Official Report 1103KB pdf
Grangemouth Refinery Closure
I want to concentrate my first question today on the announcement this morning that the Grangemouth refinery will shut after 100 years of operation. The decision to close Scotland’s only refinery will see 400 jobs lost directly at Grangemouth. That is a devastating blow to the workforce, the Falkirk area and the entire Scottish economy.
Supporting the employees at this difficult time must be the priority of both of Scotland’s Governments. A PWC report that was published this morning says that the economic contribution of the refinery, supply chain and employee spending was £403.6 million in 2023 and that the refinery is estimated to support 2,800 jobs across Scotland. Will the First Minister outline his Government’s response to the announcement and say what support the Scottish Government will put in place to support the employees at this difficult time?
This is a profoundly serious issue. My first thoughts at the outset of the handling of the issue are with the workforce, who will face great uncertainty as a consequence of the announcement that has been made this morning by Petroineos.
There has been extensive engagement and dialogue between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government with Petroineos about the issue. Both Governments have made the case for refining to be continued for as long as possible, and certainly not for the announcement to be made today that refining will end in quarter 2 of 2025. Mr Ross is correct: that will raise significant economic implications for Scotland. It was for that reason that I raised the issue in my first conversation with the Prime Minister after the election, on 5 July, and there has been good and sustained engagement with the UK Government on the question.
This morning, both Governments have announced the approval of the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal. That will see the investment of £100 million in the locality, which will provide assistance for it to recover from this significant economic shock. Secondly, immediate tailored career support for workers will be made available to support employees to find employment should they face those issues. Thirdly, there will be investment in the site’s long-term future. The Scottish Government and United Kingdom Government have jointly funded the project willow study, which has identified a shortlist of credible options to begin the building of a new long-term industry at the refinery site, including low-carbon hydrogen, clean e-fuels and sustainable aviation fuels.
We will put in all the effort that we can to support the workforce at this difficult and worrying time. There will be intense dialogue with the trade unions, the company and Falkirk Council on those questions. I give the Parliament the assurance that we will update members as the events take their course. The Government’s commitment to that and to working collaboratively with the United Kingdom Government is absolute. We will support the workers of Grangemouth in their time of need.
It is right that the Parliament is united in supporting those workers at this difficult time. Scottish Conservative members for Central Scotland and, indeed, our entire group will work with both Governments to assist in any way that we can.
I will move to another issue that has been dominating many of the conversations that we have all been having with constituents in the past few weeks. The winter fuel payment, which was shamelessly cut by the Labour Government at Westminster, was devolved to the Scottish Government. In Scotland, the decision not to pay that money to pensioners is for the Scottish National Party Government. In announcing its decision to scrap the winter fuel payment, the SNP must have known the impact that that would have on 900,000 pensioners in Scotland. Labour said that that policy would kill thousands of pensioners across the United Kingdom. Due to our colder climate, a disproportionate number of those are likely to be in Scotland. Does the First Minister accept that his Government’s decision will lead to unnecessary deaths in Scotland? If so, how many?
I deeply regret the fact that the Scottish Government finds itself in this position. We fully expected the winter fuel payment to be devolved to the Scottish Government, and were planning to pay that support to pensioners in Scotland universally. That was our plan, and that is what we were working on. With 90 minutes’ notice, we were abruptly told that our budget would be cut by £160 million because of the United Kingdom Government’s decision. That is not of our making or planning, and it certainly is not our choice.
Mr Ross also knows that, once the Scottish Government has established a budget for the year, we cannot increase the size of that budget unless there are positive consequential funding decisions from the United Kingdom Government. In this case, we have had a negative consequential financial decision that cuts our budget by £160 million. I very much regret the fact that we will not be able to make those payments universally, but we have suffered a budget cut from the United Kingdom Government, and the Scottish Government is responding to that accordingly.
It was a straightforward question, so I will ask it again. Does John Swinney believe—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Ross.
Does John Swinney believe that, as a result of the decision that was taken by SNP ministers in Scotland, there will be unnecessary deaths? If so, how many? He must know. John Swinney also said that it was always the plan to continue to deliver the payment universally. That is not true. The Scottish Government’s response to the consultation on the pension age winter heating payment, which was published in May, long before the Labour Government’s announcement, said that it would
“continue to review the eligibility and scope of the pension age winter heating payment moving forward.”
