Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes.

We need to see scientific evidence of that, and it needs to be robust. I note that moving fishing vessels off traditional grounds is causing considerable concern to members of my constituency.

Where infrastructure must exist, it should be built with consideration and communication with all stakeholders and communities.

Shetland is home to the 4.5MW Garth wind farm, on the island of Yell, which has produced more than 90,000MW of energy to date. That £8.3 million investment is a community wind farm that is undertaken by the enterprising North Yell Development Council. The funds that are generated enable the organisation to invest in community projects, including in the industrial estate extension and in the development of the marina at Cullivoe pier. It has enabled the employment of three full-time members of staff and funding to various local community groups. The wind farm is an asset that brings benefits to the North Yell community and will continue to do so for years to come. It is an exemplar of what can be achieved in relation to practical community benefit.

Shetland Heat Energy and Power—SHEAP—has delivered district heating to homes and public buildings, including the hospital, schools and leisure centre in Lerwick, for the past 25 years. It is based on a Danish model. Customers have been spared soaring energy costs in recent years. Its income from sales of around £1 million a year stays in Shetland. The project, which was once considered unusual, is now being taken rather more seriously in policy circles.

We know that our energy infrastructure is ageing, that we will have to transition from legacy fuels and reduce demand and that we need an energy mix for the foreseeable future. Shetland is ready to contribute on all fronts from the development of renewables and from continued oil and gas supply. I believe that those who are making national energy decisions fail to recognise the importance of gas from Rosebank, which would be exported through the west of Shetland pipeline system. It would pass through Sullom Voe and end up in the UK grid, thereby reducing reliance on imported gas. That contribution to the UK’s energy security should not be ignored.

Generating power locally makes sense in so far as it reduces the inevitable loss of power between generation and destination.

If communities are presented with manageable renewables projects, as opposed to vast arrays that dominate the horizon, they are more likely to be in favour of a project, especially if it will bring benefits for the community. The benefit of adding sustainable jobs in local places is a selling point to communities that are presented with such projects. As the energy sector transitions, we must support our workers and ensure that we do not see a repeat of communities being decimated as people are cast out of their jobs.

Much more, of course, needs to be done in terms of housing and making it easier to upgrade properties with energy-efficiency measures such as greater insulation and modern heating systems. Community benefit funds can help to enable progress on that front.

Increasing community-owned energy generation projects is a sensible path forward. The Scottish Government should work to ensure that any barriers to the development of such projects are minimised so that they can support the supply chain and resource availability.

I agree with the deserved recognition of the invaluable contribution of each of Scotland’s islands to the country’s economy, culture and identity. I have said repeatedly that, in Shetland, we punch well above our weight. On numerous occasions, I have highlighted the need for much more infrastructure investment to enable islands to be viable and to contribute to Scotland, as the limitations of infrastructure in addressing issues of geography is a serious barrier to growth.

I am grateful for advance sight of the “Carbon Neutral Islands Financing Roadmap 2025-2028”, although the slightly inaccurate description and spelling of Up Helly Aa in the document leapt out at this Shetlander and is perhaps an unfortunate start.

The carbon-neutral islands project worked with the innovative and proactive North Yell Development Council, which has, unfortunately, now stepped away from the project. I was disappointed by the feedback from those involved locally. I understand that there have been concerns about islands in the CNI project being pitted against one another, overly ambitious timescales, technical complexity and the viability of projects. Reaching our net zero goals should mean bringing along communities across Scotland.

The financing road map also references low-carbon transport solutions, including increased electric vehicle charging infrastructure, yet the National Grid is not in a position to manage increased demand. The irony is not lost on Shetland, where we see the Viking wind farm reportedly generating as little as 17 per cent of its capacity and being paid enormous sums to constrain production as it is considered that the energy infrastructure is not able to cope with higher generation.

Our ferries, both the internal and external services, are often at capacity, meaning that island residents are prevented from going about their daily business because they are unable to get on and off islands internally or to access the overnight ferry service on a date that they need to. As an example of the pressures on the internal service, on Monday a constituent waited in all day for an engineer to swap out his radio teleswitch meter. The engineer did not turn up because they had failed to book the ferry to the north isles and there was no spare capacity on the crossing. Freight in and out of the islands is also constricted simply by the capacity of vessels on the northern isles route.

With investment in short subsea tunnels, not only would there be freedom of movement between islands, cutting commuting time for those who work on mainland Shetland, but our seafood sector would benefit from quicker transport of time-sensitive products, which would enable people to catch external ferries to export their goods in good time.

Tunnels would also connect communities in Shetland and ensure that cultural pursuits are not limited by the last ferry home. Decarbonisation and emission reductions in ferry transport would be welcome, and, although tunnels will not work for all islands, they would for others.

The motion references the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, which had the serious intention of empowering islands and giving island councils greater flexibility in relation to public services. There is still a debate to be had on its achievements, as I often hear constituents asking “Where’s the island proofing?” when any new legislation is brought forward, or when island impact assessment outcomes reach the conclusion that is wanted by the organisations that carry them out and which effectively mark their own homework. Surprisingly, the Scottish Parliament information centre found that the Scottish Government does not appear to record how often it undertakes island impact assessments.

