Jamie Halcro Johnston
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“I know that colleagues from across the chamber will miss his consideration of and commitment to the issues that he was most passionate about. Beatrice Wishart, too, will be giving her last speech, and I particularly thank her for all her efforts on the CPG on islands, for making it the success that it has been and for the strong voice tha…”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business. I thank all those who have signed today’s motion, allowing me to bring the debate to the chamber.”
“Meanwhile, the ferries crisis continues, with the Scottish National Party Government coming face to face with the consequences of two decades of neglect, while islands and ferry-dependent communities pay the price.”
“There, too, costs for operators in the visitor economy are escalating, while the Government sees this as a good time to impose more regulation and more tax. In addition to economic woes, small rural communities are increasingly seeing services moved further away.”
“[Laughter.] However, I have served with John on committees, most recently the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and I know how diligent he has been in conducting the vital scrutiny required of MSPs. Last but not least, the cabinet secretary will be giving her last speech, too.”
“That has practical consequences—whether it is the young family facing another year of being unable to afford a permanent home for their children; the small business owner who seems to be sacrificing more than she gains, but who keeps going; the working person who is trying to make ends meet; or the older person on a fixed income who is af…”
The complete record
Every one of 429 lines we hold for Jamie Halcro Johnston, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 9.
“However, given the time that it has taken, in many ways, the bill falls short in addressing the many pressing issues in the crofting sector. My colleague Finlay Carson detailed some of the issues and the background to the bill. Speaking on behalf of the committee, he outlined some important parts of its report. As the report recognises, there is an appetite for deeper and more fundamental reforms to the sector. That will, of course, be an issue for the new session of Parliament following this year’s elections. It would be difficult to bring all the issues that the committee has raised into the scope of a short speech, but I am sure that we all hope that its recommendations are reflected in the Scottish Government’s future work.”
“That is particularly important in relation to the environmental provisions, where we should hope to see credible outcomes. As the stage 1 report illustrated, plenty of organisations have outlined where those provisions may provide opportunities for neglect or adverse effects. Confidence will be increased not simply by pointing to the protections in the bill but by clear assurances that those possible outcomes will be actively monitored. The bill will strengthen the powers of the Crofting Commission. However, it is essential that those powers are put to good use, that oversight is exercised sensibly and, ultimately, that the purposes and functions of the Crofting Commission are clear and unambiguous, with a solid mandate to act when that is necessary. We will support the bill at stage 1.”
“If crofting is to maintain its relevance, it cannot remain frozen in time. The Scottish Government has indicated that this bill is a foundation and one that, in the words of the minister, aims to prepare “the ground for what comes next.” That has been the subject of a great deal of discussion and reflection in the crofting communities. However, it is the hope of members, certainly on this side of the chamber, that the bill has measurable outcomes in its own right and that the Scottish Government can demonstrate progress if the bill is passed by the Parliament. That is not just about increasing occupancy and ensuring purposeful use, or reducing the occasions on which enforcement powers have to be used; it is about ensuring that the novel elements in the bill are closely examined and reviewed.”
“I declare an interest as a partner in a farming partnership, a member of Scottish Land & Estates and a crofting landlord. We have heard a great deal today about the history of crofting and, from all sides of the chamber, about the role that crofting still plays, particularly in some of our most remote and rural communities, many of which are in my Highlands and Islands region. However, the crofting of today is not the crofting of 1886, when, as we have heard, the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 went through Parliament, and nor is it even the crofting of 1993, when the most recent attempt was made to consolidate crofting legislation in a more coherent framework. There has been an on- going process of change, mirroring the process of change to other types of land tenure and to the agriculture sector. That is the right approach.”
“It is an opportunity for members across the chamber to speak together with one voice as team Scotland and to demand a better deal for our fishing and coastal communities. The decision cannot stand, and it must be revisited. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, minister. I congratulate members on making it through to the 2025 finishing line. I wish you, those in the public gallery and all staff in the Parliament a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Meeting closed at 14:46. Correction Kaukab Stewart has identified an error in her contribution and provided the following correction.”
