Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Decisions on new oil and gas licensing are for the UK Government. When there is an interest in that type of step change, I suggest that the most effective form of campaigning is to target where such decisions are taken.

We have been very clear, as I set out the last time that I was at the committee and as I set out whenever the media were at an event that I attended over the summer, that decisions on new oil and gas licensing are for the UK Government, but we want there to be much more transparent and stringent climate compatibility checkpoints. We are not opposed to any new oil and gas projects, but we feel that they should pass much more stringent climate compatibility checkpoints. With regard to the energy strategy and just transition plan, we will make clear our position, in response to the consultation responses, as quickly as we can. The language in the strategy and plan is clear on what we currently expect the UK Government to do in relation to new oil and gas projects, and we will clarify our position in response to the consultation responses in due course.

As I said, we have a responsibility right now to play our part in responding to the climate emergency, but we also have to make sure that there is a just transition. We have to take the workers who are currently involved in oil and gas with us, because shutting down the North Sea prematurely would not achieve a just transition. That would result in workers, skills and investment being lost, which would make it much more difficult for us to reach our net zero targets and to achieve our huge renewable energy potential. We must be very careful about ensuring that we take our climate responsibilities seriously but that we do not lose the skills, people and investment that the industry currently has.

We are not passive observers. We have made it very clear that we want much more transparent and stringent climate compatibility checks for new oil and gas projects, regardless of which application we are speaking about. We want to engage with the UK Government on that and to see that forthcoming, but it is its decision. Obviously, we attempt to engage on that basis to ensure that we see that just transition evidenced, and we will continue to make that case, as will elements of the industry. They want a much clearer and more transparent process, too. We will continue to work to try to achieve that with the UK Government.

I have made it very clear that we want much more stringent climate compatibility checkpoints for new oil and gas projects, regardless of which application we are talking about. I have made it very clear that we have to be very careful about picking one application or another without us—whether it is the Scottish Government or the UK Government—having the right strategy set out.

We know that we will rely on the oil and gas industry for some time to come. Its premature closure will put jobs at risk, and investment potential, knowledge and experience will go with it. We know that that will be critical. We must also make sure that we take our responsibilities relating to the current climate emergency seriously, which is why there must be a much faster just transition. We are working with the industry to try to push it to go as fast as it can in providing investment that supports new renewable energy generation and the skills transition. We are also looking to push the UK Government to ensure that it uses much more transparent and stringent climate compatibility checkpoints.

I know that the green heat finance task force continues to work on bringing forward its report. That work is on-going and is incredibly important because, as I set out in relation to energy generation and the infrastructure that we will require to ensure that we have decarbonisation of the heat network for building users, we will need to leverage private finance where we can. The green heat finance task force’s expert advice on where that might be possible will be really important. I very much look forward to that coming through to ensure that it informs our really important work on making sure that we decarbonise heat in homes and buildings.

We will keep that under review. Where there is a demand and we have a responsibility, we will look to meet that demand where we can. You will be aware of the very tight public finances that we are currently operating within. It is the most challenging public finance situation that has ever been seen by many of my colleagues who have been in government much longer than I have.

One of our key priorities is to reduce child poverty. We are ensuring that we are supporting that endeavour through initiatives such as you have outlined for those people who are facing what I think I described earlier as a grim winter, with household energy costs double what they were a few years ago. We will do what we can to help people to mitigate that. Again, however, this is an area of responsibility for UK ministers and Ofgem to regulate—not the specific interventions that you have spoken about but the energy costs that we are facing—so I would expect much greater action from them to ensure that households are protected this winter.