Fergus Ewing
Independent · Scotland
“Last October, the Chinese renewables company Ming Yang announced an investment of £1,500 million in my constituency, which would initially create 1,500 direct jobs and lead to 4,000 jobs in phase 3.”
“As her cabinet secretary, I thank her for her diligence as a minister and congratulate her on the successful passage last week of a vital piece of Government legislation that was also supported across parties. I am glad that the bill that we have worked on together will—as I hope—pass this evening. It sends a strong signal.”
“I turn to the concerns of stakeholders, and particularly the teaching trade unions, with whom I have spent a lot of time in the past three years. First, I am sympathetic to some of the concerns from the teaching trade unions.”
“I will embarrass the minister now with all this praise in front of his colleagues, but he is known to be pro-business, and that is a good thing. Sadly, he is an oasis of common sense amidst a desert of disdain and disinterest.”
“Most practitioners will not need training, but those that do, definitely need it. Therefore, we need a focus on the training and on ensuring that it is available to all practitioners who require it.”
“Its work was diligent, detailed and critical to providing the scrutiny that allowed the bill to be improved. I pay tribute to Douglas Ross. He has been a diligent parliamentarian throughout, and I agree with him on what the Parliament needs to aspire to being when it comes to how it works and how contributions are made.”
The complete record
Every one of 452 lines we hold for Fergus Ewing, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 10.
“In documents that the Scottish Government was forced to release under freedom of information, it has been disclosed that Transport Scotland advised the First Minister and other ministers three years ago, in 2023, that there would be no money for the Nairn bypass during this session of Parliament. More than that, the position in the next five years would be “equally challenging”. I have a very simple question for the cabinet secretary that requires honesty and candour for my constituents in Nairn. Will the Nairn bypass be constructed and operational by the end of this decade—2030—yes or no? Shona Robison: Let me say a number of things.”
“Deputy Presiding Officer, I apologise that I have to leave after I ask my question and hear answers to any supplementary questions. I have a committee meeting to attend. I am grateful for your dispensation. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to devise, and deliver to every school pupil, a programme that provides the opportunity to learn how to touch type. (S6O-05352)”
“They have the power to reform the system by using reserved powers or, better still, they could hand the powers to Scotland so that we can use them to level the playing field and make the system fairer. 16:54”
“For example, why do we give rates relief to businesses that use unfair labour practices? We can make different choices so that we can provide a better life for our people. For example, we provide the Scottish child payment, free bus travel, free school meals and so on. The Scottish Greens want to bring back the public health supplement and have big supermarkets pay more in rates in recognition of the harms and costs of the products that they sell, such as alcohol. The question of how to tax economic activity that does not rely on the occupation of property, such as online retail, can be dealt with only through other parts of the tax system, particularly those that are currently reserved. The Scottish Greens want that to happen. If Labour members want that, too, they need to speak to their colleagues in the UK Government at Westminster.”
“Labour has occasionally seemed open to that argument, which is welcome, but it has never followed through with active support for a reformed property tax. It was disappointing that Labour abstained on Ross Greer’s proposals to tax vacant and derelict land during the debate on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, because that would have been a step in the right direction towards making the tax landscape fairer and incentivising the good use of assets as well as investment. Labour had a chance to do something in that space, but it chose to sit on its hands. We should not be afraid of divergence from England. Doing things differently is good, and that is the point of devolution. We should be fine tuning rates based on what is done in the premises. Decisions about domestic rates can be used to implement wider social and environmental policies.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ewing. Always speak through the chair. We move to wind-up speeches. 16:51 Lorna Slater: The Scottish Greens will support the Government amendment. Regarding the Labour amendment, we agree that business rates are “not fit for purpose”, so the overall point is valid and one that we can support, but the amendment combines two separate issues in a rather awkward way. Reform of property tax has been a long-standing priority for the Scottish Greens, and we have made the case for a unified system between residential and non-residential property taxes. Our preference would be for the system to be based on land values. In essence, non-domestic rates and council tax are still, however brokenly, property taxes, and they should remain so.”
