���˿���

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?

I am grateful for that, and strongly agree. Mr Stark rightly talked about a fair transition. Lord Deben also brought that up earlier, when he said that the transition must be fair. I will press that with my final questions.

What does a fair transition mean, specifically in the context of the oil and gas workforce? How would you expect to see the Scottish Government ensuring that there is a fair workforce transition for the oil and gas workforce in particular? What would you expect to see it doing right now to ensure that that is delivered?

I have two or three questions on the back of what I thought was a very interesting line of questioning from my colleague Fiona Hyslop. Your report puts a figure on investment. It says:

“Low carbon investment must scale up to £50 billion each year”.

It then says:

“In time, these savings cancel out the investment costs entirely”.

Later in the report, it says:

“Now is an ideal time for the UK to invest.”

As we have heard, you have said that private investment is the key. The question that arises from Ms Hyslop’s line of questioning is: how much of the £50 billion will come from Scotland and the taxpayer, and how much will come from private investment? Is private investment part of the £50 billion, or is the private investment on top of £50 billion of public investment?

I want to pick up very briefly on Lord Deben’s response to Monica Lennon that the justification for new exploration and production must be strong. Given that demand for oil and gas-related products in the UK seems to show no sign of changing dramatically, might the impact on UK security of supply, sourcing location decisions and the fair transition that you have rightly referenced not provide that justification?

I will press you on that, because it is a good point. Your modelling shows that there are savings to be made in surface transport and energy but that there will be costs to homes and industry. I think that you suggested, in an earlier answer, that we should prioritise buildings. Do you take a view on how the costs could or should be addressed and mitigated? Who is going to pay for the costs in relation to buildings that you rightly flag?

I do not believe that I have any particular interests to declare. However, members and viewers might be interested to know that I have a small shareholding in a community hydroelectric project in Aberdeen.

I nominate Fiona Hyslop.

Fiona Hyslop was chosen as deputy convener