Scottish Parliament, 12 November 2025

300 contributions from 56 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions. The first portfolio is constitution, external affairs and culture, and parliamentary business. I remind members that questions 3, 6 and 7 are grouped together, so I will take any supplementaries on those questions after all three have been answered.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how much money has been distributed by Creative Scotland in the previous 12 months. (S6O-05123)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I begin by drawing members’ attention to the publication today of the Scottish Government’s international strategy report. I am sure that I speak for us all when I thank everyone in the global network who does so much to promote Scottish exports, inward investment, tourism growth and much else besides.

In answer to Liam Kerr’s question, Creative Scotland distributed a total of £113,266,072 in award commitments between 1 November 2024 and 6 November 2025. That figure consists of more than £88 million from the Scottish Government and more than £25 million in national lottery awards to promote resilience, diversity and innovation and to help support the arts to thrive in communities across Scotland.

A key development over that period was the delivery of the multiyear funding programme, which began distributing funding in April this year to more than double the number of organisations that had previously been in receipt of core funding from Creative Scotland.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Interrogating those figures, we see that in the past five years, Creative Scotland has spent just over £430,000 on culture projects via its crowdmatch fund. Out of 110 projects that were given public money, only four were from the North East. Those projects got a total of £20,330—that is less than 5 per cent of the fund for Aberdeenshire and Moray. Does the cabinet secretary believe that Creative Scotland is too focused on the central belt and will he commit to reviewing how Creative Scotland can ensure a more equitable distribution to the North East?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I thank Mr Kerr for raising the issue of regional distribution. I know that members across the chamber who represent different parts of the country will want to make sure that local arts and cultural organisations and venues are properly funded.

Across the North East region of Scotland, there are 24 multiyear-funded organisations. Those include seven in Aberdeenshire, eight in Aberdeen city, eight in Dundee city and one in Angus. I will look closely at the fund that Mr Kerr has drawn my attention to, to satisfy myself that the applications match the criteria. To him, and to all members, I say that I would encourage all cultural and arts organisations, regardless of where they are, to apply for funding. That is their best chance of getting a successful funding decision, so I encourage as many cultural and arts organisations in the North East as possible to do so.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The cabinet secretary has been engaging with Cumbernauld Theatre Trust in relation to support when its transition funding from Creative Scotland runs out. Can he provide an update and state his confidence in Cumbernauld theatre and its ability to successfully resolve the matter to enable it to continue the good work that it has been doing for the past 60 years?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government understands the important role that Cumbernauld theatre plays in its community and the wider culture sector. As Mr Hepburn indicated, the Scottish Government continues to engage with the Cumbernauld Theatre Trust and the theatre’s other public sector partners, including Creative Scotland and North Lanarkshire Council, to support efforts to secure its future and to understand the options that are available to the trust.

I take this opportunity to publicly thank Jamie Hepburn for all that he has been doing to support Cumbernauld theatre.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

There has been a lot of controversy about the issue that Liam Kerr raised, as well as about the transparency of the decision-making process behind the awards of funding. Angela Leitch’s review of Creative Scotland is due to be published this month. Will it be published?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am confident that the report will be published as planned. On Stephen Kerr’s point about transparency, I have no doubt that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, of which he is a member, will make sure that it has the best possible answers from Creative Scotland and from the review process so that he and other members can satisfy themselves about the conclusions that are presented. I have not seen those conclusions; I look forward to seeing them. I lay great weight and store on the advice that we will be receiving, and I look forward to seeing that report as planned.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to prevent the permanent loss of church buildings with significant cultural or heritage value, in light of the decision by the Church of Scotland to reduce its estate. (S6O-05124)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Although decisions about church closures are for the churches themselves, not the Scottish ministers, I am keen to ensure that the cultural value of such sites is appropriately considered during any decision making, and that the appropriate planning regulations are applied. On its website, Historic Environment Scotland provides advice and guidance for asset owners, community groups and developers.

I have met the Scotland’s Churches Trust and members of the general trustees of the Church of Scotland to discuss my concerns, and I will continue to engage with stakeholders to explore approaches to safeguard those important assets for future generations and for the communities in which they lie.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Built in 1592, Burntisland old parish church is a category A-listed landmark with deep cultural and community significance. It is known as the birthplace of the King James Bible. It is one of hundreds of buildings that the Church of Scotland is disposing of. However, the church is of historic and cultural importance and, without intervention, it is at risk of being lost. A community group has been established to explore all avenues, and Historic Environment Scotland has visited the site. Will the cabinet secretary consider visiting Burntisland to see at first hand that undervalued jewel on the Fife coast and to discuss how we can protect that heritage building for future generations?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I thank Claire Baker for raising the issue of Burntisland parish church and for extending an invitation, which I am happy to accept. It is important to note that communities, in seeking to understand their options for the future use of churches, are best advised by those whose job it is to do so—in this instance, Historic Environment Scotland. However, I am happy to be apprised of the situation. I have seen some really good examples of potential new uses for churches. Perhaps some of those are options that are currently being explored by the community itself, and I would be happy to hear about that.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I declare an interest as a member of the Church of Scotland. That said, I share the concern about the speed with which the Kirk is disposing of so many properties that have been at the heart of their communities—for centuries, in some cases—and to which many people have a strong emotional connection.

I am certainly aware of community groups across my region that are interested in acquiring historic church buildings, but need time to put together a business case and raise the funds, and are concerned about the speed with which the Church of Scotland is putting those properties on the market. Those groups are worried that they will not get that opportunity, because a delay has not been built into the process. I therefore encourage the cabinet secretary, if he is engaging with the Church of Scotland, to encourage it not to force the process along too quickly and to allow any community interest that expresses a view that they might want to purchase a property the time to put together a business case so that those assets are not lost to the communities that they serve.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Murdo Fraser has made a very good point. First, there is the issue of the accelerating rate at which churches are being disposed of across denominations. Incidentally, it is not just the Christian church but other faith groups which have been disposing of property, because of societal change and so on. I think that everybody understands that.

Secondly, we have the specific point that Murdo Fraser has raised, which is about the speed of disposal, which may be too quick for communities to have the option to get the best advice.

I assure Murdo Fraser that advice and information are available through the Historic Environment Scotland website. As we heard from Claire Baker, there has been Historic Environment Scotland involvement with other community groups. If Murdo Fraser has specific issues about specific sites and communities, I would be grateful if he could forward those to me. I am having discussions with the Church of Scotland and other denominations to best understand what we can do, because, if the process is accelerating, that will present an even greater challenge—albeit, potentially, an opportunity—and we have to make our way through the process as well as we can.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its latest engagement with STV regarding the broadcaster’s plans to cut jobs and regional news programming. (S6O-05125)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Following my written correspondence with Scottish Television, I met the broadcaster on 6 November to emphasise the critical importance of protecting jobs that are based in the media industry in Scotland and the vital outputs of regional news services. During the coming weeks, I will also meet the regulator, Ofcom, and the National Union of Journalists to discuss the implications of the proposals.

I recognise the anxiety of the situation for many affected staff members and communities, particularly those in northern Scotland, and I reaffirm the Scottish Government’s commitment to protect sustainable jobs, maintain regional representation and uphold the broadcaster’s public service obligations.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

STV claimed that falling viewer figures and advertising revenue were to blame for it slashing 60 jobs and axing north of Scotland news. However, we have now learned from STV North’s own accounts that profits rose by almost 24 per cent last year on the back of increased income from advertising. The cuts simply do not make sense and they fail communities and viewers in Aberdeen and the north-east. Does the cabinet secretary agree that local journalism is a vital part of a democratic society? Can he provide an update on the latest engagement with STV in the light of that news?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I agree with Jackie Dunbar that local journalism is a vital part of our democratic society. That is why I will continue to emphasise our strong opposition to the proposals, which put sustainable Scottish jobs and the outputs of vital news services at risk. I met Scottish Television last week to press the importance of protecting jobs for media professionals across Scotland. I will also meet Ofcom and the National Union of Journalists in the coming weeks to discuss STV’s proposals and set out the Scottish Government’s deep concerns, which Jackie Dunbar has raised.

I have heard important points from members across the chamber about advertising income and its future projections. That is a matter for STV to explain to us all.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to STV’s proposed changes to its news provision, including the potential impact on local and regional journalism in north-east Scotland. (S6O-05128)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I commend Audrey Nicoll for her question. The Scottish Government is deeply concerned by any potential negative impact on news provision across Scotland and, in particular, on locally relevant news for audiences in the north of Scotland. Local journalism is essential to the health of our democracy. It provides scrutiny of local institutions, gives voice to underrepresented communities and ensures that important civic information reaches those who need it most.

The Scottish Government remains committed to supporting a sustainable, diverse and inclusive media landscape. We will make those views clear through our on-going engagement with Scottish Television and Ofcom, including through the forthcoming consultation.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

The removal of STV North from the north-east will silence the region’s voice at a critical time when issues such as energy are of national importance. STV North has been an important destination for a pipeline of top-quality north-east journalists, who have cut their teeth on local stories. Indeed, the school of journalism at Robert Gordon University has a strong collaboration with STV North through student placements and a memorial bursary in the name of Donald John MacDonald—the wonderful former STV news editor.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that STV is shamefully closing the door on the next generation of journalists, producers, engineers and creatives in the north-east? Will he join me in calling on STV to immediately reverse its damaging proposal?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I agree with Audrey Nicoll that regional news is a crucial part of our media landscape. I also absolutely agree that the north-east of Scotland is a huge part of that in terms of both audiences and journalistic talent. That is why I met Scottish Television last week to press the importance of protecting jobs for media professionals right across Scotland. I will also meet Ofcom and the National Union of Journalists in the coming weeks to discuss STV’s proposals and to set out the Scottish Government’s deep concerns. Throughout those on-going engagements, I will continue to emphasise our strong opposition to proposals that put sustainable Scottish jobs and the outputs of vital news services at risk.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether the culture secretary has met with STV following recent reports of its plan to close its north of Scotland news programme. (S6O-05129)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I met Scottish Television on 6 November, and the Scottish Government will continue to engage on the matter, including by responding to Ofcom’s forthcoming consultation. The Scottish Government expects all broadcasters to reflect the diversity of our nation and our local communities. I will continue to champion a vibrant, inclusive and regionally representative media sector and a strong and sustainable Scottish broadcasting sector.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The fact that three north-east MSPs have lodged questions on the potential axing of the north of Scotland news programme shows how important we, on a cross-party basis, feel that it is that the local news coverage is retained. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if the chief executive, Rufus Radcliffe, cannot make the north news work in light of STV North’s increasing profits, he should step aside and let someone else manage the company instead?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am sure that Douglas Lumsden will appreciate that I, as somebody who represented a north of Scotland constituency and studied in Aberdeen, enjoyed the joys of Grampian Television before the change to STV. I understand that there is a particular dimension to the proposed changes for Aberdeen, the north-east and the north of Scotland more generally, and that is why I wanted to raise those points directly with Rufus Radcliffe. I think that he and STV will have heard the views of members across the chamber about the concerns that people have.