“That is entirely within the UK minister’s gift. Those are not immovable rules. The fact that the UK Government is choosing not to do so speaks volumes. The disproportionate allocation of funding comes at a time when the Scottish fishing industry is dealing with multiple pressures, from the agreement to extend European Union access to Scottish waters to the inevitable impacts that are being placed on cod and mackerel quotas. I am running out of time, so I will finish by saying that the UK ministers have the power to change their approach to the fund if they so choose. I urge Labour members to put the needs of the Scottish industry first. They have a choice today: they can stand up to Keir Starmer and join us in standing up for Scotland.”
“Parliamentarians learned today of the emergency measures that the cabinet secretary has announced. Can the minister tell me when that decision was signed off? Jim Fairlie: I am sorry, but I could not hear that. Could the member say that again? Jamie Halcro Johnston: We learned today, through a Government-initiated question, about the decision to take emergency measures. Can the minister tell the Parliament when the cabinet secretary signed off that decision? Jim Fairlie: I do not have that information to hand. What I can say, to return to the point that I was making, is that there is sufficient flexibility within the statement of funding policy for the United Kingdom Government to take a different approach to the fund—one that respects the size and importance of Scotland’s industry and that reflects precedent.”
“Mairi Gougeon: I recognise how important our basic infrastructure is when it comes to the retention of populations in rural areas and in island communities. I just listed some areas. Housing is another area of critical infrastructure— Jamie Halcro Johnston: Transport? Mairi Gougeon: —but I recognise that transport is, too, as I have highlighted previously to the member. I am happy to raise the points that the member has mentioned today with my Cabinet colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and to issue a further response to him.”
“The cabinet secretary did not mention transport, but the report referenced “patchy” and “inadequate” transport having an effect on depopulation. That is certainly something that communities that are reliant on the Corran ferry will recognise, with both vessels currently out of service. This morning, I was contacted by an angry constituent who said that the area was struggling, with supplies and services affected. They also raised concerns that care support for the elderly is being affected by carers who rely on the ferry. Will the cabinet secretary raise that issue with her Cabinet colleagues and her Scottish National Party colleagues on Highland Council and press them to reconsider the costly electric ferry option and ask them to look again at a replacement conventional ferry?”
“I know that the provision was taken out of the bill, but is it generally the case that such statements have nothing to do with sentencing? I think that Richard—oh, I have forgotten his other name.”
“When I met Maurice Golden ahead of stage 1, I made it clear that the Scottish Government required the removal of that provision in order to support the bill, which he acted on at stage 2. That also reflected the committee’s recommendation in the stage 1 report that the provision be removed— a recommendation that was made in light of general concerns about the appropriateness of the approach. Christine Grahame: [Made a request to intervene.] Siobhian Brown: Can I get the time back, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: If the intervention is brief. Christine Grahame: I honestly do not know the answer to this question. As I understand it, a victim impact statement does not do anything to the sentencing at the end of the day.”
“The expert advisory group is now also considering the helper dog definition issue. Although we are not progressing with legislation in this parliamentary session, work has started on that for the next session. I will touch on victim statements, which have been raised. The bill as drafted would have allowed people who are victims of a dog theft to give a victim impact statement to the court, and that would have applied to any court. Although the Scottish Government is sympathetic on the issue, victim impact statements are currently available for certain solemn offences only. The bill, as drafted, would have specifically included the new offence of dog theft in summary cases so that, in order to inform sentencing, a victim could express to the court the impact that the crime had on them physically, emotionally and financially.”
“The summit was an opportunity to bring together attendees from a wide range of organisations, including Police Scotland, local authorities and veterinary bodies as well as public health and third sector organisations, to consider how dog control and public safety can be improved. My colleague Christine Grahame was also in attendance. The summit’s key outcome was the Scottish Government’s establishment of an expert advisory group to look at the various issues that were raised and to help to determine what can be progressed in the short, medium and long term. A number of sub-groups of the expert advisory group have now been set up to look at specific areas of work, such as enforcement and resources; dog welfare; prevention, education and communication; data to inform and support dog control policy; and health service data.”
