Official Report 973KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19637, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on the Rosebank oil and gas field. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button now or as soon as possible. I advise members that there is no time in hand.
14:57
The Scottish Greens have secured today’s debate in order to discuss the imminent decision that will be made on the revised application to drill for fossil fuels at the Rosebank field, the United Kingdom’s largest undeveloped oil and gas field. It is one of the most consequential decisions on climate action that will be made this decade.
Four years ago, the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—opened in Glasgow. It was a time of huge momentum for the climate movement, both in Scotland and internationally. In the run-up to the event, the then First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced her position that Rosebank should not be given the go-ahead. Green MSPs had for some time made the case for that clear stance to be taken, but I am in no doubt that Nicola Sturgeon knew that it was the right position to take. It was right in principle in the face of the climate emergency and also right for Scotland in embracing the transition that we are so well placed to benefit from.
Today, such climate clarity is nowhere to be seen from the Scottish Government. Today’s First Minister cannot take a clear position, the draft climate change plan sidesteps the issue and the Government’s energy strategy seems to have disappeared completely.
The Scottish Greens can and will make the case, explicitly, that the Scottish Government must unequivocally oppose the Rosebank plan. No climate compatibility test worthy of the name can give the go-ahead to this immensely destructive project.
Everyone, which I think includes the Greens, accepts that oil and gas demand is not going away. On any analysis, we will still need oil and gas in the UK by 2050. To satisfy that need, we would need to import more if we did not drill Rosebank. Therefore, the environmental case suggests that we should drill Rosebank. Is that not correct?
That completely ignores the fact, which I will come on to, that the vast majority of production from Rosebank will be for export.
Rosebank’s projected carbon emissions are vast—some 254 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. The harm to our precarious climate will be somewhere in the order of 50 times as damaging as the developers first admitted. That is why not only campaigners but scientific experts have consistently opposed the development of the field at every step of the process.
The Scottish Greens were proud to support campaigners who brought a successful legal challenge against the UK Government’s initial decision to approve the field. Now, the oil giants behind the project have had to submit a revised environmental impact assessment that takes account of the full emissions that will arise from drilling and burning Rosebank’s fossil fuels. Oil and gas giants can no longer get away with assessing the impact of only a fraction of the climate-wrecking emissions from their dirty business, thanks to the efforts of dedicated climate campaigners.
The science is clear: any new oil and gas field in the North Sea would represent an abandonment of our role in achieving the global target of keeping the temperature rise below 1.5°C. The International Energy Agency’s latest “World Energy Outlook”, which was published during the opening days of COP30, shows that global oil use is set to peak around 2030 and that global gas use is set to do so by 2035. That is based on the current policy intentions of the world’s Governments. At the same time, clean energy use will surge, with wind power up by 178 per cent and solar power up by 344 per cent by 2035.
However, even that reflection of the policy status quo would result in global warming reaching 2.5°C in this century, so, if we are remotely serious about avoiding catastrophic impacts, we need to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels. It would be utterly reckless to approve Rosebank. If the Scottish Government chooses to remain on the fence, it will be choosing to throw away the last shred of its climate credibility.
I hear what Patrick Harvie has said about global reliance on oil, but does he acknowledge that peak oil extraction from the North Sea was back in 1999, that such extraction is on a downward trajectory and that there is a balancing act, because we will rely on hydrocarbons for some time to come and continued extraction will be necessary to facilitate the transition?
The Scottish Government is also dragging its feet in relation to the pace at which we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, because it is watering down its heat in buildings agenda.
Even in domestic terms, Rosebank will not help the Scottish or UK economies. It is viable only with millions of pounds in subsidies, with taxpayers being asked to shoulder 80 per cent of the costs. All told, the development is expected to add £250 million to the UK Treasury’s black hole. It will not help households with rising energy bills. Ninety per cent of Rosebank’s reserves will be exported, mostly to the European continent. Even the portions that are sold here will be subject to prices set on the open market, so what we pay to heat our homes will be unchanged.
Rosebank is very far from a silver bullet for the North Sea workforce. With the whole North Sea basin in decline, as has been pointed out, the number of jobs has already dropped by a staggering 40 per cent. The decline is terminal, as research for the Scottish Government has shown. The only way to give the workers of the North Sea a secure future is to support them to use their skills to build Scotland’s renewables future. Indeed, the truth that Equinor and UK ministers want to hide is that Rosebank will, in essence, redistribute wealth away from the public purse and investment in Scotland’s renewable futures and towards wealthy fossil fuel giants.
If all that is still not enough to bring Scottish National Party ministers off the fence, perhaps the fact that Rosebank profits will actively fund some of those who are operating illegally in the occupied Palestinian territories will be the final straw. Equinor’s minority partner in developing Rosebank is Ithaca Energy, which is majority owned by the Delek Group—an Israeli fuel conglomerate that is operating in the occupied territories and has been flagged for potential human rights breaches. If Rosebank is developed, the Delek Group is expected to receive about £253 million in revenue from the field. Profits from an oil field in Scotland’s waters could financially benefit a company that is linked to human rights violations against the Palestinian people. That would be just three months after we voted for a package of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel and companies that are complicit in the occupation.
For all those reasons—complicity with occupation and war crime, betrayal of Scotland’s economic interests and the extraordinary scale of climate destruction—the Parliament must vote to oppose the Rosebank field.
I move,
That the Parliament opposes the development of the Rosebank oil and gas field.
15:05
The future of the North Sea oil and gas sector is of vital importance to Scotland’s economy and society, and it is central to our energy transition. Oil and gas will continue to play an extremely important, essential and welcome role in the energy mix for decades to come. That role is now declining, given the maturity of the North Sea basin, as other members have said. It is important that we are clear that, under the current political settlement, decisions on consenting to any specific North Sea oil and gas field—be it Rosebank or any other—is a matter that is reserved to the UK Government.
The UK regulator is currently undertaking a statutory process of public consultation as part of an updated environmental impact assessment for the Rosebank field. The consultation remains open until 20 November. I expect that scientists, industry experts, activists and members of the public will wish to contribute their views to the consultation. That is why the Government’s amendment reflects the importance of allowing an evidence-led, case-by-case approach to be properly followed to its conclusion.
