Official Report 1025KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17525, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, on protecting Scotland’s oil and gas industry. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.
16:35
In June last year, we had a debate in the chamber on oil and gas. Almost a year later, the sector is in a worse state, thanks to the policies of this devolved Scottish National Party Government and an inept Labour Government in Westminster. Both have abandoned the north-east, both have betrayed the oil and gas sector and both are accountable for the loss of jobs, livelihoods and industry in our once-thriving north-east.
It is a disgrace to see how the sector has been sold out, and the Scottish Conservatives remain the only party that is standing up for the industry and those who work in it. The oil and gas sector currently supports more than 83,000 jobs in Scotland, and supports the Scottish economy to the tune of £14 billion—we should be doing everything that we can to protect it. In 2022, 78 per cent of Scotland’s energy needs were met from oil and gas. We need a balanced energy provision. We cannot rely only on oil and gas, renewables or nuclear—we need a proper energy mix.
The Scottish Conservatives want to protect the oil and gas sector, and the vast majority of Scots agree with us. In a recent poll, 84 per cent of people supported the continuation of oil and gas exploration and drilling. The public understand that in order to continue to provide the energy that we need while increasing our renewables sector, there is a process that we have to go through in a reasonable, timely and well-thought-out way. We need to work with the industry and not against it, ensuring that the oil and gas sector is at the centre of our discussions on how we meet our energy needs, move to net zero and ensure that jobs are retained in the north-east.
Last week, we heard the devastating news that Harbour Energy is shedding another 250 jobs. Two and a half thousand jobs have now been lost—2,500 livelihoods lost—in the North Sea in the past year, and the SNP Government’s reaction has been pitiful. When it looked like 200 jobs would go at Ferguson Marine, it nationalised the yard. When Grangemouth refinery announced closure, it set up project willow to look at how jobs could be saved, but in Aberdeen, it did nothing.
We need action to save North Sea jobs as a matter of urgency, so I call on the Scottish Government to grab the bull by the horns and convene an emergency summit with United Kingdom and Scottish Governments, local MPs and MSPs, local authorities, trade organisations, trade unions, third sector organisations, chambers of commerce, development boards and even Great British Energy. This is an emergency for the north-east. There can be no further dither and delay—something needs to be done.
Confidence among people who work in the sector is being lost, and businesses are failing as a result. The situation is not getting better. Even the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy said this week that more businesses might follow. I agree with her, unless the policies of the Labour and SNP Governments change and they both end their thoughtless, baseless and evidence-lacking approach to energy production in Scotland, now and in future.
The SNP has a presumption against new oil and gas. It is against the UK Government issuing new licences. It is against Rosebank and Cambo, and it has refused to consider nuclear energy. That is left-wing nonsense. Where are all the jobs that have been promised? Where are all the renewables and green-energy jobs? Perhaps the cabinet secretary would like to tell us now how many new jobs have been brought to the north-east in the past year, because we know how many have been lost.
We still have no energy strategy, and we have no direction from this Government—it is net zero on ideas. Will the energy strategy be published in this parliamentary session?
I ask the cabinet secretary: where is the plan? Has it been kicked into the long grass, delayed until after next year’s election? Why does the Government not start being straight with the people of the north-east and tell them when it will be delivered?
Has the member taken some time to read the recent Scottish Renewables “Scotland’s renewable energy industry—supply chain impact statement”, which sets out some of the excellent inward investment, job opportunities and value to the Scottish economy that we have seen over the past year?
I am all for the jobs of tomorrow, but we need to protect the jobs of today. We have seen 2,500 jobs being lost in the past year—that is down to policies from both the Scottish and UK Governments. Labour’s windfall tax will cost the north-east 10,000 jobs, as the front page of The Press and Journal last week made clear.
That is an emergency for the north-east. I ask members to imagine, for a minute, a Grangemouth closing every week from now until 2030. Can anyone in the chamber truly appreciate what impact that will have? That is not happening just in one town in Aberdeenshire, like Grangemouth—it will be happening to every town and village in Aberdeenshire. Entire livelihoods will be destroyed by the eco-zealotry of Gillian Martin, John Swinney and Keir Starmer.
They are taking oil and gas workers for fools. What a disgusting organisation the SNP is.
Wait a minute—come on.
To say to my constituents—[Interruption.]
Mr Lumsden—
—and even more disgustingly, in the case of the cabinet secretary—[Interruption.]
Mr Lumsden. Can I remind you that the Presiding Officer—[Interruption.]
Last week, the Presiding Officer did nothing about it—[Interruption.]
On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. On 8 May 2025, the First Minister used the words
“It is a disgusting organisation”—[Official Report, 8 May 2025; c 20.]
in reference to ourselves. I seek your guidance. Nothing was raised by the chair then, so have the rules changed since that day, or has a different standard been applied?
Mr Lumsden, this is going to be a debate in which we are going to see emotions rise. I am asking, at the outset, if we can set a tone in which courtesy and respect is applied.
Mr Lumsden, continue.
Okay. Right.
But that is not right.
Are you challenging the chair?
Members: Oh!
Minister, that is unhelpful by way of a contribution.
Mr Lumsden, continue.
I will move on, Deputy Presiding Officer.
What is the Government doing for oil and gas workers in the north-east? The answer is nothing. What a tragic stage this tired Government is in. It claims to want to protect jobs in the north-east, but it opposes Rosebank and Cambo. Do its hypocrisy and hubris know no bounds?
Enough is enough. Only the Scottish Conservatives are standing up for our oil and gas sector and our residents in the north-east: the jobs that the sector maintains, the families whom they support and the communities in which they live. Only the Scottish Conservatives are offering commonsense proposals for an affordable transition with oil and gas playing a pivotal role in it.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of reducing emissions in a way that is credible, costed and publicly supported; regrets the absence of a clear, deliverable plan for achieving net zero, particularly in relation to the future of Scotland’s energy sector and industrial base; condemns the Scottish and UK governments’ ideological opposition to oil and gas, nuclear power and a balanced energy policy; calls on the UK Government to end its policy of issuing no new oil and gas licences; notes with deep concern the economic and employment impacts of the closure of the Grangemouth refinery and recent job losses at Harbour Energy in Aberdeen; further notes that the increase and extension of the UK Government’s Energy Profits Levy has had a damaging effect on investment in the North Sea; argues that current Scottish Government policy on nuclear, oil and gas is having a detrimental effect on energy prices and energy security; points out that Great British Energy is a gimmick that will do nothing to bring down bills, and condemns the explosion of electricity infrastructure across the Scottish countryside, and calls on the Scottish Government to adopt a pragmatic, pro-growth energy strategy that supports the workforce, secures investment, delivers affordability and ensures energy reliability and national competitiveness for the future.
