Scottish Parliament, 25 November 2021

272 contributions from 73 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. I remind members about the Covid-related measures that are in place, and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

The first item of business is general questions. In order to get in as many people as possible, I would be grateful for short, succinct questions and answers to match.

Ventilation in Schools (Funding)

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what guidance it has issued related to the funding of ventilation in schools. (S6O-00446)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

A Scottish Government funding package of £10 million for the delivery of CO2

monitoring in schools was confirmed with Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders at the end of August. That was in addition to the £90 million of funding that was previously provided to local authorities for Covid logistics, which was made available for use for a range of purposes, including improved ventilation.

In allocating funding to local authorities, we set out that the additional £10 million should be used only for the intended purposes, in line with Scottish Government guidance. Those purposes comprise the purchase and installation of CO2

monitors and funding of associated additional staff, training or consultant resource requirements. After those elements have been prioritised, funding may also be used to contribute to the costs of any required remedial action that has been identified by CO2

monitoring.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. Will the Government publish the inspection criteria used to confirm whether classrooms have adequate ventilation?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The guidance is quite clear on that issue, and it is a matter for local authorities to work with the professional staff that they have in that area to ensure that the monitoring has been undertaken correctly. The situation will vary, depending on the type of monitor that the local authority chose, but we are supporting local authorities to ensure that they use the monitors correctly; indeed, local authorities are supporting one another. Following monitoring, it is for the local authority to undertake any required remedial action; again, such action will depend on what the monitoring showed up and is taken on a case-by-case basis.

I am happy to make the material from the Scottish Government on the allocation of funding and our guidance available to Foysol Choudhury in writing, if he has not already seen it.

Zero Direct Emissions Heating (New-build Properties)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will bring forward the date of 2024 for requiring zero direct emissions heating within new builds. (S6O-00447)

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government recognises the crucial need to take rapid action to reduce emissions associated with heating our homes and buildings.

We recently reaffirmed our commitment to introduce regulations for zero direct emissions heating within new builds from 2024 in our heat in buildings strategy. That is faster than the United Kingdom Government is moving and it is faster than some expected. Our current review of building regulations for 2022 also includes provisions that will support the changes that are planned for 2024.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does the minister share the concern of local Scottish National Party councillors in north-east Fife, who were powerless to prevent gas boilers from being installed recently in 30 new affordable homes in the village of Springfield, and who will be powerless to act for another three years if the SNP Government refuses to change the rules? Why is the Government waiting until 2024, when there is a climate emergency now?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

As I said, we are cracking on with that work as rapidly as we can. I am glad that Willie Rennie is enthusiastic about pushing us further. If we were to say that we would complete the work by tea time, some people might still be outraged that we were not completing it by lunch time.

I hope that that is not what is happening here, because what is necessary to achieve that work is not simply about bringing in a regulation. It is about working with the supply chain; it is about working with the skills involved so that we can go from a few thousand installations a year to hundreds of thousands installations a year by the end of the parliamentary session; and it is about working with our electricity networks so that they can cope with the increased demand on them that that work will result in.

Our heat in buildings strategy has been well received, and it is well recognised that it is more ambitious than that in the United Kingdom, in relation to both zero-emission heating and energy efficiency. We need to tackle both as fast as possible.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister said that new homes and buildings will be required to install electric vehicle charging points from 2022. Does the Scottish Government have similar ambitions?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am sure that if Mr Johnson wanted to respond to our consultation on the reform of building regulations, he would be very welcome to do so, and that we would give his suggestion all due attention.

Grouse Moor Management Review Group (Recommendations)

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its progress with implementing the recommendations of the grouse moor management review group. (S6O-00448)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Implementing the grouse moor management group’s

recommendations remains a priority for the Government. As our 2021-22 programme for government set out, we will bring forward legislation in this parliamentary term.

Since publishing our report, ministers, officials and NatureScot have met with stakeholders to develop proposals for a licensing scheme, and NatureScot has established a task group to progress recommendations, including on licensing and muirburn, which met on 23 November. We have also commissioned a report on the impact of medicated grit, which was published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in November 2020. We have been engaging with the bodies that are involved in monitoring and regulating its use, and we will continue to do so.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is clear that work has started at long last on this important area. I raise also the related issue of extending the powers of the

Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to enable it to tackle the wildlife crime that we see in many areas of Scotland. It has been 10 years since that was first proposed, and I believe that the minister is the seventh minister to consider action in that area. When can that work begin?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

As Mr Ruskell is aware, we have legislated for a task force to consider the scope of the powers. Our Bute house agreement ensures that the task force will be able to report and that any recommendations that we agree to and which require legislation will be reported in time to be included in legislation on grouse moor management.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

A key concern around grouse moors is the scale of trapping of other species through snaring. Can the minister tell us whether the animal welfare issues with the use of legal snares will be included in the snaring review, and when that review will report?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I answered a recent question in Parliament about snaring from one of Mr Smyth’s colleagues. The rules on snaring in Scotland are the tightest in the United Kingdom, but I have made it clear that, when they are reviewed—I think that that will be at the end of this year, but I will correct that if I am wrong—I will see that their scope is extended to include a potential ban on snares.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

In thanking the minister for recently meeting with me and senior members of the Scottish Gamekeeepers Association, can I ask her to reaffirm to Parliament that the Scottish Government recognises the value to the rural economy of country sports, which are carried out professionally, as they have been and will continue to be, given the excellent professionalism of gamekeepers in our country?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am happy to confirm that the work that we are undertaking in grouse moor management is not intended to, and will not, put an end to grouse moor management in Scotland. Mr Ewing knows that because, in the months of September and October alone, after I met with

the League Against Cruel Sports, OneKind, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Revive coalition and the Scottish Raptor Study Group, I sat down with him and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and we discussed those issues at length.

I feel very strongly that we should pursue policy in consultation with those who lives and livelihoods are affected by it, and I will continue to do that.

Flood Mitigation Schemes (Funding)

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to support the funding of flood mitigation schemes. (S6O-00449)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We are committed to providing an extra £150 million over the next five years for flood risk management, in addition to the £42 million that we provide annually to local authorities.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Residents in areas that I represent in Stockbridge, Comely Bank, Ravelston and Craigleith have been hit by significant flooding in recent years, because of urban waste water issues. However, the Scottish Government’s funding mechanism operates on the basis of river flooding. Does the Scottish Government plan to review that funding mechanism to make sure that Edinburgh is given a fair funding deal to carry out mitigation projects to prevent future flooding?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The flood risk management strategies that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency co-ordinates on behalf of all bodies responsible for flooding consider all those matters. They consider whether an area is urban and they consider the rurality of an area. They also consider sources of flooding risk, whether those come from a river, the sea or surface water. That is embedded in the work that SEPA does, and the Government is committed to funding the priority projects that SEPA puts forward in the flood risk management strategies, so long as they are viable.

Strategic Transport Projects Review 2 (Phase 2 Consultation)

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

5. To ask the Scottish Government, further to the laying of national planning framework 4, whether it can provide an updated timescale for the consultation on phase 2 of the strategic transport projects review 2. (S6O-00450)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

STPR2 will create the evidence base for future transport investment decisions in Scotland for the next 20 years. Given the link between land use and transport, it has been fundamental that STPR2 takes cognisance of the spatial strategy set out in NPF4.

Work on STPR2 is proceeding well and the intention is to publish recommendations for investment in the new year, followed by the appropriate statutory consultation period. That will be done in a way that enables it to be concluded before the local authority pre-election purdah period begins.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for his answer and look forward to seeing more detail in the weeks to come. Does the minister acknowledge the need to promote freight transport by rail, particularly for long-distance journeys,

in trying to reducing transport emissions?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Emma Roddick will appreciate that, given the processes that we are going through, and out of respect for the stakeholders, I will not give too much detail at this stage. However, there is no doubt that getting freight on to rail will be a priority as we seek to decarbonise transport. That will, of course, involve investment in infrastructure.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

In phase 1 of STPR2, the Government pledged to carry out an audit of all lorry parks and rest areas near trunk roads in Scotland. What progress is being made on that and will there be any investment for improvements?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I will write to Graham Simpson with details on the first part of that question. We are in detailed discussions with the freight sector about a variety of subjects, including the location of lorry parks and the appropriate charging infrastructure that might be needed for them.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The NPF4 includes a statement that

“All local development plans should manage the use and development of land in the long term public interest”,

which is the accepted purpose of planning. However, the draft framework does not set out steps to apply that public-interest principle during the decision-making process, when planning applications are being decided. Will the Scottish Government set out a process for decision makers to follow to deny planning permission if they deem that a development would be unacceptable on the ground of public interest?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

A very clear set of criteria are deployed in the context of STPR2. Those are the criteria that we use.

Deferred Entry to Primary 1 (Funding for Early Learning and Childcare)

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details of its plans to entitle all children whose school start is deferred to access funded early learning and childcare in their deferred year. (S6O-00451)

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Positive progress is being made on delivering the commitment to offer funded early learning and childcare for all children whose school entry is deferred. The legislation will take effect from August 2023, as per the timetable approved by Parliament on 3 February 2021. A pilot programme is already under way in five local authorities. To support local authorities in preparing for full implementation, we are investing £8.9 million to enable five additional local authorities to join the pilot from August 2022.

The Scottish Government is commissioning an evaluation of the pilot approach. That research will support local authorities with full implementation by evaluating approaches to policy implementation and parents’ perceptions of the process. We anticipate that full evaluation findings will be published in spring 2023.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Will the minister provide further information on how the pilots are progressing? Will she outline how the Government intends to communicate the change in order to ensure that all families, in the pilot areas and more widely, are aware of their deferral rights?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

The pilot is progressing well, with all participating authorities supporting families with their new entitlement. The new pilot sites were announced recently, and local authorities are leading communication at the local level. Our ParentClub website has been updated to give clear information about deferral rights to parents and carers in pilot areas and other authorities.

We ask local authorities to consider parental communications when applying for the year 2 pilot places, and communication is a key priority for our deferral working group, which will meet on 30 November. We will use that opportunity to share practice and support local authorities with their local communication plans. The meeting will also allow us to gather useful practice to share more widely ahead of the full roll-out in 2023.

Reaching 100 per cent Programme (Progress)

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made towards the R100 commitment to superfast broadband for all. (S6O-00452)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The reaching 100 per cent programme commitment is being delivered through our R100 contracts, the R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme and on-going commercial coverage. Despite telecoms legislation being reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, which is often forgotten, the Scottish Government is investing £579 million in R100 contracts, with the UK Government contribution being just £33.5 million. Work is well under way across all the contracts.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I have been contacted by a number of constituents in Aberdeen Donside who it is expected will not be connected to the superfast network prior to the 31 December 2021 deadline. My constituents have been advised that they might be connected in 2022, but they have received no guarantee of when it might happen.

Over the past year, we have seen how important a superfast connection is. I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary would provide assurances that the Scottish Government will engage with residents in affected areas who have yet to be connected to ensure that they are aware of a timescale for the work being completed.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Although contract delivery for some premises in the Aberdeen Donside constituency is scheduled to take place after the end of this calendar year, the R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme offers a voucher worth up to £400 to enable constituents to secure an interim superfast connection, thereby ensuring that everyone can access superfast broadband by the end of 2021. Where our online address checker currently shows a delivery date of 2022, it will be updated to reflect greater detail on delivery timescales, once survey work has been completed on the ground. We will continue to engage with communities across Scotland as part of the R100 programme.

Social Care Workers (Pay)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will allocate funding in its 2022-23 budget to enable social care workers to be paid at least £15 per hour. (S6O-00453)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

As Jackie Baillie will know, the Scottish Government budget for 2022-2023 is currently in development and will be published on 9 December. We are fully committed to reviewing pay and conditions for the social care workforce.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The Scottish Government has received some £4.6 billion in extra funding from the United Kingdom Government for the next budget. The cabinet secretary and I discussed pay for social care staff in the previous budget round. At that time, she was concerned about continuing revenue funding. Given that that is no longer a problem, what is preventing the Government from increasing wages for low-paid social care staff?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

It is not like Jackie Baillie to unquestioningly accept

a Tory press release on our budget. As she will know, this year’s budget is as challenging as ever, in the light of the fact that there are no Covid consequentials. In fact, the allocation does not accept that Covid continues to have an impact on our health and education services and on local government.

