Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will engage with SMEs, but I come back to my initial point that we must be clear that we must start by engaging with the large emitters, because that is where the real challenge lies. However, I expect SMEs to be engaged with as part of the plan because of the supply chain work that we need to do and also because, if they are based in the area, they have a stake in it.

I add that I will be engaging with my colleague Richard Lochhead, who brought much of this work to where it is now and who is now the Minister for Small Business, Trade and Innovation, on what he expects and what he can do to support me in the development of our approach.

I based it on the work that was done to produce our final “Hydrogen Action Plan”, which was published on 14 December 2022. That sets out the Government’s strategic approach and the actions that we think are required to harness our capacity to produce hydrogen, to service our domestic needs but, equally, to be an export opportunity for Scotland to service the needs of countries across Europe that must decarbonise their industrial bases and, actually, whose industrial bases are far greater than ours.

As I say, we have the plan, which is backed up by £100 million-worth of investment, which Liam Middleton mentioned earlier. A chapter in the plan is dedicated to how we build the export market for hydrogen, which we know that Scotland can do. I would just add finally that, although we have done all that and we know that the potential is there, a great many of the powers, particularly over the regulatory framework, that are required to really launch Scotland’s hydrogen potential rest at UK level. Therefore, that is another one of my top asks of UK Government.

On the first point, the Grangemouth plan is, by its nature, different from other plans in that it relates closely to one area, one complex and one group of people who live and work there. It is different from the other plans for energy and transport, as they apply to the whole country—it is place based, and the just transition commission has welcomed that.

There are interconnections with other plans, so they will certainly relate to one another. Our economy is interconnected, so we cannot have an energy plan that is not mindful of Grangemouth, and we cannot have a Grangemouth plan that is not mindful of transport, given that 80 per cent of the central belt’s fuel and 100 per cent of our aviation fuel comes from Grangemouth. There are differences and there are interconnections, and we will work through all of them.

I am working closely on monitoring now that I have moved into this portfolio, because the question of building a just transition is one thing, but the question of how we know whether we have succeeded is another. I am working on the theory of that.

Practically, our plan—Andy McCall might want to say more about this, because he and I were discussing it yesterday—is that we need to do some work on baselining the economic and social position at Grangemouth, and we will develop the vision for 2045. Once those aspects are in place, we will be able to set out key performance indicators against which monitoring can be undertaken.

Monitoring will be part of the process, but we are at a very early stage in the development of that. The two key pieces of work that we are undertaking in phase 1 will inform how we monitor progress.

Yes, I am happy to do so. It is an important question. When I visited the cluster last week, I also met Forth Ports, and issues such as planning, the speed of consent and comparisons with the company’s experience elsewhere were raised with me.

A balance will always have to be struck between speed of consent and any risk of deregulation. We have to get that right. The change that we will see over the next 10 or 20 years puts pressure on us as Government to consider that and how quickly it can work.

On the point about the public sector, I come back to the Grangemouth future industry board and its novel approach to bringing the public sector bodies together. On it, we have the Scottish Government, Falkirk Council, Scottish Enterprise, Transport Scotland, SEPA, Skills Development Scotland and Forth Valley College. Now that we have done that, we will consider bringing industry in. We can already see how, with an issue such as planning, that group, which brings the Scottish Government and Falkirk Council round the table, will help us—and has already helped us—shortcut some of the issues that arise when we all have different responsibilities.

The second point on planning that I will briefly mention is the national planning framework 4. I think that the Grangemouth future industry board worked on and was successful in achieving the recognition of Grangemouth as an industrial green transition zone, and with its being in NPF4—and with NPF4 being made part of the development plan—that should give the certainty and the speed of consent that industry not only wants but needs if we are to make the change that we need to over the next wee while.

No, I do not think that it is. First, the industry board has given evidence in writing to the committee. My colleague Andy Hogg, who is a deputy director in the Scottish Government, is one of the co-chairs; he really wanted to be here today, which is why we asked whether we could change the timing, but that was not possible. However, my colleague Liam Middleton is also part of the board, so he will probably be able to say more about its constitution and who its spokesperson is. I am more concerned with the work that it is doing rather than who the spokespeople are.

I am happy to answer that in the context of the discussion that I had with Grangemouth about its sustainability plan. However, I must caveat that by saying that I am not the cabinet secretary for energy, which means that I am not involved on a day-to-day basis on, for example, the development of hydrogen policy, CCUS or sustainable aviation fuel. My role in Government will be to ensure that the energy secretary has those discussions and is supported to do so.

As far as I can tell, there are three ways in which industry can decarbonise and rise to the net zero challenge: by making its industrial processes more efficient; by switching to low-carbon fuels; and by capturing carbon, which we have discussed. When I met Ineos, it took me through its sustainability plan, which is linked to the Government’s 2045 target, and we talked about the company’s £350 million investment in more efficient energy plants at the centre of the complex, a £500 million upgrade to the Forties pipeline system, its plans for CCUS and its interest in sustainable fuels.

However, as far as my understanding of the production of SAF from an engineering or technical point of view is concerned, I will leave it there. Given Liam Middleton’s role in critical infrastructure, he might have more to add to that.

Yes, that is absolutely appropriate. While we are in the UK and the UK Government has powers that are so directly in play, including over energy and macroeconomic policy, it has a really important role to play. Our climate targets are interlinked while we are in the UK.

I have not had one yet—I have been in post only a couple of weeks—but I have net zero interministerial Government meetings, and I would expect that to be a forum in which I would raise with my counterparts the issue of this just transition plan and others.

I will ask Andrew Taylor to come in on the point about vulnerabilities, but it is certainly uppermost in our minds.

On your first point, the monitoring locations are kept under review to ensure that any new pollution hotspots can be identified and targeted appropriately. Of course, as we consider the developments at a European level, as part of CAFS2, we are obviously mindful that shifts and changes might be required in future.

I will say a little, and Andrew Taylor might want to add something. We are not slavishly following targets without considering how science develops or indeed how European legislation develops. It is a case of continuous development and continuous improvement. As I said, as part of CAFS2, we are looking at the new WHO recommendation on nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter. We will consider how that could and would apply in Scotland as we develop CAFS. That is one example of how we are seeking to meet our objectives within the current monitoring framework, and to stay aligned with best practice in that regard. Those recommendations are very strict indeed and we have to consider carefully how they would operate in Scotland. We have form on that—we were the first to legislate for the previous particulate matter guidelines.

Andrew, is there anything else that we can say to give the committee some assurance on that?

That is a really pertinent point. Earlier, we discussed the need for funding to be provided to ensure that the powers are realisable. Skills and recruitment are a massive part of that. We are absolutely aware that there is a shortage of people entering the profession, which is resulting in vacancies at local authority level.

In February 2023, my officials met representatives from the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland and the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland specifically to discuss the concerns that you have narrated. We are aware that there is only one university in Scotland that offers the accredited undergraduate course—I am sorry; you might have said that—and that that is creating pressure on local authorities in filling those important roles.

Our Scottish Government resilience team is working with the professional organisations through the environmental health policy co-ordination group. It is looking at next steps and working with the key organisations to develop plans for wider engagement on environmental health as a potential career and to look at how we could develop more routes into the profession, given how important it is.