Official Report 879KB pdf
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-18800, in the name of Liam Kerr, on the insights of the “Striking the Balance” reports of the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University. The debate will be concluded without any question being put, and I invite members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the report, Striking the Balance, which was produced by the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University; understands that it provides predictions for the future of the offshore energy workforce in the UK, which, it states, employs around 154,000 people, including in the North East Scotland region; understands that the report states that a best case outcome could see a need for 210,000 roles in offshore energy production, but that this would only be achievable through the installation of a further 6GW approximately of offshore wind each year and by managing the decline of oil and gas production over a prolonged timeframe; notes the report’s claim that the worst-case situation anticipates around 400 oil and gas job losses in the UK each fortnight across the next five years; acknowledges with concern the report’s claim that, if Scotland does not pursue renewable activities comprehensively and oil and gas production continues to decline, employment across the offshore energy industry could drop from around 75,000 jobs in 2024 to a figure in the range of 45,000 to 63,000 in the initial years of the next decade; welcomes the growth predicted in the report of the number of offshore renewables jobs in the UK, notes with concern, however, the suggestion in the report that the sector will likely struggle to absorb the amount of former oil and gas workers before 2028; recognises the report’s cautioning that a decrease in offshore energy jobs of nearly 20% could take place without decisive or prompt action, and commends the work of the Energy Transition Institute in producing what it sees as rigorous data regarding a pressing issue in Scotland.
16:35
I am grateful to cross-party colleagues for their support for this debate. Signing a motion in Parliament does not necessarily mean agreement with it. Rather, it shows a willingness to debate, to listen and to test arguments that may not accord with one’s own views, and any debate on oil and gas can often polarise views. I am somewhat appalled that members of the Green party, so recently a party of Government and one that has called a debate on oil and gas for tomorrow, have not only refused to sign my motion, which I carefully drafted to avoid being divisive, but have not bothered even to attend to hear arguments that might challenge their ideology.
This debate is not about ideology; it is about the evidence contained in the “Striking a Balance” report from the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University. That is not a lobbying document or a press release; it is a rigorous, data-driven assessment of the future of the United Kingdom’s offshore energy workforce, and its conclusions should give every member pause for reflection.
The report warns that, without urgent co-ordinated action, the UK’s oil and gas workforce could shrink by around 400 jobs every fortnight for the next five years, which is the equivalent of losing the entire Grangemouth workforce every two weeks. It also warns that, if Scotland’s Government fails to pursue renewable energy at scale while continuing to let oil and gas decline, almost 30,000 direct employment offshore industry jobs could be lost by the early 2030s.
Those are not just numbers on a spreadsheet: they are people, families, mortgages and communities, especially in North East Scotland where one in every six people works directly or indirectly in oil and gas—a figure that is one in every 30 people across the entirety of Scotland.
On the economic point, I was told last week that Shell alone contributes £12 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product and accounts for 78,000 jobs, which means that this is not only an energy issue but an economic and social one.
Does Mr Kerr agree that the real tragedy of those prospective job losses—which are on a scale that is greater than in the 1980s, when we saw the closure of Ravenscraig—is that they are entirely avoidable if we resume the policy of maximum economic recovery, which we used to have when I was energy minister, and reduce the profits levy? Those two things will prevent job losses on a scandalous scale.
Fergus Ewing is absolutely right, and I could not agree more because the “Striking the Balance” report justifies exactly what we have just heard.
The report reaches three fundamental conclusions. First, the demand for oil and gas is not going away. By 2050, the UK will still require significant amounts, only about 30 per cent of which will be for domestic purposes. We will need oil and gas to heat our homes, to keep the lights on, to make our mobile phones, to fuel our cars, buses and trains, to run medical equipment and to make fertiliser.
Today, the UK produces about 20 per cent of the oil and gas that it uses. Even if we achieve net zero and even if Jackdaw and Rosebank go ahead, the UK will still need to import more oil and gas than it produces to meet demand, which means more imports from countries such as the United States of America, where production emissions are three to four times higher than ours, countries with dubious regulatory or human rights records, and countries that might capriciously switch off our supply.
