Official Report 1032KB pdf
Grangemouth (National Wealth Fund)
To ask the Scottish Government how it will work with the United Kingdom Government on the recently announced £200 million investment in Grangemouth, as part of the national wealth fund. (S6T-02380)
Last week, the First Minister announced the new £25 million Grangemouth just transition fund, as part of this Government’s nearly £90 million of planned support to Grangemouth.
We welcome the recent UK Government announcement that £200 million will also be allocated for Grangemouth from the national wealth fund. We are already engaging with the UK Government on that and we are seeking clarity on the details of the fund to ensure alignment with our interventions, in order to maximise the impact for the workforce, the community, and business development.
I am committed to continuing my collaborative relationship with the UK Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero in order to secure a long-term and sustainable future for Grangemouth. I hope that Daniel Johnson can show a similar collaborative approach for Grangemouth by backing the budget—and the money that we have announced—at stage 3 this afternoon.
Our position on the budget is clear. This is such a big issue that I do not think that the workers at Grangemouth would thank us for playing politics with it. [Interruption.] It is an important point.
Of all the numbers of great importance, the most important is that 400 people have been given redundancy notices. Given that this is the start of the hard work to attract investment in, which is what the funds are expected to do, what steps will the Scottish Government take alongside the United Kingdom Government to attract that investment? Critically, will those sums be available to fund project willow?
First, I am not playing politics. I am making the point that it is important that we all get behind any money that is pledged by any Government to support the workers at Grangemouth. I do not mean that to be a party political point.
This is not the start of the hard work by either Government. Since the new UK Government came in, we have had a much more collaborative relationship than we had with the previous UK Government and we have been working very hard, initially to prevent the closure and ask Petroineos to make a different decision. We have been unstinting in that, and that is still the course of action that I would like to see.
As regards the moneys and what will be done with the £200 million and indeed the £90 million, including the £25 million just transition fund, I want to work with the Grangemouth future industry board and the UK Government on that, because they are critical. We have been working together for a good two years now on what needs to happen in the Grangemouth area. Our £25 million just transition fund will be deployed this year. We have a precedent in how the north-east and Moray just transition fund has worked and some of the projects that it has supported for oil and gas workers and, indeed, the supply chain.
The first thing that I will do after the budget is—touch wood—passed this afternoon, once I know that the moneys are coming to the just transition fund, is to meet my officials to make sure that we get early engagement with the Grangemouth future industry board to talk about how that money can be deployed and the mechanisms that will be put in place for that. I will have a similar conversation with Ed Miliband, I hope very soon—I will be writing to him this afternoon—to discuss how the £200 million can work with that money.
There is a great deal of interest in asking supplementary questions, so I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.
With the £25 million from the Scottish Government and £200 million from the UK Government on top of the £100 million city deal, this is one of the largest industrial interventions that this country has seen in decades, but it is not just about the money. A number of policy and regulatory changes will be required, particularly if we are looking at project willow and biorefining. Will the cabinet secretary set out how those things will be examined and how she will take the actions that we expect to see in the project willow public document in the coming days, so that we can implement those changes?
I have been talking about some of the regulatory changes that the UK Government will have to make since well before the Labour Government came into place. I had those discussions with the Conservative Governments. I am pleased to say that I have now had a lot more feedback in our discussions about what might need to be done. Project willow has been essential in that regard because, as well as looking at some areas in which the refinery can adapt and become a different type of plant for sustainable aviation fuel or biorefining, it requires regulatory change. That will be outlined in project willow.
The UK Government has the most locus in that, but we are already aware of what some of those policy changes should be, and I stand ready to support the UK Government in making the right decisions that will allow some of the future industries—in the short term, I hope—to be viable and ensure that they are competitive, given that other countries might already have the regulatory changes in place and we must not be left behind.
I, too, welcome the additional moneys, although I note that the UK Government application process will be time consuming, with money being made available as debt or equity on the probability of a sufficient return on investment to the UK Government. For businesses to make applications at pace, there must be, as the minister stated, considerably more policy certainty. I know that she has been pursuing the matter, but has she had any advice on it thus far from the UK Government? Will there be a shift in its current attitude to carbon capture and storage and the Acorn project, which is a critical enabler of green hydrogen, or the possibility of Grangemouth and the associated work becoming a test site for sustainable aviation fuel? I repeat that policy certainty will be needed as much as finance to encourage confidence in business investment.
What Michelle Thomson has just outlined is absolutely critical. I welcome the response from the Prime Minister to the First Minister’s call for the UK Government to provide its fair share of support for Grangemouth, but I agree that we need policy certainty, particularly on carbon capture, utilisation and storage.