I assure members that the Scottish Government remains clear in our support for a just transition for Scotland’s valuable offshore energy sector.
Now that the compatibility report for Rosebank has been published, does the Scottish Government support Rosebank? Yes or no?
If Douglas Lumsden looks at the Scottish Government’s amendment, he will see our position, which I hope the Parliament will vote for today.
There is an urgent need for a global transition from fossil fuels if the Paris agreement goals are to be met. Patrick Harvie referred to those goals. We will not deny the climate science that clearly shows the crisis that we are all facing. However, we also need to have a just transition. I saw the damage—as did many others who are old enough to have done so—that Mrs Thatcher did to our country and our communities when she threw thousands of workers on to the scrap heap. A just transition does not mean simply stopping all future oil and gas activity overnight. That would be wrong and would threaten energy security while destroying the very skills that we need for the energy transition.
I am sure that the minister is well aware that absolutely no one calls for all oil and gas production to be stopped immediately. Is it not clear that expanding into a new, undeveloped oil field is the opposite of a transition? A just transition is needed, but it has to be a transition away from fossil fuels. The Rosebank plan would be another roll of the fossil fuel dice.
The Scottish Government thinks that it is incredibly important that the guiding principles for new developments, which are outlined in our amendment, are followed. We will continue to press for that. The UK Government is well aware of the Scottish Government’s position.
I return to what I was saying about the pace of the transition. We continue to call on the UK Government to approach all its reserved decisions on North Sea oil and gas projects on a rigorous, evidence-based basis. The fiscal regime for the North Sea remains reserved, too. The regime is currently having a major negative impact on Scotland’s energy transition. The UK Government must listen carefully to the concerns that businesses are expressing about the impacts of its energy profits levy. The levy is clearly now affecting investment and jobs in the north-east, including in the low-carbon energy sector and across energy supply chains. This week’s announcement of job losses at the Port of Aberdeen provides yet more evidence of the real-world impacts.
Will the minister give way?
If I have time, I will take a brief intervention.
You do not have a lot of time.
The minister will also accept that there is a very damaging effect from the
“presumption against ... oil and gas”
remaining in the draft energy strategy, so will he agree to remove those words?
There is a great deal of hypocrisy from Liam Kerr, given that we are discussing the energy profits levy and it was his Government that first extended it. The levy is causing a lot of damage to jobs in the north-east of Scotland at the moment. The energy profits levy was supposed to be a temporary measure; we must see, through the UK autumn budget, its earliest possible end date or its complete reform. The Press and Journal covered that issue today and made the same call.
I am proud to restate the Government’s unwavering commitment to Scotland playing its full part in responding to the global challenge of climate change. Scotland is now more than halfway to reaching net zero, and, last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy published her draft climate change plan, setting out how we will further reduce our emissions and reliance on fossil fuels.
Our approach to climate policy is guided by a just transition, with Scotland’s valued and highly skilled offshore oil and gas workers at its heart. The Scottish Government will continue to support the energy workforce with all the powers available to it.
I move, as an amendment to motion S6M-19637, to leave out from “opposes” to end and insert:
“affirms the importance of a just transition, which supports workers in the oil and gas industry, as the useful life of developments comes to an end, and believes that new developments must only proceed if they contribute to energy security, meet a rigorous climate compatibility assessment and are compatible with Scotland’s journey to net zero.”
15:10
I thank the Greens for bringing forward this debate and for lodging a simple motion: they oppose Rosebank—that is absolutely clear. In our amendment, we are absolutely clear that we support Rosebank. Let us look at the amendments from the other parties—what a load of spin and obfuscation. Why can they not just show a bit of honesty to the chamber and the people of the north-east and say whether they support or oppose the North Sea oil and gas sector and the thousands of jobs that it supports? While others dither, the Scottish Conservatives are crystal clear: we support the North Sea oil and gas sector. We are the only party in the Parliament that is clear on that.
I am interested to know whether the member can answer this question. I know that it is not popular to support due process or the decision-making process of the court, but, given that the decision that Rosebank could go ahead was called in by a court for environmental reasons and so there is due process to be followed, does the member not think that that is needed? Ultimately, is that not what is required for stable investment—a stable regime and due process?
What is needed for stable investment is clear guidance, but we are not getting that from the UK Government or from the Scottish Government. There is no energy strategy at all, and, let us be honest, Scotland will still need oil and gas for years to come. The question is whether we meet part of that need from our own regulated basin and skilled workforce or whether we import more from abroad at a higher cost and with higher emissions. However, the champagne socialists are too stupid to understand that.
If people care about the climate, they should care about where we source what we still use.
Rosebank is a strategic project. It will bring £8.5 billion in direct investment and support around 2,000 jobs and it could add up to £25 billion to the wider economy, with up to 300 million barrels recoverable—
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
That will mean pay packets for families, orders for the supply chain and tax revenue for public services. My constituents in the north-east understand that reality because they live it every single day. The industry is vital for Scotland, and yet the SNP ties itself in knots. We have jet set Gillian Martin, who spends her time cosying up to wind developers and selling off Scotland’s countryside, but fails to stand up—
Mr Lumsden, I caution you against using nicknames.
I am sorry, but she is jet set in a way, Presiding Officer.
I would also caution you against challenging the chair. I have made my concern clear.
Okay, Presiding Officer.
We have the former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in favour of a presumption against oil and gas; wannabe First Minister Stephen Flynn, pretending to be a friend of the industry; and John Swinney, with splinters in his backside from trying to sit on the fence, not telling us whether he supports or opposes Rosebank—but we all know that he is no friend of the industry.
