Daniel Johnson
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“When people feel threatened, they resort to violence. That is why I absolutely associate myself with the minister’s words. We must all take responsibility for our words and reflect on the current circumstances and situations.”
“We could forgive the Reform members for being inexperienced, but they have made this debate about them, so let us talk about them. I do not think that they do themselves any favours whatsoever.”
“Daniel Johnson: Were it only about the terminology that Reform is using, it would be one thing, but it is not. Let us look at some of the words used by Reform politicians, both here and in other places: calling for “cold rage”, describing our justice system as being “two tier” and describing recent migrants as being of “fighting age”.”
“Malcolm Offord opened the debate by saying that, through its motion, Reform rejects the SNP’s version of mediocrity. What was clear from the rest of his speech was that that is because he has his own very special version of mediocrity. The whole of Reform’s approach to the debate is summed up by the motion.”
“Likewise, on energy—we need to talk about what a sensible mix looks like, but, if you wrap yourself up in climate denialism, you absolutely delegitimise your argument. We do need to talk about migration. Did my party get it right when we opened up so quickly to accession countries? That should be debated.”
“Are these the politics that you want to enable and represent? [Interruption.] Thomas Kerr is laughing. If he thinks that violence in this city is funny, I am outraged— deeply outraged. He should think very carefully, because people in this city were injured.”
The complete record
Every one of 684 lines we hold for Daniel Johnson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 14.
“Yes, we need to build roads, but we also need to ensure that our roads are wide enough and have rest stops so that HGV drivers have secure places in which to park up. Ultimately, if we want goods to move from point A to point B around the country, we need those things.”
“Around 50 per cent of all Scotland’s salmon comes through Fort William. It then needs to be transported along the A82, on which, for large stretches, heavy goods vehicles have to have their wheels literally on the white line, and there is no space for two HGVs to pass each other along the way. Salmon is Scotland’s third biggest export, and it is going down a road that cannot have two HGVs passing each other—that is important. We need to understand that the issue of roads is not about choice or consumer decision—it is about how our economy connects up. Another important facet of the motion—which I agree with, but which Labour cannot support; I will come to that later—is that it is about the detail. I am pleased that the motion refers to “rest stops”, because that highlights some of what we need to get right.”
“It gives me great pleasure to open for Labour in the debate, given that I have acquired transport as part of my economy, business and fair work brief. I think that that is a good thing, because transport properly belongs in the economy brief. I always try to be collegiate in debates, and there are many things in the motion and all the amendments with which Labour can agree, but the most important is the idea that transport and the roads network are about connecting Scotland. Although there are things in the Conservative motion with which I disagree, the fundamental point about connectivity is clear. That point was brought home to me when I visited Fort William last summer. Many interesting things were brought to my attention during my visit, but this was the most important.”
“Before I discuss how Labour’s plans to introduce a 3p per mile fee on EVs will cripple rural EV drivers even further, I will consider those who have taken that leap of faith with the public charging network in the state that it is currently in. I would like Scottish ministers to focus on future proofing our EV charging network and ensuring that drivers can travel across Scotland with confidence. A charging infrastructure must be put in place if more people are to start using EVs. The current infrastructure is patchy and unreliable, and it fails to keep pace with demand.”
“That practical step would make a real difference to businesses and communities alike, and it is long overdue. I was about to say that it is common sense, but Jamie Hepburn is no longer in the chamber. Finally, we must look to the future. The UK Labour Government’s proposal for a pay-per-mile tax on electric and hybrid vehicles is of concern to me, because it risks undermining the transition to cleaner transport and penalising families and businesses who are trying to do the right thing. Labour has got that really wrong. I am glad to see in the Scottish National Party amendment that the cabinet secretary shares our concern about that.”
“The lack of secure and well-equipped facilities has serious consequences, including the fact that some of our heavy goods vehicle drivers are being forced to park in unsuitable or unsafe locations or to take long detours to find suitable facilities because they have to stop to rest—that is the law. Driver health and wellbeing suffer due to poor access to clean, safe hygiene facilities, healthy food and rest areas. The rate of freight crime is also rising, with lorries and cargo increasingly being targeted by organised criminals due to the absence of secure parking. By investing in safe facilities along our major routes, we can support the wellbeing of drivers, improve road safety and strengthen the supply chains that keep Scotland moving.”
