Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that I am calling for transparency.

Without being specific, movement on all those areas will be at different paces. We are working on determining whether there is a target for solar energy that could be brought forward and whether that is the appropriate way in which to try to drive development. For all the elements, what was positive from AR5 was seeing marine energy come through. That was on a small scale, but it represented progress, and it highlights where there is support that could be provided, in this case through the UK Government’s contracts for difference, which can make a real difference in helping to drive that development. We are mindful of that, and we look to do what we can on targets and on support to ensure that we deliver as best we can on the potential that we have.

Ms Lennon’s initial proposition is absolutely correct: the Scottish and UK Governments have very different positions regarding new oil and gas projects. That said, we are very much focused on ensuring a just transition, which is why the areas for which we have responsibility—we do not grant licences for new oil and gas exploration—are focused on a just transition. That is where our responsibilities lie, and it is where we will continue to provide focus.

However, we appreciate that the energy companies that are involved in oil and gas are transitioning and that their workforce and investments will be incredibly important—I refer to Mr Lumsden’s contribution—in allowing us to make that just transition. We will not be able to meet the 2045 target without private capital. A substantial amount of that, particularly in the energy generation sphere, will need to come from energy companies that are involved in oil and gas.

We need to take a measured approach that appreciates the role that those companies have to play. That will be critical, but we also need to push them to go as fast as possible in that just transition. That will be of paramount importance. All my engagements over the summer, with those in the sector and with Government colleagues, have been about ensuring that a just transition happens as quickly as possible.

I will bring in Nick Young.

As I have said, when we have certainty on which emitters will be included and what the UK Government will fund, we will use the £80 million to add maximum value to those that are involved, depending on what the UK Government sets out. That is why, as I have said repeatedly, it is so important that the UK Government sets out which emitters will be included and what it is going to fund. Until we know that, it will be impossible for us to add value because, as yet, there is nothing to add to. That is why we and industry are looking for the UK Government to move much faster.

The longer the delay, the less likely it is that we will be able to meet our targets and see the industrial decarbonisation that we all want to see and that we have to see if we are to meet our net zero objectives. That is why I call on the UK Government to move much faster, and I do that through engagement, publicly and privately, as do my officials.

We need to take this in order. The consultation on our energy strategy and just transition plan closed earlier this year and received substantial feedback. The consultation responses are being considered, and we are hoping to produce a response as soon as possible to make sure that that part of our programme is realised. We will move as quickly as we can on a sector-by-sector basis thereafter.

It is the latter. Obviously, we have been engaged for some time with industry around the onshore wind sector deal. Since coming into office, I have found that one of the clearest areas of action that industry is looking for us to help with is grid infrastructure—that is one of the major barriers to unlocking our energy potential—as well as ensuring that there is as much certainty as possible.

The industry is not necessarily looking for speed, which is not the only factor. It is about giving the industry as much certainty as possible. Because interactions with the Electricity Act 1989 are outwith our control, that makes it more challenging. As soon as a public inquiry is triggered, that adds a year to the process.

The detail on how we will get to the PFG commitment will be published in the onshore sector deal. That deal is not just about what we will do for industry; it sets out action that is required of industry for Government and for the general public.

Absolutely.

Before we get to infrastructure, there is obviously a limit on what we can do, based on having a fixed budget and a very challenging public finance landscape. We need as wide an energy mix as possible, not least because the technologies play different roles. We know that tidal is incredibly predictable: it provides good certain energy. Similarly, pumped hydro storage gives baseload capacity when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. We know that wind—onshore and offshore—is the cheapest form of renewable energy and already provides a huge amount of capacity for the grid. As has been said, for us, hydrogen has potential as storage and to help to decarbonise other elements of the economy. [Neil Gray has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

In all areas, we need as wide a mix as possible, and that is what we are looking to achieve. Some are at different stages and will require different levels of support, through funding and by ensuring that we have certainty on consenting and on transmission and the grid infrastructure upgrade, to ensure that they continue to be an investable proposition.

Yes. It is a programme for government commitment that we ensure that we provide as much information and guidance as possible to local authorities to streamline and provide as much certainty as possible for offshore wind. Obviously, the offshore industry is at a different stage of maturity from the onshore one. There is still learning to be done on the competing demands on the natural environment and providing as much information as possible, but we are looking to do what we can to provide as much guidance and certainty as we can to planning authorities to ensure that the consenting regime for which we have responsibility is as efficient as possible.