Labour’s position is hardly clearer. Its front bench has said that
“our future does not lie in more oil and gas”,—[Official Report, House of Commons, 4 February 2025; Vol 761, c 658.]
while pressing ahead with a headline 78 per cent tax rate and scrapping investment allowances that underpin jobs and investment. That uncertainty drives away capital investment and places Scottish jobs at risk. In 2021, Anas Sarwar tweeted that it was time that Nicola Sturgeon opposed the ecological threat of the proposed Cambo oilfield, and yet, this week, he seems to have had a change of heart and pretends to be a supporter. He is so treacherous that he could be mistaken for Alan Carr, and that all matters because, at the end of the day, we are talking about people and their livelihoods.
Independent analysis warns that ill-judged policies could put up to 100,000 jobs at risk across the UK and strip out tens of billions of pounds of investment. The Scottish Affairs Committee has warned against accelerating decline, while clean energy jobs are not yet coming on stream at the pace that is required. We witnessed that this week at Aberdeen harbour, where redundancies were announced on the back of the oil and gas downturn.
We are going to be using hydrocarbons for years to come, so let us do that in a responsible way that uses home-grown production that supports British jobs and provides revenue for our vital public services. Let us get behind our oil and gas workers.
I move amendment S6M-19637.3, to leave out “opposes” and insert “supports”.
15:14
Scottish Labour has been clear that oil and gas will be part of Scotland’s and the UK’s energy mix for decades to come. We were clear about that in our election manifesto, in which we said that we would support existing licences. The Rosebank field has been previously licensed, and the Finch judgment means that environmental impact has to be properly considered—something that the UK Government is now acting on, as opposed to the previous Tory failure.
We need to reduce our dependence on volatile international markets for fossil fuels and accelerate a shift away from oil and gas. However, as we discussed in yesterday’s members’ business debate on the “Striking the Balance” report, we need joined-up thinking and action so that we deliver a fair transition for the workers who currently work in our oil and gas sector and support the work of our trade unions, which, over the years, have negotiated decent terms and conditions and pay for people in that sector. We also need to acknowledge the work of the Just Transition Commission and the Just Transition Partnership.
We need investment at Grangemouth; in our ports and harbours; in supporting the oil and gas sector to decarbonise its operations as it continues; in the manufacture of renewables kit in Scotland; and in making more energy efficient the shipping infrastructure that all our energy sectors use.
We have to make the most of Scotland’s huge potential in renewable energy. That means not just producing our electricity but maximising its use to power and heat our homes and buildings.
The Scottish Trades Union Congress says that just one job has been created for every £1 million that has been generated by the wind industry. It contrasts that with 14 jobs for every £1 million that has been generated by the oil and gas industry. Surely, we need to support the oil and gas industry.
What we need is to make sure that we fulfil the potential in renewables so that we have companies that make wind turbines and other kit in Scotland. For example, we have a proposal at the Port of Leith that would be transformative. We need to not just import kit but make it here in Scotland.
That means that we also need to think about the jobs that could come in our communities—joining up the thinking that I was just starting to talk about. We must think about how our communities can benefit. They need an acceleration of investment in our homes so that their heat is not expensive and does not get wasted because their homes are not energy efficient. If we use excess energy to heat our buildings, we can ensure that homes are not cold and that energy is not wasted.
Our councils need support now to implement their local heat and energy efficiency strategy plans, so that we have new, well-paid jobs across the country. We also need a joined-up investment approach so that we can maximise the benefits of capturing heat from waste and from data centres, so that we can use the additional electricity that our renewables create rather than paying £1.5 billion in constraint payments.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Our transport system also needs investment to deliver decarbonised infrastructure so that people can access reliable and affordable buses and trains every day and so that they can charge their cars, wherever they live in Scotland.
Our amendment is clear that we regret the SNP Government’s failure to bring forward its promised energy and just transition strategy. People need confidence to invest. We also need a stronger climate change plan.
Our UK Labour Government has acted decisively since coming into office. Labour supported the Grangemouth area in its role in the £100 million growth deal and project willow, and an additional £200 million from the national wealth fund to secure an industrial future for the Grangemouth site. It set up Great British Energy with a remit to invest in clean power and build local supply chains. It saved the Harland & Wolff yards at Methil and Arnish. It backed 1,000 jobs in the North Sea through the aspen project, and a floating wind farm by Cerulean Winds.
Please conclude.
Critically, it made sure that the national wealth fund would support energy, so that we had reliable electricity and reduced constraints on Scottish wind farms.
You need to conclude, Ms Boyack.
As countries meet to discuss COP30, we need to make sure that our communities are protected from extreme weather.
Thank you, Ms Boyack. I now need to call Jamie Greene.
I move amendment S6M-19367.5, to leave out from “opposes” to end and insert:
“recognises that oil and gas will be part of Scotland and the UK’s energy mix for decades to come; acknowledges that the Rosebank oil and gas field has previously been licensed and is currently being considered under new environmental guidance; agrees that the long-term aim for Scotland and the UK should be to reduce dependence on volatile, international markets for fossil fuels; considers that this will require the realisation of Scotland’s huge potential in renewable energy, and regrets, therefore, the failure of the Scottish National Party (SNP) administration to bring forward its promised energy strategy, and believes that a properly managed energy transition, which manages existing North Sea oil and gas fields for the entirety of their lifespan and invests in low-carbon energy and energy efficiency across the country, is required to protect and maximise jobs, reduce the need for increased imports, and ensure that Scotland maintains its international reputation for excellence in energy skills.”
15:19
Those who do not recognise that the world is in the middle of a climate emergency live not in reality but, simply, in a world of anti-climate social media, with 180-character outbursts over anything and everything that seeks to take responsibility for the mess in which we have left our planet.
That being said, although most folk I speak to care deeply about the environment around them, they also worry about how they are going to pay their gas and electricity bills and about where the well-paid jobs in the energy sector in the north-east are going to go. In my view, hyperbole on both sides helps nobody. Of course we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, expand our renewable energy sector and use the wealth of talent that we already have in fossil fuels to create better green jobs, but none of that is going to happen overnight.
This tap-on or tap-off argument is, in my view, an oversimplification of the complex and intertwining energy market. With that in mind, I am sympathetic to the environmental concerns that have been raised about Rosebank—rightly so—but I am equally sympathetic to the valid concerns that have been raised by workers and businesses in the north-east, who are facing absolute oblivion.