On the development of the national islands plan, the community engagement events across the isles have attracted responses. I would be surprised if many of those contributions did not reference measures to address depopulation in areas such as transport, digital connectivity, childcare and housing, which should be key themes of the new plan.

Investment in housing would ensure that those looking to make a life in the isles and fill the many vacant posts in education, care and the NHS, and islanders returning home after time away, can find somewhere to live.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am sorry not to join members in the chamber in person this evening.

I thank members who have supported the motion and those who plan to speak in the debate. I also thank the organisations that have provided briefings ahead of the debate and those with which I have met over the past few months to discuss this serious infrastructure failing. I know that citizens advice bureaux across the Highlands and Islands are working hard to help people through the change, and I put on record my thanks to them all, including the Shetland bureaux, and to the other organisations that are doing the same across the country.

There are just 40 days to go until the nationwide radio teleswitch service switch-off deadline on 30 June. To be frank, however, I think that where we have got to with the switch-off is depressing, frustrating and entirely avoidable—it is, in my view, a national disgrace.

Although the RTS switch-off could be considered a purely reserved matter, it could, based on the latest figures, impact around 125,000 Scottish households, including 22,500 in Glasgow and just over 17,000 in Edinburgh. I urge local authorities and local resilience partnerships to ready themselves for any potential adverse outcomes of the switch-off, which might include thousands of homes being left without heating and hot water.

RTS was a revolution when it was developed in the 1980s as a means of switching electricity meters between different tariff rates at different times of the day, allowing for the cost-effective and efficient use of storage heaters. The signal to switch between timings is broadcast by the BBC, which has had a long-standing arrangement with the Energy Networks Association to transmit a teleswitching signal on the BBC Radio 4 long-wave frequency.

Support for the RTS signal will end on 30 June—a date that has already been pushed back at least twice—and the technology that supports the signal is reportedly already well past its end of life. That also means that it could stop working at any time, so there is a chance of disruption to the service ahead of the deadline.

The RTS and Radio 4 long-wave signal shutdown has been on the cards for a decade now, and it is completely unacceptable that households that rely on RTS for their heating and hot water have been left in limbo. The solution is to exchange RTS meters, which sounds simple. For many years, however, constituents have been contacting me—and other MSPs, as I know—about both the lack of engineers and the lack of connectivity to switch an RTS meter to a smart meter. Even replacing a broken meter has been fraught with difficulties over the years. We have been promised technological fixes in advance of the switch-off, yet we are, at the 59th minute of the 11th hour, still finding that there has been limited development in technology or in greater connectivity to the smart meter signal.

At the current rate of meter exchanges, it will take more than a year for all remaining RTS meters in Shetland to be exchanged, including the Shetland parliamentary office meter. Another short extension of the deadline will not solve the issue, and, if the switch-off happens in autumn or winter, the problems that it will cause will be exacerbated by cold weather.

As things stand, energy companies must increase their efforts to exchange all outstanding meters ahead of the 30 June deadline. However, it is still unclear what will happen when the signal is turned off and an RTS meter has not been exchanged. Storage heaters and the systems that heat water might remain off, leaving households in the cold, or they might remain switched on, which raises concerns about what could happen if heat continues to build in them. We simply do not know what will happen.

For thousands of households, therefore, this is a very stressful time. The impact is disproportionate in the Highlands and Islands; in places with high levels of fuel poverty; in the colder parts of the country that rely on heating all year round, including in the summer; where homes have low levels of insulation, are reliant on oil or electricity for heat and power and have no connection to the gas network; and where engineers are few and far between. It cannot be acceptable for energy companies to leave their customers without power, heat and hot water, nor is it acceptable that customers should be left in the potentially dangerous situation of systems possibly overheating.

Energy companies are responsible for ensuring that their customers’ meters are changed over from the old RTS system, but companies across the market have not covered themselves in glory during this period, with variable response levels to their customers on the issue and an insufficient number of engineers. OVO Energy is the main energy supplier in Shetland, but its lack of informed and efficient customer service has taken up an inordinate amount of time and capacity within my office team, who have supported many constituents through this shambles. OVO’s performance since it took over the domestic customers of SSE Energy Services has shown that it was not set up to take on the task that it faced in rural and island areas, and its failure to retain local engineers has come home to roost in this period ahead of the switch-off.

Customers have been let down, waiting at home all day only to find out that their engineer did not arrive as a result of not having prepared properly for the logistics of island travel. Just this morning, I heard from a constituent in one of the north isles of Shetland who had waited over a month for the only appointment that was available to him from OVO. After he stayed at home all day yesterday, no engineer turned up, without explanation. We learned this afternoon that the engineer had not booked himself on to the ferry to get to the island and it had been full, with no spare capacity. The constituent has complained to the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, which has also, until recently, been missing in action in this debacle.

OVO was in Shetland in March and engaged face to face with local stakeholders as well as local customers—yet, even after that, it is failing its customers. OVO, along with other energy companies, has sent teams of engineers north, in the so-called spring surge, in a bid to exchange meters ahead of the deadline. However, it is too little too late, and customers are paying the price.