Members have talked about the issue of advertising and said that there are projected increases in advertising income. I was told by STV that its concern is about reducing advertising income. There is a disparity there, and it is for STV to clarify that so that we can best understand the matter. Everybody wants sustainable journalism and a sustainable STV, but we will have to understand the decision making that has been involved. I have made my position on supporting journalistic jobs in Aberdeen and right across Scotland absolutely clear.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that proper journalism has to be done locally, in communities and with communities? It cannot be a centralised function that happens in the central belt to people in Aberdeen and in Dundee. What case is he making to the chief executive of STV on that point? We see the opt-out in Dundee ending as a clear consequence of that, and we see a massive diminution in the situation in Aberdeen, where we have real challenges in our economy and real changes in our local community. Aberdeen needs the kind of representation that comes from journalism that is done in the community.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Michael Marra makes his point very well. I should perhaps have declared an interest as a former journalist and a long-standing member of the National Union of Journalists. I understand the point that he is making very well. It is important that there are centres of journalism across the country.

STV was keen to impress on me that it will continue to provide news from correspondents in Aberdeen, Inverness and Dundee, but I hear from Michael Marra and colleagues in other parts of the chamber that that does not reassure members enough. One of the outstanding issues for me in understanding how the business works is that it is easier to do certain things in different places because of new technology. However, I want to be assured that, as part of any changes that STV is thinking about, there will not be a diminution of news from Aberdeen, Inverness, Dundee and the rest of the country.

Michael Marra makes the point very well that it is important that we have centres for journalism across the length and breadth of Scotland.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Many people in Shetland tune in to STV North news because it has a northern focus as opposed to a more generic, all-of-Scotland or, often, central belt outlook. Will the Scottish Government do all that it can to impress on STV bosses that the islands of Scotland appreciate reliable local news and that any loss is a damaging blow to respected journalism, especially in an age of fake news?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I totally agree with Beatrice Wishart. She is absolutely right. Communities in Shetland, Orkney, the Western Isles and the north of Scotland, where there are particular regional reasons why the news order might be different and news reports might have different content, will have to compete much more with content from the heavy population centres in central Scotland. Having lived in the north of Scotland, I have no doubt that that will cause concern to people.

It is for STV to give assurances that any proposed changes will not lead to a diminution in reporting from Shetland or anywhere else in the north of Scotland. I have asked those questions and answers have been provided, but much more will be required to satisfy me and members across the chamber.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support the creative industries in Glasgow. (S6O-05126)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government strongly supports Glasgow’s creative industries. Scottish Enterprise is leading on a range of strategic projects and tailored business support for the creative industries; it is managing 42 opportunities that are worth nearly £8 million in grants, and more than 90 per cent of those are situated in the Glasgow region. To support those projects, Scottish Enterprise is working with Screen Scotland, Creative Scotland, Animation Scotland and other partnerships, including Glasgow City Council and local innovation districts. Skills Development Scotland also provides apprenticeships and the free skills for growth programme to assist workforce planning.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the Scottish Government for everything that it is doing to support the sector. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that the total cost of the United Kingdom Government’s rise in employer national insurance contributions to the voluntary sector in Scotland, which includes many cultural bodies, will be around £75 million. Organisations say that they have nowhere left to cut and may have to freeze pay or cut jobs as a result.

Can the cabinet secretary say what discussions the Scottish Government has had with regard to reimbursement, and does it support calls for the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer to scrap that damaging policy in the upcoming UK budget?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I commend Bill Kidd for his question. We have always been clear that the UK Treasury must fully fund the actual cost for Scotland’s public sector, recognising the different size and configuration of our public services, to meet our specific needs.

In my portfolio, the Scottish Government is committed to investing at least £100 million more annually in culture and the arts in communities by 2028-29. It is disappointing that the UK Government has chosen to erode the full benefit of that. We are clear that the UK Government should have asked those with the broadest shoulders to contribute more, rather than trying to balance its budget on the back of cultural organisations, charities and the national health service.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential economic implications of its paper “A Fresh Start with Independence”. (S6O-05130)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The potential economic implications of the proposals in “A Fresh Start with Independence” are set out in the paper itself and in its two accompanying publications on “The macroeconomic framework of an independent Scotland and the measurement of economic flows” and “Questions and Answers”.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Leading economist Professor Ronald MacDonald has described the Scottish National Party’s economic plans as “totally shambolic” and said that they would have “a devastating effect”. In addition, “A Fresh Start with Independence” wrongly states that Scotland’s gross domestic product has grown faster than that of the UK.

Does the cabinet secretary still stand by that discredited paper—the bill for which the SNP has made Scottish taxpayers pick up—or will he admit that it simply does not add up?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

No, I will not. I commend the report to Jamie Halcro Johnston because it is clear, given his question, that he has not even read it.

I know that it is difficult reading for Scottish Conservatives because the statistics in it—they are provided by, among others, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is a very reputable international body—draw comparisons between the United Kingdom and our neighbouring countries. The report shows that our neighbouring independent nations are wealthier, happier and fairer than the United Kingdom, that growth is higher and that there is lower overall poverty—[Interruption.]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I say to Mr Halcro Johnston, so that he can read this, that those statistics, including from the OECD, are on pages 35, 36 and 37 of the report—although I do not know whether he knows what the OECD is.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I have three requests for supplementaries. I would like to take all three, but I need succinct questions and responses.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Since 2021, the Scottish Government has spent an estimated £3.5 million of taxpayers’ money on staffing and other costs associated with preparing and publishing pointless constitutional white papers. That money could have been spent elsewhere.

We have already heard about the case of Cumbernauld theatre—an iconic theatre that has been part of the local community for 60 years. It urgently needs to raise £300,000; if it does not find the money, it could close. For less than a tenth of the cash that has been wasted on those imaginary white papers, a concrete community asset that actually exists could be saved.

Why does the SNP Government continue to waste taxpayers’ money on white papers that have no impact, when it should be using that money to invest in impactful community assets instead?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I remind Mr Bibby—I know that it is difficult for him to accept, having lost the last election—that the majority of MSPs in the Parliament were elected on a manifesto commitment that there should be an independence referendum and that the public should be informed about the updated position on the opportunities that independence provides.

I know that Mr Bibby does not agree with that, but he lost the election, and this party won it, and we are doing what we said that we were going to do. We are providing more funding for culture and the arts than his party even called for, and I am proud of that. This party voted for it, the Conservatives voted against it—-and Neil Bibby bravely abstained.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the economic implications of not pushing for the people of Scotland to have the opportunity to decide their own future and escape the mire of broken Brexit Britain?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Mr MacDonald has asked an important question: what is the consequence of remaining in a suboptimally performing state, which is the United Kingdom? It does not perform as well as our neighbouring countries. Those are facts—I know that it is difficult for the people who opposed independence to accept those facts. The cost of not becoming independent is that we do not have the levers at our disposal to be able to match our neighbouring countries, which are healthier, wealthier and fairer than the United Kingdom. Incidentally, there is only one route back to the European Union, which is to have a referendum in Scotland on becoming an independent member state. The Conservatives oppose rejoining the European Union, as does the Labour Party. In our Government and Parliament, there is a majority for rejoining the EU, and the only way to do that is for the country to become independent.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Greens say that the SNP’s latest currency policy would be catastrophic. At the previous SNP conference, the policy was described as a “dangerous experiment”. Even the highly respected Robin McAlpine said:

“for god sake get off this mad, mad bus.”

Why will the cabinet secretary not get off the bus? [ Applause. ]

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I do not know how comfortable Willie Rennie is with being applauded by the Conservatives; I would be a little bit concerned if I were him. Surprise, surprise—there are different views on Scotland’s constitutional future. This party and the Scottish Green Party are in favour of Scotland becoming an independent member state of the European Union; the Liberal Democrats are in favour of a federal United Kingdom; and I think that the Labour Party is in favour of protecting devolution. I have no idea what the Tories’ position is at present.

I would have hoped that all of us, as democrats, could agree on one thing: that the future of the country should be determined by the people. That is why, given the change of circumstances post-Brexit, a majority in this Parliament wish there to be a referendum on Scotland becoming an independent country within the European Union. I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats are departing from what I thought was their traditional position, which is to support Scottish home rule and Scottish self-government.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions on constitution, external affairs and culture, and parliamentary business. In the interests of time management, we will move straight to the next portfolio.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I advise members that there is a lot of interest in the portfolio, so I would like succinct questions from them and succinct answers from Government ministers.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is reviewing the effectiveness of firework control zones. (S6O-05131)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Local authorities now have the powers to introduce firework control zones to tackle the misuse of fireworks, and I am pleased that, this year, they were in place in Glasgow for the first time and in Edinburgh for the second time. I also welcome the overall significant reduction in disorder across Scotland over the bonfire night period. Firework control zones played a role as part of a wider package of measures that were delivered by our partners, and I thank them all for the dedication and commitment that they have shown to keeping our communities safe. We will bring partners together to identify learnings from this year that will help to inform our approach to bonfire night in 2026.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I associate myself with the minister’s comments. Last week saw a marked reduction in trouble on bonfire nights compared with those in previous years, and there were no reports of injuries to emergency crews. Those outcomes reflect the professionalism and dedication of our police officers. However, the chief constable has warned that the force risks losing 1,000 of those officers if there is no increase in its budget support. Will the minister join me in praising emergency services, while recognising that the front line must be properly supported?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Absolutely. As I said in my opening statement, I thank the emergency services for all the work that they do on operation moonbeam, which goes on for months before bonfire night. Of course, we will engage with Police Scotland about its budgetary requirements.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I, too, welcome the fact that there seems to have been less antisocial behaviour this year.

Does the minister hope that the first firework control zones being put in place will encourage other local authorities to use the powers that they have been given to consider the introduction of such bans? It is clear that communities such as mine in Motherwell and Wishaw are requesting them.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Yes, absolutely. As I said, firework control zones have been in place for the past two bonfire nights. The designation of a zone is a local decision, based on local circumstances, and local authorities are responsible for their introduction and use.

Through the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022, we have given local authorities additional powers to tackle the misuse of fireworks in response to local community needs. Along with the broader measures, firework control zones are an important tool that can be used to help keep communities safe and to support cultural and behavioural change to address the misuse of fireworks.

