Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate Mr Lumsden’s question. I am pleased that we have taken another step forward, but it is one step, and I think that Mr Lumsden would accept that, until we have further clarity on which emitters will be included, and a timescale, it will be difficult for full progress to be made.

We interact with the UK Government. There have been a number of meetings on the matter at official and ministerial level, and we are, as you would expect—and, I hope, support—trying to push UK colleagues to go as fast as possible to ensure that such decisions are taken to give certainty and to help to unlock the Scottish Government funding, because we cannot spend the £80 million until we know which emitters will be included and where we will be able to add maximum value.

We want the UK Government to go much faster. Industry does as well, and that is a very strong call from industry, which is clear that further delay absolutely risks our ability in Scotland and that of the UK Government to meet our net zero targets. Carbon capture, as Mr Lumsden will be aware, plays an incredibly important role in that.

The £80 million is there and is committed for carbon capture when the decision is taken and when we know where we will be able to add the greatest value. That can happen only when there is certainty about which emitters will be included in the project.

We have already set out some of the funds that support that and the important part that carbon capture will play in that regard, and we will ensure that continued progress is made in sectors that are going through a decarbonisation process—I am thinking of the likes of Mossmorran and Grangemouth. The funds that Mr Lumsden mentioned, on which Nick Young and Kersti Berge have given more information, are our key focus.

Thank you, convener. You are right—it is important that we speak with as much clarity as possible for people.

Obviously, the Scottish National Investment Bank has a key role to play in our reaching net zero. It is independent of Government, but it has been tasked with a goal. One of its priority areas is net zero and ensuring that the investments that it makes support us in that journey. It has resources to utilise to ensure that it supports projects that can help us with a just energy transition. I meet and engage regularly with SNIB to ensure that it updates me on progress and on the work that it is doing. I have also been at a number of events where I have seen how it is supporting organisations already.

SNIB’s investment proposition will be important, as will private capital. We know that it will not be possible for public finance alone to help us in this journey. We will not be able to realise our renewable energy potential or our decarbonisation responsibilities without the support of private capital. Ensuring that there continue to be investable propositions is part of my responsibility, working alongside other colleagues in the Government. We continue to engage with the likes of SNIB and the First Minister’s investor panel so that we do everything that we can to ensure that our energy and decarbonisation plans are all as attractive as possible in order to get maximum response and meet our 2045 target.

It is always best to keep us all above board, convener.

With due respect, convener, I gave that answer. Mr Tydeman will give the committee an update, and that has to be based on decisions that are still to be taken by the MCA on whether the mitigations that will be taken on the design of the ferry will be appropriate for the MCA to pass those ferries as safe to operate. Those discussions are on-going, which is why I cannot give a date.

I say with respect that the discussions with the MCA are still on-going. That is why I am ensuring that Mr Tydeman has the opportunity to give the committee and me the update on the conclusion of discussions with the MCA, which I hope will be a positive conclusion. I cannot give an update until those discussions are concluded. I think that that is pretty clear.

—Ferguson Marine and the MCA. There was a change in the application of what the MCA was expecting for the crew escapes. The previous expectation was that that would be based on cargo escape regulations as opposed to passenger regulations. That is for the MCA to determine, and I respect that process. That means that there is a need for changes to the design of the ferry to ensure that the design satisfies the MCA that it is safe to operate. Those discussions are on-going between Ferguson Marine and the MCA, and I support both in arriving at a conclusion as quickly as possible.

I am not looking to point any fingers. Obviously, I fully respect the fact that the MCA has a job to do to ensure that the ferries that it needs to sign off are operationally safe. I will ensure that I furnish you with that information as soon as I can.

Part of the revised costings that Mr Tydeman provided to the committee earlier in the summer reflected that, but we need to wait until there is a full conclusion on what the MCA will accept for the final design, in order to get a full picture. You are right: many of the problems that we face are due to original design issues. If you have been around 801, convener, you will have had that pointed out to you, as I did. We are still living with that, and will do until the ferries are signed off and handed over. Obviously, we are looking to ensure that Ferguson Marine takes as much action as possible to mitigate as early as possible with 802, in learning from what has happened with 801, and to ensure that the impact on costs and delivery time is lessened. However, some of that will be unavoidable. That is why, as you would expect, my officials and I continue to engage weekly with Ferguson Marine and regularly at ministerial level to ensure that we deliver those ferries for our island communities as quickly as we can.