Chamber and committees

Again, I am happy to provide that in writing to the convener after the meeting.

I think that I said it all earlier. [Laughter.]

I appreciate Mr Macpherson’s question. For clarity, our commitment to halving the consenting time is for onshore wind projects; it is part of the onshore wind sector deal. Although we cannot mandate developers in that area, we have an agreement from them to consult communities at an earlier stage in developments and to propose commitments on community benefit that are both generous and more strategic in the way that such benefit will be derived.

In return, we are considering how we might halve the consenting time for onshore wind projects. That is an important distinction because, from planning and consenting perspectives, wind energy development is clearly at a far more advanced stage. Developers, planning officials and representatives of the regulated bodies are far better versed in those processes than is the case for those for offshore wind or other marine energy projects.

I am also aware that, alongside access to grid, which is probably the greatest barrier to investment that we face on offshore renewables, consenting and providing as much certainty as possible are among the industry’s greatest asks. We are considering what we can do in that space to streamline the process, while balancing the need to take environmental considerations seriously.

I turn to what we are doing through the budget to ensure that planning authorities are able to deal with those processes. In her budget statement, the Deputy First Minister made reference to our looking to work with industry to improve the available support for planning authorities. We are giving early consideration to how we might move forward with planning processes in general—not just for renewables, but for all projects—and with supporting local authorities on those.

I believe that that is considered. I am not entirely familiar with how that is set up, but I will be happy—alongside colleagues—to come back to Mr Doris, to ensure that he has clarity on the question.

I do not have a figure in my head. The likes of SNIB, Scottish Enterprise and other investors have to consider that, and some have stringent targets for it. I would be happy to give a more considered view in writing as part of the further information that I committed to send in the previous evidence session.

Mr Doris is absolutely right. That is precisely one of the reasons why I am so interested in what the Deputy First Minister has committed us to looking at in terms of support for the planning functions that local authorities are responsible for. Some local authorities will have to deal with large, complex planning applications—in some cases in energy, and in some cases in the infrastructure space. I am looking at what might be possible in order to support planning authorities in that space.

There is no direct commitment as yet. What might be possible is part of a current discussion and consultation phase. However, I am very cognisant, as the Government is, of the need to ensure that we are providing as much certainty as possible to potential investors, whether in the energy space or otherwise. We also need to ensure that our planning processes are fit for that work and are able to deal with it—not just in terms of national planning framework 4, but also from a resource perspective. I hope that we will have more detail on that as those considerations continue.

I expect that Mr Ruskell is correct. I would need to go away and check for an update with regard to where we are now versus where the draft was in relation to the proportion of our 2030 target that is in train, in the planning process or in delivery. I am happy to look at whether there is an updated figure on the proportions.

Mr Ruskell’s assessment of the importance of the onshore wind sector deal is also correct. Industry has welcomed it. It is important not only for industry and the development of onshore wind, but for communities, so that we see demonstrable benefit and that people have a voice on those projects.

In spite of the fact that we do not have the power to enforce it on developers, the onshore wind sector deal commits the industry to consulting with communities where there is going to be an application at a much earlier stage. That means that there can be potential mitigations or changes to the way that the layout of the application comes forward, so that it answers community need. Critically, it also commits the industry to the Scottish standard on community benefit, which is £5,000 per megawatt generated. Again, we cannot mandate that, but industry is committed to that and it is an important leading principle.

We will work with industry, through the Scottish offshore wind energy council and the various bodies, to ensure that community benefit is strategically deployed so that we see the maximum economic regeneration and development coming from that finance, in order that communities that have energy and infrastructure on their doorstep can see demonstrable impact from that.

I declare an interest on that front, as there are substantial wind energy projects in and surrounding the community in Airdrie and Shotts, which I represent. I can already see some of the flow of money coming through from that and the community having a real agency over how that is deployed, which is incredibly welcome and is what we need.

No, I did not say that. There is still an opportunity during this parliamentary session for hydrogen investment and for the hydrogen fund to be there. For this particular budget, however, I have not been able to prioritise money against that budget line. That is because I have chosen to prioritise ensuring that we kick-start the £500 million offshore wind supply chain commitment that the First Minister made. I prioritised that partly because I believe that it will help to catalyse hydrogen projects and also because there are other routes by which we can see continued hydrogen innovation happen; the hydrogen innovation scheme and the Scottish industrial energy transformation fund are two examples of that.

We are exploring that as an option for ScotWind developments. There is complexity there; I assume that you are aware that the technology in offshore electrolysis is nascent, which means that we would still be transferring electricity onshore for electrolyser capability to happen. However, work is under way by some of the developers in the industry to see whether offshore electrolysis is possible and whether its use can be pulled forward.

That would be of particular interest to me because of the interest in Germany in a fixed hydrogen pipeline between Scotland and the continent. I believe that that has huge potential to see hydrogen production and investment continue. It would also take the pressure off the need for onshore transmission infrastructure to get electricity into the grid.

That would be a win-win situation, but your assessment is correct that we will need significant private investment. Part of what we are trying to do with our finances and the finances that are available to us is to try to catalyse some of that development to de-risk some of the investments by using public finance as best as possible. That is why the green industrial strategy, which will be published before the summer, will be so important. It will point out the direction of travel for our supply chain finance, which will give certainty to the industry. I do not want to prejudge where the work on the green industrial strategy will come out, but I would be surprised if ScotWind were not right at the top of the priority list.

Yes. There are also UK Government interactions here. I am keen to see more work done on the transportation, storage and regulation that is required for hydrogen to come forward, so that we can provide certainty to the industry about what the expectations will be, and to see whether the UK Government is as committed as we are to that fixed link, because that is what will make the difference. If investors and developers know that there is a market and a route to market, that makes a substantial difference to their investment decisions. A fixed link will be a transformational element.

There will be differences of opinion as to what the best use of hydrogen, particularly green hydrogen, will be. The opportunity that we have before us in terms of industrial decarbonisation, the decarbonisation of transport and the potential for the decarbonisation of energy—as well as the export potential—makes green hydrogen a big opportunity. It will largely be dependent on how we get on with the development of ScotWind.