Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, minister. I want to follow up on the point about when the UK Government was first made aware of concerns about the future of the refinery. It has been suggested in recent days that, two years ago, the Scottish Government held talks with Petroineos in which the then Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, Michael Matheson, was warned of the refinery’s potential closure because of the market pressures that the company faced. Is it therefore fair to say that the UK Government was aware two years ago of the potential closure of the refinery because of market pressures and the direction of travel that we are following for the energy transition?

It seems strange that, if we are trying to support the company and the community to transition, we do not really have a full grasp of the number of jobs that we need to support. Are you confident that the new opportunities in the energy sector will be available in time to allow the workforce—whatever the number of people in supply and direct jobs is—to transition to new opportunities in the Grangemouth area?

On the issue of skills, during the committee’s evidence taking, we heard criticism from the Just Transition Partnership that a skills passport has not been delivered despite its having been committed to in 2021. Why has progress towards delivering the skills passport stalled? When can workers expect to see it delivered?

Is the end of March a target for introducing a skills passport or simply for reporting back on the work?

Okay. In its evidence, Scottish Renewables pointed out that many workers in the sector have had to fund reskilling or upskilling out of their own pockets. Unite the union estimated that that had cost workers about £2,000. Skills Development Scotland stated that there is capacity in the skills development pipeline

“if we get the financial resource to apply to it”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 15 November 2023; c.59.]

to support apprenticeships, for example. Is the Government doing enough to support workers to reskill, given the fact that they have to fund that themselves in many cases? What further action does the Government plan to take to support them?

Funding is crucial to this. Unite the union has pointed out that workers have had to pay £2,000 to reskill themselves. You mentioned Skills Development Scotland and apprenticeships, but we have seen that provision being reduced. I will again quote the evidence of SDS to the committee. It stated:

“for skills, we need more revenue resource for training activities.”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 15 November 2023; c.69.]

The recent budget proposes a £4.1 million cut to the SDS budget, and the skills budget is being cut from £50.6 million to £36.9 million. We are also seeing cuts to colleges’ budgets. If we already have a problem whereby workers are effectively funding their reskilling themselves, and reductions are being made to funding, where do you see the funding coming from to support workers?

Kevin Stewart raised the point about the transition fund but, again, Skills Development Scotland told the committee—this is the point that Kevin made—that that is mainly capital, when it is revenue that is needed. I am curious about where the funding to tackle the issue will come from. What sort of proposal does the Government have?

I will follow up on some of those points. Given the direction of travel that we have had for some time and the policy decisions on net zero, the closure of the refinery will not come as a surprise to the Government. It was always likely to be the case. For clarity, when was the Government aware that the refinery was likely to close? I am not talking about the specific announcement on the timescale, which suggested that it will close in 2025.

There are several hundred jobs at risk, but even the investment in that import facility is likely to create only 100 direct jobs. I am not clear about what work is taking place to secure employment for the existing workforce in the refinery and the many—although we do not seem to know what the number is—supply chain jobs that are affected. You have talked about working with the company on the import facility and the security of the energy supply, but what work is taking place to secure a future for the hundreds of jobs at the refinery at the moment? Those affected are highly skilled workers who are likely to be looking to leave the company because they are effectively being told that their jobs are likely to be lost, come 2025.

The issue, though, is around supply chain and contractor jobs. The direct employment at the site is very high skilled. It may well be that those workers will pursue opportunities elsewhere, but that could mean that they leave Grangemouth, so that is not a just transition. The issue is around those supply chain jobs.

The Grangemouth site is critical national infrastructure. Have there been raised, in your discussions with the company, any policy interventions at all from the Scottish Government or the UK Government that would allow the site to continue for a longer period than it looks as though it is likely to? I know that we do not know the exact date, but it looks as though it will be in 2025.

There must be supply chain jobs and contractor jobs already in place in the refinery, as well as the people whom you directly employ. What assessment has been made of any potential loss there? The company constantly talks up its positive impact on supply chain jobs, but there will obviously be a negative impact. What assessment has been made of that?