Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 10, 2022

Official Report 945KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

The next item of business is topical question time. In order to get in as many members as possible, I would be grateful for short and succinct questions, and responses to match.

---

Ineos Group Ltd (Grangemouth Refinery Restructuring Discussions)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Ineos regarding possible restructuring at the Grangemouth refinery. (S6T-00685)

Grangemouth is a source of critical infrastructure, energy resilience, skilled manufacturing and high-value employment and, as we would with any business of such significance, Scottish ministers and officials routinely engage with Grangemouth operators.

Regarding the member’s reference to the refinery business, it would not be at all appropriate for me to comment on any media speculation regarding commercial matters, or potential commercial decisions, at one specific company.

The Grangemouth cluster, with its world-leading engineering experience, expertise, assets and low-carbon manufacturing potential, should play an important role in our net zero economy and we continue to work closely with the industry and key businesses there to help harness that potential.

As the minister said, the Grangemouth refinery is one of the most strategically important employers in Scotland, with hundreds of staff who will, understandably, be alarmed by the prospect of restructuring at the refinery. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with Ineos about the retention of jobs at the site, following the reports? Has the Grangemouth future industry board convened to respond to that worrying development?

I reiterate what I said in my previous answer: it is not appropriate for me or for Scottish ministers to comment on media speculation regarding the commercial operations of a single organisation or company.

The member is right that the Grangemouth cluster and the skills and workforce there are exceptionally important. The refinery and surrounding businesses in the Grangemouth cluster provide a major source of highly skilled manufacturing jobs and world-leading engineering expertise. Those jobs have tremendous potential to support a just transition towards a net zero economy. As I said, Scottish Government ministers and officials continue to engage with industry and businesses at the complex to foster that potential.

The minister recognises that Grangemouth is important. It accounts for 4 per cent of Scotland’s gross domestic product and 8 per cent of Scotland’s manufacturing. It is critical to national infrastructure and supplies two thirds of the petrol and diesel that are used in Scotland, as well as jet fuel for airports. Any change in the outlook for the refinery’s future has wide-ranging and wide-reaching repercussions. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the economic impact of potential restructuring and of the impact on energy resilience and fuel supply?

I must once again point out that the member’s question is based on media speculation and that it is not appropriate for Scottish ministers to comment on the terms or implications of it.

I am keen to stress to the member and to all in the chamber that our objective is to future proof that vital industrial hub and work in partnership with industry. That will help to support a long-term sustainable and vibrant future for all those who live and work in Grangemouth, for all the reasons that the member set out in her question.

I am aware of the Grangemouth future industry board, which has already been mentioned. We can all agree that Grangemouth is a hub for skilled manufacturing and high-value employment. Will the minister give a little more detail about the role that the board will play in ensuring that, regardless of any restructuring, Grangemouth continues to be a key part of the transition to net zero?

The member raises an important question. I hope that my answer will deal with the part of Tess White’s question that asked about the board, which I neglected to answer, for which I apologise.

The Scottish Government established the Grangemouth future industry board in recognition of our continued commitment to the cluster both now and in the future as part of our net zero economy. The board brings together key partners and decision makers to work with industry and to actively plan that all-important just transition for the complex. In doing that, we are seeking to unlock investment that will boost the innovation, longevity and competitiveness of the site.

The board will initiate and lead on the design of a just transition plan for the Grangemouth industrial cluster, in line with the principles of a just transition. That plan for the complex will be built collectively and in consultation with a wide range of invested stakeholders, which will of course include industry.

I grew up in Grangemouth and I know how important a just transition will be for workers, the planet and the communities that surround the refinery. The community needs the Scottish Government to do everything that it can to deliver a just transition. Does the minister agree that the future of Grangemouth depends on a just transition away from fossil fuels that is led by the local communities and trade unions, which must be involved in future decisions around the plant and should be represented on the Grangemouth future industry board?

I thank the member for the question. I know that her connections with the area will make her feelings on the subject very acute.

The Scottish Government’s position on the need for the fastest possible just transition to net zero is clear. As I have said, Grangemouth, with its skills, engineering expertise, manufacturing potential and assets, could play a very key role in enabling Scotland’s just transition to net zero. To help to realise that, as I said, we recently established the Grangemouth future industry board.

On the next steps, as I said to Michelle Thomson, the board will lead on the design of a just transition plan for the cluster, which will be built in line with just transition principles. On trade union dialogue, the Scottish Government will always engage closely with trade unions as a matter of course where their interests are concerned.

---

Fuel Poverty (Support)

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as an owner of a rented property in North Lanarkshire.

To ask the Scottish Government what preparations it is making to support people in Scotland, in light of the reported comments by the chief executive of Scottish Power warning that 10 million United Kingdom homes could potentially be in fuel poverty this winter. (S6T-00688)

Energy costs lie at the heart of the cost of living crisis, and this Government is committed to doing everything in our powers to support those who need it. That includes the £150 cost of living award to support households with higher fuel costs, but also the further £10 million that is being provided to continue our fuel insecurity fund.

