Scottish Parliament, 26 November 2025

441 contributions from 69 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how the Scottish economic link licence is working. (S6O-05190)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

A review of the amended economic link licence condition was published in August. It showed that the policy has delivered significant benefits. Landings of mackerel and herring into Scotland have risen sharply, meeting phase targets and bringing record values to Peterhead and Lerwick ports. That has strengthened coastal economies, supported jobs and driven major investment in processing facilities, which has in turn improved business security and enabled expansion. Scottish processors report greater confidence to invest, extended employment and improved access to premium export markets in the far east. Overall, the policy is achieving its aims but continues to be under review.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Given the United Kingdom Government’s decision to short-change Scotland’s fishing and coastal communities, tools such as the economic link licence are important for keeping value in our ports and our onshore sector. Processors in my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency tell me that economic link changes have helped, but they still see some unused capacity and are concerned that, without increases, businesses might suffer. Will the cabinet secretary consider commissioning further analysis of whether the current licence condition is maximising landings and processing in Scotland? If not, what options might there be to strengthen the condition in support of coastal jobs?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I thank Karen Adam for raising that important point. I recognise how important the licence condition has been for Scotland’s processors and for our ports.

This year, we have received challenging advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which is recommending major quota cuts for mackerel and herring. That raises real concerns about throughput and about the impact on our processors and the jobs that depend on them. We are in active discussion with processors and catchers to assess what the full supply chain impact would be and what, if any, Government intervention might be needed. We also recognise that there are strong and differing views on any further intervention. In any action that we take, we will be guided by the public interest. I emphasise that, at this point, no decisions have been made on intervening to increase mackerel and herring landings in 2026. We will carefully consider stakeholders’ views.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Fishermen face many challenges, not least the economic link, which can impact the market and impede competitive opportunities for vessels to get the best value for their catches. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, without an economically viable pelagic fleet, the impact on processors, the supply chain and island and coastal communities will be considerable ?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I absolutely recognise that. I hope that Beatrice Wishart will take some assurance from the points that I have made. We are trying to assess the impact of that advice on our catching and processing sectors, and we are having discussions to see what, if any, intervention might be needed. I want to provide assurance that no decisions have been made. We are engaging closely, because we have to do all that we can to mitigate the impacts of that advice.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent work it has undertaken with the agricultural sector to reduce the number of fatalities within the industry. (S6O-05191)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The Scottish Government works closely with the agricultural sector to improve safety and wellbeing. The Farm Advisory Service offers practical risk management support, and the next generation practical training fund helps new entrants to access accredited safety-focused courses.

We have awarded £25,000 to Farmstrong Scotland for its social wellbeing project, which fosters supportive networks and reduces isolation through community engagement. We have also provided £75,000 to the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution so that it can continue to deliver emotional, practical and financial assistance, including counselling, mental health support and help with essential living costs. Together, those measures strengthen resilience and wellbeing across Scotland’s agricultural community.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Since April this year, there have been 22 farm fatalities in the United Kingdom, including the tragic loss of life at a farm in South Lanarkshire in October. The Health and Safety Executive says that farm vehicles continue to be the leading cause of fatalities and injuries. A Farm Safety Foundation survey found that women in agriculture are less likely to carry out a risk assessment before taking on a new job and that they receive less training than men. Is there disaggregation by sex when injuries and fatalities are recorded? Do we have an understanding of where the increased risks for women working in agriculture are? What is being done to reduce those risks?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I thank Claire Baker for bringing up the subject, which is very close to my heart. I will need to come back to her on her specific point about disaggregation by sex, as I do not have an answer to that right now.

The overall safety of farmers is not just about the actions that they take; it is also about their mental wellbeing. There are a number of risks to Scotland’s farmers, and it is essential that we put as much help and support in place as we can to protect them and to ensure that the fatality numbers are reduced.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a partner in a farming business and a member of NFU Scotland.

Is the minister aware of the high number of lives lost to suicide in the agriculture sector, with the winter months being a particularly difficult time for many farmers and crofters? The pressures on farmers can be exacerbated by the impact of Government actions and the frustration, anger and disappointment that they can often bring. How will the Scottish Government ensure that, in the decisions that it makes and the way in which it administers schemes and delivers its policies, it recognises that behind every application is a farmer or crofter who is already under pressure?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I hear exactly what the member is saying about the loss of lives due to suicide. It is a subject that is incredibly close to my heart.

I put on record that every time a decision is made by anyone in the Scottish Government on how we help, support or work with people to get through difficult situations, the subject is very much at the forefront of their mind. Our officials are very clear about that, as I know they have always been up to now in all the circumstances that have been brought to my attention.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of NatureScot’s species licensing review, including timelines for producing and implementing recommendations for improvements alongside charging for licensing services. (S6O-05192)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The species licensing review is being finalised by NatureScot following the completion of the external review phase. Once the review has been presented to ministers for consideration, it will be published alongside our response to the recommendations and any timelines for taking the recommendations forward. We expect to be in a position to respond to the report once it is received in early 2026.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I think that we were expecting the report in January 2025, and then in July 2025, and now all we hear is that the review “is being finalised”. Can the minister assure us that NatureScot has been listening to the RSPB and the Scottish Raptor Study Group, and that their input will influence recommendations?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

As I have said, there has been an awful lot of input into the review, and NatureScot will take all of it into account before the finalised report comes to ministers and is then presented to Parliament.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Our public money is being spent on mitigating the environmental damage caused by polluting private companies. We cannot afford to go on like this. It is therefore welcome that NatureScot is exploring the potential to apply the principle of cost recovery in its species licensing review.

I have previously asked whether the Scottish Government supports the principle that polluters must themselves pay for the environmental damage that they cause, but the minister did not answer, so I am asking again: does the Scottish Government agree with the polluter pays principle?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The member has asked the question before, and I gave her a fairly succinct answer at the time. We will have a report on any review that comes forward and we will bring it to the Parliament.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

I have given the minister notice of this question. He has received the outcome of the muirburn licensing test phase from representatives of Scottish Land & Estates and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, which was to see whether NatureScot would be able to grant muirburn licences to prevent and reduce the risk of wildfire on peatland. It is clear from the testing that the legislative provisions that are currently in place are unduly prohibitive when it comes to issuing licences for muirburn to take place to prevent and reduce the risk of wildfire. What consideration is the minister giving to amendment 271, which seeks to amend the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill in—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Ewing—that is not to do with the species licensing review. If there is anything that you can add in response to that, minister, I am happy to let you do so.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

All that I can say is that I am carefully considering all licences that are in front of me at this moment in time.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any economic benefits of the growth of aquaculture in Scotland. (S6O-05193)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Several assessments, including the marine economic statistics and annual fish and shellfish farm production surveys, have demonstrated that the growth of aquaculture in Scotland has led to significant economic benefits for our country.

The marine economic statistics report for 2023 is due to be published in December, but in 2022, aquaculture generated £337 million in gross value added, which is 7 per cent of the marine economy GVA, and it directly employed 2,200 people. The latest Scottish fish farm protection survey reported that, in 2024, salmon farming achieved a record value of more than £1.3 billion.

In our “Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture”, which was published in 2023, we set out our support for the sustainable development of the sector and recognise

“the considerable social and economic benefits the sector delivers”.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The cabinet secretary is aware of recent estimates that put the annual contribution of the salmon industry to the Scottish economy at more than £1 billion. Given that, and given the fact that some 11,000 jobs are supported by the industry—including more than 600 at Mowi, in Rosyth in my constituency—will she reaffirm the Scottish Government’s commitment to do all that it can to promote the industry here and abroad? Will she welcome the significant contribution that it makes to sustainable jobs across Scotland?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I am happy to reaffirm that commitment to Annabelle Ewing and to members across the chamber. We remain committed to promoting the sector at home and abroad. We are continuing to work with our enterprise and innovation agencies on the international stage to ensure that Scotland has a key presence at the major trade shows, targeting new business opportunities and ensuring that Scotland remains a global leader as well as, more broadly, a collaborator.

We are also working to ensure that more people can enjoy Scottish salmon. This year, £50,000 was awarded through the marine fund Scotland—which was match funded by the sector—to try to grow sales under the coveted Label Rouge label. We continue to work together to capitalise on new market opportunities. I am delighted that Scottish salmon is on track to deliver another record year for exports in 2025.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I have an interest in a wild salmon fishery on the east coast.

The salmon farming industry is known for unacceptably high mortality, its use of antibiotics and the number of escapes, resulting in the royal warrant being withdrawn from Mowi. Surely it is time for this Government to consider withdrawing its blanket support for an industry that can only be described as suspect.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I must make it absolutely clear that Scottish aquaculture is a highly regulated sector. There are robust controls on planning and environmental impacts as well as on fish health.

Edward Mountain raised the issue of the royal warrant, but such decisions are not a matter for the Scottish Government.

We protect fish health through regulation, through communication and through legislation. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 protects farmed animals from unnecessary suffering and places a duty of care on those who care for animals to meet their welfare needs.

We know how important the aquaculture sector is in Scotland. It supplies well-paid jobs in some of the most rural parts of our country, as well as in our island communities. It is a highly regulated sector that is very important for our wider economy.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The salmon farming industry makes many claims about itself that have proved to be misleading. It claims to be transparent with mortality data, but it does not include cleaner fish, salmon in transport or certain smolts. It tells us that it wants to protect wild salmon, but it puts in legal appeals against the very framework that is designed to do that. It does many other things. Will the cabinet secretary commit to commissioning an independent, Scotland-wide cost benefit analysis, as per best practice, so that future policy in the salmon farming sector—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you. Briefly, cabinet secretary.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Ariane Burgess raised a point on transparency. The information that is published in relation to the aquaculture sector is very transparent. More data is published in relation to aquaculture than in many of our other sectors. I appreciate the point—we discussed it when the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee was undertaking its inquiry into salmon farming. There are issues about the amount of data that we have and how that data is used and communicated more widely. In relation to that point and in relation to the other matters that Ariane Burgess raises, the committee made a number of recommendations and I made a number of commitments in response. I offer the assurance that several pieces of work are under way.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how Brexit has impacted Scotland’s food and drink producers. (S6O-05194)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The food and drink sector continues to suffer the consequences of a hard Brexit, which has disrupted supply chains and created new trade barriers. Many Scottish producers continue to face reduced European Union market access, which resulted in a 50 per cent decline in the value of fruit and vegetable exports between 2019 and 2024.

While the full economic consequences of exiting the EU are still to be realised, we know that businesses face higher trading costs, and some producers have lost the ability to export goods to the EU altogether.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Today’s official statistics show that Scottish food and drink exports are worth £7.5 billion. Although the food and drink sector remains Scotland’s largest international export sector and accounts for a fifth of Scotland’s international exports, there has been a 5 per cent real-terms decrease since 2018. That decrease, which is a result of Brexit difficulties, has had an impact on jobs, the economy and communities, yet Westminster Labour will not even consider re-entering the EU, the single market or the customs union to help exporters. Is Westminster Labour wrong?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I could not agree more with the points that Kevin Stewart has made. He has highlighted the massive economic damage that has been done by Brexit—in particular, the hard Brexit that was pursued by the UK Government at the time.

Research by the centre for economic performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science shows that UK households have paid £7 billion to cover the cost of post-Brexit trade barriers on food imports from the EU, which has pushed up household food costs by an average of £250 since December 2019. We know that low-income households, which spend a greater proportion of their income on food, have been disproportionately affected.

