Official Report 1136KB pdf
Good morning. The first item of business is general question time.
Free Bus Passes (Removal)
To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to removing free bus passes from people who abuse the system. (S6O-03837)
The vast majority of passengers who travel under the national concessionary travel scheme behave appropriately. However, a minority of people of all ages abuse their entitlement, which includes committing offences. That can result in serious harm to bus employees and passengers, which is simply not acceptable.
Bus operators can already restrict their services in line with their conditions of carriage, and Transport Scotland has prioritised work with operators and other stakeholders to develop further sanctions, including the removal of passes and taking preventative measures.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the work that we have done jointly on the issue. I enjoyed working with her while I was transport spokesman.
We have spoken about the issue before. I think that the cabinet secretary has the powers to do something, so will she confirm that? Will she agree to meet unions whose members are affected by such antisocial behaviour? Will she put a timescale on taking action?
I thank Graham Simpson for his constructive, considered and intelligent approach as Opposition transport spokesperson. I think that he has a passion for the issue, so I am sure that he will continue to take an interest in transport. On the substance of his points, I will meet the unions this afternoon, so I will continue my dialogue with them.
I point out that the legislation that underpins the national concessionary travel scheme does not make specific provision for removing access to the scheme when it is misused—for example, if someone fraudulently allows another person to use their card. We are working on that, which might require changes to the main scheme.
It is a challenge to give members timescales at this point, but I know that Graham Simpson has been persistent on the issue, and I will continue to consider it.
I initially shared Graham Simpson’s concerns, but I have to say that, in recent months, matters have settled down on the buses with the under-22 concessionary scheme. I would be pleased if the cabinet secretary could keep the Parliament informed of any changes to that scheme, such as changes to bring in penalties or provisions to remove cards, if necessary.
I will keep members informed of any progress. In Scotland, we aim to promote an agenda whereby children are prevented from getting involved in offending behaviour and are supported effectively when they do so.
A range of measures to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour on buses is available. Experience with ScotRail shows that body-worn cameras play an important role in deterring antisocial and criminal behaviour, and we are actively considering how that learning can apply to the bus network.
I have witnessed some shocking behaviour on buses from people of all ages, and drivers have told me just how bad it can get. Has the transport secretary assessed the impact of that behaviour on passenger numbers? If not, when will she manage to do that?
That is an important point. I do not have information to hand on whether there has been an impact, but I will certainly ask my officials to look into that.
The young persons free bus pass for under-22s has, in effect, saved the bus system in many ways. The pandemic resulted in a collapse in patronage and in older people not coming back to buses as much. We need to recognise that the scheme has been a success for young people and for the bus companies but, where there has been antisocial behaviour, we need to introduce different measures. Monitoring patronage is an important part of that.
Milngavie Rail Line (Service Frequency)
To ask the Scottish Government what would be required for the frequency of service on the Milngavie rail line to return to quarter-hourly throughout the day, as was the case before the Covid-19 pandemic. (S6O-03838)
As was discussed with Ross Greer during our meeting last year, Milngavie station is well served under the regular timetable, which was reintroduced on Monday this week. There are two trains per hour throughout the day, which increases to four trains per hour in peak times. The current service provision reflects passenger demand in the peak and off-peak periods.
I am grateful for the time that the cabinet secretary and her officials took to speak to me last year. My question was about what would be required for the Milngavie line to return to its pre-pandemic timetable of four trains an hour throughout the day. Until the pandemic, there clearly was the patronage to support that, and I am interested to find out what would be required for us to return to that. I recognise that we are not at that stage yet; I am simply asking the Government to explain what would be required for us to return to four trains an hour throughout the day and not just at peak times.
The member might be aware that ScotRail assessed timetables to identify how we could maximise usage and meet customer needs. However, sometimes, after availability and a cost benefit analysis have been taken into account, it is not always possible to give everybody what they want at every opportunity. I know that reliability of services is important to regular users of train services. In terms of additional resources, such as fleet and drivers, ScotRail will continue to keep the matter under review. As for the member’s ambitions, he has to recognise that we are still moving past the Covid period in terms of patronage both on buses, which we just discussed, and on rail.
Although I am glad to hear that the temporary timetable is finally no longer in place, commuters from my local area of Milngavie are now forced to pay £7.10 instead of £4.80 for a service to Glasgow during peak times. The Government has also put forward a plan to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030. How does the Scottish Government expect to reduce car travel when it has made public transport more costly?
That question was fairly expansive in relation to the substantive question. You may respond on the substantive point, cabinet secretary.