“Although the Scottish Government had concerns about aspects of the bill when it was introduced, Mr Golden lodged stage 2 amendments on those aspects to ensure that the Scottish Government could support it. I will come to some of the points that have been raised throughout the debate. A few members mentioned consolidation of legislation in the next parliamentary session. I have responsibility for dangerous dogs, and animal welfare is under Minister Fairlie. With that in mind, last September, we hosted a responsible dog ownership summit, because we believe that more can be done to improve public safety by ensuring that dogs are responsibly acquired, owned and looked after. The Scottish Government is always open to considering carefully any evidence-based suggestions to help to improve people’s safety.”
“We all appreciate that the bill can go only so far and achieve only so much, and the bill’s critics are by no means entirely wrong or misguided. Much more is needed than legislative change, and the direct gain from the bill might be smaller than we might like. However, I hope that it can help to drive a shift in our institutions’ culture towards treating dog theft with the seriousness that it deserves. The Parliament, in its role not only as a legislative body but as a forum for the nation, will also be sending a strong message that this sort of crime should not and will not be tolerated. 15:53 Siobhian Brown: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. As I made clear in my opening remarks, I have welcomed the constructive and helpful meetings that I have had with Mr Golden since stage 1 to discuss the bill.”
“One of the most pressing remaining issues with the bill, should it be passed and receive royal assent, is that of what resources will be available to publicise and enforce the new law. I hope that the Scottish Government and relevant agencies will make that part of their work once the new offence is in place. I commend Maurice Golden, his staff and all those who have been involved in bringing the bill to this stage. Any dog owner will attest to the fact that it has been an important issue to champion and, as any victim of dog theft will know, Maurice Golden is tackling a terrible evil. It seems that the Parliament accepts and recognises the main issue that dog theft is different from normal theft in category rather than just degree, and that such a difference ought to be recognised consistently.”
“Cats have staff.”—[Official Report, 2 October 2025; c 87.] At stage 1, Richard Leonard made an impassioned plea on behalf of his constituent about dog attacks on other dogs, and he pointed to the public position on the subject. Such attacks can be devastating for dogs and owners alike and can leave owners with enormous costs for treatment. Unfortunately, there have been many examples of people not taking proper precautions to prevent dog attacks, and a considerable gap exists in how the law addresses those. Elena Whitham made some very insightful, powerful and concerning points about the role that pets can play as a tool of domestic abuse and coercive control.”
“I acknowledge the position that summary offences that are equally serious would not have provision for victim statements to be used. Although I accept that that is the cost of securing the Scottish Government’s support, that provision could have been a powerful tool to emphasise the deeply personal and emotional elements of the offence, as highlighted by other members, and to inform sentencing decisions. There are a number of other worthy elements that members may wish to have seen added to the bill rather than subtracted from it. Protection for other animals was high on the list. Cats were most obviously mentioned, although, given the freedom to wander, for practical purposes, they are quite different from dogs. Christine Grahame put it best when she said: “Dogs have owners.”
“As others have mentioned, the bill is different from the one that we were faced with at stage 1. In the stage 1 debate, I argued, alongside others, for the positive role that victim statements could play in relation to the proposed offence, as highlighted by Richard Leonard. At that point, it was already clear that there was no obvious route to the provision gaining Scottish Government support, and it has been removed from the bill that is before us today. That is disappointing, because the inclusion of victim statements was a positive measure that seemed to earn widespread support in the chamber. It now appears to have fallen victim to expediency—specifically, the Scottish Government’s view that, in the words of the minister, “at this point”, it did not wish to address the introduction of victim statements in summary cases.”
“I had the opportunity back in October to speak in support of the bill and in recognition of the hard work of my colleague Maurice Golden and others at stage 1. As Christine Grahame rightly says, Maurice Golden will be missed in this place, although his humour— judging by the start of his speech—might not be missed quite so much. I am pleased that the bill has reached this stage, and I sincerely hope that, at the end of the day, it will complete its progress through the Parliament, as it sounds like it will. A key component in the bill advancing is the Scottish Government’s support for the creation of a distinct dog theft offence. That is welcome, and I largely commend the minister for the way in which the Government has engaged with the process and helped to create a level of cross-party consensus.”
