Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our intention in the strategy is to give certainty and a very clear sense of direction and to show how we are moving forward. That is why we are taking a whole-system approach. The strategy will look at our need for oil and gas in the future, too, as that will continue to be the case for many years to come. However, although the oil and gas sector will play an important part in our energy mix, that does not mean that we should not be looking to decarbonise our energy systems. The two things go hand in hand. In that sense, and from my perspective as I move forward in this policy area, they are not in competition.

The key question is how Scotland gets the economic benefits. One thing that we cannot be—and which we cannot allow ourselves to be—is purely a production basin. We cannot be a place where energy is produced and then literally flows by our door, and we see no economic and social benefits from it. Therefore, we need to take an approach that helps secure the manufacturing and expertise that goes alongside the energy transition, whether it be in offshore or onshore wind. We lost a big opportunity in onshore wind through changes made back in the 1980s and 1990s—way before I was involved directly in politics—that countries such as Denmark were able to capitalise on. Of course, those countries are now world leaders in the development of onshore—and, to some degree, offshore—wind technologies.

That said, given the scale of the opportunity that we have in Scotland, we need to be able to create a pathway that gives industry confidence that there will be projects not just this year, next year or the year after but for many years to come and that it is worth investing in the manufacturing capability here in Scotland, because it can not only meet demand in Scotland and the UK but potentially export to other parts of the world.

More than half—actually, about two-thirds—of ScotWind projects use floating wind technology, but the sector itself has not yet settled on what the floating wind technology of the future will be. Many countries—for example, Norway and the USA—will have to look at floating wind technology, but with ScotWind, we have the advantage of being ahead. We have lease agreements in place so that we can be at the forefront not just in developing that technology but potentially in manufacturing it here for export to other countries. That is one of the advantages that we have with ScotWind and where we are in comparison with other countries. As I have said, we are ahead of Norway and the USA in this technology, and we need to capitalise on that.

As a result, our manufacturing capability and the pipeline of opportunity for developments in Scotland alone are critical to ensuring that we do not simply become a production basin and that we get the benefit of delivering these things. A key part of facilitating that will be the creation of the skills reservoir, which will be necessary in all this. Again, our oil and gas sector is a strength to us in that respect, because a lot of the sector’s technical skills and knowledge can be used in renewables, too.

I see the convener indicating that I should hurry up, but I just want to say that, later this month or next month, I will be hosting an event on the whole issue of skills transfer. There are certain issues with transferring some skill qualifications from the oil and gas sector into the renewables sector as well as other regulatory issues to consider, and we will be looking at some of those matters to ensure that those who want to transfer can do so and know what skills will be needed, too.

It is part of the emergency budget review that the cabinet secretary with responsibility for finance is taking forward at the moment and in which all portfolios are engaged. We are looking at whether further provision can be made for bus services through the support grant.

A last, last question.

Carbon capture and storage and negative emission technologies will be mission critical to delivering our climate change targets. That is not just my view—it is the view of the Committee on Climate Change, who are expert independent advisers on these matters. Indeed, such approaches will be critical not just to Scotland but to the whole of the UK. For the whole of the UK to achieve the UK Government’s target of net zero by 2050, it will need negative emission technologies such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage.

The Scottish cluster lost out on track 1 status, and we have continued to make representations to the UK Government on reversing that decision, simply because the UK Government’s own net zero strategy and carbon capture targets cannot be achieved without the Scottish cluster in the mix. We need to move forward with carbon capture, because it represents an important opportunity for us here to meet not just our climate targets but our energy transition, too.

As I have said, we continue to engage with the UK Government on this matter. It had been planning a track 2 process possibly this year, but perhaps into next; however, there have been ministerial changes and I do not know whether that timeline has changed.

Just last month, I met Scottish cluster representatives at St Fergus. What we need to understand is that not only is this approach mission critical, it is costing a lot of money to keep the partners together, and unless there is a very clear indication that this work will materialise soon, it will become increasingly difficult to make that happen. That is what worries me the most, and it is why we have offered £80 million of financial support. However, we need to get the regulatory agreement for it to move forward. The danger is that we lose the opportunity and the time slot to keep the partners together and ensure that we deliver on the Scottish cluster.