Any decision about Rosebank or any future development of oil and gas in the North Sea must have the potential loss of jobs and our local economy as key considerations, but those decisions must be made in tandem and according to strict climate checks. I hope that we can all agree on that, because due process matters when making such decisions.
Daniel Johnson rose—
I do not have time to give way.
That is how we will take people with us. We need the trust of those that the decisions affect. If the decision to block future developments—which is a decision for the UK Government and, to an extent, the Scottish Government through planning decisions—comes into force, then both those Governments bear responsibility to support the workforce in the sector. I say that as a warning to the SNP and Labour, because if we get it wrong, communities will be left behind, and we all know what that leads to.
The reality is that the UK will need up to 15 billion barrels of oil and gas between now and 2050. The question is where we are going to get it from, because we will produce less than 4 billion barrels. That means that we will import 40 per cent of our energy needs. Much of it will come from middle eastern countries with dubious human rights records. My gut feeling is that I would rather produce it at our back door.
We have to accept that oil and gas will remain part of our energy mix—even the Government accepts that—but let us not forget that the Government has an incoherent energy strategy as it is. How do I know that? It is because we built two liquid natural gas-capable ferries in my home town, but to fill the ferries with LNG, that LNG will first have to be imported first from Qatar, sent to a terminal in Kent and then driven 460 miles on the back of a tanker. I look forward to the day that actually happens, and I think about the carbon footprint of it, too.
While we are on the subject of incoherence, it is my consistent view that the SNP’s effective ban on any discussion around new nuclear is difficult. It is going to make it more difficult to hit our net zero targets. I talked about hyperbole earlier. We need to remove the misconceptions around new nuclear technology, which could be cost effective and low carbon.
It is not great on the renewables front, either. This week, Shell handed back its ScotWind lease, putting more than £3 billion of Scotland-based investment at risk. That is not a sign of confidence in our energy markets.
I will make this final plea. The Scottish Government must make a statement on all of this to the Parliament as soon as possible. I hope that the minister will listen to that call. It is about time that the Scottish Government comes clean on its position as to what its energy policy actually is.
We now move to the open debate.
15:23
We are at a watershed moment for the climate, not only in Scotland but globally. As I raised with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy only last week, we face the very real risk that crucial tipping points will be surpassed, and Scotland will be on the front line of those changes.
We rely on the gulf stream for our temperate, liveable climate, but, with the 1.5°C Paris target set to be missed, climate scientists are becoming increasingly agitated that that crucial current will collapse. Should that happen, our way of life in Scotland will change drastically. It will require decades of adaptation, which will cost a lot of money, to meet that challenge. Our economy, our homes and our food production—everything—will face huge alterations.
My questions for members are these: why do we want to make the situation worse for ourselves, and how can we, in good conscience, stand here today and pursue supposed short-term gain over Scotland’s long-term health, wellbeing and prosperity? That is what Rosebank is. It is a desperate short-termist attempt by the fossil fuel industry to maintain share prices and mega pay packages. It comes at the expense of working Scottish people, both now and in the future, and it puts our collective future at great risk.
As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am proud to represent Shetland. Communities there have been promised a lot by Equinor as part of its bid to start up Rosebank—they have been promised a jobs bonanza, big contracts for highly skilled and experienced local engineering firms and lucrative helicopter traffic through Sumburgh airport. However, before a drill has even been operated, the Shetlanders have been short-changed. Businesses there have been passed over for contracts, helicopters have been set to operate out of mainland airports, and money derived from Rosebank oil and gas will end up in shareholder pockets in Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, not in our public purse, due to the UK’s general fossil fuel tax regime.
Despite that exploitation of Scottish people and the severe consequences that Rosebank would have for the climate, the First Minister could not say at First Minister’s question time last week that the SNP opposes Rosebank, nor could the minister today, and in my region the SNP has even chosen an Equinor executive as a parliamentary candidate. Those two things tell us everything that we need to know. The SNP Government is not on the side of the working people or the climate. It has bungled Grangemouth in the face of pressure from a fossil fuel billionaire, and it appears set to make the same mistake off the coast of Shetland.
Not only are we being fed myths about the economic upside of Rosebank, we are also being told that it will somehow boost our energy security and reduce our bills, but that is simply not the case. Ninety per cent of Rosebank’s production will be oil, which Equinor says will be sold on the open market, mostly to continental Europe. As for gas, estimates suggest that Rosebank will reduce the UK’s annual gas import dependency by a measly 1 per cent. We can do more for our energy security and domestic bills by moving to renewables, rolling out clean heat sources such as heat networks, heat pumps and solar thermal, and properly insulating our homes.
Let us focus on doing things that will bring real, positive changes for Scottish households. Let us stand up to the false narratives that are spread by the fossil fuel industry. Let us do better by our people and climate, and let us say no to Rosebank.
15:27
I thank the Scottish Greens for bringing the debate to the chamber. Like other members, I have received correspondence on the issue of Rosebank over a lengthy period of time. We all know that its development and implications are wide ranging, as it will impact on the climate emergency, jobs and the broader regional economy in the north-east. Other factors in the discussion include the just transition and the impact of the UK Government’s tax and levy regimes. The decisions made and the approach taken in relation to the proposal need to achieve the goals of tackling the climate emergency and the just transition and, of course, providing economic stability.
The Scottish Government continues to call on the UK Government to approach North Sea oil and gas licensing on an evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. That position has not changed. Decisions on offshore oil and gas licensing and consenting are currently reserved to the UK Government, but any development of oil and gas licensing must be undertaken in a way that is compatible with Scotland’s journey to net zero. The Scottish Government remains committed to a fair and just transition to net zero, which will provide opportunities for our industries, our economy and our climate.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.
Scotland’s energy wealth has been squandered as a cash cow by many successive UK Governments while ordinary Scots pay some of the highest bills in Europe. Labour promised to cut energy bills by £300, but the reality is that energy bills have risen by £190 since the party came into office. The SNP is calling for an end to the energy profits levy, which is having a negative impact on investment in clean energy, oil and gas decommissioning and the shared energy supply chain—there is no doubt about that whatsoever. We all hear that from stakeholders. That is why it is vital that we continue to invest in renewable energy opportunities and maximise that investment.