Help for passengers to use rail more often includes the introduction of discounts of 20 per cent on weekly season tickets, monthly season tickets and annual season tickets. If people go from Glasgow to Milngavie, or in the other direction, four days per week with a monthly season ticket, the cost per day can be £4.60. If people use a flexipass, which allows six return journeys over a 60-day period and can help people who are hybrid working, that cost is only £4.78. I am sure that, after I sent members a letter that provided sample costs when people use the discounts, Pam Gosal and other MSPs will have promoted those discounts and circulated that information to their constituents.
We move to question 3. Let us keep our questions and responses concise.
Inclusive Communication (Update)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its work on inclusive communication. (S6O-03839)
We wrote to update stakeholders on the Scottish Government’s work on inclusive communications on 14 August 2024. The letter shared the decision to produce enhanced guidance, tools and training to support public authorities to improve their use of inclusive communication. That, in turn, should help them to better perform their general equality duty.
My decision was informed by careful consideration of what we believe would make the most impact. We have since confirmed funding for that work, and officials have begun preparations for a scoping exercise on resources and gaps.
My constituent Marion Burns from Renfrewshire, who has to communicate through a device, has shared with me her difficulty in using public services. In a recent letter to me, the minister turned down the opportunity to meet Marion and others with similar lived experience. That is despite the minister’s predecessor having suggested a meeting, which I presume was because of a recognition that work on inclusive communication should involve those who have inclusive communication needs, so that they can provide invaluable insight into their experience. Will the minister reconsider and meet my constituent and others at the earliest opportunity?
I note that Neil Bibby has been consistent on the issue and has raised it many times on his constituent’s behalf. Now that I am five months into the job, I am happy to take up his challenge and look at the matter.
Forties Pipeline System (Grangemouth Refinery Closure Impacts)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact it anticipates that the planned closure of Grangemouth oil refinery will have on the Forties pipeline system and associated jobs and businesses. (S6O-03840)
We continue to engage constructively with businesses at Grangemouth to fully understand the impact that the closure of the refinery will have on the area, in particular on employment.
Ineos has confirmed that the Grangemouth refinery does not process significant volumes of Forties pipeline system derived crude, with the majority of the asset’s feedstocks being imported. Therefore, it is expected that the refinery’s closure will have limited impact on the Forties pipeline system.
More generally, and as outlined in the Scottish Government’s draft energy strategy, oil extracted from the North Sea is predominantly exported to international markets.
The cabinet secretary’s complacency is extremely concerning, because industry voices and experts warn that the Forties pipeline—which connects 80 fields to the mainland and enables around 59 per cent of the United Kingdom’s oil and gas to reach customers—could shut down as early as 2030 due to the fiscal and licensing regime that both of Scotland’s Governments are pursuing. The GMB says that both Governments have taken a hostile, fundamentally dishonest position on the realities of oil and gas.
Will the cabinet secretary be honest and tell us when the delayed, discredited draft energy strategy will finally be published and whether the deeply damaging presumption against oil and gas will be removed?
It is somewhat bizarre to hear a member discredit a strategy that has not yet been published.
The oil and gas fiscal regime and the UK energy profits levy, which the member referenced, were reserved to the UK Government and introduced under the predecessor regime to the current Labour Government. I agree with Liam Kerr on one point, which is that we have consistently called for a fiscal regime for North Sea oil and gas that provides stability and certainty to businesses, protects jobs based in Scotland, and incentivises investment in renewables.
I confirm that the Government is concerned about energy security. It believes that we should do everything in our power to support the transition and never lose sight of the importance of energy security in that process.
On the specific issue of the Forties pipeline system—
Very briefly, please.
We recognise that it is critical and will continue to work hard to support the careful management of the North Sea energy transition.
Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility (Preparations)
To ask the Scottish Government what preparations it has conducted in advance of the planned opening of Glasgow city health and social care partnership’s safer drug consumption facility on 21 October. (S6O-03841)
The Scottish Government has provided £2 million funding for Glasgow’s safer drug consumption facility, and we have been working with groups leading on the implementation, necessary communications and evaluation of the project. We are also continuing to engage with the Crown Office and the police in the final stages in support of Glasgow city health and social care partnership, which is leading on the facility’s establishment.
Glasgow’s HSCP is continuing to work towards opening the service as near to the indicative date of 21 October as possible. However, that is subject to compliance with the national health service assure guidance and approvals, which are not yet concluded. Therefore, we have been advised that a date for the service to become operational has yet to be confirmed.
Real, workable, common-sense methods to fix our drug deaths crisis are needed and welcomed. Since 2007, drug deaths have nearly tripled and we now have the worst drug deaths rate in Europe. Tackling that issue through harm reduction is a commendable goal, but those people who work in recovery say that residential rehabilitation, too, must be a priority. The cabinet secretary has mentioned £2 million, but how much does he expect the funding to be annually for the facility and how much has the Scottish Government spent on residential rehab?
