Seòmar agus comataidhean

The ambition is to reach 40GW of new offshore wind capacity in the next 15 years. What will be the impact of reducing the budget for supporting the supply chain? Is there any way out of that? Do you think that that is sending the right signals to companies? Obviously, it will be somewhat frustrating for them, considering that they are also having to put up with CFD, transmission charges and everything else that is in the mix. Is there any way that more support, and more comfort, can be given to secure the future and jobs on that front?

Thank you.

None of these situations is ever ideal, and that is the difficulty with the devolved settlement and Brexit. It is fine to get the HSE to come to the committee at a later point, but we are not going to be able to do that during this term. There is just no way that that will happen, given the level of work that the committee still has to do. Let us be honest—if the HSE consultation responses are in draft only, they might not be fully formed before the end of this parliamentary session anyway.

I suggest that we take some comfort today in the fact that the cabinet secretary’s officials have seen the draft consultation responses. I am quite sure that if there were any red flags in those, they would have let the cabinet secretary know about them. We need to trust the good offices of the cabinet secretary in that regard. I am sure that she can give us further assurance today—I think that she has already done so—that the Government will continue to look at all of this. We are not in an ideal position. We do not know who wanted these changes—I certainly did not—but we are where we are, given the way in which all this operates.

Good morning. Cabinet secretary, in your opening remarks, you said that there are obviously challenges, but you also highlighted opportunities. Professor Graeme Roy, chair of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, said:

“not responding to the challenge of climate change … will be far more expensive and damaging to the public finances than investing in net zero … it is simply not an option.”

In all this, you have the challenge of delivering the plan, but you cannot shape the public policy or the resourcing that rest with the UK Government. I will concentrate on a few things that are extremely important here, and you might want to add to them. You mentioned electricity prices. If there is no a change to the electricity pricing regime, the transmission regime, contracts for difference, standing charges—the list goes on—how much more difficult is it for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to reach our goals?

As someone who has an all-electric house, I am well aware of the bills. Although I would like to see others move in the same way as I have done, it is difficult to tell folk who are on their uppers that they should do that. That is one challenge. In order for us to meet our climate change targets, we need that change at the UK level.

I will move on to another challenge. Those of us from the north-east have looked at carbon capture and the Acorn project, and carbon capture features in the draft plan. How difficult would it be for us to achieve our targets if carbon capture is not resourced by the UK Government and does not become a reality?

For my third point, you probably think that I am going to weigh in on hydrogen, as I normally would, but I will not. I am trying to tease out what our challenges are. Obviously, we all want us to deliver, but the UK Government also has challenges when it comes to meeting its climate change targets and, in some areas, it might be more difficult for that Government to do so than it is for us. Has there been discussion between the Scottish and the UK Governments about the UK Government changing some of the resourcing in order to help meet the targets in the UK as a whole? Investment in peatland restoration is an example. There is more peatland in Scotland than there is elsewhere in the UK. Peatland restoration could do a huge amount in reducing emissions—it is so helpful for that. Has there been discussion about the UK Government funding more of that, as doing so would actually help the UK Government to meet UK climate change targets?

We are beginning to conflate a number of things here, which is understandable. There were similar questions and discussions when the convener and I were in Aberdeen just a few weeks ago.

It would be extremely useful, not only for the committee but for others, to get a better sense of the global conventions for measuring all this, and to separate that from energy-security policy and other environmental policy areas. I wonder whether that could be provided in simple language, so that people can understand how all this is calculated.

Thank you.

As you have pointed out, cabinet secretary, it is always difficult to balance the books, but the just transition, which is close to my heart and yours, is something that we have to get right, particularly for the north-east of Scotland. Can the committee be assured that that investment will continue in the north-east to help with the just transition? Is the Scottish Government continuing to pressurise the UK Government in that area? Is there any ability to be more flexible with that funding to allow, for example, some revenue funding for community projects, in particular, which can make a real difference not only in the shift to net zero but possibly in securing future job opportunities?

I will ask a brief question, because I know that we are short of time. Does the fact that it involves a combination of resourcing, including financial transactions, give you more flexibility to shift that money about if the commercial opportunities arise?