 We title the 11th meeting in 2023 of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. I've received apologies this morning from Colin Beattie. Our first item of business is the sixth evidence session on our inquiry into a just transition for the Green yells mouth area. Today's session will focus on the work of the just transition commission and we will consider the key issues and challenges in achieving a just transition. I'm pleased to welcome, once again, to the committee professor, Jim Skey, who Jim Ski, chair of the Just Transitions Commission, who is joined by Elliot Ross, head of the Just Transitions Commission Secretaryate. We will also be joined by Lang Banks, who is a commissioner on the Just Transitions Commission, but he has been delayed in joining the meeting. As always, I have witnesses and members could keep their questions and answers as concise and short as possible. That would be helpful. I start by asking about recent publications. It would be fair to say that there has been a little bit of tension between the commission and the Scottish Government. I understand that the member of my understanding has now been published, and Professor Ski might want to say a wee bit about that and about the importance of that. If you believe that, that will strengthen the relationships and make it clear what the role of the commission is. Would it be fair to say that there has been a degree of frustration from the commission around lack of pace and detail in the energy strategy that we have received so far? Just to say, and thanks for the invitation to come before the committee, you really appreciate that. You will all have seen the exchange of letters that we had with the previous minister, Richard Lochhead. You are right to point out that there have been issues about the relationship that we have been trying to work through. Perhaps it is not surprising that we are in the second phase of the Just Transition Commission and our role has changed quite significantly. It covers scrutiny and advice, which has the potential to put our tension in there. Apart from issues, we can get on to the content of things such as Just Transition Plans, because we have issues about pace and detail. The other issue was the degree to which information has been shared with the commission at an early stage in the process as Just Transition Plans are evolving, going through their skeleton and draft stage. The exchange of letters has helped to clear the air. I have had meetings with Richard Lochhead before the change in the cabinet, and I have also had a session with Mary McCallan since then, just to make sure that the issues are sorted out. One of the challenges has been that Just Transition, as we have conceived it, is quite broad and the delivery goes right across the entire Government system. It can be difficult. I have sympathy there. You have one unit within the Government that is trying to pull it all together. It is a challenging thing to do, because you have to bring your other colleagues and the Government along with you. We particularly welcome that the Just Transition portfolio is now up there at the cabinet level, because we think that that provides a basis for knocking heads together a bit more in responding to the commission. The publication of the memorandum is good. It was negotiated a bit, but I think that we are happy with what we have got there, understanding that not necessarily everything can be shared, but there has been frustration. We have expressed that. Thank you. Do you want to say a little bit more about the outcome of the memorandum of understanding? When the draft Just Transition Strategy for Energy was published, the commission came back with a very detailed report. I think there are eight to four recommendations that really pushes the Government on some of the detail, or looks behind the headline top line statements that are made. It did feel a bit like if this had been done at an earlier stage, rather than on behalf of the draft. It would have been more productive, but it probably would have been a better consultation document. Do you say that that has been the intention going forward, that there is a wee bit more detail in the drafts when they come forward? The thing for some of our commission members was the issue about how early we saw some of those items. We felt that we were getting high-level aspirational documents on more than one occasion and that they had not made an awful lot of development from one stage to another. That is the key point of it. Many of our members represent their own communities of interest, say the trade unions or the environmental groups. They have opportunities to respond to consultations through that particular route. One of the USPs' unique points for the commission is that it brings different communities of interest together at an early stage, and we strive to reach a consensus that we have certainly done so far. If we can be consulted and brought into the process a little earlier, we think that it will help to forge a consensus and move things forward more quickly. Finally, you acknowledged that net zero has been moved to a cabinet position. Energy has gone to a different cabinet sector. There has been a division of those two responsibilities. Do you think that that is a strength? Will that help to try to build consensus within cabinet? Do you anticipate that, or do you see that as creating any kind of tensions? There are always tensions. This is a difficult, difficult policy area, so there are tensions that can be constructive as they are being worked out. I think that it is positive for us that the Just Transition portfolio has moved to cabinet level, and that is probably the most important thing for us, because if you look at the recommendation that we made at the end of Just Transition Commission phase 1, it was for a cabinet level post. We were happy enough to work when it was a minister, but it has really fulfilled the original recommendation. Obviously, it gives us the message that those issues are now going to be distrust at cabinet level, and they are not going to be taking forward so deeply inside the Government system. That is one of the points that you make in the response to the draft report. There is a need to tackle some of the difficult questions and to get to the nub with some of the harder issues and try to reach consensus. I am now going to bring in Maggie Chapman to be followed by Graham Simpson. I am interested in exploring the relationships between the sectoral and regional plans and how they talk to each other or not. We know that we are expecting to further sectoral plans alongside the Grangemouth area plan imminently. I am interested in how you think those plans should relate to each other and what additional things could be in the regional plan in a way that the sectoral plans cannot cover. Are those regional plans the way in which we should be seeing that kind of all-government, cross-government approach that you have already highlighted in response to Clare? I think that the individual sectoral plans are already quite broad in the scope that they cover, and they would necessarily involve co-ordination across the Government system to deliver them. Many of our commissioners are keen on taking a place-based approach to just transition. We have made the point that place is important. That is why we go on trips to Isle of Lewis to understand situations in particular circumstances. The picking out of Grangemouth for a regional or a more local plan symbolises the fact that there is just so much economic activity around Grangemouth that is so important for the Scottish economy. However, it would be difficult to think about Grangemouth outside the context of plans for energy specifically, for example, in moving things forward. Just to say that the pace at which the plans are coming out is definitely a challenge for the commission. As you know, we all have day jobs and are trying to do something else, so we are trying to keep on top of four sectoral plans that are under development. We honestly have not discussed the Grangemouth plan at all or prospects with us at this particular stage. We have just been at each individual meeting. We are having one about once a month at the moment. We are following the draft sectoral plans. We have looked at energy, we have sent a copy of a letter in relation to the current consultation. We did transport, we spent a couple of days in Dundee last week focusing on transport and we move on