“The logistics sector contributes £170 billion to the United Kingdom’s economy each year, and it is one of the UK’s largest employers, with more than 200,000 people employed in logistics roles in Scotland. However, its contribution to growth and the economy is unfortunately not always recognised, and drivers’ health, safety and wellbeing are not prioritised. Scotland faces a shortage of safe, high-quality, secure and well-equipped rest stops for trucks, particularly in the Highlands and rural areas, which, although geographically remote, play a vital role in the logistics and supply chain network.”
“I hear what the member is saying, and I totally accept the need for urgency, but it is not about passing laws; it is about planning and implementation. What does the member propose to do to help us get us better at planning and building roads, not only passing laws? Sue Webber: No one objects to the plans for the A9. Everyone is desperate for that road to be dualled—yet here we are. Improved connectivity is not only about tarmac and lanes; it is about ensuring that those who use our roads—particularly those in the logistics sector, which I will focus on—have the infrastructure that they need to operate safely and efficiently. Scotland’s haulage industry is vital to our economy.”
“Scotland has been disproportionately hit—I repeat the word “disproportionately”—by Brexit compared with other parts of the UK, which is why we face the challenges that we currently do. Manufacturing (Renewable Energy) 5.”
“The minister is doing an admirable job in defending the Government’s record, but the target is 25 per cent and exports fell from 22 per cent to 20 per cent last year. Worse than that, the figures show that exports to the rest of the UK have fallen by 10 per cent. What is the Government doing to help exporters to export to our biggest and most proximate market—the rest of the UK? Richard Lochhead: The member is quite right that the UK is a very important market to Scotland. We have more than £90 billion in exports, much of which goes to the rest of the UK, and there are a lot of international exports as well. We now have a six-point export plan to address some of the challenges.”
“The second conclusion is that part of the problem is the “significant reputational damage” that has been caused by the process of overseeing the two vessels. Although the third conclusion is that the committee “notes” the Scottish Government’s financial support, the fourth conclusion is that “urgent investment” is required to secure the yard’s future. I point members back to the second conclusion, on the reputational damage to the yard. Why did that reputational damage come about? It came about because the Scottish National Party Government used the yard as a political football for a political stunt. That politicisation is the exact reason for the reputational damage.”
“The report by Audit Scotland and the subsequent report by the Public Audit Committee are stark and emphatic, and Richard Leonard’s words emphasised that. We already know about the Government’s incompetence, which has led to years of suffering for island communities and to a £400 million bill being picked up by the taxpayer. That is why we have taken the unusual step of seeking to amend the motion. That is not something that would normally happen, but it is important, because the issues raised by the committee’s report are substantial. I urge members to read page 11 of the report, which lists the committee’s first four conclusions. The first conclusion is that the committee has “significant concerns” about the long-term financial sustainability of the yard.”
“With the right support and complementary reforms, the bill has the potential to significantly improve the lives of people and communities across Scotland. The Economy and Fair Work Committee supports the general principles of the bill and looks forward to receiving further detail from the Scottish Government ahead of stages 2 and 3, should the Parliament approve the principles of the bill at decision time. 15:17”
“Proposals included lowering the threshold for mandatory consideration of community benefits; raising the threshold for regulated procurement and allowing direct awards to local suppliers where community benefits are evident; prioritising social value in procurement scoring; and standardising procurement reporting, particularly in relation to SMEs. There were also calls to expand the definition of supported businesses to allow public bodies to restrict tenders by geography or company size; to streamline the asset transfer process and review the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015; and to strengthen powers of compulsory purchase and examine the possibility of the introduction of compulsory sale orders.”
“The FSB highlighted the importance of standardised reporting and, as has been noted, that measuring the value created for local small and medium-sized enterprises is critical to understanding how well community wealth building is being delivered. To support consistency in the sharing of best practice, the committee recommends a set of core common metrics to be agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and that those should sit alongside area-specific goals, allowing flexibility while enabling meaningful comparison. In addition to our recommendations for improving the bill, the committee heard that complementary reforms in other policy areas are essential to maximise the impact of the legislation. Stakeholders consistently highlighted that procurement reform is key to enabling community wealth building.”
“In our report, we highlight suggestions from witnesses and stakeholders for additional bodies that could usefully be included in the list. The bill does not specify how the impact of community wealth building action plans will be measured, leaving that to local authorities and their partners, as noted in the intervention taken by the minister. Witnesses emphasised the need for consistent, high-quality data, warning that without it, progress cannot be accurately assessed. I emphasise that that is not simply about the targets; it is about having consistent metrics, with the targets being set by the partnerships. Having consistent metrics will allow comparison across community wealth building plans.”