There is unanimous agreement on this matter across the Scottish Parliament; indeed, I know that Liam Kerr is a supporter of the Scottish cluster. We all want to see it happen but it needs to happen sooner rather than later, because it is costing money. The longer the process takes, the more difficult it will be to hold the partners together in order to make this a success.

I am happy to do that.

It will be out by the end of this year—I cannot be any more precise than that.

However, we also have our hydrogen investment proposition, which I published last week and launched at our hydrogen supply chain event for stakeholders in Edinburgh. The proposition is quite important, because a lot of the initial investment and opportunities around hydrogen will be driven largely by export potential rather than by domestic demand. There is huge interest in Scotland’s capability to produce large quantities of green hydrogen not just for our own domestic consumption but for export potential. The UK Government has an objective of producing 5GW between now and 2030; Scotland alone is looking to do 5GW, and there is a lot of interest from mainland European countries that will need to import green hydrogen and are therefore looking at import opportunities.

The investment proposition and supply chain event were important in starting to set out Scotland’s potential opportunity with regard to manufacturing and producing green hydrogen for our own needs and for export. We published the proposition last week, and I will publish the action plan by the end of this year. I cannot give you a specific date, but it will certainly be by the end of the year.

I can imagine the reaction that placing more duties on local authorities would receive. However, I think that it is a fair point. A lot of what local authorities are focused on is their direct corporate responsibility in looking to decarbonise and change their processes to make them less carbon intensive, whatever that may be. Is there a need for us to get them to think a bit wider than that? There are some local authorities that are better at it than others. If you look at some of the things that some local authorities are doing around transport issues, for example in active travel, EV charging infrastructure and the 20-minute neighbourhoods—all those things have a positive effect in the community. They are not direct corporate matters, but they have wider community and environmental benefits.

There is a fair amount being taken forward by local authorities that goes beyond just their direct corporate buildings and vehicles, but I think that there is a fair challenge there in questioning whether there is more that we could get local authorities to do. I am a bit hesitant to put more statutory targets around them at this stage, given the new statutory targets that come in in two months’ time on their own reductions targets.

We have the regional partnerships for transport planning, and taking that forward is then down to individual local authorities. Some local authorities are more proactive and better than others at pursuing transport planning. Is there more? We gave a commitment to review in this parliamentary session the structure for transport planning and to look at whether it is the optimal model to take forward. We want to do that co-productively with local authorities to make sure that the structure that we put in place reflects what they believe is the best approach, alongside what we are trying to achieve with transport planning. I would say that the model that we have now is maybe the optimal model, but there is scope for us to look at how we can improve it. Some local authorities are making good progress.

Through a combination of the bill proposals and our waste route map consultation, which closed just last month, we have set out some of the measures that we look to take forward to tackle the issue that Ms Lennon has raised. Those look at how we can transition much more effectively to a circular economy, how to increase reuse and recycling rates and how to modernise and improve the way in which waste and recycling services are provided.

Our approach will be a combination of the route map, which we will take forward with local authorities to help to drive forward improvements in waste management and recycling, and the circular economy bill, through which we will look at putting in place statutory provisions on targets and approaches that should be taken to help to reduce waste and increase recycling rates.

There is a requirement on local authorities, as part of the procurement process, to consider how they can ensure that they are taking an approach that is in line with our net zero ambitions and the requirements on them to meet net zero. Can we try to do more? I see companies becoming increasingly mindful in recognising their carbon footprint or contribution to tackling climate change. Some of that is feeding through into the procurement process, in which they are highlighting that they can do things much more efficiently and effectively. However, procurement has an important part to play in helping to encourage more of that, and local authorities, particularly in relation to their contracts, have an important role in helping to ensure that that happens.

I am not sure whether we make specific requirements on procurement as part of the circular economy bill as it is proposed at the moment, but I am more than happy to check that.