to agricultural land use and buildings and construction subsequently. The pace at which the plans are being produced is setting the pace of our work at the moment. That is definitely where the priority lies, but we have some commissioners who constantly prick our conscience and remind us that we need to have this place-based approach alongside that. Frankly, you cannot do Grangemouth without thinking about the energy plan as well. I suppose that, related to that, in your correspondence with the Scottish Government, you talked about the need for clear roadmaps and that being vital to the credibility of any of the just transition plans. In what you have seen so far—I take what you say about the Grangemouth plan not being something that you have spent time on just yet—what do you see as the challenges or potential barriers for getting that detailed road mapping into the plans that we currently have and what are the opportunities for us to overcome those? One of the main points that we picked up with the draft energy plan was the quite aspirational nature of some of it. We may come on to that, but, for example, in relation to hydrogen, the assumption was that a lot of the market might lie in export opportunities. We did not see the evidence there for that to justify where those markets were going to be. Clearly, that is incredibly important for Grangemouth, because you would see that as one of the core locations if you were taking place hydrogen-based activity. Unless you have clear idea about realistic plans in areas like that, I think that it is going to be very difficult to be precise about what the opportunities are for the Grangemouth area are. You say that you have not really had a look at Grangemouth. Clearly, this committee has been looking at Grangemouth. Has there been no discussion about what you would like to see in the Grangemouth plan, or has there been some? Can you give us a flavour of the kind of things that you might want to see? Just to say, the Just Transition Commission has not discussed Grangemouth at all except to note the fact that we are going to need to get there and put it on our agenda for later in the year. The first phase of the Just Transition Commission did pay a visit to Grangemouth. We had a meeting there that talked about issues such as the ACORN project, but we did not visit the NHS plant. A lot of our discussion there was about the way that the plant interacts with local communities, for example. That was basically where our discussions then, up to three years ago now, so I am struggling a little bit to remember it. One of the key issues that we were looking at there were what were the kind of employment opportunities for people in the communities surrounding the plant. For example, we visited the local high school to look at what they were doing to prepare people for employment in the kind of activities that you might expect to see in Grangemouth in the future, and to raise some expectations in communities where people had not traditionally gone to university to raise the expectations there so that you can get higher quality employment and look at opportunities for apprenticeships. We got as far as that in the first phase of the Just Transition Commission, but we have not really zero conversation to all intents and purposes in Just Transition Commission 2. Fair enough, I think that there might be some questions about communities later on. You mentioned earlier that some of the members of the commission want to take a more place-based approach. We have been talking about Grangemouth, but are there any other areas that deserve that approach? The debate in the commission was basically whether, in organising our meetings, we themed them according to sectors or we themed them according to places. Given the fact that the sectoral plans were coming up, the decision was to go with a kind of a sectoral structure for the meeting, but as far as possible to locate our meetings, because we do not meet in Edinburgh and Glasgow all the time, to locate the meetings where the theme had particular resonance. For example, there is a lot of keenness. We did the transport meeting last week, and we did that in Dundee because there are some particular issues around public transport, the way that people on the periphery of the town get access to public transport. We went to the Isle of Lewis to look at issues around community ownership of renewable projects. We also looked at peatland restoration, which is potentially an opportunity, and there are people who are keen to go to Shetland as well, for example. The agriculture and land use meeting, which we will be having next month, will be in the Granton area, where agriculture is significant but also broader land use issues. Do you see what we are trying to do is pick out places where the sectoral themes resonate, and that is our strategy at the moment? There are members of our commission who are very strongly in favour of the place-based approach. So, when you're having these meetings around the country, are you inviting local people along to find out about these local issues? Yes, absolutely. I can just give you an example of the structure of the meeting that we had in Dundee last week. We started out at the Michelin Innovation Park hearing about some of the issues with people of the local. In the evening, we had a town meeting, for which there was an open invitation, just for ordinary members and the public to come in to talk about their issues around transport. We also did site visits around all the electric vehicle charging facilities on that day prior to the main meeting, and then we had a meeting ourselves where we talked with various transport professional groups, the local council, and then we had a private meeting and a final wash-up session with Scottish Government officials. At every meeting, we try to do something, say, the evening or the afternoon before, which engages real people, if you know what I mean, rather than just the professionals and the usual stakeholders, if I can put it that way. It has been a strong theme of ours that, when you do these consultations, you get the same faces turning up all the time. We hope to emphasise that it is important to go beyond that and get a wider range of voices in as well, that we really want to hear. I think that makes sense. That is an excellent approach. Committees of this Parliament often get the same people, so I know where you are coming from. Apologies for turning up twice. I did not mean you. The other sectoral plans—this will be my final question—do we have any timescales on when we expect to see them? I will turn to Elliot Ross, who is head of the Just Transition Commission sector at Teria, because Elliot is right on top of all those communications with the Scottish Government. Elliot, I do not know if you want to comment on that. Good morning, committee. Thanks for having us back. Apologies for my voice. I have a terrible cold, so I am not with you this morning. In terms of timescales, the issue gets back to the MOU conversation. We have a shared work plan with the Scottish Government that helps to form up the expectations and the dates, in particular in terms of the information sharing and exchange. We will be looking over the course of the next couple of months at very early, sort of, outlined drafts of the upcoming sectoral plans. We will be providing early advice, publishing early advice off the back of the workshops that we are running over the next couple of months. Transport was the first last week of these. We were expecting to see a full draft, as it were, in November. That is when we will be looking to see that. The other thing to say is that a couple of members have asked about the place-based element in the regional plans. That is a really live issue at the moment. There is a real opportunity to have a conversation about that that can help to shape the Scottish Government's thinking on that. I know that, in the autumn, at some point, we are expecting to review the approach that the Government will be looking to take on regional plans. That, obviously, will have to look quite carefully at how those regional plans sit alongside and complement and build upon the sectoral plans that are already well-progressed by that point. Before I bring in Jamie Halcro Johnston, I understand that Lang Banks has now been able to join the committee. Good morning, committee. I apologise for my later eye hole. I hope that I'll lie in anything and let down the public transport. Mr