Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are now more than two years on from the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26: a summit in which the world did not dare mention oil and gas, despite all the warning signs. It was the year when the International Energy Agency and the United Nations called for no new oil and gas fields to be developed in order to keep the 1.5°C target alive. Since then, we have seen why holding down every fraction of a degree of global warming is absolutely critical. The planet has burned and flooded, and we have stood by, helplessly counting the cost.

Finally, last year in Dubai, at a COP summit hosted by a petrostate, there was a breakthrough of sorts—the world added oil and gas into an agreement for the first time. The world is beginning a new consensus on oil and gas, and it is time for the UK Government to abandon its reckless “Drill, baby, drill” approach. The choice that is before the UK Government is to either enable every last drop of oil and gas to be extracted, leading the industry to a deferred cliff-edge collapse, or start managing the decline now and put in place a transition that leaves no workers behind.

It is an inconvenient truth that North Sea oil and gas is in decline, and everyone in the chamber knows it. That is why it is so important for the Scottish Government to move away from supporting maximum economic recovery and start the conversation about a presumption against new oil and gas development.

We need to be aware of bogus arguments and where they originate. In its production gap report, the United Nations warned us that private fossil fuel firms are

“highly politically organised, investing considerable resources into lobbying, campaign finance, public relations and think tank sponsorship”,

and that they exert influence through what the UN has described as

“a revolving door between business and Government.”

I do not have time to take interventions.

I ask the whole chamber to call out bogus arguments for more oil to deliver energy security for the UK, when we know that 80 per cent of North Sea oil is exported to global markets. I ask members to recognise that exploration licences that are granted today may not even produce oil until 2050, which is five years beyond our net zero target date. I ask members, including Liam Kerr, to wise up about false comparisons between the climate impact of North Sea gas and that of imported liquefied natural gas, when we know that the lowest-carbon gas comes from our nearest neighbours in Norway.

Members need to consider critically the assertion that a 3 per cent increase in the windfall tax would suddenly lead to the collapse of an entire industry overnight, because it is a fact that the energy profits levy came with a supertanker-sized loophole—a tax relief of up to 91 per cent for investment in more oil and gas, which was investment that was most likely going to happen anyway. Closing that loophole could have brought in billions to solve a cost of living crisis that was destroying ordinary people’s lives.

The UK Government could have chosen to make those tax reliefs available for renewable investments in order to create the jobs of the future today, but it chose not to do that. Tax allowances and reduced tax rates have allowed the Treasury to give more money to oil companies than it takes from them. In 2020, Shell was paid £80 million in negative tax, while the chief executive officer pocketed £5.5 million and the shareholders received record dividends, and at the same time, Shell made redundant 330 of its workers in the North Sea. That is absolutely shameful—did the Tories in the north-east condemn that when it happened?

The real traitors will be the ones who understood perfectly well what needed to be done but wilfully stood by, did nothing and condemned future generations to climate chaos and an unjust transition. It is time for responsibility and action, and I look forward to the Scottish Government leading the way.

That all sounds substantial. I am sure that it will be a great help to the committee when those reports are published and we can look at that.

Can I take it from your answer that that will feed into ministerial objectives for Scottish Water’s investment and that the report will be timed in such a way as to inform ministerial thinking and choices?

I will move from water to air. The committee did an inquiry on the back of ESS’s first air quality report. I note that you have now produced a subsequent air quality report, which recommends the adoption of the World Health Organization’s very stringent limits for particulates. That was not an improvement report on the Scottish Government, so I am interested in what that report’s headlines are—the top asks—and also what the conversation with the Government on air quality now looks like, given that you have, in effect, produced an advisory set of recommendations with a slightly different status to the first report on air quality.

I was going to ask about how long the ODPS has been in place and how many times the cap has been breached during that time, but I think that Ms Sizeland has already answered that question. If there is any more detail about that that you want to get on the record, it would be useful to know.

Was that at a time when patronage was growing substantially, or was that predicted? I think that we are now growing back very slowly from Covid—that seems to be the case from the modelling that I have seen. From discussions with bus companies, I think they are not expecting a huge surge in older people being back on the buses. What was the trend that led up to the breach of the cap in a single year, in 2018?

The young persons scheme has been really successful. There were a few teething problems at the beginning, but there is now substantial uptake among young people under the age of 22 who have the card.

Is there a target for how much you want the percentage of cardholders to go up in the next year? Will we reach a plateau in the numbers of people and their families who want a card, or do you think there is still a gap and that councils and schools could encourage young people to take up the card in greater numbers? Are we at the limit of uptake of the card, or do you think there is still a little way to go in getting the last folk on board?

This is obviously an issue of great public concern, and I note the number of submissions that ESS has received. The primary focus of those submissions has been SEPA’s discretion under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 to regulate in that area and take enforcement action. Can you give the committee the top line from your investigations and spell out the next major steps for regulators and others in that area?

Are you talking about CSO monitoring?

What practical changes are needed on the ground? Is it greater regulation of traffic and of wood-burning stoves, for example? Will a lot more work need to be done in terms of the Government and stakeholders coming up with an action plan to make progress towards a much more stringent WHO target, or is it pretty clear what the next steps will be?