“The valuations are just garbage—utter garbage. However, more than that, as we have heard from many members, the consequences are that people around Scotland are now writing to us to say that their health has suffered, that they are mentally unbalanced and that their families are suffering. I do not want to start being alarmist about this, but I am seriously worried about what happens when human beings who are working hard in society—many of them in relatively modest businesses—feel that there is simply no way out, that their business must close and that their life has been ruined by a Government that says that it cares for them. It is not good enough, minister. You have the powers to intervene. I do not have the time to specify them, but Fiona Campbell already has, as have many others. I hope to God that you use them.”
“In a response to a letter from me, Heather Honeyman said: “Rental evidence would be where there is a landlord and a tenant relationship and legal obligations on the parties.” There are no obligations like that, apart from a few hundred out of 17,000. In England, assessors say that that method is wrong; in Scotland, the assessor maintains that it is correct. Neither Ms Honeyman nor anyone in her department has answered why on earth a methodology has been chosen that has in writing been entirely ruled out in England, which Ms Honeyman must surely be aware of. I call on her to come clean. Did she discuss the matter with the VOA? She should publish all the correspondence. Did she consult or inform Scottish ministers at all, or were they in the dark? I know that Mr McKee, as a former businessman, cares for business, and I take him seriously.”
“The businesses are still recovering from that nightmare, yet little credence is ever given to that. However, they now face a second nightmare, which Mr Fraser has set out. The Government should debate the issue on its own time if it really cared about the Parliament coming up with solutions. We should have had more time to debate the detail. The self-catering assessment for business rates has been carried out by Heather Honeyman, chair of the Scottish Assessors Association, on the basis of rental values. The VOA, the SAA’s counterpart in England, says that rental values are “not suitable for self-catering holiday homes. Properties are usually owned, rather than rented on an annual basis”.”
“In February 2020, I became tourism minister for the second time, expecting a fairly quiet period until the 2021 election. A few weeks later, the Covid lockdown occurred. Many of us will remember that time, when businesses, particularly in hospitality and tourism, went from thriving and optimistic— they were usually led by people with cheerful, pleasant, outgoing personalities—to having no business at all. They went from profitability to a cliff edge. Many of them were levered and had debt, and many have suffered enormously. I know that some business owners passed away because of the stress. I spent a rather busy 12 months accepting every request for conference call meetings, and I heard tales of woe that I, frankly, never expected to hear again.”
“On that point, is Mr Fraser aware that the counterpart in England to the assessor is the Valuation Office Agency, and that the VOA has said that the method adopted by the Scottish assessors is not suitable for self-catering properties because they “are usually owned, rather than rented”. Does Mr Fraser understand why the assessors have ignored the approach of their counterparts in England in a way that is plainly wrong?”
“That bill should be adopted by the Government and introduced to Parliament, because cutting red tape would help attract more investment, give Scotland’s economy the chance to thrive, give entrepreneurs a hand and spur innovation. However, the biggest things that the Government could do to help small businesses would be to reduce their bills to make the cost of doing business more affordable; commit to bringing down business rates; overhaul the system so that it is fairer; and stop viewing tax cuts as morally wrong. After all, businesses earn that money. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. Members have a strict four minutes. 17:48”
“Practically every year, we hear the SNP promise to reset the relationship with the business community, but, like a new year’s resolution, the promise is never kept. In 2026, there must be a major reset in Scotland’s economic approach so that Government encourages aspiration instead of just taxing ambition, and Scotland is once again open for business. That is what the Scottish Conservatives want to see, and, in 2026, that commitment must be kept. The Government also needs to make a serious effort to cut red tape. My party has proposed a reduction of red tape bill that would give businesses the opportunity to apply for regulations to be repealed or amended.”
“The knock-on consequences are that our economy does not grow as quickly as it should, and, because economic growth is critical to increasing tax revenue, that means that there is less money to fix and improve public services. It cannot go on like that. More growth means more money to target spending effectively and efficiently. A rising economy is essential to produce the higher tax revenues that our NHS, our schools and all our public services need. I believe that the Government’s attitude to business must change. Given that it is the festive season, perhaps we can hope for a Christmas miracle—a miracle in which the SNP stops acting like Scrooge to Scotland’s small businesses and instead begins to celebrate, champion and encourage their efforts. That is exactly what needs to happen.”
