the best way forward for my constituents?
As the member is aware, private companies have control of those bus routes, following the deregulation by Mrs Thatcher. I am pleased to see that SPT is at an early stage in developing its proposals for improving bus provision in Paisley and the wider Strathclyde area. As part of the franchising process, SPT will be undertaking early engagement with various stakeholders, including neighbouring local authorities and operators, when they begin developing their plans. I understand that SPT has already presented to its partnership board a costed programme and a timeline for delivering its franchising proposals.
Energy Projects (Community Engagement)
To ask the Scottish Government whether the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy will engage with community groups affected by new energy projects now that she is no longer responsible for energy consent decisions. (S6O-05476)
It is essential that communities feel able to engage with our planning and consenting systems. The Scottish Government has recently taken steps to make it easier for communities to participate, but I recognise that more needs to be done. That is why I have tasked officials with taking forward plans to establish a forum to hear directly from communities as the strategic plans that will shape the need for future energy infrastructure are developed.
Separately, members will also be aware of on-going work to refresh the good practice principles for community benefits from onshore renewable energy, including our consultation last year, the results of which we published in October.
I have asked my officials to organise an opportunity for me to engage directly with community representatives on the policy refresh, and I will keep Parliament updated on those plans.
My constituents are at their wits’ end. For months, the Government has refused to meet community groups that are seeing their communities trashed by pylons, battery storage and substations, but it is happy enough to meet companies such as Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Now, we learn that the ability to submit comments to the energy consents unit by email has been stripped away. That is a cynical manipulation of the planning process and an attempt to shut down my constituents. Taking that ability away is not making the process easier, so will the cabinet secretary commit to allowing constituents to email their comments to the ECU, so that their voices can be heard?
I will take that suggestion away. However, I want to make it clear that regulations relating to electricity transmission and distribution networks are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. That is why I was pleased that we reached an agreement with the UK Government on the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which recently afforded new powers to the Scottish Government to make regulations to mandate developers to engage with local communities and stakeholders. That has been voluntary up until now, and I think that that requirement will make a material change.
As I have said, I will take the member’s suggestions away.
I have a number of supplementary questions. I will try to get through as many as I can, but they will need to be brief.
It is vital that we continue to balance the need to deliver net zero with the need to protect our natural environment, tourism and rural communities. Can the cabinet secretary say any more about the need to strike that balance, and how that will inform the strategic spatial energy plan?
The Scottish Government jointly commissioned the National Energy System Operator to produce the first SSEP for Great Britain. NESO is engaging with a wide range of groups on the development of the next plan, and the preferred pathway option will be consulted on in the next year.
I am keen to hear directly from Scotland’s communities about how those plans might affect them and how we can learn from their experiences to ensure that future plans build in effective engagement from the earliest possible stage. The Scottish Government will continue working with NESO and partners to ensure that the SSEP not only aligns with devolved powers and planning mechanisms, but delivers benefit for Scotland’s people and communities, and supports the just transition.
Given that Berwick Bank has now been approved, what is the Scottish Government doing to work with the developer and local communities to reduce the project’s impact on seabirds, to deliver local manufacturing and job opportunities, and to enable links to community heat networks? I am happy to get a written update, but those are practical things that the cabinet secretary needs to be leading on.
Sarah Boyack mentioned a lot of things in her question and, as she has suggested, I will write to her with more detail on them. On the issue of the impact on seabirds, in particular, I believe that the developer is engaging with the environmental non-governmental organisations on that. More widely, we will be able to put together a marine restoration fund and do strategic work to deal with all the pressures impacting on seabird populations, and we will be able to use some of the money that has come from the development of Berwick Bank to fund the project more widely.
Members of the public must now submit their views on major projects through the energy consents unit portal. However, last week, a constituent said that the portal crashes when the traffic is high and times out when people are submitting their views. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that these malfunctions do not recur?
I thank Foysol Choudhury for bringing that to my attention. If his constituents are having issues with the mechanisms that are there, I will take that back to my officials and get them to ensure that the system is robust for the future.
Given that the energy consents unit has removed the email and online routes for objections, leaving postal submissions as the only option for community groups such as Hands Off Our Hills or the Glengap Community Group, which is objecting to the proposed Lairdmannoch energy park, what assurances can the cabinet secretary give affected communities that they will still be able to participate meaningfully in the process to ensure that local democracy is not undermined by this disgraceful decision?