We are set to invest almost £770 million this year to tackle cost of living pressures through family benefits and other unique social security payments. Crucially, we are also committed to investing at least £1.8 billion over the next five years in heat and insulation for Scotland’s homes and buildings, with programmes already being enhanced and increased.

More needs to be done. Powers relating to energy markets sit at the UK level, and we have repeatedly urged the UK Government to take urgent and decisive action to support households in both the immediate and longer terms, such as a one-off windfall tax on companies that have benefited from significantly higher profits during the pandemic and the energy crisis, and the temporary removal of VAT from energy bills.

We are actively engaging with the sector and stakeholders—for example, through the Scottish energy advisory board, of which the chief executive of Scottish Power is a member—to explore what more can be done. We believe that all four nations should be involved in planning to address the crisis, which affects people throughout the UK.

The first part of the solution to rocketing fuel costs is to put money into the pockets of the people who need it most. Scottish Labour had a plan to do that, but the Government ignored it in favour of mirroring the unfair UK scheme.

The second part is to make people’s homes cheaper to heat as soon as it is humanly possible. Last week, the Existing Homes Alliance set out a framework of practical and financial support to decarbonise our heating systems. However, the energy cap will go up in just four and a half months’ time, so the underlying principle of reducing heat demand ahead of time is even more urgent this year. Will the Government come before Parliament before the recess and set out how many homes it can insulate before the coming winter?

I am sure that Mr Griffin knows that we already have a very active programme of work in this area and we have already announced significant expansions of it over the course of this year in response to the cost of living crisis.

Responding to the crisis this year, we boosted support through our long-standing programmes, which have already supported over 150,000 households that were in, or at risk of being in, fuel poverty. We are widening the eligibility criteria for the £55 million warmer homes Scotland fuel poverty programme, which will provide an offer of support to over 7,500 households this year.

We are also increasing the level of funding for individual fuel-poor households through the £64 million local authority-led, area-based schemes, and we are expanding the Home Energy Scotland advice service to help households to keep their homes warmer and reduce bills. There is capacity to support an extra 12,000 households a year, and we are doubling the offer to vulnerable households.

Mark Griffin is correct in saying that energy efficiency is one of the most urgent things that we need to do, so I hope that he will join me in calling on the UK Government to revise its woefully inadequate energy security strategy, which says nothing at all about energy efficiency.

That is, indeed, a glaring omission on the UK Government’s part, which I hope it rectifies as soon as possible.

However, it has been reported that the insulation equity loan scheme has left home owners out of pocket and solicitors who have looked at those agreements absolutely shocked. The number of homes that the warmer homes Scotland programme has helped with the installation of energy efficiency measures has fallen every year since 2016. Just two weeks ago, in response to a parliamentary question, the Government admitted that the Home Energy Scotland marketing scheme has wound up, for now.

Will the Government reboot its campaign and ramp up direct engagement with every home owner and landlord in Scotland so that householders can get financial support to make improvements before the winter?

In my previous answer, I gave several examples of how we have expanded and are continuing to expand not only the eligibility for but the scale of our support to households who face fuel poverty—and to all of Scotland in the transition to renewable heat as well as to high energy efficiency. Mark Griffin knows, I think, that we are committed to doing that at as big a scale and as fast a pace as we can. However, to achieve that throughout Scotland is a multidecade task that cannot be compressed into the space of a few months.

I am quite happy to write to the member with any other information that he requires about our ambitious programme of work in that area. I hope that colleagues on the Scottish Labour benches will work with us constructively—not demanding the impossible, but pushing us to go as far and as fast as we can. We are committed to doing that, for which, I hope, we have the support of the whole Parliament.

Does the minister agree that, although the Scottish Government can, to a point, use our devolved social security powers to put more money into people’s pockets and mitigate the harms of escalating fuel poverty, together with signposting assistance that is available through organisations such as Citrus Energy in Ayrshire, the UK Government holds the levers for delivering meaningful support to citizens and that, if it fails to do that, it sends a strong message to all struggling families that it just does not get it or it just does not care?

It is a matter of fact that the powers to regulate energy markets remain reserved. For example, the proposal for a £1,000 cut to energy bills that came forward from the Scottish Power chief executive in his recent interview is deliverable only through the powers that rest with the UK Government. We have repeatedly called on it to take other actions, including a temporary cut in energy bills through VAT, a review of the levies on bills, action on the warm home discount scheme and the creation of a four-nations discussion to develop an effective response to the energy bill increases.

The Scottish Government is disappointed that the UK Government has failed to support hard-pressed households and to engage with us multilaterally to achieve more, such as could be achieved with a one-off windfall tax on excessive profits in the oil and gas industry or anywhere else. That scale of work is needed, and I hope that the UK Government feels that it is not too late to change direction and listen to such proposals.

Given the failure of the UK Government to support—even in today’s Queen’s speech—those on fixed incomes with the horrendous rise in the cost of living and energy, and given that 40 per cent of pensioners who are entitled to pension credit—currently £182.60 a week for a single person and £278.70 for a couple—do not claim it and that the Treasury keeps more than £300 million a year in unclaimed pension credit in Scotland alone, rising to almost £1.8 billion in unclaimed benefits UK-wide, does the minister agree that the level of money that is retained by the Treasury in unclaimed benefits is a disgrace, that it should direct its energies into helping people to claim those benefits to which they are entitled, and that that would at least give them some help in meeting those living costs?