Brexit has undoubtedly increased the barriers and the costs for industry. Kevin Stewart rightly highlighted the value of our food and drink exports. We hope that some of that damage could be mitigated by a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, but such an agreement will never fully reverse the damage that has been done by Brexit.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what response it has had to its letter to the United Kingdom Government regarding the fishing and coastal growth fund. (S6O-05195)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

There has been no response to my letter to UK ministers of 22 October, in which I set out our serious concerns about the announced approach of allocating to the Scottish Government just 7.78 per cent of the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund, which is, of course, an insult to the Scottish fishing industry.

On 4 November, together with other key Scottish stakeholders, I wrote to the UK Government, calling for the Scottish seafood industry action group to be reconvened to discuss that urgent issue, alongside other concerns. Once again, to date, there has been no reply from the UK Government.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The UK Government’s unresponsiveness is appalling. The Scottish Government was clear in its expectation that Scotland’s fishers needed and deserved to maintain an arrangement outside the Barnett formula that recognised the relative size and importance of fishing industries across the UK, and that Scotland should receive at least 46 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund. The Labour Party has ignored Scotland’s Government and insulted our fishing industry. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scottish Labour MSPs need to decide whether they are backing our fishing industry and communities or their bosses at Westminster?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I could not agree more with that. As Keith Brown highlighted, we were clear right from the outset that Scotland should receive at least 46 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund, in recognition of the sheer size and importance of an industry that is vital to Scotland.

The decision to apply the Barnett formula to the fund was taken by UK ministers. It completely ignored what we asked for and is an insult to our industry, as well as to our communities. I remain steadfast in urging the UK Government to reconsider its approach and to enter into discussions with us and with fishing industry leaders with a view to agreeing a way forward that, ultimately, treats our industries and communities with the respect that they deserve.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what correspondence it has had with the UK Government regarding support for Scottish farmers ahead of the upcoming UK budget. (S6O-05196)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

We have repeatedly raised intra-United Kingdom agricultural funding allocation concerns with the UK Government, most recently with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the interministerial group meeting on Monday. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government also wrote to the chancellor on 15 October, highlighting the issue among our priorities for the UK budget.

We have been clear that a population-based Barnett settlement for land and sea support is inappropriate. It misses the opportunity to recognise Scotland’s larger share of land and seas and their potential to contribute significantly to the UK’s climate and nature restoration goals.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

The Labour Government showed its contempt for farmers this afternoon when it refused to reverse its cruel family farm tax. However, Scottish farmers, including those in my West Scotland region, have also been let down by the SNP Government, most recently through the inconsistent future farming investment scheme. This year, the SNP Government has also failed to publish the rural support plan, tp provide multi-annual ring-fenced funding and to return the missing money in full to the agriculture budget. Can the minister assure farmers that this year’s Scottish budget will support them?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The one thing that I agree with Pam Gosal on is that the inheritance tax introduced by the UK Government is an absolute disaster for family farms in Scotland. However, it is a bit rich that we have a Tory telling us about all the things that we are doing wrong here, given that the Tories started the dismantling of farm support in the rest of the UK while the Scottish Government continued with direct payments and schemes to ensure that we protected our hill and upland farmers and continued to support our industry—to the point where we have proper working relationships, whereas things are absolutely disastrous for people down in England.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I am unclear what the Tories did for Scottish farmers when they were in government in the UK other than utterly fail to advocate for them. That is perhaps one of the many reasons why the Tories have not won an election in Scotland since 1955. Will the cabinet secretary—[Interruption.] Will the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government is engaging with the UK Government for farmers, following the budget?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Every time that I meet with the UK Government, or the cabinet secretary does, we absolutely insist that it take on board all our concerns about ensuring that we have the funding for Scottish farming.

However, since leaving the European Union, Scotland’s farmers have lost the certainty of multi-annual rural funding, which is essential for farming. UK Government funding remains inadequate, with future increases now based on population share rather than land use, agricultural needs or environmental potential. That is unfair to Scotland, which has a far greater share of the UK landmass, much of which is used for extensive livestock and upland farming, with huge potential to contribute to the UK’s climate, nature and food security goals. We have consistently pressed the UK Government for a fair long-term funding settlement, and we will continue to do that in the future.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports of alleged animal welfare abuse at a Bakkafrost Scotland salmon farm. (S6O-05197)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The Scottish Government takes the welfare of farmed fish seriously. Robust legislation, policies and industry standards are in place to safeguard fish health and welfare, and I am clear in my expectation that all producers must comply.

The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 protects farmed animals from “unnecessary suffering” and places a duty of care on those caring for animals to meet their welfare needs. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is responsible for considering and investigating complaints and potential welfare breaches relating to farmed animals, including farmed fish.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

It has been alleged that salmon infested with sea lice were left in a pen that was meant to be completely empty. Animal Equality UK carried out covert filming at the Bakkafrost Scotland farm on Loch Torridon and claims that welfare regulations were breached. Tesco has suspended the farm while it investigates the supplier. In its first report of 2025, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee found that the Scottish Government is not being responsive enough to the complex needs of the Scottish salmon farming industry and how it interacts with biodiversity, animal welfare and the workforce. Can the cabinet secretary tell me what is being done to ensure that the industry receives better support as well as improved oversight?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

There are a number of matters involved. I am happy to send Pauline McNeill the list of commitments and to outline some of the work that we are taking forward in that area, because we recognise the recommendations that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee made in its most recent inquiry, which updated the recommendations of the previous salmon inquiry. I want to offer some assurances that there are specific strands of work on animal health and welfare in relation to this matter. We have also made a commitment to publish guidance, which we will look to engage and consult with people on. I am regularly updating the committee on the work as it progresses. I am happy to follow that up and to send the information to Pauline McNeill.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I apologise to those members whom I was unable to call. That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next portfolio questions, to allow members on the front benches to move seats.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next portfolio is health and social care. I advise members that there is an incredible amount of interest in supplementary questions. With the best will in the world, I will not be able to bring in everybody who wants to ask a question. However, I will get more in if the questions are brief and the responses likewise.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report by the Auditor General into the financial sustainability of NHS Ayrshire and Arran, which found that the board is facing a deficit of £33.1 million in the current year. (S6O-05198)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government is aware of and has received the section 22 report that was issued to NHS Ayrshire and Arran, and will continue to work with that health board to resolve the issues that have been highlighted.

NHS Ayrshire and Arran is already at stage 3 of the NHS Scotland support and intervention framework for finance, and we continue to work closely with the board’s executive team to improve performance across all areas, not just finance. Targeted support has been provided to help strengthen financial sustainability, and the board received baseline funding of £1 billion in the budget—which, I note, neither Katy Clark nor her Labour colleagues voted for.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The Auditor General said that the board needed a £51.4 million loan in 2024-25 to break even, and that NHS Ayrshire and Arran has outstanding loans totalling £129.9 million, which is

“the highest amount ... across the NHS in Scotland”.

The Auditor General also stated that the severity of the financial challenge was “unprecedented” and warned that the board was relying on “overly optimistic” savings plans that might not be achievable.

What can the cabinet secretary do, given that the position seems unsustainable, and what further support can the Scottish Government give, given the huge concern about the current situation?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We have provided increased investment in the baseline funding of national health service boards; for NHS Ayrshire and Arran, that comes to more than £1 billion, which represents an increased investment of £123 million compared with 2024-25. We continue to provide support to the new interim chief executive, Professor Gordon James, and I am confident that the work that is being done in partnership with the Scottish Government’s escalation team will continue to bring NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s finances into better order as well as bringing the performance improvement that patients need.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to brief supplementary questions. The first one is from Kenneth Gibson.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I welcome the uplift of £123 million—or 13.9 per cent—in NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s funding for this year, and the additional non-recurring funding for escalated health boards to improve financial sustainability, which includes £43.7 million for NHS Ayrshire and Arran this year. How will Scottish ministers ensure that those additional funds are being used effectively, and will the cabinet secretary advise how escalated boards will be supported in the coming financial year?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Kenneth Gibson for putting those details on the record. The Scottish Government has provided NHS Ayrshire and Arran with several strands of support to improve financial sustainability, including leadership support and funding to support the delivery of improvement. The NHS Scotland financial delivery unit routinely challenges NHS Ayrshire and Arran on its financial performance and trajectories, including the utilisation of additional support funding.

The additional funding that is being provided for NHS boards is starting to have a positive impact on waiting times. For example, boards have reported significant reductions in new out-patient waits, including a 72.2 per cent decrease in ear, nose and throat waits in NHS Ayrshire and Arran, which is a demonstrable indicator of improved performance to go alongside the financial rigour that we need to see in Ayrshire and Arran and elsewhere in Scotland.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

This morning, Auditor General Stephen Boyle described NHS Ayrshire and Arran as being in a “loop of unsustainability” since being escalated to level 3 on NHS Scotland’s support and intervention framework in 2018. That is seven years of Scottish Government support and the situation is getting worse, if anything.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that seven years should have been more than enough time to see significant improvement? Is that lack of improvement a failure of the Scottish Government in its support, or is it an indication that the NHS Scotland resource allocation committee formula, which determines health board funding, is fundamentally flawed?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The NRAC formula is an objective measure of the needs of healthcare services across Scotland. It takes explicit account of the variation in need for healthcare due to age, sex profile, morbidity, life circumstances, local populations and the cost of delivering services across different geographies.

We are providing significant support to the new interim chief executive of NHS Ayrshire and Arran, Professor Gordon James, and I am confident that the rigour that he will bring to its finances and performance will see improvements for patients in the locality.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address tooth decay in children. (S6O-05199)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We continue to invest in our flagship Childsmile programme, which provides universal oral health interventions for all children and additional targeted measures for children from vulnerable backgrounds. The programme has supported significant improvements in child oral health, with the latest national dental inspection programme results showing that 81.5 per cent of primary 7 children have no obvious tooth decay, compared with 52.9 per cent in 2005.

We have also made significant improvements to children’s dental care as part of our payment reforms, which were introduced in 2023, with dentists now able to undertake a much wider range of preventative treatments for all children.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Whatever the minister says, and whatever the Government is doing, it is not enough. I have a freedom of information request reply that shows that almost 3,000 children in NHS Tayside have been admitted to hospital because of tooth decay during the past five years, while more than 3,000 have had a tooth extracted in hospital. That is on top of the percentage of primary 7 pupils with tooth decay increasing this year for the first time since 2005. That is unacceptable.

What does the minister say to families in my region who are dealing with the consequences of the dentistry crisis, and what urgent action is the Government going to take to fix this?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am sure that Ms McCall will recognise that tooth extractions done under general anaesthetic fall under secondary care. I recognise that there are waiting time issues in that area, and my team and the chief dental officer are having in-depth conversations with health boards to try to relieve the waiting time pressure.

I hope Ms McCall will also recognise that the Scottish Government has invested more than £135 million in reducing waiting times. She might say that that is not enough, but it is noticeable investment to reduce waiting times.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Data released only yesterday revealed that NHS Dumfries and Galloway has the third lowest rate of child dentist registrations in Scotland. Significant inequalities exist, with more than a 10 per cent gap between children living in the most and least deprived areas. Why are children in Dumfries and Galloway considerably worse off when it comes to registration? What is the Government’s response to that inequality, and what action will it take to address it?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I recognise the importance of ensuring that we support people and children, specifically those in the more deprived areas of Scotland.