We want to make sure that people are able to put their points of view forward. I have indicated that we have done some work with the UK Government on affording ministers new powers to make regulations mandating that developers engage with lowland communities. I think that it is good—
They are objections.
Mr Carson, you have asked the question. Can we listen to the answer?
Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is only fair that I am given the chance to answer.
Answer the question.
Mr Carson.
I will write to the member. He might read that instead of not listening to me.
Skye Reinforcement Project
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with communities, developers and other stakeholders regarding wide loads and any increased traffic movements on the A86, A889, A82 and A87 linked to the Skye reinforcement project and the Glen Mor workers camp at Fort Augustus. (S6O-05477)
Community engagement for the project is the responsibility of Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Transport Scotland, BEAR Scotland, SSEN and their contractors meet regularly to discuss the Skye reinforcement project and its effects on the roads and local community. Any wide or abnormal loads must be approved by Transport Scotland in advance. So far, no applications for abnormal load movements have been submitted for the project.
Some of these roads are narrow and in poor condition, and they are all heavily used by tourists, with tour buses and camper vans being a very common sight. They cut through the heart of communities, where schoolchildren, older folk and pedestrians often have to walk across them. Of course, they are already busy routes for local cars and lorries, but now there is the prospect of a series of large loads operating along the routes, with all the delays and dangers that they might bring, and those who live alongside these roads and those who use them regularly are worried.
Last month, despite my invitation, the cabinet secretary would not agree to come to the Highlands and hear from local communities impacted by those projects. If my constituents come to Edinburgh—to this Parliament—will she agree to meet them and listen at first hand to their concerns?
With regard to responsibilities, a planning condition was imposed on the Skye reinforcement section 37 consent for a traffic management plan to be produced by SSEN and approved by Highland Council. That is where those responsibilities lie.
Highland Council is responsible for the local roads and local impacts. I understand that there are issues in relation to some of the trunk roads. The member asked about wide and abnormal loads on trunk roads, which would come to Transport Scotland for consent; we understand that one such application has been made, and Transport Scotland will respond in due course to Highland Council’s request.
As for meeting the member’s constituents to discuss local roads and the local impact of the conditions set by the independent Highland Council, I am not sure how appropriate it would be for me to do that. I get requests all the time to visit lots of communities all over Scotland, and the member can understand that that is not possible. If the member’s constituents were to come here and I had permission to meet them, that might be possible; however, I am often not in Edinburgh but elsewhere, because when I can do so, I get out and about across Scotland.
If the member wants to follow up in writing about particular concerns, I will see what locus Transport Scotland has to engage more directly and practically. However, I do understand that the needs of communities must be understood.
I will need shorter responses, cabinet secretary.
Sustainable Transport (Fife)
To ask the Scottish Government what measures are in place to deliver sustainable transport improvements across Fife, including active travel and public transport upgrades, in support of net zero targets. (S6O-05478)
Significant Scottish Government investment is supporting a range of measures to deliver sustainable transport improvements across Fife, which are helping to advance national net zero targets. That includes continued investment in active travel, with more than 14km of new pathways, including the river park routes project in Leven, the delivery of the Levenmouth rail link and national cycle network route 76 between Earlsferry and Anstruther. That is complemented by bus infrastructure investment in Mr Torrance’s constituency of Kirkcaldy, as well as Dunfermline city station enhancements, public electric vehicle charging and place-based projects that encourage modal shift. Those investments sit alongside wider public transport enhancements to improve connectivity and reduce emissions across the region.
Scottish zero emission bus challenge funding of £680,000 has supported the introduction of six zero-emission electric buses in Kirkcaldy. Those vehicles are helping to reduce transport emissions, improve local air quality and support progress towards Scotland’s net zero ambitions. What assessment have ministers made of the role of ScotZEB in accelerating progress towards Scotland’s net zero targets?
The Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund has played a significant role in accelerating Scotland’s progress towards net zero by supporting the rapid decarbonisation of the bus sector to zero emissions. It has supported the demonstration of new business models, reducing the need for taxpayer subsidy, and the development of charging infrastructure to help vehicle decarbonisation in the future more generally.
