Chamber and committees

I bet.

First, I re-emphasise the point that Mr Macpherson made about the importance of private capital in realising our renewables ambitions. Quite frankly, it will not be possible for us to achieve ScotWind or to develop a supply chain without private capital, which is why we are taking the recommendations of the investor panel so seriously. It is why we are coming forward with the green industrial strategy, because that will give potential investors clarity and focus on what our ambitions are. We have put up a big saltire internationally to say, “Come and invest here in Scotland—Scotland is open for business”. We need that private-public collaboration if we are to achieve what we want to achieve. We want to make sure that we are coming forward with investable propositions and that Scotland is a destination to do business in. That is why we are looking to bring about clarity as best we can with the documents that we will come forward with this year.

I cannot comment on a live application. It would be completely inappropriate for me to do so, as Mr Macpherson has alluded to, except to say that that process is on-going.

Some funding for the pipeline of projects has come through the strategic investment model and some of that will feed in to the work of the green industrial strategy. From an energy generation perspective, there is the opportunity for the transmission infrastructure network to expand significantly. That is not just an economic opportunity but an energy necessity if we are to realise our climate ambitions through the opportunity of our renewable energy capability and the electrification of the country.

The resource for statutory bodies such as NatureScot and Marine Scotland is constantly under review and depends on their requirements. Discussions will be on-going with relevant ministers and cabinet secretaries about whether allocations are appropriate. We look ahead to pipelines of work to ensure that bodies have the capacity to respond in a timeous fashion.

That is correct.

Sorry, convener—Susie wants to add a comment.

All public bodies are under significant pressure from a financial and human resource perspective. I do not think that any aspect of the public sector will be immune from that pressure, given the budget challenges arising not just this year but from a decade and a half of austerity. That has had a cumulative impact that will be felt by public bodies not just in Scotland but across the UK.

We are looking to do what we can, within the very challenging financial settlement that we have been given, to prioritise as best we can, in order to have maximum impact, but we will not be able to mitigate everything or meet every challenge that comes as a result of a decade and a half of austerity.

I thank Jackie Dunbar and recognise her considerable interest in the subject, as there will be across the committee and, more widely, across the Parliament.

I had a really productive meeting with the Scottish cluster at the end of last year and its planning and work on the development of carbon capture, use and storage continues. The encouragement—not just from the cluster but from the Scottish Government—is for the UK Government to move forward at a greater pace, so that we can realise the opportunity from both a net zero and an economic perspective. Our assessment is that, through the use of CCUS, our gross domestic product could increase by 1.3 to 2.3 per cent, which is a substantial amount. If the UK Government came forward in a much faster way on confirming track 2 status and the inclusion of industrial emitters, that would allow us to ensure that we have those strategic discussions with the cluster about where we can provide support—I have spoken previously about our commitment there. It would also mean that we could ensure that we reach our net zero ambitions for 2045, because carbon capture will play an incredibly important role in that. There will be great competition around the world for this capital and, if we miss the opportunity, it will be to our detriment from not just a net zero, but an economic perspective.

No, there is no budget line for that. Mr Lumsden is correct. That commitment is not for a single year; it will be for negotiation, depending on the requirements of the cluster. That will be triggered when the UK Government takes its decisions around track 2.

Yes, that is correct. It has no bearing on the viability of the Acorn project. The refinery is just one part of the Grangemouth cluster; there are significant industrial emitters in the wider cluster at Grangemouth. Even if we move to it being an import terminal as opposed to a refinery, there will still be flaring that needs to be captured. Therefore, that closure has no bearing whatever on the viability of the cluster’s application.

Forgive me, convener, but the just transition fund is outwith my area of responsibility. I am happy to ensure that the committee can be furnished with further information about any impact assessment that has been carried out and the further work that we are doing to ensure that we invest in the just transition.