When it comes to social care workers, I agree on the importance of valuing their work, which is why this year we have provided funding of £64.5 million to deliver the living wage, and why last month we committed funding of up to £48 million to lift the hourly rate for social care workers from £9.50 an hour to at least £10.02 an hour. That is in sharp contrast with what social care workers in England and Wales face, most of whom are paid the national living wage of £8.91 an hour.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes general question time. Before we move to First Minister’s question time, I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery His Excellency Mohammad Sarwar, the governor of Punjab. [

Applause

.]

Violence Against Women

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. Today, we stood together in a minute’s silence to mark international violence against women day. Tragically, in Scotland, more and more women each year become victims of crime. Last year saw the largest year-on-year rise in the number of domestic abuse charges, and the number of sexual crimes has more than doubled since 2007. We know that women suffer those horrific crimes far more than men do. It is the first task of this and any Government to keep the public safe. Does the First Minister have confidence in her Government’s ability to keep women across Scotland safe?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am not complacent about the risks and the threats of abuse, harassment and often very serious violence that women are subjected to in Scotland and around the world every single day. That is why, with a sense of great regret that it is necessary, I welcome the United Nations international day for the elimination of violence against women and the 16 days of action that will follow.

I do not believe that any Government in the United Kingdom or across the world is doing enough to protect women. Of course, the source of violence against women is men who commit those acts of violence. I do, however, believe that this Government is taking important action. For example, Douglas Ross rightly pointed out the increase in reports of domestic abuse, but that has come about partly because we extended the law to classify more examples of behaviour as domestic abuse. It is to the credit of the Parliament that it did so, and it is an important step forward. It means that behaviour that was not previously criminalised is now criminalised. We have also increased funding for the organisations that work on behalf of women. It is also important that courts treat seriously the actions that lead to convictions.

I believe that the Scottish Government and Parliament are taking important steps forward, but I believe even more strongly that there is much more still to be done.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I absolutely agree that much more still needs to be done.

Last week, I raised the case of Esther Brown. She was raped and murdered by a criminal with a long and appalling history of violence against women. Just this morning, we heard that arrests have finally been made in connection with the murder of schoolgirl Caroline Glachan, which took place more than 25 years ago. She was found dead on the morning of her mother’s 40th birthday.

Another tragic loss of life that we have raised numerous times in the chamber is that of Michelle Stewart, who was murdered in 2008 near her home in Ayrshire. Just a few weeks ago, her sister Lisa wrote to the First Minister’s justice secretary to ask for an update on Michelle’s law, which is a series of reforms to toughen up the justice system that my party supports. Specifically, Lisa asked about the tagging and GPS monitoring of those who have committed serious and violent crimes but who are released on licence. She said that the former justice secretary, who is speaking to the First Minister right now, committed to having a scheme up and running by November 2021. With one week to go, will that promise to a grieving family be kept?

The First Minister

First, in relation to the arrests that were reported this morning, in common with all members, I cannot comment on the substance of that matter, but it is an important indication that, no matter how many years pass after a horrendous crime is committed, those who are responsible will be brought to justice whenever possible. On this day in particular, that sends an important message.

On Michelle Stewart, I will ensure that the letter that has been written receives a full response. We have taken forward a number of reforms in response to calls that were made in the wake of that and other tragic cases. I will write to Douglas Ross about the progress and timing of the reform that he is asking for, and I will place the letter in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

I do not want to say definitively that this is the case here, but everybody in the chamber knows that certain commitments and certain strands of work have unavoidably been affected because of what, collectively, we have been dealing with over the past two years. However, those are important measures that we need to continue to take or to keep our minds open about taking, in order that we do all that we can to keep women safe, to ensure that those who commit acts of violence against women are brought to justice and to deal with much more effectively in that future than society has done in the past the underlying cause of violence against women, which is the behaviour of some men in our society.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will appreciate any response that I get from the First Minister in a letter or in any other way, but a promise was made to a family who have gone through the worst of circumstances, which none of us can imagine, and, with less than a week to go, it sounds as though that promise is not going to be kept.

That is not the only promise to the Stewart family and others like them that has been broken. Just a few weeks ago, Lisa Stewart said this about her sister’s murderer:

“We get no warning that he is out in our local area. What happens if we come across him; is any thought given to the victims?”

Again, that is not an isolated example. Victims are routinely left in the dark about where the criminal who ruined their lives ends up and when they will be let out. Right now, around 4,500 criminals who are serving sentences of up to 18 months for crimes including sexual assault and domestic violence have a release date that their victim could be told about. That means that there are 4,500 victims of crime who could be informed of when the offender in their case will be released from prison. How many of those victims have, in fact, been notified?

The First Minister

The reason I said that I would write in detail to Douglas Ross and make the terms of that letter available in SPICe—which, in effect, will make that information available publicly—is that I want to make sure that I give proper, detailed answers on the very important points that he has raised. We are taking forward work on all those strands. It is the case—this frustrates me as much as it frustrates other politicians, although, of course, it does not frustrate us nearly as much as I know it will frustrate the families of victims of crime—that the reforms in question are often complex reforms that have to be done properly in order that our overall justice system performs in the way that we want it to.

For example, part of the work on notification has involved making changes to the victim notification scheme to ensure that victims receive proper notice when that is appropriate—so that, for example, there is the ability for victims to be notified when people are on parole. I want to make sure that we set out in detail where all the different strands of that work have got to. I do not believe that it is the case that we are not taking forward important changes and reforms in this area—we are. Rightly, we have talked about those changes and reforms many times before in the chamber.

I know that I speak on behalf of many people—many women, in particular—across the country when I say that there are few issues that I care more passionately about than doing everything possible to keep women in our society safer from the violence that, too often, women are subjected to. There is more that we need to do, and there is more that we are doing. The issue is one that I take extremely seriously, and I know that that view is shared across my Government and, indeed, across the Parliament.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister said that victims have to have proper notice. The answer to my question, which was about how many of the 4,500 victims of the offences that I mentioned have been notified, is 37. At the moment, 37 of those victims are aware of where the offender in their case is and when they will be released. Less than 1 per cent of those victims know when the criminal who ruined their life will get out.

How can women who suffer the most horrific crimes and their families feel safe when they are kept in the dark about the release of dangerous offenders? They have no idea of whether, when they are walking down the street in their own community, they might come face to face with their attacker.

The justice system is stacked against victims. We have to change that to prevent another case such as what happened to Caroline Glachan, what happened to Esther Brown and what happened to Michelle Stewart. When will the First Minister’s Government finally take the action that is desperately needed to keep women safe from such crimes?

The First Minister

Those are important issues. I do not believe that it is a fair representation of the justice system to say that it is stacked against victims. However, I do believe that the justice system, like all parts of society, must change to respond better to the needs of women who are subject to violence. I readily accept that responsibility.

The Government is taking forward a range of changes and reforms because some of what Douglas Ross has cited is not good enough. Victim notification is one of those areas. I do not say that they are in the majority, but it is important to say that some victims of crime do not want that information, for reasons that are important to them. It is important that, in all of those things, the needs and wants of victims are to the fore and that the justice system is responsive and not defensive. We must always look at how we reform and change the justice system to address those legitimate concerns.

My final point in no way downplays the issues that we are discussing. The justice system responds to crimes after they have been committed, and it must do so appropriately and effectively. This applies not only to Scotland but globally: we all have a duty to do much more to prevent violence happening to women in the first place. That means profoundly changing the culture that exists in many countries.

I am glad that the issue has been raised, given what today represents. I accept my responsibility in Scotland to ensure that all those issues are addressed and that we take forward the changes and reforms, because we all have a duty to do everything that we can to keep women as safe from violence as possible.

Queen Elizabeth University Hospital

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. Last week, I raised the case of Andrew Slorance, who died in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow after contracting a fungal infection, Aspergillus, that is linked to water and the environment. After raising that in the chamber last week, I was contacted by a senior clinician at the hospital, who revealed that there was another case of Aspergillus in a child cancer patient at around the same time and in the same ward as Andrew. Tragically, that child died.

When a hospital reports a serious infection such as Aspergillus, a red report should be filed and the health secretary informed. Did that happen? Was the First Minister aware of that death? What action was taken?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I will look into that specific issue and I will come back to Anas Sarwar. Those are important issues. I do not have the details of the case that he raises, but I will make it a priority to look into that.

Since last week’s exchanges, and after serious concerns were raised by Louise Slorance, Andrew’s wife, the Government has taken further action. Those concerns require full and proper investigation. I have written to Louise Slorance today to confirm the initial actions that are being taken in the light of the concerns. Those actions include an independent external review of Andrew’s case notes.

Regarding the more general concerns about Aspergillus infections at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, the health secretary has asked Healthcare Improvement Scotland to carry out a wider review. Any necessary action will be taken as a result of those strands of work.

On the additional case that Anas Sarwar has raised, I undertake to look into that as a matter of urgency and I will write to him once I have had the opportunity to do so.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

That sounds like a no. What is the point of a Scottish Government oversight board? The First Minister says that there will be a review. Waiting for a public inquiry, or talking more about process, will not save people’s lives. That response is simply not good enough.

Public inquiries and reviews did not prevent the deaths of Andrew Slorance or that child from Aspergillus.

Most devastating of all, infections are still happening right now. A second clinician, who is afraid to speak out because of bullying and intimidation, has told me that, in the past two months, another child acquired a waterborne infection, as Milly Main did, and died. That is another case in the past two months and another dead child. Holding answers are no longer good enough. This is gross negligence. The First Minister must act now, stop infections and save lives.

The First Minister

Let me say very clearly and bluntly that it is really important that no clinician should fear bullying or intimidation in coming forward.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

They have been.

The First Minister

Anas Sarwar says that they have been, so it is incumbent on me as First Minister to say clearly that that will not be tolerated in our national health service. When concerns are raised, it is important that there is proper and full investigation to determine whether there are relationships between infections—a considerable amount of work to reduce the incidence of which is under way on a daily basis in the national health service—and people becoming seriously ill and dying.

It is important to say that proper investigation is under way so that we establish the facts, which will inform the actions that require to be taken. That is vital. It is also vital to recognise that it is absolutely correct that processes are established to ensure proper wider investigation and scrutiny. That is why the independent review and the case note review that were undertaken previously, and now the independent statutory public inquiry, are important. However, it is simply not the case that nothing else is being done while we await the findings. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is right now at the highest level of escalation of the health board performance framework; it is at stage 4, which is often referred to as special measures. That means that a significant amount of work is under way to address infection in hospitals and reduce the incidence of infection.

These are important matters. However, when concerns are raised, it is really important, and it is not about trying to deny responsibility, to say that real and serious investigation to establish the facts is important. I hope that Anas Sarwar will accept that.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

That answer is simply unacceptable and complacent. Milly Main died in 2017. Two months ago, there was a similar infection in a child, who lost their life. Hiding behind process will not bring people back to life or stop infections right now. I remind the First Minister that she has been in charge of this scandal from start to finish. This has happened, and continues to happen, on her watch.

Right now, the health board is attempting to deflect blame on to clinical staff. This is a failure of leadership. The health board has failed, the Scottish Government oversight board has failed and, frankly, the First Minister continues to fail. Staff are being bullied and intimidated now. I have been raising the issue in the chamber for years and I have heard the same answers and excuses. Infections are happening now. Patients are dying now. Last week, the cause of Andrew Slorance’s death was revealed; this week, we hear of the death of two children. Another week of dithering and inaction simply will not cut it. The First Minister should sack the leadership of the health board today, sack the oversight board today, and use her emergency powers to take control of that hospital.

How many more families will have to be devastated before the First Minister does the right thing?

The First Minister

Sacking a health board does not change overnight the practice in a hospital. That is why the actual work has to be done. When concerns are raised about the cause of someone’s death, it has to be properly investigated so that the action that is taken as a result of that is the right action. It is not right to say that no action has been taken over four years.