Banks, how might we just start with an initial? Can you hear us okay? There's a bit of... Can you hear me okay? Yeah, we can. I think that there's just a little bit of delay possibly on the line. Before I bring in Jamie Halcro Johnston, I'll give you an initial question. We've had a discussion around the commission's response to the Government's draft plan on energy. We've had a discussion with Professor Ski, but you might want to say a little bit about the meeting in the 27th of January that the commission had and the key areas that you've highlighted. There are a number. You've got inequalities, equity, fair work, road maps. There's a number of different issues in there. Professor Ski has explained that you've not looked in specific at Grange Mouth so far. We are expecting the draft plan to come forward on Grange Mouth, but are there any areas that you would focus on in relation to Grange Mouth as we're anticipating that plan coming forward? Yes, thank you, convener, and thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on this. I was one of the commissioners who was a second time around. The commission and I was at their original visit to the Grange Mouth that Jim talked about. I've been thinking long and hard about their return there as we come to Grange Mouth. I think that there's probably three things I'd say. One is that part that's highlighted from our meeting is the engagement part. It's one thing that I've learned over the past two or three decades of seeing a transition that has been unfair and unjust in Scotland is the lack of engagement that goes around facilities and their communities. There is certainly a lot of engagement with the workforce, whether that's good enough or not, but there are people who would probably say that that hasn't been good enough, but certainly what we've discovered of that time is the engagement with the wider community. Those perhaps are responsible for the taxi runs, the sandwich shop, the other things that are supported by those industrial complexes. They often get forgotten on a day-to-day basis, and they certainly get left behind when it comes to the closure of those facilities. I've always thought it unjust, for example, in my role as an environmental organisation, that I hear first before communities that their facility is closing. That feels wrong. It shouldn't happen. It should be the workforce and the wider community should hear about those, and it should be part of the plans leading up to the transition of the workforce or the closure of their facility. It shouldn't be left just to chance that they somehow find out about it. There's a real importance, as I emphasise, on genuine and deep engagement beyond the workforce, beyond the fence line of facilities. It's really important to bring people with us on the transition. The second one is the opportunity that we have from a just transition is to begin to address some of the existing inequalities that we have in society, so that's a really exciting opportunity that comes from a just transition in the journey to net zero. The real importance of making sure that we map and understand the existing inequalities in and around facilities or in industries and sectors in order that we are picking some of those up and making them better for people as part of the transition as well, even if they're not more indirect from things. I think that that's another way that's really important. The third and final one is, again, coming from engaging the public and the wider workforce is accessibility. The documents that we made through are huge, complex and often filled with jargon. It's important that, as we move forward with the just transition, whether it's Grangements or elsewhere, we are really thinking about how we make the documentation as accessible as possible in order that everyone feels that they've got the understanding of what's going on and what they can do and how they can influence it. Final point on Grangements is that I was recently at an event organised in and around Mossmorran, which of course is not Grangement but is not dissimilar, smaller, but if looking at a just transition from Grangement, I think it would be helpful to think about those other sites that are connected to or related to or do similar things together, because I think there's lots that could be shared between the companies, the workforces, the communities about how to get a transition to be as good as possible. So great focus on Grangement, but maybe think about where it connects with others and other similar facilities. That's great, thank you. I'm never again, Jamie Halcro Johnston, to be followed by Michelle Thompson. Thanks very much. Good morning to the panel. First, I was very encouraged that, from Professor Skear, you're talking about going out and about and the place-based approach. Obviously, as a Highlands-Islands MSP, I am always going on about how we need to make sure that the whole of Scotland is represented and to be doing the Western Isles and going up to Shetland and Grant, and that's very, very important and very encouraging. I wanted to talk or ask some questions really around SMEs and I suppose their role and how they can be supported. One of the or certainly previous witnesses have talked about how there is a particular need to support SMEs and how we do that firstly with the necessary planning, but also making sure that the there is agreed and consistent approach to measuring carbon and quantifying the effect of reform. I'm just wondering if you could let me know the opinion of yourselves on that and how you think we can make sure that's better and engage with SMEs, too. Who would you like to put the question to, Mr Skear? Sorry, to Professor Skear. That's clearly a really important issue and it's one which we probably have not given enough attention to on the good commissions so far. Particularly in relation to issues such as skills and training, it's going to be extremely important. I think that we do need to give this more attention in the future. I wonder if Elliot, if I could pass this over to you, who have had a chance to do perhaps a bit more thinking on this? Yeah, thanks, Jim. It is a really important topic for us and I think that, as Jim suggests, it's not one that we've been able yet to bring into concerted focus. It has come through, rather, in terms of the engagement that we've done, particularly with local people as we move around the country. I think that what we're finding there is that the different sectoral issues as we explore them obviously touch on the capacity for SMEs to grow and to maximise their potential. The example that comes to mind most obviously was hearing about shellfish businesses in the Western Isles. The very obvious challenges that are presented by transport issues and uncertainty, particularly around ferry services in the area. We also hear a fair bit about this whenever we speak to local government, which we do as we go around the country as well. They are often very good at raising these kinds of issues. I think that that is a good question and it is something that we will try to get more firmly in our agenda for future meetings to make sure that we are hearing. In terms of our engagement approach, we do like to be directly from the particular constituents that we're trying to think about and trying to understand those perspectives. That would be one, I think, for specialist attention at a future meeting. Do you think that that is likely going forward to be an approach that you take where, for example, you break down sectorally, as well as SMEs. For example, the seafood sector in an area, agriculture somewhere else, retail and so on. How do you think that you might do that breakdown to be able to explore it in the needs most pertinently? For the purpose of this year, we are going to be, because the core function of the commission for this year is to provide advice and scrutiny on the development of the sexual plans. I think that it will be primarily sexual for 2023. From 2024 onwards, I think that you're into a different space in terms of those regional plans being developed. I think that there would be a particular opportunity to release spotlight and to do a deep dive on issues faced by SMEs around the country. I think that you wanted to come in on this. Yes, thanks. I sit in two subgroups within the commission, one in agriculture and land use and one in buildings and constructions. The importance of SMEs and small businesses in the delivery of just