Chamber and committees

Heating our homes and workplaces causes 20 per cent of our emissions. We have already made significant progress: emissions from buildings fell by 32 per cent between 1990 and 2022.

The energy efficiency of our homes is increasing across all tenures and more heat pumps are being installed than ever before. More than 150,000 households in Scotland have already benefited from our delivery schemes and we provided more than £210 million to those schemes in the last financial year.

We intend to lay regulations in December 2024 to deliver a Scottish equivalent to the Passivhaus standard.

I am happy to acknowledge the important work that local authorities do in that area. I would also mention the £2 million for phase 2 of the Scottish invasive species initiative for tackling invasive plants and mink across the north-east of Scotland, for instance, as well as more than £1.5 million for the Orkney native wildlife project to eradicate stoats, and the £1 million going to the saving Scotland’s red squirrels project to control grey squirrels and reinforce protections for our iconic native red squirrel, as many members have mentioned today.

I will make one specific point about the yellow-legged hornet. Although no sightings have yet been officially recorded in Scotland, we are not complacent about that. My understanding is that we have contingency plans in place should sightings be confirmed.

The nature restoration fund also actively supports a range of other projects, including tackling rhododendron ponticum across areas that are important for nature and enhancing biosecurity for Scotland’s seabirds.

On the point that Jackie Baillie and Colin Smyth raised about Sitka spruce, the Government is aware of the concerns about the self-seeding of the species and it is now reviewing the guidance about buffer zones to seek to address the issue. We appreciate the point being made.

I appreciate the point that Christine Grahame makes, and I will undertake to copy her and others in on the work that is being done on reviewing guidance in that area.

We know that all those measures, important as they are, are not enough on their own to address the problem of established INNS in Scotland. Securing responsible private investment alongside public funds will be critical in supporting long-term plans to tackle invasive species such as rhododendron, giant hogweed and mink more widely and effectively.

However, it is not just about tackling those INNS that are established in Scotland. We must take action to enhance prevention and surveillance for new INNS and to develop robust and rapid response measures to tackle incursions effectively. We have been working closely with other UK Administrations on finalising five GB pathway action plans to raise stakeholder awareness of INNS and of what can be done to prevent them from becoming established in the UK. We are also developing a Scottish angling pathway action plan, which is relevant in that respect. We know that we need to improve prevention and surveillance, which are especially critical to the eradication of predators on Scotland’s seabird islands and in the marine environment, where control becomes challenging.

The Scottish Government welcomes the debate and the insightful report that has been produced by Scottish Environment LINK, and we look forward to working closely with Scottish Environment LINK and our other stakeholders as we develop and implement our INNS plan.

I, too, thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing this fascinating and important debate to the chamber, and I thank members for their speeches. I also thank the organisations that were involved in producing the Scottish Environment LINK report, “Invasive Non-native Species in Scotland: A Plan for Effective Action”.

It has certainly been an interesting and useful debate. I never thought that I would find myself mentioning Mr Burnett of Leys and Elvis in the same sentence, but it seems that they have something in common in their alleged taste for eating squirrels. In any case, the debate is timely, given that the 16th conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity is currently taking place in Colombia, where countries are working together to ensure that the global biodiversity framework is effectively implemented.

That framework recognises the need, as members have done, for urgent action to tackle the current impacts of invasive species and to prevent the establishment of new ones. It is really important for us in Scotland, as it requires the eradication or control of invasive non-native species in priority sites such as islands—in my constituency, for instance, I am very aware of the protracted efforts to remove mink from the islands and hedgehogs from Uist.

All those efforts are why we are embedding key actions on biodiversity, including controlling and preventing the spread of INNS across Scottish Government policy. We are finalising our Scottish biodiversity strategy and delivery plan for publication later this year. In that delivery plan, we have committed to developing and implementing a Scottish plan for INNS surveillance, prevention and control, and securing wider support measures to enable long-term, effective INNS removal at scale. We are working hard on developing our Scottish INNS plan, which will set out in detail what we intend to do to tackle INNS. We will ensure that resources are better focused on preventing and controlling those species where possible.

As we undertake that work, we will engage with a wide range of stakeholders and delivery partners. We will also look carefully at the recommendations in the LINK report. Many of those recommendations are already under consideration or in train, but we recognise that more action is needed. However, Government cannot do that alone. We must work in partnership with and use the expertise of those who manage our land and who know it best. We will need an inclusive, whole-of-society approach that engages communities, businesses and decision makers alike.

