Chamber and committees

We seem to have a problem with your volume, Mr Banks. Do you want to come in or are you happy with how Professor Skea addressed the question?

We have talked about Grangemouth in particular and the importance of newer technologies, whether in hydrogen or carbon capture, and we recognise the need for investment in those areas for things such as testing and expansion. Does there need to be flexibility in the plans for how long it will take to make any of those things commercially viable and operational? Is consideration being given to the possible limitations on the new technologies in which we are putting our faith but which are not yet commercial or viable? Do we need to reflect on what the plan is when everything still seems to be quite uncertain?

Mr Banks, do you wish to comment on the issue or are you happy with what you have heard so far?

I will come back to Professor Skea on the financing issue that Gordon MacDonald raised. Previous witnesses have discussed the difficulty of raising the required capital as being a major barrier to a just transition, and have cited lack of policy certainty and investable propositions as being other main barriers.

In your letter to the Government, you talked about the need for deliverable plans, and in the response to the draft report you talked about the need for private finance and being clear about just transition opportunities. Do you want to say a wee bit more about that? Could you relate that to Grangemouth and where financial leverage could come from?

We visited the Ineos site and had a positive discussion with Ineos about the future of the site and various commitments that have been made. Some of that is dependent on the Acorn project and other commitments that are being made. On the financing of changes at the Ineos site and the money that needs to be drawn down into the community, what do you see as being the barriers to raising the type of investment that is needed, and how do we overcome those?

That brings us to the end of the evidence session. I thank the witnesses for their time this morning; it is much appreciated. I now move the meeting into private session.

Yes. One point that you made in the response to the draft report is that there is a need to tackle some of the difficult questions and to really get to the nub of some of the harder issues and try to reach consensus.

I will bring in Maggie Chapman.

We can, but there is a bit of delay on the line.

Before I bring in Jamie Halcro Johnston, I will ask an initial question. We have had a discussion with Professor Skea about the commission’s response to the Government’s draft plan on energy. Do you want to say a bit about the meeting on 27 January that the commission had and the key areas that you highlight? There are a number of issues in there, including inequalities, equity, fair work and road maps. Professor Skea has explained that you have not looked specifically at Grangemouth so far, but we are expecting the draft plan on Grangemouth. Are there any areas that you would focus on in relation to Grangemouth as we anticipate that plan coming forward?

Good morning and welcome to the 11th meeting in 2023 of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. I have received apologies from Colin Beattie.

Our first item of business is the sixth evidence session of our inquiry into a just transition for the Grangemouth area. Today’s session will focus on the work of the just transition commission and will consider the key issues and challenges in achieving a just transition. I am pleased to welcome again Professor Jim Skea, chair of the just transition commission, who is joined by Elliot Ross, head of the commission’s secretariat. We will also be joined by Lang Banks, a commissioner of the just transition commission, but he has been delayed.

As always, if witnesses and members could keep their questions and answers as concise and short as possible, that would be helpful.

I will start by asking about recent publications. It would be fair to say that there has been a bit of tension between the commission and the Scottish Government. I understand that the memorandum of understanding between the commission and the Government has now been published. Professor Skea might want to say a wee bit about the importance of that and about whether he believes that it will strengthen relationships and make clear the role of the commission. Would it be fair to say that there has been a degree of frustration from the commission about a lack of pace and detail in the energy strategy that has been received so far?

Will you say a little more about the outcome of the memorandum of understanding? When the “Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan” was published, the commission produced a detailed report with, I think, 84 recommendations that really pushed the Government on some of the detail. That looks behind the headline or top-line statements. It feels as though, if that had been done at an earlier stage rather than when we had the draft, it would have been more productive, and it probably would have been a better consultation document. Going forward, is it the intention to have a wee bit more detail in the drafts when they are produced?

Good morning. I will start with an initial question. Can you hear us, Mr Banks?