Official Report 440KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20820, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on a joint transition fund for Mossmorran. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.
16:01
ExxonMobil’s Fife ethylene plant closed on 2 February. Some of the skilled workforce have already left Scotland; others, with the support of their unions and the partnership action for continuing employment initiative, are trying to make sense of their future options.
Fife communities already bear deep scars of unmanaged industrial decline. They have been here before, when the Tories shut the coal mines. Despite the operation of Mossmorran for 20 years longer than its original lifespan, there has been no proactive planning for transition or reinvestment. That is a reckless, head-in-the-sand approach. As the Just Transition Commission has stated, what we are seeing at Mossmorran is
“another major disorderly and unjust industrial closure”
in Scotland.
When I met ExxonMobil executives in 2022 to discuss my report on a just transition plan, they were bullish. They told me that, even if North Sea gas production were to decline, that would not worry them, because they could always import ethane feedstock to keep Mossmorran open. Four years on from that meeting, the announcement to close was sudden and brutal. Contractor workers were simply locked out of their workplace on the same day.
Although ExxonMobil tries to blame high taxation, it paid out some $37 billion to shareholders in 2025. Let us be clear: it is cutting and running from Fife, earlier than planned, with—so far—no industrial legacy for communities and workers who deserve so much better.
What does Mark Ruskell think changed between his discussions in 2022 and the subsequent decision? What he has encountered from ExxonMobil is a genuinely curious set of affairs.
What was needed was to bring the stakeholders and operators together to look at the future. The report that I issued in 2022 laid out four clear options for investment in the plant, which could have given it a life. It did not have to close. There were options. Both Governments needed to come together and work to deliver a plan. We knew that the threat of closure was coming. For years, the Greens called on both Governments to prepare for that future, but no work was undertaken. Responses to freedom of information requests revealed that the Scottish Government has not undertaken any work to develop a just transition plan for Mossmorran, despite committing to delivering that work in April 2024. Although the UK Government was in touch with ExxonMobil from April last year about threats to the site, nothing was ready for delivery when the site finally closed.
Over past years, in the absence of a site-specific plan, I have commissioned research. I have held summits with Unite the Union, the GMB, Fife Council, the Scottish Government, Fife College and others to plan for the future. Both plant operators declined to attend. Only after the closure announcement were formal, Government-led task forces hurriedly convened.
The £9 million, three-year funding package that has been promised by the Scottish Government is warmly welcomed, but it is not enough to support a proper just transition. A commitment from ExxonMobil is needed to deliver a real legacy. Funding from the United Kingdom Government is also needed, and that funding needs to hit the ground running. I will listen carefully to the Deputy First Minister’s speech for detail about when the funding streams will be open, what conditions she will place on funding recipients and how that money will directly support individual workers and the wider communities.
Although the Prime Minister stated that workers at the Fife plant were going through a hard time, we still do not have any targeted funding package from the UK Minister for Industry, Chris McDonald. There has been ample time to come forward with an initial package. A first step is needed—not a cap on the UK Government’s funding but a contribution to what is needed right now in communities.
Hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested into Grangemouth by the UK Government. The workers and communities at Mossmorran deserve a similar commitment. As a minimum, the UK Government needs to step up and at least match the £9 million that has been committed by the Scottish Government at this very early stage. The ExxonMobil site has closed and no targeted funding for a just transition is available or in place. The cycle of too little, too late must stop. A proper legacy must be built now.
Over the decades, the community has made huge sacrifices. The disruption caused by flaring caused misery for decades. Sleep was impossible at times, houses shook with vibration and community councils even campaigned for rates reduction as compensation in the 1980s. It is therefore right that the community should shape the legacy alongside the generations of workers who served at the site. The legacy should be a complete reset for the Mossmorran site and an opportunity for the communities to help to choose their own future.
With an excellent grid connection and water supply, Mossmorran could have a fresh industrial future. The Grangemouth task force drew up dozens of potential industrial projects, some of which might be more suitable for Mossmorran, but communities need to be able to steer their future. Simply replacing ExxonMobil with A N Other could miss the opportunity for community investment.
We have seen the power of local community enterprise. The Ore Valley Housing Association’s wind turbine delivers big investment for social housing and local charities. Options for genuine community wealth building must be built into the master plan for the site; the days of accepting crumbs off the table have passed.
The skills legacy must also be real. Fife’s industrial future looks bright. The ingredients are all there, from Rosyth to Methil. There needs to be an industrial strategy for Fife that links opportunities from schools right through to colleges, apprenticeships and universities. A training excellence centre could form part of that legacy. It is time for ExxonMobil to step up, with the UK Government and the Scottish Government, and work with the colleges, unions and Fife Council to deliver that.
I also want to mention the elephant in the room—Shell—whose neighbouring plant was linked to the ethylene plant, providing much of its feedstock. The boat was missed to put in place a just transition plan for the ethylene plant and the natural gas liquids plant, but it is not too late to consider how Shell’s plant could survive into the future with investment to decarbonise.
Given the increasing vulnerability of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project, with Mossmorran and the Grangemouth refinery now out of the Acorn business plan, the Scottish Government needs to lead a conversation urgently if it still believes that CCS has a future.
The Scottish Greens have worked with the unions and communities for years to address the problems at Mossmorran and to map out what a future for the site looks like. Now that ExxonMobil has pulled the plug, it is time for both Governments to step up, work together, open up funding streams and build confidence for workers and communities now that Fife has a strong future.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the UK Government and Scottish Government must urgently deliver targeted just transition funding for workers and communities following the early closure of the ExxonMobil Fife Ethylene Plant at Mossmorran.
16:08
ExxonMobil’s earlier than expected closure of the Fife ethylene plant remains a matter of deep disappointment. My thoughts remain with the workers who are directly affected by the decision.