“Tim Eagle: I say to Mr Halcro Johnston that anybody who votes for the SSI tonight is, in my opinion, mad, because, given that what the SNP Government said that it would deliver and what it actually has delivered are so far apart, they could not possibly be brought together. It is crazy to vote for that. Suddenly, in this SSI, under the new greening rules, if someone has more than 15 hectares of arable or even temporary grassland, they will have to set aside 5 per cent, which is soon to be 7 per cent. I have no idea why it is 7 per cent—we have just plucked that out of thin air.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of interests, which shows that I am a partner in a farming business and a member of NFU Scotland. The SNP’s changes to greening support and removal of exemptions will, as an Orkney farmer told me, have one hell of an impact on our island farmers and crofters, putting additional costs and burdens on them. It is absolutely right that the Scottish Conservatives are voting against the SSI tonight, but does Tim Eagle agree that any MSP who represents island communities that are impacted by the changes should vote against the SSI this evening?”
“Will the Scottish Government move on from acknowledging its failings and actually do something to fix them? Will it stop the excuses, stop the delays and get the A9 dualled? 16:27”
“Although I have focused on some of the main routes in my region, I also want to highlight a common frustration for my constituents about the state of their local roads, particularly in the Highland Council area. I have been forced to advocate on behalf of constituents who have literally been left stuck in their homes because of the state of local roads, including dangerous potholes that have left the roads unusable for all but those who drive four-by-fours. I recognise that Government procurement is not straightforward, but the SNP has presided over a system in which progress has slowed almost to a standstill. Meanwhile, our road network continues to be a barrier to development and, in cases such as the A9, people continue to lose their lives. The Scottish Conservatives are seeking to make a difference.”
“I hope that we all want the Highlands and Islands, and other remote and rural communities across Scotland, to succeed and prosper, but that will not happen while infrastructure investment remains a reluctant affair that is dragged out in time and cost and, ironically, is subject to both too much consultation and too little attention to local needs. As covered in our motion, I reiterate my opposition to the UK Labour Government’s planned imposition of a pay-per-mile tax for electric and hybrid vehicles. Although I want those new technologies to make their contribution to supporting our roads network, such a move is likely to be the thin end of the wedge, which, if successful, would lead to a pay-per-mile tax being rolled out for all vehicles. That would hammer communities in rural areas, where we need our cars just to get about.”
“Commitments to dualling the A96, which is another important road in my region, are equally neglected by the Scottish Government. I note that the Government amendment includes the term “dualling” in relation to that road. Now that the Government has finally accepted that it failed to do that as promised, it is at least some encouragement that it has started using the term “dualling” rather than the mealy-mouthed terms “improvement” and “upgrade” that it has been using for the past few years. The A9, however, is totemic of the Government’s failure, not just in relation to keeping its promises but in relation to the neglect of whole areas of Scotland.”
“It is one thing to fail to live up to the promise of dualling when we can count the cost in terms of pounds and pence, but it is quite another when we can count the cost in the number of lives lost and families left mourning the loss of loved ones. Too many people have died on that road, especially in the past decade. In 2022 alone, there were 12 fatalities on the single-carriageway stretches. I hope that that statistic silences those who think that piecemeal upgrades have been sufficient. Every regular user of the road knows that that is not the case. Although we will never make every road in Scotland entirely safe, dualling the A9 would make a massive difference. The SNP promised to do that, but it has not. The issue is, of course, far broader than one road.”
“That failure was one of the reasons why, almost 20 years ago—it feels longer now—Murdo Fraser and I launched the Scottish Conservatives’ campaign to dual the A9. We recognised that, for economic, social and safety reasons, the A9, which served as the backbone of Scotland and was an arterial route like no other, needed dualling between Inverness and Perth. The motion makes the economic case for connectivity, and there can be few more powerful mechanisms for creating wealth and driving improvements in living standards. However, with the A9 in particular, we must remember the other considerations. In 2007, the SNP said that it accepted the case that dualling the A9 would save lives.”
“I have been travelling along the A9 for more than 50 years. I just about remember the days when my family would drive on winding country roads, through the main streets of small towns and villages, as we rushed to catch a ferry across the Beauly Firth to North Kessock and headed up to catch another ferry at Scrabster. Although it took hours to get anywhere in those days, real improvements were then made, with new bridges, dualling and upgrades along the length of that road, largely because of the actions of a Conservative UK Government. However, that progress stalled under devolution. I am sorry that Daniel Johnson could not take my intervention, because I would have highlighted that, in the eight years of the Labour-Lib Dem Scottish Executive, it failed to dual even one mile of the A9 between Inverness and Perth.”
