Chamber and committees

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.

I have only seconds left.

At the event, we were reminded that COP26 is around the corner. What will people see when they look at Scotland and the UK? Greta Thunberg said recently of Scotland:

“Of course there might be some politicians that are slightly less worse than others. That was very mean, but you get the point.”

We can and must do better. We need a managed, well-resourced just transition to unlock new economic opportunities. The Scottish Government needs to get off the fence. We will oppose the Tories’ motion at decision time. They are on the wrong side of history.

I move amendment S6M-01193.1, to leave out from “supports” to end and insert:

“believes that the development of the Cambo oil field would be at odds with Scotland’s aim of being net zero by 2045 and should not go ahead; considers that it is crucial that the transition to green sources of energy is jobs- and worker-led to retain and increase skilled jobs in Scotland; notes that the number of people directly employed in the low-carbon economy in Scotland is currently at its lowest level since 2014, at only 21,400, according to the latest available figures, and calls on the Scottish Government to use its powers over procurement, offshore windfarm licence approval and the Scottish National Investment Bank to secure and grow domestic supply chains for renewables, creating high-skilled, well-paying jobs across Scotland.”

I want to make some progress.

Without immediate action to reduce emissions, the consequences will include rising sea levels, the extinction of vulnerable species and a higher frequency of natural disasters. Pushing ahead with Cambo would be a betrayal of future generations.

Industrial and economic change is inevitable. It is our duty, as parliamentarians, to guarantee that change and decarbonisation delivers justice for workers. We need a managed and worker-led just transition, because we cannot allow a climate crisis to become a jobs crisis in the north-east or any other part of Scotland. That will require a relentless focus on meaningful, well paid and unionised jobs that are good for people and good for our planet. We just need the political will and courage to act.

Over the summer, I listened to workers and their trade unions. They expressed fears not only about the impacts of climate change, but about their jobs. Those fears are not mutually exclusive. They have good reason to be sceptical about the promises that politicians have made to them. The SNP’s green jobs fund has not yet delivered for workers and, so far, the green jobs workforce academy appears to be an underwhelming website with an impressive name. We know that we must do better.

History has taught us that the Tories do not do just transitions. Workers know that, which is why they are worried. Labour’s position is clear: Cambo must not go ahead, and nothing less than a green new deal will address the twin challenges of climate change and economic transition.

My Scottish Labour colleague Mercedes Villalba has proposed offshore training passports, which would allow oil and gas workers to move freely between offshore and onshore energy sectors, with standardised certification across roles. Such practical policies would give workers confidence. [Interruption.] I would rather give voice to workers than to Tories.

This debate coincides with the release of a landmark report from Friends of the Earth Scotland. Entitled “Watershed: the Turning Point for North Sea Oil and the Just Transition”, the report calls for the redirecting of the tax breaks and subsidies that have been offered to the oil and gas sector into funding a just transition. Notably, the report also recommends the creation of a publicly owned energy company in Scotland. The Tories do not support that, either. Scottish Labour and members of the SNP agree that such a move could turbocharge renewable energy generation and control spiralling heating bills. I urge the Scottish Government not to ditch or delay that proposal.

Earlier today, I hosted a well-attended parliamentary briefing on ecocide, with Jojo Mehta and Philippe Sands QC, who are distinguished international environmental and human rights campaigners. The ecocide proposal would criminalise the large-scale destruction of fragile ecosystems. It is a law that could one day apply to proposed developments such as Cambo.

Many times.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I wish you well with this big and crucial portfolio. You mentioned in your opening remarks the importance of the just transition and climate justice, so I want to bring you back to that hoover bag of ministerial responsibilities. Where does ministerial responsibility for climate justice sit, and will the new director general for net zero have responsibility for climate justice and the just transition as well?

Many stakeholders look for clarity in that area. Climate justice is absolutely an issue that has a global context in relation to the global south, but it also links to the just transition in Scotland, where many low-income communities and marginalised people seek climate justice. Which minister has that responsibility? You said that your officials have some input to the international portfolio, but which minister would we see in front of us if we had questions about climate justice?

Yes. There are many ministers now, and lots of climate-related work is sitting elsewhere—

I will be very brief. How will the circular economy be embedded across key sectors such as energy, agriculture and construction?

I will combine my next question with that one. You will be aware that figures that were published last year show that waste incinerator capacity has soared by 400 per cent in the time that your party has been in government. When do you hope to complete the review of the role of incineration in waste management? Will it be your new colleague Lorna Slater who leads on that work? How will planning applications for new incinerators be treated in the meantime? Will we get a moratorium?