16:43
The energy transition is at the heart of Scotland’s economic growth potential as well as our response to global climate change, and it is vital to our energy security. Our oil and gas workforce really does give us an advantage over other countries in that energy transition. Even if it were not an existential imperative for us to decrease our reliance on the burning of fossil fuels in our daily lives, the maturity of the North Sea basin is a fact that must propel our sector to pivot to secure future energy opportunities in Scotland for decades and into future generations.
It is not a case of having oil of gas over here and renewables over there—it is a whole energy sector, with oil and gas companies also holding licence options in Scotland, as members will know.
Harbour Energy has said that its decision to cut jobs is largely down to the UK Government’s energy profits levy. The Deputy First Minister met with the company last week, and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government met industry stakeholders today, to discuss the impacts of the EPL.
The EPL was introduced as a supposed temporary measure by the former Conservative UK Government.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like to make some progress, Deputy Presiding Officer—[Interruption.] It would be good to do so without being heckled.
The EPL was introduced as a supposed temporary measure by the former Conservative UK Government, and was further extended by that Government and now by the Labour Government.
Given the adverse effects of EPL on jobs and investment, the UK Government should be considering the earliest possible end date to avoid more decisions such as that taken by Harbour Energy. Similarly, the First Minister has called consistently on the UK Government to work with us to extend the life of the Grangemouth refinery until the opportunities presented by project willow are live. That would have been a tangible demonstration of support for the workforce and the community. I have been working well with the UK Government on progressing project willow. Our joint working has been fruitful, and 60 companies have come forward to express an interest in the site. My UK partners also know of my disappointment and dismay, after many months of cautiously accepting that the UK Government would not step in to save the Grangemouth refinery, that it intervened very swiftly to save Scunthorpe. Do not get me wrong: it was right for the UK Government to do so for Scunthorpe and that community, but why is there a different approach for Scotland’s only refinery?
Then came the news that carbon capture projects in the north of England would get £21.7 billion-worth of funding, which is good news for the sector. We need all the carbon capture, utilisation and storage capacity that we can get. But what about the Acorn project and the Scottish cluster? It was abandoned by the Tories when they were in power and now, it is in danger—
Abandoned!
Is the Acorn project up and running because of the Conservative Government? The answer is no. It was abandoned by the Tories when they were in power—
Will the minister take an intervention on project Acorn?
I will.
The previous Conservative Government put just over £40 million towards project Acorn. How much has the Scottish Government put towards it?
The Scottish Government has pledged upwards of £80 million—[Interruption.] The recommendation from those in the Acorn project and the Scottish cluster is that they will need that money when they get track status. The money will be available to them at that point. However, where is the track status? That is what I mean by abandonment. It is nowhere. The project has been completely abandoned for the pork barrel politics of the newly elected MPs in the red wall.
The move to renewable energy is existential for Scotland’s economy and energy sector. Offshore wind is a significant opportunity to create high-quality, sustainable jobs and grow employment. Estimates suggest that the sector could support up to and even more than 54,000 jobs, depending which report you read.
Communities across Scotland must share in the benefits of the renewables transition, and we are taking action to ensure that that happens. In a short debate such as this one, I do not have time to run through all the ways that we are doing that, but I will mention the £30 million-worth of benefits that have already been offered to Scottish communities, supported by our good practice principles. Today, the Deputy First Minister announced an £8 million fund to catalyse community energy in Scotland, which will empower communities to deliver their own renewable energy projects. However, there is a limit to what we can do within our current powers. I continue to call on the UK Government to mandate benefits from onshore developments, which the Conservative Party would not do.
I turn to the Conservative motion in my final seconds. It is quixotic. On the one hand, it accuses us of not doing enough to accelerate renewables growth, which is an accusation that I completely refute. At the same time, the motion rails against essential upgrades to transmission infrastructure that will take clean energy to homes and businesses. Yet again, the Tories have abdicated responsibility for their part in a transmission strategy that consecutive UK Governments developed. It has abdicated responsibility and deliberately misled constituents about the fact that, when the Tories were in power, they did nothing to improve the regulations on community engagement and benefits, and they did nothing to make energy more affordable for households.
The debate is short, but I very much look forward to hearing members’ contributions.
I move amendment S6M-1725.3, to leave out from “regrets” to end and insert:
“notes with deep concern the economic and employment impacts of the closure of the Grangemouth refinery and recent job losses at Harbour Energy in Aberdeen; further notes that the increase and extension of the UK Government’s Energy Profits Levy, by the previous and current UK administrations, has had a damaging effect on North Sea investment, including on the transition; believes that a just transition must support workers and that the transition to net zero must deliver tangible benefits for consumers, communities and the wider economy; argues that the voice of communities must be heard in this process; condemns the anti-climate rhetoric of the Conservative Party, which ignores the reality of the impacts of climate change, and calls on the UK Government to fully fund and support the Acorn/Scottish Cluster carbon capture project and demonstrate that, unlike the previous UK administration, it supports this vital scheme for jobs in Grangemouth and the north east of Scotland.”
16:48
Although I do not agree with some of the rhetoric of Douglas Lumsden’s characteristic contribution, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the future of the oil and gas industry in Scotland.
In the few short minutes that I have, I will start by stressing the importance of the industry. The energy transition is Scotland’s defining economic and industrial policy challenge of our time. Since my election four years ago, it is the issue that has prevailed in discussions both economic and industrial. It is the animating purpose of so many businesses across Scotland and of employers, workers and trade unions across the north-east and beyond.
