Good morning. The first item of business is general question time.
Food Waste
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it will reportedly not meet the target to reduce Scotland’s food waste by 33 per cent by 2025. (S6O-04426)
I am disappointed that, based on the latest estimates, we look unlikely to meet our target to reduce food waste by 33 per cent by 2025. The reasons behind that are complex, and they partly reflect changed consumer behaviour since the pandemic. Scotland is not alone in facing that challenge; higher food waste levels have been observed across the United Kingdom.
However, I am taking action to reset the Government’s approach. The circular economy and waste route map sets out how we will deliver more targeted action to support households and businesses.
Missing the target to reduce food waste is bad enough, but it gets worse: the amount of food waste has increased by 5 per cent from the baseline. Given that, does the minister agree that it would be sensible to include a feedstock mapping exercise for organic waste in the waste reprocessing infrastructure report that the Scottish Government agreed to at stage 3 of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill?
I am happy to get back to the member on that detailed point, but it is significant that we are prioritising action to tackle food waste and, in particular, waste that is going to landfill. We are making progress on that.
As I have said, I am happy to write to the member about the specific point that he is making, but it is worth saying that in the past decade, we have halved the amount of waste going to landfill, so we are making progress on the wider issue. I freely acknowledge the member’s point, though, for the reasons that I have given with regard to the challenge in meeting this year’s target.
Public diners are places where the public can eat and socialise, and they are open to all so that everyone can access good food as a public service. As part of its cash-first approach to tackling food insecurity, the Scottish Government says that it will take action to support food initiatives that are based in communities. What consideration has the Scottish Government given to public diners as a means of reducing food waste and improving access to food?
The member makes an important point. Twenty-seven per cent of food waste is created by businesses, and 2021 data from the Waste and Resources Action Programme—WRAP—on the UK suggests that hospitality outlets could save up to £10,000 per year per outlet by reducing such waste. If any innovative solutions of the type that the member has mentioned are particularly efficient in that regard, I am very happy to look at them.
Democratic Engagement
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to increase democratic engagement, in line with the powers outlined in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025. (S6O-04427)
The Government is currently working on commencement of the 2025 act. That includes its provisions on training for the access to elected office fund, enabling electoral innovation pilots and empowering the setting up of democratic engagement funding. I will keep Parliament updated on our plans.
Democracy should be representative, but toxic rhetoric, transphobia, sexism and racism have become rife in political institutions globally. Each of us has the power to shape the political discourse. How can the Scottish Government encourage members to consider the impact of their words, especially on the democratic engagement of underrepresented groups?
I agree fundamentally with the point that Ms Tweed makes about democracy having to be representative. However robust our debates might be in here—and it is right that they should be—they should also be based on reality, facts and, fundamentally, on respect for differing points of view. In this place, we have a leadership role in guiding public discourse.
In that regard, Ms Tweed and other members will be aware of the summit that the First Minister is holding to try to bring together political leaders and civic society. I know that he is looking forward to all parties accepting that invite.
Public Inquiries (Budgets)
To ask the Scottish Government how it controls budgets relating to public inquiries. (S6O-04428)
The cost of a public inquiry varies and is very much determined by the complexity of the issues to be investigated, the number of witnesses and the amount of technical expertise that might be required.
Public inquiries that are established under the Inquiries Act 2005 are independent of Government. Given their function of carrying out an investigation into matters or events that are causing widespread public concern and learning lessons for the future, it is essential that that independence is maintained.
We all support independence, but auditors have independence, too. The Deputy First Minister will know, as I do, that auditors must work within tight timescales and on a fixed budget, as do teachers, cleaners and people in every other job that I know. Yet, it seems that lawyers who get involved in a public inquiry have a licence to print money for themselves. Does she agree?
The Inquiries Act 2005 sets out a statutory duty on the chair of the inquiry, who is appointed by ministers, to act
“with regard ... to the need to avoid any unnecessary cost.”
We are keen to support the cost-efficient operation of public inquiries. To that end, Scottish Government officials produced guidance for ministers and sponsor teams on the establishment of an inquiry and how it can be supported, and laid it before Parliament in 2024. All of us have a duty to operate within fixed budgets.