I will pick up on Ms Nicoll’s question about funding. We know that tackling INNS requires significant investment, which is why commitments such as our £65 million nature restoration fund are essential. Since its launch in July 2021, the fund has provided more than £7.6 million to support projects to tackle INNS.

I should emphasise that the nature restoration fund has not been withdrawn. There is a continued commitment to the £65 million figure during the current parliamentary session. It is true to say that the local authority strand of the fund has been repurposed under pressures, but I hope that I can reassure Ms Nicoll about the Government’s continued commitment in that area.

The Scottish Government will have to study the implications of the UK Government’s budget for Scotland. We work with suppliers and others to ensure that there is as much certainty as possible on those matters, but we are at the mercy of decisions in the UK about our overall budget. However, we certainly keep in touch with suppliers and agencies to ensure that there is as much certainty in the system as possible.

I am sure that the member will come on to this subject, but does she, or does she not, agree with the UK Government’s decision on payments for pensioners in the winter?

Will the member give way

I acknowledge the need to support local authorities more generally on the issues that the member mentions about planning. I acknowledge the constraint that they could represent if we do not get that right in future.

We will use our public funding strategically to unlock growth where we know that we have an edge. That includes investing up to £500 million over five years to anchor our offshore wind supply chain in Scotland, acting as a catalyst for further private sector investment and supporting places across Scotland to benefit from our offshore renewables revolution.

On the subject of places, a number of speakers—particularly Liam McArthur and Graham Simpson—rightly highlighted the needs of the town of Grangemouth. The Scottish Government is certainly not overlooking that. To give a very small example, one of the things that we are doing is funding a community engagement officer to make sure that the town’s views are heard loud and clear by the Grangemouth future industry board. On a larger scale, I make the point that the Grangemouth just transition plan is only one of many Government interventions. Perhaps that will reassure Mr Johnson, who made a point about its timing.

Our energy strategy and just transition plan will outline our ambition to more than double Scotland’s renewable electricity capacity. It will show how we can deliver our clean energy pipeline while maximising environmental and economic benefits.

Audrey Nicoll spoke with some authority about the creation of new green jobs in the north-east and the need to increase awareness of those job opportunities. Certainly, as we drive progress in those ambitions, Scotland’s vast pipeline of clean energy projects will play a crucial role in the wider UK energy transition. As I have said, we are committed to working with the UK Government to maximise opportunities for the people of Scotland from Great British energy’s investments, alongside the existing work of the Scottish National Investment Bank. Making sure that Scotland plays that role in the future is important.

I see that you are looking for me to conclude, Presiding Officer. Achieving a just transition to net zero for Scotland will rely on our ability to realise our ambitions for Scotland’s economy. As I have set out, we welcome the recommendations from the Economy and Fair Work Committee on how best to support the regions that are most affected by the transition. We will continue to work closely with our energy industry, the UK Government and partners more widely to further realise our enormous renewables potential and to ensure that the people of Scotland benefit from a transition that is truly just.

The Scottish Government welcomes the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s recent inquiries into a just transition for Grangemouth and for the north-east and Moray. I extend my sincere thanks to members and staff of the committee, as well as to all those who provided evidence to both inquiries.

As we are about to embark on a discussion that will, in part, concern Grangemouth, it would be remiss not to start by addressing the on-going situation there, following the recent announcement that the Grangemouth refinery intends to cease operations in quarter 2 of 2025, as Claire Baker referred to. That is clearly concerning for the workforce and the wider community, and I echo the First Minister and the acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy in paying tribute to the refinery workforce, which has been critical in maintaining Scotland’s fuel security over many decades.

We are working tirelessly, alongside the UK Government, to do all that we can to support those who have been impacted by the recent announcement. That is why we announced a tailored support package, which included £20 million in additional joint funding from the Scottish and UK Governments—supplementing the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal—as well as immediate tailored career support that will help affected workers, and the £1.5 million joint funded project willow study, which will take forward credible options for low-carbon industry at the refinery site.

The name recognises the fact that Grangemouth, as a community, was always included in the deal. As I understand it, that has been the purpose of the funding throughout. I say that because Grangemouth is a critical area for Scotland’s economy, and it is my firm belief that that will continue long into the future.

It is worth underlining that there is a wider industrial cluster, as Stephen Kerr knows, beyond the refinery, which we must not lose sight of. There is a group of businesses that employ some 3,000 people.