The energy sector is vital to the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of constituents—not just oil and gas workers, but those in the surrounding economy and all who depend on it. In truth, the issue has to be the animating question the length and breadth of this country. It is not just the economies of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire that hinge on our energy sector; the fiscal framework that was agreed by the Scottish Government means that the fate of Scotland’s energy sector, which underpins the median wage in Scotland, is an integral part of the calculations around the budget that we receive from the UK. The money that comes through that fiscal framework means that we are able to pay for nurses in Coatbridge, teachers in Orkney, refuse workers in Glasgow, police officers in Arbroath and social workers in Ayrshire, and those wages matter to the whole country. The energy sector is a pivotal part of our economy and our fiscal infrastructure.
For those reasons, we cannot afford Governments that are found wanting and politicians who abdicate responsibility and then, when the electorate gets rid of them, as it did the Tories last year, resort to howling at the moon and pretending that the complex challenges of the transition are somehow avoidable if only we shout loudly enough. Despite the rhetoric that we have heard—mostly from Mr Lumsden so far today, and I am sure there will be more to come from those benches, but partly from the SNP—the truth is that the SNP Government and the previous UK Conservative Government, in particular, have failed to seize the moment and have failed workers.
There is plenty of rhetoric, but the Government’s record tells a different story. We all know the rhetoric about Scotland becoming the Saudi Arabia of renewables and that only a fraction of the jobs that were promised were delivered before Scotland’s sea bed was sold off on the cheap, with that money being used to plug the holes due to the Scottish Government’s woeful financial management rather than to invest in the supply chain or the required skills. I see that the minister disagrees, but I say to her that that was part of the three emergency budgets that we have had in the past three years.
The Tories in Opposition are vehemently against the grid infrastructure upgrade that, just 12 months ago, was the UK Government’s policy, brought forward by the Conservatives, who are now howling at the moon.
The SNP and Tory Governments knew for years that the future of Grangemouth oil refinery was at severe risk, but neither party in government did anything about it at all. We have put £200 million in place.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—my time is far too brief.
As Douglas Lumsden rightly pointed out, the SNP has dragged its feet on publishing an energy strategy. The draft strategy was published on 10 January 2023, more than two years ago—that is, three cabinet secretaries and three First Ministers ago. Industry, trade unions and workers desperately need clarity from the SNP Government about what it is trying to achieve.
I agree whole-heartedly with Douglas Lumsden that last week’s news from Harbour Energy is hugely concerning. I spoke to the management this morning about its workforce plans and the support that it can put in place. We also discussed the fast-moving global context surrounding the industry, with oil now trading at $62 a barrel and, according to some analysts’ projections, heading as low as $50 a barrel.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I do not have time.
We must ensure that the fiscal regime for the UK continental shelf sustains continued employment, profits and tax revenue. I will discuss those issues with UK Government colleagues over the coming days. Treasury minister James Murray chairs the North Sea fiscal forum, which was established by Labour in Opposition and was continued when we came into Government. He knows the challenges and tensions that exist, but he also knows the base imperatives about which the Scottish Labour MPs have left him in absolutely no doubt. We have to make sure that we have a fiscal regime that works.
I move amendment S6M-17525.1, to leave out from first “condemns” to end and insert:
“recognises the UK Government’s commitment to a sustainable long-term energy mix, including increased renewable sources, new modern nuclear generation as well as continued oil and gas production for decades to come; notes the loss of jobs at Grangemouth and recently announced job losses at Harbour Energy, which re-emphasise the need for a just transition plan including the immediate publication of the long-delayed Scottish energy strategy; commends the creation of Great British Energy as a publicly owned energy generation company, headquartered in Aberdeen, which will help to deliver energy security, build supply chains, create thousands of jobs across the country and reduce energy bills over the long term; welcomes the £200 million of funding committed to the Grangemouth transition as part of a clean energy future to power Scotland’s economy and communities, and calls on the Scottish National Party administration to drop its ideological opposition to nuclear power.”
16:53
When this Parliament passed its first piece of climate legislation, the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, I warned that we had consensus on the destination but not on the actions that were necessary, and I have continued to say that. However, in recent months, it has become increasingly clear that the Conservative Party has detached itself even from that consensus on the destination.
The 2045 target was set a little more than five years ago, and the final Tory speaker in the debate in which Parliament agreed that target said:
“The Committee on Climate Change outlined how Scotland can go faster and further in achieving net zero emissions. I support the principle that we need to go further and faster, for the good of both the economy and the global environment”.
Further, he closed that debate with these words:
“we are confident that it lays the foundations for a climate change plan that will support innovation, create jobs and use technology, as well as addressing the undeniable climate change emergency that we face.”—[Official Report, 25 September 2019; c 103-4.]
It is inconceivable that a member of the Conservative Party would make such a speech now, railing as they do against renewable infrastructure, whether that is transmission infrastructure, storage infrastructure or anything else. Further, it now looks as though the future direction of travel is even worse, with Andrew Bowie, the acting shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, openly describing the IPCC as biased.
Today, the Conservatives say that they want an evidence-based debate. Mr Bowie had no evidence for what he said. In fact, when he said,
“There’s quite a few scientists that say we don’t need to get to net zero by 2050”,
he was, of course, unable to name any. He also said:
“There’s no scientific rationale for choosing 2050 as the point to which we should reach net zero.”
That is utterly at odds with the evidence that the scientific community has provided from around the world.
What do we need in order to reach net zero through a just transition? First, we need political leadership. That means not just backing targets but not blocking the actions that are necessary. Far too many politicians have voted for targets and then blocked the actions that are necessary, whether on transport, heat, land use or something else.
We need urgency from the Scottish Government. The energy strategy and just transition plan has been delayed for far too long, and it must include a strong presumption against new fossil fuel extraction. There must be urgency when it comes to the new climate plan, too.
For far too long, the 2030 target was slipping out of reach as a result of inaction over the first 15 years of this journey. If the track record of the past 15 years is repeated in the final 20 years of the transition, we will fail; however, we need not fail if we apply the urgency that is needed now.
Finally, and most crucially, we need accountability of the fossil fuel industry, which has made vast profits, including from the North Sea, over many years. It spent decades covering up what it knew about the climate change that it was causing. It then spent decades more funding and seeding climate denial conspiracies around the world. More recently, it has moved to a position of climate delay and is abandoning its workforce. If it had invested a fraction of those vast profits in the transition and in the workforce to which it owes a moral responsibility, the situation would be very different.
The industry has made negligible—
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time.
