Chamber and committees

Thank you. There is not an overall definition of green jobs. On the applications that have come in, do you think that some companies will be disappointed because they do not meet the criteria? Do we need to do more to ensure that we have a good and robust working definition?

The green jobs fund has been mentioned today and in the written submissions. There was a call for businesses to apply for funding over the summer. How many applications has Scottish Enterprise received? How many good green jobs do you expect will be created from the first round of funding?

Is the £800,000 that you mentioned the Highlands and Islands allocation from the green jobs fund to date, or is that other funding?

I am glad that Mark Ruskell pointed that out. I was going to talk later about local energy co-operatives and what we can do at a local level. Today, the issue is not about being prescriptive about what energy companies should be, but to at least have the debate and to ask the Scottish Government to put those proposals back on the table. We have all got good ideas to contribute.

We need to catch up. The potential benefits of a public energy company were cited in the Common Weal report “Powering our ambitions” and include tackling fuel poverty and social inequality, assisting with achieving national emissions reductions targets, development and deployment of new renewable, low-carbon energy supplies, supporting local energy co-operatives and more. Is it ambitious? Yes. Is this achievable? Absolutely.

I was struck by the remarks of Dr Craig Dalzell, head of policy at Common Weal, when commenting on the escalating gas crisis. He said:

“Someone has to renationalise energy. If Scotland doesn’t, one of Boris’s more sensible successors will. It’s a use-it-or-lose-it situation for the Scottish Government. Use the powers they have to create a national energy company – focusing first on heat, where powers are fully devolved, or those powers will be used elsewhere.”

We believe that plans for an asset-owning, not-for-profit, public energy company should be brought forward without delay. Remember that more than a third of social housing tenants live in fuel poverty. Scotland is an energy-rich nation, but it is to our shame that so many households must choose between heating their homes and eating. The wholesale gas crisis is hugely worrying. We know that bills are rising. Too many children are hungry and too many homes will be freezing this winter. Cutting universal credit is absolutely the wrong thing for the UK Government to do.

I was going to talk about a local visit but I have run out of time because I took an intervention from Mark Ruskell. I will briefly point to the great work that North Ayrshire Council is doing under the leadership of Labour’s Joe Cullinane. It has impressive plans for a second solar and wind farm, which is very exciting and ambitious. There are many good examples of wind resource available to local councils.

The vote tonight should not be the last opportunity to debate and discuss what a publicly owned, not-for-profit, asset-owning national energy company should and could do. I ask members to support the Labour amendment at decision time because we need to choose climate action that is transformative.

I move amendment S6M-01293.3, to insert at end:

“, and agrees that the Scottish Government should act with urgency to introduce plans for a publicly-owned, not-for-profit energy company, to provide direction and large-scale investment into Scotland’s low-carbon energy sector, which will help create high-skilled, green jobs for workers in Scotland, tackle fuel poverty and reduce costs for consumers in Scotland.”

I congratulate Lorna Slater on her appointment. In June, before she became a minister, she urged the Scottish Government to get on with delivering a public energy company. I think that it is fair to say that a commitment to an agency is a downgrade. Has the minister’s position changed? Will she vote for the Labour amendment?

I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.

In his motion, the cabinet secretary asks the Parliament to agree

“that the Scottish Government must do everything in its power to tackle the escalating climate and nature emergencies and deliver a just transition for all”.

Labour members whole-heartedly share those ambitions.

When the Scottish Government declared a climate emergency back in 2019, the then Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform stated:

“The evidence is irrefutable. The science is clear, and people have been clear: they expect action.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2019; c 10.]

The people do, indeed, expect action. That is why I argued in the chamber last week that climate inaction is the single biggest threat to our planet. Although we support the intent behind the Government’s motion, we want to see bolder and faster action.

I believe that there is consensus on the ambition for a public energy company. The Scottish Government previously committed to that, there is a democratic mandate and, over the summer, I and a range of colleagues, including Lorna Slater, pressed the Government for an answer on a date for that project. I hope that we can have a constructive discussion on that today. It is disappointing that a public energy company appears to have been taken off the table by ministers. Scottish Labour wants to bring it back to life today.

We are asking the Parliament to agree

“that the Scottish Government should act with urgency to introduce plans for a publicly-owned, not-for-profit energy company”

because we believe that that could be a game changer with multiple benefits that could accelerate Scotland’s journey towards net zero while addressing the affordability of household bills.

We can all see that the market-led model of energy transition is failing. It is failing customers, workers and businesses in Scotland. We must recognise that the state has a huge role to play in helping to build a net zero nation. A Scottish national energy company that is not for profit and owns assets could remove profiteering from the picture and deliver affordable energy to customers. It could facilitate a quicker transition to renewable energy, and it could pioneer new ways of delivering heat into households through methods such as district heating and ground source heat pumps. It is important that it could also help to create the high-skilled green jobs that we badly need.

The just transition commission told us that a publicly owned energy company should be established

“at pace with a broad remit.”

That could be revolutionary for Scotland, and there is precedent for it elsewhere. We can look to Denmark and Ørsted. That company went from producing 15 per cent of its energy from renewables in 2009 to producing 85 per cent of its energy from renewables 10 years later. While the Scottish Parliament was swithering about declaring a climate emergency, Ørsted did better, went way ahead and ran with its big ideas. We can catch up.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr Sharma. I whole-heartedly agree that COP26 is an opportunity to showcase what the UK has to offer. Given the IPCC’s report warning that the door is closing on the 1.5°C target, would rejecting the new Cambo oilfield ahead of COP26 be a strong example of the climate leadership that the global community is looking for?

I have a second question, which your officials could perhaps pick up. Will new oil and gas developments be reassessed in the light of the recent IPCC and International Energy Agency reports? If so, will that process include carrying out an economic analysis, including of the carbon dioxide costs, of the Cambo field and others, as has been proposed by Professor Jim Skea of the just transition commission?

Thank you for that response. I apologise if there was a slight technical issue.

Mr Sharma, you have had the role of speaking to people around the world, which has involved a lot of travel, for which you have been criticised. We can perhaps sympathise, given that in-person meetings can be more efficient. Has all that travel and face-to-face negotiation been worth it? What have been the key achievements of that process? We all have high hopes for COP26, but what are your fears about the conference? Is there anything about it that is keeping you awake at night?

I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member of Unite the Union and the GMB union.

I have five minutes in which to respond to a motion on one of the biggest issues that our planet faces, so I will try to make this as straightforward as possible. For many years, the biggest threat to our planet was climate change denial. Now, the biggest threat to our planet is climate change inaction. The message from climate scientists could not be clearer: if we are to limit global warming to 1.5ºC—the internationally agreed target of the Paris agreement—there can be no new oil and gas. That means no Cambo.

In May, the International Energy Agency’s report, which was commissioned by the UK Government ahead of COP26, stated that, in order to reach global net zero by 2050, there should be

“No new oil and gas fields approved for development.”

That means no Cambo.

We have heard that the UN Secretary General has called the IPCC’s report “code red for humanity”. He warned:

“This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet.”

That means no Cambo. When report after report makes it clear that Cambo would be another nail in the coffin of our dying planet, we have a duty to call it out.