Felly, wedi myddwch i'u cymryd ag unig feddwlol hefyd eich lle기�wyd ynddo â'i gyrdd 것bl cyflodiol yn 2023. Y dgylchedd y Cymru yn y byddig yn y gyrdd y Mahrach yn I amgylcheddu cyfrifiadau. Mae unrhyw o ddiddordeb gyrdd cyfyrdd o ffordd ym ym Mhelydd ym Mhlydd ym Ym Mhrydd ym Mhrydd ym Mhrydd ym Mhrydd. Item three is consideration of the evidence we will hear under item two and item four is consideration of our work program. Do we agree to take these items in private? We are agreed. So we move straight on to agenda item two, which is an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing, Economy, Fair Work, Energy on the Scottish Government's priorities relevant to the committee's remit. Now this is a very wide-ranging session to help the committee to understand what the recently appointed Cabinet Secretary's priorities will be in the coming months and over the remainder of this parliamentary session. Our discussion will focus on commitments made in the recently announced programme for government and on energy policy and government investments, two main areas in which the Cabinet Secretary's responsibility intersects with the committee's remit. I'm therefore pleased to welcome Neil Gray, the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing, Economy, Fair Work and Energy, Kirsty Burge, the Director of Energy and Climate Change, Vicky Halliday, the Head of Governance and Assurance Unit for the Strategic Commercial Assets and Nick Young, the Head of Industrial Decarbonisation and CCUS of the Scottish Government. Thank you for attending this morning, Cabinet Secretary. I believe you want to make a brief opening statement, Cabinet Secretary. I note the emphasis, convener, and I appreciate that. Thank you, good morning, colleagues, and thank you for inviting me to committee this morning. As we all recognise, we're at a pivotal point in our energy transition, and although Scotland has made excellent strides along the path to net zero there is still much to do. We need to realise our enormous renewables potential, including in hydrogen and offshore wind, and we know that our electricity demand will increase as we increasingly decarbonise the economy. To achieve a net zero energy system that can support that wider decarbonisation, we need both increasing amounts of clean energy generation and we need our electricity networks to be fit for the net zero future as well. We need significant investment in our electricity networks to reduce constraint costs and to ensure that the green power is available where it is needed. The UK-appointed independent electricity network commissioner, Nick Windsor, recently set out his recommendations on accelerating the delivery of network infrastructure, and we look forward to working with the UK Government colleagues and wider stakeholders on considering and actioning those recommendations. Since my last appearance in May, we have also had welcome confirmation from the UK Government that ACORN is best placed to deliver track 2 CCUS objectives. It is very good news, but as of yet, the UK Government has not published any timescales or further details for the next steps of this project. That should happen as a matter of urgency. It is not just myself or the Scottish Government saying that. That is also an ask of industry. It is vital that the UK Government moves at pace on ACORN, not just to provide certainty for the industry but also to ensure that the project can make a massive contribution to reducing our carbon emissions as quickly as possible. Recent events have demonstrated that we have no time to waste and that we must accelerate our transition to net zero, while also ensuring maximum economic benefits for Scotland. I look forward to taking your questions, convener. I hope that that was pithy enough for you. I would just say that they are not all going to be my questions, but I do hope that you have had a chance Cabinet Secretary to read the committee's report that was published this morning on electricity infrastructure. I believe that that was an important report, and I am sure you will get some questions on it. The first question will come from Ash Regan. Good morning to the panel. I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary will be well aware of the committee's recent report, which I think was timely and also an important look at the issues around that. I think that the committee would be interested to know if the Cabinet Secretary agrees that a new approach is needed, both for funding and also for developing grid capacity, and that it should anticipate future need rather than react to the current situation. If so, what can the Scottish Government do to improve the situation on that topic? I thank Ash Regan for that question. I note her emphasis on recent, it was incredibly recent, the publication of the report this morning. It is incredibly important, as both the convener and Ash Regan have commented. I very much welcome the work that has been put in by the committee to produce that report. It is very helpful, not least for Government, to be able to continue to make the case to the UK Government and Ofgem and the systems operator around ensuring that investment is coming forward. It is obviously not a Scottish Government responsibility, but we know that grid infrastructure is one of the major potential barriers to us being able to realise our net zero objectives and being able to realise the potential that we have for renewables. I was at SSE at its headquarters in Perth yesterday and was able to see the transmission and distribution network grid in front of me. You could see how complex that is and how much is still going to be required to be done. I think that your report is helpful in that regard. In terms of funding and a new approach, there are a couple of things that we need to do. Your report rightly highlights the fact that we need to be taking people with us. Where that responsibility