It has made negligible investment in renewables. The International Energy Agency has stated:
“For the moment the oil and gas industry as a whole is a marginal force in the world’s transition to a clean energy system.”
That was before the industry started to further slash investment in renewables and to double down on fossil fuels.
We must raise the funds necessary, including from the industry, to invest in the just transition that neither Government is yet providing.
16:57
I knew that the debate was going to be an emotional one, but I never thought that Alexander Burnett would start smashing glasses on the floor in response to Patrick Harvie’s commentary. This is darker than I ever thought possible.
We have multiple objectives here, but sometimes we look at the issues in isolation. Today, we are concerned about the jobs in the North Sea; on other occasions, we look at energy bills or at energy security; and, on other occasions, we look at climate change. Rarely do we have a proper comprehensive discussion about all of those issues at once. I accept that some do that, but we, in the Parliament, are buffeted. Investors, campaigners and people who are responsible for trying to turn back the tide on climate change get inconsistent messages from this place.
I remember that, during the 2021 elections, we were debating energy. At the time, all parties agreed that it was about cutting demand rather than about dealing with the supply—apart from Patrick Harvie, I have to say, who was in favour of dealing with the supply as well. It was about trying to deal with domestic energy use, and there was also a real focus on transportation. It then flipped and we dealt with energy bills. Ukraine came along and we had another set of priorities. We must be a bit more consistent in the Parliament and ensure that the outside world understands our direction of travel. Too often, I am afraid, we are buffeted, and that needs to change.
Do you think that the energy strategy would help to clarify where we are going as a country?
Through the chair.
It would, as would a bit of consistency from the Conservative Party. I sometimes get the impression that the debate is more about trying to save the future of the Conservative Party than it is about the North Sea. I am afraid that that happens too often.
We need to understand that we are trying to get a comprehensive strategy that works. I would like, for instance, Home Energy Scotland to improve its act and get the grants out the door much more quickly for those installers who are desperate to put heat pumps in place.
I would love to have had a future of agricultural support mechanism in place to help farmers to reduce their climate change emissions on farms, but it took years to get that into place. I am afraid that it was one of the rare occasions when Mike Rumbles was right—we should have had that in place a long time ago.
We need to get more people on to public transport, but it takes years to get any strategy that is consistent and that works over time.
On renewables, we need to make the consenting process much more swift and ensure that we have the infrastructure, including housing, in place to house the workers. We also need to improve the supply chain.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have only four minutes.
We need to make sure that the supply chain is there in Scotland. Some of it is working, but, in places such as BiFab, we have failed miserably.
We implemented an offshore wind skills programme through the budget process, but why has that skills programme not been in place for years? We have known that this was coming for a long time, so why is everything so reactive and so delayed? We need to focus on delivery rather than all the rhetoric about the North Sea.
I do not know how many times we have had this debate, in which we say the same things over and over again. We need consistency of message as well as consistency of, and early action on, delivery. We also need to stick with the plan, ensuring that it is done and that it has the funding to make it happen. Otherwise, people out there will be utterly confused about what this Parliament is saying.
We move to the open debate.
17:01
We need to cut through the misdirection and misinformation that lies at the heart of the Government amendment and the minister’s remarks today. The minister, rightly, lambasted the Labour Government for its short-sighted and ignorant hiking of the windfall tax. In yesterday’s P&J, she called for it to be scrapped, not least, she said, because it is “shaking business confidence”. However, no one in the north-east will forget that the most enthusiastic supporters of the windfall tax were the SNP.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will come back to the minister.
Nicola Sturgeon said in September 2022 that the UK Government should introduce an enhanced windfall profits tax and remove the investment allowance. Humza Yousaf, as First Minister, listened as Harbour Energy’s bosses pleaded with him to help ease the windfall tax before it did catastrophic damage, and were told no.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I will come back to the member after I have made my proposition.
In fact, in a speech a few weeks later, Humza Yousaf said:
“We support a windfall tax”.
By extraordinary coincidence, he was introduced and welcomed to the stage that day by Stephen Flynn MP—he who led a Commons debate in March 2022 demanding extra taxes on companies such as the oil industry, and who recently described the windfall tax as
“the right thing to do”.
The minister does the usual diversion of saying that this situation is about the UK’s licensing regime, but she admitted that people want to know the Scottish Government’s view on the reserved issue of licensing.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will make my proposition and come back.
Of course they do, because the continuing uncertainty caused by the SNP’s draft energy strategy, which was published more than two years ago, still includes a presumption against oil and gas licences. There is little that does more to stifle investment, innovation and entrepreneurship—and, indeed, shake business confidence—than years of uncertainty over Government policy.
However, this Government has no idea what impact the uncertainty that it has created is having. When I asked in January what assessment the Government has made of the impact on investment and activity levels in the North Sea as a result of the presumption against new exploration for oil and gas, the answer was so devoid of detail—other than that it was clear that nothing was happening on that—that I felt the need to formally complain to the Minister for Parliamentary Business.
Finally, before I take an intervention, the minister talked of Acorn and aimed both barrels at the UK Government, but failed to mention that, in 2022, the then energy minister promised £80 million to Acorn, with no conditions, no caveats and no contingencies. However, in a response to Douglas Lumsden in March, the cabinet secretary said:
“The £80 million is for when the Acorn project gets track status, in order to make the early developments to get it off the ground.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2025; c 5.]
I have some wonderful news today: Acorn has been granted track 2 status. However, that was in July 2023. There can be no more blame shifting and no more excuses, minister. It is time to pony up.
I will take the intervention.
Please make it very brief, minister.
I am seeking a little clarification from the member, because it is difficult to recognise his characterisation of the Scottish Government’s position on the EPL, given that we, as a Government, did not oppose the initial levy but opposed its extension. He has gone through quite a few somersaults to try to mischaracterise that position.
That is an extraordinary intervention, given that, when in their role as First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf—who has run from the chamber because he does not want to be drawn on it—and the leader of the SNP in the House of Commons were delighting in the energy profits levy. It is an extraordinary intervention to make.
The UK Labour Government presents a clear and present danger to Scotland’s oil and gas industry, but misdirection, revisionism and spin from the SNP are causing untold damage. The way to protect our oil and gas industry is by taking the steps that are set out in Douglas Lumsden’s motion, and that is why I support it.
