Chamber and committees

As Jackie Dunbar has raised the issue of transport, I would like to ask a very brief question about ferries. Last December, our predecessor committee described the management of the procurement of the two new ferries as a “catastrophic failure”. Since then, we have been told that the new completion date is 2023, which is, I think, five years behind the original schedule, and that the final costs will be over £200 million. My question, cabinet secretary, is this: do you know whether that is the final projection for the target date and cost, or could that move again? Given the need for on-going vessel replacement, what is the Government doing to ensure that that “catastrophic failure” does not happen again?

I understand your point. What I am hearing in relation to my concern is that next year, with the publication of plans, is critical. You mentioned hydrogen, which I might come back to, although I will not make a substantive point on that at this stage.

On a slightly different topic, the Scottish Government announced four years ago that a publicly owned energy company would be created to generate and supply energy but, £500,000 later, it seems to have been dropped—we heard last week that it will not go ahead. Will you help the committee to understand why the policy changed? When was the decision to drop the policy made and by whom? Do you have oversight of what the £500,000 was spent on?

I appreciate that this might be a question for Mr Dey, whom we might bring in, but what is the Government going to do to ensure that that does not happen again? Do you know off the top of your head what has already been put in place?

I am grateful. I think that what I am hearing is that, in some ways, the focus has changed from supply to demand, and it is about what needs to change when it comes to demand.

Just sticking with the policy on a publicly owned energy company, I saw that your party’s conference voted at the weekend for a different policy from yours, in that it would prefer that an energy company was created. Will that impact on your thinking? If so, what steps will be taken?

I am very grateful for that.

Yes. Thank you for that. I listened carefully when Dave Moxham talked to Jackie Dunbar about the move that oil and gas workers can make into jobs in other areas and energy sectors. I understand that point, but then ask myself: where will an offshore chef find an onshore chef’s job with the equivalent pay? Where will the helicopter pilot fly to if there is no installation to get to? Where will the crew of a platform supply vessel work if the vessel does not have a platform to go to? Where will the roustabout find work onshore with the equivalent pay? Those roles do not readily map on to something like offshore wind. Ought not the Scottish Government to be addressing those sorts of questions urgently and talking about what it wants our oil and gas workers to retrain into and what green jobs might be available if it is to get the buy-in that Dave Moxham rightly said is required?

In its final advice, the commission recommended that the Scottish Government develop detailed road maps and that workers in carbon-intensive industries be supported in accessing the skills that they require to transition. The Scottish Government has not done that work yet, and the funding skills that have been announced lack detail. Is it important to have these details and schemes in place before the Scottish Government takes decisions that might lead to serious problems for, say, workers in the oil and gas industry and the north-east?

I think that you mentioned fuel poverty in response to an interesting line of questioning from Monica Lennon, gentlemen. The Scottish Government announced the intention to set up a publicly owned energy company to address fuel poverty and achieve net zero. Do you have a view on whether such a company would have achieved that in light of the just transition principles that you have worked to? Having considered that, do you have any insights on why the ambition to have a publicly owned energy company is yet to be realised?

Good morning, gentlemen. I will continue with the line that my friend Jackie Dunbar has been pursuing, because it is such an important one. Jim Skea said earlier that the words “just transition” are used as “magic dust”. I understand that point, and you rightly flagged up issues about the practicalities. I read a BBC report this morning that said that if Cambo went ahead, associated with it would be

“1,000 direct jobs in Scotland and 2,000 more in the supply chain”

and

“another 500 elsewhere in the UK.

The report contrasted that with the Viking project—described as a “vast new wind farm” in Shetland being put together by SSE Renewables—which would have “35 permanent jobs” associated with it. For a transition that we all accept that we need to make, is there an issue with not only the practicalities of what can be achieved but the realities of it?

I have a brief question on that topic. Dave Moxham mentioned the college sector in passing. There must be a requirement for specific courses to aid any transition, and furthermore for lecturers to deliver them. That needs to happen up front, because in order to drive a transition you need those courses to be delivered and for people to be coming out of them. Is there any evidence that those courses are being put in place and that lecturer skills are being put in place to deliver them, or has that stalled waiting for a transition plan and, if so, does action need to be taken very quickly?