Dumfries and Galloway has been impacted by a reduction in the number of dentists, and we are working closely with the health board. We have additional funding—Scottish dental access initiative allowances—to increase the number of dentists in various areas.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The progress that was being made through Childsmile has stalled, and the poverty gap is still pretty stubborn. I am sure that the pandemic had an impact on that, but there is no doubt that the lack of national health service dentists in large parts of the country, including in North East Fife, is also having an impact. What more will the minister do to improve the service in areas such as mine?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I remind Willie Rennie and other members that I have been working hard with those in the equivalent role to mine in the other three United Kingdom nations. Unfortunately, a number of the levers are held at Westminster, and Stephen Kinnock has not, to date, provided us with the support that we need to ensure that dental therapists are put back on the visa list. However, I point out that the latest national dental inspection programme results show that 81.5 per cent of primary 7 children have no obvious tooth decay, which represents a vast improvement since 2005.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

To ask the Scottish Government what specific action it has taken to address waiting lists for hip and knee replacement surgeries. (S6O-05200)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As part of our record £21.7 billion budget investment in health and social care, we have targeted, this year, more than £135.5 million, including £32 million for trauma and orthopaedics, to tackle long waits. Yesterday’s update from Public Health Scotland confirmed that the number of waits of more than 52 weeks has fallen for the fifth consecutive month, which is testament to the dedication of our national health service staff. Our investment is delivering results. For example, in 2024, the number of hip and knee operations reached a record high, with more than 17,000 first replacements completed.

There has been progress in bringing down long waits in NHS Lanarkshire, with the number of waits of more than 52 weeks for new orthopaedic out-patients having reduced by 27 per cent and the number for in-patients and day cases having reduced by 31 per cent since the end of July, just after Mr Russell took up his position as MSP for his constituency. I am sure that he will welcome that fact.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but none of that helps my constituent Eileen, who has been waiting for a knee replacement since January 2024. She was bandied about to various meetings and assessments, because she could not join the waiting list until her full care plan was determined. It took 20 months for her to be added to the waiting list, despite her general practitioner telling her at the outset that she would need the surgery. Even now, she has no date for her surgery, with no sign of treatment on the horizon, despite the 12-week legal guarantee having passed and it being nearly two years since she first presented to a doctor. Does the cabinet secretary not see that creative accounting being applied to NHS waiting lists is hurting patients?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

No. I ask Mr Russell to furnish me with more of the details of Eileen’s case, because I think that there has been some confusion in what has been presented in relation to the treatment pathways that she should be able to access. I expect NHS Lanarkshire to respond to such cases timeously, especially given the investment that has been made and the progress that is being made to out-patient, in-patient and day-case processes, to which Aileen will need to be subject. The measures of waiting times that Public Health Scotland has updated are very similar to the measures in NHS Wales, for which Mr Russell’s colleagues in the Labour Party are responsible.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I remind members that I am employed as a bank nurse by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

As the cabinet secretary mentioned in his previous answer, the number of knee and hip replacement surgeries is at a record high under the Scottish National Party Government, which proves once again that, although waiting lists have risen under Mr Russell’s bosses in NHS England, the Scottish Government’s plan to bring down NHS waiting lists is working. Will the cabinet secretary advise how the Scottish Government will continue to drive such improvements in the months ahead?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Clare Haughey for that question, not least because I noted with interest the UK Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee’s analysis of the challenges with waiting times in Labour-run England. In Scotland, as part of our plan to reform the NHS, I announced proposals for subnational planning, which will ensure that NHS health boards work together in the east and in the west of Scotland, allowing teams to work across their boundaries to better support patients to get the care that they need in a timely manner. This year, we have allocated more than £135.5 million to specialty areas, in which the money can have the greatest impact in reducing the longest waits. As I said, yesterday’s figures show that the number of waits of more than 52 weeks has reduced for the fifth month in a row.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the chief executive of NHS Grampian to discuss healthcare in Moray. (S6O-05201)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Both ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet representatives of all national health service boards, including NHS Grampian, to discuss matters of importance to local people. Douglas Ross will be interested to know that I will be carrying out NHS Grampian’s annual ministerial review on Monday in Aberdeen.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Yesterday, the Independent National Whistleblowing Officer stated that NHS Grampian was not properly handling concerns raised by staff. I have had cases raised with me by staff in the orthopaedic department at Dr Gray’s hospital. I have had a number of conversations with the chief executive of NHS Grampian and—to be frank—I do not believe that I have had full or truthful answers from her.

When I said that I would raise the matter in the chamber, I was told that she would brief the cabinet secretary, so my worry is that he has been fed the same lines as I have, which have been put back to constituents who still do not believe what they are being told by the head of NHS Grampian.

Given the grave concerns that constituents are highlighting, does the cabinet secretary agree that the issue should be reviewed by someone from outwith NHS Grampian?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Douglas Ross for raising that question. I have seen some of the correspondence that has gone back and forth between Mr Ross and Laura Skaife-Knight. She understandably has to ensure that the confidentiality of employees is respected. However, there are clear processes in place to enable whistleblowers to raise concerns, including through the Independent National Whistleblowing Officer. There are whistleblowing champions in every NHS board; I have met them all.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment further, other than to point Mr Ross and his constituents in that direction to ensure that, where they have a concern, it is not just listened to but acted on appropriately.

Foysol Choudhury (Independent, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding its decision to narrow the eligibility criteria for the autumn Covid-19 booster, what assessment it has made of the cost to the national health service and the impact on hospitalisation rates. (S6O-05202)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Eligibility for the Covid-19 vaccine is based on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and is identical across the four United Kingdom nations this winter. JCVI advice is based on its standard cost-effectiveness analysis, which shows that the oldest in the population and individuals who are immunosuppressed are at the highest risk of serious Covid-19-related disease, hospitalisation and death.

The recent Public Health Scotland “Viral Respiratory Diseases in Scotland Surveillance Report”, covering the period from 10 November to 16 November, shows that

“COVID-19 activity decreased or remained stable overall”,

with 73 hospital admissions that week—a decrease from 81 in the previous week.

Foysol Choudhury (Independent, Lothian)

One of my constituents is a type 1 diabetic, and so is her son. She recently paid almost £300 to get booster jabs for herself and her son, and for her husband, who is an unpaid carer.

I am sure that the Scottish Government will agree that it is unacceptable to expect vulnerable families across Scotland to pay hundreds of pounds at a time to protect themselves from Covid. Will the Scottish Government therefore consider applying a discount for type 1 diabetics who are under 75?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I understand that the groups who are no longer eligible for Covid vaccination—namely, those aged 65 to 74, those in wider clinical at-risk groups and front-line health and social care workers—might be feeling anxious. To them, I say that the overall threat of Covid has thankfully diminished over time as a result of high levels of vaccine-based immunity and naturally acquired immunity from the infection.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Government whether patient complaints and feedback about the care they have received from NHS boards are used to inform inspections undertaken by Health Improvement Scotland. (S6O-05203)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Healthcare Improvement Scotland has a duty to improve the quality of healthcare in Scotland, and its inspection programme is a key part of fulfilling that duty. HIS determines what inspection activity it should undertake, using a risk-based, proportionate and intelligence-led approach. That includes consideration of patient complaints and feedback, which are a valuable source of information and intelligence for making improvements.

HIS also gathers information from patients, families and staff during inspections. Through the process of responding to concerns, HIS addresses complaints in a person-centred manner, upholding the rights of everyone involved.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The cabinet secretary and I have previously spoken in the chamber about the impact that a negative experience of birth can have on women and their babies. I have shared a letter with him that my constituent submitted to NHS Ayrshire and Arran in May 2025, which gave a detailed account of her negative experience. NHS Ayrshire and Arran will not engage with MSPs once a complaint process has been triggered, which I find to be a defensive approach. On behalf of my constituent, I chased up the matter with NHS Ayrshire and Arran on 5 October, when I was told that a draft response was in progress, and again on 30 October.

At the end of her letter, my constituent said that she wished that her complaint would be

“handled with the seriousness that it deserves, and that corrective actions will be taken to improve patient care”.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that this is far too long to have to wait for answers to help her to process the trauma and distress that she has experienced? Does he also agree that a defensive, bureaucratic response to feedback is wholly unhelpful?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am grateful to Ruth Maguire for putting that detail on the record. Clearly, it is unacceptable for a response to take that long. I am very sorry to hear about her constituent’s experience, which I know that she has written to me about and to which I will be responding in writing. After portfolio questions, I will ensure that our exchange is shared with the interim chief executive of NHS Ayrshire and Arran in order to underline the concerns that have been raised with me and to ensure that the process is sped up for her constituent, as well as for MSPs who interact with NHS Ayrshire and Arran.

The NHS complaints handling procedure sets a 20-day target for responses, emphasising timely and effective resolution. Complex cases may require more time, which I think that we would all understand, and extensions are allowed. However, if the target cannot be met, the complainant must be informed and given an expected response date. I will ensure that both I and NHS Ayrshire and Arran respond to Ms Maguire as soon as possible.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will need briefer responses and, certainly, briefer questions.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Following an unannounced HIS inspection in June 2025, NHS Lothian’s maternity service has been escalated to level 3, requiring Government oversight after failing to meet 26 basic standards of care. Only two health board maternity services have been inspected. Will the cabinet secretary accept that now is the time for a nationwide review into our maternity services?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I and the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health have set out in detail our response to NHS Lothian’s position and the wider concerns that were raised following the BBC’s “Disclosure” documentary. We are taking the issues seriously and are establishing a task force that can help to inform a review. As an immediate update, this morning, I and Ms Minto had a further discussion with NHS Lothian to get a progress update. The board gave us an assurance on the progress that is being made, and I will be updating the Parliament in due course on the outcome of that discussion.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I welcome the work that is being done by Healthcare Improvement Scotland, but the context is that public satisfaction with the NHS in Scotland has dropped to its lowest in a decade, according to the latest Scottish household survey. Complaints to NHS boards have gone up and appear to be taking longer to resolve. What is the cabinet secretary doing to improve performance with complaints?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have already set out our expectation for performance with complaints, as well as what I expect to happen in the case that Ruth Maguire has brought to our attention.

On the performance of the health service, although we have more work to do, I am pleased that yesterday’s Public Health Scotland figures demonstrate the progress that has been made and the corner that is being turned thanks to the efforts of staff. I expect that that will boost confidence in the health service among patients and staff and reduce the need for complaints.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making on reducing audiology waiting lists at NHS Grampian. (S6O-05204)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I recognise the steps that NHS Grampian is taking to reduce audiology waiting times. The board has recruited a qualified audiologist and is appointing a new team member for Moray to support older adults with hearing loss. Increased staffing will help, although high demand means that progress will take time.