On Rosebank, I repeat that decisions on offshore oil and gas licensing and consenting are currently reserved to the UK Government. However, the Scottish Government continues to call on the UK Government to approach its decisions on offshore oil and gas projects on an evidence-led, case-by-case basis.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, Mr Harvie—I have only four minutes.
Climate compatibility and energy security should be key considerations, and climate compatibility assessments and checkpoints should inform any decision that the UK Government makes on new licences. The Scottish Government has consistently insisted on the importance of those assessments—a position that has also been adopted in legal judgments. We also have to remain committed to a fair and just transition to net zero.
With the Scottish Government’s backing, the north-east can become the net zero capital of the world. The Scottish Government is committed to capitalising on the enormous opportunities that the net zero system offers our industries, our economy and our climate. The Scottish Government is focused on reducing emissions in line with climate commitments, delivering affordable energy supplies and ensuring that a just transition for the oil and gas workforce is secured as North Sea oil resources decline.
The number of jobs that are supported by the UK’s oil and gas industry has more than halved in the past decade. Polling has shown that more than 90 per cent of oil and gas workers surveyed want a clear path out of high-carbon jobs and that more than 90 per cent of oil and gas workers possess skills that are transferable to the offshore renewables sector. The real pathway to supporting the workers, supply chains and communities that currently depend on the oil and gas industry is developing a credible plan for the North Sea transition and ensuring that those who are dependent on the oil and gas sector benefit from the transition. That includes establishing domestic clean energy supply chains to provide secure, long-term jobs for oil and gas workers to transition into.
The Rosebank decision is about people, climate and the future of the north-east, and it is incredibly important that we balance all those aspects as we move forward.
15:31
The SNP’s hypocrisy on the EPL is absolutely breathtaking. SNP members were the biggest cheerleaders in the Parliament for those windfall taxes and the Official Report shows it, so they should not try to change history now. I heard my colleague, Craig Hoy, shout from a sedentary position to Paul McLennan, “What about Torness?” The Government cannot go on sustaining the view that there is no place for nuclear in our energy mix if we believe in clean energy. However, the motion asks us to turn our backs on reality and on one of Scotland’s most vital industries. It asks us to abandon the energy workers of the north-east, to weaken our national security and to reject the very resources that have powered our economy for 50 years. It is a motion that is driven not by reason or realism, but by ideology.
The Scottish Conservatives cannot and will not support that folly. We will, therefore—
Will the member give way?
No—I do not have time to take an intervention, unfortunately. That is what passes for debate in this place.
The Conservative amendment sets out clearly our party’s position, which is that Scotland must maximise every one of its energy resources through a balanced and responsible energy mix. That means renewables, nuclear, hydrogen and—yes—continued production of oil and gas from the North Sea.
The alternative proposed by the Scottish Greens would leave Scotland more dependent on imported energy from countries with lower environmental standards, higher levels of emissions and little concern for human rights. It is the height of absurdity to import liquefied natural gas from Qatar or the United States, which is shipped thousands of miles with double the carbon footprint, while refusing to produce our own resources from the North Sea, where our standards are among the highest in the world. That is not environmentalism—it is environmental self-harm.
Rosebank, like many North Sea projects, can be developed in a way that aligns with our climate goals, because its carbon intensity per barrel is among the lowest globally. To halt such developments does not reduce global emissions; it simply offshores them. That is not climate leadership—it is climate hypocrisy. Just like everything that the Scottish Greens stand for, it is anathema to the Scottish Conservatives and—to be frank—to most sensible people in Scotland.
The Greens have managed to deceive many by posing as a party for cuddly animals when, in truth, they are a party that is intent on returning us to the stone age. Their ideology is a form of modern-day communism that is hostile to enterprise, to capitalism and to economic growth itself. They would dismantle the very system that feeds, clothes and houses us. They would like to un-invent almost every technological advance that humanity has achieved in the past 100 years. They must be opposed, and they must be exposed.
Scotland’s energy future must be based on realism, not romanticism, and on innovation, not ideology. It must support the workers who build our prosperity and secure the energy that sustains our daily lives. Our amendment is straightforward common sense: it is about jobs, security and self reliance. [Interruption.] Patrick Harvie can mutter from a sedentary position all he likes. It is about ensuring that Scotland remains an energy nation, leading the world not by self-denial, but by example. Let us choose prosperity over pretence, progress over posturing, and the national interest over Green ideology. Support our amendment and stand up for Scotland’s energy, its workers and its future.
15:35
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Greens have brought this timely debate to the chamber. For life on this planet to be tolerable, we have to address the climate challenge and we must move away from our reliance on oil and gas. We cannot overestimate the challenge that we face. In 2024, the highest concentration—in human history—of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was recorded. The rise in global temperatures has meant that the past decade was the warmest on record. The International Energy Agency has said that, if we are to achieve the target of limiting the global temperature rise to within 1.5°C, there can be no new oil and gas developments internationally.
Scottish Government policy is in favour of a just transition. However, we have to be honest: the transition has started and it is not just. In the chamber, we have spoken about thousands of onshore and offshore jobs that have already been lost, despite oil companies continuing to pay massive dividends. One of those companies, Ithaca, has already been mentioned in the debate. In August, the North Sea oil giant paid £127 million in dividends for the first quarter of 2025, with total pay-outs set to reach around £388 million this year. There is no just transition for the workers who are losing their jobs.
As Liam Kerr said, in October, STUC research showed that only one job is being created for every £1 million in turnover in onshore and offshore wind. The figure across other renewables sectors is not significantly higher. We do not build wind turbines—we import them, and we are not reaping the economic benefits of any green industrial revolution. We have to be honest that not enough is being done to ensure good quality job creation and to develop the new sectors that would provide local benefits.
