Acorn Project
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of joint calls on the United Kingdom Government from business leaders in Scotland for the project to be progressed as a priority, whether it will provide an update on what engagement it has had with the UK Government regarding the Acorn carbon capture and storage project and Scotland’s journey to net zero. (S6T-02407)
The Scottish Government welcomes industry leaders urging the United Kingdom Government to make Acorn an immediate priority in order to unlock billions of pounds of investment, create thousands of jobs and decarbonise Scotland’s industry.
The First Minister and I have had regular engagement with UK Government ministers and the Prime Minister on the matter specifically, and have impressed on them at every opportunity just how important Acorn is for Scotland’s environmental commitments and economic ambitions. Despite that engagement, there still has been no meaningful progress since July 2023, when the previous UK Government confirmed that Acorn was “best placed”. That delay is entirely unacceptable.
As part of the Scottish cluster, Acorn will reuse existing energy infrastructure to transport captured CO2 emissions and store them beneath the North Sea. Without it, key industries, including energy, chemicals and manufacturing, face mounting costs, a loss of competitiveness and a major risk of job losses. Will the cabinet secretary say more about the environmental importance of the project and its critical economic importance to the north-east and to wider cluster partners across Scotland?
Audrey Nicoll raises a lot of issues, not least the fact that any objective assessment of Acorn done in the past showed that it was best placed to get track status. Because of inaction, we have lost many years of opportunities to get Acorn off the ground.
I completely agree that it is vital that the UK Government should now urgently provide clarity about the Acorn project, which is vital to supporting the decarbonisation of industry in Scotland, including at Grangemouth, and further afield. Acorn will protect and create jobs and, as pointed out by business leaders, make a significant contribution to Scotland’s economy, and it will unlock other projects and investment, not least in the north-east of Scotland and at the Grangemouth complex. It is a sound investment, not a cost, and will be critical in taking CO2 out of our processes and getting us to net zero while also capitalising on the opportunities that technology can give us.
In their recent letter to the Chancellor, business leaders highlighted the UK Government’s repeated commitment to a just transition and the results of a recent economic impact study that concluded that, in advancing Acorn, the Scottish cluster would contribute £17.7 billion to UK economic output by 2050, creating almost 11,000 jobs during construction and sustaining 4,700 long-term operational roles.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if the UK Government is serious about providing a future for Grangemouth, reaching our emissions targets, boosting economic growth and improving energy security, it must end the uncertainty about energy policy and must provide clarity on the Acorn project as a matter of urgency?
I thank Audrey Nicoll for another insightful question. Acorn and the Scottish cluster are well placed to move rapidly on carbon capture and to make that a reality here in Scotland. We have the pipeline and sea-bed infrastructure and also have the expertise. The Climate Change Committee, which advises Governments across these islands, has said that it
“cannot see a route to net zero that does not include”
carbon capture and storage.
Carbon capture and storage offers Scotland a significant economic opportunity. Our green industrial strategy identified the development of a self-sustaining CCS sector as one of the key opportunities for Scotland to realise the maximum possible economic benefit created by the global transition. We can also assist European neighbours who do not have the technology or capacity to store their carbon. Acorn would be a major boost for Scotland’s economy.
I fully support the Acorn project and hope that it will get to approval shortly. More than three years ago, the Scottish Government committed £80 million for the Scottish cluster project. Would the Scottish Government consider using some of those funds now to build the commercial case for importing CO2 from the rest of Europe, as the cabinet secretary outlined, to try to get the project over the line and to secure for the north-east the jobs that everyone is so eager to get?
I welcome Douglas Lumsden’s support for Acorn. I know that he has given it his long-standing support, and I am sorry that his support, and the support from others on his benches, to be fair to them, did not make a difference when the Conservatives were in office. I know that they tried, and I want to be fair to them on that.
On the £80 million that we have put aside, the business case is already there—it has been set out again and again. The £80 million is for when the Acorn project gets track status, in order to make the early developments to get it off the ground. That is what the industry and partners in Acorn and the Scottish cluster have asked us to do. We have been supportive of them right the way through the tracks process. The business case does not need to be made any stronger than it already is. It is there and it is clear, and it is quite beyond me why the project has not been taken up by the UK Government. I have my own personal beliefs as to why it was not given track status, and it was not because of a lack of a business case.
On Friday I had the pleasure of meeting some amazing apprentices from nexos in Aberdeen, and I heard about their hopes for the future. The fact that there has been no decision on Acorn, the backtracking on Great British Energy and the energy profit levy on oil and gas have led to a sense of betrayal in the north-east and a feeling that Scotland is seen as an afterthought by Westminster.
Can the cabinet secretary assure me that she is conveying the strength of feeling to the UK Government about Labour’s failure to back projects such as Acorn, which is without doubt holding back private investment and putting jobs at risk?
I thank Kevin Stewart for that particularly incisive illustration, from talking to people who are working in the oil and gas and energy industry, of how important it is that we get certainty here. There is of course an opportunity for the new UK Government to award track status to Acorn, as well as the funding associated with it, in the comprehensive spending review. That is what the letter from industry experts has asked for, and that is what I have been asking for. I have had many meetings with my counterpart, Ed Miliband, and there is a recognition that the Acorn project should be given track status.
However, it is to the Exchequer that I make my plea—and to which we should all make our plea. There is a chance for the chancellor to right the wrongs of what Kevin Stewart has outlined about Scotland being an afterthought and to put in the money and the investment so that we can get the project off the ground at long last.