NHS Grampian has shortened some clinic appointments, prioritised adult reassessments and introduced text reminders to reduce missed appointments. Workforce pressures remain significant, with one audiologist serving around 28,000 patients, which is well above the average across other health boards.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I can tell from my inbox that it is well above the average. If the Scottish Government committed to delivering a community audiology service, high street audiologists would be able to deliver the service in as little as 18 weeks and clear more than 70,000 people from audiology waiting lists. What is preventing the minister from scoring an easy win and delivering on her party’s manifesto commitment to put community audiology services on par with the successful community eye care model?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I and the Scottish Government remain committed to our vision for integrated and community-based hearing services across Scotland. We recognise the difficulties that are faced by health boards, as highlighted by the independent review of audiology, and we wanted to check and ensure that we introduced all the recommendations in that regard. I have also asked officials to continue to have conversations with the audiology community to improve the service that we are offering people who live in Scotland.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Can the minister advise what steps the Scottish Government is taking to look at improvement and reform of audiology services, particularly in relation to engagement and collaboration with stakeholders?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As I indicated, we are continuing to engage with national health service boards, the third sector and private providers to scope out potential models for any future community hearing care services, ensuring that the voices of those with lived experience inform that work.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the health secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the use of sport to support its goal to reduce child poverty. (S6O-05205)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Eradicating child poverty in Scotland is a national mission and is this Government’s top priority, with ministerial collaboration across portfolios to identify and implement effective measures such as the Scottish child payment.

We know that sport can change lives, creating meaningful and hugely positive opportunities for children who are affected by poverty. The benefit that it delivers can improve children’s and young people’s health and their educational and social outcomes. Through Government and sportscotland-funded initiatives such as active schools, the sport facility funds, the active play development project and the extra time programme, we improve opportunities for children to be active, ensuring that sport continues to contribute to our efforts to tackle child poverty and promote inclusion across Scotland.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank the minister for that comprehensive response and I hope that she will also join me in congratulating the efforts of Pollok United, which offers an outstanding range of community services, including the extra time programme, which was mentioned by the minister, parent and toddler groups and groups for older people, in addition to its multiple football sessions for young people in my constituency. At the heart of its efforts is its desire to make its community thrive and be a place that is prosperous and inclusive for all.

What concrete action is being taken to support Pollok United and similar sporting organisations to maintain and expand their vital community efforts, particularly in challenging financial circumstances?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The Scottish Government recognises the incredible impact and reach of sports organisations and community clubs such as Pollok United. I know that, when the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care met the club last month, he was incredibly impressed by the work that it does. We will continue to work alongside it to support the communities that it serves.

We provide the Scottish Football Association with £1.3 million annually via sportscotland to support grassroots football. Additionally, in partnership with the SFA, we are investing £5.5 million in the extra time programme, which supports up to 5,000 children and families through breakfast, after-school and holiday clubs. That improves children’s health and wellbeing while enabling parents to work, thus tackling poverty right at its roots.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I apologise to those I was unable to call. That concludes portfolio questions on health and social care.

Oil and Gas

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19894, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, on backing oil and gas. I invite members wishing to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

I call Douglas Lumsden to speak to and move the motion. You have up to seven minutes, Mr Lumsden.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Today is a really dark day for the oil and gas industry and for the north-east of Scotland. We have seen headline after headline in The Press and Journal this week on the damage that the energy profits levy is having. I assure Labour Party MSPs that that was not scaremongering—we must all brace ourselves for what is coming next.

My party has called it an “oil and gas emergency”, and that is by no means overdramatic. It is an emergency, and we need to brace ourselves for a tsunami of job losses across the sector after today’s budget.

As the Office for Budget Responsibility revealed earlier, the EPL will remain, but the intake from it is tailing off dramatically as it kills off the industry and thousands of jobs with it. It is completely wrong.

I have met many energy companies over the past few weeks—I guess that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has done so as well, but no one from the Labour Party ever seems to attend the meetings that are called. The energy companies tell me time and again how bad things are, that they are not replacing people who leave, their order book is reducing, they are focusing on work overseas, they are moving their skills overseas and they are downsizing and getting rid of offices. The sad and frustrating part is that that decline is self-inflicted and driven by political policy. It is a classic case of shooting ourselves in the foot.

It is not just the north-east that is suffering—the news from Grangemouth and Mossmorran is a result of the North Sea contracting, with less product flowing to them. I was at a meeting last night about Mossmorran, and I was told that the reasons for closure are Government policies. The plant pays carbon tax of £20 million per year, with that amount due to double. It has high energy costs and there is less ethane available because of the North Sea shutdown. We were told that the ethylene that Mossmorran produces is 50 per cent more expensive than that of its competitors abroad. How can the plant compete in that market?

When global companies are choosing to walk away from Scottish energy and manufacturing because policy is hostile and uncertain, that is not a transition—it is economic vandalism. We should brace ourselves for more, because as Governments force the decline of home-grown hydrocarbons, more and more large pieces of infrastructure will become unviable. The gas plants, the pipelines and the terminals are all at risk.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

Does Mr Lumsden agree that we should take a leaf out of Norway’s book, given that Equinor has just announced plans to drill 250 new wells, invest $5.9 billion a year and maintain production up to 2035 at 2020 levels? Should we not be following Norway’s example?

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I could not agree more with Mr Ewing. The sad fact is that not only is Norway producing more, it is actually selling to us. Norway is producing oil and gas from the basin where we are choosing to leave them in the ground.

I also get angry with the Scottish National Party. If we have a presumption against new oil and gas, this is where it leads us. We cannot say that we do not want home-grown oil and gas and then shed crocodile tears when no new oil and gas means that jobs are lost, infrastructure is no longer needed and the only transition that people face is moving from Scotland to Stavanger.

Our motion puts it plainly: Scotland’s Government has adopted a

“presumption against new oil and gas exploration and production”—

an approach that is not only economically reckless but blatantly disconnected from Scotland’s energy reality. The SNP says that it is about climate leadership, but its own documents admit that we will need oil and gas for some time as part of the journey to a transition. The truth is unavoidable. If we turn off domestic supply, Scotland will not consume less oil and gas—we will simply import more foreign energy at higher carbon intensity, supporting jobs abroad.

The SNP’s position is not climate leadership but climate hypocrisy. Meanwhile, communities in the north-east—my constituents—are paying the price. The SNP supports a just transition, but it cannot explain why the north-east has lost three oil and gas jobs for every one clean energy job that has been created over the past decade. It cannot explain why more than 13,000 Scottish oil and gas jobs have been lost in a single year, with employment now almost half of what it was in 2013. It is time to call this out for what it is—an ideological campaign against a sector that Scotland still relies on.

What about the SNP’s energy strategy and just transition plan? It will soon be three years since it produced the draft. Where is it? Is the SNP Government incompetent or untruthful?

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Both.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the SNP no longer have any idea what should be in the plan, or does it fear the backlash when people realise what is in it? I agree with Mr Carson—I think that it is both.

The SNP does not want to be honest with offshore workers on its position on oil and gas. It does not want to be honest with our rural communities about the impact that the scale of expensive renewables will have on our countryside, whether that is monster pylons, battery storage or substations. It does not want to be honest with our fishermen about the impact that offshore wind will have on fishing grounds, nor does it want to be honest with households about the true cost of renewables and their impact on bills. Instead of the cabinet secretary jetting off around the world, she should meet communities and hear people’s concerns.

Scotland is blessed with one of the most highly regulated, low-carbon oil and gas basins in the world. The North Sea is not the problem; it is part of the solution. The public agree: 84 per cent of Scots support continuing domestic oil and gas production during the transition. Therefore, the Parliament must send a clear message today: that it does not support the SNP’s presumption against new oil and gas, it does not support Labour’s punitive energy profits levy and it stands with Scotland’s workers, Scotland’s energy security and Scotland’s economy.

This country needs a transition that is built on realism, not ideology. The SNP refuses to give clear support to the industry and Labour says that our future is not in oil and gas. However, we say plainly that Scotland needs its domestic oil and gas industry, it needs energy security and it needs a fair and affordable path to net zero. That begins with backing our own workers, our own resources and our own future. I urge colleagues across the chamber to back my motion.

I move,

That the Parliament regrets the Scottish Government’s ideological drive to end North Sea oil and gas exploration and production; notes the negative impact on oil and gas jobs, energy security, the economy and the environment of the Scottish Government’s failure to pursue an informed, data-led, evidence-based North Sea policy; demands the immediate and unequivocal reversal of the Scottish Government’s presumption against new oil and gas exploration and production, and calls on the UK Government to immediately abolish the Energy Profits Levy.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Parliament debated oil and gas policy just two weeks ago, and we now return to that policy in the light of significant United Kingdom Government announcements that have been made over the past hour—or, I should say, in the light of the lack of announcements, because the omissions from the chancellor’s budget statement are more significant than what was included.

The future of North Sea oil and gas remains of vital importance for Scotland’s energy transition, energy security, economy and society. Oil and gas still play an important role in Scotland’s energy mix and will continue to do so for decades to come. That role is declining as we reduce demand through decarbonisation of the systems that we rely on to live, and given the geological maturity of the North Sea basin.

The previous debate focused on consenting for offshore projects that are already in development—decisions that are reserved to the UK Government. Today’s motion focuses on licensing for exploration to identify new oil and gas fields and the associated fiscal regime. Those are, again, reserved matters.

On licensing, within the past hour, the UK Government has published its “North Sea Future Plan”, which includes how it will approach future oil and gas licensing in the basin. The Scottish Government did not receive prior sight of that document, so I will need to take time to carefully consider the detail and its implications for Scotland. We will continue to call on the UK Government to approach all its reserved decisions on North Sea oil and gas projects on a rigorous, evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The environmental compatibility report for Rosebank has been available for some weeks now. Does the SNP Government back Rosebank—yes or no?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It is getting a bit tiresome explaining the Scotland Act 1998, the Electricity Act 1989 and all the reserved functions of the UK Government to the Conservative energy spokesperson, who I would have thought would be familiar with the detail of those.

Meanwhile, we will continue the oil and gas transition training fund to support the industry-led energy skills passport and provide enhanced training opportunities for oil and gas workers via our colleges. We have already invested more than £120 million in the north-east through our just transition fund and energy transition fund to support the region’s transition to net zero. That funding has helped to create new jobs, support innovation and secure a highly skilled workforce for the future. We are on the side of energy workers.

I turn to the omissions from the chancellor’s statement this afternoon, which I referenced earlier. That means turning to the fiscal regime in the North Sea, which is—again—reserved to the UK Government. I am deeply disappointed by the UK Government’s budget announcements a few hours ago, but, more than that, I am deeply worried. Do not just take my word on that; I have the response from David Whitehouse, the chief executive of Offshore Energies UK, who said:

“Today, the government turned down £50 billion of investment for the UK and the chance to protect the jobs and industries that keep this country running. Instead, they’ve chosen a path that will see 1,000 jobs continue to be lost every month, more energy imports and a contagion across supply chains”.

I totally agree with him.

On the other side of things, I want to explain how the situation is affecting communities, because the levy is not just a tax on companies.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

Will the minister give way?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will come to Fergus Ewing in a second, after I make this point.

Communities are being affected not just in the north-east but across Scotland. Donna Hutchison, the chief executive of Aberdeen Cyrenians, has made clear the real-world consequences. She said:

“Every job lost in the energy supply chain lands somewhere—in a home, a family, and a community. It can mean rent arrears, foodbank visits, or a parent quietly skipping meals so their children don’t have to.”

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

Would the way to avert those job losses not be to preserve and create the 1,000 jobs that would come from Cambo and Rosebank?

Equinor’s analysis is that 12 or 13kg of CO 2 is emitted per barrel of oil, which reduces to 3kg if there is electrification. That compares with 80kg for fracked gas or liquefied natural gas.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will use the short time that I have to make one point to Fergus Ewing. I am fully in favour of electrification of production platforms. The decrease in production emissions is important and should be taken into account when all licences are considered.

