Seòmar agus comataidhean

The deputy convener is right. The planning legislation is ours, and NPF4 is an important part of that. However, the Electricity Act 1989 also comes into play here and we do not have full control over all elements of the consenting regime for infrastructure. The interaction with the 1989 act means that there can be much slower decision-making processes. For instance, if a local planning authority refuses or objects to a consent, it has to go to a public inquiry.

NPF4 ensures that we have a very clear pathway, and we are continuing to discuss with Mr Bowie and other UK Government colleagues how transfer of powers around the 1989 act would allow us to have a much fuller package to ensure a smoother but balanced consenting regime.

No. We clearly want to see a redesign of the electricity market. The situation over the past year and a half has demonstrated the absolute need for that. What I am saying is that it is important that the decisions that are taken by the UK Government do not impact negatively on the generation capacity here in Scotland and—this is central to your inquiry—that they do not inhibit our ability to provide cheap, low-cost renewable electricity into the network. We will continue to liaise with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to ensure as best as possible, although it is its decision, that that does not happen.

I have not made contact, but I will ensure that we check to see what correspondence has been had thus far.

Absolutely not. The Sumitomo announcement itself relates to manufacturing, as it will be manufacturing the cable required for the offshore wind industry. Given the world-wide shortage of high-voltage cable, the fact that Sumitomo has chosen to put a factory here in Scotland will be very important in that respect.

I hope that the announcement also gives confidence to other investors, both domestic and international, to base their operations here. The fact that we are a world leader in offshore renewables was made very plain to me when I was in Japan, and there are huge opportunities in this respect, but we must ensure that we are giving domestic and international investors confidence. That will come through the work that the committee is doing today and the report that you will bring forward on ensuring that we have sufficient capacity to respond to the demand for generation arising from our offshore potential.

The contracts for difference scheme has indeed made a difference—and it is important to stress that—but we are looking for it to go further. For instance, we know that the marine energy sector was looking for £70 million-worth of investment and £20 million came forward. The scheme is making a difference, and we can see that in the projects that are coming through, but we also want it to go much further than it is at the moment.

Carbon capture and storage will be incredibly important for any blue hydrogen schemes that come forward. Again, I encourage the UK Government to move as fast as possible in confirming the Acorn project’s track 2 status to ensure that it can proceed.

However, the aspiration has to be to maximise the opportunity from green hydrogen, which is where ScotWind gives us a huge opportunity. If we can ensure that some of the overprovision that we are likely to have from ScotWind projects is linked to green hydrogen projects, we have a huge opportunity—as with pumped storage—to ensure on-going energy security when there are dips in supply from other areas.

First of all, the energy strategy and just transition plan is out for consultation. We are currently consulting on the language that Mr Kerr has outlined, and the finalised plan will reflect the consultation responses that we have received. I am not sure whether Mr Kerr has responded to that consultation with his views on the language around “presumption against”, but I am sure that others will have responded. We will continue to consider whether that is appropriate.

Obviously, consenting for oil and gas is reserved to the UK Government. That is not a decision for the Scottish Government to take. We believe that maximum extraction of oil and gas is not compatible with our net zero objectives, but we are also cognisant of the fact that we are not able to turn off our requirement for the use of oil and gas overnight. Therefore, we need to take a pragmatic approach that meets our demand. That will require the UK Government to have a much stronger climate compatibility measure and to ensure that any decisions that it takes are within the climate compatibility measures.

I have set out my view. I do not have responsibility for the area. Mr Kerr will be aware that decisions on consents for new oil and gas exploration rest with the UK Government. I will check the record, but I am pretty sure that Mr Kerr did not ask Mr Bowie, who has direct responsibility for that, about that a couple of weeks ago.

As I have set out, my view is that maximum extraction of oil and gas will not be compatible with our net zero objectives. We need to take a pragmatic approach and recognise the fact that there will still be demand for oil and gas to meet our on-going energy security, but we need a much faster just transition that includes the UK Government investing in areas such as carbon capture and storage and grid capacity to allow us to take advantage of our massive renewables potential. I hope that the UK Government will come forward with a much stronger climate compatibility test to ensure that any new oil and gas coming forward meets net zero objectives.

We will continue to work with stakeholders to develop that. I think that you are right: the use of hydrogen will be in a mix, and it will be about decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors—for example, transport. Hydrogen also has the potential to supplement the gas grid. There is the potential for some hydrogen to go into the gas grid and to be exported. I think that there will be a combination of all of that.

The technology required for all those areas is nascent, as you have said. We are looking to support its production and commercialisation through the £100 million fund that is coming forward, and we hope that there will be some announcements very shortly so that we can see a real path for the future of hydrogen and how we can meet our targets for 2030 and 2045.

We have vast opportunities to be first to market with and a world leader in green hydrogen and the use of hydrogen electrolysers in particular. The important thing is that we will be generating significantly more offshore wind energy than we will be able to utilise, particularly if grid capacity is not up to speed, and we need to ensure that we respond with the opportunities that hydrogen presents.

As a result, our hydrogen action plan includes a target for 5GW of hydrogen capacity by 2030. I would imagine that there will be a mix in how the hydrogen will be used, with localised usage as well as its being fed into the grid and the potential for export, too. It will be important in ensuring that we utilise our offshore renewables potential and the significant overprovision of renewable electricity that we will have. Some of that generation will need to be used for hydrogen capacity, and we need to make sure that we continue to be a world leader in the opportunities that will come through in that respect.