Secondly, there will be no just transition without the oil and gas industry. The real choice is not one between oil and gas or renewables; it is a choice between a managed transition that maintains a viable domestic industry while building up renewables, hydrogen and carbon capture, and an accelerated decline of exporting jobs, losing skills and importing higher-carbon energy at a higher cost.
The difference between those futures lies not in geology or technology but in political decision making. That is the subject of the third conclusion, which focuses on the role of both of Scotland’s Governments. The UK Government's fiscal regime is now one of the most regressive in the world. Investment allowances have been stripped out, creating uncertainty. Meanwhile, Norway provides a stable and progressive regime, continues to invest and uses the proceeds to fund its transition. That is why Fergus Ewing is right—we must see an end to the energy profits levy and the UK Government’s ridiculously naive ban on new oil and gas licences.
The Scottish Government, meanwhile, says one thing in Aberdeen and another in Glasgow. The “no new oil and gas” rhetoric that was reiterated by former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon just last week may win headlines, but it sends a chilling message to the very workforce that will deliver net zero. No one can ignore the fact that the Scottish Government’s draft energy strategy still contains a presumption against new oil and gas. It is the people of oil and gas who will drive the transition, but half of Aberdeen’s energy workforce hold a degree qualification and if policy tells them that they have no future here, they will simply go elsewhere, representing a loss to our economy, a grave loss to our population and a loss to any chance of delivering the transition.
As the report highlights, there is a very narrow Goldilocks zone between 2025 and early 2030 in which the UK must sustain and repurpose its existing workforce. If we run down oil and gas before renewables are ready to absorb those skills, the opportunity will be lost, and so will tens of thousands of jobs.
I think that we all share the same desired destination—a Scotland that is prosperous, sustainable and secure and which runs off a genuinely balanced energy mix. The question is how we get there. The “Striking the Balance” report makes it clear that the window of opportunity is closing. If we act wisely now, we can secure the sweet spot of the transition, protecting jobs and skills while cutting emissions. If we act too slowly or ideologically, we risk losing the workforce, the supply chain and the capacity to deliver any transition at all.
This is not about oil and gas versus renewables. It is about the North Sea and the energy transition—a transition that, if managed properly, can secure Scotland’s energy future and the livelihoods of the people who will power it.
16:42
I thank Liam Kerr for lodging his motion, which I am happy to support. I commend Professor Paul de Leeuw and the team at the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University for producing the excellent “Striking the Balance” report, which sets out predictions for the future of the UK offshore energy workforce across three scenarios and through the prisms of policy, cost pressures and industry dynamics, among others.
Underpinning the analysis is some important context. First, despite the UK oil and gas industry decline, demand remains, as we heard from Liam Kerr. As such, around 70 per cent of our oil consumption will be met from imports. Secondly, global electricity and gas demand increased sharply in 2024, and transformative action is required now to meet future demand. Thirdly, Scotland’s energy future is at a critical juncture.
On offshore wind, the scenarios in the report model the delivery of 50GW, 70GW and 90GW respectively by 2030, with similar scenarios being considered across hydrogen and carbon capture, use and storage. To develop the low-case scenario of 50GW by 2030, the UK requires to install around 35GW of new wind capacity, or nearly 6GW annually. That is about one turbine each day.
What does that mean for our future energy workforce? The report highlights that securing UK content to 2030 will be crucial to sustaining a world-class offshore energy supply chain and workforce. As such, energy policy must evolve to incentivise domestic production through, for example, tax and policy incentives.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to the oil and gas transition training fund. I also welcome the findings in the “Transition On Our Terms” report, which states that workers want action to create “good ... unionised ... jobs” in renewable industries, and “support” for their transition into those jobs,
“with profits ... returned to workers and communities”.
I also welcome the latest just transition fund announcement of £8.5 million for clean energy supply chain development.