The SNP was considering cutting that payment back in May. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Ross.
That is in black and white in its own document.
Politics is about choices, and John Swinney’s Government has chosen to pass on Labour cuts that could see 900,000 Scottish pensioners losing out. The SNP could have mitigated those cuts. It has a budget of more than £50 billion, and just this week—
Can we have a question, Mr Ross.
—the number in Scottish Government’s bloated civil service has reached a record high. Why are public sector pen-pushers more important to John Swinney than stopping pensioners from freezing in their homes?
In his last weeks in office as Conservative leader, Douglas Ross really is plumbing the depths in the questions that he puts in Parliament today. His interpretation of the document is, I think, a vindication of that comment.
Douglas Ross knows full well the way in which the Scottish Government’s finances operate. If we suffer a cut of £160 million in our budget courtesy of the Labour Government, we have to respond to that, and we have to act accordingly.
I need no lessons from Douglas Ross about mitigating decisions of the United Kingdom Government, because the Scottish Government is currently mitigating a series of decisions that were taken by Douglas Ross and his colleagues on an on-going basis on the bedroom tax and other measures. We picked up the pieces because of the odious decisions that were taken by the Conservative Government in London, so I will take no lessons from Douglas Ross on that point.
Douglas Ross says to me that there are choices. Of course there are choices. If we followed the Conservatives on what they have said about tax and spending, I would not be cutting the budget by £160 million—I would be cutting it by £2 billion, because that is the reality of the position that the Conservatives put to Parliament. I will take no lessons today from Douglas Ross, as he desperately clutches at straws in his last weeks in office.
Standing up for Scotland’s pensioners is not clutching at straws.
Is it not telling that John Swinney has now twice been asked how many in Scotland could die as a result of his policy, and he refuses to answer? It is in black and white that the SNP was considering that in May this year. The SNP repeatedly calls for more powers, but when it is given the chance to act, it runs in the opposite direction and blames Westminster.
Surely the point of devolution is to make different choices, especially when lives are at risk—[Interruption.]
I am finding it very difficult to hear, as I am sure other members are, too. Let us conduct ourselves in a courteous and respectful manner, and let us hear one another.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I was saying that surely the point of devolution is to make different choices, especially when lives are at risk. You cannot oppose Labour cuts at Westminster and simply pass them on at Holyrood by pretending that there is nothing that you can do about it.
Scotland is colder than the rest of the UK, and winter fuel payments must be an even greater priority here. The £160 million cost of the payments is just a fraction—0.3 per cent—of the Scottish Government’s £50 billion budget. Surely the SNP Government can find the money, if that is important to it. Why is keeping pensioners warm this winter not a priority for John Swinney?
Douglas Ross raised a question about the exercise of new powers. When this Government acquired new powers, we took decisions to, for example, ask higher earners in Scotland to contribute more in taxation. I think that that was the right decision to make, because it has enabled us to fund the expansion of early learning and childcare so that families across the country have the best childcare offering in the whole United Kingdom. I am very proud that our Government has put that in place.
That decision has also enabled us to spend more than £400 million on ensuring that we deliver the Scottish child payment, which is contributing—among other measures—to keeping 100,000 children out of poverty. Those are the choices that we have exercised as a Government, and I am very proud of them.
The difficulty that we face on the issue of winter fuel payments is that—
That is not a priority for the Scottish Government.
Let us hear the First Minister.
Within this financial year, our budget is being cut at the same time as we are affording pay increases for public sector workers—
The point is about priorities.
—such as nurses, teachers—[Interruption.]
First Minister.
To be quite frank, members know that they are not conducting themselves in a courteous and respectful manner. Where there have been previous opportunities to put questions, I would ask members to focus and listen.
At the same time as we have a budget cut of £160 million around winter fuel payments, we are affording more than £800 million to meet the additional costs of pay bills so that teachers, nurses and other members of the public services who are delivering vital services in our country—
This is about pensioners.
Why are you still shouting at me, Mr Hoy? You have to listen to the Presiding Officer—[Interruption.] You have to listen to the Presiding Officer, and stop behaving badly.
I assure the First Minister that I am wholly prepared to chair this meeting. I will not allow any members to shout at one another, so let us start to conduct ourselves in a manner that is appropriate for this Parliament.