“Witnesses, including the Scottish Community Alliance, called for the bill to formally recognise third sector and community groups as being essential to delivery. The committee also received evidence regarding the need for mechanisms that enable direct citizen involvement in the development of community wealth building plans and approaches. The committee therefore recommends that guidance produced under the bill should set out a clear expectation for local authorities and partnerships to engage with the third sector, and I urge the Government to undertake further work on developing practical approaches for citizen engagement. I also note that the committee raised a question about the rationale for the selection of the specified bodies that are required to be consulted.”
“The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities echoed that concern, warning that, without proper funding, action plans risk becoming “a tick box exercise”. The bill has triggered a financial resolution acknowledging the significant expenditure involved. We also note the minister’s suggestion that some resources could be drawn from existing budgets. However, the committee remains concerned that, without additional support and consideration of the total additional effort that the legislation may require, inconsistent or limited delivery may result. Although community lies at the heart of the concept of community wealth building, the bill makes no reference to the community groups, third sector groups or private sector representatives in the partnerships. That omission was highlighted by many witnesses and respondents to our call for views.”
“Accordingly, the guidance must set out clear expectations—particularly around governance, co-ordination, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms—that encompass the public, private and third sector and, most importantly, local communities. To realise the full potential of community wealth building action plans, it is essential that local authorities and their partners are properly resourced to do so. Many witnesses expressed concern about the capacity of organisations that are already under great financial pressure to engage in the development and delivery of those plans. The City of Edinburgh Council told us that the financial memorandum presents “an incomplete picture” of the resources required.”
“The publication of a community wealth building statement and the establishment of partnerships by the Scottish Government are welcome steps, but they are only part of the solution. Throughout our evidence gathering, the importance of there being clear, detailed and practical guidance under section 9 of the bill was repeatedly emphasised. To ensure consistent adoption of guidance, it must help local authorities and partnerships to understand the objectives and the means of achieving them. Crucially, the guidance must address capacity challenges in local authorities, partner organisations and community groups. As Matt Pearce from Development Trusts Association Scotland warned, without that support, community wealth building risks becoming a burdensome and disengaging process.”
“However, the committee heard from some who felt that legislation might not be necessary to achieve the aims that are stated in the bill and that alternative measures, such as ministerial guidance or direction, could be used to achieve the same aims. Some also felt that new powers and additional metrics could be added to the bill to strengthen its aims. The committee heard from some, including Neil McInroy, the chair of the Economic Development Association Scotland, that a legislative approach such as the one used in the bill contains a clear “obligation to act” and ensures involvement from across the public sector, and therefore is of benefit. Generally, the committee supports the measures in the bill, but we believe that in some areas they could be strengthened and extended.”
“Community wealth building is a proven economic development tool that aims to retain wealth within local communities, to foster engagement and cohesion and, ultimately, to enrich the lives of residents. As the committee heard, many local authorities across Scotland have already begun implementing community wealth building measures, either on their own account or as part of the Scottish Government’s pilot. The bill seeks to formalise the approach to ensure the adoption of community wealth building as a model of economic development across the country. As members will have seen from our report, the Economy and Fair Work Committee is supportive of that general aim.”
“I am delighted to speak on behalf of the Economy and Fair Work Committee in the stage 1 debate on the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill. I apologise for not being in Parliament in person. I acknowledge the receipt of the letter from the minister, which he mentioned and which we received this afternoon. I thank everyone who responded to our call for views and the witnesses who gave evidence during our stage 1 scrutiny. I extend my thanks to those who enabled our visits to Alloa and Irvine, which provided invaluable local and practical insights. I also acknowledge the previous work by the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, on whose work we also relied.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. I understand that, on a motion without notice, the Presiding Officer can extend any period of debate, including a question session. Given that a very specific question has not been answered, I wonder whether you might consider accepting such a motion at this time so that a further question can be put. The Presiding Officer: We are currently within the time that we have available today. As we have not yet gone over that time, I am content that we continue to use it. I call”
“Lorna Slater made an interesting point in that regard. Too often, I have at my door parents and carers who are frustrated by the system when it has not worked for their child or young person. We need to resolve those matters. We need to recognise where the powers rest, which is at local authority level, but we also need to provide clearer national direction in that regard. I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer. I praise our young people and their teachers for the hard work that goes on every day in our schools and for their achievements. In short, we must give our schools hope. Some of the speeches that we heard this afternoon provide us with the necessary impetus to that end. 17:10”
“I am very much encouraged by the cabinet secretary’s points about data. Will she reflect on Lorna Slater’s point about co-ordinated support plans, which are used much less frequently than their equivalents in England? Pupils with additional support needs need a plan, but co-ordinated support plans are currently applied only if they co- ordinate delivery of support from beyond the school. Is that not a flaw? Jenny Gilruth: I hear Daniel Johnson’s point— Lorna Slater made a similar point. We have debated the issue at the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Co-ordinated support plans carry a statutory responsibility that other plans do not. There is often a reticence at local authority level to use CSPs because they are statutory, but we will consider that in the wider review.”