Anas Sarwar says that I should use my emergency powers to take control of the hospital. As I said, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is at the highest level of escalation, and will remain there while all the issues are investigated and action is taken.

These are serious matters, which all of us should take seriously. However, we do not do justice to the families concerned if we simply call for action that is not based on proper investigation, proper scrutiny and proper consideration. That is the duty of Government, and the duty that we will continue to take seriously.

The Presiding Officer

We move to supplementary questions.

English Channel (Deaths)

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

In light of the appalling loss of life off the coast of France yesterday, will the First Minister make the strongest possible representations to the United Kingdom Government to do whatever is required to prevent such needless tragedies from happening again?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I take the opportunity to express my deepest sympathies at the loss of 27 lives in the English Channel yesterday. It was a tragic and shocking loss that will be felt deeply not just here in the UK but across the world. Those seeking refuge are human beings. They are driven out of desperation into boats crossing the channel and by a lack of humanitarian alternative routes.

I believe that it is important that those issues are addressed and done so with the needs of human beings in mind. We should be working together to ensure that those seeking refuge get protection from exploitation rather than punishment or criminalisation. They need rescue, not diversion back into treacherous waters. Scottish ministers have repeatedly called for a much more humane approach to asylum, and we will continue to do so in the wake of this dreadful tragedy.

Long Covid

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

A constituent in my region has contacted me in distress, as her 16-year-old vaccinated daughter has now contracted long Covid. She is struggling to access treatment for the condition and has been absent from school since September. Her general practitioner wrote to NHS Forth Valley and was advised that it could not treat her, as

“they do not support Long Covid”.

That is a shocking situation for any constituent and any child who feels that they are being abandoned by the health system. What action can be taken to ensure that the situation is rectified as a matter of urgency?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have not seen the terms of the correspondence from NHS Forth Valley that the member refers to, but obviously all health boards have a duty to support patients who have long Covid. We have made significant investment to develop services for people with long Covid, including children, whose needs will often be very particular. It is, of course, for clinicians to determine the correct treatment and services, but if the member wishes to write to the health secretary with details of the constituent’s case, I know that he will look into that and respond further.

Care Home Deaths (Publication of Statistics)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The examination of deaths in care homes where residents were admitted without being tested deserves to be illuminated with good and timely statistics, without manipulation from Government ministers, but we know that two ministers interfered to delay the publication of a report. Does the First Minister not understand that suspicion about interference is swirling around, and that the best way to deal with that suspicion is to publish the report into care home deaths now?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I absolutely do not accept that characterisation and I think that it does a great disservice not to Scottish ministers but to those who are working hard—and have worked so incredibly hard over the past months—in Public Health Scotland.

Public Health Scotland has made it absolutely clear that no data was withheld. Data on deaths in care homes was incorporated into the “Discharges from NHSScotland hospitals to care homes” report that was published on 21 April. Of course, deaths in care homes, in common with all aspects of the handling of the pandemic, will be the subject of the independent inquiry, and we will shortly announce further details of that.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

As we have heard, the report on care home deaths due to Covid was not published prior to the election. The First Minister is aware that there was no barrier to Public Health Scotland publishing that report then, as its own guidance states that it can publish information even in an election, so it seems that the report was suppressed for political reasons.

We know that secrecy and spin are at the very heart of the Scottish National Party, but they seem to have infected Public Health Scotland too. Why did it need to protect the SNP Government? Will the First Minister ensure that the report is now published?

The First Minister

That is a slur on the good people who work in Public Health Scotland day in and day out, trying to help their country through—[

Interruption

.] Jackie Baillie referred to Public Health Scotland’s reputation, as well as that of ministers. I readily accept criticism of ministers in the chamber—that is a proper part of the democratic process—but those working in Public Health Scotland do not deserve that, and I put on record my thanks to them.

I am not sure whether Jackie Baillie heard the terms of my answer to Willie Rennie, but let me repeat it. Public Health Scotland has made it clear that no data was withheld. Data on deaths in care homes was incorporated into the “Discharges from NHSScotland hospitals to care homes” report that was published on 21 April, which, if memory serves me correctly, was before the election.

Child Disability Payment

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Can the First Minister give an initial update on the roll-out of the child disability payment?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Social Security Scotland began accepting applications for the child disability payment on Monday, following a successful pilot in Dundee City, Perth and Kinross, and the Western Isles. That is another important milestone in the devolution of social security powers for disability benefits. Statistics on uptake will be published in the normal manner, but initial information shows that it is going well. That is important, and I encourage anyone listening who thinks that they might eligible for that payment to make inquiries and apply.

Out-patient Appointments (NHS Tayside)

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

NHS Tayside has raised serious concerns about missed out-patient appointments, with 1,846 people failing to attend last week alone—almost 10 per cent of bookings. Given the implications for cost, delayed treatment and waiting times, what action is the Scottish Government taking to encourage people to attend their national health service appointments?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We encourage people to attend the appointments that they are given. We know, largely because of the Covid experience, that there are significant waiting times both for out-patient and for in-patient elective care. It is therefore very important that, when people get appointments, they attend those appointments. If they cannot attend those appointments, they should contact their health board to rearrange, so that that slot can be allocated to someone else.

We will always take steps to encourage that but, more fundamentally, we are taking steps, backed by significant investment, to increase the overall capacity of the NHS, to ensure that more appointments are available and we can start to tackle the backlog in waiting times that has developed over the past two years.

Rape Crisis Scotland Report (Response)

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

3. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to Rape Crisis Scotland’s “Survivor Reference Group Police Responses in Scotland Report”. (S6F-00500)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We welcome the publication of the report by the survivor reference group and commend the courage of those who have come forward to share their experience. We will consider the findings in the report, although some of its recommendations are an operational matter for Police Scotland. We are determined to ensure that the justice system responds better to the needs of survivors in Scotland, and we will continue to prioritise support for victims of sexual crime, as well as work to identify ways to prevent offending in the first place.

We recognise the key role that advocacy services such as Rape Crisis Scotland play in helping victims to come forward and engage with the justice process, which is why we fully fund Rape Crisis Scotland’s national advocacy project.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for that response and acknowledge how seriously she takes the issue.

Today is the

international day for the elimination of violence against women, and

we will be debating that later. Sexism and misogyny remain entrenched in our society, and the rise in reports of domestic abuse and sexual crimes should ring alarm bells for us all. The Rape Crisis Scotland survivor reference group report reveals concerns about how reports of domestic violence and sexual crimes are dealt with by police. It makes it clear how important understanding and awareness of trauma is both for justice and for recovery.

It also makes it clear that survivors of colour, or those from different cultural backgrounds, are least able to access justice.

In the First Minister’s view, what can we all do to ensure that our criminal justice system does not prevent minoritised and marginalised women in particular from being given fair and equal access to pursue justice?

The First Minister

First, we have to recognise what Maggie Chapman has outlined. All women suffer sexism and misogyny in some way, shape or form at some point in their lives. Unfortunately, too many women suffer very serious violence, abuse and harassment. Within that, though, women of colour and other minority groups not only suffer disproportionately but, in some cases, find access to justice even more difficult. That is something that all aspects of the justice system have to take very seriously. I know that Police Scotland does take that seriously and will take very seriously the recommendations for it in the report.

This is something that, at all levels, all of us must do more to address, in order that the next generations of girls growing up in Scotland and around the world do not suffer the same as those who have gone before them.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I have previously raised the often tortuous journey of women who are navigating their way through the judicial system and who have been brave enough to come forward and report when they have been victims of sexual crime. That includes the retraumatisation and secondary abuse heaped upon them by the continual retelling of their story to the agencies involved.

Does the First Minister agree that it is imperative that victims have full confidence in the reporting process and that the judicial system treats them with dignity and compassion? Will she commit to reviewing those procedures to ensure that victims feel able to approach the police without delay or hesitation, because, all too often, that is not the experience that is being reported?

The First Minister

Y

es, I absolutely agree with that. We must ensure that women have the confidence to come forward, that they feel that they will be appropriately treated when they come forward, that their concerns and reports will be taken seriously, that all due process will be applied and that their needs will be treated sensitively and sympathetically.

As politicians, we all have a duty, when we are talking about these things, to ensure that how we talk about them does not inadvertently put women off coming forward. All parts of the justice system need to consider the processes and systems that they have in place, ensuring that that is not just rhetoric but is reality. I know that the Crown Office and the police take that seriously, and I know absolutely that it is something that the Government takes very seriously.

We are funding a number of the organisations that work directly with women to support them through the criminal justice process. In the first 100 days after the re-election of this Government, we directed new funding to rape crisis centres and domestic abuse services to help cut the waiting lists in specialist support services.

Across all parts of our justice system and all parts of society, there are many things that all of us need to do to ensure that the experience of women is improved when they suffer violence and abuse. Of course, we must do more to prevent that in the first place.

Transition to Net Zero (Nuclear Power)

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether nuclear power is an essential part of Scotland’s transition to net zero. (S6F-00522)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Scottish energy strategy, which was published in 2017, confirmed the Scottish Government’s continued opposition to new nuclear power stations under current technologies. Significant growth in renewables, storage, hydrogen and carbon capture means that they provide the best pathway to net zero by 2045 and will deliver the decarbonisation that we need to happen across industry, heat and transport.

We believe that nuclear power represents poor value for consumers, as is strongly evidenced by the contract awarded by the United Kingdom Government to Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in 2016, which will result in energy consumers subsidising its operation until 2060. To date, the project costs for Hinkley have soared from £18 billion in 2016 to £23 billion today, while the first generation from the site is not expected until June 2026, six months later than planned.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

The people of Scotland have consistently voted for a Government that does not support the creation of new nuclear power stations. In the light of the comments made by the leader of Scottish Labour on nuclear energy, does the Scottish Government consider it necessary that taxpayers fund the creation of new nuclear power, given the time and the significant costs associated with it, when Scotland is already a renewables powerhouse?

The First Minister

I absolutely agree with Bill Kidd that we have to invest in the energy sources that will get us to net zero while delivering the best deal for taxpayers and energy consumers. Renewables, storage, hydrogen and carbon capture provide us with the best pathway to net zero—not an easy pathway, but the best pathway—by 2045. Nuclear power is a really bad deal for the bill payer, and that is before we take account of the fact that waste is incredibly difficult to deal with.

I have already spoken about the increased costs of Hinkley Point C. Internal analysis shows that, in 2030 alone, Hinkley could add almost £40 a year to a consumer’s bill, while the equivalent offshore wind farm would reduce consumer bills by £8 a year. Let us invest in the clean sources of energy that will get us to net zero and deliver a better deal for bill payers now and in the future.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I look forward to the publication of that internal research.

Hunterston B stopped recruiting apprentices three years ago. Torness is moving towards the end of its life under present conditions. What does the First Minister say to all those apprentices who should be learning the skills and the technology and who should be leading Scotland forward in its economic recovery?

The First Minister

I want to see massive opportunities for apprentices, new workers and workers who are already employed in oil and gas and nuclear in the low-carbon, green technologies of the future, including in renewable energy, where Scotland has vast potential, in hydrogen and in carbon capture, which has unfortunately been dealt a blow by the UK Government in the Scottish context.

Those are the sources of energy that we should be supporting and investing heavily in, because they are better for our environment and they will offer jobs and opportunities for young people now and in the future. That is what the Government is behin. I hope that the whole Parliament will get behind that, too.

Access to Postal and Banking Services (Vulnerable Customers)

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister what discussions have taken place between the Scottish Government and the postal and banking sectors regarding the continued access to everyday services, particularly for rural, digitally excluded and vulnerable customers. (S6F-00519)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Access to banking and postal services, particularly for rural communities and vulnerable or digitally excluded consumers, is vital. Any reduction in branch numbers raises concerns regarding the ability to access such services.

The regulation of financial and postal services is reserved to the United Kingdom Government. Scottish ministers are therefore restricted in our intervention. However, we regularly engage with the financial services sector, and I will re-emphasise the importance of the issue when I convene the Financial Services Advisory Board shortly.