lies, because the grid infrastructure is a UK Government responsibility rather than a Scottish Government, but it has major implications on devolved policy. Obviously, we will be looking to work with the UK Government on Ofgem and the systems operator to ensure that we are giving people as much information as possible about what is going to be required. There is also an ask of industry to ensure that there is as much information coming forward there as well. As I said, we had conversations with SSE about this yesterday and how we can make sure that we are taking communities with us on that journey, because clearly there is going to need to be quite a substantial investment in particularly transmission infrastructure to ensure that we are taking full advantage. Those conversations are on-going, but your report was published this morning. I haven't had an opportunity to fully digest all aspects of it, but we will certainly interact with it and respond to it in due course. The planning system was something that came up repeatedly when we were looking into this. I think that we would all agree that we don't want that to be a blocker on to our net zero ambitions. I think that a step change is needed there perhaps in the resources for planning, perhaps in the way that planning works, the practices that are used there. Do you have a view on anything that the Scottish Government could do to perhaps create some level of improvement in that system? I would agree that we need to make sure that, where we have responsibility, we are giving as much certainty as possible to industry, while also making sure that we maintain our high standards of consenting. We are obviously due to publish soon our onshore wind sector deal, which touches on those issues. We have obviously in the programme for government set out that we are looking to half the consenting time for onshore wind and we are looking to reduce as far as what we possibly can, although it is at an earlier stage the consenting times for offshore wind as well. Part of that will mean interactions with local government around ensuring that they are appropriately resourced both in terms of funding but also in terms of people and guidance that we can provide them to ensure that we are providing as much certainty as possible, while also maintaining high standards. I would point you to the upcoming onshore wind sector deal, which will give us more information around how that is going to be done in collaboration with industry. SSE networks and Scottish Power networks tend to plan five years ahead and consult on transmission lines, which means that communities are being faced with a five-year plan when realistically to reach our net zero is probably a 15-year plan. So, where there may be one transmission or distribution network suggested, it might be that there might be three or four that are needed to reach our net zero. Do you not think SSEN and SPN would be better served by laying out a spatial plan for the medium term on the entire requirements for distribution, rather than doing one line at a time, which tends to confuse and reduce? I think that, as I said earlier, making sure that we take communities with us as far as we possibly can is incredibly important. So, where we have energy generation infrastructure going in, we have a very clear and high bar of expectation in terms of community benefit, and I am keen that we are as creative as possible in making sure that that community benefit goes as far as possible in terms of making sure that there is economic development opportunities, but also social infrastructure that is potentially coming through from that. I hope that we can get to a place very soon where that is possible with transmission infrastructure as well to ensure that there is demonstrable community benefit can be realised from those developments. We have also got to take into account the incredible economic opportunity that comes from the substantial investment in our grid infrastructure that is going to be required. It is a substantial number of jobs that are going to be required to build this infrastructure. Again, we want to make sure that as much of that is possible, similar to the strategy that we are taking for our energy generation, that we have a supply chain based here in Scotland to ensure that there is maximum economic benefit. I want to answer your point directly in terms of whether we can ask industry to do more to provide as much information as early as possible. Obviously, we do that. You are right that industry is pretty well aware of what is going to be required and trying to get that more into the public consciousness and have a greater understanding of why this is required is going to be incredibly important. The majority of that infrastructure will be required in order to ensure that we can realise our Scotland potential and take the huge energy potential that is lying particularly off the north coast down south. We need to make sure that, as I say, we take communities with us on that journey. I welcome your call for honesty from the industry about the true demands of what we need to get to net zero. I welcome your transparency and I would echo it by a call to be honest about what is really needed because once we are honest, then the public can fully understand the cost. Mark, you have some questions. I want to ask you a bit more about the aspiration to have the determination time for electricity generating stations. Is there anything more to say on that at this point, or will the detail of that, I think you mentioned guidance for local authorities, will that all be published as part of the onshore wind sector deal? Yes, the latter. We have obviously been engaged for some considerable time with industry around the onshore wind sector deal. Since I have come to office one of the clearest areas of action that industry is looking for for us to help to unlock, one is grid infrastructure that is