Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

If the threshold had been reduced, how many family farms would it have brought into the scope of the bill?

Over the past six months, I have also been speaking to farmers and landowners, and one of the things that I have often heard is that landowners are now concerned about renting out land to tenant farmers because they fear that they might not get that land back. Has the cabinet secretary heard that?

I congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on securing today’s debate. I agree with her, on this occasion, that we all want to see a cleaner, greener Scotland. However, we must be honest about how we get there. In particular, we must be honest about the cost to our communities and our economy.

The motion before us paints Scotland as a global climate leader. It harks back to the days when it was claimed that world leaders were on the phone asking for advice. It references COP26, the loss and damage fund, and Scotland’s contribution of £2 million. Although symbolism matters, what really counts is delivery—delivery of emissions reductions here at home, delivery of affordable energy for our people and delivery of a fair transition for the workers who have powered this nation for decades.

Right now, the Scottish Government is failing—a Scottish Government that Nicola Sturgeon led in a failed experiment of coalition with the Greens. We have missed eight out of the past 12 annual climate targets. The landfill bill ban has been delayed again. Rural communities are being asked to shoulder the burden of having monster pylons cutting through our countryside, while city ministers preach about climate justice from the comfort of Holyrood.

Thousands of skilled oil and gas workers in the north-east—my constituents—are being told that their jobs are the price of that virtue signalling. The Scottish National Party Government still has a presumption against new oil and gas—something that was reiterated by Nicola Sturgeon tonight. It has failed to back Rosebank, Cambo and Jackdaw, and it is overseeing the loss of thousands of jobs, many of which are in the north-east. Where is the justice in that?

Let me be clear: I support our journey to a more sustainable future, but that journey must be realistic and just, and it must put jobs first. It cannot be built on shutting down our domestic energy industry before the alternatives are ready.

The UK’s oil and gas sector is one of the most highly regulated and lowest carbon producing in the world. If we switch it off overnight, we will not cut emissions; we will just offshore them, along with the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Scots.

We need a managed transition, not an ideologically driven cliff edge. That means supporting the north-east, not abandoning it. It means investing in carbon capture, hydrogen and renewables alongside responsible oil and gas production—a view shared this week by Scottish Renewables—and it means recognising that energy security and affordability are not optional extras but are the foundations of any credible climate strategy.

The motion talks about international climate finance and global justice, but we should remember that there is also a duty of justice for the people of Scotland. Families have rising energy bills, farmers face uncertainty and local residents see their landscapes being scarred by mega-pylons that they neither asked for nor benefit from. They all deserve a fair hearing too, but we know that the cabinet secretary would rather meet with big business or jet around the world than talk to her own constituents.

We must deliver climate action that works with communities, not against them, which means proper consultation, realistic infrastructure plans and a focus on innovation, not imposition. Leadership on climate change is not about writing cheques or hosting conferences. It is about taking your people with you when, right now, too many feel that they are being left behind.

Let us play our part internationally, but let us also get our own house in order. Let us meet our targets, protect Scottish jobs and build the new energy economy from a position of strength, not self-inflicted weakness. That is how we will meet our commitments and become a leader on the global stage and it is how we will ensure that Scotland reaches its climate goals without damaging our communities and economy in the process.

Do we need the Acorn project in place before we can produce SAF?

That links to my next question. The bill does not explicitly set out that undertaking licensed or consented activities cannot constitute ecocide or provide a defence along those lines. That has raised concerns among different sectors, including farming, fishing and renewables. Is the approach in the bill appropriate? What implications might it have for SEPA and NatureScot, as bodies that are actively involved in consenting and permitting?

Perhaps we can hear from Dr Mitchell, as he raised that issue.

In my questions, I will continue to ask about project willow, which the deputy convener raised with you. There are two SAF projects in project willow. One is about first-generation SAF—the HEFA one—and the other is about third-generation SAF. Should we still be pursuing the first-generation project, especially when we look at the mandates that are coming forward? That is almost like a bridge to other fuels in the future. Is it still feasible to have that project within project willow?

We spoke about responsibilities flowing down. You are responsible for licensing and consenting, so are you in danger of committing ecocide if you permit too many things? Could the responsibility then go back up to SEPA or even to the Scottish Government?

I put the same question on finances to Dr Mitchell. Does the figure cover what you might have to do?

Would the clarification come from regulations, or should it be in the bill?