Scottish Parliament, 15 September 2021

319 contributions from 70 members. The official report.

Justice and Veterans

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. I remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the campus. I ask members to observe the measures, including when entering and exiting the chamber. Please use the aisles and walkways only to access your seat or when you are moving around the chamber.

The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first set of questions is on justice and veterans. I ask members who wish to ask a supplementary question to indicate that in the chat function if they are joining us remotely, or to press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question.

Commercial Sexual Exploitation (Legislative Review)

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to review the legislation on commercial sexual exploitation during the current parliamentary session. (S6O-00133)

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Last week, we published in the programme for government the Scottish Government’s commitment to develop a model that effectively tackles men’s demand for prostitution. We will progress that in this parliamentary term. Due to the complexities of the issue, we require to assess not only the legislative needs of our chosen model but the support that is available for those who are involved in prostitution. We will be commissioning a programme of lived experience engagement to further inform the work.

Many countries have adopted a challenging demand model from which we can learn, and we are working on a comprehensive international review to develop our evidence base and understand key challenges and common principles applied across the approaches.

I know that the member shares my resolve to get this right and supports our overarching aspirations to embed equality and human rights in Scotland.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware of the recent work that the cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation carried out on commercial websites that sell people for sex, which causes misery and turbocharges trafficking. In light of the report, will she look to outlaw online pimping to stop commercial websites profiting from exploitation by advertising prostitution?

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

We are aware of the findings of the cross-party group’s report, which follows its inquiry into websites that host adverts for sexual exploitation. We have previously written to the online platforms, including Vivastreet, to make our concerns clear and help to ensure that people are protected from exploitation. We will continue to develop policy in that area as part of our on-going engagement with the United Kingdom online safety bill, and as part of our work to develop a model for Scotland that challenges men’s demand for prostitution.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The recent equally safe consultation into challenging men’s demand for prostitution highlighted that support for women involved in prostitution should be

“holistic, person-centred, and able to address the multiple, underlying needs of many women.”

Will the minister outline what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that such support is available to those women?

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The consultation highlighted that we need to do more to ensure that women are able to access appropriate support services that can meet their needs. We know that services, including those that help people exit prostitution, are inconsistent across Scotland, and our aim is to address that. As part of that work, I am clear that we need to involve the voices of those involved in prostitution in the design of the services that affect them.

Prisons (Support for Vulnerable People)

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports vulnerable people in the prison system. (S6O-00134)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We recognise that increasing numbers of prisoners have a range of multiple and complex needs. The health needs of the prison population, for example, are particularly challenging. We know that people in custody often have higher rates of substance use issues, mental health problems and complications with physical health in comparison to the general population. The support that is required to address the often multiple needs of vulnerable people in custody can be multifaceted and is delivered through effective joint working between the Scottish Prison Service and a range of partners including social care, health, third sector and education authorities.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

In recent months, there have been a number of serious incidents at Polmont young offenders institution, including a riot and an inmate being scalded. How is the Scottish Government working with the Scottish Prison Service to ensure the safety and wellbeing of young people in Polmont?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The safe treatment of mental health issues of all those in custody, whether in Polmont or elsewhere, is a key priority for Scotland’s prisons and our Prison Service. We take the mental health of all those in custody very seriously. The SPS is developing a new health and wellbeing strategy for the service that recognises the increasing complexities and the underlying health conditions of the prison population in comparison to the wider population. The strategy will focus on a public health approach through the organised efforts of the SPS in partnership with those who have responsibilities for the delivery of healthcare in prisons.

The new health and wellbeing strategy will provide the overarching framework for all health-related strategies, which includes mental health. We are also undertaking a substantial study in relation to the complexity of needs in the area. We will produce a report on that next year, which will inform the strategy that I have mentioned.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Thanks to ITV News, we know that supposedly tamper-proof mobile phones have been hacked and have been used to deal drugs. Organised criminals are targeting vulnerable inmates for the use of their phones. We also know that many of the drugs that come into prison are impregnated in letters.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question, please, Mr Findlay.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Two weeks ago, I asked the cabinet secretary to consider photocopying letters rather than giving the originals in order to stem that flow. What has he done about that?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As I think the member knows, that is quite a complex area. The Prison Service was aware of the issue and is looking at it now. Officials who were present at the committee meeting to which the member refers or who listened into it are examining the proposal. It was a constructive proposal, and I took it in that spirit. I ask the member to give us time to look at it seriously and get back to him.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

A University of Glasgow study of 200 fatal accident inquiries into deaths in custody found that, in 90 per cent of cases, sheriffs made no recommendation to improve practices, which I found surprising. I think that the cabinet secretary mentioned the issue in the tail end of his answer to Gillian Mackay. In view of that study, I thought—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question, please, Ms McNeill.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

I think that the cabinet secretary referred to the independent review into deaths in custody, which have become a serious issue for Scotland. Will the Government commit to implementing its key findings quickly so that we can learn from past mistakes?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I agree with the thrust of what Pauline McNeill says. I cannot answer that in advance of knowing the recommendations, but it is a serious issue and we will look at it seriously. Of course, Parliament and the member will have the chance to question us on that. We take very seriously anything that might improve the situation for prisoners in that area.

National Community Justice Strategy

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how it will develop the national community justice strategy that was announced in the programme for government. (S6O-00135)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We intend to review and revise the national community justice strategy. To inform the review of the current strategy, which is a statutory requirement under the Community Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, we will consult those who work in the community justice sector or closely with it, gathering views from a front-line perspective on how well the strategy has performed over the past five years and what might need to be taken into account in updating it. We will then engage with the public through a consultation exercise to explore what approach a revised strategy might take.

Our aim will be to consider how a revised strategy can be most effective and how it can build on the progress that has been made in recent years, and to set clear aims for all who are involved in delivering services. The views and evidence that are gathered as part of the consultative and collaborative approach will be used in finalising a new and improved national community justice strategy, which we intend to launch next spring.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The supervision requirement of community payback orders is an important part of rehabilitation efforts and reducing the number of people in our prisons. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the strategy will consider the expansion of supervision requirements? Will increased funding be required for front-line third sector community justice services that are involved in the delivery of those requirements?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As confirmed in the programme for government, the new strategy will include an emphasis on early intervention and encouraging a further shift away from the use of custody, where that is appropriate. Community payback orders, which can include supervision as well as a range of other requirements, are a key part of that. Of course, it is up to the sentencing judge to decide on the most appropriate sentence in each individual case, including which requirements might be necessary if a CPO is imposed.

To answer the member’s question directly, we are committed to investing in a substantive expansion of community justice services, which underpin the delivery of community sentences, as well as to the delivery of a system for diversion from prosecution and alternatives to remand. The funding that is available for community justice services will, as always, be subject to the spending review and parliamentary approval of the draft budget in due course.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The previous national strategy for community justice, which was produced back in 2016, promised that our justice system would turn around the behaviour of criminals. Why, therefore, are one in four offenders reconvicted within a year of their release? Did the previous strategy fail?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The review’s purpose is to consider all factors. That is fairly obvious from the fact that such a review was built into the 2016 act, so that we can look at past successes and areas for improvement. There has been substantial improvement in the levels of recidivism, which was an aim of the previous strategy, so there have been successes. The review should look at the matter in the round. The member will, of course, have the chance to comment as the review progresses.

Bairns’ Hooses

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans to introduce “bairns’ hooses”. (S6O-00136)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We believe that every eligible child victim or witness has the right to consistent and holistic support that enables them to have their voice heard, to access specialist services and to recover from their experiences. We have an unashamedly bold aspiration to create our own bairns’ hooses in Scotland. That commitment is obvious in our programme for government, which says that

“all children in Scotland who have been victims or witnesses of abuse or violence, as well as children under the ... age of criminal responsibility whose behaviour has caused ... harm, will have access to a ‘Bairns’ Hoose’ by 2025”.

Yesterday, we published “Bairns’ Hoose—Scottish Barnahaus: vision, values and approach”, which sets out in broad terms our vision of how the barnahus model should be implemented in Scotland, the values that should underpin the model and our approach to its practical implementation.

Our next steps are to establish a national governance group to oversee delivery of the bairns’ hoose model in Scotland, to bring forward standards for the bairns’ hoose and to develop an approach that will build on the momentum of the new Scottish child interview model for joint investigative interviews, which will be introduced nationally over the next three years. Further plans on that will be published at the end of this year.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

As the cabinet secretary said, the bairns’ hoose concept has the potential to transform how children in Scotland interact with the criminal justice system. I would be grateful if he could outline how the plans will ensure that there is better access for children in island and more remote areas. I am thinking about my constituency, the southern part of which is separated from the northern part by 130 miles and two bodies of water.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

That is a very good question. I have already had discussions with ministers in other portfolios who have responsibility in the area to see how we will address that issue. The idea is that we should not retraumatise victims by asking them to move between locations to have the same interview and give the same evidence. That is an important consideration that comes towards the end of the programme, although early thought is being given to how we can make the system as accessible as possible.

We agree on the overarching principles, and we should give local delivery partners the flexibility to adapt the model to their local contexts. We recognise the challenges of delivery in rural settings such as Alasdair Allan’s constituency; he is quite right to raise that issue.

Our approach will be based on the European “Barnahus Quality Standards” and should be flexible enough to allow local authorities to tailor barnahus to suit local circumstances while also ensuring a degree of national consistency for all children who are eligible for services.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I would appreciate slightly shorter answers so that we can get in as many questions as possible.

Not Proven Verdict (Removal)

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its planned consultation on the removal of the not proven verdict. (S6O-00137)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As I made clear in the chamber last week, our programme for government sets out our plans to launch a public consultation on the three-verdict system within this parliamentary year.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

The SNP-Green programme for government stops short of committing to abolishing the not proven verdict. In 2019-20, that verdict was used in 25 per cent of rape cases, even though it was used in only 1 per cent of criminal trials that proceeded to court. Victims have said that the verdict gives them no sense of justice and no closure, so why is the Scottish Government making them wait for years to find out whether the unjust verdict will be abolished?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We believe that a very strong argument in favour of that has been presented by the people to whom Oliver Mundell refers, but other people have a different point of view, including many members of the legal profession.

There are two reasons why we are not abolishing the verdict straight away. The first is that there is no point in holding a consultation if we are not going to listen to what people have to say; we want to hear what people have to say on the issue.

The second reason is that the not proven verdict has a relationship with other parts of the justice system, so we should take that into account. There are interdependences in relation to the two-verdict or three-verdict system, the jury system and so on. It is only right that we take a sustainable approach, so that we can get to the right solution.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Can the cabinet secretary assure us that, should we move towards a two-verdict system, we will consider the option of verdicts of proven and not proven, and nothing else?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Again, I point out that there are different views on the issue. People in the legal profession in particular, but not uniquely, favour the solution that John Mason has mentioned. Those verdicts are considered ones that juries would understand, as is the case with guilty and not guilty.

We also recognise that a distinction between proven and not proven might be too lawyerly and not quite as obvious to the general public, and that it could perpetuate the stigma and confusion that some people believe the system currently produces. It is right that we consider that as part of the consultation.

Remand Prisoners

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to reduce the number of prisoners who are on remand. (S6O-00138)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have said in the chamber previously that I am clear that action is needed on remand. I know that other parties share that view.

The effect of Covid-19 on the courts has impacted hugely on remand numbers. We have invested £50 million to support the operation of the criminal courts to help to increase throughput of cases, thereby—we hope—lessening the need for remand.

However, it is fair to say that concern about remand pre-dates Covid-19, which is why our programme for government included a commitment to consult on reform in that area, with the introduction of legislative change in year 1 of this session of Parliament.

We continue to invest in and support provision of alternatives to remand, including additional investment in bail supervision and implementation of electronically monitored bail.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

In April, the Howard League for Penal Reform revealed that more than 40 per cent of young people in prison were on remand and were waiting longer for trials. The Law Society of Scotland has even warned that there is now a perverse incentive to plead guilty, because one might spend less time in jail.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the shocking numbers of remand prisoners, which add to prison overcrowding, show that there is a real need for urgent action to get more of our courts open and running in order to deal with the huge backlog of cases that has built up during Covid?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

My previous answer acknowledged the urgent need with regard to both the situation before Covid-19 and how it has been exacerbated since. It is true that we have to consider matters such as the people who are held on remand because the court is not certain that they will be available or that they will come to a subsequent hearing.

Colin Smyth is right that we have to increase the pace of cases going through the courts. We have done that through remote jury courts and through the substantial expansion of sheriff courts this month. The fact that we are taking legislation through in the first year of the session shows the urgency with which the Government is treating that issue.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

One of the 12 new bills that the programme for government announced was the proposed bail and release from custody bill. In what ways is it intended that the bill will address use of remand for prisoners?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Following from my previous response, I say that it would be good to get, if possible, consensus in Parliament on that issue. Decision making on bail and remand is for the court, but Parliament sets the legislative framework. Prior to Covid-19, 20 per cent of the prison population was on remand; the figure is now 27 per cent. Recent increases reflect the unique circumstances of the pandemic, but concerns are long-standing.

I intend to publish in the autumn a consultation on possible changes to bail law that will seek views on emphasising the importance of public safety as an essential requirement for remand. It will also propose legislative changes to ensure an enhanced focus on victim safety, improvement of the information that is available to the court when it makes a bail decision, and expansion of the services that are available to support the process of reintegration into the community of prisoners who leave remand.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

One risk when releasing prisoners from remand is that, all too often, victims are the ones who pay the price.

