Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 12 February 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 551 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Great British Energy Bill

Meeting date: 6 February 2025

Mark Ruskell

Scottish Greens will back the legislative consent motion at decision time, but I want to sound a note of caution, because we have come through a period in which devolution in Scotland and Wales faced unprecedented attacks from the previous Westminster Government. Intergovernmental ways of working in the UK are still largely based on precedent and good will, rather than being codified in legislation as they are in most other countries that have a devolved context. Ways of working that are based on principles of respect, such as the Sewel convention, have been seriously undermined and contested in recent years to a point where they have become almost meaningless.

In the context of the Great British Energy Bill, I welcome the changes that the Scottish Government has secured to embed a more consultative approach between the Administrations, but there is still a danger of overreach from a future Westminster Government. There will be a role for this Parliament to bring transparency to those relationships, and the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee made some important points about the role of the committees in that.

When we reflect on the evidence that the committee received, there is clearly a sense that the Labour Government is working more collaboratively with Scottish ministers, which is very welcome. However, despite all the bluster from Anas Sarwar at First Minister’s question time today, when I asked Michael Shanks at committee about the role of GB Energy in promoting nuclear projects, he sounded pretty reasonable. He said:

“Clearly, we have a political difference on nuclear”.

He went on:

“there are no plans and there will be no engagement on that issue, because it is clear that the Scottish Government would block those applications.

That is the legitimate position that the Scottish Government has taken on that planning matter, and I do not think that there is a confrontation or a conflict on that.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 21 January 2025; c 53.]

That was real clarity—no new nuclear in Scotland. That is what Labour head office says, and that is probably the best news that Labour back benchers have had all week.

However, Stephen Kerr raised a valid question, because it is still not really clear what GB Energy will do in Scotland, how many jobs it will create and how long it will take to do that. I take on board Sarah Boyack’s point that it is early days, but I note for clarity that there is a huge record of success in the development of renewable energy in Scotland, which is bringing down bills and keeping the lights on across the UK. For example, the onshore wind sector deal, which the Greens were proud to work on with SNP ministers during our time in government, is now starting to help to double the generation capacity from onshore wind in Scotland by 2030. With that will come opportunities for community benefit and community ownership, and that is real energy security.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Great British Energy Bill

Meeting date: 6 February 2025

Mark Ruskell

I am just closing.

I hope that GB Energy will build on the success that we have had in Scotland and grow the economy in the right way to create the green jobs that are needed to meet our energy needs going forward. For those reasons, on balance, we will support the LCM at decision time.

17:23  

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Local Libraries

Meeting date: 5 February 2025

Mark Ruskell

Will the minister give way?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Local Libraries

Meeting date: 5 February 2025

Mark Ruskell

I thank those members who signed my motion to bring the debate to the chamber. I am sure that members will wish to thank the communities that have fought so hard to save our libraries, and to thank librarians for their tireless work.

I was delighted to host library campaigners from across Scotland, and from the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals Scotland, in Parliament today, and we had an insightful discussion with members at lunch time. I welcome those who have joined us in the public gallery, and many more who are watching online.

In recent months, we have seen an outpouring of love for our libraries, which shows how critical they are to the health of our communities, especially in this post-Covid age, when there are real dangers of social isolation and misinformation at large. Seven libraries across Perthshire have been threatened with closure, from Alyth to Auchterarder and Birnam to Comrie, and Scone, and libraries that will remain open are likely to have their hours cut from April this year. Most of those are rural libraries, and once they are gone, they will be gone forever.

Throughout the winter, I have been to some big demonstrations in Perthshire and attended online meetings, at which people have told warm-hearted stories of how important libraries are to them. It is clear that libraries are about so much more than just book borrowing. In Scone, I learned about how vital the library is for older people, enabling them to come together and share memories, especially those who are suffering with dementia. Those reminiscence groups are one of the few places where sufferers can escape the fog of dementia and feel truly heard.

One constituent pointed out that because the local primary school does not have its own dedicated library, the services at Scone library have helped to fill that gap. In Birnam, a father told us how his family have borrowed “hundreds” of books, while a mother told us how visiting the library is a highlight of her daughter’s week and is encouraging a real love of reading in her and all her friends.

Across Scotland, libraries host workshops and activities that benefit the community. There are knitting and toddler groups, and every library in Scotland offers free or low-cost activities such as bookbug, which is designed to support early-years development. Those activities are vital for communities, helping to connect the local community and build support networks for people at all stages of life. Libraries are often the last free, warm facilities that are available in many rural communities. They are genuinely a lifeline.