In the financial year that we face, in which we have an acute budget cut in relation to the winter fuel payments, this Government has been left with no choice.
I will take absolutely no lessons from Douglas Ross, who supported every act of financial vandalism of the previous Conservative Government and every act of austerity that led to suffering among pensioners and families in our country. The Conservatives have no lessons to teach us.
Grangemouth Refinery Closure (Joint Government Response)
This morning, Petroineos confirmed its decision to decommission the refinery at Grangemouth. For the workforce, its families and the wider community, this will be a time of great anxiety.
Since the refinery closure was first proposed, Labour has called for both of Scotland’s Governments to get round the table to find solutions. That is why Keir Starmer raised the issue with the First Minister during his first visit to Scotland after the election, and that is why the clear message this morning is that the United Kingdom Labour Government is ready to support the workforce and secure a viable long-term future for the site. I am sure that the First Minister, like me, welcomes that assurance. Will he join me in committing to continue that work, with the UK Government, in the interests of the Grangemouth community and Scotland’s energy security?
I am very happy to give that confirmation to Parliament today. That has been the spirit in which the Scottish Government has operated since Petroineos raised the issues some months ago. There was sustained engagement before the change of Government in July and that has carried on under the new Government.
As I explained in my first answer to Mr Ross, this morning, the UK and Scottish Governments announced a series of measures that are designed to address the immediate issues. I assure Jackie Baillie that the Scottish Government will concentrate and focus on meeting the needs of the workforce at what I acknowledge will be an extremely worrying time.
I very much welcome that commitment from the First Minister.
The plan that was announced today delivers a £100 million fund to drive growth in Grangemouth and to support the workforce. There will be investment in new energy projects; a new technology centre to support the use of low-carbon technologies; career and skills support for the existing workforce; and an employment hub to support emerging energy sectors and explore potential opportunities for Labour’s national wealth fund in clean technologies, such as hydrogen and clean aviation fuel.
All that has been pulled together in the first nine weeks of a UK Labour Government, and it gives hope that there will be a strong industrial energy future at Grangemouth. I welcome the joint investment by both Governments. Does the First Minister agree that that shows how the people of Scotland benefit from the Labour Government’s approach, which is one of co-operation rather than conflict?
As a matter of fact—I have to be absolutely fair on this question—there was a lot of dialogue with the previous Conservative Government on the issue. The issue has been taken seriously by the United Kingdom Government of whatever colour, and it has certainly been taken deadly seriously by the Scottish Government.
The project willow study, which is a really important part of research about viable alternatives for development of the site, predates the existing UK Government, but I am glad that it has been supported as a consequence of the announcements today.
I very much agree about the basis of co-operation. It is no secret that the Scottish Government would like the United Kingdom Government to move faster on the authorising of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. It has been of deep concern to me that promises about the authorisation of that scheme, which ministers in the previous United Kingdom Government made to me directly, have not been fulfilled. I feel deeply let down by the fact that that has not happened. Promises were given but not fulfilled.
I have made the point to the Prime Minister that an early authorisation of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project would be a significant boost to the efforts to find new opportunities at the Grangemouth site. I hope that the United Kingdom Government is listening carefully to the words that I am saying to Parliament today.
I think that the First Minister will find that the UK Labour Government has been not only been listening carefully but acting in the interests of the people of Scotland. The new national wealth fund did not exist before the Labour Government came to power, and that can make change happen.
A UK Labour Government working with the Scottish Government is part of the promise that we made to Scots at the general election. Labour made a commitment that we would not leave communities behind. That is why we have got on with passing the legislation to set up Great British energy; awarding a record-breaking number of clean energy contracts; announcing the £100 million support package for Grangemouth alongside the Scottish Government; protecting Scotland’s industrial base; securing the well-paid jobs of the future—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Ms Baillie.
—and delivering the transition to net zero.
The new consensus does not appear to have lasted long on the Scottish National Party back benches.
There is more that we could and should be doing here in Scotland. It has taken three years for the SNP to publish a green industrial strategy. Although I welcome the enthusiasm with which the First Minister has engaged with the UK Labour Government in the past few weeks, does he agree that, to deliver new investment, good jobs and energy security for Scotland, we need to step up action here as well?
