Chamber and committees

The debate has exposed a fundamental divide in the Parliament: on one side sits the left-wing Holyrood consensus that is determined to push ahead with arbitrary 2045 net zero targets regardless of the cost to families, businesses and Scotland’s vital oil and gas sector; and, on the other side, sit most of the Scottish Conservatives, who are clear that climate action must be credible, affordable and deliverable.

Let us start with the facts. The Scottish Government’s independent climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee, have been explicit about what meeting the 2045 target entails. By 2030, 35,000 heat pumps have to be installed every year and, by 2035, 60 per cent of cars and vans have to be electric. There also needs to be a reduction of 2 million in the number of cattle and sheep, a cut of a fifth in meat consumption—I think that I might have a ribeye tonight—and a nearly tenfold increase in land use for woodland. Those are not marginal adjustments. They are profound changes to how people heat their homes, travel to work, run their farms and feed their families.

However, the Government refuses to level with the public about the scale of the disruption that is involved or the bill that will come with it. The CCC estimates the net cost of reaching net zero at £750 million per year between 2025 and 2050, with costs peaking before benefits are realised. The Government’s draft climate change plan admits that the Scottish economy will be £6.1 billion worse off by 2030 and £4.8 billion down by 2040, even after projected savings. Those are massive numbers. Businesses alone face £8.5 billion in costs by 2040. Who will pay?

Consumers at home do not care much about 8 per cent of GDP when they face bills that will cripple their household incomes.

The cabinet secretary has still not answered the question that I asked: who will pay? Officials have admitted that they cannot predict whether the burden will fall on taxpayers, households or industry. That is not a plan. The Government is gambling with other people’s money.

Even Audit Scotland has warned that the costs lack transparency and that there is no clear breakdown of who pays, when they pay or how their investment will be funded. The Parliament has been asked to sign off a strategy without knowing the price tag—we have all seen that before. The Government’s previous target to cut emissions by 70 per cent by 2030 was abandoned after it became clear that that was not credible.

Now, we have been told to have confidence again. Confidence in what? In a plan that was published late? In proposals that are not fully costed? In a strategy that places almost twice the reliance on negative emissions technologies as the CCC’s balanced pathway—technologies that even the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has described as largely “untested at scale” and a “significant delivery risk”? Should we have confidence in electric vehicle uptake doing the heavy lifting, despite the serious concerns that we have heard about affordability, charging infrastructure and grid capacity? I can attest to all those concerns being real. It is all wishful thinking.

The human cost of that approach is already being felt. Scotland has lost three oil and gas jobs for every clean job that has been created over the past decade, and more than 13,000 jobs have disappeared in a single year.

I will not.

Scotland’s emissions are already down by 50 per cent compared with the 1990 baseline. Progress has been made. The Scottish Conservatives would scrap the arbitrary 2045 target and replace it with a credible and affordable pathway that would protect oil and gas jobs, safeguard energy security, support technological innovation and keep bills as low as possible for consumers. We want to focus on the delivery of a transition that carries the public with it, rather than imposing severe lifestyle restrictions without consent.

If climate policy loses public support, it will fail. If it undermines our economy, it will backfire. If it is built on shaky assumptions and opaque costings, it will certainly not endure. The Scottish Conservatives choose practical progress. We will stand up for Scottish workers, we will stand up for Scottish businesses, and we will stand up for a climate policy that is honest, affordable and fair.

17:12

It will be me this time.

We will see whether I will come to that in the two minutes that I have left. I will leave Bob Doris eagerly anticipating from his sedentary position whether I will do so, but I thank him for asking.

Communities in the north-east are being hollowed out while ministers talk about a just transition. The industry body Offshore Energies UK has been clear that oil and gas still have a vital role to play alongside renewables in delivering energy security and net zero. Instead of backing the sector, the Government has presided over industrial decline.

Let me be clear: despite what Mr Doris might have heard—he should listen to this—the Scottish Conservatives believe in protecting our environment. Mr Kerr said so earlier. We support a transition to cleaner energy, and we recognise the need to reduce emissions—not just those from politicians. However, we will not sign up to targets that cannot be delivered without hammering households and sacrificing jobs, and we will not endorse a plan that puts billions of pounds of costs into businesses while offering little clarity and less honesty.

I am pleased to speak in support of the motion that was lodged by Jamie Greene on fixing Scotland’s ferry fiasco.

For too long, Scotland’s islands and coastal communities have been treated as an afterthought by the SNP Government. Lifeline ferries are not a luxury or a seasonal extra—they are essential infrastructure. They are the arteries that keep island and coastal economies alive, by connecting people to work, education, healthcare and family.

However, Scotland’s ferry fiasco has been going on since 2014. The two vessels at the heart of the scandal—the MV Glen Sannox and the MV Glen Rosa—were originally budgeted to cost £97 million. Their combined cost has now reached almost £500 million, and both were meant to be in service in 2018-19. Instead, islanders have endured years of delay, disruption and uncertainty.

The MV Glen Sannox finally entered service in January 2025, and it has already required multiple periods of repair. The MV Glen Rosa has been delayed again, with delivery pushed back to the very end of 2026. The most recent delay alone has added another £12.5 million to the cost of completing the vessels, with the total cost since nationalisation of the yard now standing at £197.5 million.

