Official Report 980KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by the Deputy First Minister on the Fife ethylene plant at Mossmorran. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
17:16
Members will be aware that ExxonMobil, the owner and operator of the Fife ethylene plant, has today confirmed its decision to close the plant from February 2026. I am extremely disappointed by that news, which will be a devastating blow for the highly skilled individuals who make up the workforce there, for their families and for the local communities, as well as for the contractors and supply chain companies whose employment relies on the site. The loss of such high-value jobs is a very significant blow to Scotland’s economy.
ExxonMobil informed me on Monday 17 November—yesterday—that the decision followed a formal marketing exercise to seek a buyer for the plant, but no viable offer had been received. I was first made aware by the business on 11 November that it was actively marketing the site; I understand that discussions with the United Kingdom Government have been under way since April 2025.
The business has cited that the regrettable decision has been taken on the basis of prolonged negative market conditions for ethylene; an ageing plant; a dwindling supply of ethane from the North Sea; and the UK Government’s policy regime on energy prices and carbon taxes.
ExxonMobil will now commence a period of consultation with its workforce, and I expect to receive regular updates on progress from the business. Members will understand that we have been aware of the situation for a very limited amount of time, but I wish to provide the workforce with my assurance that we will work with them and their representatives to explore all options to support them. I can confirm that we have enacted our PACE—partnership action for continuing employment—initiative.
I have made it clear to the business that it has a duty to its workers, and I expect it to actively explore all options to identify new roles across the business for those who are affected by the asset’s closure.
I also recognise that there are vast numbers of people in the wider community and supply chain who rely on the Fife ethylene plant for their employment. To that end, I will engage constructively with Fife Council, businesses and other stakeholders, including MSPs, to consider all possible actions to mitigate any impact on the local economy.
I also intend to convene a task force, which will include a range of stakeholders, to urgently consider any actions that the Scottish Government, with our limited economic powers, could take to mitigate the impact of the decision. I will keep the Parliament updated on the work of that task force.
The Scottish Government wants to secure a long-term and sustainable future for Mossmorran. However, and perhaps more pertinently today, any hope of Mossmorran remaining a source of highly paid roles in the manufacturing sector relies on phasing in, at pace, alternative projects.
Members will be aware that the Scottish Government has already provided material support to bring forward such projects at Grangemouth. It is my intention to expand the Grangemouth investment task force to include Mossmorran as a potential location for projects that have been identified through the Scottish Enterprise endeavour.
We will work with our partners, including the UK Government, to expand the eligibility of projects—identified through the investment task force—that could also locate at Mossmorran, with the hope of securing high-value jobs and investment.
In the coming weeks and months it will be critical for all stakeholders to play their part. I call on all those with a vested interest, across this chamber and beyond—and, in particular, the UK Government—to work with me to secure a future for the site that aligns with our ambitions.
In its announcement today, ExxonMobil has been clear that the UK’s current economic and policy environment does not create a competitive future for the site.
It is clear that the levers for an industrial intervention, as we have seen in other UK nations, such as England—at Scunthorpe—and Wales, lie with the UK Government. I believe that it is crucial for UK ministers to consider what more they can do for the workers at the plant and to take urgent, overdue action to address the high cost of energy, which is slowly crippling industry, in order to support the sector and the livelihoods of those who depend on it.
I will conclude by calling on ExxonMobil to ensure that it handles the next phase of this process with care and respect for its workforce and the wider economy and that it is conscious of its responsibilities as an operator.
Once again, I place on the record not just my concern for the workforce but my assurance that the Scottish Government will do all that we can to mitigate the impact of this decision on those who are affected.
The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. She is entirely correct to reference the body blow that the closure is, not just to the workforce directly employed at Mossmorran but to the wider supply chain across Fife and Scotland as a whole, with a threat to 400 high-value, highly skilled jobs. It comes on the back of the closure of Grangemouth refinery, which had a similar impact.
Our industrial capacity in Scotland is being hollowed out, and the cabinet secretary cannot put all the blame for that on the UK Government. From both Governments, we have seen an environment that is hostile to the oil and gas sector, and the pursuit of a high-tax, low-growth agenda that is damaging both the economy and the business environment. Rather than just putting the blame on the UK Government, as the cabinet secretary was doing in her statement, can she tell us what action the Scottish Government will take—for example, in its forthcoming budget—to create an economic environment in Scotland that will support industries such as this and avoid future, similar closures?
I agree with Murdo Fraser’s comment on the impact on staff and I recognise the impact on the wider supply chain. We have secured agreement with the company to ensure that we have all the evidence and data that we need for a thorough economic analysis of what the impact will be.