transition is something that we've discussed in both of those groups. We've been discussing it with a view of two things. One is that we've got meetings coming up at the ski talk about agriculture and land use, so we're looking at who could we invite that may fall into that bracket in order that we can speak to them as part of our evidence gathering. The building and constructions ones, we've already had conversations about the important role that small businesses, specifically construction and building, will play in, for example, retrofitting homes right across Scotland from the islands right through the central belt, and the importance of making sure that they are skilled up and supported in order to do that, because the reality is that transition is going to happen. We are going to need to improve people's homes. We need to be gearing up now, so we've been at least talking about in that subgroup about how we might do that and who do we need to speak to and what is needed from our skills, development and support for those businesses. A couple of things I'd say also in addition to that is that the great thing about SMEs and the delivery of the just transition is that they are right across our country. While we've been talking about place-based, we know that there are places in Scotland that we can engage with, of course we need to focus and understand what the transition means for those, but right across the country we're going to have to see a transition too, but we've got fantastic opportunity to spread the jobs and the benefits to many of those SMEs right across the country from our islands to rural to our benefit. I think that's really quite exciting, but what we've discovered so far is that there's a couple of things that are missing, the policy direction and then the support to enable that to happen, so that's something that we'll be looking at in both those subgroups in the coming months. That's very helpful. At the moment, do you think that there is probably a lack of awareness on this and also not only awareness on the need for just transition, but also how that's going to be achieved, how that's going to be measured from SMEs? Absolutely, both. I mean, I think people are, SMEs are probably just getting their head around the drive to net zero, and that's great. We can see businesses that are starting to think like that, that are starting to change their business practice. I think that what they haven't quite got yet to just transition is relatively new for many of that concept. It's really important that we get that too, because what we want to make sure is that we spread the benefits right across the country from going to net zero, that we deliver fair working and good jobs to people, and that, at the same time, we're improving people's lives. SMEs have been a crucial role in that, whether it be in land, in agriculture or building homes. I think that there's a lot to be done, but I think that we're just at the beginning of the understanding of what's needed there. Michelle Thomson, to be followed by Colin Smyth. Good morning, thank you for attending. Professor Skea and Lang Banks, both of you, have made commentary about the local community. Throughout the inquiry, we've had some quite compelling evidence from the local community council in particular about what they feel about a disconnect in engagement in the just transition. So, if both of you could flesh out what your thoughts are in terms of what a good co-design process would look like in developing the just transition plan, what would that look like, and critically, what would that feel like for the local community? I'd appreciate your thoughts on that. Perhaps, Lang Banks, I can see you on the screen first and then, Professor Skea? Sure. This is so important. As I said previously, over the decades, I've realised just how critical this is to the delivery of this in a way that brings people with it. In some respects, I've not been surprised at the lack of engagement. I think that this is just the way it is, unfortunately, with many things. We can't afford that to continue because the speed at which we need to move, the challenges that we need to rise to in delivering net zero, are huge, but so are the opportunities. We can't afford to not have meaningful engagement. One of the things that has happened with the energy strategy is the expectation has been raised by talking about co-design. Absolutely, we should see co-design, and that should definitely be the aspiration that we need to get there, as we need to develop the sectoral and place-based just transition plans. We've not had that up until now, and I think that we need to accept that that has been the case, but we need that we should aspire. We should aspire to make sure that, as we develop the next phases of our just transition plans for different sectors, that that happens, because we can't keep saying to people that we're going to co-design, we're getting them involved, and then we discover that it's not co-design at all. If there was a recommendation that absolutely gets co-design, recognises a need now for the timescales with regards to the climate change plan or some things that need to happen, the just transition plans now and the sectoral plans, we'll be pragmatic about it, but let's not say that those are co-designed unless they are, but let's keep the ambition there, the ambition that we will get to co-design, because the just transition plans won't stop at the end of this year. They're going to have to continue, so let's keep improving and learning from where it is. The key one for me is that we need to get to co-design. It's not co-design just now, but we need to get there. I hope that you can hear me. There was an SME with a pneumatic drill outside my window, so I've had to move to plan B in terms of communicating with the committee, but just to echo what Llangas Beep said, there was a very strong view of all commissioners that the aspirations for co-design were not actually being achieved, and it needed much more elaborate processes that allowed for two-way consultation, not just telling people what's going to happen, but listening to what their expectations are and taking it into account. Maybe if I can go back to the exchange we had with Graham Simpson earlier on about talking to real people, as well as the usual stakeholders, if I can put it that way. That's the kind of thing that needs to be built in. Last week in Dundee, we got a very different story from the transport professionals than the one that we got from the transport users that we met in the community hall kind of event. The professionals wanted to talk about EV charging, and the users just wanted to talk about buses and public transport, and it gave you a very strong idea of what people's real priorities were. I think no matter what kind of plan you're working on, whether it's sectoral or whether it's place-based, you do need to have these conversations with people and have them at an early stage and listen to what people's concerns are, otherwise you will not get that sense of engagement, the co-design, and people will not perceive the transition to be just, unless they're actually listening to us as plans are developed. I wanted to follow on. They say that you get what you measure and therefore the measures and the kind of data collectors, if you like, that both frame out what the focus will be, in other words, what you're going to measure and actually collecting that data, so that we can determine to what extent a success has occurred. