Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a couple of follow-up points. Ed Barker and Sarah Millar spoke about the need for a veterinary agreement. Are we quite far away from striking a veterinary agreement? There are already models in place—you mentioned New Zealand and Switzerland—and it is a relatively short leap to securing an agreement that could help the sector.

I should declare that I am an honorary associate member of the British Veterinary Association.

I have other questions, but I can come back in after Alexander Stewart.

Are there fundamental policy differences in any of those spaces?

Is the point that the border target operating model needs to be bedded in and assessed before the argument might switch towards the potential need for a veterinary agreement?

I am interested in your overall views about the direction of policy within the European Union at the moment. I am hearing that divergence causes friction for trade and that having different standards can cause issues at borders. Do you feel that the decisions on regulatory standards that are being made in Europe at the moment are moving in the right direction for your sectors, or do you feel that there is policy divergence?

I can give one example. I know that beekeepers across the UK and Europe are concerned about adulterated honey and have called for country of origin labelling for honey. The European Union has moved quite quickly on that, through the honey directive, and is also looking at other import issues connected with the breakfast directives. However, there seems to be no appetite from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to move towards introducing that sort of regulatory standard.

That may be quite a niche example, but what are your overall thoughts? I should declare an interest because I am a beekeeper, although I do not produce honey in any volume for export. The issue has been raised with me and is one example of an area where the European Union is taking a stand and moving forward with regulation.

Therefore, you are saying that we are getting divergence, but there is a lack of capacity to deal with all of those multifarious issues, of which I have raised one, that exist within the food sector.

Is that a policy divergence, or is the fact that we need different regulatory regimes just the consequence of Brexit? The registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals is an example of a duplicate regime running alongside another one. Are there any fundamental differences between the EU and the UK around how we regulate and go forward with policy, or is the issue more about the fact that we have duplicate regulatory structures and friction and, as has been said, a lack of capacity to then keep pace with all the things, from honey production to fertilisers and everything else?

With new stations being opened at Leven and Cameron Bridge in June this year, rail campaigners across Fife are feeling inspired and hopeful. Key progress is being made in the business cases for the reopening of stations at St Andrews and Newburgh. Will the cabinet secretary congratulate the communities that are leading the way? Does she see a need to expand rail further in Fife to achieve the modal shift away from car usage that we require nationally?

I thank members who have signed the motion and who are joining me in the chamber to debate the future of the Mossmorran petrochemical site. I have been working on the issue since being re-elected to Parliament in 2016, initially focusing on the noise pollution caused by flaring affecting neighbouring communities, then moving on to the health and safety risks experienced by workers. Now, I am working on the prospect of delivering a just transition for the site. I welcome the work of other members on the issue, including yourself, Deputy Presiding Officer, in your role as the constituency MSP.

The latest research into North Sea oil and gas that was commissioned by the Scottish Government shows a rapidly declining basin. The decline in fossil fuel reserves is irrefutable, and our choice now is whether we accept a slow withering of skills and expertise or grasp the opportunity to safeguard workers’ jobs and maximise the growth of employment opportunities in both renewables and industrial decarbonisation. As the secretary-general of the United Nations, António Guterres, stated, we need

“climate action on all fronts — everything, everywhere, all at once.”

We do not have the luxury of focusing on just one region or just one industrial site. Workers across Scotland, including at Mossmorran, deserve the assurance that their jobs, too, will be safeguarded in our transition to net zero.

Any credible plan for industrial decarbonisation in Scotland must tackle emissions at Mossmorran. The two plants there directly employ approximately 250 workers, and many other workers are employed on a short-term basis from other parts of Scotland and overseas. The United Kingdom Climate Change Committee reported that the industry is the second-highest emitting sector in Scotland, with the Mossmorran site, operated by Shell and ExxonMobil, being responsible for nearly 10 per cent of Scotland’s total climate change emissions.