I wrote to the cabinet secretary last week about a family who had previously contacted his office. An individual who was repeatedly released from custody devastated the lives of that family through a campaign of harassment and intimidation. The Scottish Government has promised the introduction of a victims commissioner in order to prevent similar situations. Can the cabinet secretary tell us when we can expect to see the commissioner take up post?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have every sympathy for the case of the member’s constituent, but it is—again—important to say that it is the courts, not the Scottish Government, that make decisions on remand. The Scottish Government is specifically prohibited from involving itself in such decisions.

We can address such situations through the legislative framework, which is why we will introduce legislation on which all members will have the chance to have a say. We previously said what we intend to do with regard to the victims commissioner. It is important, and we want to ensure, that the victims organisations that currently exist—some of which have concerns about the introduction of a victims commissioner—have their say before we proceed.

Covid-19 (Safety of Prison Officers and Prisoners)

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what measures have been put in place to keep prison officers and prisoners safe during the Covid-19 pandemic. (S6O-00139)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

To the credit of prison staff, health staff and prisoners, for the vast majority of this pandemic our prisons have seen low infection rates, and the operation of our prisons has remained safe and stable, especially given that early concerns were, rightly, expressed.

Personal protective equipment was provided to all staff and prisoners at the outset of the pandemic, and robust infection-control measures were put in place to limit potential transmission. Recognition of Scottish Prison Service staff as key workers also provided access to symptomatic testing early in the pandemic. The roll-out of asymptomatic testing now offers all SPS staff the opportunity to participate in the weekly testing programme.

Following implementation of the SPS pandemic plan, some prison regime changes were put in place to help to mitigate the risk of infection, including minimising the number of individuals who come into contact with prisoners and maintaining physical distancing between individuals. As of 6 September, SPS establishments are undertaking asymptomatic testing of all individuals who come into custody from court. Covid vaccination also continues to be offered, and establishments are actively encouraging all prisoners to participate.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer, but I am receiving deeply concerning reports that, as a direct consequence of changes to prisoners’ routine during lockdown, consumption of illicit drugs, including the psychoactive substance etizolam, has risen exponentially. That has resulted in an increase in violence and erratic behaviour from prisoners. Just two days ago at HMP Shotts, two prison officers were stabbed.

That is also resulting in an increasing number of prisoners requiring hospital treatment, and they are having to be taken to hospital by prison officers because—I am told—GEOAmey is unable to fulfil its contractual obligations. Will the cabinet secretary tell us what his plans are to tackle the epidemic of drug use that is sweeping through our prisons?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I thank Richard Leonard for his question, which touches on a number of areas. Of course, we are alive to some of the issues that he has brought up, especially use of psychoactive drugs, whose effect on inmates tends to be much more challenging for prison officers than are the effects of other drugs.

We want to eradicate all drugs from the prison system, so new technology is being looked at, on top of the existing measures.

However, it is true to say—I do not shrink from the fact—that dealing with the pandemic and the threat of infection in prisons has limited some operations, so we have to balance the risks as best we can. The introduction of new technology that should help with some of the drugs that Richard Leonard talked about will be one stage in doing that, but a more profound change in how the prison system deals with drug abuse among prisoners has to take place, so we are also considering that.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

What steps have been taken to ensure that prisoners can still contact friends and family in a Covid-safe manner?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The introduction of technology for virtual visits, prison-issued mobile phones in SPS establishments, and cell phones in HMP Kilmarnock have enabled contact to be maintained between people who are in custody and their friends and families. Since implementation, more than 56,900 virtual visits have taken place in the SPS.

The SPS has put in place precautionary measures, informed by public health guidance, to make in-person visits as safe as possible.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It has emerged that hundreds of seemingly tamper-proof mobile phones that were given to prisoners during the pandemic have been hacked and are being used to facilitate drug deals. What immediate action is being taken to discipline the perpetrators and to prevent such criminal activity on the prison estate?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Tess White should know that prisoners being disciplined is a matter for the Scottish Prison Service. It takes those decisions. If the member wishes, I can ask the interim chief executive of the SPS to respond to her.

The member quite rightly mentioned that the phones are tamper-proof. Their benefits have been huge in relation to managing prison services that cannot operate as they did in the past.

I will say one final thing. Discipline within prisons is much harder to maintain with 68-year-old prison officers. That is the effect of the Government that the member supports pushing the pension age back to 68. We should never have 68-year-old prison officers trying to exercise the kind of discipline that Tess White spoke about.

Shooting Ranges and Firearms (Control, Use and Licensing)

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when it last discussed the control, use and licensing of shooting ranges and firearms with Police Scotland. (S6O-00140)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Scottish Government is in regular contact with Police Scotland regarding a variety of firearms licensing matters. Officials and police work together to manage complementary licensing systems and to ensure that firearms are possessed and used safely across Scotland.

The Scottish ministers have no role in approving shooting ranges. It is for Police Scotland to be satisfied as to the safety of any land where firearms are used.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Eskdalemuir is home to the Samye Ling Buddhist monastery and many agricultural holdings with livestock. There are concerns in the community about the Clerkhill and Over Cassock ranges, in the vicinity of which high-velocity 50-calibre weapons are used. Given that both ranges are operating sporadically under the 28-day planning rule, could the cabinet secretary undertake to properly look into the situation? In principle, would he consider removing shooting activities from the 28-day planning rule?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Planning legislation is not within my remit. The member has rightly raised the issue with me previously; she might want to talk to the ministers who are responsible for that.

I appreciate that the matter is of significant concern to her and the community. I will ensure that my officials engage closely with Police Scotland regarding shooting ranges in Eskdalemuir valley. I understand that the police have already visited the ranges in question several times in recent months to assess their safety and operation, and that they plan to do so again in the near future.

As I said, planning matters—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That will have to do, cabinet secretary.

Finance and Economy

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next set of questions is on the finance and economy portfolio. If members want to ask a supplementary, I ask them to press their request-to-speak button or put an R in the chat function during the relevant question.

Green Economy (Support for Businesses)

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support businesses in relation to developing a sustainable green economy. (S6O-00141)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Businesses are crucial to achieving net zero. Funding and technical support for businesses to develop a sustainable green economy is being provided through our enterprise and skills agencies.

In advance of the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—we have also targeted commitments to drive opportunities for Scottish businesses. For example, we have set out an additional £2 billion of infrastructure investment over the parliamentary session to stimulate demand and create jobs in the net zero transition. That includes our £100 million green jobs fund to offer support to businesses to invest in green products and services, and in research and development.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The minister will be aware of a recent report that said that half of Scottish businesses are yet to develop a net zero policy. Does he agree that the focus on new green jobs in the green economy forgets the importance of helping current industry to become greener, which is just as important in the drive towards a green economy?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Brian Whittle makes a number of valid points. It is important that we all work together across the chamber to raise awareness of net zero among Scotland’s business community, as businesses will be at the heart of this country’s success in creating thousands of new green jobs and achieving our targets.

Of course, there is the race to zero, which is the commitment that we ask Scottish businesses to sign up to to achieve net zero. As this week is climate week, we are using it to promote that message. Members may wish to do so locally in their constituencies.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Can the minister provide an update on the Scottish Government’s work to support workers in carbon-intensive sectors to upskill, reskill and transition to the green jobs of the future?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

As Mr Kidd mentioned, ensuring that people have good green jobs is crucial to achieving our net zero targets and delivering a just transition. There are a number of measures in place. We have our climate emergency skills action plan. Flowing from that, we have the national transition training fund, which is funding a lot of programmes across the country to ensure that employees are able to retrain and upskill for greener industries, if that is required. In addition, we recently launched our green jobs skills academy. On top of that, the programme for government included a commitment on a skills guarantee for anyone who is in a carbon-intensive industry who wishes to retrain for a job in a lower-carbon sector.

There are a number of initiatives under way. The issue is absolutely at the heart of a just transition for the people of Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Sue Webber.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

I think that I have a supplementary question after Mr Johnson.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is fine; we will

move to question 2.

Fiscal Framework (Review)

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

2.

To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made on agreeing the scope of the fiscal framework review, scheduled for 2022, with the United Kingdom Government. (S6O-00142)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

We are actively engaging with the UK Government—and have been since December—on options for the scope of the review as well as the independent report that precedes it. I believe that the review and preceding report should be broad in scope to give full consideration to how the framework has performed and to assess how Brexit and the pandemic have impacted funding arrangements. I have been pushing for a meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to take place as quickly as possible to progress that.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Recent research by the Fraser of Allander Institute and others has noted that the UK Government is, as the cabinet secretary confirmed, seeking a very narrow scope to the review. Does she agree that it needs to be broadened out to consider, for example, the sufficiency of capital borrowing powers and the policy risks that arise when UK Government decisions constrain the Scottish Government?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I strongly agree on the need for a broad scope. I think that that position is also shared by a number of external stakeholders. Obviously, we have had a parliamentary session’s worth of experience. We need to give proper consideration to how the framework is performing. It is critical that the Scottish Parliament and Government have in place appropriate powers and flexibilities in order to manage the risks that we face through the operation of the framework, respond to fast-evolving pressures and challenges, and tackle economic recovery.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What measures will the Scottish Government put in place to assist with improving the transparency

in Scottish Government fiscal policy, given the concerns that we heard at the Finance and Public Administration Committee yesterday about the need for much better understanding of the fiscal framework and Audit Scotland’s concerns about enhanced financial transparency?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

That is a very important question. The fiscal framework and the devolution of tax powers are still relatively new, and it is important that we are as transparent as possible and help the public and other stakeholders to understand how those things operate. Last year, we took a number of steps to aid that transparency, including an additional budget revision during the year and the publication of the medium-term financial strategy. However, I am open to suggestions, including from the

Finance and Public Administration Committee

, as to how that can be bolstered.

Ferries

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

3.

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with Ferguson Marine regarding the building of vessels for Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd. (S6O-00143)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I visited the yard and spoke directly to workers on 25 August. I also regularly meet the chair and turnaround director to monitor progress, most recently on 17 August. I will meet the full board at the yard on 23 September.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

As the cabinet secretary will know, I am not just the local MSP; I grew up in the town and my father worked for the yard before he passed away. I am a huge supporter of the workforce and the yard, and its future is bigger than one person.

After yesterday’s news about the two Islay vessels, which was uncomfortable but not unexpected, will the cabinet secretary instigate a change of management at the yard to ensure that the men and women of Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Ltd have a future, and will she agree to meet me to discuss the future of the yard?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I certainly agree to meet Stuart McMillan and I agree with his sentiment about how important it is to ensure a long-term future for the yard. I emphasise that all our actions and decisions must be to ensure that the vessels are completed and that the yard has a long-term future. I weigh up all decisions within my own powers on that basis.

Leadership matters, and I am closely monitoring progress at the yard through the board, which, ultimately, oversees operational matters and holds management accountable for performance. As I said, I will meet the board next week. I have been crystal clear with the board’s management that I expect—no ifs, no buts—the two vessels to be completed and the yard to get into a position to compete successfully for tenders.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

When is the turnaround director going to turn anything around at the yard, and when is somebody’s head going to roll over this shambles?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

On the basis of recent progress, we need to ensure that the two priorities that I just outlined are met. The first is that the two vessels are completed. We have seen progress at the yard, but we still need to get the two vessels over the line. As I mentioned in my previous answer, having most recently visited the yard at the end of August and spoken directly to workers, I am confident that progress is being made.

The second priority is about future opportunities. The yard has two substantial vessels to complete. The new order is not for the last CMAL vessel; in fact, it is the first procurement of £580 million of investment over the next five years

to bring new vessels into service, including up to seven new ships under phase 1 of the small vessel replacement programme. Although, in line with normal procurement rules, we have no role, we want to ensure that the yard is in a position to compete successfully for those tenders on an international basis.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The Government’s announcement yesterday was a hammer blow for Scottish shipbuilding. It is about time that ministers took responsibility for the Scottish National Party’s on-going ferries fiasco. Turning around Ferguson’s means no more delays to current contracts and filling the order book again. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that she will rule out any further delays to MV Glen Sannox and hull 802—yes or no? Were existing delays a factor in Ferguson’s not making the short list? Will she publish the assessment criteria? Given public concern, will she suspend the process and consider again making a direct award to the yard?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

There were a lot of questions in there and I might not get through all of them.

On one of the questions, on behalf of island communities, we should recognise that yesterday’s announcement regarding two new vessels for ferry routes was important and welcome. We know—I certainly do, given that I represent island communities that rely on lifeline ferries—just how important it is to ensure that there are new ferries on those lifeline services.

On the other questions, I monitor the process closely through the board, which I meet regularly. I have been crystal clear that we expect the two vessels to be delivered and for the yard to be in a position to compete. The turnaround director will update the committee at the end of September, as previously set out.

ATMs (Use and Accessibility)

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with stakeholders regarding continued ATM use and accessibility. (S6O-00144)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The minister, Ivan McKee, is joining us remotely.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Although we are encouraged to use contactless payments due to the pandemic, we recognise that that is not always possible for everyone. Limited ATM accessibility is a matter of great concern affecting many communities across Scotland.

Scottish Government ministers engage regularly with the banking sector through bilateral ministerial meetings and the financial services industry advisory board.