Through the fund and its predecessor, the Scottish ultra-low-emission bus scheme, the Scottish Government has supported the deployment of around 800 zero-emission buses and associated charging infrastructure. ScotZEB has leveraged £3.20 for every £1 of public investment.
Scotland currently has more than double the proportion of its public sector bus fleet operating at zero emissions that England, outside of London, has, which demonstrates the impact of that investment.
Moray FLOW-Park Project
To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy will meet with campaign groups regarding the Moray FLOW-Park project proposal. (S6O-05479)
As stated in previous responses, the project remains at an early stage. I recognise the strong public concerns and the importance of meaningful engagement with local communities and the fishing industry by the developer.
As part of the standard process, the developer is encouraged to engage with stakeholders and the wider community. Although no marine licence applications have been submitted by the developer, any future application would be subject to the relevant rigorous regulatory processes, including any formal public consultation.
I get the same answer every time I ask the question, despite widespread public opposition to the plan. The Moray FLOW-Park is a great example of how to get something the wrong way round. Everyone knows that the proposal is not in the right place, if it is even needed, yet a distant company asked for money and Scottish Enterprise stepped up without even thinking about whether it should talk to local people, fishermen or the council, all because of one report.
We do not need to wait for an application after another £1.87 million of public money has been spent. We can stop this now and start new talks. Given all that the cabinet secretary must now know, will she pull the funding and say to the company not to push forward with an application?
Tim Eagle will get a similar answer, because there has not been an application. When Scottish Enterprise—[Interruption.] When Scottish Enterprise gives advice to any developer, of any project, that has no implication for the planning process. Scottish Enterprise does not need planning permission to be in place before it can engage with developers or with any companies. It makes its own decisions about when to give funding and for what reasons. It does that without ministerial direction.
Can we make sure that we listen to the questions and responses with a degree of courtesy, however much we may disagree with them?
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I respect the chair—I always do—but it has become normal practice here that we ask a question on behalf of our constituents and never get an answer. I think that you are seeing some frustration with that, because we get the same answer time after time.
Thank you for your point, Mr Eagle. As I have made clear to the chamber in the past, reactions to what is being said are natural. When the sedentary interventions continue thereafter, that is where there is a problem.
Budget 2026-27 (Transport)
To ask the Scottish Government how the draft Scottish budget 2026-27 aims to invest in and deliver for Scotland’s transport sector. (S6O-05480)
In 2026-27, the transport portfolio will invest nearly £4.3 billion to maintain and enhance Scotland’s transport network. That includes record investment of £2.7 billion in public transport to fund bus and rail services, concessionary travel for more than 2.4 million people and lifeline ferry and air services.
Our investment will support new ferries, port upgrades and the replacement of ScotRail’s intercity fleet. We are piloting a bus fare cap across the majority of the Highlands and Islands, have removed ScotRail peak rail fares for good and intend to remove peak fares for islanders who use northern isles ferry services. We will invest £1.2 billion to maintain and improve the trunk road network. We will progress major projects such as dualling of the A9 and the A96 and enhance road safety to reduce injuries and fatalities.
Parking at Curriehill railway station in my constituency has reached capacity at peak times. What investment is planned for rail park-and-ride facilities that are accessible to Pentlands constituents?
The capacity issue is evidence of the popularity of rail travel in the member’s constituency. I think that Curriehill station is owned by Network Rail and managed through leasing with ScotRail. I am not aware of Network Rail’s or ScotRail’s plans in that area. That issue does not feature directly in the Scottish Government’s plans and there is no funding allocation for it.
However, the Scottish Government remains open to considering business cases that are submitted by third-party promoters such as the South East of Scotland Transport Partnership to address identified transport issues in their area. Such a business case would have to be assessed across a number of factors to address any problems that are identified.
The proposed budget reduces the rail infrastructure improvement and rolling stock projects budget by 16.5 per cent. Will the cabinet secretary outline how that will impact the ability to procure new rolling stock and infrastructure improvements, particularly in relation to the procurement of new trains to replace ScotRail’s high-speed train fleet?
It will have no impact whatsoever. That reduction is a result of the previous year’s extensive investment, particularly in East Kilbride electrification and construction of the Levenmouth rail line. That year saw a particularly high level of investment.
