Chamber and committees

Thanks. I will hand back to the convener.

Murdo, can I come to you?

I guess that it is about checking whether the instructions flowing from the main contractor down to subcontractors were clear.

I turn to my next question. The threshold for liability for senior responsible officials of an organisation is one of consent or connivance. The committee has heard views that consent, connivance or neglect would be preferable. Do you have views on that? Maybe we can go to Clare Moran first.

Could we do that by beefing up our existing laws as opposed to introducing a new law?

Yes—at least I did, but I have lost my place because I was listening intently.

The committee has been considering whether the bill will have a deterrent effect on individual and corporate behaviours and avoid instances of severe environmental damage. Are you aware of any evidence on how businesses or organisations have changed what they are doing because ecocide laws have been introduced? I will go to Ricardo first.

Rachel Killean, do you have any more information about how the ecocide law is working in France? How many successful prosecutions have there been? Have organisations made any changes because of the threat of breaching ecocide laws?

You mentioned one investigation taking place in France. Have there been any prosecutions so far? When they introduced the law, was it replacing an existing law or was it an addition to what they already had?

I completely understand that most energy policy is reserved, but the Scottish Government published the draft energy strategy and just transition plan two and a half years ago. It has been a draft document since then. When will we see the final version of that plan?

I congratulate Liam Kerr on the debate and on his contribution.

I welcome the publication of the RGU Energy Transition Institute’s latest report. It is a serious piece of work that is grounded in evidence, and it sets out clearly what Scotland must do if we are to protect jobs, maintain energy security and build a truly managed transition.

My colleague has, rightly, focused on the impact that not investing in the sector will have on jobs in the north-east and across wider Scotland. However, the report goes further than that. It says:

“The North Sea’s future success depends on a well-managed transition”.

Its message is unmistakable. We cannot deliver a credible transition without continued investment in our domestic oil and gas sector, and we certainly cannot deliver it if Government policy is vague, confused or subject to the political mood swings of Labour and the Scottish National Party. However, that is exactly what we have at the moment.

The First Minister refuses to give a straight answer on whether exploration should continue. One day, he hints at new licences; the next, he dodges the question entirely, with vague assertions about drilling continuing if net zero targets are met. That is ill defined, and no one knows how it is to be measured.

Labour, which has ramped up the energy profits levy and has a ban on new licences, is no friend. Clearly, Ed Miliband’s aim is to destroy the North Sea oil and gas industry. However, Labour somehow thinks that 13 jobs at Great British Energy in Aberdeen will save the day. Anas Sarwar is flip-flopping on the issue of new developments. He was opposed to Cambo in 2021 but is now pleading with his masters—Starmer, Reeves and Miliband—to change course. The penny must have dropped that his party’s hostility towards oil and gas is a direct threat to our energy transition.

The fiscal landscape and the uncertainty are not harmless political noise; they shape investment decisions and they have real consequences for the people I represent in the north-east. I heard that first-hand at a meeting with Shell last week. Conservative MPs and MSPs were there, as were Scottish National Party MPs and MSPs. Labour politicians would have heard from Shell themselves if they had even bothered to turn up.

The RGU report is crystal clear on the point that failing to support a stable level of domestic production risks major job losses, skills flight and long-term damage to our supply chain. If we do not back our home-grown sector, final investment decisions will move abroad, and the workforce will follow. That is not a theoretical risk. My constituents in the north-east already feel the impact of mixed messages and political drift. Communities there are built on decades of expertise, innovation and hard work. If we fail to give the industry clarity and confidence, we put thousands of families at risk and undermine the very capabilities that we need in order to deliver the energy transition. We can see that on the front page of The Press and Journal today, with Aberdeen harbour laying off jobs because of the lack of oil and gas throughput, while the throughput for renewables is not there yet.

Let us be absolutely honest: if we shut down our domestic sector too quickly, Scotland will not consume less oil and gas; we will simply import more of it, normally from countries with higher emissions and lower standards, and with none of the economic benefits staying here at home. That is environmental irresponsibility dressed up as virtue.

The RGU report calls for “coordinated action”, long-term planning and a clear pathway for the offshore workforce. Scotland can lead the energy transition and the north-east can remain the beating heart of the UK’s offshore workforce, but that requires honesty about the journey, certainty for industry and respect for the communities whose livelihoods depend on the decisions that are taken. The RGU report shows the path, and it is time for Government to follow it.

Speaking of the trade unions, there was once a “no ban without a plan” campaign. Is that something that Labour supports, or has it abandoned that like it has abandoned the rest of the north-east?