Gillian Martin
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Mark Ruskell: I hear what the cabinet secretary says about her engagement with industry, but it is communities that are facing a deluge of applications for data centres. There are people here today from Fife and across Scotland who are raising their concerns. Answers are needed, cabinet secretary.”
“The Scottish Government has not undertaken a wholly national assessment of the remit that the member specifically outlines on data centres. However, we are currently engaging with industry and partner agencies to better understand the cumulative impacts of data centre developments on the environment.”
“The Scottish Government’s wildfires strategic action plan sets out a partnership approach to preventing, preparing for and responding to wildfires.”
“Although the Scottish Government is not currently undertaking a formal national assessment, we are working with partners to assess the impact of AI data centres and to look at whether current planning conditions are appropriate.”
“David Green: The response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and local land management to the severe wildfires that were experienced in the Highlands last year was exceptional, and I put on record my thanks to them.”
“Following on from the good work that was done on the wildfires strategy in the previous parliamentary session by Jim Fairlie and by Siobhian Brown, the former Minister for Victims and Community Safety, a great deal of work is being done on prevention.”
The complete record
Every one of 614 lines we hold for Gillian Martin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 13.
“I would point to Scotland’s important role in all the international events, such as the United Nations climate change conferences of the parties and the various environmental comings-together of countries, and our use of our soft power to influence other countries in taking a more sustainable approach to debt and the global south and to how we recompense those countries for the situation in which they find themselves as a result of climate change. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio questions on net zero and energy, and transport. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front- bench teams to change position, should they wish. Scotland’s Hydrogen Future”
“Will she ensure that the Scottish Government meets SCIAF and explores what action Scotland can take to ensure that debt does not continue to cripple the world’s poorest? Gillian Martin: We recognise the huge pressure that escalating debt levels are putting on countries in the global south, particularly when compounded by the impacts of the climate crisis. There must be a fair, effective and long-term resolution to the global debt crisis, so that resources can be freed up to invest in health, education, climate action and the economies of those countries. Scottish Government officials have had an initial meeting with SCIAF to discuss its jubilee 2025 campaign, and I look forward to meeting it again in the coming weeks to explore how Scotland can best play a role.”
“The loss and damage fund is a great example of how Scotland has shown global solidarity with the global south, which has shouldered the heaviest impacts of climate change. The cabinet secretary might be aware of the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund’s call for debt cancellation, a new debt framework and a debt justice law, so that some of the poorest countries in the world can spend their money on making their countries more climate resilient, not on debt payments to wealthy creditors. Although I appreciate that direct responsibility for that matter might lie with other ministerial colleagues, will the cabinet secretary commend SCIAF for its excellent cancel debt, choose hope campaign?”
“Growing unsustainable debt puts pressure on countries in the global south, diverting resources away from investment in climate action and from broader public services. The Scottish Government recognises the need for good-quality, genuinely affordable climate finance, and we have consistently advocated for other countries to follow our example of giving funding for loss and damage as grants, not loans, which means that countries in the global south can recover from extreme climate events without taking on additional debt and that they are in control of how that money is spent most effectively. We will continue to champion that approach, including at forthcoming international events. Humza Yousaf: I thank the cabinet secretary for her comprehensive response.”
“Recent court judgments mean that specific projects that the member refers to are subject to further consenting decisions from UK ministers. Those decisions will be based on enhanced environmental assessments of their climate impacts. It would have probably been a good idea to listen to the SNP Government on this and ensure that robust processes were in place. If everyone knows the playing field, they can react to what is set out.”
“Gillian Martin: Fergus Ewing rightly points out that a lot of the regulatory challenges, including the court cases, involve the UK Government, because it has responsibility in that area. However, the Scottish Government’s stance on future licensing warned that the UK Government would have to be robust in how it assessed licences with regard to climate compatibility, because not doing so would open it up to criticism. Indeed, there have now been quite a few cases of court action. We continue to call on the UK Government to approach decisions on offshore oil and gas in a rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case way, in which robust assessment of climate compatibility and domestic energy security are key considerations.”
