Chamber and committees

We received evidence from Moray trades union council that there is a trade-off with participatory budgeting. Although it achieves what you described, such as the public engagement on and enthusiasm for certain projects, Moray TUC suggests that it does not always award grants based on the objective criteria of need and merit. It highlights that

“in round 1 … around 50% of funds went to organisations based in Moray’s most affluent ward (Forres).”

Although participatory budgeting is positive and delivers some of the benefits that you described, how do you make sure that areas that have less capacity and experience in participatory budgeting or a smaller population—meaning fewer votes, if people vote based on a geographical area, as they often tend to do—are recognised? How do we make sure that the negatives do not outweigh the positives when it comes to participatory budgeting? Does there need to be a mix of ways in which resources are distributed?

The committee has an interest in the Grangemouth plan, given that we carried out an inquiry on that area and the recent announcements from Ineos. Do we have a timescale for the prioritisation of that plan that you are aware of?

The associated issue of how we measure the just transition is linked to that question. You talked about the need for it to be “planned and managed”. I think that, when Professor Paul de Leeuw spoke to us, he said that the destination is clear but the journey is not and that we know what the outcomes are meant to be but we lack detail on how to get there.

We also took evidence from the just transition lab, which has done quite a bit of work on how we could measure the just transition and what kind of indicators we could use. I understand that it is having discussions with the Scottish Government.

I know that we are looking at a longer-term plan, but should we have staging and measurement? The just transition is a difficult thing to measure, but should we at least attempt to measure it? At the moment, it feels like it is happening in a bit of a vacuum. How will we know whether we are on the right track in five years’ time or in ten years’ time, when we are meant to have achieved that? What work is the Government doing in that area?

There will be other questions about the fund in particular, but the just transition lab is looking at a thematic approach. It has suggested looking at “Employment, earnings, and skills”, “Housing, poverty, and wellbeing”, “Democratic participation” and “Community empowerment, revitalisation, and Net Zero”. It recognises that this is not just about the energy transition and skills; it is about broader areas. I know that those are difficult things to measure, but is the Government having discussions with, for example, the just transition lab, to think about whether it is the Government’s aim to set out a framework that can be managed and to get an understanding of whether it is having an impact on poverty and communities?

Yes, and we—

Before I bring in Murdo Fraser, let me just say that linked to that is the issue of planning. Groups have been organising over how long it takes to get consents. SSE has said:

“Currently, the average offshore wind farm takes around 12 years to deliver and major network infrastructure can take even longer”.

Although the national planning framework addressed some of the issues with that, there is still a recognition that it is a long process. It is very time consuming, and it can damage our ability to be an early mover on some of this. I know that you are not the planning minister, but can you tell us what action the Government is taking in that respect? Is there a recognition of how long consents take and of how that creates a barrier for business to move forward in this area?

As other members have said, there is an issue around the yearly allocation of the fund. You said that this year is when you will perhaps look to review the fund. We met local groups and, although they are all grateful for the money that they have received, which is making a difference to their organisations, they spoke about the timescales that they had to work to, especially for capital projects, and the fact that it had to be something that was ready to go, rather than something that they were working towards. In our report, the committee will reflect on how the fund was distributed and what improvements can be made to that.

Thank you, minister.

I will start with a question about the meaning of “just transition”. Witnesses in the inquiry have given a number of definitions. We went up to Aberdeen to take evidence. Aberdeen City Council said that there is some confusion in Government about the meaning of the concept of a just transition, which leads to funding programmes in which the intent is not clear. A lot of the discussion was about the difference between a just transition and an energy transition.

Does there need to be a better definition? You said at the start that it is “a living, breathing concept”. It is about achieving balance between flexibility and the need to change and adapt, and clarity, so that everyone knows what they are working towards. Does there need to be more work on defining what a just transition means for the north-east and Moray?

Mr Stewart, this will be your final question.

I have one other question before I bring in Gordon MacDonald. What incentives does the green freeport offer as a result of closing down the refinery and moving to an import and export business? It looks as though the green freeport is costing rather than creating jobs, because we are looking at losing 400 jobs at Ineos. What factor does the green freeport play in the decision, given that it will be offering tax breaks?