I am enjoying the member’s contribution. Does she agree that what is needed is for both Scotland’s Governments to come out with a genuine, holistic strategy to govern the transition, the oil and gas industry and the energy mix?
I will come on to policy, which is often overlooked but is absolutely crucial.
In addition, the recently published UK Government “Clean Energy Jobs Plan” has emerged. It is certainly ambitious, but the reality is that the energy profits levy is costing jobs and investment. Frankly, it is infuriating that, yet again, the north-east is likely to see further job losses—this time, at Port of Aberdeen, which has experienced a 25 per cent drop in oil and gas activity over the summer. Ports are a critical part of our infrastructure for delivering manufacturing growth, so I again call on the UK Government to urgently change course on that damaging levy.
The “Striking the Balance” report states:
“Based on current public commitments and announcements, the UK should be able to deliver the scenario 3 outcomes. Without intervention, however, it is likely to fall short of delivering the outcomes outlined in either scenario 1 or 2.”
That concern is also reflected in the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee’s report, “The future of Scotland’s oil and gas industry”.
I draw on the words of Bob Sanguinetti, chief executive at Port of Aberdeen. Earlier this week, he said:
“Supporting existing energy business is the most likely way of accelerating the transition, drawing on the expertise and project management skills to deliver the vast scale of potential developments in renewables.”
There is so much more to say. Again, I thank Liam Kerr for the debate.
16:47
I congratulate Liam Kerr on the debate and on his contribution.
I welcome the publication of the RGU Energy Transition Institute’s latest report. It is a serious piece of work that is grounded in evidence, and it sets out clearly what Scotland must do if we are to protect jobs, maintain energy security and build a truly managed transition.
My colleague has, rightly, focused on the impact that not investing in the sector will have on jobs in the north-east and across wider Scotland. However, the report goes further than that. It says:
“The North Sea’s future success depends on a well-managed transition”.
Its message is unmistakable. We cannot deliver a credible transition without continued investment in our domestic oil and gas sector, and we certainly cannot deliver it if Government policy is vague, confused or subject to the political mood swings of Labour and the Scottish National Party. However, that is exactly what we have at the moment.
The First Minister refuses to give a straight answer on whether exploration should continue. One day, he hints at new licences; the next, he dodges the question entirely, with vague assertions about drilling continuing if net zero targets are met. That is ill defined, and no one knows how it is to be measured.
Labour, which has ramped up the energy profits levy and has a ban on new licences, is no friend. Clearly, Ed Miliband’s aim is to destroy the North Sea oil and gas industry. However, Labour somehow thinks that 13 jobs at Great British Energy in Aberdeen will save the day. Anas Sarwar is flip-flopping on the issue of new developments. He was opposed to Cambo in 2021 but is now pleading with his masters—Starmer, Reeves and Miliband—to change course. The penny must have dropped that his party’s hostility towards oil and gas is a direct threat to our energy transition.
The fiscal landscape and the uncertainty are not harmless political noise; they shape investment decisions and they have real consequences for the people I represent in the north-east. I heard that first-hand at a meeting with Shell last week. Conservative MPs and MSPs were there, as were Scottish National Party MPs and MSPs. Labour politicians would have heard from Shell themselves if they had even bothered to turn up.
The RGU report is crystal clear on the point that failing to support a stable level of domestic production risks major job losses, skills flight and long-term damage to our supply chain. If we do not back our home-grown sector, final investment decisions will move abroad, and the workforce will follow. That is not a theoretical risk. My constituents in the north-east already feel the impact of mixed messages and political drift. Communities there are built on decades of expertise, innovation and hard work. If we fail to give the industry clarity and confidence, we put thousands of families at risk and undermine the very capabilities that we need in order to deliver the energy transition. We can see that on the front page of The Press and Journal today, with Aberdeen harbour laying off jobs because of the lack of oil and gas throughput, while the throughput for renewables is not there yet.