Members will appreciate that the Government’s focus since the announcement was made has been firmly on ensuring that existing workers have a secure and prosperous future. We activated our partnership action for continuing employment, which provides bespoke skills development and employability support to those who face redundancy. We have also been engaging extensively with key stakeholders—in particular, union and workforce representatives—since the closure announcement, to ensure that targeted support is in place to mitigate the worst impact of the site closure.
In addition, Scottish Enterprise is engaging with the company to understand the land and the site’s current status, and is assessing any early interest from investors who may be able to deploy new projects at Mossmorran. That work is at an early stage, but it has moved at rapid pace. I am optimistic that we will see new industry at the Mossmorran site.
The motion calls on the Scottish and UK Governments to provide funding to support a just transition for the Fife ethylene plant workforce. I whole-heartedly endorse the sentiment that lies behind the motion. Members will be aware that the Scottish budget, which received cross-party support, commits to delivering a £9 million, three-year package of support to mitigate the impact of the plant’s closures. That includes £3 million in the next financial year to provide support to the workforce, and a further £3 million in the following year, 2027-28, and the third year, 2028-29, as we work to secure a sustainable future for the site.
However, I am very pleased to announce today that the Scottish Government will go further by accelerating the deployment of funding to mobilise a more immediate skills intervention at Mossmorran this month. We believe that Fife College, as the local skills provider, is best placed to deliver that support, and it will begin work to commence targeted training needs and analysis for the first tranche of redundant workers in the coming days and weeks. That critical first step will provide immediate support to eligible workers, while also informing what training provision can be put in place to support worker transition, as we continue to assess how best to deploy the committed funding next year and in subsequent years.
I also confirm that my officials are working collaboratively with ExxonMobil to understand how the Scottish Government can supplement its funding provision in the next financial year.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for making that announcement. That will be welcomed by the workers. Has there been any conversation with Chris McDonald and the UK Government about what they might bring in alongside that to support communities and the workers?
There are two forums where those conversations happen. The task force is meeting again in the next weeks, and Richard Lochhead attended the last one, with Chris McDonald, I believe, and made the case for additional funding. Secondly, I have also made the case, alongside the Secretary of State for Scotland and others, to recognise the value of match funding—at the very least, the £9 million—because it will go further.
I know that other members in the chamber will share my desire for further funding to be provided by the UK Government. The UK Government will point out that its funding support to Ineos O&P at Grangemouth mandates that redundant Mossmorran workers be prioritised for new roles advertised by the business. However, that mandate support does not offer much comfort to those who require financial support right now, so we call on UK ministers to urgently consider how to match the £9 million that is being provided by this Government over the next three years, and to match the funding that I have announced today to support the workers and to secure a prosperous future for the community.
Our amendment recognises the announcement that I am making about accelerating funding to Mossmorran immediately this month, as well as the funding that is committed over the next three years and the need for the UK Government to join us, as it has done in relation to Grangemouth, in matching our funding, and maximising the support to Mossmorran workers.
I pay tribute again to the ExxonMobil and contractor workforce, who have made such a vital contribution to the Scottish economy and to whom we owe our support. I will continue engaging with all relevant stakeholders, partners and cross-party MSPs to shape how we deploy our significant funding support, with a view to securing the best possible future for the site and for the workforce.
It is not too late for the UK Government to join us and match the Scottish Government’s support. I am more than happy, after listening to the debate, to respond to any specific questions in my closing remarks.
I move amendment S6M-20820.3, to leave out from “and Scottish Government” to “deliver” and insert:
“must match the Scottish Government’s support by urgently delivering”.
16:14
I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. It is a welcome opportunity to highlight the on-going crisis at Mossmorran, which will impact not only the area but the wider Fife economy and Scotland as a whole.
The closure of Mossmorran will mean the loss of as many as 400 jobs, affecting many people from neighbouring communities across the Mid Scotland and Fife region, which I represent. Many of those are highly skilled jobs that are vitally important to Scotland’s manufacturing industry.
As my amendment highlights, Mossmorran’s closure was not only avoidable; it was the direct result of the left-wing consensus across this Parliament and the failure to support Scotland’s oil and gas sector. The Scottish National Party Government has for many years been at the heart of that left-wing consensus. That is clear from its draft energy strategy and its just transition plan, which include a presumption against the extension of oil and gas development. Scots should not be fooled by claims that the SNP is softening its position on oil and gas. If the Government really wanted to support the sector, it could prove that by finalising its energy strategy.
Scottish Conservative members have called countless times for the strategy to be published, but it is still a mystery and we do not have it. The SNP has failed to deliver the just transition plan for Mossmorran that had been promised. Even by November last year, when Exxon confirmed the site’s closure, with more than 400 jobs at risk, we were still waiting for that plan.
However, the UK Government has also played its part in damaging the oil and gas sector, and it has to take some responsibility for its deeds and actions. Exxon has blamed the UK Government’s windfall tax for the decline of Mossmorran and has spoken about
“the challenges of … a policy environment that is accelerating the exit of vital industries, domestic manufacturing, and the high-value jobs they provide.”
Those are all at risk because of the UK Government’s deeds and actions.
Of course, there have been no stronger cheerleaders for the demise of the oil and gas industry than Scottish Green Party members. For years, they were vocal campaigners for the closure of Mossmorran, and they even described it as a “fossil fuel relic” in the community.
Although we cannot disagree with the wording of the motion that the Greens have lodged, it is rather confusing to say the least. Given the widespread hostility towards the industry across this Parliament, however, it is hardly surprising that more than 13,000 jobs in the oil and gas sector have been lost in the space of just a year.
The member points to my record of calling for a just transition plan for Mossmorran for years. Can he point to a single thing that he, or any of his three other Tory colleagues who cover Fife, has ever done to support the community and the workers at Mossmorran?
I can assure the member that, in the 10 years that I have been in this job in this building, I have attended many events at Mossmorran—
You got your picture taken for your newsletter.