There is plenty of action on green energy and green opportunities in Scotland. One of my first engagements as First Minister was to announce the investment at the Ardersier port near Inverness. That was followed by the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy announcing the investment at Sumitomo in Nigg, which is another formidable investment in the renewables sector. On Monday, I had the pleasure of being in Buckie to inaugurate the operations and maintenance facility of Ocean Winds, which is leading the development of the Moray East and Moray West offshore wind farms. That is all happening on the watch of the Scottish Government, and I am delighted that it is happening.
Jackie Baillie is right that we must intensify the pace, which is why the green industrial strategy has been published. We would also be helped if we had control over the £150 million war chest that the Secretary of State for Scotland apparently has at his disposal. If the funding arrangements were working properly, we would have the money here for us to invest in the Scottish economy, to accelerate developments and, perhaps, to put even more than we have already have into the carbon capture and storage project that I was talking about a moment ago.
I am all for working together, but let us make sure that we have the resources here to end austerity, which would allow us to invest in the economy.
While we are on the subject of promises and what has been delivered by the Labour Government, Labour promised that it would reduce people’s fuel bills by £300, but they are going to go up by £149 on average. That is not the change that people in Scotland voted for.
Green Industrial Strategy
I certainly agree with the First Minister and others that our thoughts today must be with the workforce and the community affected by the announcement about Grangemouth. However, the truth is that the Government has been well aware for years that Grangemouth urgently needed a just transition plan, and yesterday’s so-called “Green Industrial Strategy” contained nothing new to achieve a fair transition away from polluting industries.
The workforce and the community have been failed by the private owners, but they have also been failed by both Governments. Why has the Scottish Government produced a green industrial strategy that looks like it was written by oil and gas lobbyists and that contains no transition plan for Grangemouth?
I welcome the comments that Mr Harvie has put on the record about the workforce at Grangemouth—[Interruption.]
I say to the Conservatives that I do not think that the hardship that is faced by the employees at Grangemouth is a laughing matter, to be honest. I welcome Mr Harvie’s comments about the workforce because it is important that Parliament acts with solidarity when members of the public face difficulties.
In relation to the green industrial strategy, the first of the five opportunity areas in the strategy is about investment in the wind industry, which is a formidable contributor to that strategy. I know that Mr Harvie takes a different view from the Government on carbon capture and storage, but that is also an important element of our strategy, as is the development of financial products that will enable investment in the self-sustaining renewable energy industries that I have talked about, and the development of hydrogen-related possibilities, which have enormous significance, along with the export potential that can arise out of the investment that we are making in offshore wind.
I hope that that detail gives Mr Harvie confidence that the green industrial strategy is meeting the needs of the workforce at Grangemouth and that it also applies across the Scottish economy by providing new opportunities for transition.
The news about Grangemouth this week makes it all the more important that the Government is truly honest about its climate action. However, the Government did not even want to tell Parliament about its legally required plan to make up for its missed targets. It slipped it out on Friday with no debate, no statement to Parliament and not even a press release about that legally required report.
No wonder that the Government is embarrassed by it. It is supposed to show what new climate action it will take to make up for falling further behind on the climate, but it contains no new policy whatsoever. That comes after it has spent the past few weeks abandoning policies that the Greens achieved in Government: it has raided the nature restoration fund and the ScotWind money, and it is planning a big increase in rail fares, which the Greens had cut.
How can the Government publish that report with no new policy in it and still expect to be taken seriously as it is rushing through a new climate bill that kicks this ever more urgent issue into ever longer grass?
It is important that we look at all the detail that is relevant in this area. For example, in the programme for government that I announced last Wednesday, we set out our investment programme for a just transition fund in the north-east and in Moray, and we set out our plans to significantly enhance the Scotland’s capacity to generate renewable energy. We have made formidable progress on the decarbonisation of electricity since this Government came to power and achieved significant improvements in that process. The programme for government includes material about the restoration of 10,000 hectares of degraded peatland and the creation of 10,000 hectares of woodlands. A variety of other measures in the programme for government also support our work on climate change.
I want to be crystal clear to Mr Harvie that the Government is absolutely committed to the journey that we have to take on climate. That commitment has underpinned our activities since we came to office in 2007, and it will underpin our activities in the years to come.
The transition has to be made, and it has to made fairly for all communities involved. That is the approach that the Scottish Government will take.