The member referred to job losses in the oil and gas sector in the north-east of Scotland; I represent the Moray constituency in that area. Does the member realise that one of the key reasons, if not the key reason, that is being cited by the industry for job losses is the energy profits levy, which urgently needs to be reformed, changed or scrapped?
I do not accept that. I am happy to discuss it in more detail another day. I have already referenced some of the profits that are being made in the sector.
My primary role today is to hold the minister’s Government to account and talk about what this Parliament can do within our powers. I agree with the Greens that we cannot keep developing new oil and gas. However, we have to do that as part of a just transition, so I also support the offshore trade unions and the workforce in their demand for a plan.
A number of members have already made the point that we cannot respond to the challenge by importing foreign oil and gas to replace North Sea oil production. Norway and Denmark are issuing new oil and gas production licences alongside historically high investment in offshore renewables. It cannot be acceptable that we support extraction elsewhere.
The trade unions need to be centrally involved in developing a just transition. I do not believe that there has ever been a just transition for working class communities when industrial change has taken place. Working class communities see no sign of that happening now. We need to rise to the climate challenge by having a serious debate about how we ensure that we meet our climate challenges in a way that benefits our economy as part of an industrial strategy that delivers for every community in Scotland.
Clare Adamson is the final speaker in the open debate.
15:40
We are talking about fuel this afternoon, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, but we are really talking about power and where power lies. We know that, even if we pass this motion this afternoon, the decisions about Scotland’s resources, Scotland’s economy and Scotland’s opportunities will not be made in Scotland. That is simply wrong.
We have seen how, for years, Westminster has failed to use the resources of Scotland to benefit the people of Scotland. In the 1980s, the SNP ran an “All of the fuel, none of the power” campaign and, unfortunately, nothing has changed since then.
Norway’s oil fund was mentioned earlier. It is worth trillions of pounds and is used to benefit the citizens of Norway. Meanwhile—although, of course, I have constituents who have concerns about the climate—I see constituents who went through a transition in the 1980s, when the Tories did away with the mines and steelworks and did nothing just about it. I see people who cannot put food on the table, who cannot afford their fuel and electricity bills and who live in a country that is one of the most unequal in Europe and the world, where the profits have never been used to benefit the people of Scotland.
That is why this debate can go nowhere at this stage, because what we need is the power to control those issues. We want to be at the heart of Europe. The carbon border adjustment mechanism that is about to come in will see every exporter in Scotland hit with a charge for the carbon that they use in their production processes, and we no longer have a place at the top table to enter into negotiations about that.
That does not address the motion.
What does that have to do with the motion?
Again, that is left in the hands of Westminster politicians, who have failed to use the resources of this country—
Ms Adamson, please resume your seat for a second.
I am not going to be told by members on any bench whether something is relevant. I will judge whether what Ms Adamson is saying is relevant to the amendment that the Government has lodged. I appreciate that it is not relevant to the amendment that the Conservatives have lodged and that it is not necessarily relevant to the motion that the Green Party has put forward, but it is relevant to the SNP’s amendment. The judgment about that is for me, as chair, and I will not be heckled into changing that decision. I also encourage members on the Conservative benches not to provide a running commentary throughout the speech.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
We face an existential threat: a climate disaster. COP30 is happening right now, and we know that we have already failed to meet the targets that would keep the rise in global temperatures below a 1.5°C increase. We are seeing weather events across the world that are devastating communities—many of which are in countries that, at some point, Britain has exploited. We see the global south suffering from climate change.
The threat to our existence is existential. We know that COP30 is looking at those issues, and we hope that a strong and good way forward will come out of the conference. However, we must have the power to control what we do, so that we can play our part as individuals, as a country, as a European partner and as a member of the world community, because this is an existential threat. It is the biggest threat that is facing us.
15:44
I thank the Greens for lodging the motion, because it is important that we treat the climate emergency with the urgency that it deserves, and that we continue to scrutinise the decisions that we make in that context and consider the progress that we are making towards net zero, because the solution is not easy or straightforward, and, unfortunately, it is not about binary choices. In some ways, I wish that it were, but it is about a just transition to net zero. Each of the words in that phrase is incredibly important, and that is what we have heard this afternoon.
However, for those who want to resist the drive towards net zero, it is important to have two very important reality checks. First, as I have said in the chamber before, an assessment by Wood Mackenzie shows that 90 per cent of our extractable resources have already been extracted—on a more generous assessment, the figure is 70 per cent. We would have to transition whether we liked it or not—whether the climate emergency was with us or not—but it is with us, which adds to the urgency with which we must act.
Secondly, we need to recognise that, currently, we are massively reliant on hydrocarbons, and that that reliance will not go away. That was acknowledged by the Greens when they opened the debate. In heating our homes with gas, we use four times as much energy as we do with electricity. Getting off gas will be incredibly difficult. As a number of members have pointed out, importing gas comes with a substantially higher carbon footprint than using our domestic supply.
It cannot be a case of either/or—we must have balanced production and a pathway to net zero. We cannot simply cut off the taps and have a higher carbon footprint—
Will the member take an intervention?
If it is brief.
I agree that it should not be a case of one thing or the other, but Labour’s ban on new licences is making it one thing or the other. Does the member not accept that the ban on new licences means that we will have to import more oil and gas?
We are talking about the Rosebank application, so let us use that as an opportunity to look at the issue. The Rosebank application was consented to by the previous Government. The UK Government is committed to upholding previous consents, but that consent was flawed and found by a court to have been given in error, according to the law. The consent had not taken fully into account the environmental impact assessments. That process is currently under way. Members on the Conservative benches made reference to the environmental impact assessment, but the public consultation for that does not close until 20 November.
It is important that we have due process that provides stability for investment. Let us be clear that we will need investment if we are to continue to extract hydrocarbons—which everyone acknowledges that we will do—but we cannot have a regime that chops and changes. We also need a regime that has environmental impact assessments at its heart, which is what the UK Government has now brought in. That process is under way, but it has not yet concluded.
As much as I understand why people on both sides of the argument believe that the debate is important, and that it is vital that we grant consent only if the proposals are compatible with environmental impact assessments and our transition to net zero, we must have due process and genuine assessment. Anyone who argues that we should short circuit that process is arguing against the very interests that they claim to support.