We have made it clear repeatedly to the UK Government and Post Office Ltd that they have a duty to ensure that existing postal services are maintained rather than reduced.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware that more than half of local bank branches in Scotland have been lost since 2010. Customers were sent to post offices for their everyday banking instead. However, we are now losing many post offices, too. In my region alone, we have lost post offices in Greenock, Irvine, Port Glasgow and Wemyss Bay.

I appreciate that temporary measures have been introduced in some areas. That is most welcome. However, it is unclear what the long-term plans are, particularly for rural and elderly customers, for whom such services are vital, as the First Minister rightly pointed out. I appreciate that such decisions are commercially driven in many cases.

What constructive and positive conversations could the Scottish Government and the UK Government have with those sectors and local communities to ensure that no one is left behind?

The First Minister

The Scottish Government will continue to engage with financial services companies and the Post Office. As I reiterated today, we will raise the issue with the Financial Services Advisory Board at its next meeting.

I have had discussions, as have my ministers, about how those services can best be delivered, particularly in rural areas, to ensure that people have equitable access. Those decisions are often commercially driven, but it is important that businesses remember the wider needs of their customers and consumers.

On discussions with the UK Government, I would be delighted to be joined by Jamie Greene in asking the UK Government to do more to better regulate financial services and postal services in that area. Perhaps he can make those representations alongside the Scottish Government. If the UK Government is not willing to do that—it has not been so far—perhaps it could devolve the powers to the Scottish Parliament so that we can build on the consensus that clearly exists here and do something about it ourselves.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

More must be done to support post office provision not only in rural communities but in town centres. The town of Port Glasgow, in my region, has no post office, which is remarkable in a town of almost 15,000 people.

When post offices close, community groups and local development trusts often wish to take the services on but cannot get off the ground due to funding or resourcing issues. Will the First Minister look at how we might better fund community capacity to offer such services and retain them in communities?

The First Minister

We will always look at that. We already look at how we can support communities to take assets into community ownership—not just in this area, but more generally. That is a constructive way that the Government can use its powers and resources.

However, as is so often the case, the Scottish Government frequently ends up being called upon to put a sticking plaster on the actions—or inactions—of the UK Government. Perhaps the Opposition member will join those of us in the Government in asking why it would not be better to take those powers and responsibilities into the hands of the Scottish Parliament, so that we can tackle some of the root causes, instead of constantly having to provide a sticking plaster in response to the actions—or inactions—of the Tory Government at Westminster.

Illegal Export of Household Waste

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to a Scottish Environment Protection Agency investigation uncovering the single largest illegal export of household waste from Scotland, resulting in Saica Natur UK Limited being fined £20,000. (S6F-00501)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

That kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable. The company’s actions were illegal and environmentally damaging. They also undermine Scotland’s wider recycling efforts. The prosecution sends a clear signal to everyone that waste must be managed responsibly and sustainably.

As it did in that case, SEPA routinely carries out proactive inspections at Scottish ports and loading sites to ensure compliance with the strict waste shipment regulations. SEPA will continue to prioritise the regulation of waste exports from Scotland to ensure that the environment is protected. It is, of course, for the courts to decide what level of fine is appropriate in any case.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I pay tribute to the SEPA officers involved in detecting that serious and, frankly, disgusting environmental crime. What were supposed to be bales of waste paper included used nappies, period products, dog excrement and plastic packaging. Dozens of those containers were intercepted in Antwerp and in transit to China.

I appreciate that the fine is a matter for the courts, but does the First Minister agree that £20,000 is a paltry fine for that filthy crime and that we need more robust punishment in order to deter such crimes? What action will the Scottish Government take to ensure that our regulatory and legal frameworks are fit for purpose and that we can show leadership on environmental justice and fulfil our moral and legal obligations not to export our pollution to other countries?

The First Minister

It is important to say—I think that Monica Lennon recognised this—that that case is a sign that our regulatory framework is working. It is a credit to SEPA that that illegal export of waste was intercepted and identified and that there was a prosecution and a punishment fine.

It is for the court—for the sheriff, in this case—to decide the appropriate level of fine. I know that the sheriff in the case highlighted some of the reasons why the fine was set at that level. There is a possible sentencing range, so the fine could have been much higher than that. However, it is for the sheriff to take account of the circumstances and decide what is appropriate. Although we all want to see such cases appropriately dealt with, it would be really wrong for me to second guess the sentencing decisions of any sheriff or judge in the country.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Given that 98 per cent of plastic waste is not recycled here, will the First Minister back Scottish Conservative calls to reduce waste exports and create jobs by building a new recycling plant for plastics in Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We want to take a range of actions to ensure that we reduce waste and increase recycling. In fact, just last week, the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity announced the first of the investments from the £70 million recycling improvement fund to increase the quantity and quality of recycling. That marks the beginning of one of the biggest investments in recycling in Scotland.

We will continue to consider suggestions, wherever they come from, so that we fully play our part in reducing and appropriately dealing with waste in Scotland. That is an important part of fulfilling our environmental imperative.

The Presiding Officer

I call Gillian Mackay.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

Apologies, Presiding Officer. I think that the request was for an earlier question.

Millbrae Care Home (Covid-19 Vaccinations)

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The First Minister will be aware that, in December last year, 11 residents at Millbrae care home, which is in my constituency, were mistakenly given a saline solution instead of the Covid-19 vaccination. I understand that the situation was quickly rectified by NHS Lanarkshire and that no harm was caused to residents, but can the First Minister offer reassurance that that incident was an isolated case and that all the affected residents and their families were offered the appropriate support at the time?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I am able to offer that assurance. I know that the health board has apologised for any distress that was caused by the incident at Millbrae care home, and I can confirm that the health board gave an assurance to us at the time that no harm was caused. All the affected residents, along with their families, were notified, and they received the appropriate vaccine on the same day, with no adverse effects. Vaccinators in the health board area were made aware of the error, with incident reporting being strengthened in the Lanarkshire system, and measures were put in place immediately by health boards to prevent any similar incidents in the future.

Covid-19 and Flu Vaccinations

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

Several of my Lothian constituents have written to me to complain about the Covid-19 booster and flu vaccination roll-out. One constituent who wrote to me said:

“I have been on the NHS website to try and book a flu and Covid booster jag but there are no appointments in either Armadale, Bathgate or Livingston for the foreseeable future. Can you help?”

Will the First Minister help my constituent? What measures will be put in place to ensure that the flu vaccination and Covid-19 booster roll-out is faster, to outpace the delta variant and ensure that we will not head into winter with vulnerable people left unprotected?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

It is really important that, as I said in my statement earlier this week, we continue to accelerate the pace of the vaccination programme. We have had concerns raised about the roll-out in Lothian, and officials have been engaging with NHS Lothian, which is making improvements in that regard. More appointments—not simply in Lothian, but countrywide—are being made available through the online booking system every day. I encourage people, if they are about to pass the 24-week point since their second dose, to go online to book their booster and their flu vaccine. I did it myself yesterday and, in doing so, I saw the number of appointments that were flowing through the system.

It is the case that the vaccination programme is going well. We are the most vaccinated part of the UK, and I think that we are running as fast as the delta variant in that respect right now, but we cannot be complacent. We need to get as many people as we can vaccinated with first, second, third and booster doses, and flu vaccines, as fast as possible, and we are making that an absolute focus every day.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Earlier, the First Minister said:

“Greater Glasgow and Clyde is ... at the highest level of escalation”.

That is simply incorrect. I am genuinely surprised that she got it wrong, given that she was formerly the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is at stage 4 of the escalation framework. The highest level is stage 5, which involves the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care using ministerial powers of intervention under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. The last time that those powers were used was in 2018, to remove the chief executive of NHS Tayside.

The First Minister is wrong. Will she correct the record, and will she now act before families are devastated by the loss of loved ones?

The Presiding Officer

The member will be aware that the content of members’ contributions is not normally a matter for the chair. A mechanism exists by which members can correct any inaccuracies.

Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-01994, in the name of Gillian Martin, on carbon capture, utilisation and storage as part of Scotland’s net zero ambitions. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the Scottish Government’s ambitious target to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045, its interim target of 75% reduction by 2030 and its strong support for the Scottish cluster of proposed carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) projects; understands that the UK Government’s evaluation process scored the Acorn Project in Aberdeenshire as the most deliverable project in the UK; notes the calls on the UK Government urging it to change its decision regarding investing in CCUS in Scotland and award the Scottish cluster;Track-1 status as part of a wider strategy to achieve as much carbon storage as possible; recognises what it believes would be the impact on the north east in particular of the UK Government failing to support the Scottish cluster; believes that this is a pivotal moment for CCUS on the decarbonisation pathway; notes the advice from the Climate Change Committee on the importance of CCUS toward reaching Scotland’s net zero commitments, and believes that this is a view shared by many industrial partnerships.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

In bringing the debate to the chamber, I intend to allow a good airing of the extremely strong case for the Scottish Cluster, and the Acorn carbon capture, utilisation and storage project, which is a pivotal component of it, to be given track 1 status by the United Kingdom Government as soon as possible. However, I want to make it absolutely clear from the outset that none of my remarks in any shape or form suggests that the two projects that have been given support by the United Kingdom Government—HyNet and the East Coast Cluster in England—do not deserve the status that they have been given. They absolutely deserve it.

My argument is that, in order to respond to the climate emergency, we need the Scottish Cluster to be given track 1 status too. In fact, just last night, at the meeting of the cross-party group on oil and gas, convened by my friend Fergus Ewing, Deirdre Michie of Oil and Gas UK went even further.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Is it not the case that, if George Osborne had not pulled the funding from the Peterhead carbon capture project in 2014, the technology would be up and running by now?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Jackie Baillie has made a very good point. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Jackie Dunbar, I think.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Did I say Jackie Baillie? I meant Jackie Dunbar. I apologise to them both.

Jackie Dunbar has made a really good point. I will never forget the sense of betrayal that the people of Peterhead, in particular, felt—as did industry partners in Shell and other companies—when the feet were cut from under that project.

Deirdre Michie said:

“We should be throwing the kitchen sink at this. There’s no point in taking bets on a winner. We should be giving all five projects equal support.”

We also need to wake up to the fact that our current power, heating, transport, construction and manufacturing systems still emit more CO2

than is in the targets that we aspire to. Until we have drastically reduced those emissions—it is by no means an overnight process—we can reduce their harm by capturing them and, in many cases, using them as materials for other things.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If we “throw the kitchen sink” at carbon capture and storage, where will the public funds come from to crowd in investment in renewables? Surely we need to make choices about which technology we wish to deploy public money to, in order to get the biggest bang for our buck and the biggest cuts in carbon emissions.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I agree, but only to a certain extent, because it is not either/or but both, combined. As long as CO2

emissions are out there, from industries that may be finding it really difficult to decarbonise, we need to have some way of capturing that carbon. That does not preclude our doing the things that the member has mentioned. He and I have had this conversation before.

Everything around CCUS is backed up by the Climate Change Committee, which, in its advice to both the UK and Scottish Governments, has stressed that CCUS is a key requirement in meeting our climate change targets.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am afraid that I have taken two interventions.

Those targets are of course in line with the Paris agreement that we signed up to and with the commitments that have been made at subsequent United Nations climate change conferences of the parties, including this year’s, in Glasgow.

The Climate Change Committee’s 2019 net zero report states:

“Given its strategic importance in achieving ... decarbonisation,”

CCUS

“is a necessity for a net-zero target.”

The committee’s chief executive, Chris Stark, said:

“The Acorn project is a slam dunk, in my view, for support.”

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have already taken two interventions; I will not be taking any more.

Of course, another very important thread is the just transition for our workers as we reduce our reliance on burning oil and gas, over time. That issue is not just for the north-east; families all over Scotland are reliant on oil and gas, and on their supply chains, for their incomes, either directly or indirectly. A project such as Acorn, situated in Peterhead, in the constituency of my colleague Karen Adam, will be well served by the talent pool that we already have in the north-east. That is another significant argument for its being put into track 1 immediately.

