Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Jim Fairlie for securing today’s timely members’ business debate.

We have heard that, in the recent round of job losses, OVO Energy announced that it will axe 1,700 jobs across its UK operations. That is a quarter of the company’s workforce. It will mean closing seven out of 10 offices. An estimated 700 staff are at risk in Perth alone, and a quarter of those staff are earmarked for OVO’s voluntary redundancy scheme. Those are the numbers. Behind the numbers are real people and families, who have ties to their communities, with children at school, friends and neighbours, and families that support and care for one another in the community.

Jim Fairlie spelled out how the roots of the energy business in Perth run deep—all the way back to SSE and the hydro board—and are built on the lives of generations of real people. The workers should not be seen as mere numbers on a spreadsheet to be redeployed at will across the UK.

After several meetings with the chief executive of OVO and contact with the unions, I, like many members, remain deeply concerned about the lack of clarity on the next steps in the redeployment and retraining that are to be offered to staff and on whether compulsory redundancies could still be considered after the voluntary redundancy process concludes. Once again, OVO has left its staff in the dark, without clarity on the next steps, putting them under pressure to make serious decisions about the future of their careers and families in a matter of days.

The deadline for voluntary redundancy applications closed in record time, after just around a fortnight, and the lack of meaningful support for workers was such that it is no wonder that OVO’s initial trawl did not secure the required number of voluntary redundancies in all areas of its business. Despite OVO’s new-found confidence that it will reach its target for voluntary redundancies after an extension, when I met Adrian Letts just yesterday, OVO was still refusing to rule out compulsory redundancies. The lack of transparency in that regard instils fear that the impact of the job losses and office closures that have been announced might be only the tip of the iceberg. Hard-working staff at OVO deserve much better. They deserve much more than a situation in which they are levered and coerced into making life-changing decisions in just a matter of days.

Of course, this is not the first time that OVO has broken promises to staff and contravened the Government’s fair work agenda. This is the latest in a series of broken promises from OVO to its hard-working staff. Let us remember, as other members have noted, that this is the company that promised job security when it took over in January 2020, only to lay off thousands of workers at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic in May 2020.

We cannot allow companies such as OVO repeatedly to disregard basic fair work principles. It is high time that OVO took those principles seriously. I ask the minister to consider what sanctions can be applied to companies that undermine and break the fair work principles, and I agree with Alex Rowley that not a penny more of taxpayers’ money needs to go to such companies.

We need transparency and a commitment to no compulsory redundancies. We need a longer period for voluntary redundancies, matched with a package of support for people who are looking to retrain and upskill in other areas of the company. Instead, OVO’s response so far has left its workforce in a catch-22 situation in which workers must choose between applying for voluntary redundancy, even if they are interested in upskilling, or facing the risk of compulsory redundancy.

Several weeks ago, the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise, Ivan McKee, promised that he would consider how the Tay cities deal could provide further support for those who are affected by OVO’s plans, in the same way that support was provided for workers after Michelin closed its doors in Dundee. I would like Tom Arthur, in closing the debate, to report back on what those options might be.

If OVO cares at all about its employees and its reputation, it must now work hard to change the course of its actions, to offer meaningful support to its workforce and to work with those workers to develop the business to meet customer needs.

The Greens strongly agree with the minister that a people’s ScotRail must be rooted in the experiences of passengers and of course the dedicated women and men who work on our railways. Just last week, damaging timetable changes in Perth and Fife were scrapped by ScotRail after hundreds of my constituents campaigned for change. How can we harness the energy and enthusiasm of those passengers to help to co-design services now and in the future to meet their needs and to increase patronage?

My final question is about delivery and the mechanisms that we have for that. My local authority in Stirling has a plan for what it wants to deliver but it is taking a long time to roll it out. Some of that is down to traffic regulation orders and the traffic system. Are there particular barriers that you would point to that could brush up against the ambition of NPF4? I put that to Chiquita Elvin, who is directly involved in rolling out the tarmac, on the ground.

Do Caroline Brown and David Hunter have any final thoughts on the issue?

Other colleagues might want to come in on certain aspects of that, but I will put the question about waste incineration, where it sits within the NPF and what might change to Bruce Wilson.

Yes. Did you get the original question that I posed?

Does Anna Beswick have any comments on that specific question?

Thank you—that is valuable.

I will move on to a different topic, on which I want to bring in Iain Gulland. In effect, we have a moratorium on decisions on new waste incinerators in Scotland, at least for the duration of the Government’s review of waste incineration. What do you think will come out of the review? How do you think that that might shape how the Government approaches waste incineration in the context of the circular economy? Will the review have any bearing on what is in the NPF?

A related issue is whether, in the past, the planning system has been effective at ensuring that, where waste incinerators have been built, they have connected in with heat networks and delivered on that side of things. There is a concern about loopholes. Do you have any thoughts about the effectiveness of the planning system in that regard or about what might emerge from the review and how it will relate to the NPF?

Where workplace parking levies have been introduced, they have raised millions and millions of pounds for public transport and active travel investment, but is there a requirement on councils to invest in those types of priorities?

The measure points to local transport strategies. Investment priorities for those strategies could be broader than just investment in active travel and public transport, so can we get a reassurance that the money that is raised will be invested in the solutions that people need to get them out of cars in the first place?

I will ask briefly about biodiversity and national infrastructure. There is a commitment in NPF4 on local nature networks. I think that the understanding is that every local authority will develop its own local nature network. I will start with Bruce Wilson. What is the difference between that and having a national nature network in respect of its status in planning? What is the difference between that and what you are looking for in the NPF?