The Conservative Party is always quite quick to defend the Labour-run UK Government when there are such challenges. I prefer to look at the details that the company has given for why it has made the decision that it has. It is our understanding that ExxonMobil has been in prolonged dialogue with the UK Government regarding the future of the site. The business has been clear with me that it recognises, as I have explicitly asked it to do, that the Scottish Government does not have the policy or fiscal levers to make a material difference to the economic fundamentals of the decision. The business has also been clear that the UK Government’s approach to carbon taxation and energy prices has had a fundamental bearing on the decision—members can read its comments. The UK Government must seriously reflect on the fact that its choices are having a fundamental impact on the livelihoods of people who live in Scotland. In order to respond well, we must understand what the root causes are, and I have just outlined them.
On the action that the Scottish Government will take, I was clear in my statement about our determination to convene a task force to phase in some of the work that we have been doing with Grangemouth, to identify some of the projects that have the most potential and to consider whether there is a future for them at Mossmorran. It is early days, but that work illustrates this Government’s determination to ensure that we protect the local community from the worst economic impacts of the decision.
I agree with the Deputy First Minister’s opening remark that the decision is devastating news for the workers and the wider community that will be impacted by it in Fife. However, the decision must be viewed in the wider context of the global challenges to ExxonMobil’s revenues and the global restructuring decisions that it is making, including the recent closure of its chemicals plant in France. I understand that UK ministers have actively been trying to engage with the company for many months. However, the only proposals that came forward would have left the taxpayer on the hook for millions of pounds without any route to profitability.
I will ask the Deputy First Minister the following questions. First, she made no mention of trade unions. I understand that Unite and GMB have significant memberships on site. What dialogue has she had with trade unions about the workforce and any redeployment and retraining possibilities?
Secondly, the site is 40 years old but had a lifespan of only 20 years. What discussions have taken place over recent years, not just recent weeks, about the long-term viability of the site, given that it is 20 years beyond its designed use?
Finally, this situation is not isolated. We are 26 years on from peak oil and the chemicals industry is dependent on the oil and gas sector. What plans does the Scottish Government have or seek to have regarding the wider chemicals industry in Scotland?
I remind all members of the requirement that their camera should be on and that contributions in the chamber should not ordinarily be made only by audio.
On the question about trade union engagement, I engaged with GMB and Unite this afternoon between 2 pm and 3 pm, and tonight I will rush from the vote at decision time to re-engage with them at approximately 6.30 pm.
I have had a specific conversation with the company about the site. It is important that we are able to work constructively with the company to fully understand what some of the site’s challenges and opportunities are.
Daniel Johnson also talked about this decision not being an isolated incident and about our wider engagement with the chemicals industry. He will appreciate from previous statements that I have given in the Parliament that we are engaging extensively with the chemicals industry. That engagement has regularly revealed a concern, which is cited by all the businesses, about the impact of high energy costs. It is well accepted by members across the chamber that overly high energy costs and the competitive disadvantage that is created across the UK by those high energy costs are having a detrimental impact, particularly for industries that are energy intensive.
I hope that my answer responds to those three questions. I am sure that there will be further engagement in the weeks to come.
This sad news is a body blow to the hundreds of highly skilled workers and contractors who are employed at the site and in the supply chain, as well as to the wider economy across Fife and Scotland. It is a great pity—and, I think, very shoddy indeed—that the decision was leaked before the workers could be informed this morning. In that regard, all fingers are pointing to the UK Labour Government.
Will the Deputy First Minister reiterate that the Scottish Government will do all within its powers to support those who are losing their jobs and livelihoods? Will she also comment further on reports that it is, in fact, the damaging and uncompetitive economic and fiscal policies of the UK Labour Government that have led to the decision? That is the UK Labour Government that has been prepared to actively intervene for jobs in England but steps aside here and refuses to change course, as if Scotland simply does not matter.
I share Annabelle Ewing’s concern about how the news ended up in the press. It is vitally important that due process is gone through when informing workers about the future of their jobs and that those conversations are confidential.
I reassure Annabelle Ewing, who has been a long-standing and excellent representative of the community that will be most affected, that we will do all that we can to support those who are losing their jobs. I am clear that the highly skilled workforce at Mossmorran plays a vital role in our economy, and I will do all that I can to ensure that that continues.
On the last part of Annabelle Ewing’s question, the business has cited four reasons that have driven it to the decision—those are set out in black and white. It talks about the challenging market, the age of the asset, the supply of ethane and UK Government policies—the economic and fiscal policies that Annabelle Ewing references. It is absolutely clear that the lack of attention being paid to Scotland’s industrial base and the lack of any subsequent action in response to the challenges, which have been raised with the UK Government, are a neglect of Scotland’s workforce.
