Official Report 471KB pdf
Climate Action and Energy, and Transport
14:18
The next item of business is portfolio question time. This afternoon’s portfolio is climate action and energy, and transport.
Question 1 has been withdrawn.
Oil and Gas Supply Chain (Job Losses)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to prevent further job losses in the oil and gas supply chain as a result of the energy transition. (S6O-05673)
Key policy levers for the offshore energy transition, including decisions on licensing, consenting and the fiscal regime for North Sea oil and gas, are reserved to the United Kingdom Government.
There must be a parallel-track approach to the transition, but, instead, at present, reserved policies such as the continuation of the energy profits levy are driving an accelerated decline in North Sea oil and gas before the full potential of renewables has been realised, which is placing jobs at risk. That is why we are calling for an immediate end to the levy and a sensible future fiscal regime. The Scottish Government will also continue to support the energy workforce with the powers that are available to us.
Under the Scottish National Party Government and the UK Labour Government, the oil and gas industry is losing 1,000 jobs a month, which is having a catastrophic impact not just in the north-east but in industrial areas such as Grangemouth and Mossmorran. Does the cabinet secretary accept that, in order to save jobs across Scotland and to ensure our energy security, the SNP must reverse its reckless opposition to new oil and gas? Does she agree that we must drill Rosebank to secure our own energy future?
The Scottish Government does not take a position against oil and gas. We support oil and gas workers. We believe that the existing fields have much more to give and that our energy workforce is being boosted by the skills of oil and gas workers, who have many transferable skills.
We announced joint funding with the UK Government of up to £18 million for the oil and gas transition training fund. The First Minister officially opened the energy transition skills hub in Aberdeen, which is supported by £4.5 million of Scottish Government funding to harness those transferable skills so that oil and gas workers have options.
We are still calling on the UK Government to have a serious look at the propositions that industry representatives have made about reforming the energy profits levy. The First Minister has written to Keir Starmer about the urgency associated with the energy security issues that have been caused.
It is Labour’s reckless decision to continue the energy profits levy, but it was started by the Tories, and it is causing hundreds of job losses. Experts are warning that it is going to cost thousands more. It is going to undermine energy security and the just transition that we rely on, and it will prevent billions in potential investments. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Westminster is sabotaging the chances of a fair transition? Can the cabinet secretary expand on what the Scottish Government is doing to support Scotland’s energy workers?
It is not just me who agrees with Karen Adam; Offshore Energies UK and Scottish Renewables also agree that the energy profits levy is putting a just energy transition at risk. The Scottish Government is doing all that it can with the levers that are available to us to support Scotland’s skilled oil and gas workers to ensure that they can carry their expertise and experience into different roles as the energy sector evolves. I am pleased to report that more than 400 oil and gas workers have been approved for funding, supported by careers advice, to access training that is related to roles in the sustainable energy sector through the oil and gas transition training fund pilot.
Earlier this week, the Deputy First Minister announced new funding to support 350 workers at ExxonMobil’s Mossmorran ethylene plant to receive training and employment support at Fife College. That builds on the reskilling and job support that we have provided at Grangemouth.
The energy transition for workers in the oil and gas supply chain must be a truly just transition. It is therefore particularly concerning that approval of Rosebank might risk breaching international law due to Ithaca Energy being majority controlled by the Delek Group, which has enabled and facilitated illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Does the cabinet secretary agree that oil and gas jobs in the north-east should never come at the cost of supporting Israeli apartheid, illegal occupation and persecution of Palestinians? Will she make clear the Scottish Government’s commitment to a just energy transition for all?
Please focus on matters that lie within the cabinet secretary’s portfolio responsibility.
I am singularly focused on a just transition, but approval of new oil and gas fields is reserved to the UK Government.
Data Centres (Regulatory Framework)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the regulatory framework currently in place to monitor the development and operation of data centres in Scotland, in relation to ensuring that their energy use, water consumption and any environmental impacts are being effectively controlled. (S6O-05674)
Scotland benefits from a robust, although complex, regulatory and policy landscape that applies to data centre development. Under national planning framework 4, the planning authority must consider the potential environmental impacts of any planning application.
Beyond that, when a site is under development and in operation, a number of environmental regulations might apply that relate to on-site combustion plant, air emissions, energy use and storage, water abstraction and discharge, use of fluorinated gas—F-gas—waste management and fuel and chemical storage. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is engaged in that framework and is working with UK regulators where such regulation is reserved.