one of the major barriers that we have to be able to unlock our energy potential and ensuring that there is as much certainty as possible. They are not necessarily looking for speed. Speed is not the only factor, but certainty, giving them as much certainty as possible, which is where interactions with the 1989 act are out with our control, making it more challenging. As soon as a public inquiry is triggered, that adds a year on to the time that comes with that process. The detail in terms of how we will get to that PFG commitment will be published in the onshore sector deal. It is not just what we will do for industry, but in the sector deal there is also action that is required of industry for government and for the general public as well. It is a new social contract, I think. Just thinking about infrastructure, you mentioned the 1989 act. The Windsor report highlighted how there needs to perhaps be some greater alignment across the UK in terms of consenting processes. Is it possible for us to make progress on that in Scotland without further devolution of powers on the 1989 act? Are there reforms, particularly on infrastructure consenting, that we can bash on with? It is certainly not possible to take away from the potential for a public inquiry that adds a year on to the process without the devolution of those powers. That is an important aspect of ensuring that people are able to have their say on those projects. For us to be able to make full and meaningful progress, you are right. There is a need for interaction with the UK Government, particularly on onshore wind. It would be an understatement to say that we are on different pages around the importance of that particular element of renewable energy, as we saw from AR5 this week on offshore wind as well. We will continue to interact and engage as best we can with the UK Government and try to make sure that there is as much alignment as possible and that they are doing their share of providing as much certainty as possible. That is not just an ask of the Scottish Government in terms of consenting, it is also an ask of the UK Government for the areas that they have responsibility for as well. In terms of streamlining and consenting process for offshore wind, are there changes that could and should be made there to make things simpler? It is a programme for government commitment that we are looking to make sure 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 as well. Obviously, experience is at a different stage than what it is for onshore wind. The industry is at a different place in terms of maturity, so there is still learning to be done in terms of competing demands on the natural environment and providing as much information as possible. We are looking to do what we can to provide as much guidance and certainty as we can to our planning authorities to ensure that the consenting regime that we have responsibility for is as efficient as possible. We are then switching to hydrogen, looking at potential for green hydrogen. I met a hydrogen developer recently who talked about not just hard-to-abate sectors but hard-to-abate places. It got me thinking about the green industrial strategy and whether that is going to become more place specific in terms of identifying where those potential uses are of hydrogen going forward, how we are going to get industrial decarbonisation in key sites and how much specificity we are going to have from the industrial strategy that could perhaps help to build that certainty for investment. Or will it be broader aspirations around green hydrogen is born with great potential, not quite drilled down into where, when and how? I am keen that the green industrial strategy is as helpful as possible at maximising the economic opportunities that we have with our massive renewable energy potential. Green hydrogen is one element of that and has the potential, depending on where we choose to go, to reduce the need for some of the transmission infrastructure that the convener was talking about because it is an additional opportunity for energy storage. We need to decide what is going to be the best use and provide the maximum output from using hydrogen as an opportunity. In terms of industrial decarbonisation, you will be familiar with some of the plans that are there from certain parts of industry to use hydrogen as a way of reducing carbon emissions in their processes. Why is it so important, particularly on the CCUS front, that we see a determination from the UK Government of which sites, which emitters are actually going to be part of that process so that there is an investable proposition for those industry colleagues as quickly as possible? For us, not just in Scotland to meet our 2013-2045 targets but for the UK to be able to meet their targets, industrial decarbonisation is going to be absolutely critical and CCUS is going to play a very important role in that process. But green hydrogen as well, which requires CCUS. Final question is around other sectors, which perhaps are not as highlighted as much as some would like in the draft energy strategy. Solar, tidal, wave energy, battery. What's your sense about whether we've got the right balance of targets and market signals for each of these sectors at the moment? I mean, I'm not going to say that they're all identical to onshore wind. There are different stages of development and closeness to market. But what's your sense of what kind of drivers and targets are needed? So can we start with solar and then go on to tidal, wave, battery? On all of these areas, without being specific, they're all going to be moving at a different pace. On solar, we're working on whether or not there is a target that could be brought, whether or not that is the appropriate way to try to drive development. On all of these elements, what was positive from AR5 was seeing marine energy come through on a small scale, but it was progress. That just