���˿���

For specific information on the most recent issues with the change of application of the rules and regulations on crew escape, and whether those issues are to be dealt with under the cargo regulations or the passenger regulations, I will need to consult Mr Tydeman on when those discussions were happening.

No.

In the debate that we had last Thursday on opportunity in the programme for government, I was really heartened by Daniel Johnston’s offer to have a discussion around some of the energy infrastructure changes that will be required and other net zero policies that will be needed. Having discussions between parties around understanding where we stand, having a greater understanding of why we will need to take some of the decisions that we will need to take and having clear lines of communication and consultation on how we might be able to meet them together will be really important.

Where we can find common cause—that is why the Bute house agreement is so important—and where we can work together, we should do it. My door is open to that, and the doors of my colleagues in the Government are open to allow respective spokespeople and others to input. I hope that our discourse is evidence based and is taking people with us rather than seeking to divide communities, which is what I am seeing coming from elsewhere at the moment, as well as people in some quarters trying to deny that it is an issue that we have to face up to at all. We have to face up to it.

All of us have a voice and an ability to set a very clear narrative around why that work is important and why we cannot deny the fact that climate change is not just something for the future but is happening now. The committee has done work to ensure that there is greater public understanding, and we will go away and consider what more we can do—acknowledging that grid infrastructure is a UK Government responsibility—and what we can do to provide as much information as we can and how we can help to work with industry on that.

Where there are suggestions, we will always consider them and look to do what we can to try to provide as much information as possible but also give a greater context as to why the actions that we are going to need to take, which might be uncomfortable for some people and might have to change the way that we live our lives, are necessary. If we do not take that action and we do not meet our net zero objectives, and if global warming continues to happen, there will be even greater discomfort because of the more extreme weather and the imposition that the impact of climate change will have on people’s lives and livelihoods.

��

Neil Gray has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.

��

At col 9, paragraph 1—

Original text—

We know that wind—onshore and offshore—is the cheapest form of renewable energy and already provides a huge amount of capacity for the grid.

Corrected text—

We know that wind—onshore and offshore—is one of the cheapest forms of renewable energy and already provides a huge amount of capacity for the grid.

No, it has to be—

I thank Ms Dunbar for that question. I cannot begin to appreciate just how difficult last winter was for families across Scotland. Families who ordinarily would have felt themselves to be relatively comfortable, as well those who were already struggling, found last winter incredibly difficult. To compound that, we are now in a situation in which interest rate rises are posing difficulties for people with their mortgage payments and in which the new price cap is going to keep energy prices at double what they were a few years ago. The pressure on households is therefore still grim. We are doing what we can with the resources that we have available to us to mitigate some of that pressure. The First Minister’s first action was to see the fuel insecurity fund not doubled but trebled, and we hope that that will provide some comfort and support over this winter.

What we really need is structural change. The sad irony is not lost on me. We were talking earlier about the massive renewable potential and the current energy generation that is coming from Scotland. Yesterday, I saw at SSEN that the energy generated is four or five times beyond requirements in the area at which I was looking. We are generating way beyond our need, yet in Scotland we have some of the highest energy bills and highest levels of fuel poverty. That is why we need structural change on energy pricing. We need to see it being decoupled from wholesale gas prices, and we need to see Scotland’s benefit from having such a huge resource being put to use to support households and businesses. I was in Rutherglen yesterday, talking to businesses. Brexit was the number 1 issue that was being talked about, but the second issue was energy costs, which have been absolutely crippling for not only households but businesses. We need to see that support continue, we need Ofgem and the UK Government to intervene and we need to see a wholesale change in the way in which the market operates.

As I have said, the work that we have done with the fuel insecurity fund to mitigate some of the pressures is important, but in both those areas it is the responsibility of Ofgem and the UK Government to come forward. There has been a considerable campaign, and the Scottish Government has supported an end to the increased charges for prepayment meters. There is welcome progress being made by some of my colleagues at Westminster, who have led the charge on this, but we need to see more action. Elements like that are minor mitigations, but structural change is what really needs to happen to ensure that we take advantage of our resources and are able to put them to use for our people to see demonstrable benefit for them through reduced energy prices.

I do not know whether this gives Jackie Dunbar comfort, but I have had casework in Airdrie and Shotts on that, and I am sure that other colleagues in the committee have dealt with similar cases. It is genuinely crippling people—households and businesses, as I said. We know from surveys that it is one of the top areas of concern for businesses, particularly energy-intensive business. I have asked businesses where their challenges are—not just yesterday in Rutherglen but throughout the summer—and they mentioned the impact that Brexit had had on the trading environment. The second and third issues, which were pretty close, were energy costs and access to labour. It is a massive issue for our entire economy. We cannot afford to allow that to fester. We need to make sure that action is taken. We will continue to call on the UK Government to provide greater protection for people this winter.

It is incumbent on Government ministers to come forward with information in the way that Monica Lennon has outlined, and to make sure that

“it is factual, credible and evidence-based”.

We must also ensure that the public discourse is as informed as possible. The best approach in the energy sector is not to demonise bad behaviour; it is to exemplify good behaviour, including where good work is being done to transition, and to ensure that people take the right decisions and move in the right direction. That is the best approach. As I said in response to Monica Lennon’s earlier questions, especially in the energy sector we will need the people and their skills and we will need investments for a just transition that is as speedy as possible. Taking them with us, just as we need to take the public with us, will be of critical importance.