I am deeply worried, because the UK Government did not even mention EPL in the budget statement today. The situation is worse than simply not heeding warnings from the industry. The Labour Government has not taken the offer of Offshore Energies UK to reform the levy in a way that would prompt renewed investment while creating longer-term tax receipts for the UK Treasury. It did the work for the Government. It presented a plan and a way out that would lead to more revenue coming to the Exchequer, but it was not even referenced. As far as I know, it has not even had a response.

The EPL is affecting investment in offshore wind and the stability of the energy supply chain, as well as causing job losses well beyond oil and gas producers. It is having a ripple effect on communities in the north-east, Grangemouth and Fife. Furthermore, it is preventing the decommissioning of obsolete assets, with all the jobs that would come with that.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to conclude.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It is simply a tax on the industrial workers and communities of Scotland. I am appalled that it has not been scrapped.

There is one more thing to say before I sit down. The Tories have a brass neck. They introduced the EPL, but they did not even mention that, or that they extended it. It is shameful that they cannot fess up. [ Interruption .] They would rather just mislead the public.

I move S6M-19894.3, to leave out from first “the Scottish” to end and insert:

“that the Conservative Party, while in the UK Government, extended the Energy Profits Levy and failed to replace it with a sustainable fiscal regime that supports a just transition, and recognises that communities in Scotland are now paying the price of the UK Conservative administration’s levy on Scottish industry.”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Can we please make sure that we can hear the person who has the floor? A bit of response and reaction to what is being said is one thing, but barracking in that way is not acceptable.

I call Sarah Boyack to speak to and move amendment S6M-19894.4. You have up to four minutes, Ms Boyack.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I am pleased to open the debate for Scottish Labour. Today’s debate should have been an opportunity for Parliament to come together and set out a clear, credible path for Scotland’s energy future. However, once again, we are confronted with a motion from the Conservatives that is more about political theatre than about serious long-term planning.

From the SNP, we see the same pattern.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is not about political theatre; it is about—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you. I had four minutes, and now I have less time than that.

There has been a complete absence of SNP strategic leadership. Let me be clear from the outset that Scotland’s oil and gas industry has made a profound contribution to our economy, to workers’ livelihoods and to energy security for decades. The people who built that industry—the engineers, the offshore workers and the supply chain businesses—deserve a future that is every bit as strong as its past. Instead, they have been given years of neglect. The Conservatives at Westminster and the SNP at Holyrood have both stood by without any plan for what comes next. Our amendment makes that point clearly. We regret that the SNP and the Tories have let Scotland’s oil and gas sector down, with no plan for the future.

Scotland should be a global leader in the energy transition. We have the engineering expertise, the offshore skills, the natural resources and the public support, but we have lacked leadership. That is why we welcome the UK Government’s plans, which are deeply rooted in energy security, fairness and a realistic path to net zero. Labour is clear that oil and gas will continue to be part of our energy mix for decades to come, because turning off the taps tomorrow is not an option. That would undermine energy security, push up bills and make us even more dependent on imports from other countries. We also need to make—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you. I just want to be clear on this topic—it is a short debate.

Scotland’s huge renewables potential must be unlocked by maximising the opportunities from offshore wind, accelerating onshore wind, expanding green hydrogen and investing in the carbon capture and storage projects that the Tories delayed for years—projects that would have delivered thousands of jobs across the north-east and at Grangemouth.

We must also address the climate and nature emergencies, which are beginning to affect households across the country. For example, let us look at heating our homes. Scotland’s 2.5 million homes account for 13 per cent of our total greenhouse gas emissions, so we need action now from the Scottish Government—I say that on fuel poverty awareness day. Our councils need support to invest in that area, so that we get new, well-paid jobs across the country. Midlothian Energy Ltd is looking at delivering low-carbon energy projects and investment. Its heat network will supply 3,000 customers. The work has started, but we are not seeing the development to take it to the next level. I therefore call on the Scottish Government to deliver on the statutory undertaker rights that were included in the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021. Their implementation has been delayed, so heat network projects are not able to proceed. We will not see new jobs being created unless we have a plan or cross-Government action, which is vital.

Here is something that I agree with Douglas Lumsden on—shock, horror! A draft energy strategy was announced nearly three years ago. Businesses are crying out for clarity, supply chains need to be able to invest now, and, crucially, workers need to know where their future lies. A credible energy strategy must include a real skills and training plan, so that workers in oil and gas can transition; well-paid jobs; clear investment pathways for renewables; and green hydrogen that is linked to local production and supply chains and is not imported from foreign manufacturers. I call on the SNP Government to publish its energy strategy and just transition plan now.

I move amendment S6M-19894.4, to leave out from first “the Scottish” to end and insert:

“that the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Conservative and Unionist Party stood by for years and let Scotland’s oil and gas industry decline with no plan for the future; welcomes the UK Labour administration’s plans to ensure that oil and gas continue to be key parts of the country’s energy mix for decades to come, while working to unlock Scotland’s huge renewable potential; condemns the two decades of SNP failure to turn this enormous potential into jobs, wealth and social good for communities across Scotland, and calls on the Scottish Government to urgently publish its Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan, and to invest now in skills development and the green jobs of the future.”

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The green voting sheet for this afternoon’s debate was not difficult to fill out. Very obviously, we will oppose the motion. The Scottish Conservatives are here to serve the interests of the profit-hungry, climate-wrecking, lethal fossil fuel industry, and they make no attempt to hide it. Equally obviously, we will oppose the SNP’s demands for a massive tax cut for the same lethal fossil fuel industry. Just as obviously, we will oppose Labour’s amendment, which comes on the day of Labour’s capitulation to the fossil fuel industry and its backtracking on its already weak position on new oil and gas.

Sarah Boyack started off by blaming others for party political posturing and then indulged in exactly the same thing. None of the other parties has put the blame where it belongs, which is fairly and squarely on the fossil fuel industry itself—those who have extracted not only vast amounts of oil and gas, which they have pumped into the atmosphere, but vast amounts of profit, and who are now happy to put their workforce on the economic scrap heap.

I thank the organisation Uplift for the briefing that it circulated. It rightly points out that North Sea developments are made economically viable only

“with massive state support”

and that the industry’s claim that half of the UK’s oil and gas demands could be met from the North Sea is misleading. The industry admits that it is

“‘considered to be beyond realistic assumptions’”

and would require

“massive tax breaks.”

The industry has a long history of choosing to prioritise its shareholders over its workforce and, certainly, of prioritising profit over planet.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will Mr Harvie take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

No. I do not have time.

My real worry at the moment is that the Tory and Labour position—the new antagonism to any kind of credible climate policy—not only is bad in its own right and harmful in indulging the interests of the fossil fuel industry and rebooting climate denial, but is worse because of the effect that it is having on both the Labour and SNP Governments. They are clearly reaching the conclusion that they can persuade people to compare them to those who are looking to rip up climate legislation instead of being judged against what the science demands. In reaching that conclusion, they have clearly decided that they can get away with doing the absolute minimum on climate policy or even going into reverse.

That is why the Scottish Government thinks that it is fine to scrap road traffic reduction targets, scrap any halfway-serious action on clean heating, reject the UK Climate Change Committee’s advice on agriculture, and demand a massive tax break for the fossil fuel giants that have brought the world to a state of climate emergency. Clearly, it is also why the UK Government thinks that it is fine to betray the trust of those who thought that the Labour manifesto commitment on oil and gas meant something. I was always sceptical, but I know that there were those who thought that “no new licences” was a pledge worth having. Now it is clear that the UK Government will always put the interests of the fossil fuel giants first, and it does not care much for the last shreds of climate credibility that it once had.

It is easy to forget that it is only a few years since the Scottish Parliament had complete consensus in recognising the reality of the climate emergency. The public still want climate action, and growing Green parties in all the nations of the UK will continue to call out those who back the multinationals. We will stand up to the fossil fuel profiteers, and we will show that a fairer, greener and more equal society is the only viable path ahead of us.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

In what was quite a unique collaboration, Offshore Energies UK and Scottish Renewables joined forces recently and called for the energy profits levy to be scrapped and replaced. They said:

“Unless we slow the pace of decline in North Sea oil and gas while simultaneously accelerating the scale and speed of renewable energy deployment, we face a widening gap in jobs, investment and capability that will weaken our economy.

Ultimately, this will make the government’s energy ambitions harder to achieve, and cause long-term damage to our communities.”

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Does Willie Rennie agree that decommissioning has not been mentioned enough in the debate? Much of the activity that the supply chain and workers would have been doing relates to decommissioning, but they do not have the headroom to do it. That is another area that is costing jobs.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

For years, we have talked about a just transition, and we now have it—live—in front of us but lacking a joined-up approach. Last night, I was at the Mossmorran working group, which I thought was quite an open and reflective event, but the deal was already done, the jobs have gone and there is no just transition plan for Mossmorran, as had been promised.

That happens over and over again. I understand that the Scottish Government will point to the Westminster Government, but the reality is that we do not have a plan whereby things work together in a joined-up way to make the transition work. Today, the UK Government has buried on page 71 of its budget document the replacement for the EPL, the oil and gas price premium, which is projected to be replaced by 2030, with a consultation in the year 2026-27. However, the UK Government is so far behind the curve that the OBR does not even have projections for what tax that would raise.

We need to get real. We can see, right now, the impact of jobs going in the north-east—the Aberdeen Cyrenians have already been referred to—and it is a handbrake on the region’s economic prospects. We have seen the impact at Mossmorran, on my doorstep, and at Grangemouth, where Petrofac is going into administration with 2,000 jobs. Many of those people will not go for other opportunities in Scotland; they might just disappear abroad, and we will lose the skills base that might be essential for developing the renewables potential that this country clearly has. The transition must be managed.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sorry, but I do not have the time.

The North Sea oil and gas basin in the United Kingdom is, of course, a declining resource—that is a geological fact—but we are not making that decline any better by having such an aggressive EPL tax regime. The UK Government needs to understand that, if we are going to live with this for generations, we need a more sensible arrangement. I will admit that we supported a levy on excess profits back in 2022. We thought that it was the right thing to do at the time, because the profits were excessive. That does not mean that we were committed to it forever, though, ignoring the reality on the ground of an extended windfall tax arrangement irrespective of the impact on people and their livelihoods.

The UK Government and the Scottish Government must get their act together and work on a proper just transition, so that we do not end up arguing polar opposites but can have a—to some degree—boring, managed plan; so that people can live and work here and pay their taxes; so that we can have energy security in this country; and so that, all together, we can deliver on our climate change obligations. Is that too much to ask for? It sometimes seems that it is.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the opportunity to speak today, given the unquestionable—but often overlooked—importance of the oil and gas sector to the Highlands and Islands. My region has been at the forefront of the Scottish oil and gas industry since it began.

Last week, the First Minister’s remarks to the Parliament showed that he sees the future of the industry in terms of managed decline. That is quite a turnaround for a man who, not long ago, was talking about a second oil boom and about how more than half of the value of the North Sea’s resources was still to be extracted. With the odd honourable exception, members on the SNP benches have spent the past decade with a policy on oil and gas that mirrors their much-ridiculed views on an independent Scotland’s currency: one that is unclear and constantly changing. Labour, too, has found itself speaking with two faces: one presented to the workers, another to its environmentalist support. Although they may be useful political tactics in the short term, the equivocation about our oil and gas sector at the UK level from Labour and in this Parliament from the SNP—with its friends in the Scottish Greens—has cost investment. It has also cost jobs, and it will continue to cost jobs unless things change.