I was there, supporting the community. You are well aware of that, Mr Ruskell, because I was there many times, at many of those meetings—
Always through the chair.
As it stands, this is not a just transition—it is a cliff edge. What we have heard from the Greens this afternoon is predictable. Last year’s announcement that Mossmorran was to close was an important reminder of how bad Government policy can change the lives of communities across Scotland.
The Scottish and UK Governments require to support those communities and should be looking at securing the Rosebank oil and gas field, because that is vitally important. The Scottish Government’s deeds and actions have been detrimental and continue to fail the community, the sector and Scotland.
I move amendment S6M-20820.1, to insert at end:
“; notes that ExxonMobil has blamed the UK Labour administration’s windfall tax for accelerating the decline of Mossmorran; expresses disappointment that the left-wing ‘Holyrood’ consensus, in its opposition to oil and gas, has resulted in tens of thousands of job losses; highlights that the Scottish Green Party previously campaigned for Mossmorran to be closed; calls on the Scottish Government to publish its energy strategy, and further calls on the UK Government to support Rosebank oil and gas field, which could generate billions of pounds’ worth of investment and support jobs in the oil and gas supply chain.”
16:18
I will come to Alexander Stewart’s scripted put-downs and confected ire in a moment, but first I congratulate Mark Ruskell on bringing this important debate to the chamber. The title of the motion is right—this is about a just transition for Mossmorran—but there are multiple layers to what we need to discuss today.
First and foremost, we need to ensure that there is a just transition for the 400 workers who are impacted by the decision. We must be in the mode of looking at all the practical solutions, so I welcome what the Scottish Government has brought forward. I am not in the business today of saying that what the UK Government has done is a full stop and finite; I am absolutely up for discussing what further steps can be taken and for making those representations. However, we need to go further.
Mark Ruskell was absolutely right to express his frustration that this is being framed as a just transition. We cannot continue to adopt a position in which we discover the need to make a just transition after the event—after decisions are made, after disinvestment happens and after jobs are at risk. We must ensure that we have detailed and practical plans ahead of time.
The other point is to do with the nature of Mossmorran. The just transition is not just about the energy sector per se. When we are talking about transition, we must recognise that hydrocarbons have significance beyond energy use. For example, ethylene production here is used for a broad range of products, including dyes, plastics and pharmaceuticals. We must have a plan for how to transition the sector as a whole, including those industrial uses. Between 15 per cent and a third—I have heard that it can be up to 45 per cent—of a barrel of oil can be used for non-energy purposes, and we need a plan for that.
We must take seriously the decision in November 2025 and the closure in February 2026. A task force has been established, which is to be welcomed. It is important that the task force is convened by Fife Council and supported by Fife College. They must sit at its heart, because those organisations have the people on the ground who will deliver the solutions for the workforce. That should be acknowledged.
I want to put on the record what the UK Government has done to date. It engaged with ExxonMobil for more than six months prior to the announcement. It discussed in detail the possibility of plans, but no practical plan was forthcoming. I have to say that it is a source of frustration to hear the dialogue that Mark Ruskell had with ExxonMobil prior to that. Essentially, people were being told that everything was fine, but that was the point at which dialogue should have commenced. That is deeply frustrating, which is why I intervened.
The UK Government has engaged the Department for Work and Pensions rapid response team to support the workforce and, as acknowledged by the Deputy First Minister, it has guaranteed that workers will get interviews at the UK Government-backed hydrocracker at Grangemouth. Those are important practical steps.
We need to recognise the global context in which this is happening. ExxonMobil is closing ethylene plants in France; that cannot be laid at the door of UK policy. Indeed, other firms are closing ethylene plants in other parts of Europe, including in Germany and Belgium. The global context is that there is overproduction and a correction is taking place.
I say to the Conservatives that, frankly, making accusations that this is a left-wing conspiracy does not engage with the issue seriously. At the end of the day, the UK continental shelf is a mature basin. The majority of the extractable resource has been extracted. If we are going to talk seriously, we need to acknowledge that fact, because transition would be a necessity whether net zero was a thing or not. To bandy about reckless language such as that does a disservice to the issue and discredits Conservative members.
I move amendment S6M-20820.2, to insert at end:
“welcomes the convening of a joint taskforce between Fife Council, the UK Government and Scottish Government, trade unions, Fife College, Fife businesses and local community organisations to support the workforce and the wider area, and further welcomes the commitment that workers will be guaranteed interviews at the UK Government-backed Grangemouth cracker; recognises that the taskforce is working on a plan for the site, and considers that this should inform any funding and economic support provided.”
16:23
I live locally and see the Mossmorran flare lighting up the sky regularly. I hear from local people how important the site is and how it provides—this is quite rare—well-paid jobs. I have visited the site on many occasions; I know how the system works and how important it is for the local economy.
I pay tribute to Mark Ruskell for his work over a number of years on the issue of just transition. To his credit, he has engaged with the issue on a serious basis. However, it is difficult—I hope that this is a fair reflection—for the Greens, as they are not perceived as a party that supports investment in the economy or in business. Their rhetoric is often quite damaging, particularly around tax and regulation. Mark Ruskell’s work has done some good in that respect, but we need to hear more from the Green Party about how it intends to bring long‑term economic growth to the country; otherwise, the fury that it rightly expresses on this occasion will be seen as quite hollow.
Too often, debates such as this one end up being a battle about us—between political parties. Employees at such sites get incredibly frustrated when something that should be about them turns into a debate about who is better than whom in the chamber. It should never be about that.
The discussion needs to be focused on what the employees need now and on how we can exploit the opportunity of the site. It is a good site, with good connections. It is well connected to the A92 and has a grid connection. It is quite rare industrial land, as it is in an area that is well populated and has access to good workers and good local education facilities, as well as reasonable access to the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is a good location. We should be shouting from the rooftops about the potential of the site and saying to future investors, “Come here and seek the opportunity that has been presented by the departure of this company.”