“That is the problem. Scotland is bursting with ambition and potential, but our broken skills system is letting people down and holding the country back. Too many people with talent and aptitude do not have access to the training and opportunities that they need. Youth unemployment is rising, skill shortages are endemic and, across the economy, levels of in- work training are plummeting. That results in businesses whose growth is held back and an economy that is stifled. Most importantly and tragically, it results in individuals being denied opportunities and, indeed, better wages. That is because the Government has failed to prioritise skills for several sessions of Parliament.”
“[Interruption.] Apologies, Presiding Officer. There were some odd flashing lights on my console— hence my swift manoeuvre. I have a speech prepared, but I first want to reflect on the evidence that we took this morning at the Economy and Fair Work Committee, which is carrying out a short inquiry on artificial intelligence. We were told this morning that we have a three-to-five-year period after which we face the very real prospect of billion-dollar businesses with a single employee. We heard that the level of change in the way in which we organise and run businesses will also apply to public administration, and that we need to get the workforce ready now. We have three to five years, yet the Government is embarking on the sort of bureaucratic reorganisation that might take three to five years before we can even get going.”
“In relation to Professor Muscatelli’s report, although we are always open to new ideas, there are many issues over which we do not have control in this Parliament, such as transmission charges and other factors that influence how such major infrastructure projects are rolled out across the country. There is also the issue of the related community benefits. In theory, we would always want to support such ideas, but we do not have all the tools in the box that we would require to ensure that the process was done properly. Ferguson Marine (Payments) 3.”
“The minister alluded to the fact that many of Scotland’s biggest economic opportunities are in its most remote places. One of the ideas in Professor Anton Muscatelli’s recent report on regional economic growth is that we need to have strategic master plans, which would address some of the legacy issues that Jamie Halcro Johnston asked about. Is it time to look at such measures to ensure that we have a lasting legacy in infrastructure such as housing when investments such as the ones that have been mentioned take place? Richard Lochhead: We are always open to new ideas. A major economic transformation is under way in the Highlands at the moment, which will create many well-paid, good jobs across the whole of that part of the country.”
“That engagement has regularly revealed a concern, which is cited by all the businesses, about the impact of high energy costs. It is well accepted by members across the chamber that overly high energy costs and the competitive disadvantage that is created across the UK by those high energy costs are having a detrimental impact, particularly for industries that are energy intensive. I hope that my answer responds to those three questions. I am sure that there will be further engagement in the weeks to come.”
“Kate Forbes: On the question about trade union engagement, I engaged with GMB and Unite this afternoon between 2 pm and 3 pm, and tonight I will rush from the vote at decision time to re-engage with them at approximately 6.30 pm. I have had a specific conversation with the company about the site. It is important that we are able to work constructively with the company to fully understand what some of the site’s challenges and opportunities are. Daniel Johnson also talked about this decision not being an isolated incident and about our wider engagement with the chemicals industry. He will appreciate from previous statements that I have given in the Parliament that we are engaging extensively with the chemicals industry.”
“What dialogue has she had with trade unions about the workforce and any redeployment and retraining possibilities? Secondly, the site is 40 years old but had a lifespan of only 20 years. What discussions have taken place over recent years, not just recent weeks, about the long-term viability of the site, given that it is 20 years beyond its designed use? Finally, this situation is not isolated. We are 26 years on from peak oil and the chemicals industry is dependent on the oil and gas sector. What plans does the Scottish Government have or seek to have regarding the wider chemicals industry in Scotland? The Presiding Officer: I remind all members of the requirement that their camera should be on and that contributions in the chamber should not ordinarily be made only by audio.”