The

Scottish Government stands ready to work constructively with the United Kingdom Government, banks and other stakeholders to ensure that customers, local communities and businesses have access to the banking facilities that they need.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I have spoken to ATM provider Notemachine, which highlighted that higher rates paid by ATMs in Scotland have not been considered in the setting of interchange fees applied across the United Kingdom. That results in particular pressure on ATMs in Scotland: it means that more money has to be withdrawn per machine to meet costs, which can cause real problems in poorer areas. What interventions are open to the Scottish Government to assist in keeping the cost of those machines affordable, so that they remain equally available to communities across Scotland?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government already delivers a number of reliefs for ATM sites, such as continuing to ensure that sites in rural areas are exempt from rates where the building is used only for the ATM, and, more widely, that there is up to 100 per cent rates relief through the small business bonus scheme. Each local council has wide-ranging powers to create rates reliefs to reflect local needs under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2014. Shops that have an ATM inside them might also be eligible for 100 per cent retail, hospitality, leisure and aviation relief in 2020-21 and 2021-22.

I am meeting the chief executive officer of the Financial Conduct Authority on Thursday 16 September, when I will directly raise the issue of access to cash infrastructure.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

An alternative to ATMs for many has been to withdraw cash from their local post office, but we have seen a large number of post office closures. How will the Government ensure that our vulnerable and elderly can access their cash without being short changed by extortionate fees?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The member will be aware that financial services are reserved. We continue to work with the UK Government and others to ensure that services are maintained. As I indicated, I am meeting the FCA shortly, and access to cash infrastructure across Scotland will be a subject for discussion.

National Health Service Funding (Barnett Consequentials)

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how the finance secretary plans to allocate the Barnett consequentials arising from the United Kingdom Government’s recent announcement of additional funding for NHS England. (S6O-00145)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

We are committed to passing on all health and care resource consequentials to health and social care. We have sought urgent clarity from the UK Government on the level of net additional consequentials that will arise from the recent announcement. Despite that request, the UK Government has not, as yet, given a firm guarantee on the value of the consequentials and that that will be a net addition to the budget. I am sure that the member will join me in urging the UK Government to provide that clarity and ensure that the funding is additional.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Clarity is important, of course. The need for my question is best set out in the report that Audit Scotland published today, to which Liz Smith referred.

Will the cabinet secretary be specific? Will she commit to publishing the schedule of regular budget and spend updates that transparency demands, rather than have the Parliament rely on ad hoc budget revisions?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The member makes a valid point about ensuring that the Parliament is kept updated about progress on spend.

That is why, last year, I tried to do additional budget revisions.

One of the challenges that we face, to which the Audit Scotland report alludes, is that when announcements are made south of the border, the figures are often not confirmed until very late in the financial year. That makes it difficult for us, as we must use estimates to make decisions without having the clarity of a fixed figure. Last year, we had the guarantee, which helped, and I call on the UK Government to reinstate the guarantee, to help us to provide transparency to the Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is a supplementary question from Sue Webber.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

This time, Presiding Officer.

Last week, Scottish National Party members of Parliament in Westminster voted against £1.1 billion of extra national health service funding. Even though our health service is in crisis and the

SNP Government has called for more money from the UK Government, SNP MPs refused to back an annual extra £1.1 billion for Scotland’s NHS and social services. Will the cabinet secretary explain why the SNP MPs voted against giving more money to the NHS and social care in Scotland?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The member somewhat mischaracterises what happened last week. If she can confirm that that money is indeed additional to our budget and that every penny will come to the Scottish Government, we will ensure that it goes directly on front-line spend.

The issue with a rise in national insurance, which has been well documented, is that it will have a devastating impact on some of our most vulnerable working families. This is the first time that I have heard a Tory call tax rises a union dividend.

Covid 19 (Funding for Ventilation in Schools)

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with the education secretary regarding the allocation of additional funding to improve ventilation in schools to help reduce the spread of Covid-19. (S6O-00146)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The education secretary and I agree that ventilation is one of the most important ways in which we can reduce the risk of airborne Covid-19 transmission and keep our schools as safe as possible.

We are providing local authorities with an additional £10 million, to ensure that schools and childcare settings have access to carbon dioxide monitoring, and a previous allocation of £90 million of Covid-19 logistics funding was provided to local authorities to use for improved ventilation.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I welcome those comments, but CO2

monitoring relates not to ventilation but to the build-up of a gas that might indicate a risk of Covid.

How is the Scottish Government measuring the effectiveness of the spend? Will adequate funding be provided to local councils, so that the education estate can be maintained properly?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The member has asked a legitimate and important question. A reporting mechanism has been established to track the progress of each local authority, following agreement with local authorities. It covers four key areas and requests details on the purchase and supply of monitors, additional staff training requirements, building assessments and, most important, impacts and remedial action.

Local authorities are keeping us updated on significant developments, particularly in relation to the identification of high-risk poorly ventilated areas and the remedial action that is being taken.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 7 is from Alexander Burnett, who joins us remotely.

Scottish Ambulance Service (Funding)

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with the health secretary regarding the allocation of additional funding for the Scottish Ambulance Service to increase staffing and resources, particularly in rural and remote areas. (S6O-00147)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

As a member who represents a rural and remote area, I know the importance of the question. Scotland’s Ambulance Service has been under significant pressure due to the pandemic, with ambulance staff at the forefront of our response. The service is currently carrying out a national review of demand and capacity, which will ensure that the right resources are in place across the country, including in rural and remote areas, to help to meet current and—importantly—future demand.

We have made available £10.5 million last year and £20 million this year to support the review. That has already resulted in the north gaining a total of 67 extra front-line staff—a mixture of experienced paramedics, newly qualified paramedics, technicians and patient transport staff.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer; I know that her constituency faces the same problems as mine. In my constituency of Aberdeenshire West, Braemar has had significant issues with ambulance services, which has led to tragic consequences.

I have been in contact with the Scottish Ambulance Service and Braemar community council, but funding is a major issue. The community is looking at the cost of purchasing a 4x4 Caravelle ambulance to replace the existing co-responder there. Has it come to that? Are communities now so abandoned by the Scottish Government that they must fundraise for their own emergency services, or does the cabinet secretary endorse Humza Yousaf’s view that people in rural areas should think twice before calling 999?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I will always represent people in rural areas—as I said, I represent some of the most remote and rural areas in the country.

The points that Alexander Burnett raised will not all be solved through funding. I have already outlined the funding position and, coming up to next year’s budget, I will discuss health spend with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. The Scottish Ambulance Service’s budget rose in real terms by 17.7 per cent between 2011 and 2021.

However, in the light of the very serious issues that Alexander Burnett raises, I am sure that if he were to raise them with the health secretary, the health secretary would look into the specifics. I would be happy to pass on a note as result of this exchange.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Can the cabinet secretary assure us that the allocation of funds takes into account that the problem of ambulances being unavailable, certainly in my region of South Scotland, has been exacerbated by ambulance crews having to wait at hospitals for record periods of time to hand over patients, and that fixing the problem requires greater staffing and resources at all points of the emergency service chain?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

T

he member raises an important point about the integration of health and social care as a full service and the need to ensure that investment in one part of the health service relieves pressure elsewhere. That is a key theme in our remobilisation plan “Re-mobilise, Recover, Re-design: the framework for NHS Scotland”. I make it clear that, when we come to next year’s budget, we will look carefully across the NHS and health and social care to ensure that we spend money in the right places to relieve pressures elsewhere.

Covid-19 (Funding for Culture, the Arts and Events)

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with the culture secretary regarding the allocation of funding for the culture, arts and events sectors in light of the impact of Covid-19. (S6O-00148)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

We recognise the value of culture and its importance in our recovery, and that is why substantial funding was made available during Covid for businesses that work in the culture, arts and events sector. I have regular dialogue with the culture secretary as part of Cabinet discussions, and those will be on-going as we prepare for next year’s budget.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

A recent Skills Development Scotland sectoral skills assessment report on the creative industries forecast an increase in gross value added of 28 per cent in the sector by 2031 from the current level. That will be good news for my constituents in Edinburgh and the Lothians, and for the economy more generally.

Can the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government will open up and increase career paths in the creative industries for those who are currently marginalised and excluded from those opportunities, such as those from working-class backgrounds, black and minority ethnic communities and other underrepresented communities?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I thank the member for that question, which is hugely important. He reflects on the contribution that the culture sector makes to our economic performance—we recognise that contribution, as I hope will be reflected in our 10-year economic strategy, which will be published in autumn.

SDS needs to take career paths in the creative industries seriously, and we need to ensure that there are equal opportunities. As that is not directly within my portfolio, I would be happy to raise it with my colleague to ensure that he is addressing the specific issues that the member raises.

Cervical Screening (Update)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a statement by Maree Todd on an update on cervical screening. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

In June, I informed Parliament of a serious incident in the cervical screening programme. I am here to set out how we continue to address that issue and to reassure members that steps are being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.

As I am mindful of the complexity of the issue, I again ask for a degree of patience while I summarise the background. In December 2020, a national health service board, following its annual invasive cervical cancer audit, discovered that a small number of women had been incorrectly excluded from the cervical screening programme and had subsequently developed cervical cancer. As I explained in June, sadly, one of those women has died.

That happened because the women were incorrectly recorded as having had total hysterectomies when they had, in fact, had subtotal hysterectomies. Members will remember that women who have had their cervix completely removed do not need to be screened for cervical cancer but women should continue to be screened if they have had a subtotal hysterectomy, which leaves some or all of the cervix.

I confirmed in June that immediate safeguards were implemented to ensure that similar mistakes could not happen again. An urgent review into exclusions was also conducted by an adverse event management team consisting of senior gynaecologists, pathologists, public health experts and others.

That review confirmed other instances of incorrect exclusions across Scotland. For clarity, I will update on the work in three parts: the first part of the audit, which reviewed exclusions where records indicated that a subtotal hysterectomy had been performed from 1997 onwards; the second part, which reviewed exclusions where records indicated that a subtotal hysterectomy had been performed before 1997; and plans for a wider audit of other exclusions from the cervical screening programme.

In June, NHS boards sent letters to 434 individuals who had been excluded despite indications on their records that a subtotal hysterectomy had been carried out since 1997. The audit focused on that time period because records of procedures before 1997 are stored differently and can be more difficult to access. Contacted individuals were either reinstated to the screening programme and asked to make an appointment with their general practitioner or offered gynaecology appointments when they were above the upper age range for screening or their records could not conclusively show that their exclusion was correct.

I confirm that, of the 220 people who were asked to make a GP appointment to be screened, 112 have had samples taken. Those who have not yet made an appointment will be contacted again by the NHS, and I urge anyone affected who has not yet made that appointment with their GP to do so. You will be prioritised and will find supportive and understanding staff when you go.

I also confirm that 130 out of the 215 people who were invited have attended a gynaecology appointment. Of those, 90 people were found to have a cervix but only 65 required to be reinstated into the programme because they remain in the eligible age range for screening. A small number of people have not yet attended a clinic because they chose to reschedule their appointment to a later date, and 68 people did not attend, declined or cancelled their appointment without rescheduling.

Again, my advice to anyone who has not yet attended is to please contact your health board—it is not too late to rearrange an appointment. The clinic will be aware of your situation and they will do everything that they can to support you.

Members will understand that some results are still being processed, but only seven people seen at either their GP or a clinic have so far needed to be referred for further investigations, and no cases of cancer have been detected. In those seven cases in which pre-cancerous cell changes have been found, those involved have been treated through our standard care pathways.

The second part of the audit focused on people who had a subtotal hysterectomy before 1997 and had been excluded from the screening programme. That work concluded as expected at the end of July, and letters were sent to around a further 170 individuals by 18 August. I once again offer my sincere apologies to anyone who has been affected for the anxiety that I know this will have caused.

Thirty-nine people were reinstated in the programme and were invited to make an appointment for screening with their GP, and 132 were offered a gynaecology appointment. Where possible, I will keep members informed of the outcomes in future updates.

Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust continues to make its helpline available for anyone who is affected or concerned by this issue. It can be reached by calling 0808 802 8000 or via email at helpline@jostrust.org.uk.

To ensure that care for those affected is prioritised, the Scottish Government has provided additional funding to health boards so that gynaecology appointments can be offered as quickly as possible. In total, we have now provided more than £60,000 to support both reviews, and we will continue to make financial support available for boards that require it.

Alongside that audit, clinical teams have completed a review of the cancer registry to ascertain whether there are other cases in which an exclusion may have contributed to cervical cancer. In most cases, they were able to establish that the exclusion was not associated with the development of cervical cancer. However, I am sorry to say that, while it is still not possible to be certain, there is a high level of clinical suspicion that in one case inappropriate exclusion from screening may have resulted in a cervical cancer diagnosis. Separately, there is another very complex case in which several factors may have contributed to a diagnosis of cervical cancer, including an incorrect exclusion from cervical screening.

I have explained that the audit of women who had subtotal hysterectomies and were excluded from the programme was prioritised because those are the cases in which there was most reason to suspect errors. When I last spoke to the Parliament, I said that work was under way to consider the appropriateness of around 2,000 permanent exclusions from the cervical screening programme, which have been made over decades. I can now say that the adverse event management team has recommended that all of those records should be individually reviewed.

