���˿���

I find it interesting where the conversation has ended up. During the evidence sessions, I have found myself reflecting on the phrase “just transition for Grangemouth” that we have been talking about and how it suggests a shift from somewhere that is already positive and viable. I know that what we are talking about here is the industrial complex making the shift to net zero, but as we have heard from Adam Gillies and as his submission shows—indeed, Malcolm Bennie talked about this, too—there are high levels of poor health and low employment in the area. In some ways, Grangemouth is still living with the consequences of its industrial heritage from longer ago.

I was just thinking about the draft plan that the Government is putting together and which we are expecting towards the end of spring. Malcolm Bennie was, I think, heading in this direction when he talked about the need to think about not just the industrial base but the broader community; in some ways, such an approach starts from a completely different place from the industrial base, with different challenges being faced. I suppose that it all comes back to one’s interpretation of “just transition”. Do you think that the Government’s draft plan will take a broader view, and do you think that that is something that the committee should be emphasising to the minister?

We move to questions, and I will start with a question for Pat Rafferty or Cliff Bowen from Unite.

The committee is looking at a just transition, and there is some debate around definitions of a just transition. What do you understand a just transition to mean? Particularly in relation to Grangemouth, is it principally about the plan or the wider economy? The Government is about to publish its draft plan for Grangemouth; it is due out in the spring. Do we have a shared understanding of what a just transition will look like?

Other members will come in about green freeports and some of the broader issues, so we will return to that later.

I have a question for SDS. The “Climate Emergency Skills Action Plan 2020-2025” was published in December 2020 and the Government has promised that a refreshed plan will be produced in 2023. What evaluation has been done of the 2020 plan? Has it achieved the desired outcomes? It is quite a short time to be looking at a refresh. December 2020 to 2023 is not much time.

Last week, we had Forth Ports at the committee and we questioned the witnesses about the jobs figure. Unions have expressed frustration about confidence in the workforce, and some of that is because we hear lots of high numbers and are told, “There will be 10,000 more jobs here,” but people struggle to see them materialise. Does SDS attach targets and jobs figures to the plans? Do they have the confidence of the workforce?

Thank you.

That concludes the public part of the meeting. We will move into private session.

We value the contributions, and Fiona Hyslop and I are to blame, but we have already used 50 minutes of the evidence session, so I ask members to be concise. The discussion has been broad so far, so areas that members intended to cover might have been dealt with.

The evidence that we are hearing this morning is important to the committee and it is interesting, but we are trying to focus on Grangemouth, so we should perhaps pull some of the discussion more pointedly back to the Grangemouth area.

I think that other members will probably come on to the situation at Methil and Burntisland Fabrications Ltd. We had hopes about the situation there. I think that it was Unite’s submission that said that, when the new owners came in, it was promised that upwards of 1,000 jobs would be created. However, as you have said, there have been recent redundancies at the yard. If that is a microcosm of where the just transition is headed, that is concerning. I really hope that that is not the case, but that yard was turned around to provide for the offshore wind sector. Over the years, we have lost the industrial heart of that community as a result of what has happened at BiFab.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument. The committee is invited to note the Diligence against Earnings (Variation) (Scotland) Regulations 2023.

The purpose of the instrument is to update the figures that are contained in part III of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, which relates to how much money an individual is allowed to keep before any payment can be taken from wages to recover debts and sets the scale of what payments can be taken above that level. The regulations increase protection for those in debt by raising the threshold beneath which deductions may not be taken from earnings by arrestment.

Although members are invited to note the instrument, they will be aware that we have received representation. Therefore, I am minded to write to the Government to request that, although we recognise that, by changing some of the thresholds, the instrument eases the current economic situation that is faced by many, perhaps more could be done in future years. I will write to the Government if members are happy for me to do so.

I also note that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recently carried out an inquiry into such matters. Therefore, the Government is aware that the Parliament has an interest in them.

Are members content to note the instrument and to agree that a letter along those lines should be sent?

Members indicated agreement.

Jamie Halcro Johnston has a brief supplementary, and then I will bring in Colin Smyth.