In periods of transition, the real danger is about what happens to the people. The people at the site are talented and, if they go away, they will probably find good jobs. Unfortunately, they might not find good jobs locally. How do we keep them in the area so that we can get the transition running smoothly? Alternatively, if they depart for a short period, how do we get them back quickly into the local economy through those rare well-paid jobs? That is the big challenge.
I agree with Daniel Johnson in one respect. When we react in a knee-jerk fashion after the event, that is far too late. We are brilliant at PACE, but we should never be brilliant at PACE providing employment opportunities for people; we should be looking much more at the long-term economic plan. In fact, I would go further than Daniel Johnson—this is not just about Mossmorran; we should look at the Scottish or even the UK economy in that way.
Hear, hear.
We are fighting over the crumbs that come from such events, when we should be looking at a much longer-term plan.
I hear Richard Leonard saying “Hear, hear,” in the background. It automatically makes me nervous when he agrees with me, but he is right, because we need a plan for the longer term, and that means a proper partnership between the UK and Scottish Governments, which I think has been demonstrated today.
I have attended working groups and meetings on the plan for Mossmorran. The fact that those are now led by Fife Council is a good thing, as it is rooted in the community. Fife College, with its new campus in Dunfermline, is also fully engaged in the process. Those are good things, and that is what we should build on, rather than making knee-jerk reactions to individual events when it is far too late.
We move to the open debate, with back-bench speeches of up to four minutes.
16:27
What is happening at Mossmorran is not an isolated industrial event; it is a test of whether Scotland is serious about delivering a just transition. I say that as an MSP for North East Scotland, a region that has powered this country for half a century and that now stands at the sharpest edge of energy transition.
Uplift and others are clear that the closure of the Mossmorran plant follows a familiar and worrying pattern, with record shareholder payouts but no credible plan for workers; reactive mitigation after closure announcements but no proactive industrial strategy; and scrambling to respond instead of shaping outcomes. We saw that at Grangemouth, we are seeing it at Mossmorran, and workers across the north-east are watching.
The truth is that what happens at Mossmorran will shape confidence in the transition across my region. After 50 years of drilling, the most productive days of the North Sea are over. That is not ideology; it is geology. Gas production is in steep decline and the number of jobs that are supported by oil and gas has more than halved in the past decade, yet we still do not have a coherent published energy strategy and just transition plan from the Scottish Government. Workers are being told to trust in a transition that has not been properly planned.
I speak regularly to constituents who are offshore workers, engineers, contractors and apprentices. They are not climate deniers. They know that change is coming; what they fear is chaos, unmanaged decline, falling pay and conditions, and decisions that are made in distant boardrooms. Delaying intervention only deepens the long-term costs through unemployment, skills loss and hollowed-out communities. That is not just economic failure; it is a betrayal of people.
I am proud that the Scottish Greens fought for and secured the £500 million just transition fund for the north-east and Moray, but a fund is not a strategy. Funding those who profit from the status quo will not deliver a just transition. Without binding workforce guarantees, clear timelines and alignment between energy policy, industrial planning and skills investment, we will repeat the same mistakes.
Mossmorran should have had a funded transition framework long before its closure was announced. Workers and unions should have shaped its future, not been forced to react to corporate decisions. When ExxonMobil distributes billions of pounds to shareholders while closing a plant that sustained our industrial economy for decades, that is not a market inevitability but a political choice to protect elite interests. Will the North Sea and the north-east be next?
We cannot drill ourselves out of decline. Even with new licences, reliance on imports will rise, and much of what remains is oil for export. Promising long-term security from a shrinking basin is not solidarity; it is false hope. We cannot allow multinational corporations to dictate the pace and shape of the transition. The opportunity is enormous: research from Robert Gordon University shows that job losses in oil and gas can be exceeded by growth in sectors such as offshore wind if we invest in domestic supply chains and manufacturing. That is the prize, but securing it requires urgency, Governments working in lockstep and genuine community and worker leadership and co-design from the outset.
A just transition for Mossmorran is inseparable from one for the north-east. If Mossmorran becomes another unmanaged collapse, trust in the transition will erode further. If it becomes a turning point away from reactive crisis management towards strategic, worker-led planning, we will send a powerful signal that offshore workers will not be abandoned.
This is about dignity and security. It is about ensuring that climate action strengthens, rather than sacrifices, our communities. The north-east is ready to lead—to be the powerhouse of Scotland’s new economy. However, the Government must act with us, boldly and coherently, now.
16:31
I thank the Green Party for lodging the motion. The SNP amendment states that the UK Government “must match” the funding that has been provided by the Scottish Government.
The early closure of the plant at Mossmorran will have a profound impact on the people of Fife and beyond. It has been a cornerstone of Scotland’s industrial landscape for 40 years. It ceased production on 2 February, and it leaves 180 ExxonMobil employees and nearly 250 contractors facing an uncertain future. The issue is not only jobs; it is about families, livelihoods and entire communities that are built around the site. As members have mentioned, we have been here before.
Mossmorran has produced over 25 million tonnes of ethylene and has contributed significantly to Scotland’s economy, but ExxonMobil’s claims of £1 million weekly losses, high supply costs and a challenging market mean that the plant will be decommissioned by early 2028. However, we cannot ignore the broader context. ExxonMobil is a multibillion-pound-corporation that posted £25 billion in profits last year—its third best performance on record—and I am encouraged by the discussions that the Deputy First Minister is having with the company about the plant’s future.
ExxonMobil’s decision reflects not only market pressures but a UK policy environment that has accelerated the exit of vital industries. As the company stated, the closure highlights challenges in a policy framework that undermines domestic manufacturing and high-value jobs. Where is the UK Government’s response? It has been silent and has failed to step up when Scottish workers need it most. That is why a just transition is not optional but essential. Scotland is committed to reaching net zero by 2045, and we must ensure that no one is left behind as we shift to a green economy.