“The reason is very simple: those companies have invested around £2,000 million because they have obtained the necessary consents and have complied with all the regulations, but they now find that the process is being changed mid-case and the goalposts might be moved. If that happens, there will be a fiduciary duty on the directors of all the companies to recover their losses, which will amount to the money that has been paid out—£2 billion—plus loss of profits. If that happens, is the Scottish Government not worried that it is inevitable, whether through Barnettisation or otherwise, that the Scottish taxpayer will pay a heavy price? Therefore, should we not support Rosebank and Jackdaw to avoid those catastrophic consequences and gain the enormous economic advantages that the projects will deliver?”
“Across Government, we are all clear on our support for a just transition for Scotland’s oil and gas sector, recognising the maturity of the North Sea basin. At the heart of our approach is ensuring that just transition for Scotland’s valued and highly skilled oil and gas workforces to a net zero future. As the member will be aware, offshore oil and gas licensing and consenting and the associated fiscal regime are all matters that are currently reserved to the UK Government. Fergus Ewing: That does not really get to the heart of what I am asking. The risk is that Scottish funding might reduce by several hundred million pounds if Rosebank and Jackdaw are not consented.”
“There are massive economic opportunities for the people of Scotland, particularly in relation to our technologies and natural resources, which will get us to 2045.”
“Instead of setting ambitious targets with no plans for how to achieve them, will the cabinet secretary be honest with the public and confirm that the Scottish Government will deliver a sensible and affordable transition that will not come at the cost of jobs or through rising bills for households and businesses? Gillian Martin: What is not credible are parties that vote for targets and then turn their backs when the action to meet those targets is taken forward. We have subsequent climate change plans in place that have a credible pathway to 2045. We are working on our next climate change plan as a result of the new carbon budgeting system, which is the system that the UK and Welsh Governments work to. What is also not credible is the suggestion that a drive to net zero will be a negative thing.”
“We remain fully committed to meeting the target of net zero emissions by 2045, which every party in the Parliament voted for and is now enshrined in law. This month, we will receive carbon budget advice from our independent advisers, the Climate Change Committee, which will advise us on a pathway to net zero by 2045. Thanks to the action of this Government, Scotland is already halfway to net zero and we continue to decarbonise faster than the UK average. Pam Gosal: With the Scottish National Party Government ditching so many climate targets, let us be honest: it looks highly unlikely that Scotland will achieve net zero by 2045.”
“During one of my first meetings with the incoming UK Government, which was in the early days of setting up GB Energy—I do not even think that the chief executive officer was in place at that point—I made the point to the Minister for Energy, Michael Shanks, that, with money for community energy, it was best not to reinvent the wheel or clutter the landscape, as we already have a very well respected and well-known vehicle for delivering funding in CARES. I urged the minister to look at that and to allocate GB Energy money straight to that vehicle, rather than setting up anything new. I am pleased to say that he realised how respected the initiative is, and we were able to secure the money. We will work together to increase the capacity of CARES, as well as deliver more projects of the sort that Mr Choudhury has just mentioned.”
“Last year, Edinburgh Community Solar Co-operative saved the City of Edinburgh Council £1 million in energy costs and its members money on their bills. In the light of that, will the cabinet secretary join me in welcoming the £5 million investment from Great British Energy into community energy in Scotland? Will she provide further details on how that investment will be delivered to projects such as Edinburgh Community Solar Co- operative? Gillian Martin: Mr Choudhury has just exemplified how important projects such as that are, because they are making a meaningful difference to communities. There is an awful lot more that can be done on that.”
“At the end of December 2024, an estimated 1,109MW of community and locally-owned renewable energy was operational in Scotland. We are committed to growing the sector even further and have recently announced £3.5 million in funding for projects under our community and renewable energy scheme in 2025-26, building on the success of last year’s £1.5 million pilot fund, which supported 23 projects. We have also announced £1 million for community capacity building and secured £4.85 million through the local power plan, which will primarily support community energy projects in Scotland. Further details of that funding will be announced shortly. Foysol Choudhury: Community energy projects are key for our journey to net zero and putting money back into local economies.”