Grangemouth and Mossmorran may dominate the headlines, but facilities such as the Flotta and Sullom Voe oil terminals are vital to our communities in the Highlands and Islands. I have raised the futures of those terminals with UK and Scottish ministers and will continue to do so, but we cannot pretend that they are local matters—the issue is one of wider policy. I urge SNP ministers in this place and Labour ministers at Westminster not to let those places become another Grangemouth or Mossmorran. They should not wait until crisis forces them to act. They should not wait until it is too late and then create another constitutional fight over who is to blame. Talks on the future of both those sites, and others, should be on-going; they should be happening now, and in detail.

Disastrous though it may be, the Green prescription for Scotland at least has the merit of being consistent, as Patrick Harvie highlighted. The same cannot be said of the policies of the SNP and Labour, which seem to want the tax revenues and jobs without the inconvenience of the industry. That position cannot stand. As the Scottish Affairs Committee noted last month, there is little sense on the ground of a just transition happening. We are haemorrhaging jobs, and the once-promised green jobs revolution has not materialised on anything like the scale that the SNP suggested. Meanwhile, the vital transferable skills that could contribute to clean energy roles are also being lost. It is clear that, even if the long-term promises of the transition were realised, on its current trajectory many skills from our oil and gas sector will disappear. Skilled workers are retiring, retraining or leaving the country for better prospects elsewhere.

What must be done? Well, abolishing the energy profits levy, as our motion calls for, would have been a start—but, yet again, Labour is not listening. There will be no silver bullet for the industry; global economic forces will not stop at our borders. What this Parliament—and Governments both here in Edinburgh and down in London—must do is get behind our oil and gas industry, without equivocation, and move to a strategy that clearly emphasises maximising production. As Fergus Ewing highlighted, although its Rosebank development west of Shetland faces opposition from Government, Equinor is pushing ahead with plans to drill 250 oil and gas exploration wells in Norwegian waters in the next decade.

We need to get licences approved and ensure that there is a fair taxation system in place—one that lets the industry function while delivering a sensible and realistic contribution to public spending. We should recognise that oil and gas are going to continue to be in demand for the foreseeable future. The alternative would be devastating and is wholly unrealistic. There is no merit in offshoring production and destroying our own industry for the sake of statistics. A transition that simply means a greater reliance on imports in the short and medium terms is one that fails to address our energy security. It harms not only our current industries but our future industrial and economic potential—all to satisfy a paper-thin illusion of greater progress towards net zero.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The budget is a little over two hours old, and I have already had a number of messages and communications from constituents and family members about the content of that budget and the fact that the energy profits levy will remain. I have been told, “They are destroying Scotland’s energy future,” and, “They are taxing my job out of existence.”

Mr Lumsden seems to have forgotten that it was his party that introduced the energy profits levy in the first place. Rather than strutting about on his high horse, Mr Lumsden and the entire Tory party should be on their knees apologising to every single oil and gas worker for the horrific damage that the Tory energy profits levy has done to the industry. The Tories have gone, but, whether in relation to Brexit, eye-watering household bills or the energy profits levy, the promise of change has brought change for the worse under Labour.

The offshore industry desperately needs change for the better, and it desperately needs the energy profits levy to be abolished, not in 2030 but now. The levy needs to be abolished to keep oil and gas workers in jobs, to support the transition to net zero, to boost the economy and to protect communities in the north-east of Scotland.

The Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce estimates that 100,000 jobs will be lost if the UK Government does not get its boot off the neck of the oil and gas sector. It is not only the offshore oil and gas workers who will brave the perils of the North Sea or the Atlantic to ensure that the lights stay on and our homes stay warm this winter who will be affected; the tens of thousands of workers in the supply chain in every corner of Scotland and beyond will also be affected. The job losses have already begun. Just the other week, the Port of Aberdeen announced redundancies due to oil and gas activity falling by 25 per cent.

Labour must not do to the oil and gas workers what Thatcher did to our coal miners. Labour must stop following the Thatcherite blueprint of industrial decimation that has blighted Scotland’s pit villages. Instead, it must listen to Offshore Energies UK and unlock £50 billion-worth of UK oil and gas projects, which will sustain tens of thousands of jobs and, over time, deliver higher tax receipts while supporting our energy security and net zero ambitions.

This is about the ambition to reach net zero. We cannot transition to net zero without the investment, expertise and skills of our offshore industry and our oil and gas workers, because today’s offshore oil and gas workers are tomorrow’s offshore renewables workers. Today, the chancellor had the opportunity to abolish the energy profits levy, and I am gutted that she did not, as are thousands upon thousands of people who I and others represent. It is likely too late, but the chancellor could think again and abolish the energy profits levy. However, I do not think that she will, as neither she nor the Labour Party gives a flying futret for Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

What an absolutely dreadful speech that was by Kevin Stewart. I will pick up on a number of the points that he made in it in a moment, because it was completely blind to his own party’s failings on the issue.

However, I want to start on another point. Douglas Lumsden, in his excellent opening speech, and Willie Rennie both mentioned Mossmorran. I just cannot get past this point, so I will use the debate to ask for a very simple answer from the cabinet secretary. In April 2024, her predecessor, Màiri McAllan, said that the Government was developing a just transition plan for Mossmorran. Where is that plan?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I think that Douglas Ross has been given the answer to that question. Màiri McAllan announced that a just transition plan for Mossmorran would be worked on after the deployment of the Grangemouth just transition plan, which is only a couple of months old.

What we did not see coming was what ExxonMobil has done. The UK Government knew about that a good few months in advance of us, and Kate Forbes is on record as saying when she was told about ExxonMobil’s decision in relation to Mossmorran. The just transition plan would have made no difference to this announcement that we did not know about.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Cabinet secretary, that was a very long intervention.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That was a very long answer. First of all, we do not know what difference it would make, because no one has ever seen the plan. The Government made a commitment—it made a pledge in the chamber—to develop a just transition plan. I would like the cabinet secretary to review her answer after the debate, because my understanding, from a request made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, is that the Scottish Government said that the plan was in progress. That was more than two months ago. If the cabinet secretary is saying that it was starting to do that work in just the past couple of months, she has potentially misled the Parliament. However, the issue is not going away, because this is typical of the SNP: it makes grand announcements in the chamber, it does not do the work, and then it cries foul and blames other people when problems such as this occur.

I want to use the remainder of my time to focus on the rant that we heard from Gillian Martin at the end of her speech, about the EPL and the Conservatives, and the disgraceful speech that we just had from Kevin Stewart. SNP speaker after SNP speaker has criticised the energy profits levy, but not one of them has been honest enough to say that they called for it; they demanded it. They said there must be—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am not going to give way to Kevin Stewart. I certainly will not waste my time on Kevin Stewart, but let Kevin Stewart listen to what some of his own SNP members had to say about an energy profits levy. If he turns round, he can ask Jackie Dunbar what on earth she was thinking when she said:

“We must extend the windfall tax”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2022; c 97.]

If he turns back round and looks to the front bench, he can ask Gillian Martin what she was thinking when she said:

“We need to put a windfall tax in operation”.—[Official Report, 18 May 2022; c 36.]

When he travels back to Aberdeen, he can ask Stephen Flynn why he lodged a motion in the House of Commons that said that the Government should implement a windfall tax on companies.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

[ Made a request to intervene .]

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No, I am not giving way to Kevin Stewart.

When Tom Arthur, an SNP minister, comes into the chamber, maybe he can say why he not only supported the energy profits levy, but said that he wanted it to be broadened. He said:

“a strengthened windfall tax should be an important source of funding”—[Official Report, 26 October 2022; c 56.]

and that it should be broadened.

John Swinney, now the First Minister, said:

“We have been clear that an enhanced windfall tax should fund that support in place of increased borrowing or spending cuts.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2022; c 25.]

I will take no lectures from the SNP. It wanted the EPL, and it called for it. It cannot now cry foul when it is implemented.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It is clear that we will continue to depend on hydrocarbons for many years to come. These are precious resources, and we must redouble our efforts to stop using them for transport and heating and to develop substitutes for their use in products where there are not yet alternatives.

Ahead of the debate, I believed that we all agreed that we should not use all our reserves. We need to recognise that these are finite resources and that, if we do not take steps to move away from their use, they will run out—something that the Conservatives and the SNP have ignored in today’s debate so far.

The Conservatives and the SNP have also not taken account of damage caused to the planet by burning hydrocarbons and releasing more carbon into the atmosphere. That is not news—we have known about it for decades—and yet we are still far too dependent on those resources. We need to increase the pace of our development of alternatives, and we need to develop other industries in order to have a just transition for our workers.

However, that does not mean selling off our resources to the lowest bidder. The ScotWind auction is a case in point. I thought that the objective of an auction was to find the highest bidder. Whose idea was it to set a ceiling on the auction? The Government’s response to that question is that it was intended to leave more money in the bidders’ coffers for local workforce development and jobs. That is spurious, because there is no onus on those companies to do that. What that approach did was boost the profits of the multinational companies, with no return for the Scottish people.

The £700 million that was raised at the auction could have been £8 billion to £10 billion, which would have covered the SNP’s black hole and left plenty to fund a just transition—something that the Scottish Government has failed to do. It could have funded our further education sector, which is crucial to a just transition. Colleges are the vehicles that will transition the skills of our workforce from oil and gas to renewables. What a wasted opportunity.

We need to reset the energy market. Energy prices are totally dependent on oil and gas prices.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will Rhoda Grant take an intervention?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am very short of time.

We need to move our energy on to a different footing, and we have the opportunity to do that, but it is not being grasped. We know that communities get compensation for hosting renewables in their areas. We also know that those communities can develop their own renewables and get 35 times more from that investment—funds that they can use to tackle fuel poverty and build community resilience. That is community wealth building in practice.

I was disappointed that the Scottish Government did not lease the Cruach Mhor wind farm in Argyll and Bute to Cowal Community Energy. That community energy company would have used the profits from the development to benefit its community. That is another wasted opportunity. The Scottish Government also rejected an amendment to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill that would have ensured that that could never happen again.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

If Rhoda Grant will take an intervention—

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Do I have time?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

No, there is no time in hand.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry.

We need to ensure that, in future, priority is always given to community bids for leases and repowering opportunities for renewable energy on publicly owned land. That should be a right.

The Conservatives bring the debate to the chamber having abjectly failed to decrease our dependence on hydrocarbons to prepare our country for the future and protect our planet for future generations.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Stuart McMillan joins us remotely.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Every MSP recognises the economic impact that the oil and gas sector has had on the wider economy since the 1970s. Clearly, there has also been an environmental impact. Although the sector is based in the north-east, it involves workers from across the country, in addition to companies in the supply chain. Therefore, the debate on the oil and gas sector and the energy sector as a whole is for every MSP.

I have family who work in the sector or who have previously worked in it, and I have friends who work in the sector. I have long since heard their concerns about the sector’s future. I recognise that their views on renewable energy are not that positive, but that is not the case for every worker in the oil and gas sector. It is essential that the just transition happens. Douglas Lumsden stated earlier that Scotland needs a transition based on reality, and I very much agree.

