Chamber and committees

The member will not be too surprised to hear me say that I cannot comment on the specific case that he mentions. However, it is the case that, in the process, the decision makers consider all the available evidence. I realise that the member’s point is about forthcoming proposals. In reaching a decision, ministers will determine applications in accordance with legislative requirements and relevant policy, and any cumulative impact assessment that is made is limited to considering existing and already approved developments. However, as I have indicated, all representations that are made in any community about an application are considered when a decision is made.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am seeking a little clarification from the member, because it is difficult to recognise his characterisation of the Scottish Government’s position on the EPL, given that we, as a Government, did not oppose the initial levy but opposed its extension. He has gone through quite a few somersaults to try to mischaracterise that position.

I cannot say what is in the Prime Minister’s mind on that. I have indicated that the First Minister is open to a summit and has said so to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce. I hope that the Prime Minister is similarly open to the idea. I have no idea of the guest list.

Will the member take an intervention?

This has been a brief but spirited debate. I acknowledge the many considered speeches, but I must begin by addressing some of the claims that were made in the Conservative motion. There are basic facts that should frame any evidence-based debate on North Sea oil and gas—I believe that we are still living in days in which evidence-based debate is possible.

Before I move on to the wider issues that have been raised by the Conservative motion, I will pick up on an important point that Ben Macpherson made. He talked about the real economic and human impact of the Harbour Energy decision and, in particular, about whether the Scottish and UK Governments could do anything together. I am happy to confirm that the First Minister has responded in very positive terms to the suggestion from Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce that there should be a summit involving the Prime Minister and the First Minister. I hope that that can progress.

The North Sea basin is now geologically mature, and production is affected by that. As many members have said, the challenge and the opportunity are to ensure a just transition for the companies and individuals that are involved in the sector, particularly in the north-east, so that they will continue to play a role in our energy future, as well as helping individuals here and now.

Are you challenging the chair?

Members: Oh!

There have been many interventions from the Scottish Government—indeed, sometimes with the UK Government—such as the skills passport and the on-going explanation to school leavers about the many opportunities that exist in the renewables sector. Many positive things are happening on all those fronts. The Scottish Government is committed to doing all that it can within its devolved powers to support the transition to which the member refers.

However, as members know, decisions on offshore oil and gas licensing, consenting and the associated fiscal regime are all currently reserved to the UK Government. Therefore, we continue to call on the UK Government to approach its decisions on North Sea oil and gas projects on an evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations.

To return to the Conservative motion, there is an implication that we in Scotland—or, perhaps, globally—should not be aiming that hard for net zero. However, the clear scientific evidence is that we must do so. The alternatives are fairly unthinkable for the generation that comes after us.

I remind the Parliament of its long-standing consensus around the 2045 net zero target, which was confirmed as recently as the passing of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024.

There is plenty that we must do. I could talk today about the work that needs to be done. I know that a subject close to Patrick Harvie’s heart is the decarbonisation of buildings, which is one of the many things that we are looking at. He is right that we have to make sure that we reach those targets. As I said, there is an implication in the Conservative motion that that is not too important.

I do not think that members across parties will agree on the points that Patrick Harvie made about energy, but I am as strongly of the view as he is that new nuclear power would be hugely expensive and would take years to become operational, without our even looking at the environmental issues that would be involved.

Between 1990 and 2022, Scotland’s economy grew by two thirds while our carbon emissions halved. We are changing how we produce electricity. We are involving communities in decisions and working in partnership with other nations on shared challenges such as climate change.

Willie Rennie made an interesting and important point about the importance of a holistic approach. We recognise the need to do much more—in particular, to ensure that communities feel the benefits of the transition of which we all speak. As the cabinet secretary said in opening, we have called on the UK Government to act on a much wider mandatory community benefit, for instance, and we have called for further action to address fuel poverty.

The Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to a just energy transition. I ask members to support that aim today by supporting the Government amendment.

I suspect that the member is coming to this point. Does he agree that, despite the many impassioned and sincere cases that have been and will be made today, one of the issues with the bill is that it does not specify the substances concerned, but leaves that to ministers?