Chamber and committees

The green voting sheet for this afternoon’s debate was not difficult to fill out. Very obviously, we will oppose the motion. The Scottish Conservatives are here to serve the interests of the profit-hungry, climate-wrecking, lethal fossil fuel industry, and they make no attempt to hide it. Equally obviously, we will oppose the SNP’s demands for a massive tax cut for the same lethal fossil fuel industry. Just as obviously, we will oppose Labour’s amendment, which comes on the day of Labour’s capitulation to the fossil fuel industry and its backtracking on its already weak position on new oil and gas.

Sarah Boyack started off by blaming others for party political posturing and then indulged in exactly the same thing. None of the other parties has put the blame where it belongs, which is fairly and squarely on the fossil fuel industry itself—those who have extracted not only vast amounts of oil and gas, which they have pumped into the atmosphere, but vast amounts of profit, and who are now happy to put their workforce on the economic scrap heap.

I thank the organisation Uplift for the briefing that it circulated. It rightly points out that North Sea developments are made economically viable only

“with massive state support”

and that the industry’s claim that half of the UK’s oil and gas demands could be met from the North Sea is misleading. The industry admits that it is

“‘considered to be beyond realistic assumptions’”

and would require

“massive tax breaks.”

The industry has a long history of choosing to prioritise its shareholders over its workforce and, certainly, of prioritising profit over planet.

As I was challenged on the issue of imports and exports, I will simply point out something that I think the member already knows, which is that the large majority of domestic production goes to export. It is not used in this country. Even the small proportion that is used in this country is at a price that is set on global markets, so this is not about displacing other exports.

What a curious debate we have had. At times, I have felt as though I am the only atheist in the room as holy war breaks out and religious schisms emerge.

There has been so much performative disagreement between all the other parties when in fact they agree on so much. They all want to expand fossil fuel extraction; they just have different degrees of enthusiasm about how much they are willing to advocate for it. They are all slowing down and backtracking on climate policy and they all seem to share the common delusion, expressed by many members across the chamber, that the fossil fuel industry is investing in the just transition.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The oil and gas industry is failing to invest in the solutions that will enable the transition. Three quarters of North Sea companies plan to invest solely in oil and gas production between now and 2030. Globally, the oil and gas industry invests nothing more than marginal amounts in renewables and other transition technologies. Across the chamber, members have been trading quotes from the fossil fuel industry and its representative body as though they all believe that the Parliament is elected to represent them and their shareholders.

As they express a shared anger at the lack of a just transition, all the other political parties are pointing fingers at each other, instead of looking at who the truly bad actors in this scenario are—those who have extracted vast profits from fossil fuels and who have zero interest in investing in the transition.

The Green amendment, which was not selected for debate, also expressed regret. However, unlike the Conservatives, who expressed regret about an ideological opposition to oil and gas, we expressed regret about the Conservative Party’s ideological opposition to credible climate policy. There would be immense opportunities for Scotland in relation to long-term jobs, energy security, the economy and environmental improvements if the Scottish and UK Governments pursued what we described in our amendment as an informed, worker-led and evidence-based just transition to a sustainable economy.

We agree that the Scottish Government should finally publish its energy strategy and just transition plan, but it must include the continued presumption against new oil and gas exploration and production.

I do not have time.

We have called on the UK Government to ensure that those in the fossil fuel industry, who have generated vast profits while causing the current climate emergency, pay enough tax to make a serious contribution to the cost of the transition, instead of the costs falling on the state alone. Fundamentally, that is what is missing from every other political party’s position on the crisis.

The central reason why an unjust transition is taking place is that no Government is willing to hold to account the billionaires who sit behind the fossil fuel industry—those who have lined their pockets and are now putting their workers on the economic scrap heap, despite having caused an environmental crisis that will threaten all our futures. What is needed for a just transition is to hold economic power democratically accountable, instead of leaving things to the self-interest of billionaires.

Will the minister give way?

The minister is drawing attention to areas in which she says that improvement is happening. I am sure that she does not deny that the situation that my constituents face is significantly worse than it was when the strategic action framework was published. I think that my constituents would like to know not a few statistics about where things are getting a little better but what is going to be done to transform the areas where things have got so much worse. What can I tell them? Can the minister tell me what I can tell my constituents about what is going to change now?

Should the Scottish Government be making you a bit less happy, Ewan?

Good morning. I want to move on to enforcement. Obviously, the ideal would be that enforcement is not necessary and there is just compliance, not only with the letter, but with the spirit of the regulations. However, as we have heard, that is not happening down south.

Assuming that enforcement is necessary, I am curious about your attitude to the penalties that are included in the regulations and whether they will be adequate—that is, whether local authorities will find that the fines that roll in are enough to pay for regulation, or whether it will take additional resource for local authorities to be able to enforce the regulations.

I will start with you, Professor Johnstone, because you talked about your work on studying the impact of the regulations down south. Are the big retailers simply rolling the policy out at a company-wide level? Is the regulation in England already having an effect on their behaviour in Scotland, or are they just doing whatever is allowed within the law in the different jurisdictions?

How much of the responsibility for enforcement lies with the industry?

Leaving it to individual businesses to decide the extent of their compliance and how they will enforce the policy within their own business is not adequate, is it? What responsibility would your organisation have in identifying the extent to which the industry as a whole is complying, providing that information and making sure that businesses know that they are in the wrong when they have not complied?