I must be open with you that, given the complexity and the numbers involved, it is likely that more people will be discovered to have been wrongly excluded. I know that that will concern people who have been excluded, but I hope that I can offer some reassurance. First, the overwhelming majority of those exclusions will be correct. We know that around 95 per cent of the hysterectomies that are carried out in Scotland are total, and women who have had a total hysterectomy do not need to be screened. Secondly, the risk of cervical cancer in general affects fewer than one in every 100 women in Scotland across their lifetime. Thirdly, there are dedicated NHS staff who are committed to completing this work as quickly as possible and to bringing all their considerable expertise to doing so. To them I offer my thanks for all the hard work that I know it will involve.

Planning and conducting the audit is extremely challenging, both because of the sheer scale of the task and because of the sometimes complex nature of the hysterectomy procedure. However, the NHS is working to develop and test a robust process involving teams of administrative and clinical staff spanning primary and secondary care, which will ensure that all records can be reviewed consistently. As members will appreciate, that will be an especially challenging task as the NHS continues to recover from the impacts of Covid-19. As the methodology is still being developed and the timescales are not yet finalised, I must say now that the wider review is likely to take at least 12 months to complete.

However, the records that are to be reviewed will be prioritised on the basis of risk, informed by clinical advice. Work to complete the audits will happen in parallel with work to care for those who have been identified as wrongly excluded. The NHS will not wait for the full audit to complete before beginning to contact and assess those affected. I recognise that people whose records are being reviewed will want and need to know how long they will have to wait for the outcomes of the review. The NHS will make sure that those affected are informed about progress, and I will update the Parliament as often as is required.

It is vital to stress, once again, that the safety of the screening process itself is not in doubt. What happened here involves errors regarding who should be invited for screening; it does not reflect on the way in which samples are taken or analysed. Everyone should be clear that screening is the most effective way of preventing cervical cancer—it can and does save lives. It is for that reason that we must maintain confidence in the programme and ensure that everyone who needs screening has the opportunity to receive it.

Our priority has been to address the current errors and do all that we can to prevent anyone else coming to harm. It has become apparent that some instances of incorrect exclusions were discovered in the course of previous data checks, incidents and reviews in 2006, 2015, 2016 and 2017. Those were more limited reviews, which were conducted within narrower parameters than those of the current audit. The errors that were uncovered at the time were corrected, and it was believed that all issues had been resolved. Nonetheless, I am acutely aware that we must consider whether opportunities were missed to identify the wider issues that are now being investigated. That is essential if we are to fully understand what happened in the past and prevent similar incidents in the future.

Therefore, I have commissioned Healthcare Improvement Scotland to carry out a review of the processes, systems and governance for the application and management of permanent exclusions in the cervical screening programme in Scotland. The review will draw on lessons from past adverse events, as well as on the learning from other screening programmes in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is important to acknowledge that significant strengthening of national screening programme governance has already taken place over recent years, including the development of a robust process to manage adverse events.

The review will be led by an independent chair from outwith Scotland and supported by an expert review group. I have asked Healthcare Improvement Scotland to take forward the work with urgency, and I will update the Parliament when that appointment is made.

It is important to stress that the cervical screening programme continues to be the best way to prevent cancer before it starts. However, it is also important to say again that anyone who has any concerns about the symptoms of cervical cancer—including unusual discharge, bleeding between periods or after sex, and bleeding after the menopause—should contact their GP straight away for an appointment.

The NHS has established and delivered a pathway for those affected by the incident, and it is developing plans to review the records of all those who have been permanently excluded from cervical screening.

Finally, I have commissioned a review to look back and ensure that we can learn lessons, so that arrangements around exclusion are strengthened for the future.

Once again, I extend the offer to meet Opposition spokespeople should they wish to discuss the matter further. I will continue to update the Parliament as the work progresses.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, minister. I appreciate the importance and sensitivity of the statement, although I am slightly concerned that we have run over time, which will eat into the time that is available for questions. Perhaps we can revisit how we will manage such situations in the future.

I will allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will have to move on to the next item of business. Any member who wants to ask a question should press their request-to-speak button or type R in the chat function.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement.

I echo her remarks that the cervical screening programme remains the best way to prevent cervical cancer.

The error has had a profound effect on the women involved, so they deserve answers as soon as possible. Will the Scottish Government commit to the independent review being a full inquiry into why the women were excluded unnecessarily and the effect that that has had?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I a

pologise—my team has just contacted me to say that I inadvertently said that 2,000 records were to be reviewed, when I should have said 200,000.

The women are absolutely at the heart of the decision. I put on the record how heart sorry I am that we are in this situation. Our concern for the women who have been affected and their families, and the need for sensitive care and communication, have been at the heart of development of our response to the situation. I assure members that the women will be kept informed about how we progress and how the situation unfolds.

Again, I give the assurance that I will keep Parliament informed. I am more than happy to keep Opposition spokespeople informed, as well.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The matter remains, unfortunately, a huge scandal. Concerns were raised in 2015, 2016 and 2017. In 2016, there were 29 inappropriate exclusions and in 2017, there were 11 inappropriate exclusions. Why were all the cases of women who were wrongly excluded from cervical cancer screening not picked up after the 2016 audit or, indeed, after the 2017 audit? Why did we have to force that information from the Government using freedom of information requests? Why did we need to wait until another case was discovered in December 2020 for that wider review? On what basis does the minister say it was believed that all issues were resolved, when clearly they were not and recommendations were ignored?

After her previous statement, I specifically asked the minister why the issue was not picked up by previous audits and her response was that

“no cases were found through that national audit system until 2020”.—[

Official Report,

24 June 2021; c 30.]

That is patently inaccurate, given the previous audits. I hope that the minister will correct the parliamentary record.

However, more important is that we will never know whether that gross oversight contributed to the deaths of three women who deserved so much better. Will the minister apologise for the Scottish Government’s failure and assure the chamber that it will never happen again?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The audits, incidents and reviews that previously took place were all more limited in scope, with very different starting points from the current incident and a narrower focus of investigation. Because of that, those historical audits could not have picked up the wider issues that we have now identified. In particular, none of the previous reviews would have picked up the small number of cases that first brought the incident to light when they were discovered by one health board in December 2020.

Furthermore, and importantly, there was consensus among Scottish screening exercises that the errors that had been identified in the earlier audits had been corrected, and that the issues that had caused them had been resolved. We have been advised by clinicians who are involved in the screening programme that, given the available evidence at the time, the audits were considered to be an appropriate and proportionate response.

However, like Jackie Baillie, with the benefit of hindsight, I can say that it is important to ask whether opportunities were missed to look further and to identify wider issues earlier. I understand that and agree that questions can and should be asked about whether opportunities were missed, which is why we are dealing with the matter as we are.

I, too, want the questions to be answered, which is why I have commissioned Healthcare Improvement Scotland to undertake a thorough review of the processes, systems and governance of exclusions in the cervical screening programme. That will include understanding how the processes have developed over time, and learning lessons from past audits and the adverse events. That will help to establish whether the issues could have been uncovered sooner.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the Scottish Government continue to provide funding to the charity Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust to provide support to women who have been affected and the women concerned for as long as is necessary, particularly given the challenging circumstances that many of those women face?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Yes—absolutely. As I mentioned earlier, Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust’s helpline will remain open and available for anyone who is concerned about or affected by the issue. We will continue to provide additional funding if it is needed, so that the charity can provide support through its helpline. It is important to put on the record that the trust has established links with each NHS board, so there is no need for boards to have their own individual helplines. I state again that the helpline can be accessed by calling 0808 802 8000 or by emailing helpline@jostrust.org.uk. Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust has a huge amount of experience in supporting people who have questions and concerns about cervical cancer. Again, I record my thanks to the trust for the work that it has been doing in supporting people who are affected by the incident.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Cervical screening is safe, effective and saves women’s lives. I urge women, or anyone with a uterus, please, not to lose confidence but to attend the screening programme. To give women reassurance, can the minister say what safeguards were put in place in June to prevent such an incident from happening again, and when an audit will be run to find out whether it has happened again?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I confirm that, as soon as the issue was discovered, immediate steps were taken to ensure that no one else was excluded in error from the programme. Cervical screening labs will no longer add hysterectomy information without confirmation from the operating gynaecologist that the cervix was completely removed during a hysterectomy procedure. Also, at present, general practitioners can no longer add exclusions; that will remain the case until we can be absolutely assured that a robust process is in place to verify GP exclusions.

As I mentioned, Healthcare Improvement Scotland has been commissioned to conduct a full review of the incident. It will look at the governance processes and at whether there were opportunities to learn about the scale of the incident earlier than we did. I am sure that the review will fruitfully bring forward suggestions on how we can make sure that it never happens again.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I appreciate the minister’s update on this serious situation, but my question is about the future of cervical cancer testing in general. Could the minister give an update on the status of the roll-out of human papillomavirus home sample tests and say who will be eligible for them?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Self-sampling is still a relatively new innovation, and the United Kingdom national screening committee—NSC—has not yet recommended that self-sampling be incorporated into the cervical screening programme. The NSC continues to gather and evaluate evidence on the matter; it is not possible to say when that process will be complete. However, Scotland is playing an active part in supporting that work. We will also take the necessary steps to ensure that we can roll any recommendation out as soon as possible, once one is made. At all times, ensuring patient safety will remain key, so we will not act until we are sure that it is safe to do so.

Some members will be aware that NHS Dumfries and Galloway is currently carrying out a pilot, which involves sending a self-sampling kit to all screening participants aged 25 to 64 who have never attended for cervical screening or who have defaulted on their most recent appointment. Findings from that pilot will inform our work, going forward.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I am glad that the Government is finally instituting the Healthcare Improvement Scotland review that Scottish Labour asked for, but will the minister clarify the terms of the review, when she expects it to report and how far reaching we can expect it to be in order to prevent further instances from happening?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

As I said, we have commissioned a review by Healthcare Improvement Scotland, which has a long track record in improving quality and safety in Scotland, to look at the incident in its entirety, including the records of all those who were affected, and the governance processes. An independent chair will steer the review in order that we can be 100 per cent sure that we learn everything that we need to learn from the incident.

The review will look not simply at the incident that we have uncovered and the governance that is in place, but also at other screening programmes that are in place in Scotland, in order to see whether we can learn lessons from them. It will also consider asking for learning from the other UK nations and Ireland in order to see whether there are things that we can learn from their screening programmes that would make ours safer.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I appreciate that it is a sensitive and difficult subject, but can the minister tell us what actions have been taken to ensure that cervical screening is fully accessible for age groups that have lower take-up and for disabled women?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Tha

t is an excellent question, because we know that participating in the cancer screening programme is one of the best ways to detect cancer early. That is why we are so concerned about the women who have been wrongly excluded from the programme. We have continued to invest in our screening inequalities fund in order to tackle inequalities in the national population screening programmes. We have committed £2 million over the next two years to tackle inequalities, including those that have arisen as a result of Covid-19. That is in addition to the £5 million that we have put into the fund so far.

At the moment, we are focused on making sure that future projects are sustainable and will deliver real impact. A workshop was held recently to gather the views of a wide range of stakeholders on how the money can best be spent, and discussions are on-going about how to make the best use of the funding.

I assure the member that we are determined to identify and remove the barriers that exist to participation in the screening programme, because we know just how preventable the illness is. We want to ensure that women can participate in the programme as it is so effective in preventing cancer.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

The Government waited until after the election in June, and for months after it had discovered that there was a problem, to tell Parliament that a woman had died after wrongly being excluded from screening. Today, we have learned not only that two more women have cancer after being excluded, but that a review of 200,000 women’s records is under way.

How were indications of this public health scandal detected on four separate occasions without that triggering a full-scale investigation? Will the Government as a basic courtesy now write to the 200,000 women whose records will be reviewed in order to keep them updated and give them agency to seek help if they want to?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Screening systems are inherently complex and they require complex quality assurance mechanisms. We can anticipate that there will always be incidents in which we are required to undertake further checks and investigations, and that is what happened in the previous audits. The changes to screening governance—including the establishment of the programme boards for each screening programme, the development of a formal adverse event management process for screening and the establishment of a national screening oversight function last year—demonstrate the Government’s consistent, on-going commitment to improving the governance and oversight of our screening programmes.

We will press forward with the review of women who have been permanently excluded from the cervical screening programme. The work is complex and we will face many challenges in progressing it in a period of unprecedented pressure on the NHS, but we are determined to find every last case where an inappropriate exclusion might have occurred. I assure the member that we will write to the women involved. They will know that their records are being examined and reviewed and we will keep them updated.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have four members who still want to ask a question and less than two and a half minutes in which to bring them in. I would appreciate brief questions and very brief responses, please.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will the m

inister reiterate what work is being carried out to investigate any issues prior to 1997?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

As I said in my statement, the work to review the pre-1997 records concluded at the end of July. Letters were issued by 18 August to 170 individuals who were identified in the second part of the review as being, or potentially being, wrongly excluded. Some 39 people were reinstated in the programme and were invited to make an appointment for screening with their GP, and 132 women were offered a gynaecology appointment. The next step is to consider the larger cohort of 200,000 women whose records feature permanent exclusion from the screening programme.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

We have heard a lot about the development of the review of the records of the 200,000 women who have been permanently excluded from the screening programme. How long does the minister expect the review to take?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The first point to stress is that the overwhelming majority of permanent exclusions will be correct. As I said in my statement, around 95 per cent of hysterectomies performed in Scotland are total. However, because we know that there is a possibility that some exclusions will be incorrect, we are taking a rigorous approach to reviewing every single record.

