Chamber and committees

One of the reasons why I asked the question is that it is fair to say that there was a lot of criticism of the lack of detail in the wider just transition plan for energy that was published recently, not least from your just transition commission, which was not consulted on that development. It said:

“we are … deeply concerned about the lack of evidence of adequate policy actions to deliver a just transition for the Energy sector, particularly given the urgent need to shift gear in the rest of the 2020s.”

Friends of the Earth pretty much said that it was more of the same when we know that more of the same will not deliver our net zero targets.

Do you recognise the criticism that the draft just transition plan lacked the detail that we need to deliver the just transition that we all want?

Those targets, and the route map to monitor them, will be contained in the plan for Grangemouth when you publish it. Is that right?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. The Grangemouth plan will be the first regional just transition plan. How will it differ from the sectoral plans that have been published, and how, specifically, will you measure success?

We know that any energy transition is likely to reduce emissions. However, there has been criticism in the past that, although the growth of onshore wind, for example, has contributed to a reduction in emissions, it has not delivered the economic boost for which there was real potential.

How do we make sure that, with the plan for Grangemouth, we do not repeat the mistakes of the past? How will you measure that? Will there be specific measurements in the plan to enable us to assess whether it is a genuine just transition plan?

In the past, the Government promised 120,000 new jobs by 2020, but the Fraser of Allander Institute recently did a piece of work that concluded that 27,000 jobs had been created. One of the institute’s criticisms was that it had to work out what a renewables job was, because it could not measure it. Are you confident that you will be measuring what you want to have in that plan, or will you have to start to measure new things, too?

Professor Skea, can I follow up on your point about looking at what data or information is already there? There must be gaps. The Fraser of Allander Institute recently carried out work to measure the economic impact of the renewables sector and concluded that 27,000 jobs had been created, but the institute had to define that for itself, because there was no definition of a renewables job. There must be gaps in what we are measuring.

My main point is not about what we measure or the figure at the moment; it is about what the actual target is. It will be easy for ministers to stand up and say that things are fabulous and that we have created a certain number of jobs as a result of the just transition, but how do we know that that figure should not have been five or 10 times higher? We need to see genuine targets for a just transition. At the moment, the energy plan targets for onshore wind seem to be about how much power is generated, but how do we get targets that measure specifically whether that generation is creating a just transition?

Do you want that to be incorporated in the Government’s final just transition plan and the various sectoral plans?

I think that Elliot Ross would like to comment on that.

I presume that there also need to be targets so that we can measure how many jobs have been created. Onshore wind is a prime example. The target in the energy strategy to produce 12GW of onshore wind is great, but communities across Scotland tell us that, at the moment, the turbines are not built in Scotland, so we know that there is a gap there. Surely, as well as knowing how many jobs are created, the plans should give us specific targets for the number of jobs that should be created.

I will use the example of offshore wind. How many supply chain jobs should be created in Scotland as a result of ScotWind? Surely we should have a target for that, against which we can measure progress. That way, we will be able to measure not just how many jobs have been created but how we have done against the target.

You very diplomatically did not say what the Governments need to do, but you make fairly valid points.

You will be pleased to know that you have already answered just about every question that I had. I am going to turn the discussion around a bit.

The message so far is that we have these ambitious targets for net zero but the UK Climate Change Committee has been pretty scathing of the UK and Scottish Governments for not having a plan in place yet to meet those targets. You have all said that the good news—notwithstanding the risk associated with new technologies—is that there is substantial funding available, although the Governments are not using the policy levers to make sure that that funding comes forward.

We are not the Government; we are a parliamentary committee. What do you think are the barriers preventing the Governments from enabling you to bring forward that finance? Why are the Governments it not putting forward those policy changes and what do we need to do as a committee to change that? Other than getting on with the job, what would you like to see the Governments change? What do they need to change to enable that funding to come forward? Do not worry: you can be as frank and as critical as you wish. It is okay—we will not tell them what you say.