We have what is possibly the most concentrated transferable skills base right on our doorstep, as well as universities and local companies that can enable the innovation that will surround the project. I am aware of a few university-led projects, which have ready-to-go uses for the captured carbon, including one whose representatives came to speak to me a couple of years ago, which will convert the carbon into fire-retardant bricks for house building.

In economic terms, the Scottish Cluster will contribute, on average, £1.4 billion gross value added per year, up to the year 2050. If the cluster proceeds on track 1, job creation will begin as early as 2022, and the construction phase alone will support 7,000 jobs. Once completed, the cluster will support an average of 15,000 jobs per year until 2050, and that is a significant number of jobs.

Longer term expansion of the cluster would unlock further economic benefits, by safeguarding industrial jobs across the UK, particularly in those sites that are otherwise hard to decarbonise. So many people get that, including my Conservative friend and north-east colleague, Liam Kerr. In a very good article in

The Press and Journal

in August, he wrote:

“As the UK looks to demonstrate global leadership on low-carbon technologies ahead of COP26, I’m calling on MPs and MSPs to back the Scottish cluster.

With its energy expertise and heritage, existing infrastructure, and ready-to-deliver projects, Scotland is in an ideal place to start this next phase of our net zero journey.”

I hope that he will join me in urging his party at the UK level to listen to his words, because Liam Kerr is absolutely right, and he can bank that.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am genuinely very grateful for Gillian Martin’s words and I do not disagree with a lot of what she has said today. Crucially, Gillian Martin will acknowledge that, so far, the UK Government has backed Acorn with £31 million. Is she aware of how much the Scottish Government has backed Acorn for?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That is probably a question for the Minister for Just Transition, Employment and Fair Work, but my point is really to ask the UK Government why it is kicking the project into the long grass when it has already put that investment in, because there is no time to waste.

On hearing the news that the Scottish Cluster had been kicked into the reserve list by the UK Government, Sir Ian Wood did not mince his words either. He said:

“This decision makes little economic or environmental sense and is a real blow to Scotland.

Scotland is the most cost-effective place to begin CCUS in the UK given the capacity for CO2

storage in the North Sea and the existing oil and gas infrastructure available”.

One of the reasons why the Acorn project is so vital is that it has the capacity to store carbon from industrial sites across the UK, including Ineos at Grangemouth and Project Cavendish at the Thames estuary, as well as more local sites, such as Peterhead power station. In fact, there are already memoranda of understanding in place between Acorn and emitters across the UK.

In her intervention, Jackie Dunbar was right to flag up the history around CCUS, and that is another betrayal in that respect.

I have run out of time because I have taken too many interventions, so I will finish now.

We cannot make the same mistake again; regardless of party, we must all urge the UK Government to give the Scottish Cluster track 1 status immediately—for the sake of just transition and thousands of livelihoods but, most of all, for the sake of our drive to the net zero targets that we all signed up to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am conscious of the number of people who want to speak in the debate and I am keen to get everybody in. If members want to intervene, they should make an intervention rather than comment from a sedentary position.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank Gillian Martin for bringing this important debate to members’ business today.

The carbon cluster remains an important project for the UK Government, so I very much hope that the project will go ahead as quickly as possible.

However, t

he Scottish National Party position on carbon capture is, frankly, ridiculous, because it seems to assume that we have a choice between only carbon capture, or oil and gas. I have to tell Gillian Martin that that is a false choice. Carbon capture works hand in glove with the oil and gas industry, which is leading the way in new technologies that are associated with carbon capture utilisation and storage.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Can Douglas Lumsden point to any part of the speech that I have just given where I have made that assertion?

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is more the position of the SNP, rather than Gillian Martin. As we heard last week, the First Minister wants to stop not just Cambo oil field

, but all new oil fields. Members should think about the impact that that would have on jobs in the north-east.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Now that is a betrayal.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That is a betrayal—quite correct.

Although reckless, the SNP position is not as absurd as that of its Green partners, whose

website states that the Scottish Greens will:

“Oppose public investment in carbon capture and storage as it is unproven and the vast majority of projects are linked to enhanced oil recovery.”

However, thanks to a couple of ministerial cars and a bump in salary, I am sure that the Greens’ principles will be thrown out the double-glazed, well-insulated window. Perhaps the member should send a letter to her Green colleagues and try to get them on board for the carbon capture project, because we need carbon capture and new oil and gas developments.

Gillian Martin’s own constituent, former First Minister Alex Salmond, commented on the issue only this week. He stressed the need for new oil and gas developments and how vital they are for the north-east. He said:

“Without it, then it is not just farewell to tens of thousands of north-east of Scotland votes for the SNP.

Much more seriously, it’s Mossmorran no more, Grangemouth no more, St Fergus no more—and independence no more.”

He knows that the SNP is betraying the north-east. I would urge the SNP members for the north-east to call on their party to stop the constant talking down of the area and the energy industry, and to get behind the industry and start protecting the 100,000 jobs that are at stake.

The

Press and Journal

reports today that recovery in the north-east is falling behind recovery in the rest of the country. It is time for the SNP to focus on the day job and to start understanding the realities of the situation that we are living in.

Cutting oil and gas exploration means that we will have to import more, and vital jobs will go elsewhere. Instead of offering solutions, the SNP simply adopts the usual grievance politics of blaming Westminster, with no proposals or ideas of its own.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Will the member give way?

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, I do not have time—sorry.

Carbon capture is a fantastic initiative for the north-east, in partnership with the industries that have brought wealth and prosperity to our region. Carbon capture is possible to do while protecting vital jobs, meeting our net zero commitments and working with industry. I want this project to go ahead and I am confident that it will.

However, the SNP grievance project focuses on talking down the project, as if it is somehow game over. Whether or not the Government supports the project, it is highly dependent on external, private investment and the SNP’s constant cries of grievance are putting that investment at risk.

The north-east

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Karen Adam, who will be followed by Paul Sweeney. Ms Adam joins us remotely, and has around four minutes.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I thank Gillian Martin for lodging the motion for debate. The Westminster decision to relegate Scotland’s Acorn project to the second division is an illustration of its misunderstanding of the potential of the Scottish energy industry. It is also a betrayal of future generations, as we witness what has been called

“the terrifying march of climate change”.

It would have been a case of third time lucky, with the first attempt having happened 20 years ago and the second, in 2015, being the £1 billion UK-wide carbon capture and storage competition, which was cancelled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, George Osborne. Even in 2018, the UK Government admitted that the then infant Acorn demonstrator project had merit. Perhaps if a proposal to build a Peppa Pig World in Peterhead had been on the table, we might have had a different outcome.

I may jest, but this is no laughing matter and neither is investment in a just transition, needed to secure jobs and transfer from the inevitable wind-down of the fossil fuel sector. The experienced and hard workers of the energy sector in the north-east deserve security. The north-east as a whole needs this investment, which will undoubtedly benefit Scotland and the world, as we potentially lead the way in just transition and innovation in the carbon capture and sequestration industry.

I have had recent meetings with Acorn, both prior to and following the recent decision. I am convinced that Acorn will roll up its sleeves and prove Westminster wrong, one way or another. This will not be the end of its story, or Scotland’s story. It is not easy to forget that, at the beginning of this year, Ineos and its joint venture partner at Grangemouth, PetroChina, committed to developing Scotland’s first CCS project with Acorn. In July, it was announced that the Acorn CCS project had agreed to partner with Ineos and Petroineos at Grangemouth to capture and store up to 1 million tonnes of CO2

by 2027. If the Tories will not support Acorn, I am confident that there will be others who will do so. As Energy Voice commented, if they do not support it, perhaps it will be time to say to Acorn,

“get on with it and tell the Tories to take a hike.”

Once again, so much opportunity is being left in the long grass in what seems like punishment. My predecessor Stewart Stevenson said,

“we’ve had enough of stalling—the UK government must now get on with delivering the project at Peterhead.”

To all intents and purposes, it has failed yet again. It is difficult to be objective when we see that the preferred bidders are two competing projects in what can only be described as red wall territory.

To add pain to the loss of jobs and socio-economic advantage, and injury to the despair and betrayal felt in and around my constituency, we are left without any meaningful explanation as to why the Acorn project has not been chosen in the top league. It is perceived as a purely political decision. The industry has observed:

“Objectivity? Er, that got lost somewhere.”

It is also worth repeating what Sir Ian Wood, another stakeholder, whom I met not long ago, said:

“Scotland is the most cost-effective place to begin CCUS in the UK given the capacity for CO2

storage in the North Sea and the existing oil and gas infrastructure available to repurpose for CO2

transport and storage”.

Energy Voice reports that Sir Ian

“also urged Westminster to rank Acorn alongside the winning, so-called Tier One projects.”

I finish by speaking up for my constituents who have voiced their anger at the decision, the thousands of jobs not created and a huge missed opportunity. Acorn will keep the door, and the ear, open to Westminster, I have no doubt. However, if we adopt the tone of the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow, we do not have plenty of time to make a real and meaningful difference. Opportunities must be seized. We must live adventurously. Others will not wait while Westminster drags its heels. It should just get on with the investment and do the right thing for the people that it claims to have broad shoulders for.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the member for Aberdeenshire East for bringing this vital debate to the chamber and for emphasising how critical the Acorn project is to Scotland achieving its net zero target by 2045. That is why the Climate Change Committee described it as

“a necessity, not an option”.

The UK Government’s announcement last month that the Acorn project would not be selected in the first round of plans for carbon capture and storage was surely galling for all of us to witness. The cluster is widely regarded by industry leaders as providing the most comprehensive business plan, and the UK Government’s announcement was widely condemned. Sir Ian Wood described it as “deeply disappointing” and urged the UK Government to think again.

The carbon reduction benefits are clear. The proposal would also have seen more than 26,000 workers being transitioned out of the oil and gas sector into lower carbon alternatives over the next 10 years, which is a crucial aspect of achieving climate justice for workers. We all know how important the transition away from fossil fuels will be if we are to meet those targets, but we also know the importance of providing a just transition for workers. That is why the decision is particularly galling and disheartening.

Focusing on energy production, Peterhead power station is Scotland’s largest and only thermal generator. If we do not have the ability to capture carbon and we are not able to decarbonise the grid, that will put in jeopardy Scotland’s ability to meet the 2045 target for net zero. As an interesting adjunct to the debate about nuclear power during First Minister’s question time, if we do not decarbonise the base load, we will be in a really difficult position.

Perhaps we should not be surprised by the decision, given that the Conservatives rowed back on the commitment, spelled out in their 2015 manifesto, to the £1 billion carbon capture and storage programme that was proposed for Longannet and Peterhead. This year, we have seen the Tories break their promise on tax rises and rip up manifesto commitments on protecting the triple lock on pensions. Now we have this broken promise in the wake of COP26. It is hardly surprising, but it is certainly shocking. It is not just the broken promises and clear disdain for the Scottish Cluster that are galling; it is the potential cost implications that go along with that.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Has Paul Sweeney actually seen the criteria against which the various projects were scored and ranked?

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I have examined the criteria, which is why I am all the more perplexed at the decision that was made.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Have you seen the scores?

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I have seen the scores, and I am perplexed at the artificial rationing of resource and investment. We need it to all happen concurrently, not sequentially. That is the biggest problem. We are trying to advocate the benefits of pooling and sharing resources in the United Kingdom, so it really does not help when this sort of thing happens. Someone, somewhere in Whitehall, particularly in the Treasury, will surely have seen the political implications and made it clear that the Scottish Cluster had to be a priority.

It is because of the chancellor’s dogmatic adherence to the

cap on capital investment of

3 per cent of

gross domestic product that the investment has been rationed in this way. When UK borrowing and the debt burden that the country faces are at their lowest in history, why on earth would we not pump investment in now to unlock huge multiplier effects to increase employment and gross value added for the Scottish economy?

It is a one-way bet and it is baffling that the Conservatives have not seized the opportunity. I urge them to reconsider their position, because we really need the UK Government to look again at this. The decision will hamper long-term investment in the Scottish Cluster that is desperately relied on, and it will harm our chances of reaching our net zero target while providing a just transition for workers.