Let us be absolutely honest: if we shut down our domestic sector too quickly, Scotland will not consume less oil and gas; we will simply import more of it, normally from countries with higher emissions and lower standards, and with none of the economic benefits staying here at home. That is environmental irresponsibility dressed up as virtue.
The RGU report calls for “coordinated action”, long-term planning and a clear pathway for the offshore workforce. Scotland can lead the energy transition and the north-east can remain the beating heart of the UK’s offshore workforce, but that requires honesty about the journey, certainty for industry and respect for the communities whose livelihoods depend on the decisions that are taken. The RGU report shows the path, and it is time for Government to follow it.
16:52
I, too, thank Liam Kerr for bringing this important debate to the chamber, as we need to think through the insights that come from the “Striking the Balance” report. This is a pivotal moment for our energy transition, and the question is not whether Scotland and the UK move away from fossil fuel reliance; it is how we make that shift in a way that is fair, planned and inclusive for workers and communities and that delivers for our economy at the same time, maximising opportunities, whether for manufacturing or for utilising the raft of new technologies that are becoming available.
First, we must plan ahead. As colleagues around the chamber have said, we know that oil and gas production in the North Sea will be part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, as the report correctly highlights, the pace and shape of workforce supply and demand will define whether we have a fair transition or one that negatively impacts on people’s employment opportunities and the local economy. We cannot leave the skilled workforce scrambling for opportunities; we need to ensure that the opportunities are there for them.
One key issue on which we have been lobbying is the oil and gas passport. The energy and skills passport can ensure that workers who have built their careers in oil and gas have their training, experience and qualifications all recognised as they move into a range of other jobs, whether in renewables, carbon capture or the decommissioning of existing platforms.
Will Sarah Boyack give way?
No—I am going to keep moving.
I wish to raise a point that was first raised by Audrey Nicoll. It is vital that we recognise the role of trade unions, and of people having long-term, negotiated terms and conditions. That is one of the things that the trade unions in the North Sea have managed to do over the decades.
Speaking of the trade unions, there was once a “no ban without a plan” campaign. Is that something that Labour supports, or has it abandoned that like it has abandoned the rest of the north-east?
That is the point, and that is what comes through in the report. We need to work with the trade unions now because, as change accelerates, they need to be at the table to design the just transition, safeguarding the jobs that we have already but also thinking about standards going forward.
One of the really important recommendations in the report is on the need to ensure that supply chains are enhanced and the level of UK manufacturing content in renewables is increased. The report identified that projects to raise the level of UK content in renewables—aspiring to 40 per cent, for instance—would themselves generate thousands of additional jobs. We might think that we produce all of that content here, but we do not.
To realise that opportunity, we need strong signals and investment, so that we get manufacturing plants to open here—I note that the Sumitomo one is being established. We also need more supply chain confidence and investment in local communities. I agree with everyone that the next five years are crucial, and the UK Government’s recent announcements reflect that. The national clean energy jobs plan forecasts hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next five years, but it also explicitly sets out how to support workers in the fossil fuel sector into jobs in clean energy as well as how industry can collaborate with trade unions and education providers.
We can look at how our existing offshore plants could be more energy efficient. For example, offshore wind can reduce the carbon emissions of existing oil and gas. We need that as well as things such as shipping investment to make sure that we have the manufacturing that will support activity in the North Sea.
The build it in Britain ambition is about backing manufacturing and home-grown supply chains and, in particular, supporting coastal and industrial communities. That ambition is critical, because it shows that the UK Government understands that just transition means new jobs and new investment. It is not just about decarbonising our economy; it is about building things in. Grangemouth is a key test case for us. We have lost the refinery, so we need to see more investment.
Historically, there has been a lack of industrial planning from the Tory Government and previously from the SNP. In just the past year and a half, we have seen Labour supporting the Grangemouth area, with its role in the £100 million growth deal, project willow, and the investment of additional money from the national wealth fund. We need to secure a future for people who are living in those communities, so that there is a fair transition. That means investment to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, from not only the Government but the private sector.