“Small businesses feel as though they are an afterthought. Sometimes, they believe that the Government treats them like the enemy. Too many small businesses feel that their concerns are acknowledged only after decisions have already been made, instead of those concerns being meaningfully considered from the outset. Policies are often designed with large organisations in mind, leaving smaller firms to absorb the same costs and comply with the same rules without having the resources to do so. Small businesses do not think that Holyrood helps them. They do not think that the Parliament understands business or gets the challenges that they face. They feel that entrepreneurial risk taking is not rewarded. Every year, they face bigger bills and the burden of more rules and regulations, which stifles innovation.”
“Will the member give way? Rachael Hamilton: I will give way to the member. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Fergus Ewing. Please be brief. Fergus Ewing: Does Rachael Hamilton agree that the Scottish Government does have the power to put the proposed changes on hold and that, if the Government denies it, that is not true? Rachael Hamilton: I completely agree with Fergus Ewing. Scottish ministers do have the power, they make the rules and it is in their gift to pause the revaluation and change the methodology. Hotels, self-catering businesses and retail hospitality operators are absolutely terrified of the revaluation’s impact on them. The Government must pause it, and I ask Richard Lochhead to address that in his closing speech. All of those issues form an economic environment in Scotland that is far from helpful.”
“I wish to add to the proposed business a ministerial statement on the forthcoming rates revaluation. I have intimated the substance of my argument to Mr Dey, Mr McKee and the First Minister. If the draft valuations for several sectors were to take effect from next April, they would result in the mass closure of thousands of Scottish businesses and threaten the viability of high streets. I gather from Stephen Montgomery of the Scottish Hospitality Group that the increases in values for some hotels and pubs are up to 300 per cent. However, I wish to direct my remarks towards the self-catering sector. There are 16,513 such properties in Scotland and they face an average increase of 120 per cent and, in some cases, increases of up to 300 per cent.”
“Perhaps we can mandate oil companies to invest in carbon capture and storage. If we do that, with the expertise that will remain in Aberdeen, although not for much longer, we can develop world-leading expertise in CCS in the North Sea. As we did with subsea expertise in the North Sea, we can export that expertise all over the world and create something out of nothing. That is the only way that it can happen. The two Governments need to start to wake up and smell the coffee. We need more exploration and a fair tax system. The EPL must go. It is as plain as a pikestaff: if that does not happen, we are in deep, deep trouble. 16:52”
“We have got to be quite clear that the economic problems that we face in Britain, given the level of gross domestic product per head and the level of borrowing per head, are unprecedented. Unless we draw in our horns, spend money more effectively and avoid taxing everything in sight, we are leaving a bitter legacy for our children. Is that responsible? No, it is not. My recommendation is very serious. We need oil and gas. As Gary Smith—a fine campaigner for the industry—says, the oil and gas industry is not the enemy. As was argued earlier by Douglas Lumsden and Liam Kerr, the industry supplies just about everything that we need, including anaesthetics, incidentally. Only by working with the industry can we raise money from oil revenues—£40 billion from Campbell Fuel and the Rosebank oil field alone.”
“During my remaining time, which is not long, I want to talk about the more subtle point that the group made: how is the UK going to afford the just transition? The London School of Economics estimates that the cost will be £1 trillion, and the Climate Change Committee estimates that it will cost £50 billion a year. I have seen even higher figures quoted to upgrade the national grid. They are on a colossal scale and would have been unimaginable 20 years ago. Lorna Slater: Will the member take an intervention? Fergus Ewing: I am sorry, but I want to develop my argument in the short time that I have. The Government and the taxpayer have not got the money for this.”
“I have no objection to that piece of political larceny—it was a good theft. I should say that the prime influencer was Sir Ian Wood, not humble me. However, it was the right policy then, and it is the right policy now. I say to the Deputy First Minister that I genuinely fear for Scotland over the next five years, because although people believe that we must go to renewables, that will take a long time—much longer than people say—and we need oil and gas. There is a consensus among ordinary people that that is the case. Back in 2022, I was proud to bring together a cross-party group—Alistair Carmichael, Amber Rudd, Charles Hendry and Brian Wilson—and, in Aberdeen, we made a declaration: we need both.”
