Chamber and committees

It is about turbines, cables and platforms being made here in Scotland, so that people are trained here and communities benefit. We need to plan ahead and work together across our Governments, supporting high-quality jobs, securing our energy future and making sure that, in the next five years, we turn ambition into delivery so that the words “just transition” mean something real for workers and our communities.

Does Kevin Stewart have any idea when the Scottish Government’s energy and just transition plan will appear? We have been waiting for it for more than two and a half years.

I, too, thank Liam Kerr for bringing this important debate to the chamber, as we need to think through the insights that come from the “Striking the Balance” report. This is a pivotal moment for our energy transition, and the question is not whether Scotland and the UK move away from fossil fuel reliance; it is how we make that shift in a way that is fair, planned and inclusive for workers and communities and that delivers for our economy at the same time, maximising opportunities, whether for manufacturing or for utilising the raft of new technologies that are becoming available.

First, we must plan ahead. As colleagues around the chamber have said, we know that oil and gas production in the North Sea will be part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, as the report correctly highlights, the pace and shape of workforce supply and demand will define whether we have a fair transition or one that negatively impacts on people’s employment opportunities and the local economy. We cannot leave the skilled workforce scrambling for opportunities; we need to ensure that the opportunities are there for them.

One key issue on which we have been lobbying is the oil and gas passport. The energy and skills passport can ensure that workers who have built their careers in oil and gas have their training, experience and qualifications all recognised as they move into a range of other jobs, whether in renewables, carbon capture or the decommissioning of existing platforms.

No—I am going to keep moving.

I wish to raise a point that was first raised by Audrey Nicoll. It is vital that we recognise the role of trade unions, and of people having long-term, negotiated terms and conditions. That is one of the things that the trade unions in the North Sea have managed to do over the decades.

I welcome the round table and the focus on preventing wildfires as the climate emergency is increasing the vulnerability of our land. It is good to hear that funding will be increasing, given the real-terms cut of £56 million in recent years.

Will the minister acknowledge that we need to look at both urban and rural challenges, as our fire services are under huge pressure dealing with wildfires, storms and flooding? Will he agree to look at investment across the country so that we do not lose services, as we would with the current proposal to close Marionville fire station, which is minutes away from Arthur’s Seat?

That is the point, and that is what comes through in the report. We need to work with the trade unions now because, as change accelerates, they need to be at the table to design the just transition, safeguarding the jobs that we have already but also thinking about standards going forward.

One of the really important recommendations in the report is on the need to ensure that supply chains are enhanced and the level of UK manufacturing content in renewables is increased. The report identified that projects to raise the level of UK content in renewables—aspiring to 40 per cent, for instance—would themselves generate thousands of additional jobs. We might think that we produce all of that content here, but we do not.

To realise that opportunity, we need strong signals and investment, so that we get manufacturing plants to open here—I note that the Sumitomo one is being established. We also need more supply chain confidence and investment in local communities. I agree with everyone that the next five years are crucial, and the UK Government’s recent announcements reflect that. The national clean energy jobs plan forecasts hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next five years, but it also explicitly sets out how to support workers in the fossil fuel sector into jobs in clean energy as well as how industry can collaborate with trade unions and education providers.

We can look at how our existing offshore plants could be more energy efficient. For example, offshore wind can reduce the carbon emissions of existing oil and gas. We need that as well as things such as shipping investment to make sure that we have the manufacturing that will support activity in the North Sea.

The build it in Britain ambition is about backing manufacturing and home-grown supply chains and, in particular, supporting coastal and industrial communities. That ambition is critical, because it shows that the UK Government understands that just transition means new jobs and new investment. It is not just about decarbonising our economy; it is about building things in. Grangemouth is a key test case for us. We have lost the refinery, so we need to see more investment.

Historically, there has been a lack of industrial planning from the Tory Government and previously from the SNP. In just the past year and a half, we have seen Labour supporting the Grangemouth area, with its role in the £100 million growth deal, project willow, and the investment of additional money from the national wealth fund. We need to secure a future for people who are living in those communities, so that there is a fair transition. That means investment to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, from not only the Government but the private sector.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. I have tried to read the whole plan.

Climate campaigners are clear that we need a strong plan if we are to see the changes that are urgently needed. The SNP promised a publicly owned energy company, which did not happen. That was a massive missed opportunity. We have also not seen the manufacturing of renewables kit, even though there has been a big increase in renewable electricity production. We should compare that with the UK Government’s action in delivering Great British Energy and the national wealth fund, and supporting communities to install solar panels.