17:06
The urgent need to deal with the risks of climate change and the challenges of an uncertain geopolitical and energy security landscape underpin the direction of travel of our energy industry. For more than five decades, Scotland’s oil and gas industry has supported thousands of well-paid and highly skilled jobs, underpinned a significant domestic supply chain and provided more than £400 billion of production taxes for the public purse. The North Sea is, as we know, a mature basin and the transition away from fossil fuels to a different, commercially viable energy mix, through the redeployment of the expertise and skills that are already in the energy sector, is of vital importance to Scotland’s economy and that of the UK.
In my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine, I have already seen many brilliant examples of that transition, where oil and gas businesses are actively seeking and embarking on new opportunities in offshore wind, hydrogen transportation and accelerator programmes that will support start-ups and scale-ups. However, as we know, sentiment in the sector has been taking a knock. The increase in and extension of the UK Government’s energy profits levy by the previous Tory and now Labour UK Governments has damaged North Sea investment, with Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce highlighting that 10,000 North Sea jobs have been lost since the EPL was introduced in 2022. Last week, as we have heard, Harbour Energy, which is the UK’s largest oil and gas producer, confirmed that it would cut 250 jobs in Aberdeen. Scott Barr, Harbour Energy’s UK managing director, said:
“The review is unfortunately necessary to align staffing levels with lower levels of investment, due mainly to the Government’s ongoing punitive fiscal position and a challenging regulatory environment.”
Of course, the Acorn carbon capture and storage project has been the focus of continuous pleas from business leaders, parliamentarians and stakeholders urging the UK Government to provide investment certainty in the upcoming comprehensive spending review. As a recent letter to the UK Government from a host of parliamentarians set out, Acorn could be a major driver of economic activity and growth. It could unlock £7 billion in private investment, create 15,000 new jobs, protect 18,000 existing ones and generate £17.7 billion for the UK economy.
I do not think that we can have a debate about oil and gas without acknowledging the North Sea transition task force’s report, “Securing the Future of the Energy Transition in the North Sea”. Among the many points that it raises is the importance of public bodies, businesses, industry and Governments collectively creating the right conditions to bring investment and entrepreneurship to the North Sea, with the UK Government leading the way—which, at the moment, it is not.
Without glossing over the challenges, there is a great deal to be optimistic about. Scotland is already punching above its weight to support the UK to become a clean energy superpower. Significant work is under way to attract investment, upgrade the grid and revitalise our ports infrastructure.
Despite net zero and the benefits of clean technologies coming under attack, particularly by the Tories, I commend the work by developers, supply chain, Government and communities who are making a strong case for renewables. In my conversations with stakeholders in the renewables space, it has been clear to me that a stable policy environment, unity across the Government and stakeholders, and leadership from the UK Government—rather than the damaging decisions that we are currently seeing—will ensure a viable energy sector for Scotland for the future.
17:10
I speak today on behalf of my constituents who rely on the energy sector for their livelihoods. The job losses at Harbour Energy are the tip of the iceberg. Why? Because the SNP and Labour are directly harming the industry with a presumption against new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and a punitive fiscal environment. Hostile left-wing politicians are presiding over the industrial decline of Scotland’s oil and gas sector.
Russell Borthwick of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce is right: if the SNP Scottish Government and Labour UK Government do not change course, recent lay-offs will be
“just a tiny fraction of what’s to come”.
The so-called just transition risks becoming a jobless transition. It will not be fixed by gimmicks such as Great British Energy. Even its chairman, Juergen Maier, said that it would take 20 years to deliver the 1,000 jobs that have been promised. That is an utter sham.
SNP ministers tout a clean energy future, but they will not even define what “clean” means, scaring off the investment that we need for an affordable transition. The SNP Government ploughed ahead with a ScotWind gold rush, selling off vast swathes of the sea bed on the cheap with no real plan for grid infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks wants to puncture our prime agricultural farmland and rural landscapes with monster pylons up to 230 feet tall, leaving residents feeling betrayed and disenfranchised. Their mental health is already suffering and they are fearing the health impacts, lost livelihoods and plummeting property values from the explosion of that new energy infrastructure. The bottom has dropped out of their world.
Farmers are ringing alarm bells over serious safety concerns about overhead lines and farming machinery.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.
They are, rightly, worried about the loss of agricultural productivity and the impact on their businesses, the health and safety of their animals, the crop yield and overall food security. It is environmental vandalism, and this is just the start. It cannot be the vision of a so-called just transition. To rub salt into the wound, the SNP and Labour have been pushing to muzzle the voices of communities by removing the right to a public inquiry.
Countries such as the Netherlands and Germany are undergrounding cables to great effect and Denmark is developing energy islands to act as an offshore energy base. We undergrounded the pipes in the 1970s—why can we not do it again?
The Scottish Conservatives’ commonsense plans balance the needs of today and those of tomorrow. We recognise that we will need to use our oil and gas for years to come. We know that Scotland’s oil and gas workers and renewables ambitions can go hand in hand. That means scrapping the ban on new oil and gas production and embracing innovation in order to cut emissions while preserving jobs. It also means listening to communities and pursuing alternatives to monster pylons and huge substations.
I urge my SNP and Labour colleagues to see sense before it is too late.
17:14
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. The main area that I wish to raise with colleagues across the Parliament is the future of the Wood Group, which is one of Scotland’s largest and most iconic companies. I am surprised that it has not been the subject of more discussion and debate in the country to date.
Headquartered in Aberdeen, the Wood Group is one of Scotland’s largest companies and the largest legacy of what we achieved as a nation from the 1970s North Sea oil boom. It has now grown to become one of the most diversified global engineering contractors. It is based across 60 countries, employs 35,000 people and has a global headquarters in Aberdeen that employs 4,500 people.
In 2017, the Wood Group acquired Amec Foster Wheeler, which was an American rival, for £2.2 billion. Although the Wood Group had been very successful in recent years, Amec Foster Wheeler’s heavy liabilities unfortunately left it with significant debts and liabilities. The acquisition was initially viewed as being good for the company due to Amec Foster Wheeler’s experience in oil and gas and in environmental and infrastructure projects, but because it had many contracts at fixed prices, profit margins were wiped out as inflation rose.