Stop Climate Chaos Scotland has warned that, although the draft climate change plan outlines a range of policies that are aimed at increasing energy generation from renewables, it does not discuss the potential huge energy demand coming from data centres that planning authorities are now having to consider. In Edinburgh, for example, a temporary moratorium on data centres has been agreed and will be in place until the true level of energy and water consumption required is actually understood.
To follow on from the initial advice that has been given, will the cabinet secretary outline what advice and monitoring the Scottish Government will provide? Can lessons be learned from Dublin and Amsterdam about tightening controls on large data centres, and also from Odense, where 100,000 homes are now being heated by a data centre?
I really like hearing examples of planning decisions that lead to co-location. Data centres need cooling and our homes and public buildings need heating, so that is an absolute no-brainer for me.
Those are planning decisions and we are having a lot of discussion with our colleagues at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about how we can co-locate any developments that might have waste heat associated with them. A great deal of work will be done on heat networks in the next Parliament.
The cabinet secretary has outlined some of the safeguards in the current regulatory framework. A massive data centre proposed in Edinburgh would be similar in size to—and occupy as much land as—the entire ground at Murrayfield stadium. Will the Scottish Government make representations to ensure that a full environmental impact assessment is carried out? That is what communities are calling for, considering the planned diesel backup generators, the impact on air quality and the location of the site on greenbelt land within the Gogar special landscape area.
Sue Webber will know that I cannot comment on planning applications. However, it is important to note that, if a site does require an environmental impact assessment, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will be consulted at the planning stage on any potential environmental impacts.
I go back to what I said in my earlier answer to Sarah Boyack, which is that all local authorities should look at such proposals and work out what they can co-locate in order to maximise the possible benefits of data centres.
Sheriffhall Junction
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will make an announcement regarding the development of the Sheriffhall junction before the end of the parliamentary session. (S6O-05675)
I was first informed in a submission from Transport Scotland officials dated 13 March that the decision-making advice for me as minister regarding the proposed Sheriffhall junction scheme will not be provided ahead of the dissolution of this session of Parliament in advance of the election.
I am both disappointed and frustrated by that but have been assured that every effort is being made to enable a decision as soon as possible, as part of a fair and efficient process that will ensure that the decision is robust and is supported by the available evidence.
This is my fifth attempt to get a decision on that before we hit the election period. From speaking to drivers across my Lothian region, who are spending hours of their time caught up in traffic every month, I know that there is growing frustration that we have not seen work begin on that upgrade. I welcome the answer that the cabinet secretary outlined to Parliament. That work must be made a priority for the next Government and Parliament, and I hope that the next Government will be able to give the green light to what will be a vital upgrade. Is the cabinet secretary aware of when in the next parliamentary session that decision will be made?
I have made it clear that the decision needs to be made, but it must be made robustly. Importantly, a small team within Transport Scotland’s special projects team is dedicated to that issue and has had no prior involvement in the project. That team provides a co-ordinating role, with technical expertise, legal advice and support as required. A qualified chartered engineer who has had no previous involvement in the scheme has been leading that team for approximately 18 months, so the team is well advanced.
I had anticipated being able to make a decision, but I must have advice presented to me. Officials are under no illusion and know that the incoming Government will expect to be presented with that advice in order to make a decision early in the new session of Parliament.
I use the A7 regularly and, like Miles Briggs, am deeply disappointed by the situation. The cabinet secretary knows, because I copied her in, that I wrote to Transport Scotland with regard to the idea of having a temporary third lane on the northwards A7 approach to the Sheriffhall roundabout. Transport Scotland told me that it was in touch with Midlothian Council, but I have yet to hear from the council. Does the cabinet secretary know whether they are liaising with each other? It would be good to find that out.
Transport Scotland and Midlothian Council met on 23 February to discuss the feasibility of widening the northbound approach of the A7 to the A720, prompted by the exemplary and ever-diligent work of Christine Grahame on behalf of her constituents. Midlothian Council, the relevant roads authority for the A7, advises that, at present, it has no plans to widen the road and that there is no accident history associated with the location. It was noted that any widening works would present engineering challenges as well as the need to engage with private landowners. Importantly, Midlothian Council also expressed concern that progressing with that work might ultimately prove not to be needed.