“I agree with the Deputy First Minister’s opening remark that the decision is devastating news for the workers and the wider community that will be impacted by it in Fife. However, the decision must be viewed in the wider context of the global challenges to ExxonMobil’s revenues and the global restructuring decisions that it is making, including the recent closure of its chemicals plant in France. I understand that UK ministers have actively been trying to engage with the company for many months. However, the only proposals that came forward would have left the taxpayer on the hook for millions of pounds without any route to profitability. I will ask the Deputy First Minister the following questions. First, she made no mention of trade unions. I understand that Unite and GMB have significant memberships on site.”
“However, the bottom line is that, on ScotZEB 3, Fiona Hyslop updated the parliamentary committee last week and, considering the level of discussion that we are all having about supporting Scottish industry, I can assure the member that we are doing everything within our powers and within the law to ensure that we support Scottish industry. I am always open to ideas and suggestions from across the chamber, but I can assure the member and others that we have taken a very proactive approach to how we use procurement to support Scottish industry.”
“We are still engaging and having conversations with the UK Government on subsidy control legislation. Changes to the Subsidy Control Act 2022 are not likely to unlock an ability to place bus orders with Alexander Dennis, because buses are typically purchased by bus operating companies, which are not normally subject to public procurement or subsidy control law. Section 17 of the 2022 act prohibits subsidies from being given that are contingent on “the use of domestic over imported goods or services”. In our engagement with the UK Government, we are looking at how community benefit criteria can be defined and some of the points that I have shared with Meghan Gallacher.”
“Given that a third round of ScotZEB is coming forward, what re-examination of the accommodations in the 2022 act has the Scottish Government undertaken, and what work has it done to redesign the grant scheme to enable more money to go to domestic producers? Kate Forbes: On our level of insight and confidence, I assure the member that we remain extremely close to the conversations that are being held with the company. I mentioned the conversation that the First Minister and I had as recently as Thursday evening on these matters. It is extremely helpful for us to understand the level of engagement. I note that the company today issued correspondence to its workforce to continue to provide a level of reassurance. There is also engagement with the unions—I hear directly from them about how the workforce is feeling, a few weeks into furlough.”
“I welcome the opportunity to ask questions about this incredibly important topic. The Deputy First Minister said that she could not provide detail on specific orders. However, given that we are a third of the way through the process and that the furlough scheme is contingent on orders coming forward, will she at least tell us what level of insight the Scottish Government has been provided with? Does she share the firm’s confidence that those orders are in train? Secondly, during the summer, there was correspondence from the Cabinet Office that pointed out that social value criteria can be used in relation to the Subsidy Control Act 2022.”
“It is pretty obvious that the Opposition in this Parliament cannot cope when anything good is said about Scotland or about the performance of the Scottish Government. This is a day for Scotland to be proud of our economic track record. Income Tax 5.”
“Of course, there are structural inequalities in the United Kingdom in terms of economic activity and wealth, which the Scottish Government is trying to counter with the limited powers of devolution. We could do more with the powers of independence, which would give us more scope to act in that respect. What should be causing much more cheer and optimism in the Parliament today is the reports of the credit rating agencies, which demonstrate that Scotland has a large and well-diversified economy that supports tax-generation capacity. They also demonstrate that we have governance that has a positive impact on the credit rating, stemming from good budgeting practices, a supportive institutional framework and a good fiscal track record.”
“In particular, does he agree with the detail in the Audit Scotland report that there has been a failure to focus on policies that could grow earnings and wages in Scotland? After all, that is not only right for the Scottish economy; it is also right for Scottish workers, is it not? The First Minister: There are several points in what Daniel Johnson has said to me. In relation to the question of wealth generation, since 2007, under this Government, gross domestic product per person in Scotland has grown by 10.2 per cent, compared with growth of 6.8 per cent in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, productivity has grown at an average rate of 0.9 per cent per year in Scotland, compared with the UK average of 0.3 per cent. That debunks the point that Mr Johnson has put to me.”
“I welcome the interest in this important report from Scotland’s leading economist Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli, which was commissioned by Scottish Labour. Let us try having a supplementary that is actually on the detail of the report. The report comes out in the same week as an Audit Scotland report identified that the Scottish Government has £1.1 billion less to spend because earnings are growing less quickly in Scotland than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the First Minister agree with the observation in both Muscatelli’s report and Audit Scotland’s report that there has been a failure to identify the substantial economic levers that are available to the Scottish Government, and to march with them?”