I fully expect that the people affected will want to know as a matter of urgency whether their exclusions are correct. I assure them that we are working as fast as we can, but it will take some time to work out the procedure so that we do not overburden the NHS during a period in which it is under immense pressure. The exercise will be like trying to find needles in a haystack. However, because even one person developing cancer is too many, we are absolutely committed to finding each and every woman who has been harmed or who could be at risk of future harm.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

For those who find themselves needing further treatment, that could be a traumatising event. What other, wider support, such as mental health support, is available for those who need it?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

We have made extra money available to health boards to ensure that gynaecology clinics are available, and we have put extra money into the Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust helpline to ensure that it can meet the needs in relation to the incident. I suggest that the first place that women go to is Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust. It has absolutely wonderful people who are used to giving individual advice to women and who are well prepared and well versed in supporting women through this particular incident. Should mental health support of a different or more individualised nature be required, I would expect women’s general practitioners to refer them on.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

The minister outlined that the urgent review uncovered that some exclusions had been wrongly applied across Scotland. Can she outline whether there are further steps to be taken to ensure that exclusions are not applied wrongly again?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I confirmed in my answer to Sandesh Gulhane that, as soon as the issue was discovered, immediate steps were taken to ensure that no one else was excluded from the programme in error. As I mentioned, Healthcare Improvement Scotland has been commissioned to undertake a wider review of the processes, systems and governance for the application and management of permanent exclusions in the cervical screening programme in Scotland in order to ensure that the issue does not happen again. In particular, the review will look at how processes have developed over time and at lessons from audits and adverse events.

The changes to screening governance in Scotland that I have mentioned—they include the establishment of programme boards for screening, the national screening oversight board and the adverse event management process—provide reassurance that there is robust national oversight of and quality assurance for Scotland’s screening programmes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We have slightly overrun but, given the nature of the topic under discussion, I wanted to allow as many members as possible to ask a question.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon, colleagues. I remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the Holyrood campus. I ask that members take care to observe those measures, including when entering and exiting the chamber. Please use the aisles and walkways only to access your seat and when moving around the chamber.

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-01193, in the name of Liam Kerr, on the future of North Sea oil and gas.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No one, especially not the industry, denies that there is a climate emergency. We all saw the conclusions of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which underlines the consequences of historical actions and the need to take significant steps now. However, those actions must be carefully considered, and it is absolutely clear that we must avoid the temptation to impose simplistic solutions and should instead consider the science to help us to make what are tough and sometimes unpalatable choices.

The issue that lies at the very core of the debate is that there is still significant on-going demand. Members of the former just transition commission told the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that just last week, and the Climate Change Committee acknowledges it under every scenario. Currently, oil and gas account for three quarters of the United Kingdom’s energy needs, and it is forecast that, by 2050, half of all UK energy demand will still need to be met by oil and gas. By the time that the Cambo oil field is scheduled to start producing, oil and gas supply will have declined by 33 per cent on 2020, but demand will have fallen by only 15 per cent. Yesterday, the cabinet secretary agreed when, in response to my question, he said:

“

We have done a lot on the supply side ... we have not done enough on the demand side.

”—[

Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

, 14 September 2021; c 17.]

Indeed, this morning, on “Good Morning Scotland”, Mark Ruskell agreed, in restating that our focus must be on the demand side.

The situation is complex. About a quarter of the UK’s oil and gas goes towards manufacturing everyday products including medicines, cosmetics and household cleaners, as well as asphalt for roads and materials that are used for wind turbines and solar panels. The fact is that we are not yet at a stage where renewables can supply all the electricity that Britain needs to keep the lights on in our homes, hospitals, schools and factories.

From where should we source the oil and gas to meet that demand? We could source from abroad—we do that already. Between January and March this year, the UK had to import 56 per cent of the gas that was required to keep the nation’s homes and power stations running. It cannot be sensible to cut our own resources—it is Scotland’s oil, after all, cabinet secretary—and to become increasingly dependent on countries such as Qatar, which exports liquefied natural gas thousands of miles by ship. That is in a context in which, according to the Oil and Gas Authority, natural gas from the UK continental shelf has less than half the carbon footprint of that imported LNG.

If we offshore our responsibilities and emissions, we have no means to control them. As Sir Ian Wood said, we become dependent on countries with far less strict environmental regulations than the world-leading UK. Last year, we imported almost £3 billion in oil and gas from Russia. I cannot believe that members want to increase our exposure to, and reliance on, that regime.

If we prematurely end production, our balance of trade will suffer. Although we know that that is of no concern to the Green Party, we must all be concerned that, last year, when UK and European Union production shrank but demand grew, gas prices surged. If oil and gas costs more, that will plunge thousands into fuel poverty.

Mike Tholen of Oil & Gas UK points out that offshoring production and importing would

“cause an energy skills shortage that would decimate our ability to deliver the low carbon energy mix our members are already creating in the UK, through wind, solar, tidal, hydrogen and other greener technologies.”

That is key. The industry supports close to 100,000 jobs in Scotland—more than 60,000 in the north-east. A hard shutdown of the industry would consign the region to a bleak future and would end all the innovations that those workers are already delivering in our transition. We need people with those skills to pioneer greener energy and to develop carbon capture, hydrogen and offshore wind at scale and rapidly. Losing those skills will undermine our transition.

What of the fabled just transition—moving oil and gas workers into the renewables sector? Last week, the former head of the just transition commission, Jim Skea, said that the words “just transition” are used as “magic dust”.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

If the UK Tory Government is serious about the future of the north-east, it should be working to secure it. Does the member agree with Professor Jim Skea, the former chair of the just transition commission, that

“there has been far more interest from Brussels in the progress on a Scottish just transition than there has been from London”?—[

Official Report

,

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

, 7 September 2021; c 27.]

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I congratulate the member on reading out a prepared intervention. What is most galling about the relentless whataboutery is that not only does it waste everyone’s time in an important debate but it shows just how unable the member is to either properly address my motion or prosecute the case for her party’s amendment.

The UK has cut emissions faster than any G7 country. There has been a 44 per cent reduction in three decades, while the economy has grown by 78 per cent. In the past 12 months, the UK published clear plans to decarbonise power generation, heavy industry and oil and gas. That is rather better than what has come from the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport. Just yesterday, he conceded that no details around the just transition fund are mentioned in his amendment and that there will be no details on his just transition plan until at least next year.

Would the transition happen in any case? Eleven years ago, the Scottish Government predicted that there would be 28,000 Scottish jobs in offshore wind alone by 2020. The latest workforce data shows that the number stands at 1,400. That is unsurprising, because a BBC report last week said that, if Cambo were to go ahead, there would be

“1,000 direct jobs in Scotland and 2,000 more in the supply chain”

and

“another 500 elsewhere in the UK.”

In contrast, the Viking Energy project—a “vast new wind farm” in Shetland—will have “35 permanent jobs” associated with it.

Last week in

The Times

, a Scottish National Party commentator anonymously said that it was

“hard to understand the political, economic or ecological logic of where the party risks being on this just now.”

It is far better to base our policy on evidence and reality than chase an agenda that would manage to cost jobs, harm the environment more and leave us dependent on undemocratic regimes for supply.

At decision time tonight, will MSPs—particularly north-east MSPs—follow the science and support their constituents, an industry that is worth £18 billion to the local economy, a fair and managed transition and my motion, or will they sacrifice them in favour of virtue signalling to appease their coalition partners? The north-east is watching.

I move,

That the Parliament supports new oil and gas projects, including Cambo, because a strong North Sea sector supporting tens of thousands of Scottish jobs is preferable to increasing energy imports during the transition to net zero.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call the cabinet secretary, Michael Matheson, to speak to and move amendment S6M-01193.3 for up six minutes.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Thank you—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Do we have a problem with the cabinet secretary’s microphone? Could the cabinet secretary maybe take the card out and push it all the way back in? We will see whether that works.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

As the chamber knows, the oil and gas industry supports around 100,000 jobs in Scotland and, even as we transition away from fossil fuels, we know that it has a vital role to play in Scotland’s energy future.

The North Sea will continue to provide Scotland with an important level of domestic energy and, crucially, the infrastructure, skills and expertise of the sector can be a huge asset in helping us to achieve net zero. We believe that they will help Scotland to become a world leader in emerging technologies, such as hydrogen technology, carbon capture, utilisation and storage, and offshore wind.

We are presently in a transition from fossil fuels to renewable and low-carbon sources of energy, which we owe to the planet, and none of us can, or should try to, escape that responsibility. However, we need to transition in a way that is fair and just, which is why the Scottish Government is working with the energy sector in Scotland, including the oil and gas sector, not only to secure the environmental benefits of decarbonising our energy system but to seize the economic opportunities that the energy transition presents.

Our transition to net zero must be made in a way that is just for the workers, which is key, but also for the sector and our energy needs. Additionally, we need to manage that transition in a way that ensures that oil and gas developments are compatible with becoming a net zero society by 2045; that is why we have committed to undertaking a programme of work and analysis to better understand Scotland’s energy requirements and how they align with our climate change targets as we transition to net zero.

Members are aware of the recent scientific report from the IPCC that the secretary general of the United Nations described as a “code red for humanity”. The report confirms that the threats that global warming poses are already both immediate and severe. Without urgent action to reduce global emissions in line with the goals of the Paris agreement, those impacts will only accelerate. It therefore cannot be business as usual.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the member agree that the oil and gas industry has taken important steps to become more sustainable?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Yes.

The evidence from the IPCC is clear: countries around the world cannot continue to pursue maximum economic recovery of fossil fuels if the Paris agreement goals are to be met—the International Energy Agency supports that position in its report from earlier this year. That is why the Scottish Government has asked the UK Government to commit to significantly enhancing the climate conditionality of offshore production and to reassess the licences that have already been issued, but through which field development has not yet commenced. Although that area is reserved, it is essential that the UK Government shows the necessary climate leadership in reassessing those licences.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that the UK has already put in place a £16 billion North Sea transition deal to facilitate exactly that process?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member will recognise that the UK Government has conceded the point about the need to make sure that there is a climate compatibility checkpoint for new licences, so applying that same principle to existing licences that are not being developed is absolutely consistent with making sure that we meet our climate change obligations.

We are already making good progress in reducing Scotland’s reliance on fossil fuels, including through a substantial increase in our renewable energy capacity, targeting up to 11GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, which is enough to power up to 8 million homes.

Renewable and low-carbon jobs cannot replace oil and gas jobs immediately, which is why we are committed to ending our contribution to climate change in a way that is just and leaves no-one behind. That is why in June this year, we announced £62 million for the energy transition fund, which focuses on supporting the energy sector to recover from the economic impact of Covid-19 and supporting investment in areas that can help us to move towards net zero.

We are also investing £500 million in the transition fund for the north-east and Moray, and I hope that members will support that tonight and join us in calling on the UK Government to match that investment.—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary is in his final 30 seconds.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

That will support and accelerate the transition of the region and support the role of Aberdeen and the wider north-east of Scotland as a centre of excellence for the transition to net zero. As part of that work, we will look to reaffirm our commitment to a just transition through the just transition plans that we will implement.

A just transition is the right approach for Scotland, recognising our proud heritage and the continuing key role for the oil and gas industry, while expanding and developing our renewable energy sector and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, and doing so in a way that also recognises our collective responsibility to tackle the global climate emergency.

I move amendment S6M-01193.3, to leave out from “supports” to end and insert:

“recognises how important the oil and gas industry, infrastructure, highly-skilled workforce and supply chain are to Scotland; agrees that countries around the world cannot continue to maximise recovery of hydrocarbons if the aims of the Paris Agreement are to be met; believes that Scotland and the UK cannot ignore the concern that unlimited extraction of fossil fuels is simply incompatible with protecting the planet; understands that the Scottish Government will undertake analysis to understand Scotland’s energy requirements as the country transitions to net-zero in line with the aims of the Paris Agreement; recognises the role that hydrogen, carbon capture, utilisation and storage can play in a just transition, so long as they are not used to justify unsustainable levels of fossil fuel extraction; welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to working with communities and those most impacted across Scotland, including the highly-skilled oil and gas workforce, to co-design the Transition Plan for Energy, and to taking forward a 10-year £500 million Just Transition Fund for the North East and Moray, and calls on the UK Government to match this investment, as well as reassess all existing licences for undeveloped fossil fuel extraction in light of the climate emergency.”

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member of Unite the Union and the GMB union.

I have five minutes in which to respond to a motion on one of the biggest issues that our planet faces, so I will try to make this as straightforward as possible. For many years, the biggest threat to our planet was climate change denial. Now, the biggest threat to our planet is climate change inaction. The message from climate scientists could not be clearer: if we are to limit global warming to 1.5ºC—the internationally agreed target of the Paris agreement—there can be no new oil and gas. That means no Cambo.

In May, the International Energy Agency’s report, which was commissioned by the UK Government ahead of COP26, stated that, in order to reach global net zero by 2050, there should be

“No new oil and gas fields approved for development.”

That means no Cambo.

We have heard that the UN Secretary General has called the IPCC’s report “code red for humanity”. He warned:

“This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet.”

That means no Cambo.

When report after report makes it clear that Cambo would be another nail in the coffin of our dying planet, we have a duty to call it out.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I want to make some progress.

Without immediate action to reduce emissions, the consequences will include rising sea levels, the extinction of vulnerable species and a higher frequency of natural disasters. Pushing ahead with Cambo would be a betrayal of future generations.

