Chamber and committees

Keith Brown let the cat out of the bag on “Debate Night”. We all know that the SNP has a presumption against oil and gas, which he made clear last night.

The SNP is not being honest, and it is also not being honest with community groups across Scotland that are angry about the scale of energy infrastructure projects that are sweeping the countryside.

If only we had an energy strategy, we could maybe look at what we need. We should have a proper energy mix with nuclear, oil and gas and renewables. This Government seems to be putting all its eggs into the one basket of renewables. What we need is cheap electricity, not the much more expensive electricity from the renewables that are proposed.

That comes back to the point that the SNP Government is not being honest.

I agree that we should be using our own hydrocarbons rather than relying on imported oil and gas. Does Kevin Stewart disagree with his party’s stance against Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields, which would provide hydrocarbons that we can use in this country?

I am not sure what language some people took offence at.

Those communities will not be silenced, because they are doing something that the SNP is failing to do, which is to stand up for rural Scotland. Only the Scottish Conservatives are working with communities, listening to them and providing them with a commonsense plan to tackle climate change. Net zero will be achieved only with the support of the people of Scotland. Their support cannot be commanded; it must be earned. Right now, the SNP is failing on all counts.

15:43

I will come on to some of the targets that should be in the plan.

The plan sets out aspirations, which have their place. It is right that the Government establishes where it wants to go and what the vision is, but what we have in front of us today is a vision document. I do not feel that it is an actual plan.

Time and again, the committee asked simple questions. What exactly will be done? By whom? By when? With what funding? However, too often, no answer was provided.

The milestones are particularly weak. They are framed in broad trajectories rather than measurable delivery points. For example—the cabinet secretary asked for examples—on the decarbonisation of heat in buildings, the plan sets out long-term outcomes for emissions reduction but does not set clear annual targets for the number of homes to be converted, the workforce that will be required or the funding profile that will be needed year by year. Without those practical milestones, there is no way for Parliament to track whether delivery is on course or falling behind.

Any plan should have real and proper targets that can be measured. This plan does not have any of that. We cannot wish our way to net zero. If the Government really wants to get to net zero, it should put forward a plan. However, just as it does not have an energy strategy, it does not have a climate change plan that we can look at.

If we do not know how many heat pumps are to be installed each year, how many skilled workers must be trained or how much capital funding is required at each stage, then we do not have a delivery plan; all we have is an ambition.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I speak with a lot of disappointment, to be honest. What should have been a landmark report for this Parliament is instead a catalogue of errors from this out-of-time, out-of-touch Scottish National Party devolved Government. I have been an MSP for nearly five years, and this is one of the most damning reports that I have seen from a committee or have been involved in.

The report describes the draft climate action plan in these terms: “clear gaps”, “falls short”, “insufficient detail” and “areas of risk”. The plan was “rushed”, leading to a lack of confidence from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that our concerns will be taken seriously. “Rushed” is quite a statement, given that we were promised the plan more than a year ago; now, so close to the dissolution of Parliament, it finally appears.

It is quite simply a disgrace that the cabinet secretary has come here today to defend what is, in essence, a plan without detail and without targets, and one that will fail to deliver its main point, which is a reduction in emissions that will contribute to our net zero climate goals. Any climate change plan should have one aim: to reduce emissions and help us to reach our 2045 climate goals.

This plan should be about delivery. It should include timelines and targets for how we will get there. However, the plan that the committee was asked to scrutinise does none of that. It has let down our committee, the Parliament and the people of Scotland.

I agree 100 per cent. We have been calling for the energy profits levy to be scrapped for a long time, because there is no windfall. At least we know where the SNP stands on oil and gas.

The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee heard directly from community groups across Scotland. They are made up of local residents, community councils and volunteers who are trying to engage in good faith with the planning process and the energy transition. It was deeply concerning that the cabinet secretary dismissed concerns that were raised about energy infrastructure as narratives that were linked to the far right. That kind of language is not only wrong; it is damaging and it undermines trust. It polarises the debate and risks shutting down legitimate participation in the planning process.

I invite the cabinet secretary to take the opportunity to apologise to those individuals and groups that she has labelled as far right. Those groups and communities care about where they live. She refuses to meet them and she denigrates them in the press and badmouths them to the public. How can she claim to represent her constituency when she shows such disregard for its residents? She should be ashamed. Presiding Officer, I am sorry if my language is less than parliamentary, but you will understand my disgust at the phrase that was used by the cabinet secretary in describing my neighbours and friends as far right.

A just transition requires partnership with communities, not rhetoric that is directed at them. For the cabinet secretary to direct that language at those communities just shows what a disgusting organisation the SNP is. It is trying to discredit communities that dare to speak up and then brand them as far right in the hope of shutting them up. Those communities will not be silenced—

I completely agree. Once again, the SNP cannot wish its way to cheaper electricity. The same applies to the SNP’s claims that it would reduce people’s bills by a third if we were independent. That is absolute nonsense, and it has nothing to back it up whatsoever.

The plan matters because Scotland has missed climate targets before. A plan that is light on detail and vague on milestones risks repeating that pattern. If the Government wants to get to net zero by 2045, it needs to be honest with people about how much it will all cost. What will it mean for air travel? What will it mean for car travel? What will it mean for people when they are trying to heat their homes? The SNP Government is not being honest.

It is not telling people what the push for net zero by 2045 will mean for households. It is not telling people who live in a flat why they will have to pay up to 10 times more to charge an electric vehicle than people who have their own driveway. It is not telling our oil and gas workers that it does not support projects such as Rosebank, which are vital for jobs in the north-east. It is not being honest for the simple fact that there is an election in 63 days.