The Scottish Government has already acted decisively—I am encouraged by what the DFM said about the Government bringing forward some of the £9 million that it is to allocate over the next couple of years. That includes funding for PACE and the task force to aid redundant workers, and the Government continues to invest in the just transition fund. I will touch on that a little bit later, but it is only part of the picture.
Going back to the Scottish Government’s amendment, the UK Government must match the Scottish Government’s commitment. I heard what Daniel Johnson said, but the UK Government needs to back up its words with finance in order to provide the comprehensive support that is required. Anything less is a dereliction of duty to Scottish workers.
Let me be clear: targeted funding means developing retraining programmes that are tailored to the skills of those highly qualified engineers and technicians and redirecting them towards renewables such as offshore wind and hydrogen production. It means investing—that is the key word—in local communities in order to diversify the economy and prevent the decline that we have seen in other industrial heartlands. Unions including Unite have rightly condemned ExxonMobil’s betrayal and the UK Government’s inaction.
The early closure has heightened the urgency. Communities are reeling and will continue to reel. Delays in funding will only exacerbate the pain, so I urge the UK Government to heed the Deputy First Minister’s call and commit to providing matching funds immediately. As I said, I commend the actions that the DFM outlined today.
Keir Starmer promised that Scotland would be at the heart of the Labour Government, but he has done little to support our key industries. People in Scotland will be quite right to ask why the workforces in Mossmorran and Grangemouth did not see the same intervention from the UK Government as it made in Scunthorpe. Labour’s tax on Scotland’s energy is wrecking jobs, undermining energy security and jeopardising our transition to a clean energy future.
Will Paul McLennan take an intervention?
Mr McLennan is about to conclude.
I have only four minutes.
UK energy policy has resulted in higher costs and fewer jobs. The Scottish Government’s energy strategy must have a just transition at its heart. The key point for me is that we need the powers of independence to ensure that all the powers that we need to support our industries are in the hands of the people of Scotland.
16:36
It will be regrettable if this debate becomes a proxy argument about oil and gas policies, about the efficacy of the action that is taken to tackle climate change or about blaming either Government for the situation. My focus, and the focus of the Parliament, must be on the workers affected by the closure of the plant at Mossmorran—more than 300 people will no longer be employed at the site come April—and on the wider impact on families, supply chains and communities in Fife and across Scotland.
The decision to close Mossmorran was taken by ExxonMobil. It was a commercial decision by a multinational corporation that, only days before the announcement, reported distributing more than £27 billion to shareholders. The company extracted decades of productivity and profit from Fife, but, when the asset no longer suited its global portfolio, it walked away. We should be clear on where responsibility for the decision lies.
However, we should also be honest about the context. The Mossmorran plant is more than 40 years old—twice its intended lifespan—and the wider chemicals sector is facing significant global pressure. There were indicators as to what was coming: there were contractor redundancies over the summer, press reports suggesting that the site was up for sale and long-standing concerns about the plant’s future viability.
The Scottish Government had committed to delivering a just transition for Mossmorran, but, when the closure was announced, no transition plan was in place for the workforce. Instead, we had a reactive response to an unmanaged collapse. That is not what a just transition should look like.
I am pleased that both Governments are clear that their focus is on supporting the workforce and that, through the task force, they are working to manage and oversee the local response. Immediately after the closure was announced, support was committed through the DWP’s rapid response service, which will help workers into new jobs. Bringing together Fife Council, both Governments, trade unions, Fife College, local businesses and community organisations in the task force is the right approach. It is co-ordinated, practical and focused on delivery.
Our amendment recognises and welcomes the task force and
“the commitment that workers will be guaranteed interviews at the UK Government-backed Grangemouth cracker”.
That is tangible support for skilled workers.
Fife College has already stepped up by engaging quickly to support affected workers, many of whom trained locally and built their careers at Mossmorran. I recognise the cabinet secretary’s announcement of accelerated funding in that area.
Fife Council is assessing supply chain impacts and the consequences for local high streets. That matters in communities such as Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly and Kelty, where Mossmorran wages supported families and sustained local businesses. Fife knows all too well the cost of industrial decline without a plan. Too many communities were scarred by the closure of coal mines without adequate transition or investment. We cannot repeat that mistake. A just transition means planning ahead, not scrambling after the fact. It means aligning environmental ambition with industrial strategy and putting workers first.
The task force is now developing a master plan for the site, which should inform any future funding and economic support, including the £9 million over three years from the Scottish Government and the forthcoming support from the UK Government. We should maximise opportunities for apprenticeships, retraining and new investment, so that the skills that have been built in Fife are not lost.
This moment demands seriousness from both Governments. The UK Government acted quickly and responsibly. It engaged with ExxonMobil for months ahead of the closure, but, despite its best efforts, there was no viable option for securing a long-term future for the site.
The warning signs were clear to see. That is why a just transition plan was needed. The loss of high-value jobs is a significant blow, but that blow might have been mitigated by better planning for those workers’ futures. By lacking a transition plan, the Scottish Government has broken and not acted to fulfil the commitment that it made to workers at Mossmorran.
Fife Council is doing work regarding the supply chain and the potential impact that the closure will have on the local high streets and communities. We should work with local employers to maximise opportunities for skills and apprenticeships.
Having recently visited the Navantia yard in Methil, for which the UK Government did a huge amount of work to ensure that it stayed open, I know that some workers have taken up opportunities there. Our focus now needs to be on providing certainty, co-ordination and opportunities for the workers of Mossmorran and on ensuring that commitments to a just transition are delivered in practice.
16:40
I put it on the record that I was formerly employed at Mossmorran, although that was many years ago.