“I had the same issue. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Martin. We will ensure that your vote is recorded.”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that— Joe FitzPatrick be appointed as a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee; and Emma Roddick be appointed to replace Joe FitzPatrick as a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. The Presiding Officer: The second question is, that motion S6M-17267, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on committee membership, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. Edward Mountain: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am afraid that I could not connect to the app. If I had connected, I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Mountain. We will ensure that that is recorded. Gillian Martin: On a point of order, Presiding Officer.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-17266, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on committee membership, is: For 109, Against 1, Abstentions 0.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have not been able to connect. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Martin. We will ensure that that is recorded. The Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans (Graeme Dey): On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had a similar problem. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Dey. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“In short, the appointment process for the chair has overtaken the previous member reappointment process. I move, That the Parliament notes the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s consideration of Dr Richard Dixon as the nominated candidate for the role of Board Chair of Environmental Standards Scotland at its meeting on 18 February 2025; welcomes the committee’s recommendation that the Parliament approves the appointment of Dr Richard Dixon for four years in accordance with schedule 1, paragraph 2(4) of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, and approves the appointment as required by schedule 1, paragraph 2(2) of the Act. 17:02”
“However, in light of the outcome of the chair appointment process, which has now overtaken the reappointment process, the Scottish Government has not progressed Dr Dixon’s reappointment as a member of the ESS board but instead intends to appoint Dr Dixon as board chair. For the sake of clarity, the Scottish ministers’ position is that the process for appointing the chair is separate from that for reappointing members, in line with the “Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland”. Furthermore, and for the avoidance of doubt, the duration of the post of chair was publicly advertised as being four years, which is why there is a difference in timeframes between the motion in January and the motion before the chamber today.”
“If you give me two seconds, Presiding Officer, I will bring up my notes. I got a little bit distracted. The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 requires the appointment of members of the board of Environmental Standards Scotland, including the chair, to be approved by the Scottish Parliament. The motion seeks the Parliament’s approval of Dr Richard Dixon as the nominated candidate for the role of board chair of ESS, as approved unanimously by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee at its meeting on 18 February 2025. A motion was agreed to on 30 January 2025 that approved the reappointment of Dr Dixon—an existing member of the ESS board—as an ordinary member for a further three years.”
“Until I can do that, I am afraid that the bill will not be introduced in its form as previously drafted, because it would make people—”
“We have increased the money for area-based schemes because they are turning more houses, faster, into the energy-efficient homes that they should be. Again, however, demand is out the door. There is good progress in that area. I will use my final 20 seconds to say something about the proposed heat in buildings bill, because I am going to be up front with members. I will introduce a heat in buildings bill when I can be satisfied that the interventions in it will decrease fuel poverty at the same time as they decarbonise houses. With the greatest respect to Patrick Harvie, I do not feel that the previous drafting that was done took that into consideration significantly. There are so many moving parts. I will craft a bill that will simultaneously reduce carbon and tackle fuel poverty.”
“That procuring power is significant, so developers could, in effect, say, “Would you like a community energy scheme? We’ll build and fund it—it’s yours.” I think that, if that were to be the case, a lot of the difficulties would melt away. Willie Rennie: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Gillian Martin: I would like to take Willie Rennie’s intervention, but I will mention him instead. I enjoyed his speech—he talked about mental health, which made me think about how the level of debt that is associated with fuel poverty exacerbates poor mental health. I also want to mention area-based schemes. In my discussions on the budget, I have protected the money that is going into area-based schemes and the warmer homes Scotland scheme.”
“One of my first discussions with Michael Shanks on the matter concerned some of the funding that might come from GB Energy being put into our community and renewable energy scheme—for which demand is out the door—in order to increase the scheme’s capacity. I said to Michael Shanks, “Don’t reinvent the wheel—we’ve got a really good vehicle for this, and we have more people who actually want community energy.” One of the great things about CARES that it has taken out much of the difficulty for communities in setting up their own community energy. Previously, a community almost had to have people who were experts in the area to be able to do that. I want more community energy and I want the procuring power of developers to be used.”
“I would like community benefit to include people having a stake in those developments and being helped to develop their own community energy schemes by companies that are working in their areas, and thereby seeing money coming right into their communities. Fergus Ewing: I am delighted to hear that the cabinet secretary supports communities having a stake. As I argued in the chamber last week, community ownership would provide benefits of a magnitude that would be massively greater than their simply getting a cheque. Would she work with the Labour Government on that? There must be a will to deliver that, and to do so quickly before any more projects are finalised with it not being even a possibility. Gillian Martin: The answer is absolutely yes— more than that, I am already working with the UK Government on it.”
