The next item of business is topical question time. To get in as many members as possible, I would be grateful for short and succinct questions and responses.
Off-market Land Sales
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to protect communities from off-market land sales by so-called green lairds. (S6T-00750)
Scotland’s natural environment will be critical in our action to tackle climate change and ecological breakdown. We are fortunate to have in our natural world such potential to sequester carbon and support biodiversity, including through woodland creation, peatland restoration, soil management, energy generation and blue carbon. Not only will that help us to reach net zero, but it is a real opportunity for our rural communities, for investment and for good green jobs in industries of the future.
However, I understand that with opportunity comes risk. I seek to mitigate that risk with a series of options, including publishing a suite of principles in “Interim Principles for Responsible Investment in Natural Capital”. Those set out the Government’s expectations of those who would invest in our land, including for delivering community benefit, engaging communities and creating diverse patterns of land ownership. I am also working with the Scottish Land Commission on how to avoid off-market sales through our actions, and developing proposals for an ambitious land reform bill, on which I will consult over the summer.
The minister will be aware that such sales are increasing. They stop communities purchasing their land and continue the concentration of ownership of land in a small number of hands. The Scottish Government has delayed action on land reform for far too long and polluters are now rushing to offset carbon emissions. We need action to prevent such sales now. They are not in the public interest and not in the interests of our planet.
Will the minister consider ending payment of public subsidies to landowners who do not live on their land or pay their taxes in the United Kingdom? She could take that action now.
I recognise Rhoda Grant’s on-going and long-standing interest in the issue.
I disagree that the Scottish Government has failed to take action on land reform. In our previous term in office, we worked to implement the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, which, among other things, included implementation of the register of controlling interests in land—which is really important for transparency—and setting up the Scottish Land Commission and the Scottish land fund.
We will introduce a new land reform bill, on which I will consult over the summer. I am considering the point that Rhoda Grant made on uses and recipients of public money, and will seek to include questions on that in the consultation.
The minister will be aware of concerns regarding food shortages because of the war in Ukraine, but green lairds are buying land, evicting farmers and using that land to offset their own polluting behaviours. What steps will she take to ensure that land is used appropriately and that trees are planted in the right places? What levers will she use to prohibit arable land and peatlands being turned into forests?
Woodland creation is important in terms of land use and land-use change in the name of mitigating climate change and ecological decline. I am conscious of the interplay between the need to create woodlands and the need to ensure that we have sustainable food production in Scotland. Of course, we want to make that balance work well.
On tangible actions, I point Rhoda Grant to the “Interim Principles for Responsible Investment in Natural Capital” that I mentioned in my opening answer. One of those principles states:
“Carbon management should be integrated with delivery of wider environmental, social and economic outcomes, such as biodiversity improvements, resilience to food supply and natural flood management.”
It is there in black and white. Those are the Government’s expectations for how people will invest in our land. The matter is already being worked on and the issues are being borne in mind, as we develop the land reform bill.
The drive for net zero is one of the most important political endeavours of our time, but as we know, our Scottish National Party Scottish Government is resolutely committed to land reform. Will the minister expand on how the “Interim Principles for Responsible Investment in Natural Capital” will ensure that efforts to tackle climate change work alongside a desire to empower communities and continue reforming Scotland’s relationship with the land?
The “Interim Principles for Responsible Investment in Natural Capital” are precisely about ensuring that much-needed environmental investment supports our land reform objectives, is responsible and benefits communities.
The vision in “Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation”, which we recently published, is that, by 2032, Scotland will be a wellbeing economy that is
“thriving across economic, social and environmental dimensions”.
The interim principles have a really important part to play as early action in that regard.
I quoted one of the principles that relates to food supply to Rhoda Grant. I draw Jenni Minto’s attention to some of the other principles. They include that
“Investment in and use of Scotland’s natural capital should create benefits that are shared between public, private and community interests, contributing to a just transition ... Investors and land managers should engage with ... communities in decisions about land and land use ... When acquiring new land, investors should seek early engagement with relevant local communities to ... identify opportunities to collaborate ... And investors should have full regard to Scotland’s land rights and responsibility statements.”
We will use those principles to underpin a much wider discussion and ensure that our policy development responds to a rapidly developing market. Our approach will position Scotland as an innovator in developing a new type of high-integrity values-led market that centres on community interests.
Train Cancellations (Contingency Plans)
To ask the Scottish Government what contingency plans it has in place should train drivers reject the latest pay offer, in light of the reported hundreds of cancellations at the weekend. (S6T-00745)
The temporary timetable that ScotRail put in place is delivering a reliable service, moving around 90 per cent of passenger numbers prior to the current disruption.
Last Friday and Saturday, additional late evening services were added. On Sunday, services were disrupted because drivers continue to not work their rest days, as is their right and choice. I know that that has inconvenienced and frustrated many travellers. ScotRail will continue to look at what more can be done to improve the weekend service availability.
There are no contingency plans, then.
Even if the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen recommends that members accept the offer tomorrow, it will take three weeks to ballot them. That is nearly a month of disruption to start with.