School Support Staff
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to review the experience of support staff in schools. (S6O-04429)
School support staff across Scotland play an incredibly important role, and I am keen to put on record our thanks to them for all that they do.
Our behaviour in Scottish schools research includes the experience of support staff. In 2023, we also commissioned Education Scotland to lead the pupil support staff engagement programme, which gathered the views of 2,500 support staff on issues including workforce development and deployment. We have committed to undertaking the next wave of BISSR before the end of the action plan period in 2027, and the experiences of support staff will absolutely be included in that.
I hosted a round table with support staff in Parliament last month, and their experience was shocking; some had lifelong scars, some experienced misogynistic abuse and others were going to work wearing panic alarms. For most, it has become part of the job to expect violence. However, they do not get the support or information that they need to address the issue or help their young people. That is completely unacceptable.
According to the Government’s additional support for learning action plan, a review of how teachers and support staff roles interact and complement each other is complete. That is not reflected in reality—support staff say that they do not get access to the same information that all staff get—nor is it reflected in the conclusion that Audit Scotland came to. Does the minister really think that the work on support staff is done?
When we look at the seriousness of the findings of the GMB and Unison in that area, we see that self-evidently it is not. When that work is linked to our own research, it shows that there remain issues of unacceptable behaviour to which support staff are exposed. That is one reason why the first priority of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills in responding to BISSR was to provide £900,000 of funding to local authorities to procure and provide professional learning for the support staff workforce to improve skill levels and respond to distressed behaviour in school.
Pam Duncan-Glancy is correct that there is an unacceptable problem here, and the Government, in conjunction with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, is committed to working on it.
Can the minister set out the importance of the work that support staff undertake in our schools and how the recently passed budget is allowing local authorities to ensure that they are adequately resourced with support staff, whose experience can help schools meet the needs of our young people? It was, of course, a budget that Pam Duncan-Glancy and her Labour colleagues failed to vote for.
As I said a moment ago, we absolutely recognise the value of the role that support staff play in supporting learners, particularly the most vulnerable. That is why, in the budget, we have prioritised an additional £29 million for local and national programmes to support the recruitment and retention of the additional support needs workforce, with £28 million going directly to local government and £1 million retained for national work. That builds on the record high spending on additional support for learning by local authorities of more than £1 billion in 2023-24.
Supporting those with additional support needs in schools will continue to be a joint endeavour with local authorities, which retain the statutory responsibility for the delivery of education in Scotland. That will enable us to build on the work that is being delivered through the additional support for learning action plan.
Question 5 was not lodged.
Education (Participation in Sport)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of its reported positive impact on educational attainment, how it ensures that the education system provides pupils with a wide range of opportunities to participate in sport. (S6O-04431)
Schools offer a wide range of opportunities for pupils to engage in physical activities, both in and beyond the school environment. For example, the daily mile is an excellent way in which schools incorporate physical activity into the day, outwith specific physical education lessons. It encourages pupils to run, jog, wheel or walk daily. The active schools programmes, which are also free to schools, create opportunities for young people to get involved—and stay involved—in sport. In 2023-24, 4.9 million visits were recorded over the 262,000 active school sessions that were delivered. That is a 3.5 per cent increase on the previous year.
The erosion of opportunities for our children to participate in sport is directly related to poor physical and mental health, as well as declining behavioural standards. Sport gives children another way to express themselves and to achieve, and it engenders confidence, resilience and self-worth. Reducing those opportunities has consequences—like the 43 per cent reduction in PE specialists in primary schools in the past 10 years. Would the minister rather invest in those positive activities and help to prevent poor outcomes, or does he prefer paying for that lack of investment in poor physical and mental health outcomes, reduced attainment and poor behaviour in class?
As Brian Whittle has alluded to, we ought to focus on outcomes. He refers to a 43 per cent drop in PE specialists in primary schools. Primary school teachers are generalists who deliver the totality of their curriculum, including PE. Specialist PE teachers are predominantly based in secondary schools, and, over the period to which he referred, the number of PE teachers in secondary schools has increased by 20 per cent. That has helped to ensure that almost every school in Scotland now meets the target for the provision of physical education in schools. The reason why I refer to secondary schools is that, in some local authority areas, secondary PE teachers deliver PE in their primary school clusters, and those numbers are recorded differently. If we focus on outcomes, we see that 99.6 per cent of primary schools were meeting the target of two hours of PE per week in July 2024, compared with 10 per cent in 2004-05. Although I do not disagree with Brian Whittle about the importance of the subject, progress is being made, and the facts bear that out.