As a result, the Wood Group has suffered significantly. The reduced revenue and the liabilities from those old contracts have led to significant weaknesses in the company, which has seen its market value plummet, and £1.4 billion of debt facilities will expire next year, meaning that the company’s share price has crashed and it has fallen out of the FTSE 250. That has opened up an asset-stripping takeover opportunity for Sidara—a smaller engineering consultancy that is based in Dubai—which came in last year with a £1.5 billion offer for the company. It has now returned, marking the offer down by 85 per cent to just £242 million for the larger Wood Group.
That takeover would be strategically inept, and the Scottish and UK Governments should take action to support the Wood Group’s board to resist it due to the company’s strategic importance to Scotland and the UK. It is one of the UK’s primary engineering resources for renewables, carbon capture knowledge and North Sea decommissioning. Sidara has a global headquarters in Dubai and a British head office in London. If its takeover happens, there is a very high chance that the Aberdeen headquarters will close down because a second UK base will not be required, and that would mean that shared global functions such as finance, human resources and information technology would be transferred to Dubai.
We have seen all too many examples of the so-called branch plant economy in Scotland. If the Scottish Government is serious about a just transition, it needs to look at options to step in and save the Wood Group. There is a practical way to do that. The Wood Group currently owes around $1.1 billion to lenders and around £800 million in net cash and bank accounts. Its current crisis stems from the need to refinance that borrowing by quarter 4 of 2026. The Government stepping in and offering reassurance to the Wood Group’s core lenders would relieve the pressure on the company and allow it to be better placed to resist the takeover.
The Government would have plenty of options as a result, such as seeking an equity share in the company or even a non-executive director position, and it would allow the company to maintain its strategic headquarters and independence as a Scottish company. In time, the legacy contracts from the acquisition of Amec Foster Wheeler will expire, the company’s share price will recover, it will return to the FTSE 250 and the Government will redeem a significant premium on its investment. It will preserve a strategically important Scottish business in Aberdeen, with a headquarters with around 5,000 people and a global network that will allow Scottish leadership to be sustained in the sector.
It is a no-brainer. I encourage ministers to seriously investigate options and engage with the Scotland Office and UK Government colleagues to pursue the opportunity before it is too late.
17:18
I am grateful to speak in this debate on this important issue. I appreciate that it is particularly significant to colleagues who represent the north-east of Scotland. However, as I have said in similar debates such as the one that took place last year, the North Sea oil and gas sector and the wider energy industry are important to all of Scotland, including my constituency, where the port of Leith services many different shipping vessels that work in the industry and are at the forefront of the just transition to renewables. In addition, many of those in our service industries, such as in legal, consulting and planning, are based in the central belt but work in the North Sea.
The sector is therefore important to all of us, as is the transition. That is symbolised by the All-Energy conference, which is taking place today and tomorrow. I remember going to the conference in Aberdeen when I worked in different roles in the private sector, and it was a great experience. It is a really important event that brings people from across Europe to our country to continue to develop our energy sector, including the oil and gas sector, and the just transition.
The fact that the conference has moved to Glasgow is symbolic of the fact that this is now a wider issue than just what happens in the north-east. However, I hope that those who are in Glasgow today are too busy to be watching this debate, because of the way that we have gone about discussing this very serious issue—which, according to the latest figures, involves about 12 per cent of our gross domestic product and £25 billion of our gross value added. We could do more than have a party-political knockabout when it comes to this issue.
To take the politics out of it, does the member support my call for an emergency summit at which Governments and trade unions could get together to look at what is happening in the oil and gas industry and try to do something about it?
The need to respond, particularly when there are job losses, and to see what can be done is absolutely something to consider. It would be appropriate for the Government to respond to that point.
Will the member take an intervention?
I ask the minister to use his own speaking time, as I have a few more things to say.
That was a very constructive intervention from the member. I wish that he had been as constructive in his opening remarks and in the way that he spoke yesterday.
I welcome the fact that the motion includes reserved issues and calls for a Scottish Government strategy. Those things go against points that have been made on the Conservatives’ side of the chamber in previous debates, so I look forward to the party welcoming discussion on reserved issues in this Parliament where that is appropriate, and welcoming Scottish Government strategy documents when they are necessary and will make a difference.
Remarks were made that only one party is standing up for the Scottish oil and gas sector or the north-east of Scotland. That is simply not true, as has been evidenced by other contributions that were made today, and it does not help us. There has also been a sense from the Conservative party that it has not had any involvement in the issue. I know that it has not been in power in Scotland since 1955, but it was in power across the UK for many years until last year, so it should take responsibility for its role, too.
A lot more could be said about this important issue. The reality is that we face a declining basin in the North Sea. The challenge for us all is how to support those who are transitioning to new roles and to identify the areas of growth for their skills to be utilised to great effect—for example, in the port of Leith, where I held a round-table meeting on skills the other day. There are good opportunities, these are serious issues and this is a really important aspect of our economy and our country, so let us be constructive and solution focused in moving forward to support those people for the benefit of our country and us all.
We move to closing speeches.
17:23
I genuinely hope that those in the Conservative Party who want their party to continue to show leadership on climate action—they are out there somewhere—are able, at some point, to take back control of their party, if I can borrow that phrase. It is very clear that, under its current leadership in Scotland and the UK, the party is abandoning its commitment to net zero, whether that is by 2045 or 2050. The Scottish and UK party leaders have said so, and they have said nothing about what the alternative target date should be.
As for the rest of the political spectrum, I hope that, when we see the advice from the Climate Change Committee on the new carbon budgets—I think that the Government has already seen it, but in looking at the minister, I see that that is not the case, so I hope that when we all see the advice and the response to it, we will all reject the kind of anti-climate rhetoric that we are hearing far too much. Just as is the case with other parts of the far right’s rhetoric, copying it and aping it will do nothing to defeat it, so we should not do what the Conservatives are doing by copying Reform on the issue.
In my opening speech, I used so much of my time pouring scorn on the Conservative position that I forgot to pour any on the two amendments. In the Government’s amendment, the SNP is correct to call out the Tories’ anti-climate rhetoric and to highlight the impact on employment, including in Grangemouth. However, it fails to acknowledge that the unjust transition that we are seeing is the result of choices that have been made by an industry and by private sector interests that have extracted vast profits over many years, are now abandoning that industry’s workers and are not being held to account by the Scottish Government or the UK Government. The idea that the best response now is a massive tax cut for the fossil fuel profiteers that have caused that crisis simply beggars belief.