“Nevertheless, there is definitely something in there about rebalancing the types of markets that we have, and we certainly need to ensure that people in the parts of the country—across the four nations of the UK—that are generating fuel or transmitting electricity get a discount of some type. That is a pressing issue that is upsetting quite a lot of people. I am sorry to sit on the fence on zonal pricing, but I need to understand an awful lot more about it and what the alternatives are. That is why I am laying out the options. I also want to see significant community benefit interventions, which is perhaps more what Liz Smith’s intervention has led me to discuss. Communities that are hosting infrastructure and developments are not getting enough community benefit.”
“The reason is that, although a number of different interventions can be made at one time, we do not want to put off investment in renewables in Scotland, which has been flagged up as a danger of zonal pricing. At the same time, I would want to ensure that the impact on consumers of zonal pricing would be significant enough for us to go down that road. I have heard that zonal pricing would lead to between £40 and £100 a year off electricity bills, and that is not enough—it would not make the required difference. I worry, therefore, that some of the arguments for zonal pricing are promising a bit too much.”
“Douglas Lumsden: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Gillian Martin: I have already taken an intervention from Mr Lumsden, so I will not bother, thank you. Standing charges are currently skewed to benefit the areas with the highest populations and with—let us face it—probably the most votes. Liz Smith: Does the cabinet secretary agree with zonal pricing? Gillian Martin: I have left aside zonal pricing or variations on it, but I do not think that it is an either/or situation. What we cannot have is the status quo—I am absolutely convinced about that. However, I am yet to be convinced, having seen some of the proposals, that zonal pricing is the magic bullet that people say it is.”
“We have had good feedback from the utilities companies about the social tariff, we have had a working group that has been working on it for quite a long time, and we are producing a report, which I think was mentioned by Marie McNair. That report will be offered to the UK Government, because we have done the work to show how a social tariff could work, and lots of stakeholders across lots of sectors, including the utility companies, are backing it. It would make a significant difference to people who are in poverty. On standing charges reform, at the moment, Scotland and North Wales pay the highest charges. The lowest standing charges are in the south-east of England and in London. The last time I looked, we were generating quite a lot of electricity in Scotland. We have been a bit of a powerhouse with regard to energy.”
“Companies might locate themselves here, so there would be high-intensity industries that would provide more jobs. As long as the cost is volatile and attached to gas—the geopolitical aspects of that were mentioned by Mark Griffin, among others—there is a false link and people cannot see any certainty. Those things are just for starters. A social tariff for vulnerable customers would make a difference right now. If it was implemented within this financial year, it would be the biggest game changer for the vulnerable people who have racked up monumental debt that they will never be able to pay back and that is costing the utilities companies lots of money in trying to recover it.”
“It is about all those things. Stephen Kerr: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Gillian Martin: I will not, because I feel that it would just take us back to Victorian Britain, where people like me did not do terribly well. I will set out my stall on some of the things that I think would make a genuine difference. There is no magic bullet—there must be a combination of things. Some members included ideas and reflections in their contributions. Fergus Ewing did that very much, as did Ben Macpherson. Here are some of my reflections. Decoupling the cost of gas and electricity would be a start. The more renewable electricity we generate, the cheaper it will be, then, potentially, more people will make the decision to heat their homes with electricity or to drive an electric car—to change over to electricity.”
“Gillian Martin: The thing is, however, that “presumption against” is two words; I will not go into this too much, but behind our energy policy— as well as behind the energy policies of Labour, the Greens and the Lib Dems—there is more nuance than that and there is more discussion. It is not about just those two words; it is about what we do and how we support people. It is about the money that we put forward to support people. It is about the £500 million that this Government gives to people in the supply chain to help them to fill their order books with renewables as well as oil and gas. It is about the training programmes that we put in place for people to upskill so that they can take advantage of new jobs if they are worried that their company might be leaving the North Sea because it is not economical to produce there any more.”
“Douglas Lumsden does a good line in tabloid headlines, but for anybody who is sitting at home worrying about whether there is a plan, was there enough in what he, in particular, said, or in what the other members on the Conservative benches said to make people think, “Well, I’ll vote Conservative, because they’ve got a plan”? Would they also have confidence that he and I could sit down and thrash out our differences on energy policy and arrive at a point of being able to make meaningful change? Douglas Lumsden: Maybe if this Government removed its presumption against new oil and gas we could work together.”