highlights where there is support that could be provided, in this case through the UK Government's contract for difference, can make a real difference in actually helping to drive that development. We're mindful of that and obviously look to do what we can, both in terms of targets but also in terms of support, to ensure that we are delivering as best we can on the potential that we have. Is there a trade-off between technologies? Is there a review within government that if we invest too much in grid infrastructure required for solar or even allow batteries to connect to the grid, it will hoover up the available transmission infrastructure for onshore wind and other technologies? Is there a point here where we've just got a limit to the transmission infrastructure that we've got and we have to prioritise certain technologies over others? Before we get to infrastructure, there's obviously a limitation on what we can do based on having a fixed budget and a very challenging public finance landscape. I think that we need as wide as possible an energy mix, not least because they play different roles. We know that tidal is incredibly predictable, provides good, certain energy. Similarly, pump tidal storage gives you baseload capacity when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. We know already that onshore and offshore wind, the wind is the cheapest form of renewable energy and is already providing a huge amount of capacity for the grid already. On all areas, as I've already said, hydrogen has the potential for us as a storage but also to help to decarbonise other elements of the economy. I think that we need as wide as possible a mix and that's what we're looking to try to achieve. Some of that is at different stages, some of that we're requiring different levels of support both in terms of funding but also in terms of ensuring we have certainty of consenting but also on transmission and the grid infrastructure upgrades to ensure that they continue to be an investable proposition. Thank you, Mark Douglas. I think that you've got some questions next. Yes, thanks. Questions around carbon capture, like yourself, cabinet secretary. I was delighted that the ACORN project was put on the track to a process, really good news. How is the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together to make sure that we maximise the whole potential of the Scottish cluster? I appreciate Mr Lumson's question. I am pleased that we've taken another step forward but it is just one step. I think that Mr Lumson would accept that fact that until we have further clarity around which emitters are going to be included and a timescale, it makes it difficult for full progress to be made. We do interact with the UK Government. There's been a number of meetings at official level as well as at ministerial level around this and we're, as you'd expect, as I'd hope you'd support, we're trying to push UK colleagues to go as fast as possible to ensure that these decisions are taken to give certainty and also to help unlock the Scottish Government funding. We cannot spend that £80 million until we know which emitters are going to be included. We know where we are going to be able to add maximum value. We want to see the UK Government go much faster. Industry does as well. It's a very strong call from industry and it's clear that further delay absolutely risks our ability in Scotland but also the UK Government's ability to reach our net zero targets. Because carbon capture, as Mr Lumson will be aware, plays an incredibly important role in that. Has there been any timetable set yet or has that work still on going? We've had no further information other than what you've seen publicly available, Mr Lumson. You mentioned the £80 million that the Scottish Government had in their budget and then removed again. So you seem to suggest that money was going to go back in. Is that a commitment? The £80 million is there and is committed to carbon capture when the decision is taken, when we know where we're going to be able to add the greatest value. That can only happen when there is certainty around which emitters are going to be included in that project. Cabinet Secretary, you say it's there but it was actually removed from the budget, wasn't it? It was included in a budget and then removed again, is that not correct? I can give Mr Lumson absolute confidence that when we are in a position to have certainty around the timescale and around which emitters are going to be included, the funding that we have committed to will be realised. Cabinet Secretary, I'm just slightly confused about this £80 million because when you committed it initially, Acorn wasn't even given approval. So we're actually in a better state now than when you actually first put it in your budget. When you put it in your budget initially, that £80 million, what was it envisaged for and what was the scope of that £80 million? How was it going to be spent? I'm hoping that it would help to move the UK Government on a little bit faster in the process and to ensure that they are able to realise the industry's call to take decisions as quickly as possible. I don't think that we're at cross purposes here, Mr Lumson and I. We both want to see carbon capture happen. We want to see it happen yesterday. The challenge that we've got is that we want to commit that funding to ensure that we are playing our part in supporting the industry. However, until we get to the point that we have certainty around which emitters are included and the timescales, we cannot spend that money. We need to ensure that there is that certainty. I don't think that we're at any cross purposes here. I think that we're both in the same area. When that information is available, we will be in a position to spend it. It's absolutely crucial that the UK Government now takes that action. No, I think that we both agree, but I'm confused that you had £80 million in your