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that and also how advanced real data collectors on a sort of standardised methodology basis are in place. In other words, is this quite easy to do or is it still developing? Again, Professor Skea, since you're on the screen. I think that Lang will want to pick it up as well, but you're absolutely right. You will not achieve that unless you measure things. We've put it into place a monitoring and evaluation working group for the Just Transition Commission to think about that. Progress on that has not been so rapid on the Government's side, as we would have hoped. It's a question of which end of the telescope you can't look at. Do you start with a kind of an ideal approach and say, if we're going to measure Just Transition, these are the things that we need to do and the areas in which we need to collect data, but data collection is intensive. It's not always happening. What we want to do, and we have discussed this in the commission, is that we could use some of our kind of budget to do another project that starts at the other end of the telescope to look at what is available that would allow us to, in a more systematic way, monitor and evaluate how well the transition is going, because there's a lot of data out there. One of the things that we think is quite important, if you're looking at it from an official statistics point of view, the standards for the quality of data are quite high before they become official statistics. There are lower tier things that are turned to experimental statistics from the Government, and there are data that's collected by trade associations, trade unions, etc., and other groups. Frankly, since getting to net zero by 2045 is a great experiment in itself, we think that we should not let the best be the enemy of the good, and we should look for what data is out there from wherever it's come from, be honest about the quality of the data, but take what we've got and apply it there. We would like to have a project that frankly looks out. What have we got that's out there, not just from the Government, trade associations, trade unions, etc., to move it forward? We've got a long way to go and monitor and evaluation. Starting with the ideal is not necessarily the best place. We'd like to start at the other end. What have we got? We've identified for the energy transition the areas in which we think that we need data that's relevant. Fuel poverty, a question of ownership of community projects for energy, economic issues around investment levels, the impact of the investment, and then obviously some set of indicators on labour markets, jobs, trainings and skills, but we need to go out there and frankly just scrape what's out there to discover what's available that would allow us to address these issues rather than starting with an ideal. I think that we will inevitably find big gaps, but maybe Lang wants to follow that up. Lang, before I bring you in just to add an additional dimension, I don't disagree with your approach, Professor Ski, about utilising what you already have, but I suppose that Lang, in addition to that, is there not a risk that in scraping the data that you already have that you miss key insights, particularly a gendered lens of how the just transition is impacting or not, as the case may be, women if we use that approach. I'd also like your reflections of how we can make it. It's not just women, of course, it's diversity in all its form, so perhaps you could add that into your answer as well. That's a really good question. I think that that's exactly the type of point that is emerging as we have our face-to-face conversations with communities and people when we travel around the country. There's the data that Jen talked about. I'm absolutely right that we should use what's already there, but I think that what we are discovering as we go around the country is how we need to refine that. It's one thing to have the data on, for example, the number of people in fuel poverty, but can you go down a level and, for example, look at how that is split across? Who is it specifically that is suffering from fuel poverty? Is that specific? Are there uncertain? Is that gender split? Is that ethnic minority groups? What is it that's driving that? It's not just fuel poverty, that's the headline figure. What does it tell? Who is it that we need to target even more in those? It's a very good point, and we need to add a little bit of quality to those numbers that are already out there, but that's something that, as we go around the country, we're discovering as we speak to people, real people, we're discovering these little nuances of what's need to measure, so that's a very good point, and I'm very agree with that. I think that one of the things that I'd like to turn to just the question that you asked earlier about engagement, I think that there's two points that I'd like to add that I didn't make earlier, and one is we've got, for example, the draft energy strategy transition plan, the inability now to go back in or Scottish Government to go back and look at some sort of gap analysis of who's missing. I mean, there's not a way that they went out, and there was consultation, and that's great. I think that even they would recognise that there were some groups, and some individuals they didn't get to in their first sleep, and I think that a bit of a gap analysis about who was missing or who would they expect in, how are they going to go about making sure that we somehow find a way to engage in that conversations with those individuals or those groups that have been missed out this first time round, and use the lessons from that as we develop the other sectoral plans as well. I think that the other thing I'd say is that it's really important in the next version of this plan and in future plans to explicitly say how that engagement and how in speaking and engaging with those individuals has affected the plan or has changed the plan, because I think it's really important for people to realise that they were listened to and they were heard and they were understood, and I think it's often easy just to kind of skip off that page and say, here's the decision, I think we need to see a little bit more of it. We change that or that influence this outcome. That would be really great to see, and I think that we'd build a lot more trust in these types of processes going forward. You made an important point about the feedback loop. Anyway, thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Colin Smyth, we follow up by Fiona Hyslop. Thanks very much, convener. Can I just follow up on the point, Professor Cwyd, that you made about looking at effectively what information, what data is already there? There must be gaps. Fraser Vallander Institute recently carried out some work, measuring the economic impact of the renewable sector. It concluded that 27,000 jobs had been created, but they had to define that themselves because there was no definition of renewable jobs, so there must be gaps in what we measure. My main point is not about what we measure and what the figure is at the moment, but about what the target is. It will be very easy for ministers to stand up and say, fabulous, we've created X number of jobs as a result of the just transition, but how do we know that that figure shouldn't have been five times that, ten times that? Surely we need to see genuine targets on what is a just transition. The targets at the moment seem to be, for example, onshore wind around how much is generated, and there's a target in energy plan to generate an amount of onshore wind, but how do we have targets that specifically measure whether or not that generation is creating a just transition? I mean, this is really helpful because it helps us to join up two points. First on, understanding what data is already there. Just to say, it's not just the case that there's data out there ready to roll and we can use it. We actually don't have a proper map of what data is out there at the moment, and that is what the job that we would like to do. Having done that, that enables you then to do two things. First of all, you can start to use that data, but it also is part of your, so it took the words out of my mouth, a gap analysis to see what new data or extra data is needed on top of what we've got already. So you just understanding what's out there is a really good starting point. Then it also connects it to the issue of the plans and the road maps that we've actually called for to be part of these plans. When you put a road map together, we would understand that it would involve working out how many jobs are associated with a particular activity. If you're scaling up activities for hydrogen, offshore wind or whatever, there would be an estimate of how many jobs this was creating, but also very importantly, the quality of the jobs as well. In that sense, the monitoring and evaluation of the road maps kind of go together. The road maps are kind of setting out the targets or the benchmarks that you've mentioned in your question, and then the monitoring and evaluation is the way of checking whether you're on a pathway to actually achieving that. I think the point about having targets is important. It needs to be backed up with a monitoring and evaluation to make sure we're on track. Let me just one other point about the Fraser of Alhander work. Very often, people can carry out pieces of works that are one-off jobs