The statement highlights that a vast number of people in the wider community and supply chain rely on the Fife ethylene plant for their employment. Does the First Minister have any numbers on how many people in Fife will be affected? Considering how many people will be looking for alternative employment and upskilling, can the Scottish Government reassure Fife College that it will have the funding that is required to provide courses, given the inflexibility of the current process?
The business has shared initial data with us to aid our understanding of the workforce, and we want to continue to work with the company to ensure that we understand the full impact. The member is right. As well as the 179 ExxonMobil staff, there are contractors, who will also need support. As I said, at 6.30 this evening I will engage with the unions—Unite and the GMB—to understand how we can support those people as best we can. There are also the supply chain companies that I mentioned to Murdo Fraser, which employ staff who could be affected. We are very conscious that that tallies up to a significant number. We intend to work with the colleges and others through PACE to provide as much support as possible to every member of staff.
The ExxonMobil press statement today points the finger for the decision that it has taken at
“the UK’s current economic and policy environment”.
We have heard about the high energy costs that companies face, the impact of the energy profits levy and, of course, Labour’s tax on jobs, which adds to companies’ woes. Labour seems quite happy to intervene in England and Wales, including at Scunthorpe, but it seems that Scots do not matter. Scotland is, once again, an afterthought. How can we change that? Do we require independence to get things right for industry here, in our country?
There have been a number of impacts on key industrial sites across Scotland in recent months, and some common threads run through them. One of those, which I have already referenced, is high energy costs. It is absolutely imperative that, where the Scottish Government can have an impact, we do so, and members have seen us take such responsibility with Alexander Dennis. Where we do not have the levers, it is important that this Parliament unites with one voice to call on the UK Government to take urgent, critical action. Where it refuses to take action, we must demand the right and responsibility to take action ourselves.
I am disappointed that the Scottish Government appears to be repeating and accepting ExxonMobil’s claims about its reasons for closure. To be clear, this is a company with huge profits that is making a commercial decision to close the site and cause significant job losses in Fife. This is a company that locked out more than 200 contract workers this morning and has no trade union recognition. It has shown no serious desire to engage with the UK Government, because, in reality, it had already decided to close the site.
The Scottish Government is meant to be working on a just transition for Mossmorran. Has that not involved any engagement with ExxonMobil over recent months? Over the summer, there were 150 contractor redundancies at Mossmorran. What discussions took place at that time, and did they address at all the future operational sustainability of Mossmorran?
I reassure the member that I challenge, on behalf of trade unions and workers, any decision that is taken that affects Scotland economically, particularly when it comes to our industrial base.
However, I cannot ignore the fact that, throughout each of the potential redundancy situations I referred to, businesses, independently of one another, have cited the same concerns. Those concerns—particularly the ones around energy prices—can be fixed at source by the UK Government, but they have not been. When I am led to believe that a business has engaged in good faith with the UK Government since April and that there have been no policy changes, I can assure Parliament that I will challenge the UK Government on those policy decisions, because I believe in standing up for Scottish workers and Scottish industry.
I would be grateful if any on-going conversations would cease and we would make sure that we are listening to one another.
This will be an incredibly concerning time for the workforce and their families. What is the Scottish Government’s message to all those who are affected? Will the Deputy First Minister commit to engaging with the workforce who are losing their livelihoods?
Rona Mackay is absolutely right to highlight this as a devastating blow. Our thoughts are primarily with the workforce at the Fife ethylene plant. I recognise the valuable contribution that those individuals have made to Scotland’s economy and recognise also that they are critical to our transition to net zero. We hear frequently about the importance of skills in the transition to net zero, and the workers at the plant have the skills that are essential for the just transition.
Members will understand that the news is still sinking in. However, I give a commitment that we will explore with the business, worker representatives and trade unions what support, over and above our PACE intervention, could be deployed. I welcomed ExxonMobil’s commitment yesterday to play a proactive role in that process.
ExxonMobil and Paul Greenwood should hang their heads in shame for the way that they have treated workers today in locking people out of the workplace. It is absolutely disgraceful and shameful.
For years, I have been calling for a union-led Mossmorran just transition plan in order to secure jobs and investment in the site and to cut climate pollution. In June 2024, the Minister for Climate Action told me, in this chamber, that work would be started on a Mossmorran plan “in early 2025”. Where is the plan? There is no mention of it in the statement—there is just a blame game between Governments.