We need a plan, which is what the UK Labour Government has brought forward with GB Energy and investment. Ultimately, what we need is a just transition—Katy Clark is absolutely right. We have never had one before, but we absolutely need one now.
15:48
I, too, thank the Greens for securing the debate. I have to say that I found their arguments less than compelling, as was their leaflet that was delivered to my home early yesterday evening, which was all about taxing the rich and making everything fairer. The rich have got rich by working hard and using the economy to their advantage, and everyone benefits from that. [Interruption.] If the Greens are going to destroy the economy, I do not know where we are going.
The Greens have admitted that we will need oil in the future. Have we thought about all the uses for which we will need it? The turbines that are growing in number across Scotland use hundreds of gallons of oil each year to ensure that they turn and that their gearboxes and other workings function.
Farmers need oil to fuel their tractors, because electric power will not do that. I am a farmer myself—members can check the details in my entry in the register of members’ interests. We need oil for our transport. The battery buses that were sent up to the Highlands did not work, because they did not have the power required to get up the hills.
We will need oil and gas to heat our homes. I keep pointing out—as I did to Mr Harvie—that the alternative sources of power that have been proposed, such as the heat solutions and the heat transfer systems, will not work without a considerable amount of retrofitting of insulation.
Therefore, we will all continue to need oil and gas, which is why Mr Lumsden’s points are so appropriate. Why not use the resources that we already have? Why not ensure that those resources are exploited to ensure that the jobs that are in Scotland continue to offer employment to people and that the money that is brought in continues to benefit the UK Treasury?
The suggestion that we should not use Rosebank means that we would just be exporting production to countries such as Nigeria. Is that environmentally sensible? It is not. If we wanted to, we could rely on Russia and allow it to supply us with oil, but that prospect is equally unpleasant. As Mr Greene pointed out, we could rely on the middle east to supply us with some of our fuel. However, some of the practices that go on there are totally unacceptable.
This afternoon, we have talked about why we should not use oil. We have ignored why we are driven to using it. It is because this Government does not want to allow the use of nuclear power in Scotland. However, the Government is fine about taking the power that comes in from nuclear power stations when the wind does not blow and there is insufficient power here. It is hypocritical for members of the Government who have nuclear power stations in their constituencies to say that they do not want them there when the employment opportunities that they offer are phenomenal.
I am unclear about the position of the Labour Party on this issue. To be frank, I am not sure who is calling the shots there. Anas Sarwar seems to be changing his position. Perhaps that is so that he can align with whichever new leader approaches the front benches when Keir Starmer is replaced, whether it be Wes Streeting or Andy Burnham.
I am confused by everyone’s positions. We have a resource in Scotland and it appears that we can exploit it by carefully—
Will the member take an intervention?
Do I have time, Deputy Presiding Officer?
No.
Okay. I am sure that the member knows that I would have taken an intervention, but I do not have time.
We can exploit the resource in such a way as to make sure that we do not damage the environment. Importing it from elsewhere will probably ensure that that will happen.
15:52
I also welcome this debate, which the Green Party has brought to the chamber. The issue of climate change raises profound questions that affect our society, our economy and our planet, not just for our generation but for those in the future. As the father of two sons, I often wonder what the world will be like when they are my age—not just in relation to climate change but on many other related issues. We are discussing profound matters today.
I believe that Scotland is showing global leadership on tackling the climate crisis. As we speak, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy is in Brazil, at COP30, representing Scotland, showing leadership and collaborating with the international community. I notice that Douglas Lumsden presents that as jet setting. In the past 24 hours, Time magazine has named the cabinet secretary as one of the 100 top climate leaders. I congratulate her on that achievement, which recognises, on the international stage, Scotland’s leadership in tackling the climate crisis.
Will the member give way?
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take both interventions.
Do you think that Gillian Martin’s constituents—
Speak through the chair.
Sorry. Does the minister think that Gillian Martin’s constituents will be happy that she is one of the top 100 people in climate change when they see our constituencies being railroaded with pylons, substations and everything else?
The member makes an interesting point. I am sure that others have noticed the anti-renewables rhetoric that is increasingly coming from members on the Conservative benches. That party used to have a green tree as its national emblem, to show that it loved the environment. Those days are long gone, given the rhetoric that we hear from it in Scotland today.
Referring to the unfortunate loss of some jobs due to the downturn in oil and gas activity, the chief executive of the Port of Aberdeen said that we need to speed up the creation of renewables jobs. However, the member who has just intervened criticises ministers for what he terms “cosying up” to wind farm companies. Those are the very companies that will supply the jobs that the chief executive of the Port of Aberdeen wants to see being created to stop the job losses that the member is complaining about. It is utter hypocrisy after utter hypocrisy.
That is unbelievable.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will take Mr Harvie’s intervention.
I remind Conservative members that they have been given interventions and had a chance to make their points. They should listen to the person who has the floor. Currently, that is Patrick Harvie.
A moment ago, the minister was laying claim to climate leadership on behalf of the Government. Why does he think that Nicola Sturgeon had the courage to say what she thinks of this particular project—Rosebank—and the current Government does not? I ask him to reflect on that, please.
The Scottish Government’s position has always been consistent: such matters should be treated case by case and a vigorous compatibility assessment of our climate obligations should be put in place. That has been our constant message under each of the First Ministers of this SNP Government.
In my remaining two minutes I will turn to other members’ contributions. Jamie Greene’s opening remarks were very balanced. Many of the issues that we are discussing are incredibly complex, as Daniel Johnson referenced. It is not simply a case of denying the climate crisis, as some members might imply. Neither is it a case of simply shutting off the oil and gas jobs and causing economic dislocation in our country, particularly in the north-east, which others give the impression might be the solution. I hope that that is not the position, but sometimes that is the impression that we, as politicians, give the public when we have vigorous debates. We should not give that impression in these difficult, complex times.
Jamie Greene also said that he would want the Government to make a statement on ScotWind and a recent licence issue. I indicate to him that we accept that request and that such a statement will be made.