Industrial and economic change is inevitable. It is our duty, as parliamentarians, to guarantee that change and decarbonisation delivers justice for workers. We need a managed and worker-led just transition, because we cannot allow a climate crisis to become a jobs crisis in the north-east or any other part of Scotland. That will require a relentless focus on meaningful, well paid and unionised jobs that are good for people and good for our planet. We just need the political will and courage to act.

Over the summer, I listened to workers and their trade unions. They expressed fears not only about the impacts of climate change, but about their jobs. Those fears are not mutually exclusive. They have good reason to be sceptical about the promises that politicians have made to them. The SNP’s green jobs fund has not yet delivered for workers and, so far, the green jobs workforce academy appears to be an underwhelming website with an impressive name. We know that we must do better.

History has taught us that the Tories do not do just transitions. Workers know that, which is why they are worried. Labour’s position is clear: Cambo must not go ahead, and nothing less than a green new deal will address the twin challenges of climate change and economic transition.

My Scottish Labour colleague Mercedes Villalba has proposed offshore training passports, which would allow oil and gas workers to move freely between offshore and onshore energy sectors, with standardised certification across roles. Such practical policies would give workers confidence. [

Interruption

.] I would rather give voice to workers than to Tories.

This debate coincides with the release of a landmark report from Friends of the Earth Scotland. Entitled “Watershed: the Turning Point for North Sea Oil and the Just Transition”, the report calls for the redirecting of the tax breaks and subsidies that have been offered to the oil and gas sector into funding a just transition. Notably, the report also recommends the creation of a publicly owned energy company in Scotland. The Tories do not support that, either. Scottish Labour and members of the SNP agree that such a move could turbocharge renewable energy generation and control spiralling heating bills. I urge the Scottish Government not to ditch or delay that proposal.

Earlier today, I hosted a well-attended parliamentary briefing on ecocide, with Jojo Mehta and Philippe Sands QC, who are distinguished international environmental and human rights campaigners. The ecocide proposal would criminalise the large-scale destruction of fragile ecosystems. It is a law that could one day apply to proposed developments such as Cambo.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I have only seconds left.

At the event, we were reminded that COP26 is around the corner. What will people see when they look at Scotland and the UK? Greta Thunberg said recently of Scotland:

“Of course there might be some politicians that are slightly less worse than others. That was very mean, but you get the point.”

We can and must do better. We need a managed, well-resourced just transition to unlock new economic opportunities. The Scottish Government needs to get off the fence. We will oppose the Tories’ motion at decision time. They are on the wrong side of history.

I move amendment S6M-01193.1, to leave out from “supports” to end and insert:

“believes that the development of the Cambo oil field would be at odds with Scotland’s aim of being net zero by 2045 and should not go ahead; considers that it is crucial that the transition to green sources of energy is jobs- and worker-led to retain and increase skilled jobs in Scotland; notes that the number of people directly employed in the low-carbon economy in Scotland is currently at its lowest level since 2014, at only 21,400, according to the latest available figures, and calls on the Scottish Government to use its powers over procurement, offshore windfarm licence approval and the Scottish National Investment Bank to secure and grow domestic supply chains for renewables, creating high-skilled, well-paying jobs across Scotland.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Liam McArthur—[

Interruption

.]. Take a seat, Mr McArthur.

There is a lot of chatter on the Conservative side of the chamber. We would like to hear every member.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am used to that reaction as I clamber to my feet.

This Parliament voted into law a shared commitment to reaching net zero by 2045. As the UK Climate Change Committee has told us, meeting that target will involve

“transitioning almost entirely away from the unabated use of fossil fuels”.

That is the view of experts here and worldwide. I suspect that it is the view of most in the oil and gas sector. Therefore, decisions on the granting of additional licences for oil and gas extraction must be seen in the context of everything that we now understand about the climate emergency and the need to drive down our reliance on fossil fuels.

That is a difficult circle to square because, as the IPCC has warned us, we do not have the luxury of time. Every aspect of how we live needs to be sense checked in the light of the climate emergency, and that certainly includes the oil and gas sector. I simply cannot understand how the UK Government could consider pressing ahead with a decision on Cambo while bypassing its own climate checkpoint.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Not at the moment, Mr Kerr.

We should not forget that we are talking about a licence that was first considered in 2001. Back in 2001, many still questioned the very existence of man-made climate change, but, back then, Bob the Builder’s version of “Mambo No 5” was sitting at the top of the charts. Thankfully, the world has moved on since then.

Scotland’s relationship with oil and gas goes beyond everyday reliance. It is not just the fuel that we use to heat our homes and drive our cars; communities have been built around it and livelihoods depend on it.

The industry needs to undergo a just transition, and those who work within it or who are reliant upon it deserve a just transition. They are skilled individuals and they remain absolutely critical to our success in developing the roles, businesses and industries that are needed to achieve our climate objectives. For that to happen, however, we need to see far more concerted and collaborative action by both of Scotland’s Governments to support people to reskill, retrain and move into more sustainable industries.

Too often, we see green jobs drift abroad. Without proper investment, robust planning and a just transition, many will go the same way in the future. The risk is that ministers will squander Scotland’s potential and leave communities and workers to pay the price in the move to a net zero economy. That would be a betrayal of those in the oil and gas sector.

Polling consistently shows an appetite within the workforce for making a switch but, so far, both the UK and Scottish Governments have failed to provide workers with the opportunities to change. Government support for a Scotland-wide just transition is essential if we are to avoid a repeat of the catastrophic carnage that was done to mining and steel communities in the 1970s and 1980s.

However, the creation of green jobs is only half of the equation. We still need a revolutionary overhaul in the demand for fossil fuels. Homes are still being built with gas boilers. Cars that run on petrol are still being manufactured. The vast majority of the around 2.5 million households in Scotland continue to leak heat from unsustainable systems such as gas boilers. In the meantime, sea levels are rising and the world is getting hotter.

After the sound and fury of this afternoon’s brief debate has passed, the Parliament will have to decide how it plans to honour our shared commitment—the one that we agreed unanimously not so long ago—to achieve net zero by 2045. That does call into question decisions over future oil and gas licences. It also demands a meaningful commitment by both UK and Scottish Governments to a just transition that is properly funded and properly targeted.

It is my pleasure to move amendment S6M-01193.2, to leave out from “supports” to end and insert:

“believes that, in the current circumstances, the licence for Cambo should not proceed; recognises that decisions taken over the next 10 years will either make the planet or break it; believes that every aspect of how people live needs to be sense checked in light of the climate emergency, and that this includes the oil and gas sector; notes the evidence that people in the industry would embrace new opportunities, but that both the Scottish and UK governments have failed to provide workers with the promised opportunities for green jobs, which are critical to their skills being redeployed as part of a just transition; notes the impact that this has had on communities connected to the oil and gas sector; recalls that the licence for Cambo was first considered in 2001, when the basic facts of global warming were still being regularly disputed, and believes that the climate checkpoint must be applied, given the understanding that now exists around the climate emergency and that the extraction of oil and gas cannot continue unabated.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. I remind members that speeches are to be of up to four minutes. There is no time in hand.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in what is a hugely important debate—and one that will continue long after this afternoon. I hope that we will make an awful lot more progress in this session of Parliament.

I will start from a position on which I think we all agree. We have an environmental crisis that is impacting the planet in ways that we cannot afford to ignore. There can surely be no debating the fact that we need to change how we create and consume energy. The drive towards net zero emissions and beyond has accelerated greatly recently and is now in the forefront of our minds in a way that would not have been considered even just a decade ago.

However, where I differ from the approach of some members of the Government is around the most effective and timeous way in which we can achieve that crucial goal. I believe that we will reach those targets through innovation, not by shutting down huge swathes of the economy as the Greens and the Scottish Government would have us do. Their approach is blinkered, devoid of any creativity and as far from reality as it could possibly be.

As my colleague Liam Kerr suggested, the petrochemical industry is about far more than simply burning fossil fuel. A significant proportion of oil is used in many other industries, not least in medicines, plastics and even the renewables sector itself—the list goes on and on. It is far too narrow to frame the debate just around fossil fuels.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

How many of the 20 billion barrels of oil and gas in the North Sea will be required to produce medicine?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I will just pull that figure out of my back pocket—what a great question.

What Mark Ruskell might not know is that, because of its grade, the oil in the North Sea is used for fossil fuel far less than that in the middle east.

We need the oil and gas industry if we are to reach our net zero target, and the industry was considering the issue way before it became fashionable to do so. Some 20 years ago, I was in the office of a major oil and gas company. While I was waiting to go into my meeting, I read its internal magazine, which told how its vice-president had stood up at its annual global conference and stated that his goal was for the company to be the number 1 supplier of renewable energy in the world within 50 years. The industry knew back then that it had to change its business model, and it has been doing that by investing in renewables companies and driving innovation—and not just in more efficient fuels.

Just yesterday, I spoke to an oil and gas company that listed the investments that it had made in the renewables sector and spoke about how it owns wind farms and has invested in wave energy management. I also spoke yesterday to a company that develops offshore wind, green hydrogen and wave energy technology. Its major investors are oil and gas companies. Such companies are investing billions of pounds in the renewables sector and clean energy research, and, with their research and development budgets, they can make the biggest difference. That is investment that Governments cannot replace. We should be working with those companies and encouraging their innovation, which will drive us towards a clean environment and a net zero economy. Shut down the industry and we shut down a major contributor to the future that we all want.

We need a replacement for our current energy supply. Moreover, as Liam Kerr said, we all need to consider how demand can be reduced—and we all have a part to play in that. These days, I think that the oil and gas industry can be legitimately renamed energy supply companies. It would be absurd to just switch off that investment in renewables tech. It is time that the Scottish Government started working with those companies instead of continually vilifying them, to ensure that innovation is not stifled as we drive the crucial green economy.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests and my interest in Islay Energy Community Benefit Society.

The Tory motion can only delay our journey to net zero. We must be ambitious and reject it. Scotland has a responsibility to meet our climate obligations while ensuring a secure energy supply and supporting our highly skilled workforce to transition to the green jobs of the future. The SNP-Green Scottish Government is wholly committed to ending Scotland’s contribution to climate change by 2045, and to ensuring that we do that in a way that is just and leaves no one behind.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am listening very carefully. Where would the member source the oil and gas to meet demand?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I understand that Scotland is a net exporter of energy.

Scotland should be proud of the action that has been taken so far. Emissions are down by 51.5 per cent since the 1990 baseline. In 2020, 95.9 per cent of gross electricity consumption came from renewable sources. Renewable energy capacity is 11.9GW and there is 14.6GW of renewable energy capacity in development.

In its autumn 2020 report, the Climate Change Committee said of Scotland’s progress that

“the Scottish economy has decarbonised more quickly than the rest of the UK, and faster than any G20 economy since 2008. Emissions have fallen rapidly while the economy has grown.”

The Scottish Government recognises that challenges remain. Ending our contributing to climate change will require transformational change from every element of society.

I went to the University of Aberdeen and gained my accountancy qualification there in the early 1990s, so I know about the importance of the oil and gas industry to the north-east of Scotland. Many companies that I have audited are related to the oil industry—supply boats, rig management companies and equipment repair and supply companies—and employ thousands of skilled men and women. Now is the time to harness their skills and experience for a just transition from fossil fuels to renewables.

In July, I visited Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior when she was docked at Leith. I remember the news stories of her crews protesting at North Sea oil rigs in the 1980s, but now Greenpeace is working with oil rig workers to promote a just transition. Together, they have produced a short film, “Rigged: A Worker’s Story”, which includes interviews with former offshore workers. One of them said:

“I don’t think we are going to have a great planet until we do things because it’s the right thing to do, rather than because it is profitable”.

Those are salient words, and words that Tory members should perhaps heed.

I support the Scottish Government’s view that the opening of new oil fields, including Cambo, must be reassessed in the light of the climate emergency that we now face, so I was pleased that the First Minister wrote to Westminster to ask the UK Government to think again.

The stark warning from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the climate emergency poses a severe threat and heightened risk to the planet is a powerful reminder that we all must do more to deliver a just transition.

The green jobs workforce academy will help to assess people’s current skills and help them to undertake the necessary upskilling or reskilling. The knowledge and experience of the oil and gas sector and its supply chain will be so important in developing the essential low-carbon technology.

As I said in the chamber last week, in my Argyll and Bute constituency the renewables industry is blossoming. Renewable energy support industries are also establishing themselves. Renewable Parts Ltd, for example, is an innovator in the wind-energy supply chain in Scotland. The company is based in Renfrewshire and in Argyll and Bute and has created a refurbishment and remanufacture supply chain that is creating new jobs in the green energy industry, with skills that are critical to the growth of the circular economy.

Oil and gas are finite, but wind and tides are not. It will come one way or another, sooner or later: the writing is on the wall for oil and gas. The Scottish Government is determined to use the hard-won skills of our oil and gas industries to make Scotland a green powerhouse, with a transition to a greener future—a just transition.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a member of the GMB union.

This is a welcome debate about how we can remake our Scottish economy to ensure the future prosperity of our country. Industry—which puts wages in pockets, food on tables and taxes into our public services—must grow, rather than recede.

No economic issue is of more importance to this country than the future of the North Sea. That concerns not just my Aberdonian constituents, but every Scot. It is about Mossmorran, Grangemouth and the defence industry of the Forth and Clyde valleys. It is about our tax take, our balance of payments, our energy security, our food system, our global security positioning and our role in Europe and the world. It is about our recent past and, which is much more important, our long-term future.