We need all five UK carbon capture and storage projects that are in the pipeline to happen simultaneously and now, not just HyNet and the Teesside Humber East Coast Cluster. Scotland has 60 per cent of the UK’s storage potential, so it makes sense to have a carbon capture and storage presence in Scotland. I urge the Scottish Conservatives to speak to their colleagues in Westminster to ask them to reverse the decision. That is the right thing to do for our economy and climate ambitions. If the Conservatives had any real ambitions for Scotland, it would be a no-brainer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am conscious of the large number of members who still want to speak in the debate, so I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[

Gillian Martin

]

Motion agreed to.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

This debate is one of the most important of our time, so Gillian Martin is to be congratulated on bringing it to the chamber. I thank members from virtually all parties for attending yesterday evening’s meeting of the cross-party group on oil and gas. It was really informative, and I hope that we can work together across the chamber to promote objectives on which, increasingly, we should be able to find consensus. Part of that consensus must be that the Scottish Cluster, or the Acorn project—perhaps improved and with more emitters and more CO2

—must go ahead if we are to achieve net zero targets.

However, it must be said that the UK Government record on CCS is one of a consistent breach of promises. Those promises were first made by ministers in respect of Longannet, then, in 2014, by Ed Davey and David Cameron, who visited Peterhead power station to announce that that would be the CCS scheme site. As I recall, it was an announcement with a fanfare of trumpets of veritable Wagnerian volume, with them patting themselves on the back for what they were about to do for Scotland. Now, with Acorn, we have number 3 for CCS in Scotland—we are once, twice, three times a loser under UK Government decisions. That is the record of fact, but there is a fourth opportunity and we must grasp it.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I think that the member might be interested in what I have to say.

We should work with experts in Scotland such as Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage. As the minister will know, when I was in his position for five years, I worked with people such as Professor Stuart Haszeldine, a world leading scientist who, with Dr Emma Martin-Roberts and Dr Stuart Gilfillan, published a report earlier this month that said, in short, that if we proceed at the current rate, we can capture only 10 per cent of the CO2

that we require to capture to meet net zero. I was not the brightest boy in the class, but I never went into an exam saying, “I am determined to achieve 10 per cent”. That is not ambition; it is capitulation.

So, what do we need to do? I say with all sincerity and with absolute conviction that we need to do a number of things. We need a successful, working and thriving oil and gas sector. Without such a sector, we cannot deliver CCS. The oil and gas sector has the expertise; no one else does. If we accept that CCS is a sine qua non of reaching net zero—everybody except those on the fringes accepts it—we need an industry to deliver it. We should recognise that the North Sea operators, led by OGUK, have set a world-class standard, setting out to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2030, cutting flaring and methane, and using the most carbon-friendly and least-emitting practices. As Sir Ian Wood said, if we stop domestic production, we will import more gas from Qatar, costing 59kg of emissions per tonne as opposed to 22kg per tonne. We will increase, not reduce, emissions.

We must go ahead now with the Acorn project. If the Prime Minister does not listen to this debate, and if he says no for a fourth time, he will be committing an act of betrayal worthy of Cassius and Brutus in the assassination of their great friend, Julius Caesar. The Prime Minister is fond of quoting Latin phrases. The last word on the tombstone of CCS in Scotland must not be, “Et tu, Boris.”

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I start by saying how pleased I am that the SNP agrees with so much Conservative policy on carbon capture. Like us, the SNP supports the technology, wants it to play a part in net zero, and believes that it can help to create a just transition in the north-east. With common goals, it makes sense to collaborate.

It was therefore deeply disappointing to see the SNP do the opposite this week. Instead of working together on carbon capture, the SNP issued a needlessly hostile letter to Scottish Conservative politicians. Full of confrontational language, it was more a political rant than a sincere attempt at dialogue. It is bizarre to target colleagues who share common ground.

To be clear, I was disappointed that the fantastic Acorn bid did not place higher, as were my Scottish Conservative colleagues, but the bid is still live.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

What interaction has Maurice Golden had with the decision makers in the UK Government about his disappointment?

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have had no interaction with the UK Government. I know that some of my colleagues have represented us on that. It is, however, important to note that I do not have a reporting mechanism to the UK Government, I am not accountable to the UK Government, and I have no bosses in Westminster, other than when Douglas Ross is there. To suggest otherwise is absolutely outrageous.

The British Government is still engaging on the Acorn project, and that is all the more reason to work together to get it over the line in round 2. Why, then, is the SNP trying to pick a fight? Let me explain. Its hostile letter is not really about carbon capture, net zero, or the north-east; it is just a tacky public relations stunt to whip up grievance at Britain and divert attention from SNP failings.

For starters, why is the SNP targeting Scottish Conservatives? We support carbon capture. It is the Greens who oppose it. The Greens would shut down the Acorn project in a heartbeat. Where is the SNP letter to the Greens? Better yet, why does the SNP not use its energy to come up with a clear industrial road map to support carbon capture. Professor Stuart Haszeldine has already warned about the lack of such a road map and made it clear that the British Government is forging ahead on this.

We know that the British Government is serious about a low-carbon future. Members should look at the North Sea transition deal, which is cutting emissions, supporting up to 40,000 jobs, and investing up to £16 billion in new technologies, including carbon capture. The same cannot be said for the SNP. Its innovation and targeted oil and gas decarbonisation plan puts a paltry 100MW cap on floating offshore wind innovation projects, whereas the figure for the rest of the UK is 300MW. The SNP’s failure to act will put Scottish projects at a disadvantage and risks costing the north-east its pre-eminence in renewables.

That is the sort of foot-dragging failure that the SNP is trying to hide. Its £100 million green jobs fund took more than a year to pay anything out, it has delayed the deposit return scheme and its active travel target will not be met for 290 years. We can add to that its failure to meet the recycling, biodiversity and renewable heat targets. On emissions, it has failed three years in a row. When will SNP MSPs stand up to their Holyrood bosses, who continually fail to tackle climate change?

I make it clear that the Scottish Conservatives want to tackle climate change and want carbon capture to succeed; we most certainly want the north-east to succeed. If the SNP shares those goals, let it ditch the cheap public relations stunts and work with us for the common good.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Gillian Martin for raising the topic for debate. From her role as convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee in the previous session, she will be aware of the cross-party concerns that the committee expressed unanimously about a reliance on CCS to cut Scotland’s emissions by a quarter by 2030. In fact, the committee went further and, in its report on the climate change plan, which was published only in February this year, called for the Scottish Government to produce a plan B alternative. As we head towards the beginning of a new climate change plan cycle next year, I hope that the minister is aware of the pressing need to come up with that plan B.

Capturing carbon emissions and storing them underground appears, at face value, to be part of the solution, but the unfortunate reality is that, so far, the history of CCS deployment has been one of overpromise and underdelivery—

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would like to finish my sentence.

That is at a time when we need technology that can be rapidly and cost-effectively deployed in the next eight years.

I will certainly give way to Ms Martin, if I can get the time back.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you the time back.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Does Mark Ruskell agree that the failure of CCS has been to do with not the technology but the fact that funding has repeatedly been withdrawn from it?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I think that the global context is that there has been a technical failure with the capture of emissions. That is just the reality. I will say more about that later in my speech.

The key test is whether CCS accelerates a phase-out of fossil fuels to keep us to a rise of less than 1.5°C or whether it just builds in dependence that delays a just transition while diverting and crowding out investment in renewables.

I will offer an example that relates to the blue hydrogen that would be produced from the carbon storage element of the Acorn project. The current plans are to blend blue hydrogen, at a rate of 20 per cent, into the gas grid, but the question that that begs is about the other 80 per cent of the fuel mix, which will continue to be natural gas that will be burned in boilers with no carbon abatement. At the point in the next decade when we should be scrapping gas boilers, we would be extending our dependency on a gas grid and gas fuel, with blue hydrogen as the enabler.

The argument that will be made in reply is that we are talking about a transition and that, in the future, we will be able to switch from blue hydrogen to green hydrogen, which is made from renewable energy. I get that, but green hydrogen will be a precious and highly sought-after commodity that will be used to fuel the steel furnaces of Europe. I hope that Scotland will have a serious role to play in that, but it would be an expensive low-grade use of green hydrogen to use it just to heat our homes.

There are critical questions to be answered about the effectiveness of CCS. A recent report by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research showed that the scale of deployment that would be necessary to reduce emissions in line with our climate targets has not yet been demonstrated anywhere in the world. Projects around the world have received billions in public investment, but with pretty minimal success.

In fact, right now, CCS global capacity is 0.1 per cent of annual global emissions per year. Not only are these technologies underdelivering, but capacity is not intended to increase significantly until 2030. Deployment takes six to 10 years from construction to completion, by which point our emissions targets will already have been missed.

There are critical questions that we need to ask of, and which need to be answered by, Government. For example, what guarantees will there be with regard to the capture rate for plants that will feed into the Acorn project? What about the huge energy requirements to power CCS, which risk causing more emissions than will actually be captured?

It has been a couple of weeks since COP26, and, yes, the eyes of the world are on Scotland, with a demand for meaningful change. However, we need to cast a critical eye particularly on strategies and solutions that come from the boardrooms of oil and gas corporations, which, to be honest, have spent decades denying even the existence of climate change. We just need to have a bit more critical thinking about the deployment of these technologies.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thought that it would be helpful to clear up certain areas where some members seem to have misunderstood crucial facts. First of all, Karen Adam said that this was a political decision, but she appeared unaware that there were objective criteria for approval that all bidders knew and pitched to.

Paul Sweeney said that the Acorn project had the most comprehensive business plan. Given that it is unlikely that he can have seen and compared all the scoring involved, it might be somewhat difficult to substantiate that claim. In any event, he appears to be unaware that only one of the criteria pertained to how far along a project might be.

Among what were otherwise very fair and measured comments, Gillian Martin suggested that the UK Government might have betrayed the north-east. However, as I pointed out in my intervention on her, the UK Government has already backed the Scottish Cluster with £31 million. If Karen Adam had really been listening to the people whom she purports to have met, she would have known that the UK Government continues to work with the partners. Indeed, SSE Thermal has reported that it is engaging with the UK Government and its Scottish Cluster partners. Far from kicking this into the long grass, the UK Government has told the Acorn partners to keep working towards going live and has continued in regular meetings between Storegga Geotechnologies executives and ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury to move the project on.

The Scottish National Party’s constant griping and politicking are really not helpful, and its position has been rather undermined by its coalition with a party whose manifesto explicitly rejects the idea of CCUS. If it were up to certain Government ministers, we would have no carbon capture projects at all. I heard no public protest—not one—from any of the SNP members when their tawdry deal was being stitched up, and I heard no public dissent from north-east SNP members when Sturgeon performed a handbrake turn on Cambo and signalled her willingness to throw the north-east oil and gas industry over a cliff. That is betrayal.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Very briefly.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The member is making an excellent speech and is clearly in command of the subject. He mentioned the £31 million that the UK Government is investing in the project, but how much has the Scottish Government put in?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am very grateful for the intervention. I will hear what the minister has to say in his response, but to the best of my knowledge, the

Scottish Government has put in zero pounds.

The important thing about the investment is that this is all part of a bigger picture. Acorn, like the oil and gas industry, needs investment, especially external foreign private investment. [

Interruption

.] I think that the minister would do well to listen to my comments. Getting that investment requires stability collaborative working and integrity, not manufactured grievance and division in both the Parliament and the media.

I want to make one other point. Karen Adam mentioned the SNP’s much-trumpeted £500 million just transition fund. I have submitted around 10 parliamentary questions on the matter to the minister, and I have found that the fund is just a soundbite. There are no details about when, where, to whom, from whom or from what it will be paid. We do not even know which budget it is coming from. The contrast with the UK Government’s £16 billion North Sea transition deal—which is, yes, 32 times larger than the SNP’s soundbite and is planned to deliver 40,000 new energy jobs—could not be starker.