In 2022, I commissioned Transition Economics to produce a report on Mossmorran, which considered decarbonisation pathways for the site. Those included carbon capture and storage, blue hydrogen and bioethanol. All the decarbonisation options had risks and trade-offs, but it was clear that a fairer, greener future was possible for Mossmorran, its workers and the local community. The report concluded that planning for the net zero future of the site needed to begin as quickly as possible, with operators, workers, unions and Governments brought together around the table.

In October last year I organised a summit facilitated by Dr Daria Shapovalova, co-ordinator of the just transition lab at the University of Aberdeen. That brought together workers, unions, non-governmental organisations and the just transition commissioners in Lochgelly to start the conversation. I wanted to understand what their priorities were for the just transition plan at Mossmorran. All the participants called for a meaningful transition for the site, to be led first and foremost by workers and properly funded by both industry and Government. They cautioned against “just transition” being used as an empty slogan and warned us about what might happen if there was a further delay to real, tangible actions. The workers and unions highlighted the urgency of engaging with operators to collaborate on the development and delivery of a plan for the site.

The operators of the Mossmorran plant, Shell and ExxonMobil, are among the world’s largest oil and gas operators, reporting profits in the billions just last month, but we have not yet seen from them the level of commitment needed to make a genuine transition at Mossmorran happen. The operators have signed up to the Acorn carbon capture and storage cluster, and we are awaiting progress on the bid in track 2 that could allow Grangemouth and Mossmorran to feed in. Questions remain about the effectiveness of CCS, but if the project can meet the higher standards for capture, it could provide a major part of the decarbonisation pathway.

However, in a meeting that I held with both operators shortly after that first summit, it was clear that there was a lack of communication between them and the workforce on those matters. Where does Mossmorran sit in their global portfolios of sites awaiting CCS and other investments? What opportunities would there be for the workforce in skills development or retraining under such a plan? So many questions remain unanswered, and the operators still need to convince the workforce and the community that decarbonisation will actually happen.

Just this week, ExxonMobil’s chief executive blamed the public for the failure to tackle the climate emergency and claimed that ExxonMobil and other oil and gas giants

“have opportunities to make fuels with lower carbon in it, but people aren’t willing to spend the money to do that.”

However, it is painfully obvious to me that it is those who make the mega profits from oil and gas who are unwilling to spend enough of them on the transition to a greener future that they have to make.

We had plans to host the second summit tomorrow. It would have welcomed all the participants from our initial summit as well as the site operators, Fife Council and national Governments. However, despite the welcome interest from the minister and Government officials in attending the summit, the site operators—ExxonMobil and Shell—have declined our invitation. Their decision not to come to the table is disappointing. How can we have faith that private companies will invest in the just transition that we so desperately need if they fail to do the bare minimum and join the conversation?

What we have seen recently at Grangemouth should be enough of a warning to us all. We cannot sit on our hands. The future of Mossmorran cannot be decided behind closed doors; it needs to be planned early and openly.

Earlier this week, we agreed that we will go ahead with another summit later this year. We will keep working with Unite the union, the GMB, just transition commissioners and the Scottish Trades Union Congress to ensure that everyone is around the table. I publicly extend an invitation again to the minister, other MSPs and the two site operators to come and be part of that conversation.

The Government’s transition work at Grangemouth has been welcome, but it must be accelerated to other sites across Scotland where emissions are vast and the biggest single steps towards net zero must be made. We have no time to waste. It is our duty to map out the alternative future for sites such as Mossmorran, and we must do so in a fair and just manner that leaves no workers or local communities behind. Inaction is not an option. I will continue to take that duty seriously, and I hope that many members who are joining me in the chamber will do the same.

I certainly do not disagree with Alex Rowley’s argument that we need an industrial strategy that binds together the two Governments in their work in Scotland with industry. However, does he accept that we need a plan for decarbonising the ethylene production site at Mossmorran, as well as a wider industrial strategy that includes Scotland? Does he accept that that plan has to come from the workers and those who have spent their careers operating the site? They understand the issues intricately, and they know what skills will be required for the transition and what the technical solutions might be.