“I move amendment S6M-20057.3, to leave out from “; urges” to end and insert: “and the progress being made to deliver the completion of the A9 dualling in 2035 specifically; further recognises that both public and private funding has been used to support the development of the trunk road network, including the use of private finance for the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route/Balmedie-Tipperty and the M8, M74 and M73 motorway improvements, and that private finance will continue to play a role in the future; notes that the Union Connectivity Review, undertaken by Lord Peter Hendy on behalf of the previous UK Conservative administration, recognised the contribution that the A75 makes in linking the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland; urges the UK Government to match the previous UK Conservative administration’s funding commitment for the A75; notes the improvements undertaken by the Scottish Government to the A77, including the Maybole Bypass; welcomes the ongoing constructive work between the Scottish Government and the A77 Campaign Group and South West Transport Alliance; supports the full dualling of the A96, beginning with the Inverness to Nairn section, along with delivery of the Inshes to Smithton Link Road, as part of the Inverness and Highland City Region Deal; agrees that improved connections across Scotland can be enhanced through the provision of more safe and secure rest stops, particularly for the logistics sector; rejects the UK Government’s planned imposition of a pay-per-mile tax for electric and hybrid vehicles, regretting the ill-thought-out and counter-productive proposal, which will be bad for the climate and for rural Scotland in particular; agrees that the switch to EV cars and the provision of public and at-home EV infrastructure will be vital to Scotland meeting its climate change targets, and calls on the UK Government to engage in four nations discussions on motoring taxation reform to support a properly planned transition to EV car use.” 16:10”
“We are committed to maintaining the strength and integrity of VETS, and it is clear that any weakening of that will risk slowing progress towards our carbon budgets. If we are to have a sensible transition to EV car use, the UK Government needs to engage the four nations properly on reform of motor taxation, as I have regularly asked of previous Conservative and current UK Government ministers. In conclusion, despite facing significant demands on our capital budget, this Government has delivered, and will continue to deliver, infrastructure improvements to enhance connectivity, decarbonise road transport and promote sustainable economic growth for the people of Scotland.”
“Given that, I will continue to press the new UK Government to provide additional funding for improvements to the A75. Briefly, on EV charges, I am not sure whether Sue Webber is aware that the UK Government is responsible for the standards for the public charging network. Indeed, it introduced regulations on the matter in December last year. The Scottish Government has worked collaboratively to support the introduction of the vehicle emissions trading scheme with the UK Government. It is four-nations legislation with annual targets that chart a path towards battery electric vehicle uptake, and it remains the most significant tool that we have to reduce road transport emissions.”
“We are pressing forward with work to determine the most suitable procurement option for delivering the scheme, as well as the adjacent Inshes to Smithton link road. I had constructive discussions, as reported by the Ayr Advertiser, on 2 November this year with the A77 campaign group, and separately with the south-west transport alliance and the A75 campaign group. We have a firm plan for the improvements that we want to make on both routes, as is set out in the strategic transport projects review 2, and those are now progressing. The union connectivity review made it clear that the majority of the strategic benefits of improvements to the A75 are to the rest of the UK and recommended that the UK Government support the significant upgrade to the route.”
“I have requested to make a parliamentary statement on the progress of the A9 dualling programme following that announcement, to provide further detail on the outcomes of the further decision-making process. Let me be clear that we remain fully committed to delivering the full A9 dualling programme by 2035. Already, 10 out of the 11 sections of the A9 have completed the statutory process. If the Conservatives want to shorten the process of the final remaining section, from Pass of Birnam to the Tay crossing, Murdo Fraser will need to write to each and every one of the objectors to say that the Conservatives want to remove that right to object, ignore them and steam on regardless—good luck with that one. We also remain in favour of full dualling of the A96 and are progressing the dualling process from Inverness to Nairn.”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way? Fiona Hyslop: I have only five minutes, and I have a lot of ground to cover, because we are doing so much. Since announcing in December 2023 our delivery plan to dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness, we have met every milestone on time. Today, work is under way on the third section, Tomatin to Moy, in the north and on the fourth section, Tay crossing to Ballinluig, in the south. The procurement of the fifth section, Pitlochry to Killiecrankie, is well under way. I wrote to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on 26 November to confirm that procurement and funding routes for the remaining A9 projects will be announced as part of the budget and spending review on 13 January 2026, as any decision will have a significant impact on that and on future spending reviews and budgets.”