We are all clear that the nature of North Sea industries must, like all economies, change over time. The current transition is necessitated by crisis and it is urgent; the physical effects of climate change are becoming ever clearer. Net zero requires a 12 per cent reduction in global energy sector combustion emissions, but given rebounding demand, we are now on track for a 3 per cent overall increase. We must think and act differently.

Opening up whole new oil fields would demand business solutions for rapid extraction. Instead, we must clean up extraction in current fields. Doing that work promises far longer gains in innovation, technologies and exports for Scotland. We must tell investors, regulators, researchers and workers that future growth is in new sectors that grow alongside oil and gas.

The UKCCC makes it clear that there will and must be a long-term need for oil and gas extraction. Continued production is baked into any reality-based transition to net zero. The Net Zero Technology Centre has set out a compelling vision of a future for Scotland in which integrated offshore renewables, hydrogen and carbon capture can offer a cumulative £38 billion opportunity, in comparison with the £15 billion contribution from the maturing basin today.

We must act now to avert climate breakdown and to seize such opportunities. When the pace must be quickened, how do we find some semblance of security and hope for our energy workers? Robert J Gordon, in his masterful work, “The Rise and Fall of American Growth”, makes it clear that in technology transitions throughout history, education and reskilling follow opportunity; they do not cause opportunity, and training will not pre-empt innovation. People will retrain when there is a job to go into. Government’s job is to ensure that the state covers the cost of bridging the gap.

Members have mentioned the SNP’s risible record in renewables jobs and its complete failure to capture the first generation of the supply chain. I listened when Alex Salmond told us that we would be the “Saudi Arabia of renewables” and when he compared himself to Labour’s Tom Johnson, who transformed our economy after the war. The difference is that Tom Johnson did things, rather than tell grandiose lies that undermine the long-term confidence of workers such as the people who were promised the renewables jobs in Dundee that came to nothing.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The member’s comments are interesting. Dave Moxham, of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, told the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee the other week:

“There will never be the intensity of jobs across the offshore wind sector that there is in offshore oil and gas.”—[

Official Report

,

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

, 7 September 2021; c 23.]

Does the member have a solution? What can he propose that will answer that challenge?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You have 20 seconds left, Mr Marra.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I will try to get everything in. The answer is certainly about having a broader mix of industries and putting in place the electrical grid, including sub-sea. Change is required for export from existing oil and gas facilities. A wide range of hydrogen and carbon capture can be the answer, in part. There is intense activity in that regard and there are far greater opportunities for us to export around the world.

Labour’s focus is where it has always been: on jobs, on wages and on the future of Scotland. On those issues, it is high time that the Government got serious.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will focus my remarks on our transition to net zero. It is important to remember that all parties in Parliament agree that we need to be serious and to take sustained action on climate change. We agree on net zero, on building a sustainable economy and on ensuring a just transition to that new economy. There is nothing new in our finding common cause on climate change.

The Scottish Conservatives led Opposition parties in defeating the SNP Government on the call for energy efficiency targets to be brought forward. The Greens and, belatedly, Labour support our call for a moratorium on new incinerators. Of course, I trust that the Greens still hold that position, now that they are in coalition with the SNP, which is—given its level of ambition—perhaps the worst-performing Government in the world when it comes to tackling climate change.

The level of inaction from the nationalist Government makes co-operation in Parliament increasingly difficult. Despite repeated warnings from me and colleagues including Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell, the SNP Government has refused to listen and is instead allowing the failures to pile up. On its emissions target, it has failed. On its green jobs target, it has failed. On its recycling target, it has failed. On its fuel poverty target, it has failed. On its renewable heat target, it has failed. Given the time that is available, I cannot go on. I simply note that, with Scotland hosting the 26th United Nations conference of the parties—COP26—those failures will soon become an international embarrassment for the SNP-Green coalition.

On recycling, the Government is actually going backwards—the recycling rate is lower now than it was in 2016. In Dundee, the SNP council is promising a 70 per cent recycling rate by 2025, yet the Government’s slow progress means that that will take until at least 2040. Glasgow—another SNP-run city, and the host of COP26—is in the midst of a cleansing crisis and cannot even manage a 25 per cent recycling rate. What will world leaders make of that? What will they make of this nationalist Government’s having broken its promise to ban biodegradable waste going to landfill and deciding just to burn it instead? Under the SNP, incineration capacity has ballooned by 400 per cent. Scotland needs a Government that will deliver policies to tackle climate change—not the empty rhetoric that is the SNP mantra.

The UK Government has stepped up to the plate and has launched the North Sea transition deal, which includes early reductions in offshore production emissions, investment of up to £16 billion by 2030 in new energy technologies and a 60 million tonnes reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Claire Mack, the chief executive of Scottish Renewables, has said that the current transmission charging system is

“entirely contrary to ... the net zero agenda”,

and she called on the UK Government to act without delay to address the outdated scheme. Can Maurice Golden address that point?

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Yes, I can. I worked as a transmission policy analyst at the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets on that very aspect.

The SNP’s problem in that regard is that it is arguing for a reduction in transmission charges for generators, many of which are big businesses, and for an increase in the cost to consumers. That is how transmission charging policy works. The SNP, which has failed to eradicate fuel poverty, is now arguing for a policy of increasing transmission charges to customers in Scotland. That is quite unbelievable.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Golden, I hope that you are coming to a conclusion.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Okay, Presiding Officer.

Public support, parliamentary goodwill and the economic might of our United Kingdom—they are all there to help us to reach net zero. I want us to protect oil and gas jobs, to secure a just transition and to deliver on our net zero targets.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I like to listen to the BBC radio series “The Listening Project”. It has a simple format: two people in a room have a chat about a topic, and this week’s edition was pertinent to today’s debate. Keith, an oil and gas sector geologist from Aberdeen, was having a conversation with Peter, who had been a miner in North Yorkshire, and the subject was energy transition. On the one hand, we had a man who had not been involved in a just transition and, on the other, a man who was on the cusp of a transition and was mulling over his part in it. Keith said what many of my constituents have said to me: affordable, secure and increasingly sustainable jobs are needed.

I have said in the chamber many times that my family owes a lot to oil and gas and that many livelihoods have depended on it. My family’s experience is replicated in those of tens of thousands of my constituents, and I understand their fears about the fluctuating nature of the industry and the new energy future that is in front of them.

When I was elected in 2016, the oil and gas sector was in the middle of a downturn and thousands of my constituents were losing their jobs. Geopolitics was reverberating around the doors of Aberdeenshire. Then, as now, people told me that they wanted secure employment. At the time, I relayed in Parliament the testimony of many people who arrived to work at oil and gas offices at 8 am, only to be out in the car park with their belongings in a box by 9 am—families with mortgage arrears and families being referred to food banks. One of my constituents was phoned on his 50th birthday to be told that, after 30 years’ service, he would not be returning in a helicopter to his production platform the next week. Transition has been on the minds of oil and gas workers for many years and for many reasons.

Later in that radio broadcast, Keith made a point that is key to the future of oil and gas in Scotland. He said:

“Hydrocarbons are too good to burn. We’ll need them for other things.”

I am on record saying this many times in the Parliament: it is the application not the extraction that is the issue.

We need systems that do not burn hydrocarbons. We will continue to need fossil fuels as feedstock for chemicals and manufacturing well into the future. I would much rather that that feedstock comes from our domestic supply, where it is produced with the best health and safety controls in the world, where the emissions from that production have been driven down and where the environmental controls and impact analyses are robust. I do not want to export our emissions as we import that feedstock to meet our current needs. That will not help our economy or our planet.

I see the future north-east having a mix of hydrocarbons, renewables, energy innovation and life sciences as our core sectors. I am in the middle of a listening project of my own in the form of a report on a survey on transition that I ran over summer. The constituents I spoke to are not talking about Cambo or future exploration; they urge us to take down the barriers to transition that they are experiencing now. They want us to take action on making training affordable, recognising the skills and certification that oil and gas workers already have and walking the walk on transferability. The £500 million that the Scottish Government announced for just transition in the north-east is action.

I look forward to applying my ideas and those of my constituents to deploying that. [

Interruption

.] I do not know whether I have time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is in her last 30 seconds.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The solution to our economic and environmental aspirations is neither to exploit the North Sea until the oil runs dry nor to leave it in the ground. The solutions are nuanced and complex, and our mutual constituents deserve our political conversations about the issue to be informed and to take account of that complexity.

To give it its due, the UK Government’s climate compatibility checkpoint does that and is in line with Nicola Sturgeon’s comments on the issue of new fields. However, seven years ago, people on the Conservative benches told us that the oil was running out, but now the tune has changed. It is there and it has great value, but the real issue is what do we do with it. That is the fundamental issue that both Governments need to act on for the good of the people and the planet.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Liam Kerr advised us at the beginning of the debate to listen to the science, so I will quote some people who understand the science and have reflected on it. The UN secretary general, António Guterres, has said recently that countries should

“end all new fossil fuel exploration and production and shift fossil fuel subsidies into renewable energy.”

That is not happening under UK Government policy. Dr Fatih Birol, who is executive director of the International Energy Agency, has said:

“If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now—from this year.”

Again, that is not happening under UK Government policy. Lord Deben, who is chair of the UK Climate Change Committee and a former UK Government minister, told Mr Kerr at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee a couple of weeks ago that

“the justification for any new oil and gas exploration or production has to be very strong indeed, and I cannot say that I have seen that so far.”—[

Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee,

31 August; c 20.]

No such case has been presented for Cambo or the continued exploration and extraction of fossil fuels.

Countries around the world are recognising that an oil and gas transition needs a clear destination to transition to. They know that a just transition needs to start years in advance. Otherwise, there is a risk of a sudden deferred collapse of jobs in the future.

The launch of the beyond oil and gas alliance, spearheaded by the Danish and Costa Rican Governments and now involving France, New Zealand, Spain and many more countries, will mark a watershed moment at COP26. Those are states that have turned the corner and are committing to no more oil and gas development. The Scottish Government should join in that conversation in Glasgow and should look to accelerate our own just transition.

The Green-Scottish Government co-operation agreement commits to answering two critical questions, which the cabinet secretary referred to in his opening comments. [

Interruption

.] I want to make a little bit of progress first. The first of those questions is how much oil and gas we can afford to burn while staying aligned with the objectives of the Paris agreement. The second question is what, given what we can afford to burn, our domestic demand for oil and gas will be in the years ahead as we make progress in decarbonising our society.

Those are questions that cannot be answered by the oil and gas sector by itself, because it will always be driven by a UK licensing policy of maximum economic recovery of every last drop from every last reserve. Again, I welcome the comments from the cabinet secretary at the beginning of the debate about some of the flaws in that policy of maximum economic recovery, which is incompatible with the climate crisis. [

Interruption

.] I am running out of time—I am sorry.

Those are critical questions, which must be answered not by sectoral interests but by Governments, and the answers will depend on the level of ambition and the actual progress in delivering decarbonisation and energy demand reduction across the whole of the UK. I am certain that any such assessment that is done will show Cambo to be superfluous to our domestic energy needs and utterly incompatible with the Paris agreement. It is clear that Cambo must not go ahead.

However, Cambo is just the tip of the melting iceberg. If we are serious about staying in alignment with Paris, some of the 6.6 billion barrels of existing oil and gas reserves will have to stay in the ground, too, alongside the 13.4 billion barrels that the sector wants to develop. Those must stay out of reach.

Our co-operation agreement is a great starting point for a real just transition, with a £500 million deal for the north-east and a new sector deal for onshore wind. This is where the real grown-up debate needs to be in the Parliament. It needs to be about how we manage the just transition and how we protect people and planet. I look forward to the Government making progress in the months and years ahead.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Michelle Thomson will be the last speaker in the open debate.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

When I read the motion I was struck by how simple the Tories perceived this issue

to be, compared with the SNP amendment that was lodged by Michael Matheson. I have spoken previously about the complexity of climate change and the ambitious policy responses that are required. Only last week I spoke about setting measurable net zero ambitions for public sector pensions, and I was pleased to see SNP councillors in Falkirk pushing for that, albeit without the support of either Labour or Tory councillors.

The Scottish Government has published its detailed response to the original just transition commission, which seeks to work with all the key stakeholder groups, such as trade unions, businesses and communities. Let me briefly set out some of areas that business may need to consider, illustrating both the complexity and the effort required. Any significant transformational change must be driven from the top of the organisation, and the board must develop a clear vision and a strategy. That strategy will have input provided from all divisions or departments, and it will likely involve a number of iterations to ensure that the key themes are aligned. Arguably, that is the easy bit. The vision must be sufficiently compelling to bring all employees on board, given that it could fundamentally change the nature of the company and its operational model. That term usually sounds warning bells for employees, as it could involve changes to jobs or the loss of them.

Alongside that is either developing or keeping pace with innovation, or new, rapidly developing technologies. We cannot forget the significant funding requirements, developed in an uncertain cash-flow environment.

As I know from my previous career, most large, so-called transformational change programmes fail. They do not take people with them, they often fail to take cognisance of the culture of the organisation and, regrettably, senior executives often lose interest.

If I sound a little bleak, please forgive me. The steps that I have outlined are for one company. To reach net zero, multiple companies and multiple stakeholders—[

Interruption

.] No, I will not give way. Multiple companies and multiple stakeholders in multiple states must change.