I encourage all local authorities to consider the introduction of firework control zones. I believe that there is a strong appetite for that in communities across Scotland—for example, I know that there is a petition with more than 1,600 signatures for the introduction of such zones in Ayr. The Scottish Government will support local authorities that wish to implement firework control zones.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Many of my constituents have contacted me because of concerns about fireworks in relation to themselves and their animals. Does the minister agree that it would be much easier to control the use of fireworks if policies on all aspects of their sale and use were fully devolved to Scotland?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I agree that it would be better if all the legislation relating to fireworks and pyrotechnics were devolved to Scotland, so that we could fully respond to the needs and concerns of Scottish communities. In that way, we would have full control of all aspects of the sale and use of fireworks, including, potentially, limits to the noise that fireworks make. As that is not the case at the moment, I will continue to press the United Kingdom Government on what more can be done on firework regulation, and I have sought further discussions on that issue.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to safeguard the right to peaceful protest. (S6O-05132)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The rights to peaceful public assembly and freedom of expression are important rights that the Scottish Government is committed to upholding.

The right to peaceful public assembly allows us to protest, celebrate culture and hold memorials, and it is right that our communities should be able to participate in such activities. The right to protest is important in a democratic society. Existing legislation sufficiently protects those rights. However, protests should be peaceful and should never be used to justify any form of hateful, violent, intimidating or otherwise criminal behaviour. We fully support Police Scotland’s taking appropriate and proportionate action in response to such behaviour.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Pensioners, priests and people from all walks of life—many of whom have never been convicted of anything in their lives—have been arrested while peacefully protesting in Scotland. The report of the independent commission on UK counterterrorism law, policy and practice, which was published yesterday, makes it clear that United Kingdom terror laws have been used far too widely in the case of the proscription of the non-violent protest group Palestine Action. Given the findings of the commission, which is led by pre-eminent figures such as Sir Declan Morgan, Dominic Grieve and Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, will the minister urge the Home Secretary to immediately overturn that blatant attempt by the UK Government to silence non-violent protest in the face of a genocide—a genocide in which, of course, that Government is complicit?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I fully recognise that the proscription of Palestine Action by the UK Government has been criticised by many groups and individuals across society, and that many people across the UK have chosen to show their opposition to that through protest. However, as the member is aware, this is an area of policy that is reserved to the UK Government, as is the decision to which he refers, and I recognise that the issue is now with the courts. The judicial review is due to take place this month at the High Court in London, and we all want to see what the outcome will be.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

Retailers and members of the public are telling us that they cannot get a response to 999 calls, even when they are threatened with violence. However, when a women’s rights group tried to peacefully protest, instead of the person who tried to disrupt the protest being removed, we ended up with the ridiculous spectacle of brollygate. Does the minister accept that, under this Government, police officers are being told to chase down so-called brolly assaulters and record non-criminal hate incidents, instead of focusing on keeping communities safe and upholding the right to peaceful protest?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

As I have just said, it is an operational issue for Police Scotland. The Scottish Government protects the right to peaceful public assembly and freedom of expression, which are important rights that the Scottish Government is committed to upholding.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Has the Scottish Government had any discussions with the UK Government about the proscription of Palestine Action? Have ministers received any security briefings or made any representations, given the arrests at protests in Scotland?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I have not had any discussions with or correspondence from the UK Government. I think that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has, and she will be happy to write to the member with regard to that.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We have seen peaceful protests outside the Parliament building by women’s groups who are urging the Scottish Government to finally respect the Supreme Court judgment. Instead, we get the Scottish Government going to court to argue that biological males should be sent to the female prison estate. In the 24 hours since we tried to get answers from Angela Constance and she refused to give them, has the Government sought any legal advice, or advice from its officials, about what it can say in Parliament, or does it simply not care about updating members and answering their questions?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Please answer in relation to peaceful protest, minister.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I do not know how that relates to peaceful protest, Deputy Presiding Officer, so I will leave it at that.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. In your ruling, you allowed the question in respect of peaceful protest. The minister has point-blank refused to answer any part of the question. Is that in order? These are serious matters that have repeatedly been raised in the chamber. Government ministers are refusing to answer the basic points that we need to hear being addressed in the chamber; they are also being asked outwith it, but we get nothing from them there.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I thank Douglas Ross for his contribution. I am in charge of ensuring that question time runs smoothly and that supplementary questions relate to the principal question on the business bulletin. That is the point that I made to the minister. I am not in charge of how the minister chooses to respond—that is a matter for her. Obviously, the member has many ways in which he can seek to pursue the matter.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of any reductions in police officer numbers since 2020 on rural communities. (S6O-05133)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Responsibility for the police workforce rests with the chief constable, who has a range of local and national resources to draw on in preventing and tackling crime. The Scottish Government provided record funding of £1.64 billion in 2025-26, which is an increase of £90 million, to support capacity and capability to enable Police Scotland to take on more recruits last financial year than at any time since 2013, with further intakes planned throughout 2025-26.

Although we do not want anyone to be a victim of crime no matter where they live, I note that Scotland is a safer place since the Government took office, with recorded crime down 39 per cent since 2006-07.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Why let the facts get in the way of a well-spun story? The real facts tell a different story. Police Scotland has been defunded to the point where officer numbers in Dumfries and Galloway have fallen by 22 per cent since 2020. Now, the Government is starting to impose new occupancy charges on officers living in police-owned accommodation—a policy that was first consulted on more than a year ago—and the Scottish Police Federation warns that even more rural officers will leave. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that penalty is worsening our already dire situation? Will she urgently review the policy before rural policing is hollowed out even further?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The issue that Finlay Carson has raised is an operational matter for Police Scotland. However, in relation to police numbers over the entire country, the full-time equivalent as of 30 September was 16,441; as of 3 November, it was 16,531—

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The question was on rural officers.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am getting to that, if Finlay Carson will do me the courtesy of allowing me to speak—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Carson, the cabinet secretary is on her feet responding to your question. Please let us hear what she has to say.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

As of 3 November, there were 16,531 officers. It is for the chief constable to deploy those police officers across the regions. As of 30 September, 354 officers were deployed in V division, which is the division that covers Dumfries and Galloway. That figure is stable in comparison to the previous quarter.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Community police officers play a key role in preventing crime. They provide a visible presence in communities, tackling antisocial behaviour and working with local people, particularly young people, to get ahead of problems that relate to alcohol, drug abuse and other issues that drive criminality. Last week, the chief constable told the Criminal Justice Committee that she wants an increase of 600 community police officers as part of the budget process. What is the Scottish Government’s position on that?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am aware of the evidence that the chief constable gave to the Criminal Justice Committee. As members would expect, I have regular dialogue with the chief constable and the Scottish Police Authority. Last night, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and I met the chief constable and the SPA.

As the member would expect, we are looking very seriously at the Police Scotland budget request. However, the budget needs to be decided in due process. Once we know what the United Kingdom budget is, which will be after 26 November, the Scottish Government will be in a position to introduce our budget on 13 January. However, the member’s point about community policing being central to prevention, good community relationships and overall community cohesion was well made.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary outline what engagement has been undertaken with people and stakeholders to ensure that the voices of rural communities are heard in work to tackle rural crime?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The key route for that is with the Scottish Partnership Against Rural Crime, which is chaired by Police Scotland. It brings together key justice and rural sector partners, including NFU Scotland, the Scottish Crofting Federation, Crimestoppers and Rural Watch Scotland. The partnership provides a robust multi-agency approach to preventing rural crime and it supports actions that are taken at a local level. It also provides rural and farming communities with information, advice and local intelligence on how best to prevent crime in their area.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met Police Scotland, and what issues were discussed. (S6O-05134)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet representatives of Police Scotland. My most recent engagement was yesterday when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and I met the chief constable to discuss the policing budget. I meet the chief constable on a regular basis, and we cover a range of topics such as Police Scotland’s three-year plan, stop and search, mental health and police pay negotiations.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

There are now around 1,000 fewer police officers across Scotland since Police Scotland was established in 2013, and 140 police stations have closed, including in Ferguslie Park, which is one of the most deprived communities in Scotland. The future of stations such as the one in Paisley’s Mill Street is still uncertain. Cuts have consequences, and the Scottish Police Federation says that officers are being run ragged. Sexual crime is up by 45 per cent and violent crime is up by 7 per cent in the past decade. Horrifically, just last week, a 13-year-old boy was stabbed in Paisley town centre. How can the cabinet secretary seriously tell the public that our streets are safe under this Scottish National Party Government when police officer numbers are down, police stations are closing and violent crime is up?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Over the course of this Government, the level of violent crime has reduced. The member makes a good point about the increase in reported domestic violence. There is no doubt that our police officers do a demanding job day in, day out. That is one of the reasons why I have ensured that our police officers are among the best remunerated across these isles.

I have not cut the budget. In fact, I have increased the budget for policing in every year that I have been the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, and police numbers are stable at 16,500. There is work to be done in and around police stations. It is important that the estate is modernised and fit for purpose. I have seen that in my constituency with the closure of the police station in Livingston, where we now instead have the West Lothian civic centre, at which all partners are brought together.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Cuts to police budgets and nearly 1,000 fewer officers since the pandemic have led to shop theft rocketing by 124 per cent. Worse, the Scottish Retail Consortium says that those figures mask a hidden epidemic of unrecorded theft and retailers warn that shoplifting is effectively decriminalised. Will the cabinet secretary combat that by giving the police what they say they need in the budget, and by extending the funding for the retail crime task force beyond 26 March?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Government and the justice ministers were pleased to secure that specific funding of £3 million to tackle retail crime. I am happy to write to the member to tell him about some of the benefits that that resource has had.

It is important to recognise the scourge of shoplifting, particularly where it connects to serious organised crime. The member might be aware that I chair the serious organised crime task force, which I will be doing again tomorrow.

On the budget, we have a due process to go through. I very much hope that, on this occasion, Opposition parties, as part of their negotiations, will advocate for budget for the police. Last year, the only person who advocated for an increase in the budget was the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Following comments from the chief constable of Police Scotland about the rise in online harm that children are facing and the First Minister’s commitment to do everything in his power to tackle that, will the cabinet secretary support a new cross-sector coalition, which should include Children First Scotland, to urgently establish what more can be done within the powers of the Scottish Government?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

We will certainly be very interested in that, and work on that has already begun. That is, in part, through my engagement with the serious organised crime task force, where we, among other things, discuss the changing and growing threat of online harm. Other colleagues in other parts of the Government, including our education and child protection colleagues, are acutely aware of that, and the work on which they lead is also very focused on online harm.

I very much accept the point of principle that the member makes and agree that it is beholden on all of us to do more against that increasing threat.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to improve working conditions for employees of the Scottish Prison Service. (S6O-05135)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Our prisons operate in a unique and complex environment. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service remain resolute in our joint commitment to ensuring that they remain a safe place in which to live and work.