Christine Grahame is not the only one who was slightly surprised at the lack of action in the Queen’s speech today on the cost of living crisis. She is right to point to action on unclaimed and underclaimed benefits as a very obvious thing that could be done to maximise household incomes. We need to make sure that people are accessing the money that they are entitled to.

It is a disgrace that there is £1.7 billion—that is the figure that I have, but if it is £1.8 billion I stand to be corrected—sitting in UK Government coffers instead of in the pockets and purses of pensioners who need it so badly.

The Scottish Government will continue to place an emphasis on income maximisation schemes, and there is a great deal that we can do to support people to have the information that they need about the benefits that they are entitled to. I hope that the UK Government will take similar action.

---

New Mothers (Mental Health Care)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to provide local support to new mothers who require a specialist mental health bed with their baby, following recent reports that many are having to travel hundreds of miles in order to receive the treatment that they need. (S6T-00687)

All women who require a specialist mental health bed with their baby are able to access regional mother and baby unit provision. Mother and baby units provide treatment and support to approximately 115 patients per year. The treatment that the units provide is highly specialised care for the small number of women and their infants who experience severe perinatal mental health difficulties and require more intensive support than can be provided in the community. Mother and baby units are open to all women across Scotland, based on clinical need, not on geography.

We recognise that there are barriers associated with receiving treatment away from home, which is why we opened the mother and baby unit family fund, which supports partners and families with the costs of travel, accommodation and other expenses that are incurred while visiting a mother and baby at an MBU.

We are currently undertaking an options appraisal that will evaluate potential options for increasing mother and baby unit capacity. We have a live consultation, which is open until 31 May, to hear from parents, partners, families and practitioners from across Scotland. The consultation is on the Scottish Government website.

We have been working closely with colleagues in health boards in the north of Scotland to support the development of community services in their areas, so that the right support can be provided at the time when it is needed. In recent months, NHS Highland and NHS Grampian have launched their community perinatal mental health teams, which will improve access to specialist treatment.

There are no dedicated in-patient mental healthcare beds for new mothers north of Livingston. Hospitals in Shetland and Livingston have a contractual agreement for perinatal mental health services; my constituents are expected to take a long journey by air or sea with their newborns.

Does the minister agree with the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland that new mothers face a postcode lottery when it comes to perinatal services?

As I pointed out in my first answer, we are talking about very specialised care that has been accessed by 115 mothers and their babies in the recent year.

We are considering what expansion is required. One thing that we need to do—which we are doing—is ensure that the right community support is in place across the country. We are making sure that we can provide that support in the communities where it is required, and that services in the north of Scotland are as good as they can be.

I ask Ms Wishart to encourage her constituents in Shetland to respond to the current consultation, which is extremely important. We will take cognisance of what people across the country have to say about the services.

I will encourage my constituents to do just that.

The Press and Journal has been campaigning to raise awareness of perinatal mental health services, with one report highlighting the difficulties that are faced by partners travelling to support their loved one and see their newborn baby. It is easy to see how costs can rack up for families with grandparents and other children visiting. Every family is different, so healthcare provision should strive for equitable support where there are big differences in respect of the travel that is required.

The maximum level of claim-back costs from the family fund is £500, which is almost the cost of one air fare from Shetland. The money should cover travel, subsistence and accommodation. Will the Scottish Government improve the criteria and increase financial provision for families who engage perinatal mental health services, especially for families who live furthest from services?

Our first aim is to strengthen community services so that women do not have to access a mother and baby unit unless doing so is entirely necessary. I hope that Beatrice Wishart supports us in our efforts in that regard.

On the costs of visiting mother and baby units, we have, as I outlined in my first response, put in place the mother and baby unit family fund. I am more than willing to have further discussions with Ms Wishart about her constituents’ experience of accessing the fund, and to look at whether we can do anything else in that regard. I am happy to correspond with or to meet Ms Wishart on the issue.

The minister is aware of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s report on perinatal mental health, and of my interest in perinatal mental health services in Grampian.

Can the minister say more about how the increased community support for new mothers’ perinatal mental health is improving outcomes for them and their babies? Will he outline any new measures that are being taken to identify and treat the symptoms of mental ill health early in new mums and mums to be, particularly in rural areas?

I acknowledge Ms Martin’s interest in the issue. She is not only the convener of the committee that held the inquiry but has, as a North East MSP, been in contact with the Let’s All Talk North East Mums—LATNEM—mothers group, as have I.

The Government is putting in additional funding for community specialist mental health services in every health board in Scotland, and in-patient services for women and families with the highest level of need. We are also investing in 33 third sector organisations that provide perinatal mental health support to women and families, and we are providing funding to support voices of lived experience, which have been vital in helping us to formulate our current consultation on how we move forward with perinatal and infant mental health in this country. Once again, I encourage everyone out there who has an interest to respond to the consultation.

I applaud the work of LATNEM and other women’s groups across Scotland for bringing the issue to the fore.