It is ironic that closures are being proposed to make savings for Perth and Kinross Council when that is clearly a false economy. Perth and Kinross Council spends less than any other council on its library services, despite having the second-highest level of library usage in Scotland. Removing warm, free spaces that combat social isolation will have a negative cost to the council and to health services in the long run. It is no wonder, therefore, that Perthshire’s communities have mobilised against closures, organising petitions and working together. They have a positive vision that is about thriving libraries, not just fighting closures.

Communities have been meeting with Culture Perth and Kinross, which is the arm’s-length company that was set up by the council to run the libraries. CPK is, admittedly, in a difficult position, as years of underfunding from the council have meant that it is now at the point at which it has to either shut services or pass them over to community-led management. However, rural communities in Perthshire are already being asked to take over other services from which the council has retreated, and volunteers can only do so much to backfill cuts.

Community-led management might be an option for some libraries, but negotiation cannot take place under the threat of immediate closures. Negotiation has to be respectful, and the cuts must be taken off the table first. The council is also exploring options such as click-and-collect style services and more mobile libraries, but those should be additional services, not a replacement. Once again, I stress that libraries are not just about borrowing books—they are about so much more than that. Closing local services will also force people to travel further. Should Birnam library close, for example, residents will either need to travel for half an hour to Perth or negotiate a dangerous junction on the A9 to head north to Pitlochry. Both options are costly in time and in money.

The council has options. This year’s budget settlement provides the flexibility to stop the cuts this year. In fact, the council’s finance and resources committee was meeting this afternoon to scrutinise the administration’s draft budget, ahead of a final decision later this month. It looks like communities are finally being heard on the issue, and there is at least a stay of execution that can be agreed. I think that it is fair to say, however, that Perth and Kinross Council has overstretched its resources on projects such as Perth Museum, without fully considering the impact on core library services. While Edinburgh has introduced a tourism levy in order to invest millions in its cultural offering, thousands of overnight stays across Perthshire currently bring in no levy income at all. That needs to change.

Many campaigners across Scotland feel like they are on a treadmill, with proposals to cut libraries being brought back year after year. A total of 53 libraries have closed across Scotland since 2014, and many more are now slated for closure, so it is a critical time right now. The Perth and Kinross Council area is not alone. In my region, library closure proposals in Stirling are back again for consultation, while Clackmannanshire Council is proposing to cut every single library except one.

The Scottish Government’s public library improvement fund is a welcome source of project funding, but it does not stop the systemic reduction in core funding that we are now witnessing. A redefinition of what constitutes statutory library provision, especially in rural areas, is desperately needed, and I would welcome a commitment from the Scottish Government tonight to explore that. What constitutes the “adequate provision” set out in legislation is currently a very low bar, as is the requirement around consultation.

As we look to the next libraries strategy in 2026, now is the time for Government to connect with grass-roots communities and library professionals, hear their voices and act to protect the future.

Libraries must remain the beating heart of our communities, and I look forward to hearing the reflections of other members and the Minister for Public Finance in the debate.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Local Libraries

Meeting date: 5 February 2025

Mark Ruskell

I welcome the minister’s answer to my question, which I will now follow up with another question. When will the Government review the “adequate provision” definition?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Mark Ruskell

I welcome the real-terms increase in council funding that is coming through the budget. I hope that that will give the flexibility that Perth and Kinross Council needs to take the closures off the table when it meets next Wednesday. However, it is clear that some councils are continually making the case for rural library closures on the basis that the statutory provision can be met from mobile libraries. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that view fundamentally misunderstands the importance of rural libraries as free and accessible cultural and community spaces? Does he agree that it is time to look again at what should constitute a statutory library service, in particular in the rural context?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Mark Ruskell

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the culture secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the potential impact on the provision of library services in Mid Scotland and Fife of the proposed local government settlement for 2025-26. (S6O-04256)

Meeting of the Parliament

Storm Éowyn

Meeting date: 28 January 2025

Mark Ruskell

I thank the emergency services and offer condolences to those who lost a loved one during the storm.