The SPS continues to recruit at pace and invest in technology, such as body-worn video cameras, to place the service in the best possible position in which to face current challenges.

The demands that are placed on our prison officers and the rising prison population have been well documented. I thank prison officers for their hard work each and every day. In recognition of their difficult and unique roles in our justice system, the Scottish Government delivered an 8 per cent pay rise for prison officers, with a two-year pay deal secured earlier this year.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

The Prison Officers Association Scotland’s recent “Crisis Point Reached” report highlighted a number of concerns that SPS officers have, including failures in the recruitment system, a lack of long-term planning, which sometimes makes working conditions difficult and dangerous, and a toxic working environment stemming from poor management.

I have a constituent who has been suspended for six months on full pay and whose shifts have been covered using overtime. For what seems to be a relatively minor issue, that is a gross waste of taxpayers’ money.

Does the cabinet secretary agree with the findings of the report? What immediate action is she taking to address the systemic issues that it outlines?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I very much welcome the Prison Officers Association report, which demonstrates the pressures and challenges that prison staff face at a time of a high prison population, and I appreciate their hard work.

It is crucial that we listen to the voice of prison officers. I know that prison officers want to do the job that they are trained to do, and it is on all of us to create the right conditions for that to happen.

I assure the member that I have already discussed that important report with the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, and she has outlined to me a number of actions that the SPS is already engaged in. If he wishes to correspond with me, I would be happy to provide him with further detail.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent convictions of a grooming gang for sexual exploitation in Dundee, what steps it is taking to prevent similar cases across Scotland, including through the establishment of a national inquiry into grooming gangs. (S6O-05136)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Scottish Government will continue to consider the need for an inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland should further evidence emerge. The case in Dundee, although horrendous, is of a different nature from the cases reported in Baroness Casey’s national audit. The national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group has agreed a prevention-focused approach to collectively improve how harm is identified, reported and responded to in Scotland by statutory agencies and other partners. We also support third sector organisations that are involved in preventing child sexual abuse, including Barnardo’s Scotland, the NSPCC’s Childline service and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation Scotland, which deliver preventative and risk-reduction interventions to children in Scotland.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Scottish victims of grooming gangs are demanding an inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs said that the Scottish Government would have an inquiry if that was assessed as necessary. Given the sentencing in Dundee last week and the harrowing stories emerging from Glasgow this week, what standards or criteria would have to be met before an inquiry is assessed as necessary?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is for Ms Gallacher and others to present a case that is based on the added value that an inquiry would bring to preventing abuse of our children right now. If that evidence emerges, we will, of course, listen to it fairly and without favour. As Ms Gallacher knows, there is on-going work, led by the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group. Crucially, in the justice portfolio, Police Scotland is actively reviewing current and historical investigations, and we have been clear that Police Scotland is closely involved with the national strategic group.

There is also the Scottish child abuse inquiry. I very much know the reasons why that inquiry was set up, but it is important to stress that the extensive review that is being undertaken by the Scottish child abuse inquiry includes child protection policy and practice.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on any progress made to address concerns raised by local residents about levels of noise from HMP Cornton Vale. (S6O-05137)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

While continuing to support many vulnerable women, the Scottish Prison Service has taken a number of actions to reduce the noise at HMP and Young Offenders Institution Stirling that is experienced by its neighbours. Most recently, the SPS held a meeting with local residents on 23 September at which it presented a concept for a window surround to reduce the noise from the rooms closest to local housing.

The prototype window surround was installed on 16 October and entered a period of testing until 24 October. Initial feedback on the trial was very positive and planning is now under way to install surrounds to the remaining windows. Engagement between the SPS and Stirling Council has started and, pending final planning approval, it is anticipated that all work will be completed by 31 March 2026. The SPS will continue to keep residents updated via its website, especially during any period of planned work.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I very much hope that the developments that the cabinet secretary has outlined will prove to be effective, but she will know that residents have been raising serious concerns about noise and disruption from the prison for far too long, with very limited progress to date. Given the on-going impact that that continues to have on the wellbeing and quality of life of those living nearby, and the length of time that it is taking to find effective solutions, does the cabinet secretary agree that the Scottish Prison Service needs to continue to treat the issue as a matter of urgency and deliver a lasting resolution?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yes, I very much do. The situation has gone on for far too long for all concerned. I assure the member that the SPS has given me its commitment that it is moving at pace, and I will continue to engage with Mr Brown and the SPS on the matter. I am grateful to his constituents for their engagement and patience.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I can squeeze in question 8, but I need a succinct question from the member and a succinct response.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting and improving the experience of victims of domestic abuse, particularly in situations where there are young children in the family. (S6O-05138)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

We are committed to protecting survivors of domestic abuse through legislation and by funding support services. Research has found that our groundbreaking domestic abuse legislation, which treats offences more seriously when they involve children, better reflects victims’ experiences. Our £20 million bairn’s hoose programme, which is to be rolled out in increments from 2027, improves support for children who are affected by abuse by providing trauma-informed spaces and co-ordinated services.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I supported a constituent in a truly horrific situation in which her daughter came forward to claim that her father abused her. My constituent was mandated to allow contact between the two, despite the child’s protests and symptoms of trauma. In such situations, a victim can feel as if they cannot win. Every decision is scrutinised and they cannot protect their child. My constituent’s daughter clearly inherited her mother’s bravery, and it must have been so difficult to share what happened to her at such a young age, which has to result in protection.

Following the provisions in the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 to better incorporate the child’s views, what concrete steps is the Government taking to ensure that a child’s expressed fear of a parent or desire not to have contact with them is given due weight and consideration in abuse cases, rather than that being dismissed as coaching or alienation?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I am really sorry to hear about Emma Roddick’s constituent’s situation. The child’s welfare must be the court’s paramount consideration in contact cases, and the court is required to consider the child’s view, subject to their age and maturity. We plan to commence further provisions in the 2020 act to enhance how the views of children are heard in such cases. We have also set up a working group on child welfare reporters, who can be appointed by the court to get the child’s views.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions on justice and home affairs. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.

Rosebank Oil and Gas Field

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19637, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on the Rosebank oil and gas field. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button now or as soon as possible. I advise members that there is no time in hand.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The Scottish Greens have secured today’s debate in order to discuss the imminent decision that will be made on the revised application to drill for fossil fuels at the Rosebank field, the United Kingdom’s largest undeveloped oil and gas field. It is one of the most consequential decisions on climate action that will be made this decade.

Four years ago, the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—opened in Glasgow. It was a time of huge momentum for the climate movement, both in Scotland and internationally. In the run-up to the event, the then First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced her position that Rosebank should not be given the go-ahead. Green MSPs had for some time made the case for that clear stance to be taken, but I am in no doubt that Nicola Sturgeon knew that it was the right position to take. It was right in principle in the face of the climate emergency and also right for Scotland in embracing the transition that we are so well placed to benefit from.

Today, such climate clarity is nowhere to be seen from the Scottish Government. Today’s First Minister cannot take a clear position, the draft climate change plan sidesteps the issue and the Government’s energy strategy seems to have disappeared completely.

The Scottish Greens can and will make the case, explicitly, that the Scottish Government must unequivocally oppose the Rosebank plan. No climate compatibility test worthy of the name can give the go-ahead to this immensely destructive project.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Everyone, which I think includes the Greens, accepts that oil and gas demand is not going away. On any analysis, we will still need oil and gas in the UK by 2050. To satisfy that need, we would need to import more if we did not drill Rosebank. Therefore, the environmental case suggests that we should drill Rosebank. Is that not correct?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

That completely ignores the fact, which I will come on to, that the vast majority of production from Rosebank will be for export.

Rosebank’s projected carbon emissions are vast—some 254 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. The harm to our precarious climate will be somewhere in the order of 50 times as damaging as the developers first admitted. That is why not only campaigners but scientific experts have consistently opposed the development of the field at every step of the process.

The Scottish Greens were proud to support campaigners who brought a successful legal challenge against the UK Government’s initial decision to approve the field. Now, the oil giants behind the project have had to submit a revised environmental impact assessment that takes account of the full emissions that will arise from drilling and burning Rosebank’s fossil fuels. Oil and gas giants can no longer get away with assessing the impact of only a fraction of the climate-wrecking emissions from their dirty business, thanks to the efforts of dedicated climate campaigners.

The science is clear: any new oil and gas field in the North Sea would represent an abandonment of our role in achieving the global target of keeping the temperature rise below 1.5°C. The International Energy Agency’s latest “World Energy Outlook”, which was published during the opening days of COP30, shows that global oil use is set to peak around 2030 and that global gas use is set to do so by 2035. That is based on the current policy intentions of the world’s Governments. At the same time, clean energy use will surge, with wind power up by 178 per cent and solar power up by 344 per cent by 2035.

However, even that reflection of the policy status quo would result in global warming reaching 2.5°C in this century, so, if we are remotely serious about avoiding catastrophic impacts, we need to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels. It would be utterly reckless to approve Rosebank. If the Scottish Government chooses to remain on the fence, it will be choosing to throw away the last shred of its climate credibility.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I hear what Patrick Harvie has said about global reliance on oil, but does he acknowledge that peak oil extraction from the North Sea was back in 1999, that such extraction is on a downward trajectory and that there is a balancing act, because we will rely on hydrocarbons for some time to come and continued extraction will be necessary to facilitate the transition?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government is also dragging its feet in relation to the pace at which we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, because it is watering down its heat in buildings agenda.

Even in domestic terms, Rosebank will not help the Scottish or UK economies. It is viable only with millions of pounds in subsidies, with taxpayers being asked to shoulder 80 per cent of the costs. All told, the development is expected to add £250 million to the UK Treasury’s black hole. It will not help households with rising energy bills. Ninety per cent of Rosebank’s reserves will be exported, mostly to the European continent. Even the portions that are sold here will be subject to prices set on the open market, so what we pay to heat our homes will be unchanged.

Rosebank is very far from a silver bullet for the North Sea workforce. With the whole North Sea basin in decline, as has been pointed out, the number of jobs has already dropped by a staggering 40 per cent. The decline is terminal, as research for the Scottish Government has shown. The only way to give the workers of the North Sea a secure future is to support them to use their skills to build Scotland’s renewables future. Indeed, the truth that Equinor and UK ministers want to hide is that Rosebank will, in essence, redistribute wealth away from the public purse and investment in Scotland’s renewable futures and towards wealthy fossil fuel giants.