as it were. There will be one discrete project. The issue of monitoring and evaluation, you need to collect the data on a regular basis and keep coming back to it. When you do a study like Fraser of Alhander, you need some kind of system where it's repeated again in the future to see what progress you're kind of making. That is the challenge with more strain evaluation. It can't just be one-off studies. It has to be a regular stream of data that allows you to measure your progress in a more continuous way. Presumably, there also needs to be those targets so that we can measure how many jobs, but the challenge for us is to say, should there not? Onshore wind is a prime example of that. The target in the energy plan for 12 gigawatts of onshore wind is great, but communities right across Scotland will tell you another turbines at the moment are built in Scotland, so we know that there's a gap there. Surely, we need to know not just how many jobs are being created, but we should have specific targets in those plans for the number of jobs that should be created. Onshore wind is a real example. How many supply chain jobs should we have being created in Scotland as a result of Scotland? Surely, we should have a target for that figure, and then we're measuring towards a target, not just measuring how many jobs are being created. I couldn't actually agree with you more, and that is one of the reasons why we've called for more detail in the plans that we've got at the moment that are quite high-level and aspirational. We're saying that we need roadmaps in there for the number of gigawatts that are going in, but we need data about the number of jobs that these could create in Scotland that can help form the basis for the kind of targets that you're talking about. Your question really goes into the comments that we've been making about detail in terms of plans and roadmaps. Basically, I couldn't agree with you more. Therefore, is that something—is the Government producing its final just transition plan—is that something that you want to see in that final just transition plan and the very sectoral plans? Absolutely, that's the kind of detail that we need. I think that, earlier, it would like to come in and make a comment on that. Yeah, thanks. Just on the back of that to stress, there's a couple of specific recommendations included in the commission's advice on the energy strategy around Scotland, and the commission's been really clear that the supply chain benefits need to be much more prominent and much more detailed in terms of the energy strategy. The other overarching message from the commission in terms of the targets was really for the strategy to think about the transition for the energy system in the round. Of course, you have jobs growth in renewable sectors and likely reduction in high-emitting industries, but I think that the commission—one of the key themes of the discussion was also that a lot of the upside in terms of Scotland's energy transition is on the demand side and in terms of construction and all of the infrastructure that's going to be required to put up around the country. It's tricky because, as your raising concept, drawing a line around those things can be hard, but I think that the commission was really clear that it can't be too simple of a picture in terms of one industry being compared to another. This transition is going to involve an enormous amount of construction and building work, and that's a good thing. However, as Jim Stress is there, it's the quality of that work and the fair work considerations that will be really crucial, and that needs to be measurable and demonstrated in the strategy. Fiona Hyslop to be followed by Gordon MacDonald. Good morning. In your initial feedback on the accessibility of the just transition plans in order to allow non-specialists to engage with them, can you expand on that feedback and what needs to be done to improve the accessibility of current drafts? I just wondered whether you could reflect on what is the purpose and the audience for those just transition plans, because that also influences how they're written and the language that they're written in, and is the process of producing those just transition plans as important as the final publication? Can I maybe just get Jim Ski's overall view on that, and then, if either Elliot or Lang Banks want to come in, please let us know? I think that this is a really important issue. Obviously, when these plans are produced, they have to have multiple audiences there, because they are for investors to take something out of, they are for community groups, but it would be really helpful if they're much more understandable by real people, as the phrase used earlier. One of the criticisms of the very early drafts to the plan that came out, there was an awful lot of repetition in the plan, and we would have liked something a lot crisper and a lot more focused that really helped people. It may be that what we actually need—I'm talking personally here, but the commissioner hasn't really discussed this—is that we need a kind of people's summary of what the plan is that's in much plainer language. Occasionally, the professionals need to use their jargon to move forward, but it's not going to be something that resonates with ordinary people picking up the plan and reading it. We haven't had an awful lot of discussion about that, but we found the plans to be quite inaccessible in the sense of the degree of repetition turning back to the same topics. By the time you got to page 70 or 80, your eyes were beginning to blur a bit in terms of reading it. Getting something that does communicate better would be good. When we go through our reports, we go through it with a bit of a fine tooth comb and try to take out—add a few extra full stops, shorten the sentences and make it a bit punchier—all of those things that we need to pay attention to to make sure that it communicates more widely. As you say, Elliot does a lot of our early drafting for us, and it may have some observations to add on that as well. Elliot, do you want to come in? Yes, sure. I can add a couple of points on that. I think that an important principle that the commission set out in its first response to the energy strategy was geared towards all of the just transition plans that are in development, was that those must be accessible to everyone whose lives and livelihoods are likely to be impacted by the transition, and specifically that the principles, decisions, aims, actions, costs and benefits of the plans should be expressed in a way that a non-specialist cannot understand. That is really challenging because, as Jim suggests, it has to be really committed. There is a level of detail and complexity to them. That means that you might have to be thinking in terms of different kinds of communication products, in terms of making it accessible so that it can facilitate and enable that meaningful engagement and consultation. That linked into another point that came up in commission discussions that maybe it did not come through so much in the advice. It was just recognising the limits on capacity for the impacted groups and the stakeholders around the country. In terms of the draft plans that are consulted on, they need to recognise that there is a limit in terms of how much time people can put into reading and responding. That is where having a really clear steer in terms of that strategic clarity setting out what are the key decisions that were the key direction, what are the big takeaways, setting those out in a way that a non-specialist can understand and then consider and then respond. That was a really prominent part of the commission's considerations around the plan. At the same time that you wanted it to be accessible, your initial feedback was that you wanted more detail and credibility, particularly for the energy sector just transition plan. You responded with and we heard today about the need for more information on fuel poverty, ownership of community assets, investment, etc. I think that the challenge that we have is that if we are making recommendations as a committee and if we are having this open dialogue with you in your scrutiny and vice role, there is a tendency for government to put everything in the kitchen sink into documents and capture what we already know. Really what we want to capture in these just transition plans is what has to be done differently and over what areas. Is that something that you might want to