Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is hard to see how the investments that the oil and gas industry may or may not make in renewables are going to benefit consumers who are in fuel poverty today, spending more than half their income on energy.

I will ask my final question. You do not believe that a windfall tax is the right approach. Presumably, you do not want to take money out of general taxation to invest in support for those who are in fuel poverty. Do you believe that that cost should be put back on to energy consumers—that that is where the money should come from to support those who are most in fuel poverty?

The witnesses have presented really interesting evidence this morning.

Monica Lennon talked about the impact on individual households. It is clear that, for some people and households, the situation is and will continue to be devastating. The witnesses said that they cannot predict what energy prices will be in October this year, let alone in October 2023. I am concerned about the people who might end up in spiralling debt.

Keith Anderson, from Scottish Power, has proposed the setting up of a deficit fund to help people who are in deep debt when it comes to their energy bills by, in effect, giving them £1,000 to get them out of fuel poverty—or at least to stop them sliding even deeper into fuel poverty. The money would be paid back, I assume by all consumers, over 10 years. What is your analysis of the proposal? How does it compare with what the UK Government has announced?

I am not asking you to make a decision. That is obviously the role of politicians. However, in your role as regulator, surely you are able to look at everything that is in the toolbox. Scottish Power made that suggestion several weeks ago. Keith Anderson was at this committee several weeks ago. He made the suggestion of the deficit fund at Westminster—I think—a month ago now.

Why is it that you are not looking at that right now? Why have you come to the committee today without a clear view on what the impact of that idea would be on consumers? What else is in the toolbox? What other options might there be that you are actively looking at, not in the sense of, “We think you should do this, minister,” but very much in the sense of, “Look, this would be the impact if you went down this or that route”—as advice, or at least data, to Government and parliamentary committees?

If you had some form of independent analysis of that specific proposal and how it measures up against what the Government is currently proposing, including pros and cons, that would be very useful for the committee.

I have another question that I hope does not fall into another area where you will say, “Well, that’s nothing to do with us.” The cost of fuel oil—or liquefied petroleum gas—is a massive issue, particularly in Scotland and particularly for off-gas communities, which are seeing price spikes and enormous volatility in the cost of fuel oil. To be honest, they have been seeing that for years, but particularly so at the moment. That is driving rural fuel poverty, often in homes that are very hard to heat and to retrofit.

If I can tempt you to say something on it, what is your thinking about regulation of oil and LPG? Does that need to be brought into the regulatory framework, or what might the options be?

As regulators, you have a duty to protect the short-term and long-term interests of energy consumers. Are you saying that you have no role in modelling or working out the impact of a policy such as that in relation to advising Government?

Do you think that, in 10 years’ time, we will have completely transitioned away from oil and LPG heating in rural areas and will have other options, such as biomass or high-temperature air-source heat pumps, or do you think that the situation will be sticky and that, in 10 years’ time, we will still have homes that are being heated by heating oil, which means that we will still have to regulate?

Is there an argument for revisiting those targets and, if there are supply chain issues, scaling up installation more rapidly over the next 12 months? Perhaps the roll-out could be targeted at consumers who are most affected by price increases.

Neil Lawrence talked about smart meters and consumers’ ability to move on to variable tariffs. Where are we with the roll-out of smart meters? Could it be significantly ramped up between now and October, or between October and when the price cap next goes up? Could a large number of households who have smart meters move on to variable tariffs, or is there still a low number of consumers who have found out that that is even a possibility, let alone had a smart meter installed?

In the months to come, we will all take part in a fresh debate on the constitutional future of the UK and, as last week’s election results across Scotland and Ireland underlined, much has changed since 2014. There have been changes in political circumstances that we would hardly expect to see over two generations, let alone one.

While we brace ourselves for the debate to come, now is an important time to look again at how Scotland is recalibrating its relationship with the rest of Europe and the world in these changing times. The launch yesterday of the refreshed global affairs framework is welcome, and the recognition in that document of the climate crisis as the single biggest international issue of our time is critical.