The closure of the Mossmorran ethylene plant marks a profound moment for Fife, for Scotland’s industrial heritage and for hundreds of workers whose livelihoods have been thrown into uncertainty. For more than four decades, Mossmorran has stood as a symbol of Scottish engineering excellence. It was opened in 1985 by Exxon Chemicals alongside Shell’s natural gas liquids plant and it represented the kind of skilled, high-value industrial work that Scotland has always excelled in.
However, today, we are confronted with the consequences of a decision that was made far from the communities that it affects. On 18 November 2025, ExxonMobil announced its intentions to close the plant. On 3 February 2026, that closure became a reality.
Workers at Mossmorran did not fail, and Scotland did not fail. What failed was the wider policy environment that was created at the UK level. That is an environment that has left key industry sites uncertain and unable to plan for the long term. For years, Scotland’s energy-intensive industries warned that the UK’s approach to energy policy and industrial strategy was placing them at a disadvantage. The situation at Mossmorran is now one of the clearest examples of those warnings being realised.
There are highly skilled engineers, technicians, apprentices and contractors there, whose expertise is vital to Scotland’s future.
Does Mr Torrance recognise that ExxonMobil is closing other plants across the globe? It is not just in Scotland. ExxonMobil took the decision to close the site as part of a strategy.
The member will find that ExxonMobil’s press statement blamed the UK Government for some of the uncertainty and for the plant’s closure.
The Scottish Government has acted decisively. Within days of the announcement of the closure, the Scottish Government committed £9 million over three years, with £3 million being made available immediately to support workers to retrain for job transitions. That funding is urgently needed and targeted, and has been provided in recognition that industrial transition requires active intervention, not passive observation.
In contrast, the UK Government’s response has been to give platitudes rather than take action. Although UK ministers have spoken of collaboration and support, there has been no equivalent financial commitment, no dedicated transition plan and no meaningful engagement with the workforce beyond generic statements of concern. That is not good enough. Those workers need more than sympathetic language; they need leadership.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
The failure to match Scotland’s investment sends a troubled message about the priorities of UK-level energy policy and the UK’s willingness to support communities that are facing economic upheaval. Even the company pointed to the UK’s economic and policy environment as a factor in its decision.
The UK Government talks a good game about supporting Scotland’s energy. It talks about partnerships and levelling up, but when the workers of Fife need it, when families need certainty, when apprentices need reassurances and when communities need leadership, the UK Government refuses to put its money where its mouth is. Scotland deserves better than sympathetic press releases—it deserves a Government that shows up.
The Scottish Government has shown up, not just today or in response to this crisis, but constantly over the years. It has invested in the transition to green industry, skills development, manufacturing innovation and the technologies that will define the next century.
The workers of Mossmorran deserve to be part of that future. Their skills are exactly the skills that are required in Scotland’s growing low-carbon sectors, offshore wind, hydrogen production, carbon capture and advanced manufacturing. Those industries all need the expertise that Mossmorran workers have spent decades honing.
Our transition to a greener, more resilient economy requires planning and investment, and for every level of Government to take responsibility. That includes the Scottish and UK Governments, which must do their bit. The people of Fife should not be left to bear the consequence of a policy decision that was made hundreds of miles away. They should not be left to navigate uncertainty while Westminster offers little more than sympathetic soundbites. They should not be left to wonder why multinational corporations can walk away from communities after decades of profit without facing meaningful scrutiny.
The closure of Mossmorran is a moment of reckoning. It forces us to recognise the importance of building a resilient, home-grown industry base, and to reaffirm our commitment to the workers who have powered Scotland’s economy for generations. Their skills are valued and their contributions are recognised.
We move to closing speeches.
16:45
Thankfully, we have not had too much party politicking in this debate—except from David Torrance and his friends on the Tory benches.
I want to impress that what we need in Scotland is an industrial strategy. Like Willie Rennie, I live just a few miles from Mossmorran. I saw it at the planning stages and when it was being built. There were thousands of jobs there. Buses were running from Kelty, where I lived, except during the construction. Mossmorran has been a big part of those communities. However, when I talk to people in communities about a just transition, they say, “In order to have a just transition, you’ve got to have jobs to transition to.” The reality is that there are jobs in Fife right now, but people do not have the skills to get them. Babcock down in Rosyth is saying that it is having to bring in hundreds and hundreds of foreign skilled labourers because it cannot get local people with the skills. An industrial strategy for Scotland would look at skills as well as jobs.
I want to make a few key points. I will already be on record as thanking the Deputy First Minister and recognising the work that she did at the early stages—and I still recognise it.
The task force that has been set up has had its first meeting, which was very positive, where people came together and talked about how we could move forward. The workforce has been the key priority, and various Government agencies, such as Scottish Enterprise, have been doing a lot of work on that. In addition to the UK Government offering jobs or interviews at Grangemouth, Babcock and other companies have said that they can take workers from Mossmorran. That is really positive. Today’s announcement of additional funding for Fife College to support that work is also welcome.
At the first meeting of the task force, I asked the UK Government minister what funding we could expect. I am absolutely clear that the UK Government must put funding into Mossmorran and into the plans that come out of the task force as they develop. I am equally clear that there must be a real commitment that the site, once decommissioned, will continue to be an industrial site that will employ hundreds of people. I was impressed by the progress that was being made at the task force, and I understand that there are companies that have looked at Grangemouth that would be suitable for the Mossmorran site. Before coming into the chamber, I had a discussion with a company that contacted me fae England, which will be put on the site, too. The site itself is crucial.
Like other towns in that area, Kelty is a former mining community. My dad was a miner and was nearing retirement, so it was fine when the pits closed and he was made redundant. Those who had skills—such as a friend of mine who was an electrician in the pit—were able to go on working in that area in the North Sea. Others with skills, such as engineers, were able to get jobs. It was the least skilled who struggled. However, the biggest struggle, which caused the poverty, deprivation and social breakdown in our communities, was that there were no jobs for the next generations who would have gone into the coal mines.