comment on? I think only to agree. Perhaps as you are leading to there, there can be a tendency for a document of the scale and with the scope to try to include a very comprehensive overview. In terms of any kind of public engagement and consultation exercise, it is a really big and genuine challenge to make sure that people are aware of the work that is on-going and the policies that are already in place so that people are not necessarily starting from a blank sheet of paper, but setting a premium there in terms of what is being communicated to communities and organisations around the country to the impacted groups, setting a premium on what is new, what is going to change as a result of this planning work, will really help with the accessibility. If I can come to Lang Banks now, you talked about a gap analysis on the draft energy plan strategy itself, which I think that there is a lot of feedback that it is very strong on renewables electricity generation. However, as we know, there is far more to the energy transition than just generation. In fact, one of the reasons that this committee has chosen Grange Mouth is about the use of energy in the wider area. Just as the energy strategy itself, which is in draft form, will need to develop so too, I think that you were saying that the just transition plan needs to be a bit more wider in looking at demand aspects. In terms of what you want to say from the energy just transition plan, perhaps you could expand a bit on that as to what we might expect to see, because that could influence, obviously, the Grange Mouth just transition plan in particular, because it is not necessarily about energy generation, but it is actually about the other aspects of energy use. You are absolutely right to pick that out from our recommendations. If everything is connected, and certainly when it comes to energy, everything is connected, and I think that we definitely saw, and maybe that is with strength of where Scotland has been is that we have been very good at the supply side, whether that be oil and gas or renewables. Lots of it, and we are doing lots of it. However, the challenges that you have identified is that everyone else is then connected to it, usually, because they are a user of that energy in some shape or form. Without explaining that and looking at that in more detail, I think that we missed the opportunities of what the transition is really happening, because it is not just about supply, it is about demand. If, for example, you reduce demand, you do not need to have so much supply, so we are ultimately connected. Therefore, really important is the next version of this document and the iteration to go after that. We really drill down into understanding that, how do households use it, how do transport use the power of what we are going to be powering our transport in the future with. All those are really interconnected and really important. To your point on the question that you asked at the beginning, which is a bit how important the process is, how important the process is important, is absolutely in my view. I think that it is really important in this engagement that people understand that they are not being disenfranchised or their inputs are valuable and are valued and that they can see the impact of those. Therefore, I think that the process is really important, because we have seen too many times in our transition, as I said before, which have been unjust and unfair. Therefore, we need to get this process right, and so therefore it is really critical. I think that the other thing that I would say on this is that, when it comes to the outputs, I think that we need to make sure that it is not a fire and forget. I mean, in some respects it is very, you get to a point, you complete a report and you stick it on a website and you think that that is job done. Well, I do not think that that is job done. I think that it is really important to go back out to those groups and individuals and to explain them in their own language, in their own places, even in some cases, about what this plan now means for them. Again, take the feedback on that and keep going. It is an iterative process, but I think that we cannot just simply say in the output and forget about it that that is not going to work in this particular case. For that gap analysis, I think that I also say that it is really important that we use that to understand who we have not got to in these rounds. If anything, it is often the people who are going to be most impacted that often do not end up in the sweep of consultation. Let us make sure that we do the gap analysis and we go back out and we go back out again to those and find those people, those communities, those groups and get into where they are at and have these conversations because we cannot allow them to be left behind. It is too important, especially for those who are going to be most impacted. Finally, Professor Skea, we know that there is a lot of international interest in Scotland's approach to just transition, but is there a danger that if we are too broad in terms of our definition of what the energy strategy needs to cover and therefore what the just transition needs to cover, both on supply side and demand side, we might endanger the impact and the point of this is to have impact and change for our communities. Perhaps you can make me give your reflections on that as to lessons learned and where that points to for the future. In terms of the international side, everybody keeps pointing their finger at Scotland as a wonder, for example, of how to do things. I think that we do have a challenge of expectations management on this because there are too many people who think that we have discovered some kind of magic dust called just transition that you sprinkle on net zero policies and it makes it all easy. It is not easy, it is really difficult and we need to make sure that point gets across. One of the things is that because we have started to think about it in Scotland, we are starting to confront some difficult issues perhaps before other countries are facing up to it. I do not think that we should flantulate ourselves about the difficulties we are facing. Those are really difficult things and we are starting to face up to them more quickly than many other countries. Just to say on how broad the definition of just transition it is, there is a core issue around employment issues around the energy supply industry, which obviously is changing in character. However, it is striking in many other parts of the world that the just transition concept is also broadening as well. There are parts of the world where people are more concerned about land use issues, for example, than energy issues in relation to just transition. Other parts of the world, the demand side, is also an important factor. We need to look carefully at the boundaries, but there is a general trend for just transition conceptualisation of just transition, not just because we have done it in Scotland, it is happening more internationally as well. That is one of the reasons why people are interested in Scotland, because of that broadening of the concept beyond the traditional thing, which was very much focused on the run-down of the coal mining industry in different countries. That is still the issue, for example, in South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, where you have got these international just energy transition plans, or JETPs, as they are starting to be known. A couple of questions I want to ask. In the commission's report that was published in July last year, you noted the importance of an updated industrial strategy. UK Governments are largely responsible for industrial strategy, and on 1 March this year they withdrew their strategy, with the replacement plans not expected before this autumn. I was wondering what your views were on the impact of the delay in having an updated strategy would have on Scotland's plans for a just transition? One of the points that we have made in the most recent advice is co-ordination with the UK Government, because so many policies are still in the kind of reserved domain. Scotland's approach and the UK's Government's approach are distinctly different, and we have to face up to that. Scotland should not be delaying in its own thinking. It needs to keep the conversation going with the UK Government as much as possible. It must do a persuasion job to try to get the UK Government to advance industrial strategy, but we