Chamber and committees

As Sarah Boyack has said, there has been investment by both Governments. On 18 February, the First Minister announced to the Parliament that the Scottish Government would lodge a stage 3 amendment to the budget bill for

“£25 million to establish a Grangemouth just transition fund”,—[Official Report, 18 February 2025; c 32.]

which will expedite near-term propositions in the here and now.

The Prime Minister announced that, as part of a major intervention, the National Wealth Fund will provide £200 million of investment for new, future opportunities for Grangemouth. We understand that the funds from the National Wealth Fund will consider only investable propositions and that moneys will be provided on a co-investment basis. Timescales will be determined by those factors.

I hope that Sarah Boyack accepts that both Governments take seriously the task of finding solutions for the future and for the here and now.

I am disappointed that, based on the latest estimates, we look unlikely to meet our target to reduce food waste by 33 per cent by 2025. The reasons behind that are complex, and they partly reflect changed consumer behaviour since the pandemic. Scotland is not alone in facing that challenge; higher food waste levels have been observed across the United Kingdom.

However, I am taking action to reset the Government’s approach. The circular economy and waste route map sets out how we will deliver more targeted action to support households and businesses.

Ministers and officials engage with the Ineos businesses at Grangemouth regularly, recognising their role as important employers of highly skilled people within Grangemouth. The news that Ineos Olefins & Polymers UK is considering redundancies as a result of the closure of the refinery is concerning, and we stand ready to support workers who are impacted by that decision. I appeal to the business to explore all possible opportunities for redeployment of any workers who are at risk of redundancy, and I commit to exploring, with the business, all routes to mitigate any further loss of industrial activity or employment across the industrial cluster.

I am happy to get back to the member on that detailed point, but it is significant that we are prioritising action to tackle food waste and, in particular, waste that is going to landfill. We are making progress on that.

As I have said, I am happy to write to the member about the specific point that he is making, but it is worth saying that in the past decade, we have halved the amount of waste going to landfill, so we are making progress on the wider issue. I freely acknowledge the member’s point, though, for the reasons that I have given with regard to the challenge in meeting this year’s target.

The member makes an important point. Twenty-seven per cent of food waste is created by businesses, and 2021 data from the Waste and Resources Action Programme—WRAP—on the UK suggests that hospitality outlets could save up to £10,000 per year per outlet by reducing such waste. If any innovative solutions of the type that the member has mentioned are particularly efficient in that regard, I am very happy to look at them.

It should be said, by way of response to those important questions, that some of the commentary that anticipates the missing of the 2045 targets is applicable only if emission reductions from land use, for example, are not considered and if no further policies are brought forward.

As I said, the Scottish Government is entirely committed to the 2045 target. In 2022, the Scottish Government commissioned an analytical report on the estimated projection of Scottish emissions from 2019 to 2045, which is published on the Scottish Government’s website. That was a snapshot in time, and since then we have been developing policies for the next climate change plan. The figures for that are available.

Technology reductions were excluded from emission reduction considerations, and land use will form an important part of our forthcoming climate change plan.

The member is right. Scottish ministers regularly engage with our counterparts in the UK Government to push for a decision on Acorn. Carbon capture is vital for achieving our climate targets—the Climate Change Committee described it as being a necessity, not an option, that we achieve net zero emissions. The Scottish cluster is essential not just to Scotland’s target of reaching net zero by 2045, but to the UK’s 2050 target.

So that progress and investor confidence can be maintained, we are pushing for the UK Government to make a clear and meaningful public announcement by return, and certainly ahead of June, confirming that the UK Government is committed to awarding track 2 status to the Acorn project and the Scottish cluster.

Hydrogen is key to our net zero journey. We remain committed to developing a world-leading green hydrogen sector in Scotland. Alongside our enterprise agencies, we are engaging closely with the sector to support hydrogen production and use. Over recent months, I have chaired the Scottish hydrogen industry forum. That group ensures that Government and industry, working together, can support growth and identify barriers to deployment.

Many levers that are required to develop the hydrogen economy are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. We will work closely with that Government to ensure that the interests of the Scottish hydrogen sector are recognised.

We are considering the responses to our consultation on proposals for a heat in buildings bill and will respond as soon as is practicable.

We also know that further action by the United Kingdom Government in reserved areas is essential for the heat transition. That includes rebalancing gas and electricity prices, clarity on its intentions for phasing out gas boilers in existing homes and a swift decision on the future role of the gas grid, in line with the Climate Change Committee’s recent advice.

As Brian Whittle identified in his question, the case is a live planning application. I am part of the planning process, so he will understand why I simply cannot comment on a live application. He is, of course, entitled to raise issues that are of concern to him and his community as part of that process, but I cannot prejudice matters by commenting on it. I am afraid that that is all that I can add.