Chamber and committees

Without being specific, movement on all those areas will be at different paces. We are working on determining whether there is a target for solar energy that could be brought forward and whether that is the appropriate way in which to try to drive development. For all the elements, what was positive from AR5 was seeing marine energy come through. That was on a small scale, but it represented progress, and it highlights where there is support that could be provided, in this case through the UK Government’s contracts for difference, which can make a real difference in helping to drive that development. We are mindful of that, and we look to do what we can on targets and on support to ensure that we deliver as best we can on the potential that we have.

It is the latter. Obviously, we have been engaged for some time with industry around the onshore wind sector deal. Since coming into office, I have found that one of the clearest areas of action that industry is looking for us to help with is grid infrastructure—that is one of the major barriers to unlocking our energy potential—as well as ensuring that there is as much certainty as possible.

The industry is not necessarily looking for speed, which is not the only factor. It is about giving the industry as much certainty as possible. Because interactions with the Electricity Act 1989 are outwith our control, that makes it more challenging. As soon as a public inquiry is triggered, that adds a year to the process.

The detail on how we will get to the PFG commitment will be published in the onshore sector deal. That deal is not just about what we will do for industry; it sets out action that is required of industry for Government and for the general public.

Absolutely.

Before we get to infrastructure, there is obviously a limit on what we can do, based on having a fixed budget and a very challenging public finance landscape. We need as wide an energy mix as possible, not least because the technologies play different roles. We know that tidal is incredibly predictable: it provides good certain energy. Similarly, pumped hydro storage gives baseload capacity when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. We know that wind—onshore and offshore—is the cheapest form of renewable energy and already provides a huge amount of capacity for the grid. As has been said, for us, hydrogen has potential as storage and to help to decarbonise other elements of the economy. [Neil Gray has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

In all areas, we need as wide a mix as possible, and that is what we are looking to achieve. Some are at different stages and will require different levels of support, through funding and by ensuring that we have certainty on consenting and on transmission and the grid infrastructure upgrade, to ensure that they continue to be an investable proposition.

Yes. It is a programme for government commitment that we ensure that we provide as much information and guidance as possible to local authorities to streamline and provide as much certainty as possible for offshore wind. Obviously, the offshore industry is at a different stage of maturity from the onshore one. There is still learning to be done on the competing demands on the natural environment and providing as much information as possible, but we are looking to do what we can to provide as much guidance and certainty as we can to planning authorities to ensure that the consenting regime for which we have responsibility is as efficient as possible.

I am keen that the green industrial strategy is as helpful as possible in maximising the economic opportunities that we have with our massive renewable energy potential. Green hydrogen is one element of that and has the potential, depending on where we choose to go, to reduce the need for some of the transmission infrastructure that the convener was talking about, because it is, in essence, an additional opportunity for energy storage. We need to decide what will be the best use and provide the maximum output from using hydrogen as an opportunity.

Certainly, in industrial decarbonisation, you will be familiar with plans in certain parts of industry to use hydrogen as a way in which to reduce carbon emissions in their processes. That is why it is so important, particularly on the CCUS front, that we see a determination from the UK Government on which sites and emitters will be part of that process, so that there is an investable proposition for those industry colleagues as quickly as possible. That industrial decarbonisation will be critical, not just for us in Scotland to meet our 2030 and 2045 targets but for the UK to be able to meet its targets, and CCUS will play an important role in that process.

Yes.

We were hoping that it would help to move the UK Government on a little bit faster in the process and ensure that it realised the industry’s call to take decisions as quickly as possible. I do not think that Mr Lumsden and I are at cross purposes: we both want carbon capture to happen and we want it to have happened yesterday. The challenge is that we want to commit the funding to ensure that we play our part in supporting the industry. However, until we have certainty about which emitters are included and about the timescales, we cannot spend that money. We need to ensure that there is that certainty. I do not think that we are at cross purposes here; we are both in the same area. When that information is available, we will be in a position to spend that money. It is absolutely crucial that the UK Government now takes that action.

The chief executive of Ferguson Marine is due to give an update to the committee at the end of September on the costs and timeline. There has been an impact that has been largely, but not exclusively, due to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s taking a different approach to regulation of crew escape from 801. A number of areas of change to the original design have been required. The conversations that I have with the management at Ferguson Marine—and those of my colleagues, including Vikki Halliday in the civil service—are about making sure that the ferries are delivered as quickly as possible and without any undue cost overrun, not least because our island communities need and deserve those ferries to be running as soon as possible.

No, because—with respect—the MCA’s decision making on the safety of crew escapes from the ships is not a minor thing. It is pretty fundamental to whether the design of the ferry allows it to sail. It is not an inconsequential matter. I hope, obviously, that the last update—that the ferry will be in service in spring—can be met, but until the discussions with the MCA are concluded I cannot give a further definitive update. It would be unfair to suggest that the MCA’s decision making is anything other than critical to the delivery of the ferries.