To deliver on climate, we will need to work even closer with the rest of Europe, seek greater collaboration with EU institutions and build even stronger relationships with research bodies and universities in areas such as green hydrogen, which has already been mentioned by the cabinet secretary.

Scotland’s role on climate was in strong evidence at COP26 last year as a small nation with soft power presence, and the Scottish Government’s announcement that it was taking a unilateral lead on a climate loss and damage fund showed leadership at exactly the right time. It recognised the climate debt that industrialised countries such as ours owe the global south and the need for reparation and climate justice. Although the sums of money were small—some may say that they were insignificant—given the scale of the challenge, the symbolic and practical action of being the first country in the world to set up a loss and damage fund was an influential move in the global politics that surrounded COP26 last year.

I am pleased to see relationships between Scotland and the global south develop further, not least through the £36 million climate justice fund and the excellent climate dialogues work in the run-up to COP26. The Scotland Malawi Partnership has been a huge success, supporting communities on the front line of climate change, but I ask the Scottish Government not to lose sight of how important small community funding will be to delivering the improvements and sustainable development that we need on the ground.

We saw at COP how small nation states can repeatedly play a strong role in leading the world. Costa Rica galvanised action through the high ambition coalition, building new initiatives that run alongside COP and driving confidence that more far-reaching agreements are possible and essential. For a Glasgow summit that focused on coal, cars and cash, oil and gas would have been largely ignored were it not for Denmark and Costa Rica working together to launch the groundbreaking Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. Through the alliance, states and regions have committed to phasing out oil and gas production over time and delivering a just transition for communities that are dependent on those sectors.

It was such a strong show of hope and determination to see the launch of the alliance in Glasgow, right at the point when energy was starting to drain out of the talks and fresh impetus was needed. We saw Green ministers from Ireland, Sweden and New Zealand take the stage with ministers from Wales, France, Quebec and Italy, alongside those from Denmark and Costa Rica, to launch the alliance. I will not pretend: it was disappointing that Scotland was missing from that launch event, but I hope that the Government will join the alliance soon, and in so doing inspire others including Norway to join the conversation and make the long-term commitment to move away from fossil fuel production. Only by countries learning about the just transition together can we wean ourselves off oil and gas responsibly and justly.

The climate will be a strong focus for the Scottish Government’s international work, and I am pleased that the imminent launch of an office in Copenhagen will further cement our relationship with the Danes. The early commitment for the two countries to work together on heat decarbonisation, for example, is critical given the cost of living crisis. Denmark’s response to the last energy crisis in the 1970s has given us a big toolbox of solutions, and I know that the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights, Patrick Harvie, is determined to insulate homes and isolate Vladimir Putin as quickly as possible.

I know that the cabinet secretary sees great potential in our creative sectors, especially television drama, working together. That work with Denmark will be important geographically, linking us to the Nordic countries, and in delivering a wide range of thematic priorities from climate to culture.

The launch of an office in Warsaw will provide a link to central and eastern Europe. If there was initial scepticism from some about the strategic focus of that office, the events of the past three months underlines how important it is that we establish a strong presence in that part of Europe.

The question of Scotland’s constitutional future must be revisited. Regardless of how that question is answered, our values and priorities are clear. Scotland will be an outward-looking country that is eager to collaborate, build interdependence, and play an increasing role on the global stage.

It is clear that free bus travel for under-22s has been transformative for hundreds of thousands of young people. However, the cost of living crisis will hit all those seeking asylum, especially given that they are forced to live on just over £40 a week and are banned from working.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that now is the time to take decisive and practical action to counter the hostile environment agenda that is pedalled by the Tories? Will she commit to meeting me and other interested parties to unpick, as she explained, the barriers to expanding free bus travel to all those seeking asylum in Scotland?