In the interim, Midlothian Council has agreed to undertake further temporary repairs to ensure that the verge remains, and Transport Scotland will liaise with BEAR Scotland regarding any necessary repairs where the trunk road for the Sheriffhall roundabout ties in with the A7.
Water Supply and Waste Water Treatment Services
I remind members of my voluntary register of trade union interests.
We are content that the governance of our water industry is robust. Scottish Water’s board includes a majority of non-executive members who are appointed by Scottish ministers to provide effective leadership and direction. As a public corporation, Scottish Water is held to account by ministers and this Parliament. The Scottish model also benefits from an established regulatory framework, which has driven improved performance and compliance.
The most recent report on Scottish Water’s performance from its independent economic regulator demonstrates that customers continue to be satisfied with the high-quality services that Scottish Water provides.
Last month, a report commissioned by Unison into Scottish Water questioned the regulatory framework. It warned of creeping privatisation, the ripping up of trade union policies and procedures, the outsourcing not only of major capital works but of day-to-day operations, and the rise of a fat-cat bosses’ bonuses culture, which I know the cabinet secretary has to defend, if for no other reason than that the First Minister signed them off for over a decade when he was the finance secretary.
Will the Government back the calls in the report for a root-and-branch review into this creeping privatisation, this growing overreliance on private subcontractors and this extraction of profits from a public good to line the pockets of private shareholders, or is the cabinet secretary content to see this public utility privatised by stealth?
I reject claims that Scottish Water is being privatised in any way, not least by stealth, as Richard Leonard characterises it. There is a great deal of build-out—remedial and new—of infrastructure for which Scottish Water has to procure services to augment the workforce that it already has. The Scottish Government has no intention of halting or interfering in the procurement process, which is absolutely an operational matter for Scottish Water.
It is important to us and, I think, to everybody that Scottish Water secures a supply chain that can deliver the vital innovation and investment that are necessary to adapt to climate change while maintaining service levels, and a great deal of Scottish companies and Scottish workers will receive contracts and work as a result of its improvement works and new infrastructure build.
I appreciate that the cabinet secretary does not direct Scottish Water’s affairs, but I appeal to Scottish Water, through her, to review its decision to delay the sewerage upgrade scheme for Pittenweem in my constituency by two whole years. Pittenweem is already subject to flooding and to sewage being dumped into a very pretty part of the country. I urge Scottish Water to review its decision to delay. Can the cabinet secretary perhaps have a little word?
Willie Rennie’s comments are now on the record, but I will pass that to my officials. I will write to Scottish Water and ask it about that particular instance.
In Scotland, public ownership means that Scottish Water is run for public benefit rather than lining shareholders’ pockets. Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on how Scottish Water’s performance as a publicly owned corporation compares with the levels of service that are provided by companies in England and Wales?
Please answer on matters within your responsibilities, cabinet secretary.
I confirm that Scottish Water is performing well as a publicly owned corporation, with all profits going back into improving the service instead of going to shareholders. It matches the level of service that is provided by companies in England and Wales. Although performance is not always calculated in the same way across the nations, we can take pride in the fact that customer satisfaction with Scottish Water is consistently among the highest in the UK utilities sector. Indeed, Scottish Water was the top-rated water company in the UK customer satisfaction index last year. Performance levels are being achieved by ensuring that the average household charge in Scotland remains lower than the average charge in England and Wales.
We are not complacent, though. There is a lot more to do, and I am pleased to say that every penny of profit from Scottish Water goes back into making those improvements.
Transport (Edinburgh and East Lothian)
To ask the Scottish Government what actions it is taking to reduce journey times and congestion for commuters travelling to and from Edinburgh and East Lothian, including measures to progress with the delayed upgrade of Sheriffhall roundabout and to improve transport reliability across the region. (S6O-05677)
Bus infrastructure projects to deliver swifter and more reliable bus journey times for passengers are being funded through our £20 million bus infrastructure fund this year, which will increase to £60 million in 2026-27.
That includes the design of bus infrastructure improvements along the London Road-A1 corridor between Edinburgh and Tranent, alongside the development of a region-wide multimodal mass transit system in the longer term.
On Sherrifhall, the Scottish Government remains committed to delivering improvements as part of the city region deal, but that will be subject to the consideration of advice from officials and completion of the statutory authorisation process, which is due post-election, as I said in my previous answer to Miles Briggs.
Public trust and economic confidence require the delivery of essential infrastructure, such as Sheriffhall roundabout, on time and on budget. Scottish people want affordable, reliable public transport, but we should not punish car users when alternatives are lacking.