The cabinet secretary has previously highlighted her family background as coming from Clydebank. She was right to highlight the absolute carnage that was wrought on the communities along the banks of the Clyde when the shipbuilding industry was decimated by the Conservatives in the 1980s.

Communities such as mine are still struggling to fully deal with that. There has been 44 years of population decline because industry was shut down. Thousands of jobs were lost and yards were torn down, with retail units, fast food outlets, some offices and flats being built in their place. Those facilities are cleaner than the shipyards and heavy engineering that once stood there, but there was no concept of a just transition at that time. The enterprise zone that was installed delivered some successes, but very little was of long standing.

My community suffered as a consequence of a Conservative Administration that was hellbent on destroying working-class communities. I do not want that to be replicated in the north-east of Scotland—where some of my family now live, as they were forced to get on their bikes as per the demands of Norman Tebbit.

The energy profits levy was useful in the short term, but the fact that the past Conservative Government never replaced it with something more sustainable is yet another example of the utter chaos that was emblematic of the Conservatives’ time in government. The SNP amendment states:

“and recognises that communities in Scotland are now paying the price of the UK Conservative administration’s levy on Scottish industry.”

My only challenge to my party on that amendment is that the energy profits levy is the present-day equivalent of what the Tories do to Scotland any time that they are in power. The systematic demolition of industry and communities, or the raking in of finance from cash-cow communities when it suits them, will always be fair game to the Conservatives.

Whether under the Conservatives or Labour, Westminster has failed to provide the oil and gas industry with certainty or stability. That approach is in direct opposition to supporting jobs and the just transition, which would safeguard energy security and lower bills.

Fundamentally, the energy profits levy should be scrapped and a proportionate tax regime should be established. There was a time when oil and gas giants were making windfall profits in the UK, but that is not the case now. They are global companies, and the vast majority of their profits are made outwith the UK. All that the windfall tax is doing is costing jobs and driving a more rapid decline in the North Sea. In a nation that is as energy rich as Scotland is, it should be a disgrace that so many of our citizens are so energy poor—and every single MSP should be appalled at that.

Although Labour promised to cut energy bills by up to £300 per year, the reality is that bills have risen and the blame lies squarely at Westminster’s door. Key powers over industry, trade, industrial relations, employment law and energy are all in Labour’s hands. That is why it is vital that we remain steadfastly behind the renewable energy revolution and maximise the investment and opportunities that it will bring.

If Westminster repeats the mistakes of the past and allows Scotland’s immense natural resources to be mismanaged, we will all risk the same fate. I do not want other communities to suffer 44 years of decline and—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you. I call Graham Simpson to speak for up to two minutes.

Graham Simpson (Reform UK, Central Scotland)

What a disgrace the budget was. What a disgrace it was that Rachel Reeves did not listen to calls to scrap the energy profits levy. It appears that she liked what the Conservatives started and she is doubling down on it.

Thousands of jobs are being lost in the North Sea thanks to the measure that was brought in under the Tories and made worse under Labour. Rachel Reeves should be ashamed of herself. She might have sounded the death knell for the oil and gas industry in Scotland, but the SNP cannot get off the hook, because its anti-oil and gas rhetoric has had an impact. The workers of Grangemouth, Mossmorran and elsewhere know who they have been let down by.

The cost of living is among the top concerns of voters across the UK, but we would not know it from the utterances of ministers in Holyrood. The SNP is currently demanding that Ed Miliband vastly increases the subsidies that are on offer to renewables. That is because, as the Tory motion rightly says, the SNP has an “ideological drive” to end production in the North Sea. It is a case of, “It’s Scotland’s oil, as long as you don’t touch it.” What renewables advocates do not tell us is that, since the subsidies are recovered through electricity bills, increasing subsidies means higher electricity bills for everyone, at a time when households are already feeling the pinch.

So, well within my two minutes, I say that, despite the hypocrisy of the Tory motion, I will support it and reject the amendments.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to closing speeches.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

What a curious debate we have had. At times, I have felt as though I am the only atheist in the room as holy war breaks out and religious schisms emerge.

There has been so much performative disagreement between all the other parties when in fact they agree on so much. They all want to expand fossil fuel extraction; they just have different degrees of enthusiasm about how much they are willing to advocate for it. They are all slowing down and backtracking on climate policy and they all seem to share the common delusion, expressed by many members across the chamber, that the fossil fuel industry is investing in the just transition.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The oil and gas industry is failing to invest in the solutions that will enable the transition. Three quarters of North Sea companies plan to invest solely in oil and gas production between now and 2030. Globally, the oil and gas industry invests nothing more than marginal amounts in renewables and other transition technologies. Across the chamber, members have been trading quotes from the fossil fuel industry and its representative body as though they all believe that the Parliament is elected to represent them and their shareholders.

As they express a shared anger at the lack of a just transition, all the other political parties are pointing fingers at each other, instead of looking at who the truly bad actors in this scenario are—those who have extracted vast profits from fossil fuels and who have zero interest in investing in the transition.

The Green amendment, which was not selected for debate, also expressed regret. However, unlike the Conservatives, who expressed regret about an ideological opposition to oil and gas, we expressed regret about the Conservative Party’s ideological opposition to credible climate policy. There would be immense opportunities for Scotland in relation to long-term jobs, energy security, the economy and environmental improvements if the Scottish and UK Governments pursued what we described in our amendment as an informed, worker-led and evidence-based just transition to a sustainable economy.

We agree that the Scottish Government should finally publish its energy strategy and just transition plan, but it must include the continued presumption against new oil and gas exploration and production.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will Patrick Harvie take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I do not have time.

We have called on the UK Government to ensure that those in the fossil fuel industry, who have generated vast profits while causing the current climate emergency, pay enough tax to make a serious contribution to the cost of the transition, instead of the costs falling on the state alone. Fundamentally, that is what is missing from every other political party’s position on the crisis.

The central reason why an unjust transition is taking place is that no Government is willing to hold to account the billionaires who sit behind the fossil fuel industry—those who have lined their pockets and are now putting their workers on the economic scrap heap, despite having caused an environmental crisis that will threaten all our futures. What is needed for a just transition is to hold economic power democratically accountable, instead of leaving things to the self-interest of billionaires.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

On several occasions in the past few weeks, we have discussed the need for leadership and action to deliver a fair transition, with new jobs across the country, while supporting those in the oil and gas sector. Therefore, I welcome today’s announcement by the chancellor that she will tackle the cost of living for working families by cutting the cost of energy bills by, on average, £150 a year from April.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will Ms Boyack give way on that point?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No.

The UK Government is backing Scottish industry and jobs, including through £14.5 million for Grangemouth, £20 million for Inchgreen dry dock and the North Sea future plan for a fair, managed and prosperous transition. That will be critical, and it followed extensive consultation with workers and unions.

The UK Government will establish the North Sea jobs service, a world-leading national employment programme that will offer tailored end-to-end support for members of the workforce who are seeking new opportunities, including in clean energy, defence and advanced manufacturing. The service will provide support at every step of a worker’s career journey, and it builds on the discussion that we have had in this Parliament about the energy skills passport. Funding of up to £20 million will be provided by the UK and Scottish Governments, following demand for the Aberdeen skills pilot to help oil and gas workers to retrain. Transitional energy certificates will be critical in supporting the management of existing North Sea fields for the entirety of their lifespans, and a new jobs brokerage service will offer end-to-end career transition support. That will result in more skilled Scottish jobs and more opportunities for the green industries of the future to drive our economic growth.

We need our Governments to work together, whether in relation to project willow for Grangemouth or support for the workers at Mossmorran. We also need a joined-up approach when considering the benefits of capturing heat from waste and from data centres, to ensure that we use the additional electricity, instead of paying £1.5 billion in constraint payments. We must ensure that we make the right investment.

I agree with the cabinet secretary about the opportunities to decarbonise existing oil and gas platforms, including through making links to offshore floating wind, considering low-carbon technology and investing in new shipping.

Rhoda Grant’s comments about ScotWind were bang on. It could have delivered so much more in terms of both income and Scottish manufacturing.

Our approach is rooted in partnership with workers, businesses and communities. Part of me is not surprised that, today, the SNP has focused on the EPL. The SNP has criticised Tory austerity and ignored the additional public spending that our Labour Government has already delivered. That is £5.2 billion already this year, and my understanding is that, when we add in what was announced in today’s budget, there will be £10.3 billion in total for the Scottish Government.

We can continue with the decade of division, delay or missed opportunity, or choose a path where oil and gas workers are supported; renewables are accelerated; people’s bills come down; and we have a clean, green energy powerhouse that is built in Scotland. That is the future to which Scottish Labour is committed, maximising the opportunities, with new jobs created right across the country delivering confidence in supply chains; supporting new manufacturing opportunities; investing in renewables; and making our homes, buildings and transport, and our industry, fit for the challenges of the future. That is the future that our Parliament should back today.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I did not really expect to have to correct quite a lot of misinformation that is coming through in the debate—[ Interruption .] Actually, I will rephrase that. I did not think that I would be using a lot of my time to respond to some of the accusations that have been put to me—[ Interruption .] I would also like to be able to hear myself speak as I rebut some of the comments—[ Interruption .]

It is all very well for members to quote from a debate in 2022, when we were all in agreement that there had to be a levy on excess profits. Every member across the chamber agreed in 2022 that there were excess profits, but, by spring 2023, those profits were absolutely plummeting, and that was starting to affect investment. The Scottish Government, along with others, therefore called for the EPL to be scrapped. That is the fact of the matter, and I make no apology for initially supporting what was meant to be a temporary situation where there were excess profits.

I had an issue with the fact that other sectors that also had excess profits were not being taxed in the same way, and I commented at the time that I thought that it was unfair to single out one particular sector when others were making so much profit—

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

No, I will not, because Craig Hoy did not contribute to the debate.

I also make no apology for focusing—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Is the cabinet secretary taking any interventions from the gentlemen who have just offered to intervene?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

No—I am going to continue, because I ran out of time in my opening speech, and I am not going to run out of time in this one.

I make no apology for focusing on the energy profits levy, because it is the single issue that every single supply-chain company, whether it works with renewables, oil and gas or a mixture of the two, has continually highlighted to me and to others. Those companies say that the effect of the EPL is damaging their viability, and they are seriously worried about the impact that that is having.

What actually happens when we have an oil and gas industry that has no headroom to invest or to do anything other than just keep production at a low level? The industry does not invest in decommissioning, which would create thousands of jobs. Decommissioning was supposed to fill the gap between the decline in the production of oil and gas and the ramping up of ScotWind. However, it is not happening, because the companies do not have the headroom to do it given the 78 per cent profits levy that they currently face.

The supply chain starts to lose confidence, as well. Many supply-chain companies let people go, and people lose jobs. The people who have lost their jobs go elsewhere, to other parts of the world, and we will be lucky to get any of them back. We increase our demand for importing natural gas from elsewhere to heat our buildings for as long as they are heated with natural gas, because we are not producing enough of it domestically.

I understand why Sarah Boyack and Rhoda Grant did not want to dwell on the EPL—they must be secretly disappointed that there was not an announcement in Rachel Reeves’s budget statement today.

I see that Sarah Boyack is shaking her head; she is obviously pleased that the EPL continues. However, as long as the EPL continues in its current form, 1,000 jobs will be lost each month. That will not affect oil and gas workers directly; those jobs will be in the supply chains, and in cafes, restaurants and cinemas—the other sectors in the community that depend on their clientele and people having money in their pocket. It will affect the community that I represent, as well as Fife, Grangemouth and further afield. It is not just a north-east problem or an oil and gas problem; it has a wide reach.