“Gosh! I almost do not know where to start. I have just written something down. What would people say who have been watching the debate and are finding it difficult to pay their bills or feeling that their money is just not stretching as far as it should? What would they make of members’ contributions to the debate? Would they think that the Parliament is the sort of place where solutions can be arrived at—where we can get together in a room and come up with plans for working across the devolved Governments, including our own, and the UK Government? Could we work across the parties? What would be the ratio of solutions that members have suggested to the number of insults and point-scoring remarks that they have made? Just as I was writing that, I was called a “left- wing radical”. I wonder what people would think of that?”
“It is all very well to say that the lowest-paid in Scotland have seen their taxes reduced to the tune of the princely sum of £2 a month, which I do not think will be of much use to them, but the fact is that middle-to-higher earners are being squeezed beyond their means, which is causing businesses in Scotland to be concerned about some aspects of recruitment and the increasing tax differential with the rest of the UK. I am quite sure that that is why the Deputy First Minister has expressed her concerns about the persistent rise in tax.”
“That should be a lesson for the Trump Administration, as we can see if we look at today’s papers, as the markets have had a considerable shake. It was that refusal to listen to the advice that was so unforgivable and did such damage to the UK economy at a critical time, but it did not mean—and it does not mean now—that the aspiration for economic growth was the wrong principle. That is where we took issue with the Scottish National Party’s recent budget, which entrenched the high-tax agenda without pointing to any signs of an ability to deliver better public services.”
“That is the reality that we have to understand when it comes to setting policies in this place. As Conservatives, we are always being criticised for being obsessed with economic growth, but I reject that criticism on two counts. Economic growth is essential because it leads to more jobs, better pay, lower poverty rates and better education, and because economic growth is essential to welfare and to a feel-good factor among businesses and industry. We are also criticised in relation to Liz Truss, and rightly so, but Liz Truss’s fault was not her aspiration to deliver economic growth; it was that she failed to take the advice of the financial institutions and to interpret the market trends correctly.”
“Liz Smith: We have put it on record that we support that. However, the key point that I am trying to get across is that we must have evidence of what works best. One of the reasons why such a tariff might work best is exactly the one that the cabinet secretary gave—it is levied at source. When it comes to the overall perspective on universal policies, we cannot afford to do everything that we would like to do. That is the point. To make judgments about what we should be doing, we must examine the evidence on effectiveness, but we must also look at the greatest vulnerability. That is the problem that the UK Labour Government is facing at the moment with welfare benefits, just as the Scottish Government is finding out that we cannot afford to do everything that we would like to do.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Liz Smith: I will in a minute. I say again that it is all very well having a social contract with the people of Scotland until we find that we cannot afford it and that, because it is a priority, other aspects of policy making cannot be undertaken. Gillian Martin: I hope that what I am about to say is helpful. We have been advocating for quite some time for there to be a social tariff for fuel bills. I believe that tackling the issue at source is the way to make long-term differences and to ensure that we do not have to put universal benefits in place to fill the gaps and mitigate the costs of electricity and gas and, indeed, of welfare cuts. However, I am not sure what the Scottish Conservatives’ position is on the idea of a social tariff at source for vulnerable consumers.”
“Acorn and the Scottish cluster are well placed to move rapidly on carbon capture and to make that a reality here in Scotland. We have the pipeline and sea-bed infrastructure and also have the expertise. The Climate Change Committee, which advises Governments across these islands, has said that it “cannot see a route to net zero that does not include” carbon capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage offers Scotland a significant economic opportunity. Our green industrial strategy identified the development of a self-sustaining CCS sector as one of the key opportunities for Scotland to realise the maximum possible economic benefit created by the global transition. We can also assist European neighbours who do not have the technology or capacity to store their carbon. Acorn would be a major boost for Scotland’s economy.”