“Admittedly, it was before the Deputy First Minister was born, but when I first campaigned in a parliamentary by-election—in Dundee East, when Gordon Wilson narrowly failed to get elected in 1973—our slogan was, “It’s Scotland’s Oil”. When I had the privilege to be the energy minister—I also had responsibility for business, tourism and enterprise—from 2011 to 2015, I was proud to be part of a team that said that the primary objective of the Government was economic success for our country. Everything else comes from that. All the revenue for public services comes from a successful economy. That is so obvious, is it not? Well, it seemed so. When I was energy minister, I worked with leading experts such as Sir Ian Wood, and we quickly formulated maximum economic recovery as our policy—a policy so good that it was filched by the UK Government.”
“That golden combination is how we will transform our economy, improve the lives of our people, protect the planet and put more money in people’s pockets. I move amendment S6M-19895.3, to leave out from “and address” to end and insert: “, including through delivering investment that can be utilised for public services such as Scotland’s NHS and to help Scotland’s journey to net zero; further believes that a fiscal regime for offshore industries must support a just transition for oil and gas workers, and support the development of Scotland’s key renewables sector; notes that UK Government tax changes on family farms and employer national insurance contributions have impacted Scotland’s economy, and calls on all parties to support efforts to rejoin the European Union and the European Single Market, recognising that Brexit has been the primary and most damaging impact on the economy and public finances in the last decade.” 16:14”
“Brexit has generated significant barriers to trade and investment. The opportunities that would be presented by open access to a market of 450 million people are enormous for an outward- looking economy such as Scotland’s, which is why this Government believes that Scotland must rejoin the European Union as an independent nation. Scotland is a country of tremendous opportunity, and this Government’s economic strategy outlines how we will utilise our strengths to do everything in our power to grasp that opportunity. We want the ability to ensure that Scotland’s renewable energy wealth delivers lower bills for households and businesses, a transformational competitive advantage for Scotland’s economy, restored membership of the EU and full self-government with independence, which will allow us to take control of our own economic affairs.”
“rose— Ivan McKee: I am afraid that I do not have any time left in the short time that is available. It remains deeply disappointing that energy bills are £500 higher than the Labour Party promised before the UK general election. That has contributed to the cost of living crisis, which has also had an effect on our high streets and hospitality sector. I must also mention the significant impact of Brexit, which has caused the primary and most damaging impact on the economy and public finances in the past decade. The conspiracy of silence from Labour and the Tories on the damage that Brexit has caused remains jaw dropping. The House of Commons library estimates that Brexit is costing the Treasury up to £90 billion a year in lost revenue, and that, for the average Briton, there has been a hit to GDP per head of up to £3,700.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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: 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.”
“If there is anything that you can add in response to that, minister, I am happy to let you do so. Jim Fairlie: All that I can say is that I am carefully considering all licences that are in front of me at this moment in time. Aquaculture (Economic Benefits) 4.”
“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— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ewing—that is not to do with the species licensing review.”
“There is, as ever, much interest, so concise questions and responses are appreciated. Housing Provision (Motor Neurone Disease)”
“We have to take the long-term climate action that is required to reduce the temperature of the planet. As Parliament knows, I have been in Malawi and Zambia and have seen at close quarters the ferocious damage of climate change in those communities. It is happening here in Scotland: the wildfires are a symptom of the problem and we have had water scarcity in the north-east of Scotland right up until early October. We cannot ignore the effects of climate change in our society. We have to take action, which is why the Government is committed to peatland restoration, and it is why, as Mr Fairlie set out in his statement to Parliament, the Government is committed to undertaking effective collaborative work to tackle the risk of wildfires in our society. The Presiding Officer: We move to general and constituency supplementary questions.”
“The 14,860 hectares of peatland that were restored last year accounted for a reduction in carbon emissions of approximately 282,000 tonnes. However, an initial estimate suggests that one wildfire at Dava and Carrbridge in July this year accounted for 590,000 tonnes of carbon emissions, which is more than twice as much as the total reduction that was achieved through peatland restoration. Given that the aim is the overall reduction of carbon emissions, would not true greens—true greens like myself—wish to see a little more money being spent on tackling wildfires effectively? Perhaps the money could come from the peatland restoration budget. The First Minister: I do not think that Mr Ewing has put an either/or question to me. I do not want wildfires to happen in Scotland. They are happening because of climate change.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will request that the Auditor General conducts an investigation into the ScotWind offshore wind leasing round, in light of the finding in the Future Economy Scotland report, “Rethinking ScotWind: Maximising Scotland’s offshore wind potential”, that, on a per megawatt basis, a comparable leasing round in England and Wales is projected to raise up to 40 times more than the £755 million raised in one-off fees in Scotland. (S6O-05145)”
“It is part of the future, along with our renewables. 17:02”
“My partner, who is an anaesthetist, uses anaesthetics every day, and just about every anaesthetic drug is a by-product of oil and gas. Do the Greens want us to go back to the days of chloroform and the gag and—without wanting to be grisly—amputation by the saw? That is what they are asking us to do, with the primitive, crude, illogical approach that they take. Why can we, in Britain, not do what I think that the majority of people in Scotland and south of the border want us to do, which is to support our oil and gas industry, which is the best in the world? For five years, I had a ringside seat and I saw that for myself, all over the world. I saw that our engineers were respected as the best in the world. Let us value them and praise them. As Gary Smith said, “Oil and gas is not the enemy”.”