Will the member give way?
Ms Boyack is concluding her speech.
It is about turbines, cables and platforms being made here in Scotland, so that people are trained here and communities benefit. We need to plan ahead and work together across our Governments, supporting high-quality jobs, securing our energy future and making sure that, in the next five years, we turn ambition into delivery so that the words “just transition” mean something real for workers and our communities.
16:57
In congratulating Liam Kerr for bringing the debate to the chamber, it is a matter of sadness and shame that the Scottish Government has not arranged a full day’s debate on our energy situation in Scotland. I hope that the minister will comment on that.
Perhaps the world’s foremost energy expert is Daniel Yergin, who won a Pulitzer prize for his book on the oil industry, “The Prize: the Epic Quest for Oil Money and Power”. He remarked that the transition from wood to coal took 200 years and the transition from coal to oil took 100 years, from the discovery in Pennsylvania in 1859 to the 1960s, when oil overtook coal as the most widely used fuel.
My point is that transitions take a long time. It takes a long time for things to be done. My God, I was even once told by a rather rueful director of transport at Highland Council that it took five years to build a lay-by. How do we think that we are going to transform everything in Britain, which gets three quarters of its energy needs from oil and gas, by 2030—or by 2045, as the Scottish Government says? It is for the birds.
I worked closely with Paul de Leeuw when I was energy minister, and I regard him as a friend. I have a great deal of admiration for his work and the work of his project director. However, I wonder whether even the lowest scenario of the three scenarios that he sets out on hydrogen, carbon and wind is over-optimistic—I cannot go into the details, because I do not have the time. What I see at the moment is the disengagement of investment from offshore wind. There are troubled times ahead. That is what I am hearing, for various reasons. I am sure that the minister will be aware of that.
Let us look at our oil and gas industry in Britain. North Sea production is among the cleanest in the world. The Greens are not in the chamber—that is a shame, because there is always a possibility that one can learn things in life, even from the most unlikely quarters—but if they were here, they would hear this: the emissions from North Sea production have fallen by 34 per cent since 2018. That is a reduction of one-third in just six years, which is a tremendous achievement. The average is 21kg of CO2 per barrel, which can be compared with fracking gas in the USA, which produces 76kg of emissions; and the level for Qatar is about the same.
Our total emissions from production are a quarter of those elsewhere. Surely a true Green—like myself, for example—would welcome that. I am not against roads or cars—I am against emissions. I am not against oil and gas production in the world—I am against the dirtiest oil and gas production in the world. I cannot help but try to apply logic to problems, and if we apply logic, we see that the world should surely be moving to try to encourage everywhere to replicate the level of emissions reduction that the UK has achieved. We should take the lead—incidentally, there is a lot of money to be made in that, too.
In our daily lives, we rely on oil and gas for everything. The protesters who glued themselves to Pall Mall were using a petrochemical product. The protesters who despoiled a Van Gogh painting by throwing paint at it were using an oil and gas product—I do not know if they knew that. My partner, who is an anaesthetist, uses anaesthetics every day, and just about every anaesthetic drug is a by-product of oil and gas. Do the Greens want us to go back to the days of chloroform and the gag and—without wanting to be grisly—amputation by the saw? That is what they are asking us to do, with the primitive, crude, illogical approach that they take.
Why can we, in Britain, not do what I think that the majority of people in Scotland and south of the border want us to do, which is to support our oil and gas industry, which is the best in the world? For five years, I had a ringside seat and I saw that for myself, all over the world. I saw that our engineers were respected as the best in the world. Let us value them and praise them. As Gary Smith said,
“Oil and gas is not the enemy”.
It is part of the future, along with our renewables.
17:02
I congratulate Liam Kerr on securing the debate and on his very logical contribution. I thank Professor Paul de Leeuw and Sumin Kim of the Robert Gordon University Energy Transition Institute for their work in putting together the “Striking the Balance” report.