should not be holding back ourselves because of lack of progress in other parts of this island. I do not know if Lang or Lang may want to come in on that as well. Lang, have you got a view? The gym is on the answer on that one. We seem to have a problem with your volume there. Mr Baxter, do you wish to come in, or are you happy with Professor Ski addressing that? I am happy with Professor Ski's answer on that one. You highlighted that we move ahead on our own, Professor Ski, but, unfortunately, funding is a big issue. The ACON project is the Scottish cluster for car and capture and utilisation. It is not a full funding committed to it by the UK Government, having missed the 2021 funding round. It is now labelled as a leading contender. The fourth port of a described project is essential in making considerable contribution to emissions reductions. What is the commission's view on the importance of the ACON project and how do we move ahead without that funding? Professor Ski. I am sorry, but am I not herd at the moment? No, you are now, but you were not a minute ago. It is going to be difficult to move ahead without that funding at the UK level. What is left is for the Scottish Government to continue to press the case and for the participants in the project to make sure that they are ready to move if the starting gun is actually fired. The commission can only add its voice to this and say that this is an important project. It is part of the kind of energy strategy and just transition plan to move forward on carbon, capture and storage and nitrogen. We have to press as much as we can. I will come back to Professor Ski on the issue that has been raised by Gordon Macdonald on finance. Previous witnesses who have heard from have discussed the difficulty of raising the required capital. There has been a major barrier to a transition, citing lack of policy certainty and investable propositions. In the letter to the Government, you talked about the need for deliverable plans. In the response to the draft report, you talked about the need for private finance and being clear about just transition opportunities. Do you want to say a bit more about the financial leverage that can come from? We went to visit the NAL site and had a positive discussion with it about the future of the site and various commitments that have been made. Some of that is dependent on the ECORM project and other commitments that have been made. About financing off the changes at the NAL site but also the money that needs to be drawn down into that community, what barriers have you seen to raising the type of investment that is needed and how do we overcome those? We have convened a finance working group, which has been led by one of our commissioners, Nick Robins. I will duck this one and pass it to Elliot, who has been following that working group in more detail than I have. Elliot, I wonder if you could comment on those questions. Just a few things on finance probably in terms of how the commission responded to the draft plan. The commission is asking for a lot more detail in terms of how much finance is going to be required in order to deliver the secretary's transition, when that can be delivered, by whom, what kind of finance and investment will be required, recognising that there is going to be a big role for public money in driving these big changes, but at the same time, strategically, there needs to be really clear steps in making the absolute most of every part of public finance that is spent in this area and how those are going to be linked to the fairness elements, the just transition outcomes. In terms of the work that we are going to be taking forward on this, in addition to the work that we are doing on the sectoral plans, we have made finance the key cross-cutting theme in terms of our focus this year. In the summer, most probably in July, the commission is going to try to convene a round table, bringing together some of the key figures and institutions in this space to try to capitalise that conversation on finance offer and the expectations and the role that can be played right across the piece here in terms of private financial institutions in terms of government. Also thinking about, really importantly, for the energy strategy, the community side, is there a financial model that can be developed here in order to really support the expansion on the community side of energy projects? I have another question to finish with. When we have talked about the importance of newer technologies, whether that is hydrogen or carbon capture, we recognise the need for investment in those areas, for testing, for expansion, but there is a need to be flexibility in the plans for how long it is going to take to make those things commercially viable and operational. What other options do we have? Is there consideration given to the limitations that there might be on it? We are putting our faith into new technologies that are not commercial or viable at the moment. Do we need to reflect on what the plan is when a lot of it still seems quite uncertain to a professor? One of the points that we have made generically about the plans is that they need to be honest about the risks associated with the targets and the aspirations that are actually in there. I think that I mentioned right at the start of this session that we really wanted more information about the very high level of expectations about export markets for hydrogen, for example, which underpinned a lot of the job information. I think that it is important that the plans do identify very specifically what the risks of non-achievement of certain targets are and have a plan B put in place in there. How do you mitigate these risks? You have standard risk management strategy. One of the challenges with things such as hydrogen and CCS projects is that there are big bets with big pay-offs. We really need to do to understand the risks associated with them. It is not so much like a wind project, which I am not saying that I give you what offshore wind form is incremental, but you can expand them a little bit more incrementally. You do not face that same kind of risk because these very big bets are on a single project that may or may not go. We need to understand the risks associated with them better and what the consequences would be of you not being able to take them forward. It is a very important cross-cutting theme that we have in terms of the plans. Mr Banks, do you want to come in on the issue or are you happy with the responses so far? I definitely echo Jim on that one. I would probably even go beyond, so maybe he is to hear personal capacity on commission here, but I think it is really important to have these plan Bs. As a commission, we have talked about really being honest about the risks. I think there also needs to be some work done at looking at what some of the plan Bs and Cs are. It may will be that we have to ask either the same sector or a different sector to pick up where if one of these risks turns out to be the case and we cannot deliver what is wanted. It is about being honest and upfront about that at the beginning. In my space, there are some sectors that could probably go further than others and more quickly. We have a point where we have our next zero plan, which talks about what each sector needs to contribute. We have always understood that if one sector delivers, other sectors are going to have to go over deliver. That is the type of conversation that we are having in addition to the risks. In terms of the draft plan that has been issued, when we come to finalise that plan, do you think that it is important that it includes plan Bs or Cs that you have described? There is quite a lot of faith put into unproven technologies to get us out of some of the difficult situations that we are in. Where you can detail up on that, you should certainly do so, where you have been ordered. I appreciate that there is not yet a plan B perhaps. That is about being honest and recognising that if something is expected to deliver a significant reduction in carbon emissions, there is also a high-risk venture because it either has dependencies on others or it is unproven technology. We should be really clear about that, but that would be simply wrong not to at least settle that in the document. That brings us to the end of the evidence session. I thank the panel members for their time this morning. That is much appreciated. I now suspend the meeting and move into private session.