If all that is still not enough to bring Scottish National Party ministers off the fence, perhaps the fact that Rosebank profits will actively fund some of those who are operating illegally in the occupied Palestinian territories will be the final straw. Equinor’s minority partner in developing Rosebank is Ithaca Energy, which is majority owned by the Delek Group—an Israeli fuel conglomerate that is operating in the occupied territories and has been flagged for potential human rights breaches. If Rosebank is developed, the Delek Group is expected to receive about £253 million in revenue from the field. Profits from an oil field in Scotland’s waters could financially benefit a company that is linked to human rights violations against the Palestinian people. That would be just three months after we voted for a package of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel and companies that are complicit in the occupation.

For all those reasons—complicity with occupation and war crime, betrayal of Scotland’s economic interests and the extraordinary scale of climate destruction—the Parliament must vote to oppose the Rosebank field.

I move,

That the Parliament opposes the development of the Rosebank oil and gas field.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The future of the North Sea oil and gas sector is of vital importance to Scotland’s economy and society, and it is central to our energy transition. Oil and gas will continue to play an extremely important, essential and welcome role in the energy mix for decades to come. That role is now declining, given the maturity of the North Sea basin, as other members have said. It is important that we are clear that, under the current political settlement, decisions on consenting to any specific North Sea oil and gas field—be it Rosebank or any other—is a matter that is reserved to the UK Government.

The UK regulator is currently undertaking a statutory process of public consultation as part of an updated environmental impact assessment for the Rosebank field. The consultation remains open until 20 November. I expect that scientists, industry experts, activists and members of the public will wish to contribute their views to the consultation. That is why the Government’s amendment reflects the importance of allowing an evidence-led, case-by-case approach to be properly followed to its conclusion.

I assure members that the Scottish Government remains clear in our support for a just transition for Scotland’s valuable offshore energy sector.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Now that the compatibility report for Rosebank has been published, does the Scottish Government support Rosebank? Yes or no?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

If Douglas Lumsden looks at the Scottish Government’s amendment, he will see our position, which I hope the Parliament will vote for today.

There is an urgent need for a global transition from fossil fuels if the Paris agreement goals are to be met. Patrick Harvie referred to those goals. We will not deny the climate science that clearly shows the crisis that we are all facing. However, we also need to have a just transition. I saw the damage—as did many others who are old enough to have done so—that Mrs Thatcher did to our country and our communities when she threw thousands of workers on to the scrap heap. A just transition does not mean simply stopping all future oil and gas activity overnight. That would be wrong and would threaten energy security while destroying the very skills that we need for the energy transition.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am sure that the minister is well aware that absolutely no one calls for all oil and gas production to be stopped immediately. Is it not clear that expanding into a new, undeveloped oil field is the opposite of a transition? A just transition is needed, but it has to be a transition away from fossil fuels. The Rosebank plan would be another roll of the fossil fuel dice.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government thinks that it is incredibly important that the guiding principles for new developments, which are outlined in our amendment, are followed. We will continue to press for that. The UK Government is well aware of the Scottish Government’s position.

I return to what I was saying about the pace of the transition. We continue to call on the UK Government to approach all its reserved decisions on North Sea oil and gas projects on a rigorous, evidence-based basis. The fiscal regime for the North Sea remains reserved, too. The regime is currently having a major negative impact on Scotland’s energy transition. The UK Government must listen carefully to the concerns that businesses are expressing about the impacts of its energy profits levy. The levy is clearly now affecting investment and jobs in the north-east, including in the low-carbon energy sector and across energy supply chains. This week’s announcement of job losses at the Port of Aberdeen provides yet more evidence of the real-world impacts.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

If I have time, I will take a brief intervention.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You do not have a lot of time.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister will also accept that there is a very damaging effect from the

“presumption against ... oil and gas”

remaining in the draft energy strategy, so will he agree to remove those words?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

There is a great deal of hypocrisy from Liam Kerr, given that we are discussing the energy profits levy and it was his Government that first extended it. The levy is causing a lot of damage to jobs in the north-east of Scotland at the moment. The energy profits levy was supposed to be a temporary measure; we must see, through the UK autumn budget, its earliest possible end date or its complete reform. The Press and Journal covered that issue today and made the same call.

I am proud to restate the Government’s unwavering commitment to Scotland playing its full part in responding to the global challenge of climate change. Scotland is now more than halfway to reaching net zero, and, last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy published her draft climate change plan, setting out how we will further reduce our emissions and reliance on fossil fuels.

Our approach to climate policy is guided by a just transition, with Scotland’s valued and highly skilled offshore oil and gas workers at its heart. The Scottish Government will continue to support the energy workforce with all the powers available to it.

I move, as an amendment to motion S6M-19637, to leave out from “opposes” to end and insert:

“affirms the importance of a just transition, which supports workers in the oil and gas industry, as the useful life of developments comes to an end, and believes that new developments must only proceed if they contribute to energy security, meet a rigorous climate compatibility assessment and are compatible with Scotland’s journey to net zero.”

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the Greens for bringing forward this debate and for lodging a simple motion: they oppose Rosebank—that is absolutely clear. In our amendment, we are absolutely clear that we support Rosebank. Let us look at the amendments from the other parties—what a load of spin and obfuscation. Why can they not just show a bit of honesty to the chamber and the people of the north-east and say whether they support or oppose the North Sea oil and gas sector and the thousands of jobs that it supports? While others dither, the Scottish Conservatives are crystal clear: we support the North Sea oil and gas sector. We are the only party in the Parliament that is clear on that.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I am interested to know whether the member can answer this question. I know that it is not popular to support due process or the decision-making process of the court, but, given that the decision that Rosebank could go ahead was called in by a court for environmental reasons and so there is due process to be followed, does the member not think that that is needed? Ultimately, is that not what is required for stable investment—a stable regime and due process?

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

What is needed for stable investment is clear guidance, but we are not getting that from the UK Government or from the Scottish Government. There is no energy strategy at all, and, let us be honest, Scotland will still need oil and gas for years to come. The question is whether we meet part of that need from our own regulated basin and skilled workforce or whether we import more from abroad at a higher cost and with higher emissions. However, the champagne socialists are too stupid to understand that.

If people care about the climate, they should care about where we source what we still use.

Rosebank is a strategic project. It will bring £8.5 billion in direct investment and support around 2,000 jobs and it could add up to £25 billion to the wider economy, with up to 300 million barrels recoverable—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

That will mean pay packets for families, orders for the supply chain and tax revenue for public services. My constituents in the north-east understand that reality because they live it every single day. The industry is vital for Scotland, and yet the SNP ties itself in knots. We have jet set Gillian Martin, who spends her time cosying up to wind developers and selling off Scotland’s countryside, but fails to stand up—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Lumsden, I caution you against using nicknames.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but she is jet set in a way, Presiding Officer.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I would also caution you against challenging the chair. I have made my concern clear.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Okay, Presiding Officer.

We have the former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in favour of a presumption against oil and gas; wannabe First Minister Stephen Flynn, pretending to be a friend of the industry; and John Swinney, with splinters in his backside from trying to sit on the fence, not telling us whether he supports or opposes Rosebank—but we all know that he is no friend of the industry.

Labour’s position is hardly clearer. Its front bench has said that

“our future does not lie in more oil and gas”,—[Official Report, House of Commons, 4 February 2025; Vol 761, c 658.]

while pressing ahead with a headline 78 per cent tax rate and scrapping investment allowances that underpin jobs and investment. That uncertainty drives away capital investment and places Scottish jobs at risk. In 2021, Anas Sarwar tweeted that it was time that Nicola Sturgeon opposed the ecological threat of the proposed Cambo oilfield, and yet, this week, he seems to have had a change of heart and pretends to be a supporter. He is so treacherous that he could be mistaken for Alan Carr, and that all matters because, at the end of the day, we are talking about people and their livelihoods.

Independent analysis warns that ill-judged policies could put up to 100,000 jobs at risk across the UK and strip out tens of billions of pounds of investment. The Scottish Affairs Committee has warned against accelerating decline, while clean energy jobs are not yet coming on stream at the pace that is required. We witnessed that this week at Aberdeen harbour, where redundancies were announced on the back of the oil and gas downturn.

We are going to be using hydrocarbons for years to come, so let us do that in a responsible way that uses home-grown production that supports British jobs and provides revenue for our vital public services. Let us get behind our oil and gas workers.

I move amendment S6M-19637.3, to leave out “opposes” and insert “supports”.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Scottish Labour has been clear that oil and gas will be part of Scotland’s and the UK’s energy mix for decades to come. We were clear about that in our election manifesto, in which we said that we would support existing licences. The Rosebank field has been previously licensed, and the Finch judgment means that environmental impact has to be properly considered—something that the UK Government is now acting on, as opposed to the previous Tory failure.

We need to reduce our dependence on volatile international markets for fossil fuels and accelerate a shift away from oil and gas. However, as we discussed in yesterday’s members’ business debate on the “Striking the Balance” report, we need joined-up thinking and action so that we deliver a fair transition for the workers who currently work in our oil and gas sector and support the work of our trade unions, which, over the years, have negotiated decent terms and conditions and pay for people in that sector. We also need to acknowledge the work of the Just Transition Commission and the Just Transition Partnership.

We need investment at Grangemouth; in our ports and harbours; in supporting the oil and gas sector to decarbonise its operations as it continues; in the manufacture of renewables kit in Scotland; and in making more energy efficient the shipping infrastructure that all our energy sectors use.

We have to make the most of Scotland’s huge potential in renewable energy. That means not just producing our electricity but maximising its use to power and heat our homes and buildings.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Trades Union Congress says that just one job has been created for every £1 million that has been generated by the wind industry. It contrasts that with 14 jobs for every £1 million that has been generated by the oil and gas industry. Surely, we need to support the oil and gas industry.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

What we need is to make sure that we fulfil the potential in renewables so that we have companies that make wind turbines and other kit in Scotland. For example, we have a proposal at the Port of Leith that would be transformative. We need to not just import kit but make it here in Scotland.

That means that we also need to think about the jobs that could come in our communities—joining up the thinking that I was just starting to talk about. We must think about how our communities can benefit. They need an acceleration of investment in our homes so that their heat is not expensive and does not get wasted because their homes are not energy efficient. If we use excess energy to heat our buildings, we can ensure that homes are not cold and that energy is not wasted.

Our councils need support now to implement their local heat and energy efficiency strategy plans, so that we have new, well-paid jobs across the country. We also need a joined-up investment approach so that we can maximise the benefits of capturing heat from waste and from data centres, so that we can use the additional electricity that our renewables create rather than paying £1.5 billion in constraint payments.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you.

Our transport system also needs investment to deliver decarbonised infrastructure so that people can access reliable and affordable buses and trains every day and so that they can charge their cars, wherever they live in Scotland.

Our amendment is clear that we regret the SNP Government’s failure to bring forward its promised energy and just transition strategy. People need confidence to invest. We also need a stronger climate change plan.

