Seòmar agus comataidhean

Coming back to the points that have been made about how UK oil and gas policy might be evolving, particularly with regard to alignment with the Paris agreement, I wonder whether the policy of maximum economic recovery actually puts the oil and gas companies in quite a difficult position. If I were on the board of Shell—which I am not, by the way—I would be faced with, on one hand, a Dutch court ruling telling us that the company has to reduce by 45 per cent its emissions not just from production but from the sale of all fossil fuels and, on the other, the legal obligation that we would have under UK law to extract every single drop from the reserves if we had a licence, under maximum economic recovery. Can you see the difficulty in making the transition under the current policy of maximum economic recovery? If so, how do you see that policy changing over time?

That suggests that there will be some need for oil and gas, going forward. However, do you acknowledge that that is not the same as maximum economic recovery? That is not the same as there being 20 billion barrels of oil and gas in the North Sea; there might be somewhere south of 6 billion barrels.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what its position is on the proposed timetable changes set out by ScotRail in its fit for the future consultation. (S6O-00158)

ScotRail’s proposed new timetable will result in some unacceptable cuts in services and extensions to journey times that will impact people particularly in Stirling, Dunblane, Perth and Kirkcaldy. I have been actively encouraging residents to share their views with ScotRail as part of the consultation. Later this month, I will host a meeting with constituents to better understand how those changes will impact them. Does the minister agree that any significant changes in rail services must be made only after real and meaningful consultation with rail users? Does he agree that ScotRail should accept my invitation to meet rail users, to ensure that their voices are heard?

How many of the 20 billion barrels of oil and gas in the North Sea will be required to produce medicine?

Liam Kerr advised us at the beginning of the debate to listen to the science, so I will quote some people who understand the science and have reflected on it. The UN secretary general, António Guterres, has said recently that countries should

“end all new fossil fuel exploration and production and shift fossil fuel subsidies into renewable energy.”

That is not happening under UK Government policy. Dr Fatih Birol, who is executive director of the International Energy Agency, has said:

“If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now—from this year.”

Again, that is not happening under UK Government policy. Lord Deben, who is chair of the UK Climate Change Committee and a former UK Government minister, told Mr Kerr at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee a couple of weeks ago that

“the justification for any new oil and gas exploration or production has to be very strong indeed, and I cannot say that I have seen that so far.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 31 August; c 20.]

No such case has been presented for Cambo or the continued exploration and extraction of fossil fuels.

Countries around the world are recognising that an oil and gas transition needs a clear destination to transition to. They know that a just transition needs to start years in advance. Otherwise, there is a risk of a sudden deferred collapse of jobs in the future.

The launch of the beyond oil and gas alliance, spearheaded by the Danish and Costa Rican Governments and now involving France, New Zealand, Spain and many more countries, will mark a watershed moment at COP26. Those are states that have turned the corner and are committing to no more oil and gas development. The Scottish Government should join in that conversation in Glasgow and should look to accelerate our own just transition.

The Green-Scottish Government co-operation agreement commits to answering two critical questions, which the cabinet secretary referred to in his opening comments. [Interruption.] I want to make a little bit of progress first. The first of those questions is how much oil and gas we can afford to burn while staying aligned with the objectives of the Paris agreement. The second question is what, given what we can afford to burn, our domestic demand for oil and gas will be in the years ahead as we make progress in decarbonising our society.

Those are questions that cannot be answered by the oil and gas sector by itself, because it will always be driven by a UK licensing policy of maximum economic recovery of every last drop from every last reserve. Again, I welcome the comments from the cabinet secretary at the beginning of the debate about some of the flaws in that policy of maximum economic recovery, which is incompatible with the climate crisis. [Interruption.] I am running out of time—I am sorry.

Those are critical questions, which must be answered not by sectoral interests but by Governments, and the answers will depend on the level of ambition and the actual progress in delivering decarbonisation and energy demand reduction across the whole of the UK. I am certain that any such assessment that is done will show Cambo to be superfluous to our domestic energy needs and utterly incompatible with the Paris agreement. It is clear that Cambo must not go ahead.

However, Cambo is just the tip of the melting iceberg. If we are serious about staying in alignment with Paris, some of the 6.6 billion barrels of existing oil and gas reserves will have to stay in the ground, too, alongside the 13.4 billion barrels that the sector wants to develop. Those must stay out of reach.

Our co-operation agreement is a great starting point for a real just transition, with a £500 million deal for the north-east and a new sector deal for onshore wind. This is where the real grown-up debate needs to be in the Parliament. It needs to be about how we manage the just transition and how we protect people and planet. I look forward to the Government making progress in the months and years ahead.

Has an attempt been made to engage the UK Government on the substantive policy area? If so, what was the reaction? Why are we now looking at a policy that the UK Government produced without any Scottish Government involvement?

Moving on to something a wee bit different, I know that you share responsibility for biodiversity with Mairi Gougeon, but perhaps that should be a priority across the whole of Government in the way that climate change is becoming a priority. I acknowledge that this stuff is difficult, but the stark reality is that we failed to meet 11 of the 20 Aichi targets that were set for 2020. There might be more of a need for a just transition in some of these areas than in other sectors, and I think that you have already alluded to agriculture, fisheries and the marine environment as areas where we need a step change.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this issue, given that you have part of the brief and have a minister working with you on it. What do you see as not only the challenges but the opportunities? How do we ensure that biodiversity is as mainstreamed as climate change is becoming across Government policy, whether it be in farming, the planning system, energy or whatever?

I am interested to know whether active policy work was under way in the Scottish Government.

You will know that European policy development is taking place and that the European Commission is to propose a directive on sustainable corporate governance this month or next month. Why is co-ordination not happening? Why is there no common framework on this policy and many others? Has a conversation taken place about the issue, given that both Governments know that the European Commission is looking to make progress on it? That is in line with the Scottish Government’s policy and with what the UK Government wants to progress on. Between the two Governments and the European Commission, there is a need for co-ordinated progress. [Interruption.] Why is there a breakdown in communication—is it the microphones?