The Labour amendment comes from a political party that is still equivocating on the future of the unlawfully granted licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw—indeed, it has not told us whether it will finally kill off the projects that the previous Government unlawfully granted approval for. Moreover, Labour is continuing its obsession with nuclear. Even before considering the issues of nuclear safety or waste, nuclear is wildly expensive and slow to build—it cannot and will not help with the Labour Government’s goal of decarbonising electricity by 2030, as it is simply too slow to do that.
More to the point, Scotland does not need nuclear. More generating capacity is not our challenge. Our challenge is in grid infrastructure, storage, interconnection and, for consumers, in the artificially high price that people are forced to pay for renewable electricity, which is cheap to produce but expensive to consume, as well as in other barriers to the uptake of electricity to displace fossil fuels from heat and transport.
I draw members’ attention to the paper that Oil Change International produced, which sets out clear measures about how the UK Government could
“raise over £6 billion a year”
to fund
“a just transition.”
The measures include taking money from the fossil fuel profiteers, converting the temporary energy profits levy into a permanent, predictable and fair tax on the big oil industry—that would generate at least £2 billion annually—as well as closing tax loopholes that benefit those who do not need it and stopping funding fossil fuels. Advocates often claim that it is renewables that need subsidy, but the fossil fuel industry is getting producer subsidies on a vast scale of much more than £2 billion a year. That money should be redirected from the causing of the problem to the solution.
I implore the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work together on a package that will genuinely redirect the funds from those who profited from causing the crisis to funding the just transition.
17:27
I associate myself with the remarks that called for some mark of realism, including Ben Macpherson’s fine speech and Willie Rennie’s contribution about the need for some kind of clarity, consistency and a real plan to govern in a challenging time. The volatile external international economic environment in which the oil price is fluctuating and dropping quite significantly is creating significant challenges for our most vital oil and gas industry in the north-east—and, as I set out in my opening speech, for the whole country. Issues of demand and supply, problems of tariffs and industrial policy globally are creating significant headwinds.
On that basis, I agree with colleagues’ calls to ensure that we get the almost mythical energy strategy to come forward from the Scottish Government. We need to have a trend and an understandable direction of travel from the Government, for people to know where they can invest and where they will have security in doing so. It would be welcome if, in his closing remarks, the minister gave us a date for that strategy.
Governing an energy transition is incredibly difficult, and we must all recognise that challenge. Not only is it challenging to govern a change on such a fundamental issue of policy, but it requires significant investment. I therefore do not think that it is reasonable for the Conservative Party to set out, publish and get right behind plans for infrastructure across the north-east only to then make a complete volte face and take an opposite approach, which is what came out in some of the speeches and what the previous UK Government did when it was in charge just over a year ago. I have sat in the living rooms of people across the north-east who are entirely worried about the situation and, although members are right to identify the matter, it is not well served by flip-flopping to take an opposing position.
Whether ministers accept it or not, some of the critique of the SNP’s position on the energy profits levy is well founded—talk about flip-flopping. The SNP did not oppose it, then it actively supported it and now it does not support it and wants to get rid of it entirely. That is not a credible position.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not take any interventions—I am afraid that I have a lot to get through. I am sorry.
We must also recognise that the EPL makes a significant contribution to the UK’s coffers. That is part of the reason why we were able to give an extra £5.2 billion to the Scottish Government, which was the largest-ever uplift in the Scottish Government’s budget, and it was delivered by the UK Labour Government. I will add the demand to scrap the EPL to the £70 billion of spending demands that the SNP made ahead of the UK budget and its opposition to £45 billion of revenue raisers, which would be a fiscal adjustment of £115 billion. Ministers should remember that Liz Truss crashed the economy on a fraction of that amount.
Returning to some kind of sanity, Paul Sweeney gave us a practical example of how a sound industrial policy could be pursued. It would be welcome if the minister either found time in his closing remarks to cover Paul Sweeney’s eminently sensible proposal or wrote to him to cover the engagement that the Government has had with the John Wood Group about a concerning set of developments.
We need to have a balanced energy mix in this country, and oil and gas will be part of that for decades to come. That energy mix includes nuclear power, which is a long-term position that we must take, and I oppose Patrick Harvie’s view on that. Renewables infrastructure is vital, too, but we have to look at what happened in Spain in recent days, when the volatility and frequency of the national grid led to blackouts.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you, sir—I am just concluding.
We must ensure that there is a solid and predictable base load that can be used in the energy infrastructure—the absence of that was the principal reason why Spain’s grid fell over. We must also ensure that there is a sustainable energy mix that is not reliant on just one source and which includes oil and gas, renewables and nuclear.
17:31
This has been a brief but spirited debate. I acknowledge the many considered speeches, but I must begin by addressing some of the claims that were made in the Conservative motion. There are basic facts that should frame any evidence-based debate on North Sea oil and gas—I believe that we are still living in days in which evidence-based debate is possible.
Before I move on to the wider issues that have been raised by the Conservative motion, I will pick up on an important point that Ben Macpherson made. He talked about the real economic and human impact of the Harbour Energy decision and, in particular, about whether the Scottish and UK Governments could do anything together. I am happy to confirm that the First Minister has responded in very positive terms to the suggestion from Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce that there should be a summit involving the Prime Minister and the First Minister. I hope that that can progress.
The North Sea basin is now geologically mature, and production is affected by that. As many members have said, the challenge and the opportunity are to ensure a just transition for the companies and individuals that are involved in the sector, particularly in the north-east, so that they will continue to play a role in our energy future, as well as helping individuals here and now.
I am listening carefully to the minister. If a transition is so important to the Government, why is the energy transition skills hub not receiving any Government funding to support school leavers and the economically inactive to retrain in green jobs?
There have been many interventions from the Scottish Government—indeed, sometimes with the UK Government—such as the skills passport and the on-going explanation to school leavers about the many opportunities that exist in the renewables sector. Many positive things are happening on all those fronts. The Scottish Government is committed to doing all that it can within its devolved powers to support the transition to which the member refers.
However, as members know, decisions on offshore oil and gas licensing, consenting and the associated fiscal regime are all currently reserved to the UK Government. Therefore, we continue to call on the UK Government to approach its decisions on North Sea oil and gas projects on an evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations.