Renewable Energy Generation (Planning and Consenting Regime)
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government plans to improve the planning and consenting regime for renewable energy generation can support the journey to net zero. (S6F-03346)
Robust and timely planning and consenting of renewable energy projects and infrastructure are key to growing our economy and delivering on our net zero commitments.
The steps that we take in relation to providing clarity and confidence to support renewables development and investment are critical to enabling Scotland’s transition to net zero. That is why I set out in the programme for government last week a set of actions to deliver the improvements that we need to see in the current regime. Those include establishing Scotland’s first ever planning hub to build capacity and skills in planning teams, with an initial focus on hydrogen applications; making consenting faster and more consistent for proposals for projects over 50MW; introducing new guidance for transmission developments; and updating our marine planning framework.
The green industrial strategy will be key in the context of Scotland’s drive to net zero by 2045 and promoting a just transition. How will the actions that are set out in that strategy help Scotland to secure growth and investment?
Net zero also goes beyond renewable energy. What details can the First Minister give about what is contained in the strategy that will support the decarbonisation of the built environment and the construction sector, given that they generate 40 per cent of emissions?
Mr Doris makes a number of important points on the green industrial strategy and the steps that we have to take. As I outlined in my answer to Patrick Harvie, there are five key opportunity areas in which we need to take further action on the transition in relation to investment, innovation and entrepreneurship in a number of sectors: wind, carbon capture and storage, professional financial services, hydrogen and clean industries. We already have formidable leadership in that area, but Mr Doris is right to raise the construction sector and the need for it to reduce its emissions. We are working on decarbonisation in collaboration with the construction sector, through the Construction Leadership Forum and its codes, which set out agreed actions on decarbonisation.
I am keen to allow as many members as possible to ask supplementary questions, if we can keep those concise.
The north-east is experiencing a dramatic increase in new transmission infrastructure to serve offshore wind. The affected communities deserve proper consultation, but that has been far from what has happened. For residents who bear the brunt of the new infrastructure, it feels like an unfair and unjust transition. As the Scottish Government looks to improve the planning and consenting regime for renewables—which the First Minister described as “making consenting faster”—is the First Minister willing to meet community representatives and campaigners to listen to their concerns and ensure that they are not left behind?
It is important that there is high-quality community engagement on all developments of any nature. If those who are taking forward developments engage in good dialogue and engagement with individual communities, that helps to make the consenting and planning process more efficient.
I am familiar with the issues that Tess White raises, and I am sure that ministers would be happy to meet campaigners. Of course, ministers have to be careful about engaging on particular developments because of the need to observe the ministerial code in taking decisions on such questions.
I welcome the fact that the Government seeks to make consenting faster, because the First Minister is aware that delays have affected such things as the Berwick Bank offshore wind project. In his role as First Minister, will he facilitate a meeting on the Eskdalemuir seismic array in Dumfries and Galloway, which is causing problems for Community Windpower’s development there?
On individual applications, I generally take the view that I will not say anything in Parliament, because that keeps me on the right side of the ministerial code. I am not sure of the status of the application that Mr Whitfield has raised, but I will take it away and consider whether it is appropriate for ministers to engage. I do not know the stage of that application, and it would be careless of me to say otherwise.
Shetland is the windiest part of the country so, for obvious reasons, it attracts both onshore and offshore wind developments. Islanders are aware of the contributions that such projects make to reaching net zero, but there is a view that onshore developments should not be built near existing properties and communities. Does the First Minister recognise the concerns about the proximity of wind turbines to homes and the impact of turbine noise and shadow flicker? What can the Scottish Government do in terms of planning and consent to ensure a specified minimum distance between properties and future onshore wind developments?
I understand the significance of the issues that Beatrice Wishart has put to me. My view is that the issues that she raises should be properly and fully considered in any planning process. I am happy to consider whether enhancements to the process need to be undertaken to provide the reassurance that she seeks.
From some of the dialogue that I have had with representatives of the community in Shetland, I am also conscious of some of the concerns that are raised about developments and about the relationship between power generation in the Shetland Islands and the cost of energy for local residents, which I recognise as a very significant issue.
I am happy to have further dialogue with Beatrice Wishart on that question.
Police Scotland (Gender Self-identification Policy)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to recent reports regarding Police Scotland’s policy on gender self-identification for individuals charged with or convicted of serious sexual assaults. (S6F-03340)
The Scottish Government is clear that violence against women and girls is abhorrent. Through our equally safe strategy, we aim to prevent and tackle such violence and abuse and to address the underlying attitudes and behaviours that perpetuate the violence that too many experience.