As members can imagine, rail investment covers long periods and, in terms of the overall planning for rail, we are on target. In control period 7, £4.2 billion is being invested in our rail service, and a lot is happening. I am pleased to say that procurement is progressing as it should be.
Fife to Edinburgh Trains
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what progress has been made in dealing with the issue of short-formed trains on services between Fife and Edinburgh. (S6O-05481)
I fully appreciate that the short-forming of some trains has been impacting passengers travelling on services between Fife and Edinburgh for some time. The reliability of the ageing fleet that serves Fife can affect its availability for services, and ScotRail usually chooses to operate a shorter train instead of cancelling a service altogether.
To rectify those issues in the longer term, we are investing in replacing the trains that serve Fife and in electrification of the line, which will bring significant benefits to the area. In the meantime, ScotRail is undertaking a programme of improvement works on its high-speed trains, which will conclude in May 2026. Those improvements are expected to have a positive impact on the availability of trains serving passengers in Fife.
I have been raising that issue for years and the situation never gets better. We had short-formed trains running just yesterday on the Fife to Edinburgh service. I have been promised for years that the situation is going to get better, but it never does.
I last raised this question on 16 January last year, when the cabinet secretary’s response was more or less word for word what she has just told me. She said:
“I absolutely sympathise with the situation, which is not acceptable for passengers.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; c 46.]
She is right that this is not acceptable for passengers, so could she please tell my constituents in Fife when the situation will get better?
I hope that the member will acknowledge that there have been improvements. There was a particular issue in September last year, but the situation varies from month to month. Investment, particularly in engineering works, has improved the passenger experience and reduced the number of incidents, but I know that short-formed running can cause distress and concern whenever it happens.
The reason why you heard a similar answer is that, as I just said, the procurement of future rail services is taking place according to plan. Current improvements to high-speed trains will make a difference. I have been talking about the May 2026 timeframe for some time, and it is closer now.
There is clearly frustration for Murdo Fraser and for Annabelle Ewing, who has also consistently raised the issue. I understand that and I hope that I can give you assurance that an end is in sight and improvements are coming. Electrification will bring big changes to Fife services.
I remind members always to speak through the chair.
We have a number of supplementary questions. I will try to take them all, but they must be brief.
Can the cabinet secretary remind members how train services in Fife, and between Fife and Edinburgh, have been improved, thanks to actions and investment by the Scottish National Party?
The most obvious improvement is the Levenmouth rail link, which represented a £116 million spend that reopened that service after decades, with new stations at Leven and Cameron Bridge, which are connected by two trains an hour.
I referred to the £342 million investment that will deliver an electrification programme for Fife. Just the other week, I inspected the works on the Haymarket to Dalmeny line. I know that they have caused disruption for people and that that disruption will continue until such time as the line is electrified. We will be replacing diesel trains in Fife with battery electric trains, which will provide greener and cleaner services and will improve the punctuality and, importantly, the reliability of ScotRail services in Fife.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that commuting by train is critical if we are to give people the choice not to use their cars? Will she focus on the issue of timescales, which affects not only trains from Fife to Edinburgh but those from the Borders to Edinburgh? Those key commuting links need extra capacity, and we must ensure that that is delivered as soon as possible.
I have just referred to the announcement of the £342 million investment. We are also electrifying the Borders railway line, which will provide new trains. Through our integration of track and train, the planning for that allows us to get best value for the public purse, and that approach will absolutely improve things for the Borders and Fife.
There is an ambitious programme for the railways in Scotland. We are pushing ahead with electrification, which is one way in which we can work towards net zero and encourage people to choose trains, as the member suggested.
I have listened carefully to the cabinet secretary’s comments and she will know that I have been raising this subject for many years. My constituents want to know by what date there will be no more short-formed trains on the line.
As I said in my answer to Murdo Fraser, I know that Annabelle Ewing has consistently and persistently raised that issue.
I made the point that May 2026 will see an improvement. The member’s question was specifically about when the end will be. I know from my experience that electrification will help to eliminate short-forming. I am not the train operator and will refer to Transport Scotland and ScotRail to confirm what I have said, but I know from experience that it was electrification that finally ended short-forming on the Glasgow to Edinburgh line.
Question 8 was not lodged, so that concludes portfolio questions on climate action, energy and transport. Before we move to the next item, there will be a brief pause to allow front-bench teams to change.
Air adhart
Ecocide (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1