Our UK Labour Government has acted decisively since coming into office. Labour supported the Grangemouth area in its role in the £100 million growth deal and project willow, and an additional £200 million from the national wealth fund to secure an industrial future for the Grangemouth site. It set up Great British Energy with a remit to invest in clean power and build local supply chains. It saved the Harland & Wolff yards at Methil and Arnish. It backed 1,000 jobs in the North Sea through the aspen project, and a floating wind farm by Cerulean Winds.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Please conclude.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Critically, it made sure that the national wealth fund would support energy, so that we had reliable electricity and reduced constraints on Scottish wind farms.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to conclude, Ms Boyack.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

As countries meet to discuss COP30, we need to make sure that our communities are protected from extreme weather.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Boyack. I now need to call Jamie Greene.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I move amendment S6M-19367.5, to leave out from “opposes” to end and insert:

“recognises that oil and gas will be part of Scotland and the UK’s energy mix for decades to come; acknowledges that the Rosebank oil and gas field has previously been licensed and is currently being considered under new environmental guidance; agrees that the long-term aim for Scotland and the UK should be to reduce dependence on volatile, international markets for fossil fuels; considers that this will require the realisation of Scotland’s huge potential in renewable energy, and regrets, therefore, the failure of the Scottish National Party (SNP) administration to bring forward its promised energy strategy, and believes that a properly managed energy transition, which manages existing North Sea oil and gas fields for the entirety of their lifespan and invests in low-carbon energy and energy efficiency across the country, is required to protect and maximise jobs, reduce the need for increased imports, and ensure that Scotland maintains its international reputation for excellence in energy skills.”

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

Those who do not recognise that the world is in the middle of a climate emergency live not in reality but, simply, in a world of anti-climate social media, with 180-character outbursts over anything and everything that seeks to take responsibility for the mess in which we have left our planet.

That being said, although most folk I speak to care deeply about the environment around them, they also worry about how they are going to pay their gas and electricity bills and about where the well-paid jobs in the energy sector in the north-east are going to go. In my view, hyperbole on both sides helps nobody. Of course we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, expand our renewable energy sector and use the wealth of talent that we already have in fossil fuels to create better green jobs, but none of that is going to happen overnight.

This tap-on or tap-off argument is, in my view, an oversimplification of the complex and intertwining energy market. With that in mind, I am sympathetic to the environmental concerns that have been raised about Rosebank—rightly so—but I am equally sympathetic to the valid concerns that have been raised by workers and businesses in the north-east, who are facing absolute oblivion.

Any decision about Rosebank or any future development of oil and gas in the North Sea must have the potential loss of jobs and our local economy as key considerations, but those decisions must be made in tandem and according to strict climate checks. I hope that we can all agree on that, because due process matters when making such decisions.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

rose—

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

I do not have time to give way.

That is how we will take people with us. We need the trust of those that the decisions affect. If the decision to block future developments—which is a decision for the UK Government and, to an extent, the Scottish Government through planning decisions—comes into force, then both those Governments bear responsibility to support the workforce in the sector. I say that as a warning to the SNP and Labour, because if we get it wrong, communities will be left behind, and we all know what that leads to.

The reality is that the UK will need up to 15 billion barrels of oil and gas between now and 2050. The question is where we are going to get it from, because we will produce less than 4 billion barrels. That means that we will import 40 per cent of our energy needs. Much of it will come from middle eastern countries with dubious human rights records. My gut feeling is that I would rather produce it at our back door.

We have to accept that oil and gas will remain part of our energy mix—even the Government accepts that—but let us not forget that the Government has an incoherent energy strategy as it is. How do I know that? It is because we built two liquid natural gas-capable ferries in my home town, but to fill the ferries with LNG, that LNG will first have to be imported first from Qatar, sent to a terminal in Kent and then driven 460 miles on the back of a tanker. I look forward to the day that actually happens, and I think about the carbon footprint of it, too.

While we are on the subject of incoherence, it is my consistent view that the SNP’s effective ban on any discussion around new nuclear is difficult. It is going to make it more difficult to hit our net zero targets. I talked about hyperbole earlier. We need to remove the misconceptions around new nuclear technology, which could be cost effective and low carbon.

It is not great on the renewables front, either. This week, Shell handed back its ScotWind lease, putting more than £3 billion of Scotland-based investment at risk. That is not a sign of confidence in our energy markets.

I will make this final plea. The Scottish Government must make a statement on all of this to the Parliament as soon as possible. I hope that the minister will listen to that call. It is about time that the Scottish Government comes clean on its position as to what its energy policy actually is.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We now move to the open debate.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

We are at a watershed moment for the climate, not only in Scotland but globally. As I raised with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy only last week, we face the very real risk that crucial tipping points will be surpassed, and Scotland will be on the front line of those changes.

We rely on the gulf stream for our temperate, liveable climate, but, with the 1.5°C Paris target set to be missed, climate scientists are becoming increasingly agitated that that crucial current will collapse. Should that happen, our way of life in Scotland will change drastically. It will require decades of adaptation, which will cost a lot of money, to meet that challenge. Our economy, our homes and our food production—everything—will face huge alterations.

My questions for members are these: why do we want to make the situation worse for ourselves, and how can we, in good conscience, stand here today and pursue supposed short-term gain over Scotland’s long-term health, wellbeing and prosperity? That is what Rosebank is. It is a desperate short-termist attempt by the fossil fuel industry to maintain share prices and mega pay packages. It comes at the expense of working Scottish people, both now and in the future, and it puts our collective future at great risk.

As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am proud to represent Shetland. Communities there have been promised a lot by Equinor as part of its bid to start up Rosebank—they have been promised a jobs bonanza, big contracts for highly skilled and experienced local engineering firms and lucrative helicopter traffic through Sumburgh airport. However, before a drill has even been operated, the Shetlanders have been short-changed. Businesses there have been passed over for contracts, helicopters have been set to operate out of mainland airports, and money derived from Rosebank oil and gas will end up in shareholder pockets in Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, not in our public purse, due to the UK’s general fossil fuel tax regime.

Despite that exploitation of Scottish people and the severe consequences that Rosebank would have for the climate, the First Minister could not say at First Minister’s question time last week that the SNP opposes Rosebank, nor could the minister today, and in my region the SNP has even chosen an Equinor executive as a parliamentary candidate. Those two things tell us everything that we need to know. The SNP Government is not on the side of the working people or the climate. It has bungled Grangemouth in the face of pressure from a fossil fuel billionaire, and it appears set to make the same mistake off the coast of Shetland.

Not only are we being fed myths about the economic upside of Rosebank, we are also being told that it will somehow boost our energy security and reduce our bills, but that is simply not the case. Ninety per cent of Rosebank’s production will be oil, which Equinor says will be sold on the open market, mostly to continental Europe. As for gas, estimates suggest that Rosebank will reduce the UK’s annual gas import dependency by a measly 1 per cent. We can do more for our energy security and domestic bills by moving to renewables, rolling out clean heat sources such as heat networks, heat pumps and solar thermal, and properly insulating our homes.

Let us focus on doing things that will bring real, positive changes for Scottish households. Let us stand up to the false narratives that are spread by the fossil fuel industry. Let us do better by our people and climate, and let us say no to Rosebank.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I thank the Scottish Greens for bringing the debate to the chamber. Like other members, I have received correspondence on the issue of Rosebank over a lengthy period of time. We all know that its development and implications are wide ranging, as it will impact on the climate emergency, jobs and the broader regional economy in the north-east. Other factors in the discussion include the just transition and the impact of the UK Government’s tax and levy regimes. The decisions made and the approach taken in relation to the proposal need to achieve the goals of tackling the climate emergency and the just transition and, of course, providing economic stability.

The Scottish Government continues to call on the UK Government to approach North Sea oil and gas licensing on an evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. That position has not changed. Decisions on offshore oil and gas licensing and consenting are currently reserved to the UK Government, but any development of oil and gas licensing must be undertaken in a way that is compatible with Scotland’s journey to net zero. The Scottish Government remains committed to a fair and just transition to net zero, which will provide opportunities for our industries, our economy and our climate.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

Scotland’s energy wealth has been squandered as a cash cow by many successive UK Governments while ordinary Scots pay some of the highest bills in Europe. Labour promised to cut energy bills by £300, but the reality is that energy bills have risen by £190 since the party came into office. The SNP is calling for an end to the energy profits levy, which is having a negative impact on investment in clean energy, oil and gas decommissioning and the shared energy supply chain—there is no doubt about that whatsoever. We all hear that from stakeholders. That is why it is vital that we continue to invest in renewable energy opportunities and maximise that investment.

On Rosebank, I repeat that decisions on offshore oil and gas licensing and consenting are currently reserved to the UK Government. However, the Scottish Government continues to call on the UK Government to approach its decisions on offshore oil and gas projects on an evidence-led, case-by-case basis.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I am sorry, Mr Harvie—I have only four minutes.

Climate compatibility and energy security should be key considerations, and climate compatibility assessments and checkpoints should inform any decision that the UK Government makes on new licences. The Scottish Government has consistently insisted on the importance of those assessments—a position that has also been adopted in legal judgments. We also have to remain committed to a fair and just transition to net zero.

With the Scottish Government’s backing, the north-east can become the net zero capital of the world. The Scottish Government is committed to capitalising on the enormous opportunities that the net zero system offers our industries, our economy and our climate. The Scottish Government is focused on reducing emissions in line with climate commitments, delivering affordable energy supplies and ensuring that a just transition for the oil and gas workforce is secured as North Sea oil resources decline.

The number of jobs that are supported by the UK’s oil and gas industry has more than halved in the past decade. Polling has shown that more than 90 per cent of oil and gas workers surveyed want a clear path out of high-carbon jobs and that more than 90 per cent of oil and gas workers possess skills that are transferable to the offshore renewables sector. The real pathway to supporting the workers, supply chains and communities that currently depend on the oil and gas industry is developing a credible plan for the North Sea transition and ensuring that those who are dependent on the oil and gas sector benefit from the transition. That includes establishing domestic clean energy supply chains to provide secure, long-term jobs for oil and gas workers to transition into.

The Rosebank decision is about people, climate and the future of the north-east, and it is incredibly important that we balance all those aspects as we move forward.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The SNP’s hypocrisy on the EPL is absolutely breathtaking. SNP members were the biggest cheerleaders in the Parliament for those windfall taxes and the Official Report shows it, so they should not try to change history now. I heard my colleague, Craig Hoy, shout from a sedentary position to Paul McLennan, “What about Torness?” The Government cannot go on sustaining the view that there is no place for nuclear in our energy mix if we believe in clean energy. However, the motion asks us to turn our backs on reality and on one of Scotland’s most vital industries. It asks us to abandon the energy workers of the north-east, to weaken our national security and to reject the very resources that have powered our economy for 50 years. It is a motion that is driven not by reason or realism, but by ideology.