I have had repeated discussions with the former and current UK Governments and remain deeply frustrated that there is still no clarity on timelines, funding and criteria for the Acorn project, which, I think, will provide that policy certainty and, as I have been told by people who have an interest, ramp up the investability that is in the plant. I agree whole-heartedly that giving the Acorn project the go-ahead is the next intervention that the UK Government should make, and I think that it should be made immediately. I hope that all members will support me on that, because it would be a game changer.
Daniel Johnson is right that this is about jobs. However, it is not just about 400 jobs; it is about nearly 3,000 jobs. That is the economic impact assessment of what is happening at Grangemouth.
It is a great pity that we do not have more detail on the £200 million and exactly how that will be distributed and used. It is also a great pity that we still do not have much detail about the £25 million. I would really like to hear a lot more detail about how that money is going to be used.
I would also like the minister to tell us about the report on project willow. I remember her saying that that would come out by the end of this month. This is the end of the month. When exactly will we see it? Colin Mackay of STV saw it. He even wrote a detailed report on it. I do not understand why we have not seen it. Has Petroineos got a copy of the EY report on project willow? How much did it cost? How specific are the project willow proposals? Are they costed? Where will the investment come from? Those are all burning questions on the minds of the people of Grangemouth.
There are a lot of questions in that. I will not have time to answer all of them. I will be able to write to the member about some of the detail—in particular, the cost of project willow. That involved money that was put in by the Scottish Government and the UK Government. None was put in by Petroineos.
The report is due by the end of the month, and nothing has been said to me to indicate that that will slip in any way. As I mentioned, the budget needs to be passed today for the £25 million to be released but, once the £25 million has been secured, through the Parliament’s voting for it, it is my number 1 priority to look—particularly with the Grangemouth future industry board, because this is about not just the refinery but the industrial complex of Grangemouth as a whole—at how that can be deployed and used. It will be able to be deployed in a way that makes a difference only if we work together with the people of Grangemouth and the stakeholders in it, much as we did with the north-east and Moray just transition fund, which has been very successful.
All the money that has been announced for Grangemouth is absolutely welcome, but trying to get money out quickly does not always mean that that money gets spent in the correct projects for the area. At the Grangemouth community council meeting last Thursday, 120 people were in the room, asking about the industrial future of Grangemouth and wanting to resolve some of the disconnect between them and industry. How can the cabinet secretary implore people to resolve that disconnect as well as ensure that projects are value for money and will support both skills and the local community?
Both the local council and the community council are members of the Grangemouth future industry board. That is the vehicle by which any disconnect will be resolved. As I have said, the £25 million can be deployed over the next year, but it has to be deployed in the right way, to create more opportunities for the workers, supply chain and communities. The supply chain, the communities and the workers will dictate how that money is spent. I need to work with them via the vehicle of the Grangemouth future industry board, of which some of the people whom Gillian Mackay has mentioned are members.
Public Bodies (Equality Act 2010)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its role in ensuring that public bodies are meeting their legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010, following recent correspondence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. (S6T-02370)
The Scottish Government is considering the letter from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and will, of course, engage with the commission. Under the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012, public authorities are under a duty to assess and review proposed new or revised policies and practices.
This Government stands firmly behind the separate and single-sex exemptions that are provided in the 2010 act. Members will be aware that that allows for trans people to be excluded when that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Public bodies are responsible for complying with the 2010 act and its regulations.
The equalities regulator wrote to NHS Fife last week, pointing out that, under statutory public sector equality duties, the health board must
“assess and review proposed new or revised policies or practices”.
The Herald reports today that NHS Fife skipped that vital step when it allowed a trans-identified male doctor to use a female changing room. This is serious. It means that the health board might have failed to comply with its legal obligations to assess the impact of its policies on women. So, let me ask the cabinet secretary a very simple question: does she know how many other national health service institutions are operating this potentially unlawful policy?
As ministers have made clear on a number of occasions, we cannot comment on on-going cases such as the one in NHS Fife. However, in general, as I also made clear in my original answer, ministers are very clear that they stand firmly behind the provisions in the Equality Act 2010 and the exemptions that are contained in it. We absolutely expect public bodies to conduct their policies and procedures in line with the legislation that is in place.
As the EHRC said in its letter, it is the statutory regulator for equality in Scotland and it promotes and enforces compliance with the Equality Act 2010. Ministers are, as we always have been, happy to discuss with the commission how the Scottish Government and the commission can help public bodies to comply with their obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
The EHRC was clear in its correspondence that the Scottish Government—we are talking about the Scottish Government—has a role in ensuring that NHS Scotland and other public bodies are meeting their legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010. I am glad that the cabinet secretary says today that it will fulfil its duties.
