Chamber and committees

I am happy to answer that in the context of the discussion that I had with Grangemouth about its sustainability plan. However, I must caveat that by saying that I am not the cabinet secretary for energy, which means that I am not involved on a day-to-day basis on, for example, the development of hydrogen policy, CCUS or sustainable aviation fuel. My role in Government will be to ensure that the energy secretary has those discussions and is supported to do so.

As far as I can tell, there are three ways in which industry can decarbonise and rise to the net zero challenge: by making its industrial processes more efficient; by switching to low-carbon fuels; and by capturing carbon, which we have discussed. When I met Ineos, it took me through its sustainability plan, which is linked to the Government’s 2045 target, and we talked about the company’s £350 million investment in more efficient energy plants at the centre of the complex, a £500 million upgrade to the Forties pipeline system, its plans for CCUS and its interest in sustainable fuels.

However, as far as my understanding of the production of SAF from an engineering or technical point of view is concerned, I will leave it there. Given Liam Middleton’s role in critical infrastructure, he might have more to add to that.

Yes, that is absolutely appropriate. While we are in the UK and the UK Government has powers that are so directly in play, including over energy and macroeconomic policy, it has a really important role to play. Our climate targets are interlinked while we are in the UK.

I have not had one yet—I have been in post only a couple of weeks—but I have net zero interministerial Government meetings, and I would expect that to be a forum in which I would raise with my counterparts the issue of this just transition plan and others.

That is absolutely right. I add that we cannot pretend that we know and can track with absolute certainty everything that will happen from now until 2045. Therefore, as with much of the climate change work and much of the portfolio, we have to be willing to adapt, to treat plans as iterative and to learn as we do, because that is the challenge of making policy over 20 or 25 years.

Mr Smyth asked whether we will monitor what is in the plan now and whether that will change. Yes, we intend to monitor, and Andy McCall set out how we will do that. However, we also have to realise that we must have scope for adaptation over the next 20 or 25 years, up to 2045.

That is an important question, and I sympathise completely with it.

Again, it comes back to the fact that we are seeking change quickly. Organisations of a certain size are able to absorb that and keep up to date with it, whereas others of a different size are not as well placed to focus on the issues outside their own bottom line and keeping in business. Liam Middleton mentioned a lot of the pressures that are bearing down on the cost of doing business just now, and we absolutely recognise that.

There is a need for us to be clear, however, that the big emitters in the cluster are the ones that require our focus, first and foremost. They are the big industry businesses and the big emitters, and we should not underestimate their task of having to drive down emissions in the way that is required of them. That is not to say, however, that SMEs will not play an important part in the process, because they will do.

You touched on that when you said that the supply chain is a key element. There are two touch points that are important for SMEs in the plan. First, as we decarbonise the big industry, the supply chains that are connected with those industries will be vital to small and medium-sized enterprises, and we must engage with them on that.

The other point is that smaller businesses that are proximate to the cluster are stakeholders in the development of the vision, and they should also be part of the planning.

He is a really key part of GFIB, which is why we were hoping that he could come.

And it is a new forum, so it is probably not surprising that you are wondering what it is and how it works. It is quite a novel approach.

Again, I agree with much of what you have said, Mr MacDonald. The UK Government’s comments that you have just read out make it clear that Acorn and Scotland are uniquely well placed to lead the way on CCUS on skills, capacity and existing infrastructure. That is why the decision on track 1 was inexplicable; I am using that word deliberately, because I do not understand—and I am not alone in not understanding—why that did not come to pass.

However, we must welcome progress as and when it arises, so the UK Government’s indication that Acorn can be part of track 2 is good. I and my colleague Neil Gray are both seeking clarity on exactly when that process will close. We want it to close in short order so that we in Scotland can get on with what we ought to have been doing before now.

That is a really good question. I do not have the figure to hand, but I would be more than happy to go away, look at the EY analysis and perhaps come back to the committee on the matter. I wonder, though, whether Liam Middleton wants to add anything to that.

Absolutely. There are many lessons to be drawn from that. The focus on Grangemouth is absolutely right, because its contribution to our economy and to everyday life in Scotland sits so closely beside its emissions reduction and what it is doing there. If I have a vision for what we are seeking to do, it is about the trio of the economy, jobs and emissions. My vision is that we retain and grow economic value and jobs, and drive down emissions.

On learning from previous experiences, you talked about the community and workers; early and meaningful engagement with communities, workers and their trade unions has been so important. Liam Middleton might want to say more about that, but there has already been engagement. To date, we have worked with Unite the Union and I met union reps when I visited Grangemouth. Obviously, we are looking for ways of working with the Scottish Trades Union Congress just transition officers that we are funding. Another important initiative for this specific area is that we have decided to fund a Grangemouth community engagement officer to be a liaison between the Grangemouth community, what is happening in the cluster and what we are doing with the plan to make sure that the voices of people who live in the area, many of whom are employed at the site, are heard really loudly.

Liam, I do not know whether you have anything to add to that, particularly relating to the experience at Longannet.

That is a really good question. I go back to the point that, when we are trying to act with the pace and at the scale that the emergency demands from us, we must ensure that, in our efforts to respond, we do not forget about the really basic and important fundamentals of close and meaningful engagement. That means not just listening, but actually being able to demonstrate that what we heard was acted upon. Having come into this post, and with the Grangemouth just transition plan in front of us, I am absolutely determined that community involvement and engagement and a clear line of sight so that the community can see that its views have been reflected in the plan should be very much part of the plan.

I make no apology for returning to the point about us deciding to fund the employment of the community liaison person. That is someone from the area coming into the work to give an invaluable insight into what it means to live in the area, how people relate to the industrial complex, and what they want to see that do for them in future. That relates not only to the complex and its decarbonisation; it relates to what it feels like to live in the area or to travel around it. For example, there is an on-going issue with flooding in Grangemouth, which I know is a concern for many people.

I want to have as early and as broad a consultation as we possibly can, and it is my intention that we will be able to demonstrate exactly how views have been borne in mind and built into the plan.