“Surely a true Green— like myself, for example—would welcome that. I am not against roads or cars—I am against emissions. I am not against oil and gas production in the world—I am against the dirtiest oil and gas production in the world. I cannot help but try to apply logic to problems, and if we apply logic, we see that the world should surely be moving to try to encourage everywhere to replicate the level of emissions reduction that the UK has achieved. We should take the lead—incidentally, there is a lot of money to be made in that, too. In our daily lives, we rely on oil and gas for everything. The protesters who glued themselves to Pall Mall were using a petrochemical product. The protesters who despoiled a Van Gogh painting by throwing paint at it were using an oil and gas product—I do not know if they knew that.”
“That is what I am hearing, for various reasons. I am sure that the minister will be aware of that. Let us look at our oil and gas industry in Britain. North Sea production is among the cleanest in the world. The Greens are not in the chamber—that is a shame, because there is always a possibility that one can learn things in life, even from the most unlikely quarters—but if they were here, they would hear this: the emissions from North Sea production have fallen by 34 per cent since 2018. That is a reduction of one-third in just six years, which is a tremendous achievement. The average is 21kg of CO2 per barrel, which can be compared with fracking gas in the USA, which produces 76kg of emissions; and the level for Qatar is about the same. Our total emissions from production are a quarter of those elsewhere.”
“My God, I was even once told by a rather rueful director of transport at Highland Council that it took five years to build a lay-by. How do we think that we are going to transform everything in Britain, which gets three quarters of its energy needs from oil and gas, by 2030—or by 2045, as the Scottish Government says? It is for the birds. I worked closely with Paul de Leeuw when I was energy minister, and I regard him as a friend. I have a great deal of admiration for his work and the work of his project director. However, I wonder whether even the lowest scenario of the three scenarios that he sets out on hydrogen, carbon and wind is over-optimistic—I cannot go into the details, because I do not have the time. What I see at the moment is the disengagement of investment from offshore wind. There are troubled times ahead.”
“In congratulating Liam Kerr for bringing the debate to the chamber, it is a matter of sadness and shame that the Scottish Government has not arranged a full day’s debate on our energy situation in Scotland. I hope that the minister will comment on that. Perhaps the world’s foremost energy expert is Daniel Yergin, who won a Pulitzer prize for his book on the oil industry, “The Prize: the Epic Quest for Oil Money and Power”. He remarked that the transition from wood to coal took 200 years and the transition from coal to oil took 100 years, from the discovery in Pennsylvania in 1859 to the 1960s, when oil overtook coal as the most widely used fuel. My point is that transitions take a long time. It takes a long time for things to be done.”
“The “Striking the Balance” report makes it clear that the window of opportunity is closing. If we act wisely now, we can secure the sweet spot of the transition, protecting jobs and skills while cutting emissions. If we act too slowly or ideologically, we risk losing the workforce, the supply chain and the capacity to deliver any transition at all. This is not about oil and gas versus renewables. It is about the North Sea and the energy transition—a transition that, if managed properly, can secure Scotland’s energy future and the livelihoods of the people who will power it. 16:42”
“It is the people of oil and gas who will drive the transition, but half of Aberdeen’s energy workforce hold a degree qualification and if policy tells them that they have no future here, they will simply go elsewhere, representing a loss to our economy, a grave loss to our population and a loss to any chance of delivering the transition. As the report highlights, there is a very narrow Goldilocks zone between 2025 and early 2030 in which the UK must sustain and repurpose its existing workforce. If we run down oil and gas before renewables are ready to absorb those skills, the opportunity will be lost, and so will tens of thousands of jobs. I think that we all share the same desired destination—a Scotland that is prosperous, sustainable and secure and which runs off a genuinely balanced energy mix. The question is how we get there.”
