Hansard

I accept that the UK Government’s engagement was good from the very beginning, but my concern is that, if we compare it with the action that it took in relation to the British Steel plant in Scunthorpe, we cannot conclude that it took an equally decisive and interventionist approach to Grangemouth. The secretary of state answered questions in the UK Parliament on that, making the point about the number of refineries. However, at the end of the day, where there is a will, there is a way. On the scale of intervention that would be required at Grangemouth, that did not happen in the way that it happened at the Scunthorpe plant. I do not think that anybody is in any doubt that it would have required intervention by the UK Government at that level and at that scale.

Although we welcome the decision to intervene at British Steel, in decisive recognition of the need to protect an industrial asset that is so critical to the UK economy, it stands all the more in stark contrast to the UK Government’s willingness to listen to calls from this Government, trade unions and Labour MPs for decisive action to protect the future of Grangemouth.

We have moved quickly to establish a £25 million Grangemouth just transition fund, which is aimed at catalysing near-term opportunities arising from project willow and sends a clear signal that we will work with businesses to make low-carbon projects at Grangemouth.

We welcome the UK Government’s confirmation that £200 million has been ring fenced in the national wealth fund to support the deployment of projects at Grangemouth.

However, many of the proposals that are outlined in project willow might not meet the criteria that are currently being applied by the fund, and we must not find ourselves in a position in which good intentions are not translated into meaningful practice.

I take this opportunity to repeat the call for the UK Government to work with us to leave no stone unturned in efforts to mitigate any future job losses on the site. I call on UK ministers to take that action to ensure that the £200 million commitment is deployed. There must also be clarity; it needs to be made clear, with the same urgency and decisiveness that we saw in relation to Scunthorpe, that the money will be available for Grangemouth as soon as business needs it.

We cannot risk losing those opportunities, because underpinning the future success of Grangemouth is the development of carbon capture and storage. We need a firm commitment from the UK Government on a timeline and funding for the Acorn project, in order to provide investors and workforces with the confidence that Scotland can capitalise on our comparative advantage.

Just last week, the UK Government finalised a £2 billion deal for carbon capture in England. That is why it is even more vital that the Acorn project, which is essential to delivering a just transition and economic growth, is given the green light in the spending review on 11 June. I will continue to lobby UK Government ministers on that. I hope that Parliament can join us so that we speak with one voice on the vital importance of the carbon capture and storage scheme. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland in particular understands the urgency of that matter.

As I close—which will be somewhat of a miracle, considering all the interventions—let me provide some assurances about the way in which we are working to ensure that businesses, workers and the economy navigate the current international headwinds.

Despite our limited devolved powers, we are working with enterprise agencies and partners to tackle the barriers to investment, to support our exporters into international markets and to provide assistance and advice on the impact of the national tariffs.

There are opportunities ahead, despite those headwinds. This Government has always been, and will continue to be, one that takes action. We want to see positive decisions on awards to Acorn and the Scottish cluster to further enhance Scotland’s international reputation, and we do not want to see decisions being taken on behalf of our industries without consulting those industries, not least in relation to a trade deal with the US.

I look forward to the debate and commend the motion to Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the value of Scotland’s heavy industrial and manufacturing sectors, and the significant contribution that they make to the national and regional economy; notes recent developments in global trade policy and their potential economic impact; welcomes the UK Government’s intervention in British Steel to support the continued resilience of the supply chain, and believes that the UK Government should give similar consideration to its engagement with the Grangemouth oil refinery, given its significance to national resilience and high-quality job opportunities.