I may come to regret saying this, but Brian Whittle is absolutely right—
Now, now.
I am regretting it already. He is right in drawing the link between educational attainment and physical and sporting activity, as well as the link between good mental health and good physical health. Does the minister accept that it is about not just the availability of sport and physical activity during the school day but the facilities that schools have that are accessed by young people and those of all ages in the community? Does he accept that more can be done to support local authorities in opening up access and removing obstacles to facilities that are used by sports clubs in communities such as Orkney?
I may regret saying this, but I do not disagree with much of what Liam McArthur said. It is a fair point. It is not my area of specialism, but if he can identify particular barriers and impediments to that happening, I am sure that the cabinet secretary would be interested to hear about them.
Grangemouth Refinery
To ask the Scottish Government what further engagement it has had with Ineos, in light of recent reports of additional redundancies related to the closure of the Grangemouth refinery. (S6O-04432)
Ministers and officials engage with the Ineos businesses at Grangemouth regularly, recognising their role as important employers of highly skilled people within Grangemouth. The news that Ineos Olefins & Polymers UK is considering redundancies as a result of the closure of the refinery is concerning, and we stand ready to support workers who are impacted by that decision. I appeal to the business to explore all possible opportunities for redeployment of any workers who are at risk of redundancy, and I commit to exploring, with the business, all routes to mitigate any further loss of industrial activity or employment across the industrial cluster.
The minister will be aware—I have raised this point many times in our exchanges—that the closure of the refinery is significant not just for those who are directly employed there but for the wider supply chain, particularly within the Grangemouth chemical cluster.
Project willow is a vital piece of work that should give direction to investment and reassurance to workers on a foundation for the future. I know that the project willow report has been signed off by both the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments, but is the minister able to give a definitive date for its publication?
Michelle Thomson has been diligent in raising the matter, which affects many of her constituents. The project willow conclusions and recommendations will be made available via a public information document, which we hope will be published next week. We are working closely with the UK Government and other partners to finalise the details of that. I look forward to members from across the chamber engaging constructively with the project willow outputs when they become available.
The minister says that the report will published next week, but I remind him that we were told in the chamber several weeks ago that it would be published at the end of February. In responding to a similar question to the one that Michelle Thomson has just posed about the date of publication, the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy said that the report was subject to “final checks and changes” and that Petroineos is among the parties that are reviewing the report. Will the minister explain why Petroineos is seeing the report? The report is being paid for by taxpayers’ money, so why is Petroineos seeing it? What other members of the Grangemouth future industry board are also seeing it so that it can be checked and changed?
First, by “next week”, I mean next week. Secondly, on Stephen Kerr’s point about Petroineos, I think that he would be the very first person in the chamber to complain, not without some justification, if the Scottish Government had not been speaking to Petroineos and other companies that are involved directly in the matter. As he says, the report is a Scottish Government report, but it is entirely legitimate for us to speak to the companies that are involved.
Given that we now have a financial commitment to invest from the Scottish Government and £200 million from the UK Government’s National Wealth Fund, what is the timescale for getting new projects over the line, so that we see the new jobs that we need being created using the infrastructure in Grangemouth?
As Sarah Boyack has said, there has been investment by both Governments. On 18 February, the First Minister announced to the Parliament that the Scottish Government would lodge a stage 3 amendment to the budget bill for
“£25 million to establish a Grangemouth just transition fund”,—[Official Report, 18 February 2025; c 32.]
which will expedite near-term propositions in the here and now.
The Prime Minister announced that, as part of a major intervention, the National Wealth Fund will provide £200 million of investment for new, future opportunities for Grangemouth. We understand that the funds from the National Wealth Fund will consider only investable propositions and that moneys will be provided on a co-investment basis. Timescales will be determined by those factors.
I hope that Sarah Boyack accepts that both Governments take seriously the task of finding solutions for the future and for the here and now.
Question 8 has been withdrawn.
There will be a brief suspension before we move to the next item of business.
11:58 Meeting suspended.Air adhart
First Minister’s Question Time