“Audrey Nicoll: In their recent letter to the Chancellor, business leaders highlighted the UK Government’s repeated commitment to a just transition and the results of a recent economic impact study that concluded that, in advancing Acorn, the Scottish cluster would contribute £17.7 billion to UK economic output by 2050, creating almost 11,000 jobs during construction and sustaining 4,700 long-term operational roles. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if the UK Government is serious about providing a future for Grangemouth, reaching our emissions targets, boosting economic growth and improving energy security, it must end the uncertainty about energy policy and must provide clarity on the Acorn project as a matter of urgency? Gillian Martin: I thank Audrey Nicoll for another insightful question.”
“I completely agree that it is vital that the UK Government should now urgently provide clarity about the Acorn project, which is vital to supporting the decarbonisation of industry in Scotland, including at Grangemouth, and further afield. Acorn will protect and create jobs and, as pointed out by business leaders, make a significant contribution to Scotland’s economy, and it will unlock other projects and investment, not least in the north-east of Scotland and at the Grangemouth complex. It is a sound investment, not a cost, and will be critical in taking CO2 out of our processes and getting us to net zero while also capitalising on the opportunities that technology can give us.”
“Audrey Nicoll: As part of the Scottish cluster, Acorn will reuse existing energy infrastructure to transport captured CO2 emissions and store them beneath the North Sea. Without it, key industries, including energy, chemicals and manufacturing, face mounting costs, a loss of competitiveness and a major risk of job losses. Will the cabinet secretary say more about the environmental importance of the project and its critical economic importance to the north-east and to wider cluster partners across Scotland? Gillian Martin: Audrey Nicoll raises a lot of issues, not least the fact that any objective assessment of Acorn done in the past showed that it was best placed to get track status. Because of inaction, we have lost many years of opportunities to get Acorn off the ground.”
“The Scottish Government welcomes industry leaders urging the United Kingdom Government to make Acorn an immediate priority in order to unlock billions of pounds of investment, create thousands of jobs and decarbonise Scotland’s industry. The First Minister and I have had regular engagement with UK Government ministers and the Prime Minister on the matter specifically, and have impressed on them at every opportunity just how important Acorn is for Scotland’s environmental commitments and economic ambitions. Despite that engagement, there still has been no meaningful progress since July 2023, when the previous UK Government confirmed that Acorn was “best placed”. That delay is entirely unacceptable.”
“Cleaning up Scotland’s existing nuclear sites safely and securely is extremely expensive and will take many decades.”
“Nuclear generation has gone on in Scotland for some time, but for the future we have better sustainable energy options due to advances in renewables technology. The people who have staffed nuclear fission stations in Scotland—and those who continue to do so at Torness—have played a vital role in keeping Scotland’s lights on, and I thank them for that. The contribution of nuclear to electricity generation in Scotland is decreasing, however, and will continue to do so. Generation of electricity from nuclear fission presents a number of challenges—not the least of which is that nuclear generation creates a legacy of radioactive waste that will have to be managed for thousands of years, and requires complex and robust management to ensure the protection of people and the environment.”
“I am pleased to be opening today’s debate on rejection of new nuclear power plants in Scotland and the Scottish Government’s commitment to renewable energy. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out to the Parliament the Scottish Government’s continued opposition to new nuclear, while illustrating the exceptional opportunity that clean renewable energy presents for Scotland’s economy and energy security. At the outset, I take the opportunity to reiterate the Scottish Government’s position that we do not support the building of any new nuclear power stations in Scotland. Instead, our focus must be on accelerating the deployment of renewables technologies. To put it simply, renewables are safer, cheaper, faster to deploy and better for jobs than nuclear.”
“The first thing that I will do after the budget is— touch wood—passed this afternoon, once I know that the moneys are coming to the just transition fund, is to meet my officials to make sure that we get early engagement with the Grangemouth future industry board to talk about how that money can be deployed and the mechanisms that will be put in place for that. I will have a similar conversation with Ed Miliband, I hope very soon—I will be writing to him this afternoon—to discuss how the £200 million can work with that money.”
“As regards the moneys and what will be done with the £200 million and indeed the £90 million, including the £25 million just transition fund, I want to work with the Grangemouth future industry board and the UK Government on that, because they are critical. We have been working together for a good two years now on what needs to happen in the Grangemouth area. Our £25 million just transition fund will be deployed this year. We have a precedent in how the north-east and Moray just transition fund has worked and some of the projects that it has supported for oil and gas workers and, indeed, the supply chain.”