Chamber and committees

Building on the same point, amid the complexity, it seems that the one clear and simple thing is the value of the European structural funds in relation to both the amount of money and the amount of control that Scotland had over how to use it.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that an incoming UK Government next month must be under immediate pressure to ensure that both the level of investment and the level of control for Scotland over its replacement funding is at least as good as it would have been if Scotland had got what we voted for and remained in the EU?

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what action it is taking to recognise pride month, including how it supports LGBTQ+ staff and visitors by ensuring that the Parliament remains a visibly inclusive environment. (S6O-03587)

I am delighted to hear about that decision regarding the progress pride flag.

I ask my question in the wake of the decision not so long ago to require Parliament staff not to wear rainbow lanyards—a decision that I regard as unnecessary and unhelpful. Members are still allowed to make that small, simple and utterly inoffensive gesture of inclusion and support. On the other hand, corporate body staff are not. Is the corporate body aware that, in the wake of that decision, some individuals who actively campaign against the equality and human rights of lesbian, gay, bi, trans and queer people actively welcomed the decision? Is the corporate body troubled by that and does it recognise that it has a responsibility assertively to challenge such suggestions and to use pride month to reassert very clearly the inclusive nature of Parliament?

I think that the problem lies not in the precise wording of the policy but in its application. Glasgow City Council says that it has approved 1,500 homes since the turn of the year, which could have meant hundreds more affordable homes if the policy had been applied. In one example, the Scottish ministers rejected the call from Green councillors to call in the Shawlands arcade redevelopment, which alone could have provided 125 affordable homes. What is the value of the policy if local councils are not being required to apply it and to ensure that private developers include affordable housing as part of their developments?

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of its recognition of a housing emergency, whether it will take steps to improve the application of policy 16 of the fourth national planning framework in relation to affordable housing. (S6O-03542)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, however much information the assessment, or a final report, can currently give us, it will be an assessment only of the effect of the temporary nature of the pilot? If we want people to make changes to their travel patterns, they need to have confidence that those prices will not be increased again, which would throw them back into confusion or cost them more money. If we want to see the benefit of the impact that this change can make, permanence will give people that confidence.

We are at a critical point in the transition—halfway to net zero—but that is largely as a result of the easy wins, especially the decarbonisation of electricity. Anyone with any credibility at all accepts the reality that change is needed.

Outright climate denial is largely a fringe notion that is confined to the absurdities of GB News and the far-right press, but that was not always the case. The fossil fuel industry understood the fundamentals of the harm that it was doing to the world as long ago as the 1960s. Initially, it covered it up. Then, as the science came to be understood more widely, it pumped out lies and conspiracy theories as rapidly as it continued pumping out oil and gas. It succeeded in delaying climate action for decades. As millionaires became billionaires, the damage that they were quite deliberately doing to our global life-support system continued.

The fossil fuel industry’s creation of the climate denial conspiracy movement should go down in history as one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever perpetrated. The damage that it did is still with us, but, more recently, the fossil fuel industry has been successful at creating a new threat by moving its strategy from climate denial to climate delay. It says, “Of course, there should be a transition, but let us manage it in our own time and at a slower pace.” There was a time when all of this could have been done more slowly. It would have been easier. It would probably have been cheaper in the long run, too. That time was when the science first became clear and when we still had decades in which to act, but the fossil fuel industry was doing everything possible to put its own profits ahead of the survival of our world.

Whatever else we disagree about across the political spectrum, we should agree on the interests of the workforce whose livelihoods are at stake. To anyone working in the oil and gas sector, I say that, if your family or community is dependent on that industry, you need an active transition to make sure that there is a decent, secure future after the fossil fuel age. If that is what you need, it should be clear to you that the fossil fuel industry is your greatest enemy. It will always put its short-term profits ahead of your long-term future. It did it before, it is doing it now and it will continue to do it for as long as Governments allow it.

To those who say, “Let’s work with the fossil fuel industry on the transition,” I say that it is time to get real. As research from Oil Change International just a couple of months ago showed, of the large oil companies, including many of those working in the Scottish North Sea, many have plans to increase their global oil and gas production—not to transition away from it, but to increase it—and many of them are also ranked among the world’s most climate-wrecking investor-owned companies, based on their historical pollution.

The industry cannot be trusted to lead this change. Only assertive interventionist approaches from Government will get results at the rapid pace that is now required after decades of industry delays. We have seen the Tories ripping up their climate policies—thankfully, they will be out of Government very soon. The SNP is now back to its old ways. Instead of accelerating action on climate, Kate Forbes is quoted today as saying that the SNP has

“been clear that we’re not against new”

oil and gas licences and has

“never said no”.