My constituency includes Grangemouth, and I am following the progress of the Grangemouth future industry board with interest. Demand for hydrocarbon-based products must decrease but, as other members have mentioned, there are considerable opportunities for a hydrogen economy—[

Interruption

.] I will not give way today, thank you. There are considerable opportunities for a hydrogen economy encompassing both energy storage and sources of fuel for transport, as well as sustainable feedstocks. We have to remember that Scotland does not simply seek to export power; rather, we want to create the added value, jobs and wealth here.

As has been mentioned, it is a global challenge, but there are considerable vested interests that act against the leadership and ambitious change that are required. Our financial system has mostly been predicated on the endless drive for profit, with boards and trustees alike having to commit to that. However, in a world of finite resource, the endless focus on profit is simply not sustainable. Embedding sustainability is another significant challenge.

We must keep who the change is for at the forefront of our minds. Who could fail to be moved by the concerns expressed in the recent study that was led by the University of Bath, in which a statistically significant survey covering 10,000 young people showed that around 75 per cent of them are fearful for their future? Those young people are the future, and we must remember that our decisions today affect their future tomorrow. Hearing their voices is vital, so I was delighted to see that Scotland stepped up to the plate, and the Scottish Government will host the COP26 youth climate conference.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the

debate, given the direct interest that my constituency has in the questions at hand. I declare an interest in that regard.

I am disappointed by how much the debate has focused on the north-east, just as the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition fund did a couple of weeks ago. It is not only the north-east that needs to transition. My family is like many others in Shetland, with members working at the Sullom Voe oil terminal, or offshore in the North Sea. There are also Shetland seafarers employed on oil supply vessels. When oil was first discovered in the North Sea, Shetland adapted to change, and now the islands are looking to the future. They are ready and willing to play their part in another transformation, but they need support to do so.

Renewable projects are in the works—the potential is there—but we cannot just throw people who have built their lives around the oil industry on the scrap heap. I would like to see a new, northern isles just transition commission, to ensure that the islands are not forgotten in future debates such as this. We have specific needs and unique opportunities, which risk being lost in among the politicking that we have seen here today.

As Shetland’s MSP, I recognise that the licence for Cambo has been in the works for 20 years. Investment and highly skilled, highly paid jobs are associated with it. Although the demands of the climate emergency mean that the need to move away from oil and gas could not be clearer, questions about how and when that happens are not so easily answered.

Even when we meet our hugely ambitious emissions reduction targets, which the SNP has failed to reach in recent years, some small amounts of fossil fuels will still be needed. The UK Climate Change Committee says that some oil will still be needed on the pathway to net zero. The CCC is respected, and its expertise and independence are an asset to the country. It does not play politics on the issue, nor does it ignore its responsibility to help the country to navigate a way to net zero.

There are two tests that I believe the UK and Scottish Governments both currently fail. To make real progress on carbon emissions from oil and gas, we need to grow the renewable alternatives and reduce demand. On that, the SNP has emphatically failed. Transport is an example. It is Scotland’s single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and in 2018, it accounted for 36 per cent of total emissions, having barely reduced since 1990. Car travel has been on the increase since the end of world war 2, and the SNP’s active travel targets have crumbled. Without a real reduction in demand, it does not matter whether we license more projects, because our country will continue to run on fumes. The only question will be whether they come from the Cambo oilfield or from Russia.

That is why the UK Government’s decision to abandon the climate compatibility checkpoint is so difficult to understand. If communities that depend on oil and gas are to navigate their way towards a net zero future, the questions that climate checkpoints and other such mechanisms must reasonably pose must be handled properly, drawing out answers grounded in science. If the Cambo licence cannot pass the basic tenets of the checkpoint, there are reasonable questions to be answered about whether it should be granted. Politicians ignoring the rising seas will not do the industry or the people behind it any good.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mercedes Villalba will wind up for Labour. You have up to four minutes, Ms Villalba.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

With this motion, t

he Scottish Tories seek to exploit workers and communities who are concerned about their future. The motion is unrealistic, lacks credibility and offers no new ideas on how we tackle the climate emergency and deliver a just transition for those most affected by climate change. In just a few weeks, Scotland is due to host COP26, and the eyes of the world will be upon us. How could we vote to back the Cambo oilfield—[

Interruption

.]—when all the signs point to it having a hugely detrimental impact on our environment?

Passing the Labour amendment would signal a clear intention to take decisive action on climate change, create green jobs and develop a green industrial base. We can no longer accept Scottish Government inaction in the face of the escalating climate emergency. Years ago, the Scottish Government promised to deliver 130,000 green jobs by this year, but it has delivered only just over 21,000; it also pledged to create a publicly owned energy company, but it has now backed out of that as well. For all the talk of investment, the Scottish Government has failed to develop the green industrial base that we need; and despite its commitment to achieve net zero by 2045, it continues to refuse to clarify its position on Cambo.

I was pleased to hear Jenni Minto express in her speech her personal opposition to Cambo. Like her, I attended the Rainbow Warrior event by Greenpeace in July, where her colleague Paul McLennan also voiced his opposition to Cambo. The Scottish Government and its ministers need to make a choice: to stand with the Tories and the multinational companies that pollute our planet for private profit; or to stand with climate campaigners, workers, its own back benchers and its co-operation partners in calling for a just transition.

At First Minister’s question time last week, the First Minister expressed her willingness to consider developing an offshore training passport for oil and gas workers. However, last night, I received a response from the just transition minister that appeared to suggest that there is no desire to introduce an offshore training passport as part of the just transition fund. To be honest, we are all sick of empty rhetoric that never matches reality. Now is the time for the Scottish Government to get off the fence, oppose Cambo and support the Labour amendment for a worker-led transition.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Richard Lochhead, the Minister for Just Transition, Employment and Fair Work will wind up for the Scottish Government. You have up to five minutes, minister.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I welcome the Conservative Party bringing the debate to the Parliament. The debate is about a major sector in Scotland, the future of the Scottish economy and the fortunes of many families and individuals in our country, as well as the future of humankind and our planet.

The recent scientific report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows the very real threat and heightened risk that the climate emergency poses to the planet. It also makes it clear that, with immediate concerted international action to reduce emissions, the global temperature rise could still be limited to the Paris agreement aim of 1.5°C in the longer term. That is an urgent call to action for all and it simply cannot be business as usual. Therefore, it is disappointing to read the terms of the motion that has led to the debate because, a few weeks before COP26 comes to Scotland, the Conservative Party has lodged a motion that says that we should support the extraction of fossil fuels, irrespective of whether that is compatible with Scotland’s net zero ambitions and targets. It is an embarrassment to the Conservative Party.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Given the on-going need to heat our houses in Scotland, there will be demand for fossil fuels in the future. Would he rather that those fossil fuels were taken out of the ground in Scotland or taken out of the ground elsewhere in the world, where that would have a higher carbon footprint?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

[

Inaudible

.]—the just transition to our 2045 net zero targets and make sure that it is a just transition that addresses issues that the member raises.

I do not understand Liam Kerr’s position; he seems to be all over the place. Just couple of days ago he asked me a written question:

“To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to establish a fund to support island and rural communities to end their reliance on fossil fuels”.—[

Written Answers

, 26 August 2021; S6W-02566.]

On the one hand, the motion that says that new developments should get the green light and go ahead irrespective of whether they are compatible with the 2045 net zero target and, on the other hand, he supports communities that want to end their use of fossil fuels to help save the planet and their future. We should be focusing on the just transition and the energy transition, which is the biggest part of that just transition, given the reliance on jobs in the energy sector in this country. A number of announcements have been made, and there are signs that hundreds of thousands of green jobs can be created in our country, so that we can make sure that we have that just transition.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I will take an intervention from Liam Kerr, because it is his debate.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am very grateful and I apologise to my colleague, Maurice Golden. The Green Party manifesto wanted to stop carbon capture and funding for things such as the Net Zero Technology Centre. Now that they are part of a coalition Government, is that the minister’s position?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Liam Kerr will be familiar with the SNP-Green co-operation agreement, which clearly outlines the position on that; he should read the agreement, because that is the Scottish Government’s policy. With regard to the number of jobs that could be created in Scotland, it is exciting; it is a massive opportunity for our economy and the future of Scotland, not only to create hundreds of thousands of green jobs here but to export our expertise and knowledge, particularly from the oil and gas industry, to the rest of the planet and economies around the world. [

Interruption

.] I have already taken two interventions.

We have to make the most of the transition and focus on that, because that is the key to reaching our net zero targets. The Robert Gordon University “UK Offshore Energy Workforce Transferability Review” said that by 2030—not 2045—200,000 jobs could exist in the offshore energy sector, with the number of jobs in the decarbonised part of that sector rising from 20 to 65 per cent; in addition, 90 per cent of those jobs can come from people who work in oil and gas and have transferable skills. The Scottish Government’s “Scottish hydrogen: assessment report” says that the number of jobs that could be treated to hydrogen could range from 70,000 to 300,000. Just recently, the First Minister visited Scottish Power, which announced more green jobs in Scotland; the oil and gas industry, which is at the heart of success for a just transition, is planning to create tens of thousands of green jobs in the Scottish economy between now and 2030 and between 2030 and 2045. Just a couple of days ago, I met senior management at TotalEnergies in Aberdeen, and the company has really exciting plans for the future. Its website says:

“We are reinventing and diversifying our energy offering to promote renewable and decarbonized energies”

and that

“we are also encouraging our customers to change their consumption habits, prefer energy efficiency and turn to low-carbon solutions first.”

If TotalEnergies is reinventing itself in light of the climate emergency, I suggest that the Scottish Conservative Party also reinvents itself, gets behind the national effort to have a just transition and create hundreds of thousands of green jobs in this country, work in partnership and help save humankind and the planet.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

This is a vital debate, especially for the north-east of Scotland. One reason why it is so important is that the public can see what all the parties’ positions are in relation to supporting the energy industry and the vital jobs in the north-east. The amendments that have been lodged make the position of most of the other parties pretty clear.

With Monica Lennon’s amendment, we can see that, although Labour has readmitted its nine Aberdeen councillors, it has turned its back on the rest of the north-east. Similarly, the Liberal Democrats have also abandoned places such as Aberdeen, Montrose and Lerwick, which rely heavily on the oil and gas sector. However, to be fair to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, at least we know where they stand.

From the SNP, we see deflect, dither and delay. The cabinet secretary is sitting on what must be an uncomfortable fence, trying to please everyone but pleasing no one. The aim of the SNP amendment is to appease the Greens and nothing else. It sells out Scotland and it sells out Aberdeen. It will please China and Russia, which will benefit no end, as Liam Kerr pointed out in his speech.

The oil and gas industry has been and continues to be the lifeblood of Aberdeen’s economy, and the north-east is at the cutting edge of good practice and technological excellence in oil and gas recovery. The engineering and manufacturing talents cannot be allowed to go to waste.

Aberdeen is the energy capital of Europe, powering our industry, lighting our businesses, warming our homes and making sure that our trains run on time—unless it is a Sunday. The sector also plays a leading role around the world, with personnel from Aberdeen leading development projects throughout Europe, Africa and Asia, sharing best practice and technological excellence across the globe.

As a result, the oil and gas industry has been one of the most important contributors to the Scottish economy. However, the industry is not just a success story of the past; it has a bright future in a more eco-conscious world.

The UK was the first major economy to embrace a legally binding obligation to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Scotland’s oil and gas industry is fully committed to supporting the Scottish Government in meeting its ambitious net zero goal by 2045.

Companies in Aberdeen are changing and adapting, investing millions of pounds in cleaner technology and leading the world in that field. They should not be stamped out of business before that can happen. The engineering capabilities and essential expertise is too valuable to lose—even the cabinet secretary recognises that.

If we were to close the North Sea fields and end the energy industry in Aberdeen, as some in the Scottish Government are now calling for, what would be the alternative? [

Interruption

.] The SNP’s Green colleagues seemed to suggest that.

As Liam Kerr said, 75 per cent of our current energy needs are met from oil and gas. Renewables would not be able to close the gap fast enough, especially if we cause economic carnage to our engineering base in the north-east. We would be forced to rely on imports, increasing our carbon footprint as transport emissions leap up and increasing the energy bills of struggling families up and down the country.

If Scotland’s oil and gas industry was shut down immediately, as some new members of the Scottish Government wish, the result would be nothing short of catastrophic.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am really concerned about Douglas Lumsden’s assertion that members of the Scottish Government have said that the oil and gas industry should be shut down. I would like him to point to quotes that show that that is the case, if he is going to make such assertions.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I think that Patrick Harvie is on record saying that the oil and gas industry needs to “transition or die”. That type of language is not helpful to the industry.

If Scotland’s oil and gas industry was shut down immediately, hard-working men and women, who are highly skilled and capable, would be left with no hope of work, made redundant long before any greener job alternatives were made available to them. Those are the workers we need for transition.

Let us look at what the Cambo development in particular means to the Scottish economy. It would mean 1,000 direct jobs—Labour is obviously against those jobs. It would mean thousands more jobs supported through the supply chain, more than £1 billion of capital investment in the UK over the next five years and an extra £1 billion in additional support costs over the life of the field. Some £140 million has already been invested. The Scottish Government wants to flush all that down the drain. It is not just people who are employed directly through the supply chain who benefit from such investment, given that taxi drivers, restaurants, hotels and shops all depend on it.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Is it not best to protect those jobs and create new jobs by having a just transition between now and 2045? Can the member tell Parliament where the Conservative Party’s concern for jobs was when it shut down the coal mines?