Chamber and committees

I always prefer clear and deliverable objectives to a document that simply outlines a view of the world. The green industrial strategy must be entirely understood in relation to the objective of reaching net zero, and we cannot reach net zero without an economy that gets to net zero and without businesses that are investing in what is required in order to get to net zero. I like to think of our net zero ambitions as creating opportunity, not just challenges. The approach is not just about stopping things; it is also about creating new things that can be done.

The work on net zero will be shared between me and Màiri McAllan, who retains the net zero brief. It will inevitably involve policy areas such as planning consents and how we can accelerate the work that is required. If businesses would be entangled in process for two years, we are unlikely to see the transition from oil and gas jobs to green industry jobs, because those businesses can go elsewhere or might just give up.

We will have specific aims, but our approach must be full of ambition to get to net zero.

First, that means meeting the industry in order to listen and understand—not embracing empty ideological positions that do not resonate with the industry.

Secondly, we need to understand how key the industry is to the Scottish economy. The First Minister said—I will repeat this—that our focus has to be not only on meeting the country’s security needs and reducing emissions in line with our climate change targets, but on delivering affordable energy supplies. We cannot do that by jeopardising 100,000 of the oil and gas workforce, as independent experts suggest, or by turning the taps off. We have never proposed that.

Listening means meeting the industry, understanding it and being clear about what our objectives are and are not.

Thirdly, as you have said, there can be no transition without the wealth of resources, funding, talent and skills that the north-east and the oil and gas industry have right now. To threaten that industry and turn the taps off overnight, or to apply policies that jeopardise the future of the industry, risks our transition.

Let us talk about short-term measures of success. Perhaps Aidan Grisewood will answer that.

It would be easier to answer that question if we were not in purdah. I will not keep revisiting that, but in the past few weeks there was a lot of momentum regarding what we would be able to publish in the coming weeks. That will now have to wait.

What will change is that there will be a real sense of action in the economy space. That is how businesses operate. When they make investments, for example, they need to get a deal over the line and need to feel that there is a receptive environment for the work that they will do. However, they also need to know that there are expectations about how they treat their workers and how consistent and coherent the regulatory framework is. I want to enable economic momentum by creating a stable regulatory environment that is coherent and consistent, as well as ensuring that we operate in a no-surprises world.

You and I know that our public finances are extremely challenging—I do not think that we can emphasise that too much at the moment. They are extremely difficult. At the end of the year, we will have to take budget decisions that enable economic prosperity and growth, as well as investing in the public services that, frankly, voters tell us are a priority, such as the national health service, education and the other forms of infrastructure that you have just referenced.

As the Scottish Government is dealing with an 8 per cent plus cut to capital, I am even more interested in how we attract private investment in our great opportunities around the green industries, so that we can create the jobs. Ultimately, that is what will drive economic growth and allow us to reinvest public revenue.

On informing Parliament of how the First Minister’s priorities will be delivered through policy, I would love to be in a position to spell that out before summer. There would be no greater joy or pleasure for me than to do that. It feels extremely frustrating, but I will not argue with the advice that we have been given that an election is an election and that we are in a purdah period.

It is certainly to our frustration that we cannot spell those things out in the parliamentary space, but I hope that we will be able to do so as soon as possible afterwards, because the work is there. The work of Government has not stopped, and that momentum will continue. In terms of spelling out what a refreshed programme looks like and being crystal clear on what the policies are, roll on the beginning of July.

Anything that was due for publication in the next six weeks will, unfortunately, probably be delayed beyond then because, as a result of purdah, the Government is no longer permitted to publish any strategies. Whether that is a concern or otherwise, that will be a challenge. We might come on to, for example, the green industrial strategy and the energy strategy, which will probably also be affected.

To be clear, having an NSET refresh does not mean rewriting it or adding to it, because I still stand by what was published. It is a 10-year strategy. However, there is an opportunity to consider what we have delivered already, what else we can still deliver, and what perhaps needs to be further accelerated.

My own objectives for my role mean that I am keen to accelerate work in four areas, all of which are contained within NSET. Those are attracting private investment in the green industries; ensuring that we have the right infrastructure in place—for example, for housing; focusing on employability, particularly for those who are furthest from the job market; and looking at how we can make business as straightforward as possible.

All those areas are contained within NSET. I propose that we publish something that is consistent with the strategy that was published two years ago, but that looks at how our economy has changed and where we might need greater focus in the document. However, it is a 10-year strategy, and it should be treated as a long-term strategy.

Obviously I want to be careful in answering this question, as I am very constrained in relation to the details that I can share. We want to ensure that the process is fair and appropriate and that all parties have confidence in it.

I will ask Fran Pacitti to come in again, as some of this pre-dates my tenure. I am aware of the details on paper, but Fran can perhaps talk about how things were handled, because the matter was handled in a way that sought to protect the process.

They are remarkable and they come from lots of different backgrounds. Some are academics, some are not. They will talk, in a good way, about the patchwork of support that they have received—for example, in relation to facilities or a venue where they can be located, and getting access to research and data. There is a patchwork of support. Funding is also key: the £5 million that I announced last week is explicitly for things such as those that you talked about.

If the committee has not been to the National Robotarium, you should go. It is looking at a business that could, overnight, massively cut the amount of landfill waste using artificial intelligence robotics in a sector that has a very high turnover of workers, for obvious reasons. If it was operating in every local authority, we would see landfill fall off a cliff—although not literally.

I have three answers. First, it is about working together across public organisations. Do you know what made the difference in some of the most recent investments? Organisations were able to engage with all the relevant individuals and officials in one room—they knew where to go and they did not have to scramble around to figure out who to speak to.

Secondly, organisations knew exactly what was expected of them. What we needed from them was clear and shared with them up front. It is not about deregulation; it is about being really clear on what people want.

Thirdly, when major and significant consenting is required, we need to look at accelerated processes—the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy will set that out—so that it is not necessary for every consenting process to be lengthy.

It is then about making those three points consistent across the country.

The First Minister has been crystal clear that what the economy needs is not more strategies but action, and that is what we are about. One of the frustrations of purdah is that we were due to publish a programme for government, which would have contained some real substantive policies, and it would have outlined the implementation of policy that businesses and the economy are looking for. Clearly, I cannot pre-empt that, nor can we undermine the purdah rules.

For me, if the new deal for business is to mean anything, it is that it presently exists; it is not a distant objective. We have a new relationship now, and we will evidence that by what we do.

That goes back to what I said to the convener about NSET. I do not want officials’ time or my time to be consumed with writing things; I want that time to be consumed with delivery. The new deal for business, from my reading and my understanding at the time, albeit at a distance, was warmly welcomed by business. Indeed, businesses contributed extensively to it, and they were very enthused by the outcome from it—and that means that we do not need to rewrite anything. We have an understanding from them about what they need to see.

I have already referenced the regulatory review group. That is key because, often, businesses want to see us working as a Government as a whole and not in silos, with stuff happening outside and beyond the economy space that has a big impact on them.

That is my analysis of the new deal for business. That is where I want to go and what I want to achieve by getting on with doing stuff. I have been heartened by the response from various business organisations in the past few weeks to what they have heard from the First Minister and me.