We need to ensure that the real legacy fae this is investment, through the partnership that is being created with the colleges, the schools and so on, so that young people in that area will have the opportunity to access skills, training and apprenticeships. That will be the legacy moving forward, so that we never again return to what happened with the pits, and the poverty and deprivation that came fae that.
My conclusion is that people are working together. Apart from the Tories—and, it seems, David Torrance—the majority of members in the chamber recognise that we need to do that. Let us keep doing that so that we can have a positive future for Mossmorran and an industrial strategy for Fife and Scotland.
16:49
I speak today not only as a member of the Scottish Parliament but as the regional MSP for the communities living next to Mossmorran every day. When I became an MSP four years ago, I tried to hit the ground running and to understand the issues in the area. For the people in Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly, Cardenden and the nearby villages, this debate is not just about theory; it is personal. It affects their jobs, homes and apprenticeships, and it is about whether families can keep building their future in Fife.
The motion talks about a just transition but, for many local workers, this is far from just. It does not feel fair or anything like a real transition. To them, it feels like an ending, with nothing taking its place. Both Daniel Johnson and Willie Rennie highlighted an important point, which is that plans for how a transition will work in reality need to be in place ahead of time. The detail on that has been missing.
The closure of ExxonMobil ethylene plant puts about 400 direct and contracted jobs at risk. Each job supports a family, a local business and a community that relies on skilled industrial work. For generations, people in the area have worked in energy and manufacturing. These are not just numbers—they are welders, engineers, technicians and apprentices who have spent years building their skills. What upsets local people most is not the change itself; they know that industries change over time. However, what they do not accept is letting things decline without planning for what comes next.
For years, the Scottish Government promised a plan for a transition. Claire Baker highlighted that in her contribution. However, when the closure was announced, there was no plan. Workers learned about their future from the news. That is not a just transition—it is uncertainty that is being forced on working communities.
I accept the work that Mark Ruskell has done in the industry over the years and I acknowledge that the Greens have brought today’s debate to the chamber—but my constituents have long memories. They remember the years of campaigning to shut Mossmorran down entirely. You cannot relentlessly demand the closure of an industry and tell workers that their livelihoods are incompatible with your vision, and then feign shock when jobs, apprenticeships and local investment begin to disappear. That is not a just transition; that is reckless, and working families are paying the price.
For years, we have called for a plan. I produced a research report in 2022 that outlined five options for Mossmorran. Four of those were about reinvestment in the site and would have delivered a future for the site, but the operators simply were not interested. It is not the case that we have been calling for a closure of Mossmorran; we have been calling for reinvestment and a plan.
Unfortunately, there is evidence of the Greens standing outside calling for a closure. As much as I accept that Mark Ruskell has done some work on this, that does not fit with the rhetoric that has been coming across.
Across Scotland, we have lost thousands of oil and gas jobs, but new industries have not grown quickly enough to replace them. As a result, skilled workers are leaving the sector, the country, or the workforce altogether. A transition works only if there are new jobs ready before the old ones disappear. I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s news today that there is accelerated funding from the Scottish Government for retraining. However, energy policy also needs to be realistic. Today, Scotland still depends on oil and gas for most of its energy. Stopping domestic production does not end demand. It simply means that we import more, which leads to higher emissions, fewer jobs and less economic security.
Communities know the importance of environmental responsibility. Many Mossmorran workers want to help to build the future of energy, including carbon capture, hydrogen fusion, advanced manufacturing and low-carbon fuels. However, they need investment, infrastructure and business and manufacturing growth—and certainly not just talk.
I need bring my remarks to a close. A fair transition must work for all workers, as well as for climate goals. If a transition takes away a community’s identity, jobs and future, people will not support it, and they are right not to do so. Constituents are not asking for special treatment. They want honesty and a clear plan. When an industry changes, they want to know what will take its place. Let us stop focusing on decline and start creating the opportunities for Mossmorran, Fife and for Scotland’s energy future.
16:54
It has been a good debate. What I have heard is consistent with what I have heard from the workforce representatives, the trade unions and other stakeholders: that, right now, we need a plan for the workforce, a plan for the site, a plan for the community and a plan for the country. Let me take those in turn.
I start with the workforce. Today, I announced accelerated funding over and above the £9 million that we have already committed to. That funding will stand up immediate training needs analysis for affected workers. It will provide courses that meet the identified training needs of affected workers. Phase 1 of the project focuses on immediate, direct support for affected workers, and phase 2 will involve more general and tailored training programmes.
As I announced today, we are also providing skills support for both direct and contracted staff, which is a little bit different from what we have done elsewhere. We have heard that a significant proportion of the workers who are affected by redundancy as a direct consequence of the site’s closure are contract staff. As with ExxonMobil’s direct employees, those are highly skilled workers with in-demand technical competences such as electrical engineering, welding and pipe fitting. The funding that we have announced will extend support to them—an approach that deviates from approaches taken elsewhere. Alex Rowley talked about the support from other employers: I have had direct conversations with Babcock—as has Scottish Enterprise—to provide connections with employers that are looking to recruit. That is the plan for the workforce.
On the plan for the site, immediately on hearing the news, Scottish Enterprise joined me in a meeting with the company to get access to as much of the analysis as possible about the land and the site. Willie Rennie said, “It is a good site”—I think that that is a direct quote—and it absolutely is a good site. It is well positioned and it has access to utilities and to water. Scottish Enterprise has zoned the site into what could be made available more immediately, in order to connect that information with potential interested parties. It also intends to undertake a wider marketing exercise, so that those over and above the parties on the Grangemouth interested parties list will also be aware of the opportunities at the site. That is part of our objective of ensuring that there is long-term employment at the site.