We urgently need action across Scotland, including a ramp-up of support for communities that are already experiencing the transition. Why is there no information in the plan about how the £500 million that has been promised will be spent and how communities will benefit from it? The cabinet secretary referenced heat in buildings, but not did not link that to the need to retrofit homes so that they are energy efficient. She also did not say how councils will implement their local heat and energy efficiency strategy plans. Shawfair received £7 million from the Government for 3,000 houses and Aberdeen Heat & Power was created 20 years ago, but council budgets have been slashed. What support will the Scottish Government give to councils, including those in Edinburgh and East Lothian, to maximise the opportunities from projects such as Berwick Bank to create new jobs and invest in our homes?

I congratulate Nicola Sturgeon for securing this debate.

Loss and damage is destruction that goes beyond what people can adapt to: when floods wash away homes, when crops fail year after year and when rising seas swallow villages. It is what happens when climate change pushes communities past the point of recovery.

As a member of the cross-party group on Malawi, I have heard directly from communities that have suffered losses. In Malawi, more than 80 per cent of people live in rural areas and rely on farming to survive, but storms and droughts have devastated crops, impacting on people’s incomes and pushing families deeper into poverty.

In Pakistan, although communities are still recovering from the massive floods that they suffered in 2022, they have had severe floods every year since. Their Government had to borrow $400 million to repair damaged homes and infrastructure

Climate change is overwhelmingly driven by the richest in society and by the historical and current emissions of the global north, but it is the poorest communities in the global south that are paying the price. Last week, I hosted a “Creative for climate justice” event, organised by Oxfam and Christian Aid, with primary school students who showed us their inspiring art. Their powerful and effective message was that climate justice is social justice.

Like others, I have been raising the issue of loss and damage for years in the Parliament: in committee sessions, at events and in motions in the chamber. I remember asking in 2021, before COP26, why Scotland was not showing leadership on the third pillar of the Paris agreement: loss and damage. To the credit of the then First Minister, Scotland did show that leadership at COP26 by being the first country in the global north to pledge dedicated funding—£2 million—to address loss and damage. That was a landmark moment. It sent a message across the world that wealthy nations can, and should, take responsibility for the harm caused by their emissions.

However, we cannot rest on the achievements of COP26. The world has moved on, the challenges have got bigger and, in Scotland, we have stalled at time when we need to be progressing faster. In April, the Scottish Government scrapped its climate targets, abandoning our formerly agreed-on ambitions. That has let down communities in Malawi, the Pacific and the global south that are already experiencing the climate emergency. We have failed to meet climate targets not only in eight of the past 12 years, but in nine of the past 13 years. We need action urgently. No pressure on the cabinet secretary, but we need a plan that will work, will be ambitious and will reduce our emissions—one that is not just about headlines but that makes real change in our communities.

Loss and damage are a massive issue. The fund agreed for it at COP29 was an important step, but much of it in the form of loans. As colleagues have said, that means the poorest countries are forced into debt to pay for the damage caused by others. That is not acceptable.

Scotland has shown that it is possible to deliver targeted, life-changing support through our climate justice fund. For example, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund’s £500,000 project in southern Malawi is helping communities to rebuild after tropical storm Ana and cyclone Gombe. The difference that the funding has made is profound, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed.

COP30 in Brazil begins next week. We have a chance to show that Scotland’s commitment to climate justice is not fading. We should use our voice internationally to push for a loss and damage fund that is accessible, transparent, and is based on grants, not loans.

Huge numbers of my constituents are calling for action. At our Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference on climate last month, the vulnerability of low-lying island countries was highlighted. That is an issue now, not for the future. We need to reflect on how we support low-income and vulnerable countries to develop new climate resilience and to use the opportunities that come from renewables, for example, to benefit them. Loss and damage is not just about rebuilding what has been destroyed: it is about a fair transition, justice and solidarity. We need to think about what kind of world we want to build for future generations.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the experience of women who miscarry needs to be looked at, too? One of my constituents had to wait while two parts of the NHS argued over who should see her, because her pregnancy was at the 12-week point—too late for the early pregnancy unit but too early for the triage unit. She then had to return several times for checks on her pregnancy hormone levels, which were not reducing. She was in an area alongside pregnant women but she had miscarried her baby. Will the cabinet secretary take action now to ensure that our constituents in Lothian get the change that is urgently needed?

Will the member take an intervention?