The minister rightly mentions Grangemouth in connection with CCS. We know that the Just Transition Commission just wrote to the minister, identifying the fact that the jobs that will be lost will not be replaced for many years, as things stand. No doubt CCS is an important part of project willow. The minister promised the Parliament that the report would be published at the end of last month, although we still have not seen it. We know that Colin Mackay of STV has seen it somehow—and that needs to be explained, frankly. When will the project willow report finally be published?
As I think I said to Stephen Kerr last week, in answer to a very similar question, both Governments have signed off on project willow, which is now sitting for final checks and changes with Ernst & Young and Petroineos. I hope that, in the coming days, we will be reconvening the Grangemouth future industries board with a copy, but project willow is ready to go.
Domestic Property Standards
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that people live in safe, warm homes, in light of reports that the number of properties falling below the tolerable standard in order to be fit for habitation has increased from an estimated 54,000 in 2018 to 729,000 in 2023. (S6T-02395)
The Scottish Government is committed to tackling disrepair and to driving a culture in which good maintenance is given high priority. The overall condition of housing in Scotland has been steadily improving over the years, driven by existing standards. The increase in the tolerable standard failure rate is due to the introduction of smoke and carbon monoxide alarm criteria. The vast majority of the failures were in the private sector. We are committed to improving fire safety, but I have been clear that no home owner will be penalised if they need more time.
Not only are we in a housing emergency; more than a quarter of existing homes are unfit to live in. I say to the minister that that is not a steady improvement. An estimated 270,000 Scottish homes suffer from mould, while 81,000 have rising or penetrating damp. I suspect that those figures are even higher than reported, given the lack of clarity that surrounds data collection. My concerns relate to the health impacts that mould and damp cause—especially for young children. There has been no urgency from the Government to act on mould and damp in homes, although I would wager that every MSP has had at least one complaint from a constituent about mould and damp. Has the Government been sleepwalking into the latest mess, and why has nothing been done?
I refer the member to my initial answer. In 2023, 562,000 dwellings failed the smoke alarm criteria and 407,000 failed the carbon monoxide alarm criteria—albeit that some of those dwellings overlap. According to figures that were analysed in 2022, the tolerable standard failure rate was similar to that in 2018, with an estimated 55,000 households—2 per cent of all dwellings—below the tolerable standard.
We took action on meeting fire alarm requirements: £1.1 million was funded to care and repair services in 2021-22 to support older and disabled home owners to meet the new standard, and £1 million was made available to enable the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to install alarms during its fire safety visits to owner-occupied properties that were assessed as high risk. We are engaging with local authorities, the Scottish Association of Landlords, the Scottish Housing Regulator and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on the smoke and fire alarm criteria. We have taken action on that point.
We have had discussions with colleagues on damp and mould standards and what can be done as part of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
We are finding out about the mess only if someone has a new fire safety system fitted. That is not good enough.
To take a case study, a mother from Hamilton has been told by an expert that her two-year-old son is lucky to be alive after he vomited in his sleep due to living in a mould-infested home. South Lanarkshire Council has said that it has been working hard to carry out and alleviate any dampness in the property, and that the home is now habitable. However, the expert disputes that outcome and has since called for the family to be moved to a new, permanent and safe home. The issue involves not just the private rented sector but social landlords.
That shows the scale of the problem and why we need to look at how to address discrepancies, because people’s lives depend on that being done. The United Kingdom Parliament introduced Awaab’s law, which requires all social and private landlords to investigate and remediate damp and mould within a suitable timeframe and to a high-quality standard. Given that we do not have that type of legislation in Scotland, will the minister look to introduce such legislation to ensure that everyone can live in a safe and warm home?
I will be happy to update Meghan Gallacher on that point at the appropriate time. We have been in discussions with the UK Government and are aware of its proposals.
Ultimately, local authorities are responsible for tackling substandard housing in their area and can require home owners to carry out work to address major defects. We discuss that with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers.
As I said, we will keep Meghan Gallacher up to date on what we need to do to take forward the damp and mould issues that she mentioned.
As Meghan Gallacher said, dampness and mould in homes are damaging to the health of those—in particular, young children—who live in them. Far too often, when people raise issues of dampness and mould, their landlords simply blame it on the tenant and tell them to open a window in the middle of winter, as if that will solve the problem. Does the minister think that the non-statutory guidance that has been issued by the Scottish Housing Regulator is firm enough to deal with the problem, and has he spoken to landlords about the practice of blaming tenants for problems of mould in their homes?
It is worth coming back to the answer that I gave to Meghan Gallacher. I will update Mark Griffin on what we will take forward in relation to Awaab’s law through the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I also made the point about the responsibility of the local authority. I do not agree with the landlords’ point that all that the tenant needs to do to take action is to open the window. The regulator can push local authorities on that, as it has done previously.
However, akin to what I said to Meghan Gallacher, we will keep Mark Griffin up to date on what we need to do on damp and mould standards.
Paul McLennan is the housing minister. The numbers say that 54,000 homes—2 per cent—were classified as substandard in 2018. Today, that figure is 729,000, which is 27 per cent. Does Paul McLennan not feel embarrassed about the shocking failure of this nationalist Government’s policies on housing?
I do not know whether Stephen Kerr has been listening to the discussion that has been going on. The reason that the fire and safety standards were brought in was to improve standards in that area. Primarily, that has been the responsibility of private landlords. As I said, we are in contact with ALACHO, COSLA and the Scottish Association of Landlords in relation to the issues around that.
If we take away the alarms criteria and look at the figures in relation to the 2022 analysis that I mentioned, we see that the percentages are approximately the same. As I mentioned to Meghan Gallacher and Mark Griffin, we are looking at what we need to do on that. We have had discussions with the UK Government on Awaab’s law, and we will discuss that as we bring forward further details in relation to the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
That concludes topical question time.
Air ais
Time for ReflectionAir adhart
Cost of Living