As an Aberdonian—a north-east loon—who has many family members and friends working in oil and gas, I know how vital the energy industry is to the area that I represent and beyond. As the report tells us, in 2024 there were around 154,000 energy jobs in the UK, with 75 per cent of the people in them working in oil and gas and the remaining 25 per cent in renewables. In the UK, about one person in every 215 among the working population has an energy-related job. In the north-east of Scotland, one person in every six who are in work is employed by the energy industry. Striking the balance is, therefore, absolutely essential to protect jobs, the economy and the communities of the north-east. If that balance is not struck, the people I represent will be left to the same fate as miners and mining communities were in years past, and there will be no just transition.
We know from the report that, between 2023 and 2024, a balance was struck. About 5,000 oil and gas jobs went, but the renewables workforce increased by about the same amount. The report highlights that a just transition can be achieved, but that it will not be easy. It says that a balance can be achieved with the possibility of growth in the offshore workforce.
However, my fear is that the worst-case scenario—the loss of 82,000 oil and gas jobs, with only 45,000 renewables jobs gained—is more likely than the best-case scenario in which there would be jobs growth. Why do I say that? Well, the UK Labour Government is ignoring the experts—academics, industry, the workforce, the trade unions and communities. UK Labour is wedded to the energy profits levy, which is impeding North Sea investment; it is thirled to halting further exploration; and it is failing to invest enough in the renewables sector.
The report says that, in order to strike the balance,
“Planning the plan requires coordinated action”,
but the problem is that Labour has no plan. Shutting down the North Sea prematurely and importing oil and gas from elsewhere is not a plan. Stopping the likes of the Jackdaw gas development would mean no St Fergus and no Mossmorran, and it would make it nigh-on impossible to get the Acorn carbon capture project off the ground.
Does Kevin Stewart have any idea when the Scottish Government’s energy and just transition plan will appear? We have been waiting for it for more than two and a half years.
The most important thing is to recognise that these matters are reserved. The UK Labour Government is in the driving seat, because energy is a policy area that is reserved to Westminster.
My advice to the Labour Government and to Ms Boyack would be that, if they are truly serious about delivering for communities across the country when it comes to energy, they need to put together an energy security plan, combined with a plan for the transition to net zero. None of that has happened. It has happened in almost every other country, but it does not fit Ed Miliband’s agenda. That is the problem with Labour’s approach—it is all far too ideological.
I talked about that possible loss—no Jackdaw, no St Fergus, no Mossmorran and no Acorn. Because of ideology and the lack of a plan, thousands of jobs would be lost, there would be more fossil fuel imports and energy security would be endangered. That would be unforgivable.
Labour must listen, it must change its ways and it must walk us back from the cliff edge that my constituents and others are currently facing.
17:07
To be frank, I find it a bit rich listening to Kevin Stewart go on in the way that he has done. I have sat in this Parliament, as the rest of us have. I say thank goodness for the Official Report, because it will show that the SNP and its leadership have consistently demonised the oil and gas sector.
Kevin Stewart might wish to intervene, and I am happy to let him do so.
I repeat what I said at the very beginning of my contribution, about Mr Kerr’s logical contribution. Mr Kerr and I, among others, were involved in a debate on Friday, and we agreed on most points. The problem is that, in this place, this issue becomes far too political. What we need here is logic. Let us follow the logic of the academics, such as Paul de Leeuw, and let us put aside the party-political aspect that often comes across.
Thank you, Mr Stewart—that was a long intervention.
That is all very good from Kevin Stewart, but, unfortunately, some of us have a longer-term memory of what the SNP has been up to over the past four and a half years—certainly, in the time that I have been in this Parliament. If they wish, SNP members can disown Nicola Sturgeon, but she popped up last week and repeated all the same stuff that she said as First Minister. They can disown Humza Yousaf on the same basis, but the reality is the reality.
