Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 25, 2025

Official Report 1032KB pdf

---

Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill: Stage 3

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—Scottish Parliament bill 56A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage 3 proceedings. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 4—Overall cash authorisations

We move to the group entitled “The Scottish Administration: allocation of resources”. Amendment 1, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, is grouped with amendments 2 and 3.

The three amendments proposed today update the Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill to include an additional £25 million to support Grangemouth, which the First Minister announced to Parliament on 18 February. That additional financial support will be funded through ScotWind revenues. It will be used to establish a Grangemouth just transition fund, and it will be made available immediately in the new financial year to support businesses and stakeholders.

The aim of that additional funding in 2025-26 is to expedite any of the potential solutions that will be set out in the project willow report, as well as to support other proposals that will give Grangemouth a secure and sustainable future. I also welcome the United Kingdom Government’s £200 million investment in Grangemouth. It is important that our collective funding responds to the needs of business, the workforce and the community, which are central to Grangemouth’s future.

I welcome the £25 million and the £200 million that the cabinet secretary mentioned, but the devil is always in the detail. Will she tell us a bit more about how that £25 million will be administered? Will that be done by the Grangemouth future industry board? If so, who exactly within GFIB will administer it?

I know that the First Minister has already set out some of the detail. The aim is not only to expedite any of the potential solutions that will be set out in the project willow report, but to consider proposals made by Unite and its members, for example, and to continue to pursue other options, including as yet unknown potential investments.

We want this money to work as quickly and as flexibly as possible to give the opportunity to secure jobs at the Grangemouth site. However, we must also see an urgent decision on the Acorn carbon capture and storage project if a just transition at Grangemouth is to become a reality. Amendment 1 therefore amends section 4 of the bill to increase the Scottish Administration’s overall cash authorisation by £25 million to cover the additional portfolio spend that is provided for by amendment 2.

Amendment 2 amends schedule 1 of the bill to increase the maximum spend of the net zero and energy portfolio by £25 million to create the just transition fund for Grangemouth. To take account of that additional authorised spend, amendment 3 amends schedule 1 of the bill to increase the total amount of resources that the Scottish Administration is authorised to use by £25 million.

I urge all members to support amendment 1 and the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 1.

I, too, very much welcome this £25 million. It is quite clear that the announcement laid down the gauntlet to the UK Government to do something and to come to the table after a period of some seven months, when it could have used National Wealth Fund moneys in the first place. I am also pleased to note that it is what I would consider the proper use of ScotWind funds, to build a future.

In terms of how quickly we can get projects on the table that can provide a return, investment at pace will be vital. I am pleased that this money will be available immediately in the new financial year, and I hope that that can start the process of enabling—

Does the member have any concerns about how the money will be distributed—the process by which that will be done? Does she have any concerns about the involvement of GFIB?

I do not have concerns about how the money will be distributed; I agree with Stephen Kerr that the devil will be in the detail, and I think that that detail needs to be worked out at pace. However, I have no concerns that that will not be the case, because the Scottish Government has clearly stated that the money will be available in the new financial year. Therefore, in some respects, it is a more critical enabler than the £200 million, in relation to which—if people have read the National Wealth Fund criteria, as I have—there is clearly a great deal of work to do.

During topical question time, I made a comment about the need for policy certainty. That is the elephant in the room. We need policy certainty around the likes of the Acorn project for carbon capture, utilisation and storage. It is critical if we are to enable green hydrogen, which might be a project that we can move forward with at pace. We also need the UK Government to come to the table if sustainable aviation fuel is to be a possibility in the future.

To summarise, I very much welcome the additional funding, and I thank the Scottish Government for taking such action.

I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up.

I have nothing further to add, Presiding Officer.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Schedule 1—The Scottish Administration

Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Shona Robison]—and agreed to.

That ends consideration of amendments.

As members will be aware, I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of the Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill, in my view, no provision relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.