The Scottish Conservatives cannot and will not support that folly. We will, therefore—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

No—I do not have time to take an intervention, unfortunately. That is what passes for debate in this place.

The Conservative amendment sets out clearly our party’s position, which is that Scotland must maximise every one of its energy resources through a balanced and responsible energy mix. That means renewables, nuclear, hydrogen and—yes—continued production of oil and gas from the North Sea.

The alternative proposed by the Scottish Greens would leave Scotland more dependent on imported energy from countries with lower environmental standards, higher levels of emissions and little concern for human rights. It is the height of absurdity to import liquefied natural gas from Qatar or the United States, which is shipped thousands of miles with double the carbon footprint, while refusing to produce our own resources from the North Sea, where our standards are among the highest in the world. That is not environmentalism—it is environmental self-harm.

Rosebank, like many North Sea projects, can be developed in a way that aligns with our climate goals, because its carbon intensity per barrel is among the lowest globally. To halt such developments does not reduce global emissions; it simply offshores them. That is not climate leadership—it is climate hypocrisy. Just like everything that the Scottish Greens stand for, it is anathema to the Scottish Conservatives and—to be frank—to most sensible people in Scotland.

The Greens have managed to deceive many by posing as a party for cuddly animals when, in truth, they are a party that is intent on returning us to the stone age. Their ideology is a form of modern-day communism that is hostile to enterprise, to capitalism and to economic growth itself. They would dismantle the very system that feeds, clothes and houses us. They would like to un-invent almost every technological advance that humanity has achieved in the past 100 years. They must be opposed, and they must be exposed.

Scotland’s energy future must be based on realism, not romanticism, and on innovation, not ideology. It must support the workers who build our prosperity and secure the energy that sustains our daily lives. Our amendment is straightforward common sense: it is about jobs, security and self reliance. [ Interruption .] Patrick Harvie can mutter from a sedentary position all he likes. It is about ensuring that Scotland remains an energy nation, leading the world not by self-denial, but by example. Let us choose prosperity over pretence, progress over posturing, and the national interest over Green ideology. Support our amendment and stand up for Scotland’s energy, its workers and its future.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome the fact that the Scottish Greens have brought this timely debate to the chamber. For life on this planet to be tolerable, we have to address the climate challenge and we must move away from our reliance on oil and gas. We cannot overestimate the challenge that we face. In 2024, the highest concentration—in human history—of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was recorded. The rise in global temperatures has meant that the past decade was the warmest on record. The International Energy Agency has said that, if we are to achieve the target of limiting the global temperature rise to within 1.5°C, there can be no new oil and gas developments internationally.

Scottish Government policy is in favour of a just transition. However, we have to be honest: the transition has started and it is not just. In the chamber, we have spoken about thousands of onshore and offshore jobs that have already been lost, despite oil companies continuing to pay massive dividends. One of those companies, Ithaca, has already been mentioned in the debate. In August, the North Sea oil giant paid £127 million in dividends for the first quarter of 2025, with total pay-outs set to reach around £388 million this year. There is no just transition for the workers who are losing their jobs.

As Liam Kerr said, in October, STUC research showed that only one job is being created for every £1 million in turnover in onshore and offshore wind. The figure across other renewables sectors is not significantly higher. We do not build wind turbines—we import them, and we are not reaping the economic benefits of any green industrial revolution. We have to be honest that not enough is being done to ensure good quality job creation and to develop the new sectors that would provide local benefits.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member referred to job losses in the oil and gas sector in the north-east of Scotland; I represent the Moray constituency in that area. Does the member realise that one of the key reasons, if not the key reason, that is being cited by the industry for job losses is the energy profits levy, which urgently needs to be reformed, changed or scrapped?

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I do not accept that. I am happy to discuss it in more detail another day. I have already referenced some of the profits that are being made in the sector.

My primary role today is to hold the minister’s Government to account and talk about what this Parliament can do within our powers. I agree with the Greens that we cannot keep developing new oil and gas. However, we have to do that as part of a just transition, so I also support the offshore trade unions and the workforce in their demand for a plan.

A number of members have already made the point that we cannot respond to the challenge by importing foreign oil and gas to replace North Sea oil production. Norway and Denmark are issuing new oil and gas production licences alongside historically high investment in offshore renewables. It cannot be acceptable that we support extraction elsewhere.

The trade unions need to be centrally involved in developing a just transition. I do not believe that there has ever been a just transition for working class communities when industrial change has taken place. Working class communities see no sign of that happening now. We need to rise to the climate challenge by having a serious debate about how we ensure that we meet our climate challenges in a way that benefits our economy as part of an industrial strategy that delivers for every community in Scotland.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Clare Adamson is the final speaker in the open debate.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are talking about fuel this afternoon, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, but we are really talking about power and where power lies. We know that, even if we pass this motion this afternoon, the decisions about Scotland’s resources, Scotland’s economy and Scotland’s opportunities will not be made in Scotland. That is simply wrong.

We have seen how, for years, Westminster has failed to use the resources of Scotland to benefit the people of Scotland. In the 1980s, the SNP ran an “All of the fuel, none of the power” campaign and, unfortunately, nothing has changed since then.

Norway’s oil fund was mentioned earlier. It is worth trillions of pounds and is used to benefit the citizens of Norway. Meanwhile—although, of course, I have constituents who have concerns about the climate—I see constituents who went through a transition in the 1980s, when the Tories did away with the mines and steelworks and did nothing just about it. I see people who cannot put food on the table, who cannot afford their fuel and electricity bills and who live in a country that is one of the most unequal in Europe and the world, where the profits have never been used to benefit the people of Scotland.

That is why this debate can go nowhere at this stage, because what we need is the power to control those issues. We want to be at the heart of Europe. The carbon border adjustment mechanism that is about to come in will see every exporter in Scotland hit with a charge for the carbon that they use in their production processes, and we no longer have a place at the top table to enter into negotiations about that.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That does not address the motion.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

What does that have to do with the motion?

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Again, that is left in the hands of Westminster politicians, who have failed to use the resources of this country—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Ms Adamson, please resume your seat for a second.

I am not going to be told by members on any bench whether something is relevant. I will judge whether what Ms Adamson is saying is relevant to the amendment that the Government has lodged. I appreciate that it is not relevant to the amendment that the Conservatives have lodged and that it is not necessarily relevant to the motion that the Green Party has put forward, but it is relevant to the SNP’s amendment. The judgment about that is for me, as chair, and I will not be heckled into changing that decision. I also encourage members on the Conservative benches not to provide a running commentary throughout the speech.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

We face an existential threat: a climate disaster. COP30 is happening right now, and we know that we have already failed to meet the targets that would keep the rise in global temperatures below a 1.5°C increase. We are seeing weather events across the world that are devastating communities—many of which are in countries that, at some point, Britain has exploited. We see the global south suffering from climate change.

The threat to our existence is existential. We know that COP30 is looking at those issues, and we hope that a strong and good way forward will come out of the conference. However, we must have the power to control what we do, so that we can play our part as individuals, as a country, as a European partner and as a member of the world community, because this is an existential threat. It is the biggest threat that is facing us.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I thank the Greens for lodging the motion, because it is important that we treat the climate emergency with the urgency that it deserves, and that we continue to scrutinise the decisions that we make in that context and consider the progress that we are making towards net zero, because the solution is not easy or straightforward, and, unfortunately, it is not about binary choices. In some ways, I wish that it were, but it is about a just transition to net zero. Each of the words in that phrase is incredibly important, and that is what we have heard this afternoon.

However, for those who want to resist the drive towards net zero, it is important to have two very important reality checks. First, as I have said in the chamber before, an assessment by Wood Mackenzie shows that 90 per cent of our extractable resources have already been extracted—on a more generous assessment, the figure is 70 per cent. We would have to transition whether we liked it or not—whether the climate emergency was with us or not—but it is with us, which adds to the urgency with which we must act.

Secondly, we need to recognise that, currently, we are massively reliant on hydrocarbons, and that that reliance will not go away. That was acknowledged by the Greens when they opened the debate. In heating our homes with gas, we use four times as much energy as we do with electricity. Getting off gas will be incredibly difficult. As a number of members have pointed out, importing gas comes with a substantially higher carbon footprint than using our domestic supply.

It cannot be a case of either/or—we must have balanced production and a pathway to net zero. We cannot simply cut off the taps and have a higher carbon footprint—

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

If it is brief.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I agree that it should not be a case of one thing or the other, but Labour’s ban on new licences is making it one thing or the other. Does the member not accept that the ban on new licences means that we will have to import more oil and gas?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

We are talking about the Rosebank application, so let us use that as an opportunity to look at the issue. The Rosebank application was consented to by the previous Government. The UK Government is committed to upholding previous consents, but that consent was flawed and found by a court to have been given in error, according to the law. The consent had not taken fully into account the environmental impact assessments. That process is currently under way. Members on the Conservative benches made reference to the environmental impact assessment, but the public consultation for that does not close until 20 November.

It is important that we have due process that provides stability for investment. Let us be clear that we will need investment if we are to continue to extract hydrocarbons—which everyone acknowledges that we will do—but we cannot have a regime that chops and changes. We also need a regime that has environmental impact assessments at its heart, which is what the UK Government has now brought in. That process is under way, but it has not yet concluded.

As much as I understand why people on both sides of the argument believe that the debate is important, and that it is vital that we grant consent only if the proposals are compatible with environmental impact assessments and our transition to net zero, we must have due process and genuine assessment. Anyone who argues that we should short circuit that process is arguing against the very interests that they claim to support.

We need a plan, which is what the UK Labour Government has brought forward with GB Energy and investment. Ultimately, what we need is a just transition—Katy Clark is absolutely right. We have never had one before, but we absolutely need one now.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, thank the Greens for securing the debate. I have to say that I found their arguments less than compelling, as was their leaflet that was delivered to my home early yesterday evening, which was all about taxing the rich and making everything fairer. The rich have got rich by working hard and using the economy to their advantage, and everyone benefits from that. [ Interruption .] If the Greens are going to destroy the economy, I do not know where we are going.

The Greens have admitted that we will need oil in the future. Have we thought about all the uses for which we will need it? The turbines that are growing in number across Scotland use hundreds of gallons of oil each year to ensure that they turn and that their gearboxes and other workings function.

Farmers need oil to fuel their tractors, because electric power will not do that. I am a farmer myself—members can check the details in my entry in the register of members’ interests. We need oil for our transport. The battery buses that were sent up to the Highlands did not work, because they did not have the power required to get up the hills.