It is only through fundamental societal change that women can be protected. The Parliament is well aware that the Scottish Government does not determine or interfere with operational matters of Police Scotland, which is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority and not to ministers.
In a letter to a Holyrood committee, Police Scotland said that it would allow a serious sex offender to self-declare their gender. That opens the door to a grotesque situation in which a male rapist can demand to be called a woman and further traumatise his victim. Echoing the language of the Scottish National Party, Police Scotland said that that was “consistent” with its values and promotes
“a strong sense of belonging.”
That is an insult to the victims of rape and serious assault. The only strong sense that that should inspire is disgust. Does the First Minister agree with me and women across Scotland that male rapists should not get their own way, or is he content to let another Isla Bryson situation happen?
Let me be absolutely crystal clear with Parliament. I have never in my life believed, nor will I ever believe, that a male rapist should, in the words of Rachael Hamilton, get his way. I will not be associated with that language. Our law and legal framework make that abundantly clear.
In relation to the specific question about the guidance from Police Scotland, those are operational matters for Police Scotland. There would be outrage if I were to interfere in the actions and decision making of Police Scotland. The law is clear that I cannot do that. I am sure that Police Scotland will have heard the exchanges in Parliament today and will consider the issues, if there are any that it wishes to address.
Behind the recording of crime statistics are real victims, such as the women who had to sit through court proceedings last year and hear the rapist referred to as a woman. I do not think that the First Minister can ignore responsibility. As Rachael Hamilton said, Police Scotland has said that that is consistent with its values, but the Government needs to be clear whether it is consistent with the Government’s values. If a message is to go from the First Minister today, does it not make a mockery of the Government’s violence against women strategy if violent male offenders can present as women and that could be accepted by the police? It is that critical.
The Government’s strategy in relation to the tackling of violence against women is absolutely crystal clear that there is no place for violence against women in our society. The perpetrators of that violence must be confronted with and held to account for their behaviour. That is the foundation of our legal system.
Pauline McNeill is an experienced commentator and parliamentarian on issues in relation to justice policy. She knows that I cannot interfere in the operational business of Police Scotland. The law prevents me from doing so. However, the issues have been aired in Parliament today, and Police Scotland will have the opportunity to consider them.
Just to further underline the issue that we are discussing, stories have been running in the media this year discussing the increase in “women” committing sex crimes, when the reality is that those crimes are committed by men and are being recorded as women’s crimes. That is offensive to women, and it is grossly disrespectful to the victims of those crimes. Why are Scottish institutions still acting as if self-identification is the law when it is not?
Institutions, however, have legal obligations, through the public sector equality duty, to record sex accurately. Will the First Minister show leadership and address this horrible situation urgently?
In the most recent year for which published data is available—2021-22—in all convictions of rape or attempted rape, the crimes were perpetrated by males. That is a statement of fact in relation to the most recent data that is available.
I acknowledge the concerns that are being expressed in the Parliament today, but I return to the fundamental point that the recording of information on those who commit crime is an operational matter for Police Scotland. It must be accountable for the decisions that it takes, and it is not for the First Minister to interfere or specify in operational matters of Police Scotland.
Hospice Care (Costs)
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in response to the reported rise in hospice care costs, including to ensure that employees in that sector have pay parity with NHS staff. (S6F-03333)
Independent hospices are highly valued and provide vital support to people and their families, as well as supporting other local health and social care services and teams delivering palliative care. I understand the pressures that hospices are currently facing, and the Scottish Government strives to support independent hospices where possible.
There has been engagement and dialogue with the hospice sector, and the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health is meeting Hospice UK and the chair of the Scottish hospice leadership group next week to discuss support options in more detail.
Given that hospice care is so valued, does the First Minister recognise that urgent action is needed? The sector is under serious financial constraints, with threats of closures. The Government must ensure that the hospice workforce does not conclude that it is undervalued and leave the sector. Hospices simply cannot take that impact. What action will the First Minister take today—right now—to reassure hospices and the workforce?
Let me make it clear that I deeply value, and the Government deeply values, the work of the hospice sector. I understand the financial challenges that are faced because of the wider pay deals that are being put in place or consulted on in relation to the agenda for change, and that creates difficulties for the hospice sector. There is ministerial engagement to address those questions, and that will be taken forward as a consequence of the points that have been raised by Carol Mochan.