That represents a shameless retreat from a position of climate leadership. The SNP is even attacking Labour’s half-hearted and insipid measures as too extreme. For its part, Labour wants to talk to us about GB energy, but it seems to be as unclear as the industry is about what that actually would be.

It is clear that only the Greens are willing to act like our future depends on it, shifting away from fossil fuel at the speed that is required and willing to use progressive taxation so that the wealth that is being hoarded by the super rich can be used to invest at the scale and pace that the transition demands.

I move amendment S6M-13482.2, to leave out from “makes” to end and insert:

“has made to Scotland’s economy and the contribution that it has made to the greenhouse gas emissions, which threaten the future of humanity and much of the living world; accepts the reality that the North Sea is a declining basin, that most of its production is for export and does not contribute to energy security, and that the world already has far more fossil fuel in existing reserves than it can afford to use in any scenario consistent with the Paris Agreement; notes that the industry supports an estimated 30,000 direct jobs and that these skilled workers need a managed transition to green industries that is both just and fast; further notes the long track record of the fossil fuel industry in first covering up climate science, then promoting climate denial conspiracy theories, before shifting to its current strategy of lobbying for slower climate action; notes with concern reports that the Scottish Government is considering ending its presumption against new oil and gas licences; condemns the UK Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which would reward the fossil fuel industry and do nothing to reduce the UK’s dependence on it; notes with concern the extremist positions taken by some fossil fuel apologists who are opposed to the very existence of a liveable world, and condemns their actions, which are irresponsible, damaging and disruptive.”

I have frequently reflected on the comparison between the debates that happened about a decade ago in relation to Longannet and those that are happening now in relation to the North Sea. The same debate is happening, and I think that there is the same lack of transparency for the workforce involved, only on a much bigger scale.

Everybody knew that Scotland’s last coal-fired power station was going to close—they knew that it had to close, should close and would close. We all knew it, yet the company that owned it, the local authority, the Scottish Government and the UK Government all kept on saying the same thing: “We’re fully committed to the long-term future of the plant.” That was a dishonest position, then; it was not in the interests of the workforce of the plant, which was a doomed plant. It was going to close, and we all knew it. What should have happened is that the last decade of its operational life should have been dedicated to investment in a decent economic future for the local community for the period after it closed. That did not happen.

That is what a planned transition would involve, and that is the kind of honesty that is required in relation to the North Sea. It is entirely wrong of the Conservatives to claim, as they have done today, that they are the ones who are standing up for the workforce. They are pretending that the oil and gas industry has a long-term future, when we all know that that industry is not the future.

As for the Liberal Democrat amendment, I recognise the valiant attempt that Liam McArthur has made to try to calm things down. Perhaps he is due credit for trying to do so. However, I cannot support an amendment that includes that mealy-mouthed phrase about “phasing down” fossil fuels, which is the very phrase that caused such utter dismay when fossil fuel lobbyists managed to get it into a United Nations framework convention on climate change conference of the parties report a few years ago.

I do not expect much better from the Conservatives on their position, but I have to say that I used to expect better from the SNP. It had begun—finally—to end its fixation on supporting the fossil fuel industry, but it appears that that is no longer the case. In relation to licensing, the cabinet secretary—although it might have been the minister—said that the Government will take an “evidence-based” approach, but she also said that it would do so on a “case-by-case basis”. The evidence that we have is that the entire world already has far more fossil fuel in existing reserves than we can afford to use. The United Nations says so, the International Energy Agency says so and the global climate experts say so. We have far more of the stuff than we can afford to use. There can be no justification for going looking for more. We have a global glut of the stuff, and we cannot use it.

As for the Labour Party’s position, I know that Daniel Johnson was keen to say—I enjoyed the fact that he enjoyed saying so—that the SNP and Conservative positions were unclear, undefined, uncertain and “confused”, but I have to say that the Labour Party’s position on its proposal for GB energy is no clearer. Back in January, Sarah Boyack said that GB energy would be a

“publicly owned energy champion for clean energy”.—[Official Report, 24 January 2024; c 36.]

In May, Anas Sarwar said that it would be a

“publicly-owned energy generating company”.

Just four days later, Keir Starmer said that it would be an

“investment vehicle, not an energy company,”

but on the same day, Ed Miliband said that it would be

“a company that generates electricity.”

I am sure that a position will be set out in the closing speeches; the point is that there have been so many different positions that even the industry is unclear about what it means.

The one thing that I am clear about is that GB energy will lack the resources that it needs. Just a few months ago, Sarah Boyack said that Labour would be “committed to” £28 billion of investment, which she said would be “crucial”. Last year, Ed Miliband said that

“Some people don’t want Britain to borrow to invest in the green economy. They want us to back down. But Keir, Rachel and I will never let that happen. Britain needs this £28bn a year”.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

—a commitment that Labour was describing as “essential”, just months ago.