There is also the energy white paper, the 10-point plan, previous and on-going investment in offshore wind, carbon capture and, as announced yesterday, £20 million for tidal energy. That has been shown to attract around £15 billion of private investment—which satisfies the point that Mark Ruskell made in his intervention on Gillian Martin. That is what Kwasi Kwarteng meant when he said that the UK delivers “Plans, not platitudes”. It is time for the SNP to do the same.

I say to the SNP: enough—enough of the grievance, the division and the misinformation. Let us work together with the UK Government, partners and the industry to make Acorn happen.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I, too, thank Gillian Martin for securing this important debate.

My constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine has oil and gas running through its veins, so I am invested in Scotland’s journey to net zero and in the opportunities that carbon capture and storage will bring to my constituents.

Our global population continues to grow; so does energy demand; so do carbon dioxide concentrations; so, too, do global temperatures. There are different schools of thought on how we get to net zero, one of which involves a suite of technologies including the capture and storage of carbon dioxide emissions produced through power generation and other industrial processes.

Carbon capture and storage is not a new technology. One of my constituents recently reminded me that CCS has been used in enhanced oil recovery since at least the 1970s, using captured carbon to reinject and boost reservoir pressures. For some time now, carbon capture and storage has been the subject of on-going focus as a vehicle by which skills from the oil and gas sector can become a force for good in supporting Scotland to meet its climate change obligations.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the member agree with the First Minister, who said that there should be no new oil and gas developments?

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

My interpretation of what she said is that, until the appropriate climate compatibility assessments are undertaken—and given that the original licensing was many years ago—there should be no new progress on that until that point. That is my interpretation.

According to the “UK Offshore Energy Workforce Transferability Review”, which was published by the Robert Gordon University, 90 per cent of oil and gas industry jobs have

“medium to high skills transferability”

into net zero industries, not only by virtue of the industry’s experience in implementing and operating large offshore infrastructure projects, but through its extensive knowledge of subsurface technologies, reservoir management and the transport and storage of substances.

Oil & Gas UK’s “Energy Transition Outlook” report outlines a total capacity to hold 78 billion tonnes of CO2

under the North Sea and the Irish Sea, which is about 190 times greater than the UK’s annual emissions of 400 million tonnes.

There are, of course, challenges, too. Friends of the Earth has expressed concerns about the positioning of carbon capture and storage as a climate solution. There is also the matter of linking education providers, training organisations and the private sector more effectively.

In his research on North Sea carbon capture, Dr Abhishek Agarwal of the Robert Gordon University highlights challenges with carbon pricing and infrastructure and with the industry leadership of CCS, rather than leadership by Government. However, he also concludes that

“CCS is both desirable and feasible”.

In that regard, the Scottish Cluster that we have already heard a great deal about is working to unlock access to one of the UK’s most important CO2

storage resources, through repurposing existing oil and gas infrastructure. It is therefore hugely disappointing that, despite the potential for the Scottish Cluster to support an average of 15,000 jobs per year to 2050 and £1.4 billion a year in gross value added, it was selected as a reserve cluster by the UK Government, compromising our ability to take crucial action now to reduce emissions, not just in Scotland but across the UK.

The Scottish Government has committed £500 million to a new just transition fund for the north-east and Moray over the next 10 years, and is calling on the UK Government to match that investment.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

She is just concluding, Mr Kerr.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Like many members here today, I will continue to urge the UK Government to match that funding commitment, and I urge the Scottish Government to continue reflecting its commitment to net zero by using all its powers to support carbon capture and storage opportunities as part of our just transition.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I encourage members to stick to their four minutes from now on.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When I read Gillian Martin’s motion on carbon capture, utilisation and storage, I had no hesitation in supporting it. I support the view that carbon capture is a crucial tool that can be used as part of the broader solutions that are needed to reach net zero in Scotland. We cannot kid ourselves that carbon emissions will stop altogether, nor can we pretend that reaching net zero will be a simple process. We will still require large-scale energy-intensive processes, including cement production, chemical processing, hydrogen production and power generation. We must also consider the carbon that is produced by agriculture and transport.

To reach net zero, we will have to massively reduce the amount of carbon that enters the atmosphere, and I support measures to make that happen, but we also have other means at our disposal to reach net zero targets, and carbon capture is just one of them. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fifth assessment report states that it would cost 138 per cent more to restrict a rise in global temperatures to no more than 2°C without carbon capture and storage. That shows that although not producing carbon in the first place may be more ideal, using carbon capture can help to balance the environmental impact with economic concerns as we move to reaching net zero emissions.

The technology has come a long way. Carbon capture and storage technologies can capture more than 90 per cent of CO2

emissions from power plants and industrial facilities. Scotland has much potential to play a major role in the advancement of the technology and we cannot fall behind the rest of the world as projects elsewhere expand. Two days ago, Singapore announced targets to capture at least 2 million tonnes of carbon. We have the potential to be at the forefront of demonstrating the benefits of this technology, especially given that there are only 27 operational commercial carbon capture and storage facilities in the world. That is why, when I saw the news that the UK Government was not supporting the decision to invest in carbon capture in Scotland at this stage, I, like many other members, was dismayed.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That is a bizarre assertion. The UK Government clearly supports the technology, but made that decision on objective criteria. Does the member acknowledge that?

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

People were astounded at the decision given the progress that has been made. The member should be honest, accept that, stand up for Scotland and make the case, as the rest of us are trying to do.

I am happy to support the Scottish Government in its calls for the UK Government to reverse its decision and invest in the Scottish Cluster as a national priority. Had that been done the first time around in 2014, when the UK Government also did not invest, we would be well on our way to making carbon capture fully established in Scotland and, in turn, the UK would be further on its way to meeting its climate targets.

Given that we have just had COP26 here in Scotland, it is good that the issue is back at the forefront. We have to recognise that carbon capture is only one tool that we have at our disposal, and there is no question but that we have to reduce carbon production, which means pursuing greener energy, greener production methods and greener processing. We also need to expand woodland and restore peatlands, both of which play a major role in storing carbon and have a clear, long-term future.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You will have to conclude now, Mr Rowley.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There is much that we can and should do. I hope that the UK Government will recognise that Scotland has an integral role to play.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will start on a note of consensus: the Scottish Conservatives’ position has always been that carbon storage will play a vital role in the transition to net zero. That is all the more important after agreement was reached on article 6 of the Glasgow climate pact in relation to international carbon markets.

One of the other fundamental takeaways from the Glasgow COP was the absolute necessity for Governments to work together and for constructive engagement between Parliaments, politicians, the public sector and the private sector. That is where I take issue with the SNP’s approach to the debate. To suggest that the UK Government has utterly betrayed the north-east is not only factually wrong but counter-productive to our collective efforts to transition to net zero. To be frank, it is playing politics with the climate crisis and the future prospects of the Scottish Cluster.

UK Government support for the north-east and the renewables sector in Scotland speaks for itself.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will Dean Lockhart give way?

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have only four minutes. If the Scottish Government wants to hold a full debate on the matter, I would be happy to give way in it.

The UK Government introduced the North Sea transition deal, investing up to £16 billion in the sector and region and supporting more than 40,000 jobs. Only this week, the Whitelee green hydrogen storage project was announced. It is the first of its kind in the UK. Also this week, the UK Government announced £20 million a year for the development of tidal stream electricity. That is more support for the sector in Scotland.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Dean Lockhart give way?

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not have time.

Let us not forget that that investment is all on top of the UK Government saving 75,000 jobs and 10,000 businesses in the north-east during the pandemic, thereby helping the north-east economy to keep going in the face of the global pandemic.

The UK Government has already invested significantly in the Scottish Cluster and continues to support it. It made it clear that the cluster will be central to the future of carbon storage in the UK. Already, £31 million has been invested in the project and we will hear from the minister shortly whether that is £31 million more than the Scottish Government has invested in it. The cluster is now first reserve and on track for further investment. All that was underpinned last month by the UK Government announcing a £10 billion low-carbon hydrogen energy plan—the most ambitious in the world. That plan will secure the future of carbon storage throughout the UK, including in the north-east.

That massive investment by the UK Government stands in stark contrast to the Scottish Government’s track record in the renewables sector. The Scottish Government promised to deliver 130,000 jobs in that sector, yet only 20,000 were delivered. It lost tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on the Pelamis and Aquamarine wave power projects. It has also put at risk £600 million of Scottish taxpayers’ money to prop up Sanjeev Gupta’s GFG Alliance, all for the sake of creating just 44 jobs. When it comes to the much-vaunted £500 million just transition fund, many people in the sector fear that it is just a headline announcement and will go the same way as the mythical publicly owned energy company—that it is all spin and will never see the light of day.

Listening to the debate, the ultimate irony is the concern that SNP members express about saving jobs in the north-east just a week after Nicola Sturgeon announced opposition to the development of the Cambo oil field. In effect, that announcement confirmed that the SNP-Green coalition wants to close down the oil and gas sector in the north-east, thereby losing 100,000 jobs and the massive technical expertise of workers and businesses throughout the sector, and requiring Scotland to import oil and gas in the future.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Talk about soundbites!

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Someone said “soundbites”, but I have said precisely what their colleague Fergus Ewing highlighted would happen if the Cambo development did not go ahead.

Let us stop playing politics with the climate crisis and let the Scottish Government work with the UK Government to transition Scotland to net zero.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I congratulate Gillian Martin on bringing the debate to the chamber, and I commend her for once again standing up for her constituents and for the wider north-east. She is a doughty campaigner for them, and that shone through in her contribution today. I support the case that she made for the need to support carbon capture and storage in the north-east, in addition to the projects that are already in receipt of track 1 support. After discussing that, I will move on briefly to our net zero ambitions.

As we have heard today, the Scottish Cluster’s Acorn project was the most advanced project of those submitted to the UK Government. That assessment is not mine, nor the Scottish Government’s—the UK Government scored St Fergus as the most deliverable carbon capture project anywhere in the UK. The infrastructure is already there, as is the workforce. Everything is in place, so it is crazy that the Scottish Cluster has been left behind. Although that is not the end of CCS in the north-east, it certainly makes it much harder to deliver. In addition, it puts at risk jobs—up to 20,000, to be exact—as well as the decarbonisation of Grangemouth, which is Scotland’s largest industrial emitter.

To add insult to injury, the reserve status that Acorn has apparently achieved gives no guarantee of future support, and still cuts the cluster out of any future potential Treasury funding streams, lending of last resort or gaining storage liability. That means that the Scottish Cluster is now at a clear disadvantage. That is bad news for the north-east and for our net zero ambitions, and the Tories know it.

This is not the first time that we have been let down as a result of short-sighted UK Government decisions. As Fergus Ewing said, we remember Longannet, and the £1 billion funding that was promised for CCS in Peterhead in the run-up to the 2014 referendum, only for David Cameron to renege on that promise the following year, once that one area of constitutional difficulty was out of the way—

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am sorry—I would give way, but I am conscious of the time strictures that the Presiding Officer has already imposed.

The UK Government must urgently review its decision on the Scottish Cluster and provide the Acorn project with the necessary support as quickly as possible.

It must also review its decisions on the provision of support in other areas in order for us to meet our net zero targets. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced £20 million to support marine tidal technology. On the face of it, that sounds great, but in reality the UK Government is about to miss another good opportunity. The UK, and Scotland in particular, is already home to that technology, which is potentially game-changing for the energy sector. The tidal industry has the potential to generate £1.4 billion for the UK economy and support 4,000 jobs. Just as importantly for our net zero objectives, it is predicted that tidal stream technology will provide 11 per cent of the electricity not just for Scotland, but for the UK—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry, Mr Gray.

That is enough chuntering, Mr Kerr. In a moment, you will have an opportunity to make a speech of your own.

Please continue, Mr Gray.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

T

hank you, Presiding Officer.

The support that the UK Government has offered is less than a third of what the industry requires. As with carbon capture, the tidal stream industry has been let down, when we need to do all that we can to encourage its swift expansion.

