���˿���

First of all, the energy strategy and just transition plan is out for consultation. We are currently consulting on the language that Mr Kerr has outlined, and the finalised plan will reflect the consultation responses that we have received. I am not sure whether Mr Kerr has responded to that consultation with his views on the language around “presumption against”, but I am sure that others will have responded. We will continue to consider whether that is appropriate.

Obviously, consenting for oil and gas is reserved to the UK Government. That is not a decision for the Scottish Government to take. We believe that maximum extraction of oil and gas is not compatible with our net zero objectives, but we are also cognisant of the fact that we are not able to turn off our requirement for the use of oil and gas overnight. Therefore, we need to take a pragmatic approach that meets our demand. That will require the UK Government to have a much stronger climate compatibility measure and to ensure that any decisions that it takes are within the climate compatibility measures.

I have set out my view. I do not have responsibility for the area. Mr Kerr will be aware that decisions on consents for new oil and gas exploration rest with the UK Government. I will check the record, but I am pretty sure that Mr Kerr did not ask Mr Bowie, who has direct responsibility for that, about that a couple of weeks ago.

As I have set out, my view is that maximum extraction of oil and gas will not be compatible with our net zero objectives. We need to take a pragmatic approach and recognise the fact that there will still be demand for oil and gas to meet our on-going energy security, but we need a much faster just transition that includes the UK Government investing in areas such as carbon capture and storage and grid capacity to allow us to take advantage of our massive renewables potential. I hope that the UK Government will come forward with a much stronger climate compatibility test to ensure that any new oil and gas coming forward meets net zero objectives.

We will continue to work with stakeholders to develop that. I think that you are right: the use of hydrogen will be in a mix, and it will be about decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors—for example, transport. Hydrogen also has the potential to supplement the gas grid. There is the potential for some hydrogen to go into the gas grid and to be exported. I think that there will be a combination of all of that.

The technology required for all those areas is nascent, as you have said. We are looking to support its production and commercialisation through the £100 million fund that is coming forward, and we hope that there will be some announcements very shortly so that we can see a real path for the future of hydrogen and how we can meet our targets for 2030 and 2045.

We have vast opportunities to be first to market with and a world leader in green hydrogen and the use of hydrogen electrolysers in particular. The important thing is that we will be generating significantly more offshore wind energy than we will be able to utilise, particularly if grid capacity is not up to speed, and we need to ensure that we respond with the opportunities that hydrogen presents.

As a result, our hydrogen action plan includes a target for 5GW of hydrogen capacity by 2030. I would imagine that there will be a mix in how the hydrogen will be used, with localised usage as well as its being fed into the grid and the potential for export, too. It will be important in ensuring that we utilise our offshore renewables potential and the significant overprovision of renewable electricity that we will have. Some of that generation will need to be used for hydrogen capacity, and we need to make sure that we continue to be a world leader in the opportunities that will come through in that respect.

Clearly, targets drive investment and progress. On solar, we have a very strong industry in place already—there is a large amount of domestic solar production. Tidal is moving forward at pace. One of the first visits that I had in my current role was with the First Minister to Nova Innovation in Leith, which is involved in the domestic production of tidal generators that are currently being deployed in Shetland. The company is looking at the opportunity of deployment elsewhere around the world.

We have a huge opportunity for tidal and other marine production. As I said, we will continue to consider whether targets for those two sectors would be appropriate and whether that would help to continue to drive the growth of those sectors.

I have already said that it is not our decision to take. It is for the UK Government to take decisions on new oil and gas exploration. We need to be pragmatic. We cannot switch off oil and gas overnight. That is not going to be possible. However, we want the UK Government to come forward with stronger climate compatibility checks to ensure that any new oil and gas exploration meets our net zero ambitions. We will continue to discuss that with UK ministers, as I am sure the committee will.

The pumped storage capacity will be important for giving the consistent energy supply from renewables that we are looking for, particularly as we look to replace the fossil fuel baseload that is provided. We will look to ensure that that is done in a holistic way that is the most efficient way and that takes communities with us on the journey. We will make sure that we keep those matters under consideration.

It is very challenging to see an alternative. Carbon capture is critical, and the Acorn project is the most advanced and the most secure project. It can get up and running incredibly quickly, and we will see a massive decarbonisation of our largest carbon emitter at Grangemouth.

I again encourage the UK Government to act as quickly as possible. I heard the committee do that when Mr Bowie was before it a couple of weeks ago. It is really important for Scotland’s net zero ambitions and if the UK is serious about its net zero ambitions that carbon capture in the Acorn project continues to be progressed and is progressed quickly.

Mr Ruskell is right that it is still an issue. The UK Government has responsibility for all aspects of the processing and organisation of visas, whether for Ukrainians or others who are looking to come to Scotland. We make regular representations to the UK Government on the processing of visas for Ukrainians and others to ensure that it happens as timeously as possible. The Ukraine extension scheme was intended to bridge the gap that Mr Ruskell has pointed out but, if he has direct evidence of areas where that continues to be an issue, I would be happy to raise that with Home Office contacts whom we meet regularly.

Again, Mr Ruskell asks a very pertinent and timeous question. I raised that issue directly with Felicity Buchan, the new minister with responsibility for the Ukraine scheme in the UK Government. I am concerned that we are approaching a year since the start of the latest invasion by Russia; therefore, we are approaching a year since some people will have received visas. That means that they are a third of the way through their time here in the UK, because it is a three-year visa. Mr Ruskell is right that some will want to return to Ukraine as soon as it is safe for them to do so. They have property or family there, or they have jobs to return to. There is an emotional tie there, understandably, and they want to return to help to rebuild.

I know from speaking to Ukrainians that others want to rebuild their life here in Scotland. They have enjoyed their stay thus far and they want to stay for the longer term. I raised that question with Felicity Buchan. I am not confident that that thinking has progressed yet in the UK Government, but I will continue to raise the issue because we want to ensure that people who are here right now have the certainty of knowing what their status is. Again, I encourage colleagues, if they have evidence of where concerns have been raised, to ensure that I am aware of that, so that I can continue to raise them with UK colleagues.