We worked at pace to develop a just transition plan for Grangemouth, which was published in the summer. I will need to double check this, but I think that my colleague talked about that plan being followed rapidly by a just transition plan for Mossmorran. As I said in my statement, we must now work on options and opportunities for Mossmorran as part of our wider approach to Grangemouth.
I have lived in the shadow of Mossmorran for almost 30 years, in good times and in bad times—and there have been bad times. It is an important local employer. What surprises me is that the Government is always surprised when such announcements come. It should have seen this coming, because there have been warnings for years, but we still have shocking statements in the Parliament. When will we have a proper plan for such events, as was promised years ago, so that we can have a just transition, which the Government is brilliant at talking about but never delivers?
There has been wider engagement over an extended period, but the challenge that we face right now goes to the heart of ensuring a proper just transition. We need to support assets that are at the heart of a just transition but that face enormous challenges.
Willie Rennie talked about issues not coming as a surprise. The issues that the business has cited are not a surprise. We have been talking about high energy bills and some of the wider challenges for years. The difference is that I cannot do anything to change high energy bills. The point that I made in my statement is that, when there are risks of redundancies and risks to critical plants, the Parliament has an opportunity to speak with one voice in demanding policy changes that will secure their future. To do that, we need to know what is having the biggest impact, and it is there in front of us—today’s comments from ExxonMobil regarding the plant refer to the fiscal and policy changes that need to be made.
Will the Deputy First Minister say more about the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with ExxonMobil? Can she confirm that the business will work constructively and collaboratively on the next steps that are needed?
I have certainly made that request of ExxonMobil. It confirmed that it is willing to work with the Scottish Government on the various points that I have outlined, and I welcome the indication given to me that it will work with us to support staff. Most recently, I engaged with the company last week, on 11 November, and again yesterday afternoon.
Sadly, we are witnessing the self-inflicted deindustrialisation of much of Scotland as a result of both Governments’ anti-hydrocarbon rhetoric. There are two neighbouring plants at Mossmorran. Exxon has made its announcement, but we still have the Shell natural gas liquids plant. What discussions have taken place with Shell on whether its NGL plant remains viable, given the loss of Exxon’s ethylene plant?
That is a very important question, and it is precisely why my officials engaged with Shell this afternoon. Shell confirmed that its Fife natural gas liquids plant is a separate operation from the Exxon Fife ethylene plant. As such, it does not anticipate any direct impact on its Fife NGL plant operations or jobs. I hope that that gives important reassurance.
Scotland’s energy industry workforce is one of our greatest assets, irrespective of where those people live. It is vital that we support skilled workers who are key to our energy security and to the delivery of a just transition. What immediate steps is the Scottish Government taking to identify options for retaining those critical skills and to protect the livelihoods of those affected?
Options for retaining skills are uppermost in my mind. As I mentioned earlier, we hear frequently about the importance of skills as part of the just transition—in fact, I think that there will be a debate on that tomorrow. Supporting workers who have the skills that we need is uppermost in my mind. We will progress a number of initiatives, including through PACE and training, and we will consider whether new projects can be phased in to ensure that we do not lose any important skills.
It is not clear how proactive ExxonMobil has been in marketing the asset to the international market. Will the Deputy First Minister consider more proactive measures to secure international investment in the asset as well as competitive measures such as joining Shell, which operates the neighbouring plant, to consider a private-wire power purchase agreement, which could significantly reduce the energy costs of one of Scotland’s most intensive electricity consumers?
I am keen to have those discussions, as the member has outlined. We can do some of that through the work that Scottish Enterprise is doing with Grangemouth on forthcoming interest, but I am conscious that there will be other interests out there. Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government are firmly open to having conversations with anybody who has an interest in investment or in developing new opportunities at the site.
The ExxonMobil site at Mossmorran has been a cornerstone of chemical production for 40 years. The closure reflects the huge challenges that have been caused by the high-tax and low-growth policies of Labour and the SNP, not forgetting the hostile environment that those parties have created for the oil and gas sector. What action is the Scottish Government taking to limit the damage that the decision will undoubtedly cause to the workforce and the wider community?
Alexander Stewart exempts his own party, which was in government down south quite recently. I have outlined the options ahead of us. There is an option to support the skilled staff, and there is a second train of work, which we will do primarily through the task force, to look at new investment opportunities at the site. Thirdly, we will continue to engage actively with the company, so that we understand as thoroughly as possible what impact the decision might have and what other options are available to us to safeguard the site, to support the workers and to protect the wider community from that impact.
That concludes the ministerial statement.
Previous
Fishing Industry