Chamber and committees

An interesting debate—shall we put it in that way? Reform has set out the issues and we are here to talk about those issues.

I have often wondered why the Parliament and, in particular, the Scottish Government have had such poor energy policies; why they have failed to grasp energy reality and not acknowledged that we have the highest energy costs in the world and that that fact is driving de-industrialisation and closing down some of our most important industrial sites, such as the Grangemouth refinery and Mossmorran; why we have a fragile grid, such that, if Torness or Peterhead power plants closed, we would have significant risks of blackouts; why the Scottish Government has a presumption against new oil and gas; why it refuses to fully back new, ready-to-go projects such as Jackdaw and Rosebank; and why it does not back new drilling and licences.

We heard the answer to some of that yesterday. It is due to an ideological adherence to the net zero agenda, the prioritisation of net zero above growth, jobs, the cost of living and, indeed, people’s wellbeing.

The Government ignores any trade-offs and takes a Pravda-like approach by telling everyone that its plans are working and a fingers-in-the-ear approach by ignoring the realities such as higher bills, deindustrialisation and an utter failure to reduce our globally insignificant emissions since 2020.

I am not aware of the record or of whether yesterday’s was the highest temperature recorded in France. The temperature in Britain yesterday was the highest it has been since 1976. At one point, I was worried that it was going to be the highest temperature recorded since 1966, which might have been a bad omen. However, I acknowledge climate change; I acknowledged it very clearly yesterday.

France provides one of the best examples in Europe of an energy system that actually works. That is because its energy mainly comes from nuclear. France took that decision a long time ago, because it has a serious energy policy.

Let us be clear: our policies are not working and they are not proportionate. That needs to change. We need a far more pragmatic energy policy.

First, we need to revitalise our oil and gas industry. We need our oil and gas industry for price stability and for security of supply. We will need oil and gas for decades. Increasing our North Sea oil and gas production will reduce imports and emissions, because imports have higher emissions associated with them. We can do that; the North Sea has a strong and vital future.

If we choose to do that, we need to urgently remove the energy profits levy; provide unambiguous support for Jackdaw, Rosebank and all new projects, licences and drilling; and restore maximum economic recovery as our guiding principle.

Much of oil and gas policy is not within the competence—literally—of the Scottish Government, but the Government is good at challenging the UK Government when it suits. It called for an end to the energy profits levy, so why not call for changes to the law around planning regulation for oil and gas? It is not that hard.

The industry’s confidence is damaged because we have a devolved Administration that sits on the sidelines, sniping and jeering when we need the Scottish Government to be an unambiguous champion and supporter of our North Sea and oil and gas industry. What we have is the exact opposite, and we can see that in the petrochemical industry. The Government does not care about Grangemouth or Mossmorran. It certainly does not care enough to change its policies.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Surely that language was unacceptable.

What Alex Kerr said is fantasy. The SNP’s intervention was to try and turn Grangemouth into a beetroot refinery. Those people are out of their minds.

It is simple: if we want real economic growth, industry, jobs and cheaper energy bills, we need a pragmatic energy policy that focuses on cheap, abundant and reliable energy. That means that we have to acknowledge that we have a failing system with the highest industrial energy costs in the world. It also means that we need to maximise our oil and gas resources in the short and medium term, increase our use of nuclear power—just like successful France, which I mentioned—and have renewables in a complementary role.

We can secure cheap energy for everyone if we ensure that we protect and add to our industrial base. That is what will reduce bills for everyone, keep the lights on for Scotland’s future and reduce our carbon emissions in the long term.

16:25

Will the member take an intervention?

The member makes some good points about Hinkley Point C, but that probably highlights issues with the planning and regulatory regime in the UK, as is the case with a number of high-profile projects that have extended budgets and not met deadlines. However, does he acknowledge that there are great examples of nuclear projects around the world that have succeeded, notably in South Korea, which has delivered eight nuclear power plants at a cost of around £8 billion? That is because South Korea’s approach was to build eight at the same time. That might be a great way forward to reduce costs for nuclear.

I welcome the comments from the minister and Daniel Johnson. I acknowledge Rachael Hamilton’s concerns and also what Daniel Johnson said. It is a pity about the timing, which meant that the bill could not be considered by the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee. A statement about the reasoning for that was made at its meeting today.

We need to support the legislation that is before us. The manufacture of steel remains an economically and strategically important industry, especially as we enter this new geopolitical era. We need to reindustrialise, and we may need to revitalise our military.

Make no mistake: we need to recognise how we have got here—to the point where we need to save our steelworks across the country through nationalisation. There has been a failure of industrial policy, which does not seem to care about maintaining national capability or about domestic ability to produce key industrial items. As we discussed just 15 minutes ago in the climate change debate, net zero policies have driven the highest industrial energy costs in the world. They are double those of the US and four times more than those in China, and that is driving deindustrialisation. The steel industry, which is of course very energy intensive, is on the front line of enduring the pain, and that is why we have had to enact such legislation.

As I said, I welcome this legislation, but I fear that, until we change our energy policies and get serious about developing domestic capability in manufacturing and producing things, such as steel, that are critical to our infrastructure and to just about every manufacturing step, we will have a sector that—whether it is nationalised or not—will struggle.

I will keep my comments brief. I support the motion, but I think that some key challenges for the steel industry remain.

18:00

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact on service users of delays of up to 28 weeks in the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman allocating complaints to a reviewer. (S7O-00099)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has quietly removed its RCP—representative concentration pathway—8.5 scenario, which once again highlights that the scientific consensus is that there is slow and mild warming, with the mid-term estimate being another 1°C to 1.5°C increase by the end of the century.

What are the real impacts of that warming? Again, the IPCC sees the likely emergence of more heatwaves, but it does not see a climate change signal for river floods, heavy rainfall, drought of all types, severe wind storms or tropical storms.

It was certainly contributory.

Again, let us be science based and fact based about the problem, and let us acknowledge that climate change sits alongside other problems such as lack of growth, lack of jobs and the cost of living crisis. Unfortunately, our policies have made those problems interconnected. We need to ensure that our responses are pragmatic and long term and that our policies are focused on the needs of people rather than on arbitrary emissions targets.

Let us be clear: our current net zero policies are not working, and they are not proportionate. First, they are not having any actual impact. Scotland’s annual emissions are 0.08 per cent of global emissions, or about one day of Chinese emissions. As the Scottish Government’s own data has shown, our emissions have been flat since 2020, with no decline despite huge amounts of taxpayers’ money having been thrown at the problem.

Secondly, those net zero policies are driving huge costs that are deindustrialising the whole country and driving up our energy bills.