At the heart of Jamie Greene’s and other members’ contributions were questions about the just transition that will take place over several decades to come. A lot is happening to put in place the measures for that. For example, just recently, the First Minister opened an energy transition skills hub in Aberdeen. Many other measures are being taken besides that.
The UK Government is midway through the decision-making process on the application for the Rosebank field to receive consents to enter production. Although the process comes under a reserved matter, it is nonetheless important for us all to be aware of the detail.
We have the court rulings, and the UK regulator published updated statutory guidance for undertaking environmental impact assessments to inform offshore oil and gas consenting. The updated guidance requires that the climate impacts of the emissions arising from the consumption, as well as the initial production of oil and gas, must be considered.
As I said, the Scottish Government has long called for an enhanced climate compatibility approach to be taken to decisions on North Sea oil and gas developments, including the consideration of the fuel impacts. As outlined in the Government’s amendment, which I commend to Parliament, that is at the heart of what we want. We want energy security, we want that compatibility assessment and we want to ensure that Scotland can continue on its journey towards net zero.
Maggie Chapman will wind up the debate.
15:57
Although the debate has been disappointingly predictable, the climate-wrecking, business-as-usual take from most in the chamber—[Interruption.]
Ms Chapman, will you resume your seat?
Alexander Stewart, I ask you not to chunter from a sedentary position, particularly with comments such as that, please.
The climate-wrecking, business-as-usual take from most in the chamber—one that ideologically supports fossil capitalism—is deeply concerning.
In closing the debate, I do so with urgency for our climate and for the people whose lives and livelihoods hang in the balance. The proposed exploitation of the Rosebank oilfield is a moment of reckoning—a choice between clinging to fossil fuel profits and choosing a future that is rooted in fairness, community and justice.
If we are serious about keeping anywhere close to the 1.5°C limit of global warming and about having a liveable planet, we must be serious about having no new licences for fossil fuel extraction.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am not going to take an intervention from a member of a party that wants to rip up our climate change legislation.
The campaign against Rosebank reminds us that this is not abstract. It says that, if Governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal.
We can debate economics and energy security, but the real question is moral. Who do those businesses serve? In the north-east, many communities have built their identity and pride around oil and gas. I respect those workers—sometimes whole families—who have gone offshore, drilled, serviced rigs and supported supply chains. However, the reality is clear: jobs are disappearing.
Between 2014 and 2024, the UK oil and gas workforce fell from about 190,000 to 115,000. In Scotland, we have lost roughly three oil and gas jobs for every one that is created in clean energy. One offshore worker told the Just Transition Commission:
“I’ve got probably four years left in the North Sea. Where do I go? My employer is not funding retraining ... There’s a lack of information about where is the work and what are the skills required.”
They went on to say that
“A lot of guys ... think the North Sea will go on forever”,
but it will not. That is the cost—the human cost—of transition neglect.
Rosebank would only make things worse. The UK taxpayer would carry most of the cost through billions in tax breaks, while profits flowed overseas and UK job creation remained minimal.
The promised boom is hollow. It is built on export-oriented oil and more fossil dependency when the clock for climate action is running out.
This debate is not only about Aberdeen or Edinburgh; it is about the wider world and those who are already living with the first and worst effects of climate breakdown. As scientist Friederike Otto reminds us,
“Climate change is not just a problem of physics but a crisis of justice”.
Women and gender-diverse people, people of colour and those in low-income countries are suffering most from this fossil-fuelled world. The consequences of climate change are not gender neutral.
Here in Scotland, we must ask: who does the industry serve and whose future does it ignore? Let us be clear that oil and gas corporations are raking in mega-profits, even as investment in renewables lags and supply-chain jobs erode. Equinor made £62 billion of profit in 2022, while the Rosebank project would be underwritten by the public purse. Meanwhile, north-east communities face job losses and shrinking opportunities.
A just transition means that the process is as important as the outcome. The Just Transition Commission reminds us that the shift must be co-designed and co-delivered by those affected—by workers, trade unions and communities. Roz Foyer of the Scottish Trades Union Congress has been clear that
“We must secure good, green jobs ... not leave communities abandoned”
and that we must put
“workers’ voices at the heart of any just transition”,
yet the reality falls behind that rhetoric. For every one green job created, three oil and gas jobs have been lost. Too many renewables projects import components instead of building them here. Too often, we talk transition but deliver decline.
So, what is to be done? First, we must say loud and clear, “No new licences.” Approving Rosebank would send the wrong message. We already hold vast reserves. Even developers admit that it will not cut bills or create lasting jobs.
Secondly, we must centre communities and workers by co-designing, retraining, upskilling and reskilling, with guarantees of fair pay, fair work and secure pathways into renewables.
Thirdly, we must build local supply chains and anchor investment here. Scotland must stop exporting our skills and importing finished products. Our renewables strategy must be to manufacture, install and maintain right here at home.
Fourthly, we must confront intersecting injustices. Climate justice is social justice. Gender, race, class and geography shape who gains and who loses. The poorest in the world are already paying the price for choices that are made elsewhere.
Finally, we must use the gains of the fossil era to finance the green one. If profits are vast and subsidies generous, we should reclaim them. We should invest in communities, care, education and innovation. A fossil fuel boom that enriches a few while displacing many is unacceptable.
The decision that is before us is stark. We can keep granting new licences and prolonging carbon lock-in and the neglect of workers and communities, or we can summon the courage to break with business as usual and invest in a Scotland that is not only low carbon but fair. I speak today for young people, for families in the north-east who fear for their future and for those around the world whose lives are already curtailed by climate chaos. We cannot ask them to wait for justice.
We must act with urgency, compassion and ambition. We believe that the richest resources and technologies must not serve the few; they must uplift us all. We must reject Rosebank.
That concludes the debate on Rosebank. Before we move to the next item of business, there will be a brief pause to allow members on the front benches to change.
I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery His Excellency Nuno Brito, the Ambassador of Portugal to the United Kingdom. [Applause.]
Previous
Portfolio Question TimeNext
Bus Services