“That is why Fergus Ewing is right—we must see an end to the energy profits levy and the UK Government’s ridiculously naive ban on new oil and gas licences. The Scottish Government, meanwhile, says one thing in Aberdeen and another in Glasgow. The “no new oil and gas” rhetoric that was reiterated by former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon just last week may win headlines, but it sends a chilling message to the very workforce that will deliver net zero. No one can ignore the fact that the Scottish Government’s draft energy strategy still contains a presumption against new oil and gas.”
“The real choice is not one between oil and gas or renewables; it is a choice between a managed transition that maintains a viable domestic industry while building up renewables, hydrogen and carbon capture, and an accelerated decline of exporting jobs, losing skills and importing higher-carbon energy at a higher cost. The difference between those futures lies not in geology or technology but in political decision making. That is the subject of the third conclusion, which focuses on the role of both of Scotland’s Governments. The UK Government's fiscal regime is now one of the most regressive in the world. Investment allowances have been stripped out, creating uncertainty. Meanwhile, Norway provides a stable and progressive regime, continues to invest and uses the proceeds to fund its transition.”
“We will need oil and gas to heat our homes, to keep the lights on, to make our mobile phones, to fuel our cars, buses and trains, to run medical equipment and to make fertiliser. Today, the UK produces about 20 per cent of the oil and gas that it uses. Even if we achieve net zero and even if Jackdaw and Rosebank go ahead, the UK will still need to import more oil and gas than it produces to meet demand, which means more imports from countries such as the United States of America, where production emissions are three to four times higher than ours, countries with dubious regulatory or human rights records, and countries that might capriciously switch off our supply. Secondly, there will be no just transition without the oil and gas industry.”
“Does Mr Kerr agree that the real tragedy of those prospective job losses—which are on a scale that is greater than in the 1980s, when we saw the closure of Ravenscraig—is that they are entirely avoidable if we resume the policy of maximum economic recovery, which we used to have when I was energy minister, and reduce the profits levy? Those two things will prevent job losses on a scandalous scale. Liam Kerr: Fergus Ewing is absolutely right, and I could not agree more because the “Striking the Balance” report justifies exactly what we have just heard. The report reaches three fundamental conclusions. First, the demand for oil and gas is not going away. By 2050, the UK will still require significant amounts, only about 30 per cent of which will be for domestic purposes.”
“I take on board the point that building a mountain rescue team might not be an overnight solution, but it is certainly something that we need to start doing now. With regard to the request for a meeting, I have forwarded to my officials the sensible and detailed list of proposals that Fergus Ewing put forward. I have asked them to look at the proposals, and we will respond in due course.”
“The suggestion of a mountain rescue-type service is welcome, but, as someone who served in a mountain rescue team for about a decade, albeit in a different century, I assure the minister that it would take several decades for a voluntary model to develop. That is just fact. We need an urgent solution to tackle wildfires more effectively to be in place by next spring. I put this to the minister in writing at the weekend. I have had detailed discussions with various parties, including a land manager and a keeper—who, between them, have about a century of experience—who have a specific proposal. Would the minister be willing to meet them and me, as I think that their proposal could be a serious part of the answer and could save lives to boot? Jim Fairlie: I received Fergus Ewing’s letter.”
“The next item of business will be a members’ business debate, in the name of Audrey Nicoll. There will now be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the chamber and the public galleries to do so. 12:51 Meeting suspended. 12:53 On resuming— Protecting Scotland’s Rivers”
“The starting point for any consideration of the matter must be substantive engagement on the issues of substance so that members of the public in the Inverness area, the Highland Council and the Scottish Government can come to a conclusion on a matter that must be addressed. Asylum seekers are housed in the city of Perth, right in the heart of my own constituency, and they are supported with appropriate arrangements. I therefore recognise that the task must be undertaken, but there has to be good and substantive engagement with communities and public authorities. Regrettably, in relation to Cameron barracks, such engagement has been completely absent from the United Kingdom Government’s approach. The Presiding Officer: That concludes First Minister’s questions.”