Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have been able to find money for Grangemouth outwith the just transition fund. I acknowledge that the issue of just transition does not concern only the north-east and Moray, but there are other allocations of money, and decisions can also be made in-year as issues develop. Project willow is due to report—I am getting a briefing on the detail of the project this week from Ernst & Young. There will be work, potentially across the Scottish Government and, indeed, the enterprise agencies, to respond to what is in project willow. The Scottish and UK Governments are working together, and tranches of funding could come from the UK Government. As it stands, the just transition fund is for the north-east and Moray.

Of course it is feasible.

Yes. We have been looking into that; indeed, officials have been looking at the regulations and the legal aspects of what the Scottish Government can and cannot do with regard to taking a share of things. That work is on-going.

Mr Stewart, we have had interesting meetings with innovators, and I was pleased to join you and Audrey Nicoll at one of those meetings in Aberdeen with a company that is looking to innovate in deepwater technology.

You are right that, sometimes, there is a gap when it comes to commercialisation. I see the Government being essential in helping companies to get to the point at which they are able to commercialise their developments. Where companies have the potential for massive growth and where there has been Government support—whether that was through our enterprise agencies, the Scottish National Investment Bank or whatever other means—it would make absolute sense for there to be an opportunity for the public to have a stake in those developments and companies. I am absolutely open to exploring that as far as we can, to see whether we can be in that space.

As a result of meetings that I have had with you and others and a general agreement with the tenet of your question, I have been discussing with my officials the art of the possible. When you are putting public money into this space—I have explained the kind of public money that we are putting in to realise the potential of our supply chain but also the potential of the innovators in this space—it would be fantastic for the public to benefit from those companies as they increase their capacity and not only grow their operations in Scotland but export that technology all over the world.

I will answer your question succinctly so that I do not annoy the convener. When we are passionate about something, we can perhaps wax lyrical and go on at length, so forgive me, convener.

We more than doubled the capacity of the consents unit last year as a result of the issues that Michael Matheson has put to me. When I first became energy minister, the main issue that the sector talked to me about was the length of time that it took to get consents. As a result of that feedback, we have doubled capacity. In a very difficult situation, with the Government having to look at its spending controls, we went out and recruited more people in that area—we more than doubled the capacity. Not only that, but we will have a graduate apprenticeship programme in the consents unit in order to hothouse graduates, who will come in and learn how to work in consenting.

However, I have said to many people in the sector that, if they want fast consenting, their applications must be good. We have also ensured that we have more dialogue between the consents unit and developers in order to ensure that, when applications come in, there are not delays due to the quality of assessment. We have taken on that feedback, and it is already making a big difference.

The time that it takes to get consent for a project is a potential barrier that we have absolutely committed to addressing—as I said, we have doubled capacity—but the grid connection is now the issue that all the developers speak to me about. I am hearing fewer concerns about the time that it takes for consenting; not having a date for grid connection is the major barrier to investment.

There are a couple of areas that we can point to where moving parts are starting to come together to create the opportunity for manufacturing. I mentioned Sumitomo, but we also have Haventus in Ardersier, which involves 3,000 jobs. To wind this out beyond offshore wind, I note that former industrial areas in Scotland are being repurposed in order to have manufacturing capacity on those industrial sites. For example, tomorrow, I will go to Hunterston, where there is a lot of activity in that space.

What is critical is investment—not just from private investors, but through the work that has been done by enterprise agencies to scale up what is happening at our ports. There has been investment in ports and harbours across Scotland, particularly on the north and east coasts, but not just there—ports in the north-west of Scotland are also seeing a great deal of investment. Work is also being done in the energy transition zone in Aberdeen, which is sited in the same geographical area as the new port in Aberdeen.

Clusters are coming together to attract inward investment and private investment and are getting support from our agencies to provide sites for manufacturing. The clusters of activity that are associated with ports and harbours will be very important for deployment of offshore wind and will be key sites for manufacturing.

A great deal of emphasis has been put on the ports and harbours infrastructure that is being developed across the whole of Scotland. The green free ports have been announced—I think that Michael Matheson might have been the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport when that announcement was made—in order to prompt investment into those areas, as well. Last year, the green industrial strategy was launched, which sets out that offshore wind is a key area of investment and support from the Government and our enterprise agencies.

This is about creating an investable proposition, and the ports and harbours will be absolutely critical to that. That is not only for the deployment of industry within Scotland but, as you rightly say, for deployment of ports’ capacities to export the various materials that we could be manufacturing in Scotland to the rest of Europe, as countries there look to take on the technologies that we are developing in Scotland.

Another added benefit is the long-term legacy for ports and harbours. I will give a particular example. I was at Eyemouth, which is a traditional fishing town that is now a launch pad for crews going to service offshore wind. As a result of the investment there, that relatively small harbour is doing lots of things, and is still working with the fishing sector. So, there is a long-term legacy benefit. I will stop there, convener.

There has been no decision by the UK Government to match our funding. It would be great if it did provide match funding—what a difference we could make if that funding doubled! My point is on the record now, and you and others have said on the record many times that you would like to see that happen.

We are working towards completing the analysis in March. Such analysis is important for a fund like that that has so many different parts to it. You are right to point to the participatory budgeting side. In Aberdeenshire, that involved Aberdeenshire Voluntary Action, Third Sector Interface Moray and the Aberdeen City third sector interface.

Yes, we are. I can write to the committee about what the increase in capacity in the energy consents unit has meant. It is something that the First Minister and I have taken a keen interest in. Moreover, we want to help with consenting not only for offshore wind, but for all projects. We want to help local government, for example, to access the expertise that it needs. We have talked about the length of time that consents take for onshore wind or other onshore infrastructure, and about the capacity of some of our local authorities. Ivan McKee and I are working on a national planning hub, so that the specific expertise that is required, particularly for things such as environmental impact assessments, can be accessed. A lack in that respect was also slowing progress.

I do not know whether I have the figure for what has already been spent, but I will tell you about the in-year allocations and the allocations in the budget for hydrogen funding.

We launched £7 million in-year funding for grants to support strategically important green hydrogen projects. I think that 14 applications for that were submitted in December, and they are now being looked at. Our delivery partner in that is Scottish Enterprise. That money builds on £7 million for the hydrogen innovation scheme, which supported 31 projects. We are still involved in an analysis of what that has achieved. We also gave £6 million from the just transition fund to HydroGlen, which is the green hydrogen farming pilot that I am sure the committee is aware of. Further, £15 million has gone to the green hydrogen hub in Aberdeen. Also, some of that money—around £3.1 million—has gone to the Storrega green hydrogen project in Speyside, which I am sure that people have heard me talk about. It is working to decarbonise whisky distilling, but is also working with the local authority to potentially provide green hydrogen for fleets of vehicles, in the way that Aberdeen City Council has done.

Right—I am sorry.

I do not have that figure in front of me. Obviously, it will be a long-term projection. We can look into that and write to the committee. It is a matter of public record: I just do not have the figure in front of me, and I would not like to give you the wrong one.