It was a relief to hear from the cabinet secretary that no patients were harmed at Forth Valley royal hospital during the power outage. I understand that the back-up generator failed. The emergency battery that was the last resort has limited capacity, of course; I understand that it can provide only up to 90 minutes of power. Given that patients would have been undergoing surgery and been in critical care at the hospital at the time, is the cabinet secretary satisfied that health boards are really putting in the resilience measures that are needed to deal with such a storm?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Electricity Infrastructure Consenting

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Mark Ruskell

The energy transition is one of the biggest challenges and biggest opportunities in Scotland today, and it is important that Parliament supports the steps that are needed to deliver it. The missed 2030 climate target and the latest advice from the Climate Change Committee, in 2024, remind us that there is no path to net zero for Scotland or the UK without a major switch from fossil fuels to electricity. That is the case across many sectors, from the transport industry to how we heat our homes.

Of course, in recent years, all Governments of all colours in the UK have accepted that, including the recent Tory Government at Westminster. That switch requires a massive increase in the generation of renewable energy from all our abundant onshore and offshore wind, hydro, solar and wave resources. That growth in generation is already well under way in Scotland. We are doing very well in that regard, but it has exposed the huge backlog that we now face in investment in upgrading the electricity transmission network.

The Scottish Renewables briefing for the debate highlights that the UK will need to build twice as much transmission infrastructure in the next five years as it has over the past decade. Simply put, we do not have the transmission lines that we need to get the electricity to where it needs to be. We must grapple with that challenge now. The climate will not wait, nor will the households that face ever-rising gas bills.

The joint UK Government and Scottish Government consultation seeks to address that growing barrier in transmission. I do not accept the Tories’ motion, which asks us to throw out all the work that has taken place so far, ignoring the consultation responses that have already been submitted and effectively shutting down the opportunity to refine the Government’s plans further.

Public inquiries are a sign that the planning and consenting system has failed, yet perpetual public inquiries appear to be what the Tories want for our communities. Public inquiries are highly formalised and adversarial, and can last for years. They are not a process that is suited to having the views of time-poor and underresourced community groups heard equally alongside those of developers.

Both Governments have been clear that attention must be given to how communities can be part of the future energy consenting process. During the new statutory pre-application process, developers will be required to notify the public and gather views. They will need to include evidence that there has been a robust process alongside their consent application, otherwise it will be rejected.

Currently, any prior community engagement that is carried out on an application is voluntary on the part of the developer. There is no consistency in what information developers need to present, whom they must inform and whose views they must seek out, and there is no consistency about how much of that information must be supplied to the planning authorities.

I urge both Governments to seriously consider the concerns that have been raised by organisations including Planning Democracy and the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland. There must be tougher requirements on developers who do not undertake a robust public engagement process, and a requirement to reconsult the public if they cannot evidence how they have taken concerns into account. The Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland also raised concerns that the processes could become tick-box exercises and that engagement must be done in such a way that it is genuinely meaningful for communities.

My final point is about benefits. Since 1990, more than £194 million in community benefits have been committed from renewable energy projects in Scotland. That is significant, but it is a fraction of what could be delivered if communities had major equity stakes in projects. However, in comparison, no financial community benefits have been required for transmission projects. That needs to change, so I welcome the voluntary steps that SSEN has already taken. We have socialised the financial costs of building shared infrastructure across the country, but we must recognise that the communities that host that infrastructure—

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Electricity Infrastructure Consenting

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Mark Ruskell

I was there at the time when the Beauly-Denny line was going through pre-application consultation, and it went to public local inquiry. I was there throughout all those years working with communities, and it was very painful.

The only positive thing to come out of that was that the communities that recognised that they could influence the project—that they could get substations moved and get investment in the landscape—were the communities that engaged with the utility company and cross-party MSPs, including myself; they got benefits as a result of that. There must be an understanding and an acceptance that we need transmission infrastructure, but there absolutely are wins that communities can get if they are supported by MSPs, councillors and others to engage with the companies and to win those benefits.

A number of members—including Liam McArthur, Sarah Boyack and Christine Grahame—spoke about community benefits. The recommendation of the review that was conducted in 2023 by Nick Winser, the electricity networks commissioner, was that communities should get financial benefits from transmission, both lump sums for householders and community benefit funds. The commissioner said:

“There is every opportunity to be generous with these payments. Undergrounding power line costs between five and 10 times more than overhead lines and causes more environmental damage.”

Utility companies such as SSEN, whose representatives are with us today, that are making commitments to community benefit need to be held to their word. They will save money through overgrounding, so communities need to benefit from those choices.

I welcome the fact that SSEN has committed £100 million already. We need to work with the grain of that and ensure that communities get a good deal from what is going on, but we are not going to get that from Mr Lumsden and his colleagues. Their only interest is in division and right-wing rhetoric, and that is a disgrace.

16:54