Scotland-specific tariffs have been removed in place of generic United Kingdom-wide rates, and the tariffs vary by company. Questions are still going unanswered about whether households will be stuck on higher rates after the switch-off. Customers will be unlikely to want to do battle yet again with their supplier to change tariffs, but why should they be stuck paying a higher rate? Moreover, if the heating is jammed on, how long will it take to notice that, fix it and make sure that the right tariff is reinstated? There simply should not be that much uncertainty so close to a nationwide shutdown of technology.

At the spring Scottish Liberal Democrat conference last month, I put forward a successful motion that set out practical steps to better prepare for the switch-off. Urgent action is long overdue.

Pregnant women, people waiting for surgery, cancer patients and other people across my constituency rely on NHS Grampian. What reassurances can the cabinet secretary give that the stage 4 measures will not negatively impact patients from Shetland who have to access NHS Grampian services?

Patients often report varying and non-specific symptoms that push them to go and see a general practitioner, and then it turns out that they might have a brain tumour. What actions can the Scottish Government take to ensure that GPs are best trained to be able to spot brain tumour symptoms from the very first appointment?

Gas from the Rosebank development will be exported through the west of Shetland pipeline system to Sullom Voe, ultimately ending up in the UK grid and contributing to the nation’s energy security.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise the importance of Rosebank to my constituency? Does she agree that it will be important for jobs in Shetland, where there are skilled workers and knowledge that has been gained from decades of working in North Sea energy developments?

I am sorry, but I have no time.

That is why Westminster colleagues who are in the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, which is co-chaired by Alistair Carmichael MP, have launched a call for evidence from the fishing industry and related stakeholders on their priorities for future fishing arrangements with the EU ahead of 2026, when the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement will be reviewed and the adjustment period on fisheries will end.

Cutting red tape on trade with the EU with a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement would benefit the sector. After announcing polling data, which showed strong public support for the sector, ahead of the UK-EU summit in London on 19 May, Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, said:

“The Scottish public are crystal clear—our fishing industry must not be sold short again.”

She continued:

“This poll confirms that Scots understand the value of fishing to our economy, our coastal communities and our national food security—and they expect their governments to stand up for those interests.”

Given that the Scottish public is clearly supportive, those in our fishing sector must no longer be made to feel that policies are being enacted, with little or no consultation, that are to the detriment of their livelihoods.

I have long held and raised concerns about the resourcing of the Scottish Government’s marine directorate given all that it is asked to do, from patrolling Scotland’s waters to research and analysing data. Concerns continue that the landings at Scottish ports by non-UK vessels are not being effectively scrutinised, at the expense of the Scottish fleet and accurate scientific data.

As we increase at-sea infrastructure and transition away from legacy fuels, a better communications channel is needed for discussions about the impacts of offshore wind developments on traditional fishing grounds and nursery areas. I urge greater engagement between stakeholders, the Scottish Government and local fishing fleets about the realities of spatial squeeze in order to ensure the future of Scotland’s important fishing sector.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement. I, too, associate myself with her comments about the workers, their families and the community at this difficult time.

Many of the workers at the refinery will be looking for more secure work. We have a shortage of skilled workers in many sectors, as other members have highlighted. I note the training programmes, but does the Deputy First Minister have an understanding of how many of those skilled workers plan to remain in Scotland, so that we do not lose their skills to other countries?

I am delighted that Tim Eagle is following my lead in bringing a fishing debate to the chamber. Members will recall that, in February, I brought the first fisheries debate to Holyrood since 2022. The Scottish Government has simply not allowed for enough opportunities to speak on all that impacts our important fishing sector. I welcome calls for an annual debate on fisheries, although the sector is worthy of more than just one Government debate a year, especially considering the significance of sustainable fisheries to Scotland’s economy and coastal communities.

We should recognise that we are talking about a high-protein, low-carbon food staple that is caught around our coast in what is one of the world’s most dangerous industries, and that it contributes significantly to food security. Fishing is also of cultural and social significance at home in Shetland. It is important that we enable the generations of family ties to fishing to continue into the future. We have already lost many such ties as well as vessels in the fleet due to policy decisions.

Scottish Liberal Democrats will not support the Conservative motion. We will not oppose the Labour amendment. Although I note the clarification on the link with defence, which I will expand on shortly, we are disappointed by the fact that that amendment would remove from the motion the line about an annual debate. We will support the Scottish Government’s amendment.

The Conservative motion refers to the relationship between the UK and the EU. Last week, my Westminster colleague Alistair Carmichael sought assurances that there would be “no linkage” between current negotiations with the EU on security and defence and those around future access to fisheries. During Cabinet Office questions in the House of Commons, the minister responsible for negotiations confirmed that there will be no such link, which is a commitment that he will be held to account for.

It is critical that we listen to those in the fishing industry who feel that, over the decades, they have been sold out by successive UK Governments—most recently, by the botched Boris Brexit deal in 2021, which brought in new trade barriers. That is why Westminster colleagues—