“That process is under way, but it has not yet concluded. As much as I understand why people on both sides of the argument believe that the debate is important, and that it is vital that we grant consent only if the proposals are compatible with environmental impact assessments and our transition to net zero, we must have due process and genuine assessment. Anyone who argues that we should short circuit that process is arguing against the very interests that they claim to support. We need a plan, which is what the UK Labour Government has brought forward with GB Energy and investment. Ultimately, what we need is a just transition—Katy Clark is absolutely right. We have never had one before, but we absolutely need one now. 15:48”
“The UK Government is committed to upholding previous consents, but that consent was flawed and found by a court to have been given in error, according to the law. The consent had not taken fully into account the environmental impact assessments. That process is currently under way. Members on the Conservative benches made reference to the environmental impact assessment, but the public consultation for that does not close until 20 November. It is important that we have due process that provides stability for investment. Let us be clear that we will need investment if we are to continue to extract hydrocarbons—which everyone acknowledges that we will do—but we cannot have a regime that chops and changes. We also need a regime that has environmental impact assessments at its heart, which is what the UK Government has now brought in.”
“As a number of members have pointed out, importing gas comes with a substantially higher carbon footprint than using our domestic supply. It cannot be a case of either/or—we must have balanced production and a pathway to net zero. We cannot simply cut off the taps and have a higher carbon footprint— Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: If it is brief. Douglas Lumsden: I agree that it should not be a case of one thing or the other, but Labour’s ban on new licences is making it one thing or the other. Does the member not accept that the ban on new licences means that we will have to import more oil and gas? Daniel Johnson: We are talking about the Rosebank application, so let us use that as an opportunity to look at the issue. The Rosebank application was consented to by the previous Government.”
“First, as I have said in the chamber before, an assessment by Wood Mackenzie shows that 90 per cent of our extractable resources have already been extracted—on a more generous assessment, the figure is 70 per cent. We would have to transition whether we liked it or not—whether the climate emergency was with us or not—but it is with us, which adds to the urgency with which we must act. Secondly, we need to recognise that, currently, we are massively reliant on hydrocarbons, and that that reliance will not go away. That was acknowledged by the Greens when they opened the debate. In heating our homes with gas, we use four times as much energy as we do with electricity. Getting off gas will be incredibly difficult.”
“I thank the Greens for lodging the motion, because it is important that we treat the climate emergency with the urgency that it deserves, and that we continue to scrutinise the decisions that we make in that context and consider the progress that we are making towards net zero, because the solution is not easy or straightforward, and, unfortunately, it is not about binary choices. In some ways, I wish that it were, but it is about a just transition to net zero. Each of the words in that phrase is incredibly important, and that is what we have heard this afternoon. However, for those who want to resist the drive towards net zero, it is important to have two very important reality checks.”
“Profits from an oil field in Scotland’s waters could financially benefit a company that is linked to human rights violations against the Palestinian people. That would be just three months after we voted for a package of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel and companies that are complicit in the occupation. For all those reasons—complicity with occupation and war crime, betrayal of Scotland’s economic interests and the extraordinary scale of climate destruction—the Parliament must vote to oppose the Rosebank field. I move, That the Parliament opposes the development of the Rosebank oil and gas field. 15:05”
“Indeed, the truth that Equinor and UK ministers want to hide is that Rosebank will, in essence, redistribute wealth away from the public purse and investment in Scotland’s renewable futures and towards wealthy fossil fuel giants. If all that is still not enough to bring Scottish National Party ministers off the fence, perhaps the fact that Rosebank profits will actively fund some of those who are operating illegally in the occupied Palestinian territories will be the final straw. Equinor’s minority partner in developing Rosebank is Ithaca Energy, which is majority owned by the Delek Group—an Israeli fuel conglomerate that is operating in the occupied territories and has been flagged for potential human rights breaches. If Rosebank is developed, the Delek Group is expected to receive about £253 million in revenue from the field.”
“All told, the development is expected to add £250 million to the UK Treasury’s black hole. It will not help households with rising energy bills. Ninety per cent of Rosebank’s reserves will be exported, mostly to the European continent. Even the portions that are sold here will be subject to prices set on the open market, so what we pay to heat our homes will be unchanged. Rosebank is very far from a silver bullet for the North Sea workforce. With the whole North Sea basin in decline, as has been pointed out, the number of jobs has already dropped by a staggering 40 per cent. The decline is terminal, as research for the Scottish Government has shown. The only way to give the workers of the North Sea a secure future is to support them to use their skills to build Scotland’s renewables future.”