Chamber and committees

What will Scotland’s message be at COP? What will be our indicative nationally determined contribution? We have heard that the just transition is specific to Scotland but that it is resonant internationally. What will be unique in Scotland’s message and contribution to COP?

Good morning, cabinet secretary—it is good to see you in this role.

I have one general question, then two questions on energy. First, what do you view as being the biggest risk to Scotland in terms of achieving its net zero targets? What are you most pessimistic about, and what are you most optimistic about?

That was very insightful. In relation to energy and what you said about skills, the just transition fund will need to support people who want to transition from high carbon-based industries to the renewables sector. Does that not give greater impetus to the need to support the transfer of skills? We talk about dual fuel, but now we need dual energy skills. It is not yet clear who is responsible for allowing the certification for the skills of those who work on North Sea developments to be transferred to renewables. Although everybody says that skills passports are needed, I am not sure who owns or is driving that process. Having reflected on your answer to my first question, I think that it is imperative that we take ownership of that process and drive it forward.

That is clear.

My other question is about the UK Government’s changes relating to contracts for difference and supply chain development, particularly how they will affect our domestic supply chain. What is your view of the proposals? What impact might they have on the ScotWind leases, for example? Is there any way in which we can quantify what the impact might be?

Of course, our responsibility is to make a determination on legislative consent, which is what our report to the chamber and the Parliament will be.

There are two separate issues here, one of which is about the Environment Bill itself and the issues around the guiding principles that have been introduced. I was struck by the reference in paragraph 24 of paper 3 to the original UK Government consultation on the environmental legislation, which said:

“Our starting point is that the statutory statement of environmental principles and the environmental body should cover England and environmental matters that are not devolved. This consultation therefore relates only to areas for which the UK government is responsible.”

Clearly, in the characterisation of it being a bill of two halves—or a play in two acts, as Michael Matheson said—there has been an attempt to apply UK principles on the environment to reserved UK bodies, which everyone acknowledges as reserved, when they act for a purpose in Scotland. If I am correct, the primary issue is about bodies acting for a purpose and impact in Scotland: for example, when an obviously reserved organisation, such as Her Majesty’s forces, does something that affects, for example, water discharge. The relationship between devolved and reserved areas might be more obvious in that example, but it will come down to an interpretation of purpose, impact and aim. I want you to comment on whether you agree with what I am saying and whether you follow the logic.

The second issue is about something that we all agree with, which is that we all have responsibility for the international environment, whether at nation state level or as a devolved competence. In policy terms, I think that everybody would agree with the purpose of what the bill is attempting to do, but the issue is who has responsibility for the area in question. Again, the issue of environmental standards is obviously a devolved area, but do we interpret that as having an international trade or treaty aspect, or do we see the main purpose being about environmental standards for businesses that operate in Scotland? It can be looked at from different aspects, and I suspect that, like many of those things, it is about which side of the lens or which end of the telescope we want to look at it from. That might be determined in other areas, but is that a reasonable characterisation of what we have in front of us?

I should perhaps declare an interest as the representative of the most populous constituency in the whole of Scotland—I have more constituents than anybody else. However, I am very concerned about the demographic outlook.

Perhaps I can get a final word from Nora Senior on future investment by employers and on Scotland’s position as an attractive place for cutting-edge companies to come and do business or make future proposals in. What is the outlook for not just demography but skills? Do you have an overview of the future that you want to share with us?

We might not know what all those future jobs might be, but we certainly know what some of the more immediate ones are. Who is taking responsibility for the mapping of the skills that, for example, oil and gas industry workers have, which could be translated into the future of renewable energy? Who is taking ownership of ensuring that that happens?

With regard to retrofitting, which you mentioned, we do not need to ask what will be required, because we know what will be required. Again, who is taking responsibility for ensuring that we have not only the skills base that we need but the volume of workers that we will need to deliver what was in the programme for government yesterday?

On the issue of demography—and differentiating between labour shortages and skills shortages—what analysis has the Fraser of Allander Institute undertaken of Scotland’s pre-existing pre-pandemic demographic challenges? What are your forecasts for future labour availability? To what extent are we focusing on skills when we should be focusing on labour issues?

Good morning. I want to look ahead and cover the topic of just transition, as well as demography and labour issues.

It was very welcome to see the Scottish Government’s document “Just Transition—A Fairer, Greener Scotland: Scottish Government response”, which it published yesterday in response to the just transition commission’s report. There is obviously a big challenge in ensuring that we have the skills that we need for the transition, and that a just transition takes place. I was pleased to see that there is a skills guarantee agreement in the just transition response. That is good, but my concern is how we ensure that we have the appropriate skills, at scale, for what is required.

Perhaps the witnesses—Nora Senior, in particular—can consider aspects such as working with employers, industrial training boards and our skills provision. Who is taking responsibility for mapping the existing skills that many of our energy workers have in order to move them into new sectors? Is there a sense of ownership of that? To what extent is it being left as almost a free market operation? What changes are needed to deliver that in the future?

Could Professor Skea come in on that?