This is a debate that goes to the very heart of the future of Scotland’s economy. Are we going to go for commonsense economic principles? Are we going to go for economic growth? Are we going to put the people of Scotland first, or are we going to remain entrapped by the ideology of a fringe group of extremists who would like us to return to the stone age? That is the choice that we have to make.
I feel sorry for Ben Macpherson, because this is not his brief. I am a bit perplexed as to why he is the minister who is responding to the debate, other than the fact that the motion is about a university paper.
In that paper, Professor Paul de Leeuw—I think that that is how it is pronounced—writes that
“Sustaining Scotland as an energy powerhouse requires hard choices”,
and that,
“without intervention, Scotland’s supply chain and workforce will be impacted disproportionately.”
He also called for “honest and candid dialogue”.
Therefore, I welcome what Kevin Stewart said—I should make that clear—because we should be evidence led. I do not know how many speeches I have given in the Parliament in which I said that policy should be evidence led and based on fact, not fiction or fantasy. If we do not come up with a common UK policy framework on energy—one that achieves what we want it to achieve—in the words of Paul de Leeuw, we will be sacrificing our “energy resilience” and our national security.
Does Mr Kerr listen to “The Life Scientific” on BBC Radio 4? It had a prominent climate expert, Pierre Friedlingstein, on today, who explained that this is not a matter of economics; it is a matter of survival. He said that if we do not do more to tackle the climate crisis and our use of carbon, we will all pay the price.
We will not do that at the price of tens of thousands of jobs, or at the price of making our country poorer. No parliamentarian here should be arguing for that kind of pathway forward, because it is nonsensical. There have been plans and strategies and promises of jobs in the renewables sector until our ears bleed. None of that happens, because we are in denial about economic reality when we refuse to see things as they really are and, instead, transpose some fantasy.
There is lots that could be said, but I am already over my time so I will not continue, except to say that I have now lived long enough to see the day when Fergus Ewing proclaimed himself in this Parliament to be a Green. I feel incredibly privileged to have been in the chamber to hear that. However, I also know that he speaks inordinate common sense on this subject, as he does on many others. His comments are based on economic fact. I ask all members to consider that, particularly as we look ahead to tomorrow’s debate on the future of Rosebank. That will be a very interesting debate. No doubt, though, as is the way of the Scottish Parliament, the motion will be amended out of sight by the SNP and Green majority.
I will close with the words of Kemi Badenoch:
“We are in the absurd situation where our country is leaving vital resources untapped while neighbours such as Norway extract them from the same seabed.”
Doing that is madness.
17:13
I thank colleagues for what has been a good and important debate with an honest exchange of views and insights. I also pay tribute to Liam Kerr for bringing the debate to the Parliament and for the constructive way in which he drafted his motion and presented it at the beginning of the debate. That is exactly the sort of approach that we collectively need on this extremely important issue and challenge.
I welcome the opportunity to close for the Government. This paper is absolutely relevant to the skills agenda and the necessity for retraining to ensure that our people can maximise the opportunities and transition using their skills and knowledge. The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy is at the 30th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP30—where this whole question is being discussed at a global level.
Although Scotland is a very small contributor to emissions in terms of the international situation, we are a well-respected voice on what we are doing to transition to net zero, to use our expertise, to help those who are affected by climate change and, as part of the collective global challenge, to seek to reduce emissions at the global scale, because that is what is needed. We are an important voice in the room, while others are much bigger contributors of fossil fuel emissions.
I want to start my summing up by restating our firm commitment as a Government to delivering a just transition to net zero for workers, communities and businesses across Scotland but particularly in the north-east, and it is only right that many colleagues from that part of Scotland have contributed today.
As I have said in other debates on this topic, and as others have emphasised during today’s discussion, for those of us who represent constituencies elsewhere, the oil and gas sector is an incredibly important industry, not just because of its national significance to all of our lives and our economy but because of the indirect jobs that it enables in other parts of Scotland, including in my constituency.
The strength of the industry in the north-east and Scotland’s oil, gas and energy industry overall is world renowned, which members have rightly emphasised.