The third area is about the wider community. In our first engagement on the issue, Alex Rowley—alongside you, Deputy Presiding Officer, if I am allowed to say that—made the point about mitigating the social and economic impact on the wider community. We are doing that mitigation in two ways. One is through the work that Fife Council is leading on, and the other is through the work that Scottish Enterprise is doing. I have invited Scottish Enterprise to consider where it might provide investment now to businesses that are unconnected with Mossmorran and ExxonMobil, where that might create accelerated employment opportunities in the community to mitigate the loss of jobs or the economic impact. I have frequently raised that point with the unions, too, in relation to their suggestions.
The final plan is about the country. We have heard talk of industrial and other strategies. I was struck, as, I am sure, were others, by the comments that Paul Greenwood, the chairman of ExxonMobil, made—I think when he appeared before a UK Parliament committee. He talked about the costs he faced and said:
“My international competitors do not have those costs. I also have to deal with high energy costs and those kind of things”.
There are policies that he talked about wanting to see changed.
We have come through the challenges at Grangemouth. I have talked about the issues that Alexander Dennis faced, and about ExxonMobil and Mossmorran—and there are others, too. I am conscious of the need to ensure that we reduce the costs that some of those businesses face that their competitors across Europe simply do not face. We need to deal with the fact that, on average, energy prices have been 50 per cent higher in this country than they have been elsewhere.
I hope that that gives Parliament a sense of my priorities. Following the announcement that I made today, we will work quickly to deliver that funding as a matter of priority well ahead of the original commitment, which was that it would start in the next financial year. Instead, it will be deployed this month.
I call Lorna Slater to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Greens.
17:00
I am grateful to all members who have contributed to the debate. I hear the sadness and frustration that we all share when jobs are lost, particularly when—this is significant in the case of Mossmorran—opportunities were lost to prepare for the change.
I absolutely welcome the accelerated funding that the Deputy First Minister has announced to support skills and training for workers who are at risk of redundancy, and the plans that she outlined for the site sound promising, but there is a wide feeling in the Parliament that that should have been done sooner and that we could have been prepared.
The Scottish Greens’ Mark Ruskell has been campaigning on the matter for nearly a decade. It was always clear that Mossmorran, as one of Scotland’s largest polluters, would not be able to continue with business as usual as the country progressed on its journey to net zero. It was very clear all along that a site-specific just transition plan for Mossmorran was needed to ensure a sustainable green future for workers and the community. The Scottish Government had said that it would provide one.
Now Exxon has cut and run—that is hardly surprising for a global corporation that has only the interests of its shareholders in mind and has no care for the impact that it has on the communities in which it operates or the larger impact that it has on the long-term climate on planet earth. We should have been ready. There should have been a plan, at least in development. Instead, there was nothing.
The member will have heard the evidence that the Economy and Fair Work Committee took on the draft climate change plan. There seems to be a lack of detail in the plan on workforce and wider industrial transition. Does she share my concern that we may be seeing history repeat itself in the lack of planning for the transition?
Daniel Johnson makes an excellent point. I absolutely agree that planning for the transition is critical, as we know that it is coming.
In the case of Mossmorran, there was nothing. Workers and the community were left in the dark as to whether help was on the way to ensure that they would not become another community destroyed by mismanaged industrial decline. We must learn from what has happened here. As we move forward with our transition to net zero, we need to recognise that change is coming. If we are to make it a just transition, we need first to accept that a transition is happening.
I am grateful to Uplift for the research that I am about to reference. Uplift says:
“The maturity and geologically challenging nature of the North Sea means that it is now a high cost basin compared to other oil and gas producing regions, with the reserves that are left increasingly small and technically complex to extract … Only massive state support has kept the UK industry viable”.
The UK is
“one of the most generous tax jurisdictions for offshore oil and gas production in the world … Today, UK tax reliefs allow companies to write off 84% of their development costs”,
but
“by the industry’s own admission, new North Sea drilling isn’t considered commercially viable without even bigger tax giveaways and more state support … The UK’s generous tax system has made new drilling profitable for companies, even when oil prices drop, but it means the public is left shouldering most of the downside risks, including the potential for significant net tax losses to the Treasury.”
Jobs in the sector have been in a steady decline for more than a decade, and, despite what other members have said, there is no evidence at all that the windfall tax has accelerated that long-term decline. That does not show up in the jobs data. That decline carried on despite the fact that there was a pro-oil and gas Tory Government at Westminster that continued to hand out licences.
New drilling will not stem the long-term decline in jobs. It will do little to strengthen UK energy security and nothing to lower energy costs or ease the cost of living crisis. Uplift adds that
“North Sea reserves are owned by oil and gas companies, which sell them to the highest bidder at international market prices.”
They are not reserved or sold cheaply specially to the people of the UK just because they come from the North Sea.
Uplift continues:
“In contrast to the declining oil and gas industry, the net zero sector in the UK, which includes renewable energy, grew by 10 per cent in 2024, three times faster than the overall economy.”
The change of direction is clear, and it is time—it is past time—to accept that this transition is under way. It can only be fair and just if we accept the direction of travel and plan for the path ahead. Many in this chamber seem intent on pretending that if we subsidise the sector just a little bit more, it can carry on forever. It cannot. High-emitting industrial sites will need to be converted to other uses, change their operations and upgrade their infrastructure if they are going to continue to operate. We cannot put our heads in the sand and our fingers in our ears and pretend that we can keep going as we are.
The United Nations secretary general recently said:
“The greatest threat to energy security today is fossil fuels. They leave economies and people at the mercy of price shocks, supply disruptions and geopolitical turmoil”—
and that is to say nothing of the increasing risks of climate catastrophe.
The workers at Mossmorran deserve to have the just transition plan that the Scottish Government promised, and the rest of us deserve to have a published energy strategy that sets out how the Scottish Government intends to manage the rest of the transition to a net zero future.
That concludes the debate on a just transition fund for Mossmorran.
Previous
Airports (US Military Use)Next
Urgent Questions