Meeting of the Parliament 28 May 2026 [Draft]
As we have already heard, the subsidies going into the energy sector across the board are wide and extensive. My argument is that the communities directly affected by such developments need to see the benefit not just through reduction of bills but through more strategic infrastructure that, to be frank, is not about new football parks or community halls; it is about strategic investment in infrastructure, such as housing, which is in crisis in places such as Orkney.
In the context of today’s motion, however, had the UK Government treated the Scottish Government as the latter is treating local councils such those in as Orkney and Shetland, we would have heard some fairly unparliamentary language, even from somebody as measured and diplomatic as the cabinet secretary. A different approach is required in the future—one that ensures that projects attract investment and deliver meaningful benefit locally.
While the Scottish Government calls for more powers, the fact is that it simply has not kept pace with the scale of the change that is required. Even coming forward with an energy strategy was beyond the Government during most of the previous parliamentary session. In the absence of such a strategy, Scottish Renewables has called for clear statements of policy intent so as to give certainty to key sectors, such as marine, as well as to create the conditions for growth. Essential, too, will be modernising grid infrastructure and properly resourcing planning and consenting to support development at pace. We need to see both of Scotland’s Governments working collaboratively in Scotland’s interests, which Mr Gethins is well suited to doing.
On oil and gas, there should be no debate about the fact that they will remain part of our energy mix for years to come. However, there is no world in which we can continue to rely on the North Sea basin indefinitely. That is not a matter of politics; it is just an immutable fact of geology.
The futures of oil and gas and renewables are intertwined. Polarising policy and debate might have political upsides, but it has few upsides for either sector or for our country. Any transition that ignores the needs of those on whom it will rely most heavily can only fail, and the people and communities at the heart of that transition must be fully involved in the decisions that affect them. That will require the removal of barriers to transition, better targeting of support for training and skills, and investment in the development of genuine job opportunities.
None of that will be easy. All of it will require detailed planning, long-term commitment and collaboration across parties and between Governments, but trying to achieve that while incurring the significant costs, delays and disruptions that would result from dismantling our energy market would be beyond difficult. I urge Parliament to reject the motion and to back the Liberal Democrats’ amendment.
I move amendment S7M-00159.5, to leave out from “Scotland’s energy” to end and insert:
“local communities which host vital renewables projects deserve proper community benefit that would provide funding for short and long-term investment such as economic development, housing and cutting energy bills; further believes that the Scottish Government’s proposed good practice principles, which recommend community benefits be provided at the value of £6,000 per Mega Watt per year, will not meet the expectations of communities; calls for future ScotWind rental income to be transferred to the nearby councils so that those communities can feel the benefit of hosting national projects, and considers that new rules are needed for future ScotWind-style sales to protect the value of Scotland’s assets and attract more investment.”
Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.