In the meantime, the UK Government, while it is £50 million short for the tidal industry, which is based in Scotland, is committing billions to new nuclear power stations. If it does not invest now, we will lose the investment, the technology and the jobs. Alan Brown, Stephen Flynn and Ian Blackford continue to make the case at Westminster for both CCS and tidal stream. I hope that the Scottish Tories can join them in standing up for those crucial Scottish industries and make the case for them both to the UK Government.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I congratulate Gillian Martin on bringing the debate to the chamber. She gave an excellent speech, except for the last few words of the final paragraph. I also thank Fergus Ewing, who gave an excellent speech—again, except for a few choice words mixed in along the way.

However, when it comes to Karen Adam and Neil Gray—honest to goodness me. I include in that Neil Gray’s comments about the tidal stream sector, which are so misguided that it is almost unbelievable.

I disagree completely with the motivation behind today’s debate, which has become apparent from the contributions from certain members of the SNP. The conversation about the UK Government’s support for CCUS clusters should focus on the environmental benefits that they will provide. Sadly, I am afraid that the motivation for today’s debate comes directly from the SNP’s one-page playbook on stoking up—

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member

give way?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I wish that I could. Honestly, the member has no idea how much I would love to give way, but unfortunately I am not allowed to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You are perfectly able to take an intervention, Mr Kerr, although you will still be restricted to four minutes.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Exactly—see?

The debate is all about stoking up grievance. That is the SNP’s one-page playbook: stoking up grievance against the UK Government. That narrative is and has always been false. Rather than have the SNP’s inward-looking approach, our efforts to protect the climate must focus on co-operation. We must work together with our partners across the UK and countries around the world. COP26, which was hosted by the UK Government in Glasgow earlier this month, showed the challenges and frustrations involved in co-operation, but it also showed that, through hard work, patience, determination and co-operation, things can and will get done. Co-operation produces positive outcomes that put us on the path to protecting our planet.

It is in the same spirit of co-operation and with the determination to do what is best for our planet that I approach the debate and the motion. As part of the UK Government’s net zero strategy, four CCUS clusters will be operational in the UK by 2030. This is a world-leading development, and I am amazed, though not entirely surprised, to hear the Greens talking about the need for us to be so conservative and not take any strides forward as no one has ever done this sort of thing before. I am afraid to say that the attitude shown by Mark Ruskell shows exactly why the Greens are on the fringes of political debate in this area.

Two of the clusters will be operational by the mid-2020s and the other two by 2030. Last month, the UK Government’s energy minister, Greg Hands, announced that the first two clusters will indeed be East Coast Cluster and HyNet, but the Acorn project in Aberdeenshire has been designated as a reserve site in the first phase and will continue to receive UK Government support. Being designated as a reserve site also leaves Acorn in a promising—and, I would say, advantaged—position to be selected for full support in the second phase.

Determining which clusters would be selected was always going to be a competitive process based on objective criteria—and, by the way, I would say that Paul Sweeney has certainly not seen the scoring in that respect. Although it was disappointing to learn that the Acorn project would not receive the full support that we all wanted it to receive in the first phase, it is fundamentally misleading and self-defeating for the SNP to say that the UK Government has abandoned Scotland. All the language about betrayal and all the other stuff in the letter that was sent to us were outrageous.

The important thing is to meet the carbon goals that we all agree on, not necessarily what part of the country or what order the projects appear in. When carbon is captured and stored, we all benefit, no matter whether we are in Scotland, England or any other part of the world. Reducing carbon reduction targets to tit-for-tat, pork-barrel politics is to betray the science that sits behind all this. We must act locally and think globally.

I sense that you are about to tell me that I have no more time, Presiding Officer, so I will conclude simply by saying that I hope that the Acorn project will be part of the second phase and will get full support, and we will work across the chamber to that end. The technology deserves our support. It can make a major contribution to our carbon reduction targets, and it deserves more than SNP grievance and spin.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Kerr. I apologise to those who spoke later in the debate for having to curtail their time a little—the debate was heavily oversubscribed. That said, I will protect a bit of time for the minister to respond to interventions, if he so wishes.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank Gillian Martin for lodging this motion on carbon capture, utilisation and storage and for highlighting a technology that will play a crucial role in helping Scotland to decarbonise and reach our world-leading statutory emissions targets by 2045.

Ms Martin rightly and eloquently highlighted the consequences of the recent UK Government failure to award the Scottish Cluster, led by the Acorn project in Aberdeenshire, track 1 status and funding in its recent cluster sequencing process. Although the cluster was previously considered to be the most advanced and deliverable CCS project in the UK, it was rejected by the UK Government. As Sir Ian Wood said, that was like leaving the best player on the subs’ bench. It is fair to say that the public, industry, the Scottish ministers and many others were shellshocked by the decision, and I honestly hoped that today we could all stand together and say that it was a serious mistake that must be corrected without delay.

Gillian Martin has also drawn attention to the north-east of Scotland, the home of oil and gas and a natural home for CCUS development and deployment. The UK Government’s decision risks the just transition to good green jobs that the region urgently needs and which members across all parties keep calling on the Scottish Government to support.

The Scottish Government supports CCUS as a means to decarbonise industry and as a vital tool to achieve Scotland’s emissions targets.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To go back to the north-east industry, Fergus Ewing rightly pointed out that, when Acorn is up and running, it will need a supply of oil and gas. Does the minister support Nicola Sturgeon’s view of future oil and gas, or Alex Salmond’s position on future oil and gas?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am about to come to that theme. Alex Rowley mentioned the importance of COP. I spent two weeks of my life at COP, and I saw ministers from the UK and Scottish Governments, tens of thousands of people from across the world and non-governmental organisations s

aying together that the planet is burning and that we have to take faster action, be braver and be bolder. Yet, in the debate, the Conservatives, and Liam Kerr as the Conservative net zero spokesperson, have been attacking the SNP Government for saying that we should transition away from fossil fuels in Scotland and play our role in saving the planet.

Our 2045 net zero target is based in part on advice from the UK Climate Change Committee, which describes CCUS as a “necessity not an option”, as Gillian Martin said. Significantly, the CCC pointed to Scotland’s CO2

storage potential in recommending the date of 2045.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am heartened to hear that the SNP will finally meet targets, specifically the 2013 household waste recycling target of 50 per cent. Will the minister confirm that that will be met next year?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Just last week, the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity gave a statement to the Parliament on the circular economy. In response to the many attacks from members on the Conservative benches on Scotland’s climate change record, I say that we have reduced emissions more in percentage terms than the rest of the UK has. However, we do not get one word of credit from the Conservative members for Scotland’s progress towards meeting our climate change targets.

As many members have said, CCUS is an important transition opportunity for Scotland’s mature oil and gas industry, and it can utilise the existing skills and expertise of those across Scotland to transition to a low-carbon economy. The livelihoods of significant numbers of oil and gas workers in Scotland are at stake. Recent figures show that the oil and gas sector currently supports around 70,000 jobs in Scotland. The Scottish Cluster, which we are debating today, could support an average of 15,100 jobs from 2022 onwards.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

With regard to the future operations of the North Sea oil and gas operators, does the minister welcome the opportunity that now exists to build a consensus across almost all parties that the forthcoming climate compatibility checkpoint—which, I understand, the UK Government, having consulted on it since last September, is introducing—offers an opportunity to demonstrate that future production can continue, provided that it meets the high standards that, I hope, will be the outcome of that consultation, and will enable the 70,000 jobs to continue for the foreseeable future?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

On several occasions, the Scottish Government has asked the UK Government that it be involved and included in the conversations about the compatibility test for future oil and gas fields in the North Sea. Following COP, anyone would think that that is a sensible position to take, and that the green light should not be given to any fields until we have seen the compatibility test applied.

I will return to the issue of jobs, which is crucially important to the debate. At the moment, there are 70,000 jobs in oil and gas, with the Scottish Cluster and the Acorn project likely to create 15,000 jobs from next year onwards. To put that in context, the number of green jobs that are put at risk by the failure to support that project, which is one of many projects that are happening, represents more than 20 per cent of existing jobs in the oil and gas industry.

The UK Government’s decision means that some of those employment opportunities will be delayed or even lost. The UK Government’s failure to support the Scottish Cluster is a blow to our net zero ambitions and to the people of Scotland, particularly communities in the north-east of Scotland that are so dependent on energy transition. We have announced £500 million just transition funds for the north-east and have asked the UK Government to help by matching that. We are also supporting those in carbon-intensive industries with a skills guarantee.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree with the former SNP golden boy Fergus Mutch, who said in

The Press and Journal

just today that the just transition fund is

“a drop in the ocean”?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

That is why we want the UK Government to match it. I am glad that the member agrees with the point, and I hope that he will make representations to the UK Government to that effect.

The Acorn project is at the heart of the transition for which everyone is calling for support. Scotland has vast potential for CO2

storage in the North Sea and remains the best-placed nation in Europe to deploy CCUS. The Scottish Cluster projects clearly present the best opportunity to develop industrial emissions reductions at scale by the mid-2020s.

As Gillian Martin said, when asked about the UK Government decision, the chief executive officer of the Committee on Climate Change, Chris Stark, stated that the Scottish Cluster seemed a “slam dunk … for support”, noting that:

“we should be able to get a third project going and that the Scottish project would be a really good candidate for that.”

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the minister also agree with Chris Stark’s comment that the UK Government’s announcement

“is a substantial step forward that lays out clearly the government’s ambitions to cut emissions across the economy over the coming 15 years and beyond”,

factoring in the fact that there will be further announcements?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Chris Stark said that the Scottish Cluster was a “slam dunk ... for support”, but of course it did not get that support in the announcement from the UK Government. I hope that today we can all rally round and ensure that we get the Scottish project included in track 1 as soon as possible.

The fact is that Acorn is expected to store over 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2030, which is roughly 10 per cent of Scotland’s current emissions, and it plans to take that up to 20 million tonnes by 2040.

In conclusion, the UK Government’s decision not to award the Scottish Cluster track 1 status is illogical; shows a clear lack of ambition; represents a huge missed opportunity for green jobs in Scotland, particularly in the north-east of the country; and shows a lack of leadership on climate change. Ian Wood, again, described the decision as making

“little economic or environmental sense”

and

“a real blow to Scotland”.

I therefore urge all the parties to heed Gillian Martin’s advice and stand together to make the case that this project is essential for Scotland to meet its net zero ambitions and to deliver green jobs as part of the energy transition, particularly in the north-east of Scotland. We need the mistake of the Acorn project’s rejection to be corrected as an absolute priority so that we can get the project off the ground, get going and get the transition under way to help Scotland meet our net zero targets.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate.

14:02 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—

Constitution, External Affairs and Culture

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. I remind members that Covid-related measures are in place and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

The next item of business is portfolio question time on constitution, external affairs and culture. I ask members who wish to request a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak button or indicate that in the chat function by entering the letter R during the relevant question. As ever, I make a plea for short and succinct questions and answers to get in as many members as possible.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government in relation to the potential implications for Scotland of the on-going dialogue between the UK Government and the European Union regarding the Northern Ireland protocol. (S6O-00438)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Scottish ministers are concerned about the continuing lack of progress in the talks between the United Kingdom Government and the EU in respect of the Northern Ireland protocol. I, and fellow Scottish Government ministers, have repeatedly urged the UK Government to approach the on-going discussions with the EU seriously and constructively and to meaningfully include devolved Governments in that process.

If the UK Government were to trigger article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol, that would have profound and deeply damaging consequences for every part of the UK and could result in a disastrous trade dispute with the EU. It is one of the most irresponsible things that could be done right now in the face of Covid and other Brexit implications.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Does the cabinet secretary

agree that the UK Government’s needless and reckless confrontation with the EU has made it even harder to find constructive solutions to the problems that are created by Brexit, such as those experienced by the Scottish agriculture and food sector?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I agree with my colleague. The hard Brexit that the UK Government chose, which removes us from the single European market and from the customs union, is being pursued irresponsibly during a global pandemic. It is causing significant economic damage in Scotland. In the first half of 2021, Scotland’s food exports to the European Union were 14 per cent lower than in the equivalent period in 2019. That compares with a 3 per cent drop in food exports to non-EU countries over the same period. Scottish goods exports fell by 24 per cent in the latest year to June 2021, compared to the equivalent period in 2019.