To be honest, people need to wake up to the fact that this is not about ideology; it is about protecting people’s lives in a managed just transition that must happen—but it must happen without cliff edges. It is fine when cliff edges appear on the horizon, because we can prepare for them, but when they are introduced by punitive fiscal policies, which ExxonMobil accused the Labour Government of, hell mend us all. To have a just transition, we need a fiscal policy that supports workers in the supply chain and beyond.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Douglas Lumsden’s motion opens by regretting the

“ideological drive to end North Sea oil and gas exploration and production”.

Nothing in the debate contributions or in the amendments to the motion from the SNP, the Greens, or Labour suggests that those parties have the least recourse to the facts or, indeed, practical reality. They have failed to confront a simple, but overarching, truth: our society runs on oil and gas. When Rhoda Grant makes facile comments about not using oil and gas, she utterly fails to recognise the demand for oil and gas to heat our homes, power our factories and run the trains—

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not just now, thank you.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

You mentioned me.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not just now, thank you.

Oil and gas is also required to make plastics, which make our medical equipment, food packaging, phones, cars, and the turbine blades and nacelle covers of wind turbines. Demand for plastics is not falling; it is rising. Plastics are entirely synthetic and are made from oil and gas. They drive 12 per cent of global oil demand. By 2030, it will be a third, and by 2050, it will be half.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

My colleague is making a good point. Does he agree that the oil that is extracted from the North Sea is very high grade? It is used in the petrochemical industry and is probably in all our clothes. Without it, the national health service would collapse.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Brian Whittle makes exactly my point: there is no debate about whether we use oil and gas; we are debating where we get it from. Conservative colleagues have made the positive case for why that must be from the North Sea. I argue that the SNP and Labour’s position, both today and in years past, is an ethical failure. Patrick Harvie absolutely missed that, since demand will not reduce, all reductions that the UK makes in North Sea oil and gas must necessarily be replaced by imports from countries such as the United States, Qatar, or Russia. In Fergus Ewing’s intervention, he gave members hard data on the fact that oil and gas from those countries carries a far higher carbon footprint. The result is that, although we cut domestic production, global emissions rocket.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Perhaps in a second, Mr Harvie.

What of the human cost of the domestic cut? In a typically measured way, Willie Rennie told us of the jobs that will go, and are already going—hundreds of thousands of jobs, both direct and indirect. When Sarah Boyack speaks of a transition, I remind her of the Scottish Trades Union Congress analysis, which shows that wind energy creates just one job for every £1 million that is spent, in contrast to more than 13 jobs per every £1 million that is spent in oil and gas.

One of the few correct things that Kevin Stewart said in his speech was that there is no transition without the oil and gas industry. The SNP and Labour’s ideological closure of the North Sea does nothing to reduce global consumption; it just slashes British jobs and, as Jamie Halcro Johnston flagged, it torpedoes the economy.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Can I see whether I have time at the end, please?

To continue on the human cost, North Sea operations are among the most tightly regulated in the world. They have strict emissions standards, strong worker protections and transparent oversight. Replacing North Sea oil and gas with imported hydrocarbons transfers the environmental impact, the industrial risk and the human burden to countries that have weaker regulations, labour standards and safety enforcement. It is an out of sight, out of mind approach, and I find that morally unjustifiable and ethically indefensible.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

As I was challenged on the issue of imports and exports, I will simply point out something that I think the member already knows, which is that the large majority of domestic production goes to export. It is not used in this country. Even the small proportion that is used in this country is at a price that is set on global markets, so this is not about displacing other exports.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am afraid that Mr Harvie has shown his ignorance in that intervention because, in reality, the issue is about where we refine the oil, and a report that was published by Wood Mackenzie this week shows that 65 per cent of UK-exported crude comes back to the UK as refined product. We have to get real about this, and we have to get data and evidence into the debate, because, as the motion notes, ideology will not cut it.

We will continue to use oil and gas for plastics, for industry, for heating and for the transition to renewables. The ethical question is not whether we use those resources but where we source them from.

As Scottish Conservative speakers have set out, using the North Sea is environmentally beneficial and economically prudent, it supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and it helps our energy security. Ending North Sea oil production, which the SNP’s presumption and Labour’s appalling budget from today will make happen, means that demand will increasingly be satisfied by imports, an approach that increases emissions, exports harm, funds dubious regimes, undermines energy security and erodes trust in climate policy. It is unethical policy disguised as environmental virtue signalling. Accordingly, this Parliament must vote for the motion in Douglas Lumsden’s name and reject the amendments in order to force the immediate and unequivocal reversal of the Scottish Government’s presumption against new oil and gas, and continue to demand that Labour reverse course on the energy profits levy.

Economy

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19895, in the name of Craig Hoy, on growing Scotland’s economy. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button. I call Craig Hoy to speak to and move the motion.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Today, the chickens came home to roost for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In what has been described as “shambolic” and “a fiscal fandango”, Rachel Reeves has systematically and recklessly talked down the economy. She has flown kites and then shot them down. She has repeatedly leaked tax and spending proposals. She has performed U-turn after U-turn and then sought to blame others for the breaches that have sown much doubt and distrust. It has been a bizarre strategy: a nihilistic form of expectation mismanagement, which has taken a wrecking ball to the United Kingdom economy.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I will not give way at this point in time.

Markets have heard the mood music and have responded in kind—

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

The pound is up, borrowing is down.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

—with the savage cost of servicing our long-term debt.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Pound is up, borrowing is down.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Marra, please let the member speak.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

If Mr Marra were to look at what we are paying on the gilt market relative to our competitors, he would realise that the markets have no confidence in this Government.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

It is cheaper than this morning.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Mr Marra says that it is cheaper than this morning—it was extremely bad this morning. I will leave Mr Marra to make his own case for this disastrous budget.

It is quite clear that we are now in a doom loop of Rachel Reeves’s own making. Confidence in the economy has slumped, business confidence is dismal—the sharpest drop since Labour was last in power 17 years ago—and confidence in this Labour Government is shot beyond repair.

However, it did not have to be like this. When the Conservative Government left office, we were leading in terms of gross domestic product growth, which was twice what it is now, inflation was falling, interest rates were on a steadily downward path and the cost of living crisis was abating. The Conservatives recognise that things were far from perfect, and we are determined to learn from the mistakes that we made. I only wish that Michael Marra would do the same.

Last June, the green shoots of recovery were visible and very real, but they are now gone. Today’s reckless tax-and-spend budget—and, I suspect, the Scottish budget—will set us back further still, because it was a missed opportunity to promote economic growth; to deliver investment into Scotland; to address the alarming increase in economic inactivity; to reduce and not further inflate the benefits bill; to recognise the importance of backing and supporting working households; to ease the cost of living pressures; and to protect Scotland’s struggling rural economy.

As the debate that preceded this one made clear, our top ask for this budget was to end the energy profits levy, but the chancellor did not scrap it—in fact, she has extended it. We in the chamber should now share a very real concern for the oil and gas industry, including the jobs, the tax revenues and the wider economic activity that it generates, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded by £2.5 billion for this year alone.

To hear from John Swinney and the Scottish National Party hollow calls for the chancellor to scrap the windfall tax on oil and gas companies is, frankly, pitiful. That has more to do with John Swinney saving his own job than preventing further job losses in this vitally important sector.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Will the member take an intervention?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

If I can get the time back, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There is not a lot of time, but we will see how we go.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Could the member remind us which party introduced the EPL? That is all that I want to know. [ Interruption .]

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The Deputy First Minister should have been here earlier. I believe that she asked for it. Which party brought in the presumption against the issuing of further oil and gas licences in Scotland, which is doing damage to the Scottish economy?

There is a raft of other tax and spending announcements where our commonsense calls have been ignored by both Governments. Labour’s cruel family farm tax will do real damage to the farming community and the wider rural economy.

Neither the United Kingdom chancellor nor the Scottish finance secretary has grasped the fundamental rules around taxation. What Scotland needs now is the sensible application of a modern-day equivalent of Reaganomics, not the counterintuitive, tinpot fiscal policies of Rachel Reeves and Shona Robison.

Our motion sets out a position against any further tax rises. Instead, Rachel Reeves is setting out on a path towards ever higher tax—a path to nowhere that is well trodden by Shona Robison and the SNP—and an extra £26 billion in tax by 2029-30. That is the highest ever tax base in the United Kingdom. It is tax on top of tax on top of tax.

Freezing thresholds might in the short term stealthily fill the chancellor’s black hole, but that will surely and steadily damage the economy as more and more middle earners become enmeshed in ever higher taxes. As we see in Scotland, the net effect is that people work less hard, save less, retire earlier or do not take that promotion, which all compounds the depressing doom loop that undermines growth and investment.

However, it is not just income tax that is rising under Labour—there are higher taxes on savings, dividends, gambling, capital gains and the use of electric cars. There is national insurance on salary-sacrifice pensions and more tax on Irn Bru. This is not a smorgasbord of tax changes; it is a fiscal car crash that is anti-aspiration, anti-business and anti-growth.

The politics of envy are all over the budget. There is a higher tax on middle-income earners and a mansions tax, which sends out a message to the world that the rich ain’t welcome in Britain any more.

Labour is not just making the same mistakes as the SNP is on tax; it is making the same mistakes on welfare, too, with £3 billion to remove the two-child benefit cap and a failure to fundamentally reform the social security system. Labour’s approach and the SNP’s approach mean that welfare spending is now out of control in Scotland and in the rest of the UK.

I accept that today’s budget delivers extra resources of £820 million to the Scottish Government. My challenge to John Swinney and the SNP is this: why not do something that they have not done before? They should do something novel, such as cut tax. That would deliver the best solution to tackle the cost of living crisis by giving people their own money back. That would be a good budget for Scotland and a good budget for growth, but it will not happen because John Swinney is Rachel Reeves in disguise.

We need both of Scotland’s Governments to urgently prioritise economic growth and to deliver economic stability. The Scottish Conservatives are pro-growth, we are low-tax and we are on the side of workers and businesses.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the UK Budget should be an opportunity to promote economic growth, deliver investment in Scotland and address the alarming increase in economic inactivity; recognises the importance of backing working households, easing cost pressures and protecting Scotland’s rural economy; believes that ending the Energy Profits Levy is essential to secure investment in the North Sea; emphasises that the UK Labour administration’s tax rises on family farms and small businesses are deeply damaging and should be reversed, and warns against further tax rises; calls on the Scottish Government to prioritise growth with measures to improve productivity, support small businesses, tackle soaring welfare costs and strengthen Scotland’s fiscal position, and believes that both of Scotland’s governments must urgently prioritise economic stability, investment and opportunity as the foundations of sustainable public services within the UK.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

There are many reasons to be optimistic about Scotland’s economic performance and potential. We have a fundamentally strong and resilient economy. Since 2007, gross domestic product per person in Scotland has grown by more than 10 per cent, compared with less than 7 per cent across the UK as a whole. Productivity has grown at an average rate of 0.9 per cent per year, compared with the UK average of 0.3 per cent. We have a highly skilled population and world-class sectors in food and drink, financial services, gaming, digital technology and energy. We are second only to London and the south-east of England when it comes to attracting foreign direct investment.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I do not think that I have time.