Caroline Lamb is the chief executive of NHS Scotland and sits at the Scottish Government’s top table as director general for health and social care. Failings such as these lead straight to the heart of the Scottish Government. Scottish National Party ministers keep trying to ride two horses with regard to single-sex spaces, but they cannot keep reading out the same script that says that sex is protected under the Equality Act 2010 while arguing in the United Kingdom’s highest court that sex does not mean biological sex. My question is: will this SNP Government protect single-sex spaces for biological women in Scotland’s public services—yes or no?
The member refers to another live court case, and, therefore, of course, I will not comment on that. With the greatest respect to Tess White, the reason why the answers from Scottish ministers are the same is that they are based on the legislation that is in place—the Equality Act 2010 and the regulations that I mentioned in my previous answer. The Government absolutely expects all public bodies to fulfil their obligations under the regulations under the Equality Act 2010. For the benefit of the member, I say once again, the answers are similar because that is our clear expectation. There has been no change in the Government’s policy. As I said in my original answer, we stand firmly behind the 2010 act and the exemptions that are within it. That has been the policy of this Government all along.
We are now past the scheduled time for this item of business. I will allow it to continue for a few minutes, but I absolutely must insist on concise questions and responses.
Is the cabinet secretary confident that all health and safety workplace regulations are being complied with and that all public bodies have single-sex toilets clearly marked as male and female? In her answer, I ask her to give us evidence of how that data was collected and, if it is not available, to commit to obtaining such information.
Carol Mochan quite rightly points to the fact that there are other regulations on top of the ones that I mentioned in my original answer—for example, those that refer specifically to the workplace. However, I say once again that those regulations are also included in the Government’s belief that all public bodies should fulfil their obligations under all pieces of legislation with reference to this issue.
Does the cabinet secretary have full confidence that all public sector bodies in Scotland, including NHS Scotland, are complying with the requirements that are set out in the Equality Act 2010 to produce an equality impact assessment in relation to the provision of single-sex spaces—yes or no?
Once again, for the benefit of Rachael Hamilton, I note that we are very, very committed to working with the EHRC. There is a role for the Government and a role for the commission in that, as I said in my earlier answer. The EHRC is the statutory regulator for equality in Scotland. It promotes and enforces compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and provides guidance on these very matters. We look forward to working with the commission and to meeting it in due course to discuss these matters in detail.
Given the tenor and tone of questioning in this area, how can we ensure that trans people across Scotland feel included and protected in their workplace?
It is important that all of us in the chamber conduct ourselves in a manner whereby we respect everyone’s rights. We are quite rightly questioned on the promotion and protection of women’s rights, which is absolutely integral to the work that the Scottish Government does.
We will continue to support the trans community; it is one of the most marginalised communities in Scotland, and it is important that we do that. However, we will not do that in a way that provides any doubt about our commitment to the Equality Act 2010 and to ensuring that single-sex space exemptions exist and should have practical effect.
A lack of clarity and, I have to say, a lack of understanding by the Government of the law has left working women in Scotland in the absolutely ridiculous position of having legally provided single-sex spaces open to anyone who identifies into them.
The minister has repeatedly said that she expects public bodies to uphold the law, but I am not hearing what the Government is doing about it. Perhaps I can make a suggestion: the Government could get the situation under control by making the upholding of public sector duties a condition of Government funding. Will she commit to that?
I go back to the point that the Government expects all public bodies to respect, obey and comply with the law and to have that set out in their procedures.
That is a no, then.
Members, let us ensure that we do not shout over one another.
I have to say to the cabinet secretary that all we are getting is the same answer every time, which is not good enough. I know that it is uncomfortable for the Government, but it must respond to members’ questions.
The cabinet secretary said in her statement that she and the Government are considering the letter from the EHRC. It was sent last week, is one page long and contains only six paragraphs. How much longer will the Government need to consider the letter? Will it publish its response to the EHRC? When it has responded, will the cabinet secretary give a statement in the chamber to finally answer questions about the issue?
Again, for the avoidance of any doubt, the answers are similar because they are based on the law of the land and the Equality Act 2010, which is exactly what the Government will continue to refer back to.
Douglas Ross raises points about the letter. It is a reasonably short letter, but it contains important challenges and questions for the Government, and it is important that we take time to reflect on it. If we did not, I think that members would criticise us for that.
We will, of course, move forward with meeting the commission, which we look forward to working with. There are important roles for the Government and for the commission in this. I am sure that members will have ample opportunity to continue to question the Government on the issue over the weeks and months ahead.
Air ais
Business MotionsAir adhart
Skye House (Care of Children)