Currently, there are Green Party proposals to cut an essential weekday link through Holyrood park, which is opposed by many in Edinburgh Eastern who rely on it regularly.
In East Lothian, drivers face imposed parking charges, despite clear local consensus that they are both unnecessary and harmful to the economy.
Will the Government centre communities in such connectivity decisions and not punish car drivers?
The member represents the concerns of constituents who have contacted her, but she has also been a member of this Parliament for some time, so she will know that Holyrood Road and Holyrood park are the responsibility of Historic Environment Scotland and that the car parking issue is the responsibility of the council.
As the Presiding Officer frequently reminds us, we should be answering questions on those issues for which we have responsibility.
Environmental Strategy (United Kingdom National Security Assessment)
To ask the Scottish Government, regarding its environmental strategy and responsibilities, what evaluation it has made of the UK Government’s “National security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security”, published in January 2026. (S6O-05678)
I thank Ariane Burgess for that question. The draft environmental strategy was published for public consultation last year. It included policies to build Scotland’s resilience to climate change and other global environmental risks.
While revising the strategy in response to the views that were raised in the consultation, we have considered the UK Government report, which highlights that our national security is at threat from global ecosystem degradation and collapse.
National security is, of course, a reserved matter. The Scottish Government is working to protect our communities and economy by investing in ecosystem protection and restoration and ensuring that Scotland’s food systems are secure and resilient.
The assessment makes it clear that our way of life is overly reliant on nations and regions that are at risk of near-future ecosystems collapse. It states that we, too, face such a collapse.
The report says that “major intervention” is needed to reverse current trends and ensure a stable future for Scotland.
Given that we now have a raft of climate, land use and food-related legislation from this session of Parliament, and that the United Kingdom’s security assessment now treats biodiversity collapse as equivalent to other strategic threats, will the Scottish Government extend that logic and make biodiversity restoration a formal condition of all infrastructure investment and subsidy decisions?
It is not possible to predict all impacts, but the Scottish Government’s food security unit also monitors food system resilience and engages widely.
Ariane Burgess was right to point to the fact that our nation relies on the resilience of our natural environment—as every nation does. We need to prioritise protecting our natural environment and halting biodiversity loss, which can cause the collapse that Ariane Burgess has alluded to.
The member has asked me very specific questions about regulation, which I do not feel that I am able to answer right now, but I will certainly take her comments away with me.
We now have the Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2026 and the biodiversity strategy, and the finalised climate change plan is coming—there is a great deal of work to do in the next session of Parliament.
Data Centres (Net Zero)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to formally define “green” to ensure alignment with net zero targets in its designation of data centres as a “national priority”. (S6O-05679)
The Scottish Government recognises that data centres are vital to the delivery of our digital ambitions and our transition to a net zero economy. Their designation as a national development in national planning framework 4, which was approved by the Parliament, highlights their importance and the expectation that future projects will align with Scotland’s climate commitments. When new development proposals come forward, it is for the planning authority to interpret and apply NPF4 according to the circumstances of each case, considering factors such as renewable energy use, energy efficient technologies, reduced water consumption, and opportunities to reuse excess heat.
What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the potential impact of hyperscale data centres on Scotland’s statutory climate targets and consumer energy bills? Will it consider an immediate moratorium on such projects until a clear definition of green data centres is established?
As Mr Choudhury will know, work is already under way through the strategic spatial energy plan—the SSEP—which the four nations are involved in, as well as the connections accelerator programme, which will help to inform how Scotland manages future energy demand from data centres and other sources in a way that supports our grid resilience and our net zero pathway. The SSEP’s work was jointly commissioned by the United Kingdom, Scottish and Welsh Governments. It will assess the optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure that are required across a range of all possible future scenarios to meet future energy demand.
That concludes portfolio questions on climate action and energy, and transport.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During portfolio questions, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin, said that the Scottish Government does not have a position against new oil and gas. That is simply not true. The draft energy strategy, which was published by the Scottish National Party Government more than three years ago, has the Government’s presumption against new oil and gas in black and white. Can the Presiding Officer advise how the cabinet secretary can correct the record and avoid misleading the chamber?
That is not a point of order. Mr Lumsden will be aware by now that the chair is not responsible, in broad brush, for members’ contributions. He will also be aware of the corrective mechanism that is available.