“Ministers must never be allowed to forget that, although Ferguson’s might employ hundreds of workers in Inverclyde, the company’s failure, and that of successive SNP ministers, to deliver the promised ferries on time and on budget have impacted hundreds of thousands of islanders, island businesses and ferry users in communities right across Scotland. Their needs are non-negotiable, and any future strategy for shipbuilding cannot put what is good for Ferguson’s ahead of what is good for the Highlands and Islands communities that I represent. 16:06”
“It should look at whether the Government has considered fixed links seriously enough, where they are possible. Ferguson’s can be part of that strategy, but ministers must appreciate that, given its track record, the idea of further vessel contracts being awarded to the firm concerns the island communities that I represent. Those of us in Orkney with long memories remember that, in the early 2000s, Ferguson’s won but then binned the contract for the MV Hamnavoe. The committee puts it bluntly. Although it recognises the work that has been done, it notes that “the scale of historic failings highlights the need for continued vigilance.” I wish Ferguson’s every success, but an enormous amount of work remains to be done to build public confidence in the company and to demonstrate its long-term viability.”
“It should take an honest view of timescales and costs; recognise the impact of the neglect that has got us to where we are now; and put the needs of communities ahead of procurement, greening the fleet and other incidental considerations that might be the priority of SNP ministers but are far from being the priority of islanders. It should look to new approaches but also ask fundamental questions about where the Government has been getting things so badly and disastrously wrong. It should look at the cost implications of privately chartering vessels, such as the MV Alfred, which has had its charter extended so many times to plug gaps in the west coast service that the bill to taxpayers is now more than the cost to build that ferry in the first place.”
“It is not only the west coast routes that are affected; the northern isles vessels are now more than 20 years old, and it has been estimated that replacing the Orkney inter-island ferry fleet alone will cost near enough £1 billion. Shetland is in the same boat—if members will excuse the pun—and the most recent Conservative UK Government had to step in to fund the new Fair Isle ferry. It is not just the islands that are affected. Only last week, I raised local concerns over the future of the Corran Narrows crossing, which is one of Scotland’s busiest routes, yet one for which the back-up vessel is now on the historic ships register. A comprehensive long-term strategy—one that island and ferry-dependent communities can have confidence in—is long overdue.”
“The enormous cost to the taxpayer impacts us all, but it is in the communities for which the Glen Rosa and the Glen Sannox have been built, and all the other communities that are dealing with outdated or absent ferries, where there is real anger. That is anger not just at the delays but at the impact on those communities and frustration at the insensitivity and lack of focus from too many politicians here, in Edinburgh, who see islanders’ concerns as peripheral at best and impertinent at worst. The scale of the problem is already challenging, and it is only getting worse. The capital expenditure that is required to meet the cost of ageing ferries across Scotland is considerable.”
“I join others in welcoming the efforts and diligence of the Public Audit Committee. More than 10 years ago, two ferries were ordered from Ferguson’s yard. The Glen Sannox has only recently entered service, and the Glen Rosa still has not been delivered. It is now six years since the SNP took Ferguson’s into public ownership but, rather than a steady course being set for the yard, there has been a shameful tale of mismanagement from right at the very top of Government—yet not a single SNP minister has lost their job or resigned in the past 10 years of failure. Meanwhile, islanders and other communities who are dependent on reliable ferry links have suffered from the SNP ferries scandal. I intend to speak to their interests today.”