What do islanders hear from ministers? They hear that the Government is carefully assessing the information that is provided, and that the situation is a source of great frustration. However, frustration is not accountability, and careful assessment is not delivery. Not one minister has resigned or taken responsibility. That is why my amendment explicitly notes that the combined cost of the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa has reached almost £500 million. Taxpayers deserve to know how that was allowed to happen and how ministers will ensure that it never happens again.

Yesterday, the Scottish Government announced four direct awards to Ferguson Marine, a programme to upgrade the yard and an intention to return it to the private sector. If that is the strategy, ministers must clearly outline how those new vessels will be delivered on time and on budget. Warm words and press releases will not rebuild public trust.

Meanwhile, CalMac has spent more than £260 million over 11 years maintaining an ageing fleet. In 2024-25 alone, upkeep costs reached £50.1 million—double what they were just two years earlier. The average age of a CalMac lifeline vessel is now more than 25 years. In 1974, the typical ferry was just 13 years old. That is not progress; it is managed decline. Communities such as Dunoon and Ardrossan have faced repeated disruption, yet many local businesses are not eligible for compensation under the islands business resilience fund, despite clearly being affected. That is unfair and must be rectified.

In what I would describe as a very timely announcement yesterday, the Government has also set out its intention to purchase Ardrossan harbour. If that deal proceeds, ministers must provide regular updates on when the purchase will be completed and when the long-overdue upgrade will be delivered, because communities deserve clarity and certainty, not continued speculation.

In Ardrossan, the MV Caledonian Isles was out of action for 20 months for repairs costing nearly £12 million. On Arran, the MV Alfred has been chartered at a cost that has already reached £35 million, which is more than double what it cost Pentland Ferries to build the vessel.

I will not, Mr Gibson, as I have very limited time and quite a significant amount to carry on with.

That figure will rise further now that the charter has been extended. That is not strategic fleet management; it is short-term crisis management.

Island and coastal communities have experienced repeated timetable changes, cancelled sailings and the absence of a real resilience vessel when breakdowns occur. Public services, local businesses, tourism and supply chains have all been hindered by that mismanagement.

The question is simple. How will the Scottish Government hold the ferry service providers to account to ensure that they deliver for island and coastal communities? Islanders and taxpayers deserve transparency and competence, and they deserve better than this.

Let me be clear: no one in the chamber doubts the dedication of workers at Ferguson Marine or the crews operating our ferry services. They are doing their utmost in extremely difficult circumstances. The failure here is not theirs. It lies with ministers, who have presided over years of delay, poor oversight and a lack of forward planning.

What Scotland needs now is a credible long-term strategy. We need a rolling 30-year plan for ferries and ports infrastructure, so that no community is ever left again without a viable lifeline service.

In conclusion, it is time to stop Scotland’s ferry fiasco. It is time to restore trust.

I move amendment S6M-20957.2, to insert at end:

“; notes that the combined costs of the MV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa has reached almost £500 million; acknowledges the Scottish Government’s announcements of four direct awards to Ferguson Marine, a programme to upgrade the yard, and the intention to return the yard to the private sector; urges ministers to outline how these new vessels will be delivered on time and on budget; notes the Scottish Government’s plan to purchase Ardrossan Harbour, and urges ministers to regularly update communities on when the purchase and upgrade of the harbour will be completed; further notes that the cost to charter the MV Alfred has reached £35 million, more than double the cost for Pentland Ferries to build the vessel, and that this cost will increase now that the charter has been extended; recognises that the public services and local economies of island and coastal communities have been hindered by the Scottish Government’s mismanagement of the ferry network through repeated timetable changes, cancelled sailings and the lack of a resilience vessel, and calls on the Scottish Government to outline how it will hold ferry service providers to account to ensure that they deliver for island and coastal communities.”

I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement. I welcome the announcement that the Scottish Government intends to return Ferguson Marine to the private sector

“when the time is right”.

Securing international contracts is the best way to ensure that shipbuilding remains on the Clyde. That being said, while the yard remains in public hands, it should be expected that it will provide value for money for taxpayers and deliver for our island and coastal communities.

What engagement has the Deputy First Minister had with the board of Ferguson Marine on the MV Glen Rosa? Does she envisage any delays and cost increases before the latest promised delivery date for the vessel, which is the end of this year?

Secondly, given the long-standing issues with the construction of the MV Glen Sannox and the MV Glen Rosa at Ferguson Marine, what guarantees has the Deputy First Minister had from the yard that the four new vessels will be delivered on time and on budget?

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of her statement. I welcome her remarks regarding community involvement with decision making and on the investment in Port Ellen, which is vital for whisky distilleries on Islay, which were grateful for that.

I recognise the commercial sensitivity regarding the purchase of the port of Ardrossan, but residents of the town of Ardrossan and businesses on Arran were promised that years ago. Can the cabinet secretary provide timelines for when the Scottish Government expects the harbour to be upgraded? How much has been budgeted for that?

I am also quite interested in what is not in your statement, cabinet secretary. Could we get an update on the MV Glen Rosa, and could you provide more details on when the MV Glen Sannox is expected to return to full service and not go in for yet more repairs? With the announcement that the charter for the MV Alfred will be extended yet again, does the cabinet secretary think that that is value for money, considering that taxpayers have spent more money to hire that ferry than it cost Pentland to build it?