We will need oil and gas to heat our homes. I keep pointing out—as I did to Mr Harvie—that the alternative sources of power that have been proposed, such as the heat solutions and the heat transfer systems, will not work without a considerable amount of retrofitting of insulation.

Therefore, we will all continue to need oil and gas, which is why Mr Lumsden’s points are so appropriate. Why not use the resources that we already have? Why not ensure that those resources are exploited to ensure that the jobs that are in Scotland continue to offer employment to people and that the money that is brought in continues to benefit the UK Treasury?

The suggestion that we should not use Rosebank means that we would just be exporting production to countries such as Nigeria. Is that environmentally sensible? It is not. If we wanted to, we could rely on Russia and allow it to supply us with oil, but that prospect is equally unpleasant. As Mr Greene pointed out, we could rely on the middle east to supply us with some of our fuel. However, some of the practices that go on there are totally unacceptable.

This afternoon, we have talked about why we should not use oil. We have ignored why we are driven to using it. It is because this Government does not want to allow the use of nuclear power in Scotland. However, the Government is fine about taking the power that comes in from nuclear power stations when the wind does not blow and there is insufficient power here. It is hypocritical for members of the Government who have nuclear power stations in their constituencies to say that they do not want them there when the employment opportunities that they offer are phenomenal.

I am unclear about the position of the Labour Party on this issue. To be frank, I am not sure who is calling the shots there. Anas Sarwar seems to be changing his position. Perhaps that is so that he can align with whichever new leader approaches the front benches when Keir Starmer is replaced, whether it be Wes Streeting or Andy Burnham.

I am confused by everyone’s positions. We have a resource in Scotland and it appears that we can exploit it by carefully—

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Do I have time, Deputy Presiding Officer?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

No.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Okay. I am sure that the member knows that I would have taken an intervention, but I do not have time.

We can exploit the resource in such a way as to make sure that we do not damage the environment. Importing it from elsewhere will probably ensure that that will happen.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I also welcome this debate, which the Green Party has brought to the chamber. The issue of climate change raises profound questions that affect our society, our economy and our planet, not just for our generation but for those in the future. As the father of two sons, I often wonder what the world will be like when they are my age—not just in relation to climate change but on many other related issues. We are discussing profound matters today.

I believe that Scotland is showing global leadership on tackling the climate crisis. As we speak, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy is in Brazil, at COP30, representing Scotland, showing leadership and collaborating with the international community. I notice that Douglas Lumsden presents that as jet setting. In the past 24 hours, Time magazine has named the cabinet secretary as one of the 100 top climate leaders. I congratulate her on that achievement, which recognises, on the international stage, Scotland’s leadership in tackling the climate crisis.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I will take both interventions.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Do you think that Gillian Martin’s constituents—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Speak through the chair.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Sorry. Does the minister think that Gillian Martin’s constituents will be happy that she is one of the top 100 people in climate change when they see our constituencies being railroaded with pylons, substations and everything else?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member makes an interesting point. I am sure that others have noticed the anti-renewables rhetoric that is increasingly coming from members on the Conservative benches. That party used to have a green tree as its national emblem, to show that it loved the environment. Those days are long gone, given the rhetoric that we hear from it in Scotland today.

Referring to the unfortunate loss of some jobs due to the downturn in oil and gas activity, the chief executive of the Port of Aberdeen said that we need to speed up the creation of renewables jobs. However, the member who has just intervened criticises ministers for what he terms “cosying up” to wind farm companies. Those are the very companies that will supply the jobs that the chief executive of the Port of Aberdeen wants to see being created to stop the job losses that the member is complaining about. It is utter hypocrisy after utter hypocrisy.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That is unbelievable.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

[Made a request to intervene.]

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I will take Mr Harvie’s intervention.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I remind Conservative members that they have been given interventions and had a chance to make their points. They should listen to the person who has the floor. Currently, that is Patrick Harvie.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

A moment ago, the minister was laying claim to climate leadership on behalf of the Government. Why does he think that Nicola Sturgeon had the courage to say what she thinks of this particular project—Rosebank—and the current Government does not? I ask him to reflect on that, please.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government’s position has always been consistent: such matters should be treated case by case and a vigorous compatibility assessment of our climate obligations should be put in place. That has been our constant message under each of the First Ministers of this SNP Government.

In my remaining two minutes I will turn to other members’ contributions. Jamie Greene’s opening remarks were very balanced. Many of the issues that we are discussing are incredibly complex, as Daniel Johnson referenced. It is not simply a case of denying the climate crisis, as some members might imply. Neither is it a case of simply shutting off the oil and gas jobs and causing economic dislocation in our country, particularly in the north-east, which others give the impression might be the solution. I hope that that is not the position, but sometimes that is the impression that we, as politicians, give the public when we have vigorous debates. We should not give that impression in these difficult, complex times.

Jamie Greene also said that he would want the Government to make a statement on ScotWind and a recent licence issue. I indicate to him that we accept that request and that such a statement will be made.

At the heart of Jamie Greene’s and other members’ contributions were questions about the just transition that will take place over several decades to come. A lot is happening to put in place the measures for that. For example, just recently, the First Minister opened an energy transition skills hub in Aberdeen. Many other measures are being taken besides that.

The UK Government is midway through the decision-making process on the application for the Rosebank field to receive consents to enter production. Although the process comes under a reserved matter, it is nonetheless important for us all to be aware of the detail.

We have the court rulings, and the UK regulator published updated statutory guidance for undertaking environmental impact assessments to inform offshore oil and gas consenting. The updated guidance requires that the climate impacts of the emissions arising from the consumption, as well as the initial production of oil and gas, must be considered.

As I said, the Scottish Government has long called for an enhanced climate compatibility approach to be taken to decisions on North Sea oil and gas developments, including the consideration of the fuel impacts. As outlined in the Government’s amendment, which I commend to Parliament, that is at the heart of what we want. We want energy security, we want that compatibility assessment and we want to ensure that Scotland can continue on its journey towards net zero.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Maggie Chapman will wind up the debate.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Although the debate has been disappointingly predictable, the climate-wrecking, business-as-usual take from most in the chamber—[ Interruption .]

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Ms Chapman, will you resume your seat?

Alexander Stewart, I ask you not to chunter from a sedentary position, particularly with comments such as that, please.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

The climate-wrecking, business-as-usual take from most in the chamber—one that ideologically supports fossil capitalism—is deeply concerning.

In closing the debate, I do so with urgency for our climate and for the people whose lives and livelihoods hang in the balance. The proposed exploitation of the Rosebank oilfield is a moment of reckoning—a choice between clinging to fossil fuel profits and choosing a future that is rooted in fairness, community and justice.

If we are serious about keeping anywhere close to the 1.5°C limit of global warming and about having a liveable planet, we must be serious about having no new licences for fossil fuel extraction.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I am not going to take an intervention from a member of a party that wants to rip up our climate change legislation.

The campaign against Rosebank reminds us that this is not abstract. It says that, if Governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal.

We can debate economics and energy security, but the real question is moral. Who do those businesses serve? In the north-east, many communities have built their identity and pride around oil and gas. I respect those workers—sometimes whole families—who have gone offshore, drilled, serviced rigs and supported supply chains. However, the reality is clear: jobs are disappearing.

Between 2014 and 2024, the UK oil and gas workforce fell from about 190,000 to 115,000. In Scotland, we have lost roughly three oil and gas jobs for every one that is created in clean energy. One offshore worker told the Just Transition Commission:

“I’ve got probably four years left in the North Sea. Where do I go? My employer is not funding retraining ... There’s a lack of information about where is the work and what are the skills required.”

They went on to say that

“A lot of guys ... think the North Sea will go on forever”,

but it will not. That is the cost—the human cost—of transition neglect.

Rosebank would only make things worse. The UK taxpayer would carry most of the cost through billions in tax breaks, while profits flowed overseas and UK job creation remained minimal.

The promised boom is hollow. It is built on export-oriented oil and more fossil dependency when the clock for climate action is running out.

This debate is not only about Aberdeen or Edinburgh; it is about the wider world and those who are already living with the first and worst effects of climate breakdown. As scientist Friederike Otto reminds us,

“Climate change is not just a problem of physics but a crisis of justice”.

Women and gender-diverse people, people of colour and those in low-income countries are suffering most from this fossil-fuelled world. The consequences of climate change are not gender neutral.

Here in Scotland, we must ask: who does the industry serve and whose future does it ignore? Let us be clear that oil and gas corporations are raking in mega-profits, even as investment in renewables lags and supply-chain jobs erode. Equinor made £62 billion of profit in 2022, while the Rosebank project would be underwritten by the public purse. Meanwhile, north-east communities face job losses and shrinking opportunities.

A just transition means that the process is as important as the outcome. The Just Transition Commission reminds us that the shift must be co-designed and co-delivered by those affected—by workers, trade unions and communities. Roz Foyer of the Scottish Trades Union Congress has been clear that

“We must secure good, green jobs ... not leave communities abandoned”

and that we must put

“workers’ voices at the heart of any just transition”,

yet the reality falls behind that rhetoric. For every one green job created, three oil and gas jobs have been lost. Too many renewables projects import components instead of building them here. Too often, we talk transition but deliver decline.

So, what is to be done? First, we must say loud and clear, “No new licences.” Approving Rosebank would send the wrong message. We already hold vast reserves. Even developers admit that it will not cut bills or create lasting jobs.

Secondly, we must centre communities and workers by co-designing, retraining, upskilling and reskilling, with guarantees of fair pay, fair work and secure pathways into renewables.

Thirdly, we must build local supply chains and anchor investment here. Scotland must stop exporting our skills and importing finished products. Our renewables strategy must be to manufacture, install and maintain right here at home.

Fourthly, we must confront intersecting injustices. Climate justice is social justice. Gender, race, class and geography shape who gains and who loses. The poorest in the world are already paying the price for choices that are made elsewhere.

Finally, we must use the gains of the fossil era to finance the green one. If profits are vast and subsidies generous, we should reclaim them. We should invest in communities, care, education and innovation. A fossil fuel boom that enriches a few while displacing many is unacceptable.

The decision that is before us is stark. We can keep granting new licences and prolonging carbon lock-in and the neglect of workers and communities, or we can summon the courage to break with business as usual and invest in a Scotland that is not only low carbon but fair. I speak today for young people, for families in the north-east who fear for their future and for those around the world whose lives are already curtailed by climate chaos. We cannot ask them to wait for justice.

We must act with urgency, compassion and ambition. We believe that the richest resources and technologies must not serve the few; they must uplift us all. We must reject Rosebank.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes the debate on Rosebank. Before we move to the next item of business, there will be a brief pause to allow members on the front benches to change.