“To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Transport last met with local communities over the future of the Corran Narrows crossing. (S6O-05248)”
“We should recognise that oil and gas are going to continue to be in demand for the foreseeable future. The alternative would be devastating and is wholly unrealistic. There is no merit in offshoring production and destroying our own industry for the sake of statistics. A transition that simply means a greater reliance on imports in the short and medium terms is one that fails to address our energy security. It harms not only our current industries but our future industrial and economic potential—all to satisfy a paper-thin illusion of greater progress towards net zero. 15:24”
“There will be no silver bullet for the industry; global economic forces will not stop at our borders. What this Parliament—and Governments both here in Edinburgh and down in London—must do is get behind our oil and gas industry, without equivocation, and move to a strategy that clearly emphasises maximising production. As Fergus Ewing highlighted, although its Rosebank development west of Shetland faces opposition from Government, Equinor is pushing ahead with plans to drill 250 oil and gas exploration wells in Norwegian waters in the next decade. We need to get licences approved and ensure that there is a fair taxation system in place—one that lets the industry function while delivering a sensible and realistic contribution to public spending.”
“As the Scottish Affairs Committee noted last month, there is little sense on the ground of a just transition happening. We are haemorrhaging jobs, and the once-promised green jobs revolution has not materialised on anything like the scale that the SNP suggested. Meanwhile, the vital transferable skills that could contribute to clean energy roles are also being lost. It is clear that, even if the long- term promises of the transition were realised, on its current trajectory many skills from our oil and gas sector will disappear. Skilled workers are retiring, retraining or leaving the country for better prospects elsewhere. What must be done? Well, abolishing the energy profits levy, as our motion calls for, would have been a start—but, yet again, Labour is not listening.”
“I urge SNP ministers in this place and Labour ministers at Westminster not to let those places become another Grangemouth or Mossmorran. They should not wait until crisis forces them to act. They should not wait until it is too late and then create another constitutional fight over who is to blame. Talks on the future of both those sites, and others, should be on-going; they should be happening now, and in detail. Disastrous though it may be, the Green prescription for Scotland at least has the merit of being consistent, as Patrick Harvie highlighted. The same cannot be said of the policies of the SNP and Labour, which seem to want the tax revenues and jobs without the inconvenience of the industry. That position cannot stand.”
“Labour, too, has found itself speaking with two faces: one presented to the workers, another to its environmentalist support. Although they may be useful political tactics in the short term, the equivocation about our oil and gas sector at the UK level from Labour and in this Parliament from the SNP—with its friends in the Scottish Greens— has cost investment. It has also cost jobs, and it will continue to cost jobs unless things change. Grangemouth and Mossmorran may dominate the headlines, but facilities such as the Flotta and Sullom Voe oil terminals are vital to our communities in the Highlands and Islands. I have raised the futures of those terminals with UK and Scottish ministers and will continue to do so, but we cannot pretend that they are local matters—the issue is one of wider policy.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak today, given the unquestionable—but often overlooked—importance of the oil and gas sector to the Highlands and Islands. My region has been at the forefront of the Scottish oil and gas industry since it began. Last week, the First Minister’s remarks to the Parliament showed that he sees the future of the industry in terms of managed decline. That is quite a turnaround for a man who, not long ago, was talking about a second oil boom and about how more than half of the value of the North Sea’s resources was still to be extracted. With the odd honourable exception, members on the SNP benches have spent the past decade with a policy on oil and gas that mirrors their much-ridiculed views on an independent Scotland’s currency: one that is unclear and constantly changing.”
“It is a subject that is incredibly close to my heart. I put on record that every time a decision is made by anyone in the Scottish Government on how we help, support or work with people to get through difficult situations, the subject is very much at the forefront of their mind. Our officials are very clear about that, as I know they have always been up to now in all the circumstances that have been brought to my attention. NatureScot Species Licensing Review 3.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a partner in a farming business and a member of NFU Scotland. Is the minister aware of the high number of lives lost to suicide in the agriculture sector, with the winter months being a particularly difficult time for many farmers and crofters? The pressures on farmers can be exacerbated by the impact of Government actions and the frustration, anger and disappointment that they can often bring. How will the Scottish Government ensure that, in the decisions that it makes and the way in which it administers schemes and delivers its policies, it recognises that behind every application is a farmer or crofter who is already under pressure? Jim Fairlie: I hear exactly what the member is saying about the loss of lives due to suicide.”