Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will be guided by you as always, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I welcome the commitment that the minister gave to Stephen Kerr at the start of the debate on what workers and the people of Grangemouth—and, indeed, the people of Scotland—need, which is collaboration between not only the Scottish Government and the UK Government but all the key stakeholders. Stephanie Callaghan was right to bring us back to what matters. It is about people, their families and livelihoods. We can get caught up in the big economic picture, but the debate is about people and we need to hear their voices, too.

I am not a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, so I will defer to colleagues who were part of the inquiry into the just transition for Grangemouth. It is significant that the committee did that work. The report is good, and some things have been addressed.

However, I was concerned and disappointed to read at the very top of the report that Ineos turned down the committee’s opportunity to give evidence. I am not sure of the reason for that. That would have been a good opportunity to set out and get on the record what work the company is doing to contribute to Scotland’s net zero targets.

That is a useful clarification.

The report mentions the Grangemouth future industry board, which I understand has been recently repurposed. Graham Simpson touched on that, and there are definitely questions about getting the right people around the table and the potential roles for the Scottish National Investment Bank and people from the community, including workers and trade unions. I know that the UK Government recently hailed the repurposing of the future industry board as an opportunity for both Governments to come together. I hope that it is received in that spirit.

As we have heard in the debate, the approach to the issue has largely been consensual and cross-party. Richard Leonard recently hosted a drop-in session and we met Unite shop stewards who do not want politicking—they want to hold politicians to account and they want us to work together in the national interest.

I know that time is short and I have taken a couple of interventions, so I will conclude by saying that Derek Thomson, the Scottish secretary of Unite, told us that every option must be on the table. As we try very hard to build a just transition for workers and communities, we have to get our act together collectively. Every option must be on the table, but we need a planned approach. We have heard about the importance of an industrial strategy, which has been lacking, and we heard in the debate a commitment to joint working. Let us see what happens after recess.

Okay. Thank you, Ms Gougeon.

I turn to Ms McAllan. The committee is keen to understand better how cabinet secretaries are working together to ensure that biodiversity and climate goals in the transport, net zero and just transition portfolio are supported by funded actions in the rural affairs, land reform and islands portfolio, and generally across the Government, so that there is proper alignment.

I want to focus on the example of the 41 per cent reduction in woodland grant scheme funding. It is clear that Ms Gougeon is not happy with that situation, and you cannot be feeling great about it either, Ms McAllan. How are you ensuring that you are working together and fighting your corner in the Cabinet? It is clear that the budget will make it harder for you to deliver the targets and policies that are in front of you.

We have to move on to other members’ questions. I will come back later with more of mine.

On the point about private finance, I think that everyone recognises that public finance alone will not get us to net zero. However, are you concerned about some of the reports that we have seen, even in recent days, about some of the investment decisions that the Scottish National Investment Bank has taken, particularly on the Gresham House fund and forestry? That might undermine our objectives in land reform, community wealth building and the just transition, because some of those investments might be more beneficial to funds that are sitting in New York than they are to communities here in Scotland. Is that something that you are actively looking at?

I think that it was Douglas Lumsden who raised the concern last week that the advisory board that should be in place, under the legislation, is not yet in place.

In the past couple of days, The Ferret had a big report on the Gresham House fund and the Scottish National Investment Bank. Are you concerned by what you have heard?

I am not sure whether Ms Gougeon can hear me.

Has any modelling been done to identify how much money could be raised by the examples that you have given?

Indeed.

I spoke earlier about confidence levels. How confident are you that the spending decisions taken in the 2024-25 budget set a course to meet Scotland’s interim 2030 and final 2045 emissions reduction targets?

What conditions would have to be in place in order for a sovereign fund, as you have described it, to be agreed to and operationalised by the Government?

It was a last-minute decision.

Can you explain the rationale or methodology that brought the number down to zero?