In 2012, ministers put in place a chief executive letter for hospices across Scotland. That resulted in a welcome situation, with the Government and the hospices mutually agreeing a funding calculation of 50 per cent of agreed costs. Since the integration of health and social care, the letter is now not taken into account and that figure has collapsed to around 25 to 28 per cent of costs for hospices across Scotland. That needs to change. What future models of funding will the Scottish Government look at to ensure that we have a built-in mechanism to take into account the increased pay and additional costs that the whole hospice sector faces?
Miles Briggs is correct that the arrangements that were previously in place were superseded by the introduction of the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. As a consequence of the act, it became the responsibility of integration joint boards to plan and resource adult palliative care services, including hospice services, for their area, based on local need. That is now the route by which the funding arrangements are resolved.
We will continue to engage on these questions to determine what is the best approach to take to meet local needs, which will vary in different parts of the country. The minister’s meeting next week will provide us with the opportunity to reflect further on the questions.
Grangemouth Refinery Closure
My thoughts are first and foremost with the workers at the refinery in Grangemouth, for whom today’s announcement will be a shock, if not a surprise. I am also mindful of the community, for whom a just transition will feel too far away. As a constituency MSP, I will do everything in my power to sustain the life of the refinery and to ensure that it and the important chemical cluster around it can be supported.
I note that the £100 million that has been quoted by the United Kingdom Government and the Labour Party includes £80 million that was already agreed as part of the growth deal for the wider Falkirk district, which included £50 million from the Scottish Government, and that those funds will not be solely focused on Grangemouth.
However, I can today make members aware that I have been working with a third party that hopes to purchase the refinery in its entirety. The matter is, of course, commercially sensitive and confidential, but will the First Minister meet me so that I can share what information I can, with the permission of the potential buyer?
I am happy to do so. This is an unnerving time for the workforce and it is important that we all act to ensure that there are good and positive opportunities for members of staff as they face such an anxious time. I am happy to explore all possibilities, but I reiterate what I have already put on the record today, which is that the Scottish Government stands to support the workforce at Grangemouth to find the best way forward in difficult circumstances.
Commonwealth Games (Scotland)
The First Minister will be aware that the Commonwealth games will no longer be taking place in Australia in 2026. However, Australia has offered £100 million to underwrite the cost of the games if they come to Scotland and a further £50 million is available from ticket sales and sponsorship. There is also a guarantee from the Commonwealth games council that the games will be fully funded without the need for any Scottish Government intervention.
Does the First Minister agree that bringing the games back to Scotland would be fantastic in promoting Scotland to the world and highlighting sporting excellence to the Scottish public?
We all have fond memories of the Commonwealth games in 2014, which were a marvellous spectacle, but it is important that everyone who is considering and discussing the issue is aware that the proposal that is being brought forward would not replicate the Commonwealth games of 2014, but would be a significantly reduced proposition in comparison.
There are also practical issues about the length of the preparatory time for the games. We had seven years to prepare for 2014, but there is just short of two years to prepare for any games in 2026. There are, of course, significant financial issues and Mr Whittle knows the pressures on the public purse at this time.
Discussions are under way with Commonwealth Games Scotland. The Government is engaging in good faith and will continue to do so.
Rural Visa Pilot
The link between population growth and economic growth is of particular importance in the region that I represent. Keir Starmer has said that he wants to work on common ground with the Scottish Government. What indication has the First Minister had from the United Kingdom Government that it will devolve powers to this Parliament so that a rural visa pilot can be taken forward for sectors such as social care and hospitality?
I have put that proposition to ministers in the United Kingdom Government and discussed it specifically with the Deputy Prime Minister when she visited me in the summer.
As Emma Roddick will know from her constituency experience, there are acute shortages of workers in a number of sectors and a rural visa pilot would help us to address some of the challenges that exist in the Highlands and Islands, and which she fairly puts to me. I assure Emma Roddick that the Scottish Government is pressing the UK Government to act on those issues because, if it did, that would contribute towards stimulating further economic growth in Scotland, which I think we would all welcome.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will be a short suspension to allow those leaving the public gallery to do so before the next debate begins.
12:48 Meeting suspended.Previous
General Question Time