Chamber and committees

The tragedy has highlighted the need for a safe and resilient railway, but there are plans to cut thousands of safety-critical jobs at Network Rail. Earlier today, the First Minister failed to give a commitment that there will be no compulsory redundancies when ScotRail enters public ownership. Will the minister take action to ensure that those Network Rail cuts are scrapped and give a guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies at ScotRail?

Will the minister take an intervention?

The debate has rightly focused on the further action that is needed to tackle the climate emergency following COP26 as we look ahead to COP27 later this year. My colleague Colin Smyth pointed out that we need to reduce emissions in sectors of the economy, such as domestic transport, where they remain stubbornly high.

Tess White spoke about concerns about the pace of the transition away from fossil fuels. We, in the Labour Party, believe that we need investment in both the production and the distribution of renewable energy through the creation of an asset-owning, publicly owned energy company.

We have heard from Paul McLennan that we need members of the Scottish Parliament who take action and do not just grumble. We also need ministers who act and who will not crumble under pressure from industry lobbying. That means working with trade unions that represent workers in carbon-intensive sectors to create well-paid, secure, green jobs.

I represent offshore oil and gas workers in the north-east, so I understand the importance of delivering those well-paid and secure green jobs as part of a worker-led transition. Those workers are left in a position that sees their transferable skills go unrecognised. At great personal expense, they are often asked to duplicate skills and qualifications that they already have.

The sector’s major training bodies have failed to agree common standards, which has led to the development of rival standards, training modules and qualifications. That market failure cannot continue to go unchallenged by the Government at the expense of workers, which is why I have been working with Friends of the Earth Scotland and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—the RMT—to push the Scottish Government to commit to supporting an offshore training passport, at least in principle.

The First Minister welcomed the idea of an offshore training passport as a constructive proposal when I first raised it with her back in September, yet, despite repeated questioning and correspondence, ministers have refused to commit to supporting an offshore training passport, even in principle. They have continued to avoid responsibility to address the issue of skills transferability in the offshore energy sector, suggesting that it is an issue to be resolved by industry.

However, that position completely ignores the current market failure, which is preventing oil and gas workers from transitioning into greener jobs. When I asked the Scottish Government whether it had engaged with the UK Government and other international parties on the issue of skills transferability at COP26, I was told that no specific conversations on the issue had taken place. I cannot think of a better time than COP26 to have tried to make progress on an issue so vital to delivering a just transition.

In the wake of COP26, SNP MPs at Westminster were given the opportunity to vote in favour of action on skills transferability for oil and gas workers, but they abstained. The Scottish Government’s warm words on the need for a just transition are not matched by any practical actions.

I was due to meet the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity last week to discuss that issue. It was not an easy meeting to secure, yet it was postponed with just a day’s notice. The postponement was apparently due to the minister’s awaiting a significant update and wanting to share substantial progress. The minister is here today. Would she like to share any of that progress with us?

Thank you.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I apologise for the fact that I cannot be there in person. I have a couple of questions on the scientific evidence. I will try to keep my questions short, and I would be grateful for succinct answers.

The Scottish Government’s consultation on the spawning closure cites a study that was undertaken by the Scottish Oceans Institute and the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. Are you aware of that study?

Have Dr Needle and the cabinet secretary seen a final version of the report on that study?

When do you expect a correction on the website to be made?

Do you know how the study was funded?

There are seven papers. Was a mixture of all of them used?

Based on that, following the reduction of the closure area, why has all fishing activity in the border area—the area that is outside the new closure area but within the original closure area—been treated equally?