To return to the Conservative motion, there is an implication that we in Scotland—or, perhaps, globally—should not be aiming that hard for net zero. However, the clear scientific evidence is that we must do so. The alternatives are fairly unthinkable for the generation that comes after us.
I remind the Parliament of its long-standing consensus around the 2045 net zero target, which was confirmed as recently as the passing of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024.
The minister is right that we must continue the commitment to transition. Surely, however, the evidence tells us not just that we must maintain that course but that we are years behind schedule on where we must be—which means that we have to accelerate action, not merely continue on course.
There is plenty that we must do. I could talk today about the work that needs to be done. I know that a subject close to Patrick Harvie’s heart is the decarbonisation of buildings, which is one of the many things that we are looking at. He is right that we have to make sure that we reach those targets. As I said, there is an implication in the Conservative motion that that is not too important.
I do not think that members across parties will agree on the points that Patrick Harvie made about energy, but I am as strongly of the view as he is that new nuclear power would be hugely expensive and would take years to become operational, without our even looking at the environmental issues that would be involved.
Between 1990 and 2022, Scotland’s economy grew by two thirds while our carbon emissions halved. We are changing how we produce electricity. We are involving communities in decisions and working in partnership with other nations on shared challenges such as climate change.
Willie Rennie made an interesting and important point about the importance of a holistic approach. We recognise the need to do much more—in particular, to ensure that communities feel the benefits of the transition of which we all speak. As the cabinet secretary said in opening, we have called on the UK Government to act on a much wider mandatory community benefit, for instance, and we have called for further action to address fuel poverty.
The Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to a just energy transition. I ask members to support that aim today by supporting the Government amendment.
17:37
It was welcome news indeed from Dr Alasdair Allan that there will be a summit. However, it seems like a very closed affair if it is to be between only the First Minister and the Prime Minister. I remind the minister that what has been called for by the Conservatives in the debate is a summit attended by not just Governments but local authorities, trade organisations, trade unions, third sector organisations, chambers of commerce, development boards and even GB Energy. Is that on offer as a result of our debate?
I cannot say what is in the Prime Minister’s mind on that. I have indicated that the First Minister is open to a summit and has said so to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce. I hope that the Prime Minister is similarly open to the idea. I have no idea of the guest list.
The situation is very urgent. It would be good to have some information as soon as possible about when the summit will be held and who will be invited to attend it. Critically, we need to know a timetable. It is very urgent. That has been the tone of the Conservative speeches in the debate—that this is an urgent situation that is unravelling in front of us.
I have news for Patrick Harvie: net zero is still part of our aspiration, but it must be pursued with a credible plan, with public support and with our economy and energy security intact. What we currently hear in the chamber—most notably from the fringe Scottish Greens—is ideology consistently trumping common sense. I speak as a Central Scotland MSP. Often, we are witnessing a muddled dash towards arbitrary deadlines without any serious consideration of cost.
I was grateful for the passion with which my colleague Douglas Lumsden addressed the issue. He reflected the concerns and interests of his constituents in bringing the motion to the chamber on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
There was some discussion from Ben Macpherson about the nature of the debate. I agree with him—I often do. It is difficult to have a full debate on the subject in Opposition time. A challenge to the minister—with the support of Ben Macpherson, I hope—is to schedule a proper, full-scale debate on the issue during Government time instead of leaving it to the Scottish Conservatives to use our Opposition time for such debates, as we did for the previous debate.
Let us not forget that, for all the talk of net zero and all the theorising, this is a multi-trillion-pound national undertaking that was compressed into 90 minutes of parliamentary time in the House of Commons in 2019. That was the first time that the target was set. There was no vote, no economic impact assessment and no serious scrutiny, and there is still no plan. I was one of three members of Parliament that day who raised concerns about the implications of such an arbitrary deadline—and it is still arbitrary in my view. We are in the absurd position that the true cost of one of the headline parts of that law—retrofitting every home with a heat pump—is unknown and unknowable. The cost of making public buildings compliant with net zero is often higher than the value of the buildings themselves.
People know that the reductions that we achieve in Scotland—which have been referred to several times during the debate—are being swamped by the increasing level of emissions that are being pumped out by countries such as China and India. The working people of Scotland are left feeling that our politicians have lost all sense of perspective.
Let me refer specifically to some of the speeches that have been given today.
It was incredible to hear that, all these years later, the SNP minister could not give the chamber any indication of when an energy strategy will be published. The consultation closed two years ago this very month, I think. Will she intervene now and tell us when the Scottish Government’s energy policy will be announced, or has she not got Stephen Flynn’s permission to publish the energy strategy? I am happy to give way, but she has nothing to say, because—as usual—the SNP is incoherent on that subject.
Almost as incoherent as the SNP is Scottish Labour. How amazing was it that Michael Marra got through two speeches during the debate and did not mention EPL once? He certainly did not mention employer national insurance contributions, Labour’s tax on jobs that—from the mouth of industry itself—has led directly to the 250 job losses at Harbour Energy. The reality is that Labour is in a muddle as well, and it is no wonder with Ed Miliband, the ultimate zealot, in charge of the policy. He will achieve his objectives at all costs—he is on the record as having said pretty much that.
Our economy is becoming less competitive and our energy more expensive. We should be honest with each other and with the public: the truth of the matter is that our emissions are being offshored to countries with lower standards and higher pollution levels. Why are we importing fossil fuels from regimes with appalling environmental records when we have domestic resources in the North Sea that have been developed with world-leading environmental standards?
The reason why that is happening and why we are in this guddle is that the Labour Government is peddling fantasies, and one of the biggest fantasies that it is peddling is GB Energy. Even now, professionals in the energy sector have absolutely no idea what that is about. It is a slogan. It is not a plan but a glossy political gimmick.
I am being told to wind up by the Presiding Officer, much to the chagrin of my colleagues, I am sure, who are probably enjoying my speech.
You must conclude, Mr Kerr.
Net zero can be delivered only through a clear-eyed, costed and pro-growth approach. That is the change that Scotland needs, and it is what the Scottish Conservatives will keep fighting for.
That concludes the debate on protecting Scotland’s oil and gas industry.
Previous
Additional Support for LearningNext
Urgent Question