Another issue that has been rightly emphasised is that energy policy is reserved to the UK Government. Today’s discussion emphasises that it is right that we debate both devolved and reserved policy, especially when they interact.
I completely understand that most energy policy is reserved, but the Scottish Government published the draft energy strategy and just transition plan two and a half years ago. It has been a draft document since then. When will we see the final version of that plan?
I refer the member to the answer that was given on that point just last week in the chamber, I think.
I am glad that the member raised that issue. I say this without meaning to be party political, but there have been other times when the publication of strategies and plans by the Scottish Government has been derided by other members. I am glad that there is now an enthusiasm, when it is right and appropriate, for plans and strategies, because they are an important part of how we drive policy and allocate resources.
In relation to reserved policy, a point was made about the energy profits levy. Although a levy on big business—not just energy businesses—was appropriate during the pandemic, when we saw, for example, our supermarkets making a significant profit, it is important to emphasise that the energy profits levy should end or be completely reformed at the earliest possible opportunity, and we continue to call on the UK Government to do that.
It is interesting that Norway was cited as an example. In relation to where we are now with the economy of the north-east and all of Scotland, we could have received so much more benefit from decades past if investment had been made proportionately and appropriately into Scotland, given the amount of resource that went into the UK Treasury from the north-east oil and gas industry. It is important for context to emphasise that on the record.
It is also important and appropriate to note what people have said about the need for fossil fuels and how that is considered in the context of a maturing basin. It is possible to acknowledge that we will need to continue to utilise fossil fuels in our economy and in our lives and note the benefits of moving to net zero and being less reliant on fossil fuels.
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will the minister give way?
I will take Liam Kerr, and try to bring in the other members if I can.
I wanted to give the minister the opportunity to respond to Clare Adamson’s intervention on that point. I think that we all accept that demand is not going away. Therefore, the less we get domestically, the more we must import, at higher emissions, from regimes that are less well regulated and not so clean, as Fergus Ewing pointed out. Does the minister agree that the environmentally responsible thing to do is to get oil and gas from the North Sea?
Important considerations have been raised in those points, which I am sure will be debated during tomorrow’s discussion in the Parliament. It is important to emphasise that these are global energy markets of supply and demand. It is not as simple as either/or, as the situation has been portrayed. We need to think about that carefully.
I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer, but I will take Kevin Stewart’s intervention.
I thank the minister for giving way. To follow up on Mr Kerr’s point, I think that the logic and the Climate Change Committee’s figures on the UK’s oil and gas requirements over the piece to 2050 clearly show that, if we shut down the North Sea too quickly, we will be much more reliant on imports from the United States and Qatar. It has been pointed out that bringing liquefied natural gas from the United States has three times the carbon footprint of taking oil and gas out of the North Sea. That is illogical. Does the minister agree that we need to be logical in all this rather than illogical?
Minister, please start to conclude.
I think that we do. We also have to be collaborative and not combative, because, for all communities in Scotland, there is such a challenge from the impact on the economy, the necessity of energy security for everyone and the interaction between, as things stand, the UK and other Governments.
Today’s debate has been important and useful in the collective discussion. I and other ministers will welcome further dialogue on these matters.
There are important considerations with regard to skills. As has been stated, the north-east of Scotland has more people engaged in the offshore energy industry than anywhere else in the UK, and we appreciate and understand that the risks of energy transition will be felt more acutely in that region. That is why we have invested more than £120 million in the north-east through our energy transition fund and just transition fund, supporting supply chains, delivering growth and helping workers to access new opportunities. We will continue to do that and to undertake other initiatives. If members with an interest in the matter want to write to me, I can supply more information on the initiatives that are being undertaken, and we will seek to keep members informed. There is so much more that we could discuss, but I will conclude on that point.
That concludes the debate. There will be a short pause before we move to the final item of business.
17:22The second members’ business debate will be published tomorrow, 12 November 2025, as soon as the text is available.
Previous
Decision Time