Seòmar agus comataidhean

Post COP26, this is a critical time at which to double down on the climate science while ramping up action on a just transition. Of course, the oil and gas corporations have funded climate denial for decades, so it is no wonder that recent polling shows that the majority of the public do not trust them to lead the just transition.

However, the oil and gas workers deserve our respect, support and solidarity for the huge contribution that they have made to our energy needs since the 1970s. Those workers should be the people who lead the just transition, but for years they have faced uncertainty in a boom-and-bust sector.

Despite the UK Government’s having donated an eye-watering £13.6 billion of tax subsidy to the oil and gas sector since the Paris agreement was signed, major job losses continue; there have been more than 10,000 jobs lost in the oil and gas sector in the past year. That is in a sector that directly employs just over 30,000 people. Nearly three quarters of workers in it are now employed ad hoc, as contractors. It is no wonder that, in a recent survey, more than 80 per cent of oil and gas workers said that they would consider moving to a different sector, with over half of respondents being interested in renewables and offshore wind. Job security was cited as the biggest factor in that survey.

The UK policy of maximum economic recovery of oil and gas does not help with the just transition. It postpones action, drags investment away from renewables and creates a future cliff edge for workers. It also critically undermines the global UN climate negotiations, making it impossible to ask countries to adopt the language of phasing out coal when we will not phase out our own oil and gas.

That policy of maximum economic recovery could lead to a future sudden collapse in jobs, should climate impacts lead to a high carbon price shutting down production. If we can learn anything from the Tories’ brutal dismantling of the coal industry in the 1980s, it is that such sudden collapses punish communities for generations.

I will stay with Mr Leheny. Looking forward, do you see trade barriers going up across Europe and Ireland and the UK, or do you see them going down? We had evidence that suggested that, for example, a common veterinary area might be created, which would help with transportation of animals across Europe and the regulations associated with that. That would be outside and inside the European Union. What picture do you see going forward?

We are also concerned about the domestic regulatory agenda. We have the protocol on one side and the internal market act on the other. How is that affecting the discussion of domestic legislation at Stormont? Is there a nervousness about innovating? For example, we have had a discussion in Scotland about banning the sale of peat products. Is there a concern that any kind of innovation from Stormont might be caught between alignment with the EU and potentially falling foul of the internal market act?

Dr Melo Araujo, do you have any comments on that?

In many of the answers, our witnesses have touched on some of the questions that I was going to ask about interparliamentary scrutiny. Is there anything that you would like to add on that? We have a written submission from the Institute for Government that suggests having policy-specific chairs forums to mirror interministerial groups. Could that work for the circular economy or other areas where there are frameworks? I do not know whether the panellists have any more thoughts on what that architecture of scrutiny might look like.

As it seems that Professor Hunt and Professor McEwen have nothing to add, I will move on.

Your written submissions make a strong point about the potential chilling effect on innovation in regulation and on new policies. Is there any evidence of that happening already? Some policies are in train. This week in the Scottish Parliament, we have dealt with single-use plastic regulations, which have come to a committee for the first time. Is there any sense of where policy development is being stifled?

My final question is about our move away from EU policy development processes. I was struck by how involved various stakeholders—including industry bodies, unions and non-governmental organisations—were in the development of the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation. There has now been a shift; we are out of Europe, and there is perhaps a different policy development process. Which voices will be heard in that process? Where do those voices come in? How should Parliaments engage with those stakeholders?

Do you see political will to remove trade barriers?

I thank the cabinet secretary for that update.

Police officers, lawyers, the Crown Office and many others will not have to worry about the financial implications of attending the inquiry. Despite having asked many times, Sheku Bayoh’s family has received no response on whether its costs for attending the inquiry will also be covered. The family remains under serious financial strain as it continues its fight for the truth.

The former justice secretary stated that the Bayoh family would be front and centre of the inquiry. Can the current justice secretary confirm that its concerns will be immediately addressed?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the public inquiry examining the events surrounding the death of Sheku Bayoh. (S6O-00461)

You announced the consultation on the establishment of the agency today, and you are talking about the set-up being next year rather than—