It was carnage on the railways at the weekend. On Sunday, 320 services were cancelled—and more might be cancelled this Sunday. We are in this mess because drivers do not want to work on their days off, and why should they? Mick Hogg of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers says that the issue could take five years to resolve. Is he right?
We could face the same disruption next year, but the Government has rejected a multiyear deal. Why do that? That is crazy. We need stability right now, not chaos. When will the minister deliver that?
I will not shy away from some of the very real challenges that passengers have faced during the past two weeks. However, Mr Simpson needs to remember why the action is happening. It is action short of industrial action, but it is nonetheless true to say, as Mr Simpson has outlined, that ScotRail’s train drivers are choosing not to work on their rest days.
The rail network in Scotland has been dependent on rest day working for decades. Rest day working is not a new invention that occurred on 1 April and it is not unique to Scotland. It is also worth pointing out that TransPennine Express is currently operating a reduced timetable—it is similarly reduced to about 70 per cent—as a result of rest day working being banned. Furthermore, Northern Trains Ltd, a train operating company that the United Kingdom Government directly controls, also experienced similar disruption last weekend and that is expected to continue, and to increase.
ScotRail made the difficult decision to implement a reduced timetable from last week, which it did to give passengers greater certainty. Clearly, what happened on Sunday was far from ideal, but I am told that, because not enough drivers made themselves available to work that day, it was very difficult for ScotRail to timetable Sunday services accordingly.
ASLEF will put the offer to its executive committee tomorrow. I do not necessarily accept Mr Simpson’s description that the matter could take up to three weeks to resolve—it could be resolved tomorrow. However, that, of course, is in ASLEF’s gift, as is the right of trade unions. I am sure that he would agree with that.
ASLEF is a democratic union; it will put the matter to its members and that process will take three weeks. That is the fact of the matter.
We have had drivers sitting around twiddling their thumbs, itching to get in the cabs, even at the weekends. Tomorrow, Scotland plays Ukraine. The extra services that have been laid on at the 11th hour are welcome, but they are no use whatsoever for those coming from Dundee, Aberdeen or Perth. Other events are also coming up that deserve our attention, including the Edinburgh fringe and the 150th open at St Andrews in July. Furthermore, what about all the events that are coming up at the Glasgow Hydro? Billie Eilish will be playing there in a couple of weeks’ time. Lots of young fans, including young women, will be going to that and will want to get home afterwards. Does the minister not think that there is a basic safety issue here, particularly for young women? What will she do about that?
We covered many of the issues in Mr Simpson’s question last week at topical question time. Nonetheless, there has been some movement in relation to additional services. For example, additional services ran on Friday and Saturday, and ScotRail announced yesterday that additional services will be provided to take fans home to Edinburgh, Stirling, Ayr, Gourock, East Kilbride and Neilston. I concede that there was a delay in ScotRail announcing those services—of course, the provision of services is an operational matter for ScotRail—but that delay was to ensure that the timetable was robust and deliverable in order to give passengers reassurance and certainty about services.
It is worth saying that there has been some unclear and unhelpful commentary this week about final services for fans who will be travelling home to certain locations after the game. For example, the 7.07 train from Glasgow is the last ScotRail service to Inverness on both the full May 2022 timetable and the current temporary timetable, so there has been no change to travel options for those fans under the temporary timetable. The 6.41 train from Glasgow is the last ScotRail service to Aberdeen on the temporary timetable, and the 9.40 train was the last service under the May 2022 timetable—fans would not have been able to use that service after the game. The 7.13 train from Glasgow is the last service to Dumfries on the temporary timetable, and the 10.13 train was the final service on the full May 2022 timetable, so fans who stayed until the end of the match would not have been able to use that service. Therefore, for fans in the north and for some fans in the south, the temporary timetable makes little difference. Many of those fans will be travelling by private hire bus.
I am sure that Mr Simpson, like me, would like to take the opportunity to wish Scotland’s men’s team all the best for tomorrow’s match.
Everybody would like to have a pay increase that matches inflation, but that would clearly not be affordable. Will the minister encourage ASLEF and RMT members to accept the pay offer? That would be for the good of the general public, it would help us to recover from the pandemic and it would help us to address climate change.
I agree with the sentiment of the member’s question, although the decision is for ASLEF to make.
The importance of Scotland’s railway to our recovery from the pandemic cannot be underlined enough. In order to address climate change, we need to facilitate a modal shift so that we get folk out of their cars and back on to public transport, particularly rail. We know that patronage has not yet recovered from the effects of the pandemic.
More can be done to address the cost of living crisis. Recently, ScotRail announced a number of ticket offers, and I am keen that such offers continue.
However, we can do very little to take forward our vision for ScotRail—which is largely shared by our trade union partners, who campaigned for public ownership—with reduced timetables and fewer services. I hope that union members will consider the current offer positively and will see it as fair and affordable, so that we can all focus on working together to make public ownership of Scotland’s railways a success.
Previous
Time for Reflection