I recognise the long-standing interest that Annie Wells has shown in that area. She is right that there is no silver bullet—no one answer to our addressing the levels of drug deaths that we are seeing, which I acknowledge are far too high.
Annie Wells is also right that it is not only harm reduction that is important, but residential rehab. We are funding the facility in Glasgow for £2 million annually for the next few years and we have committed £100 million over the lifetime of the national mission for the expansion of residential rehab. That includes £38 million, which will increase the number of publicly funded beds by 140. Public Health Scotland said in its February report that we are on track to meet the target of 1,000 publicly funded places in residential rehab by the end of 2026.
Can the cabinet secretary confirm that he is doing all that is in his power to minimise the delays with the NHS assure sign-off process? Can he also confirm that progress is being made with sign-offs for drug testing at the facility and with screening for blood-borne viruses such as HIV and hepatitis C?
I thank Mr Sweeney for his question and for his long-standing interest in the issue. He will be aware that the NHS assure process is largely outwith my control, as it is an assurance process by its nature, which means that facilities have to go through the processes.
I am very keen that we make progress on the drug testing facilities. There is the potential to make progress on harm reduction, and we are interacting with the Home Office on the necessary processes that would be required from it to allow that to happen.
Union Bridge Repairs (Discussions)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Transport Scotland and Amey regarding the repairs that are required at Union bridge on the A96 in Keith. (S6O-03842)
Repairing the A96 Union bridge is a priority, and that expectation has been made clear to our operating company, Amey. However, undertaking the repairs has been complicated by buried services, the work being adjacent to a watercourse, the environmental permissions that are required prior to commencing the works, and the importance of engaging the community in the proposed works so that they know what to expect.
All of that work has now been developed or is under way, and I expect to receive a proposal setting out the permanent repair and the timescale for completion shortly. I will be happy to update relevant members once those decisions have been made.
I am grateful for that response, and it should be a priority, but this traffic upgrade has been required since July on a crucial trunk road—the A96, which takes people from Aberdeen to Inverness.
It is important to say that Keith is open for business, but when I have spoken to shop owners recently, they have said that they are seeing a big downturn in footfall because of the restrictions in place and the impact that those restrictions have had on traffic.
Will the cabinet secretary do everything that she can to accelerate the works? As I say, months have passed and so far nothing has happened on the ground. Will she meet with me and business owners in Keith so that she can hear at first hand the impact that it is having on them?
I understand that meetings have taken place with businesses and with members of the Scottish Parliament about the disruption. That engagement is taking place in order to minimise the impact of the disruption, so I am quite confident that the member has had an opportunity to take part in such discussions.
The works are expected to commence in early winter and to be complete before spring 2025. The work is predominantly from the river, and a lane of the A96 will remain open during the works, controlled by temporary traffic lights, as at present. However, it is a complex site. It has a waste-water pipe, a gas main and BT cables, and environmental consultations are also needed.
I referred to engagement in my initial answer. The member asked for further engagement, but engagement has already been taking place and indeed will continue to take place with businesses to make sure that they understand what will be happening and when.
Landfill (Biodegradable Municipal Waste Ban)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its work to support the introduction of a ban on biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill. (S6O-03843)
Scotland was the first nation in the United Kingdom to introduce a ban on sending biodegradable municipal waste to landfill, and 29 local authorities have arrangements in place to comply with the ban, which comes into force on 31 December 2025.
Zero Waste Scotland continues to provide support to local authorities without arrangements to ensure that they are able to meet the requirement on 31 December 2025, and it will publish an updated analysis of residual waste management capacity in Scotland in mid-October.
UK statistics on waste that were published on 28 September show a decrease of 53 per cent of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill in Scotland since 2010, in part reflecting the preparations for the forthcoming ban.
The Scottish Government accepts that there is a risk of incineration overcapacity within as little as two years of the landfill ban being introduced. However, despite the Government claiming to oppose incinerators, a loophole means that those already with planning permission can go ahead. In fact, an extra 420,000 tonnes of capacity have become operational in just the past two years. The loophole can be closed, so how will the cabinet secretary prevent Scotland from becoming the ashtray of Europe?
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has powers to make impartial assessments, put pollution prevention and control regulations in place, and make decisions relating to environmental permits in accordance with those regulations. I know that there have been calls for the Scottish ministers to intervene in the process that is run by SEPA—the PPC process—but they would not normally do so unless there were exceptional circumstances.
The key policy levers that are available to the Scottish ministers to manage capacity are in planning. A review was carried out to which we responded, saying that no further planning permission should be granted for incineration facilities beyond what is already in place.