budget. Can you give us clarity on what that was for and why it was removed? We're in a better place now than we were when that money was initially put into the budget. As I've said, convener, that money will be available when we have the information around the emitters that are going to be included and when that process is going to be concluded. At this stage, we don't have that information. We cannot spend that money. When we have that information, we will be spending that money. I can't be any clearer than that, I don't think, convener. I don't want to flog it too much. What do you think it would be spent on? Are we talking about a transmission network for carbon or is it to help businesses? What were your initial thoughts of what that £80 million would be used for? As I've said, when we have certainty around which emitters are going to be included and what the UK Government is going to fund, we will be using that £80 million to add maximum value to those that are involved, depending on what is set out by the UK Government. That is why, as I've said repeatedly, it is so important that the UK Government sets out which emitters are going to be included and what they are going to fund. Until we know that, it is going to be impossible for us to be able to add value because there is nothing to add to as yet. That is why both ourselves and industry are looking for the UK Government to move much faster. The longer that there is a delay, the less likely it is that we are able to meet our targets, that we are able to see the industrial decarbonisation that we all want to see and we have to see in order for us to meet our next zero objectives. That is why I call on the UK Government again to move much faster. I do that through engagement publicly and privately, as do my officials. I will move on from that question, because it does not seem to be getting an answer on what that £80 million would have been used for. Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on the just transition plan for the energy sector and the timing of the draft plans for agricultural land use building and construction and transport sectors? We had a debate last week and we heard, especially around the agricultural sector, how much they are screaming out for some sort of guidance. Can you give us an update on that, please? Obviously, we need to take this in order. Our energy strategy and just transition plan, the consultation closed earlier this year. It had substantial feedback to it. Those consultation responses are being considered and we are hoping to come forward with a response as soon as we possibly can in order to make sure that that part of our programme is realised and we will move as quickly as we can on a sector by sector basis thereafter. We published the discussion papers that feed into the sectoral plans. We are looking to publish them around late 2023-24. The thing that I would add to that is that it is not all that you publish the plan. Nothing happens before that. The discussion papers and the plans were developed in close collaboration with interested parties. Farmers are the people who use the land as part of that. By the end of the year, our farmers should have some sort of guidance of the direction of travel and where they need to be working on. I said early 2020-24. I go back to the point that there is on-going discussion with farmers and others. We have the bill coming through, I believe, so that is on-going. The Just Transition Plan in agriculture will support that. We also have our climate change plan, which will set out what we will need to do, which we will endraft, which will set out what we need to do in relation to emission reductions in the agricultural sector. To give Mr Lumson some confidence, I am very well aware of the need for more information, particularly for those in agriculture and food production. I had a round-table session in the south of Scotland, organised by South Scotland Enterprise in the summer as part of my summer tour. There is a keenness for those who work the land and those who generate income from it to be doing the right thing. Some of them are already looking to decarbonise their operations and have already taken big strides to do so, but they are looking for information. I am very well aware of that. I am cognisant of that, as Mary Gougeon is, and we will do what we can to provide as much information as we can as quickly as we can. That is good to hear, because we have all been invited to farm visits over the summer. There is a lot of frustration, so it is good to hear that that is going to be prioritised. Obviously, we have the Scottish Industrial Energy Transformation Fund. There is the energy transition fund and the emerging energy technologies fund. Can you give us a bit more information of how those funds are going to be evaluated and what time frame you expect results from those funds to be coming through? There is constant evaluation on all of our funding streams across Government. We will continue to consider how well they are performing to ensure that we are targeting, as I have already commented, our limited resource in a way that adds maximum value to our enterprises that are looking to come forward with decarbonisation measures and to ensure that we are providing as much support as we can to industry. Mr Lumsons has already referenced a number of sectors, so that is not just going to be one element of the economy that is going to be doing the heavy lifting on us reaching net zero. It is not just for energy generation and it is not just for heating buildings, but there is going to be a raft of areas that all of us are going to have to ensure that we are playing our part in making sure that we are decarbonising so that we can reach net zero by 2045. In terms of the time frames for those funds, what are you going to be looking at for the reduction in emissions? Obviously, our target is there for 2045. We have also got 2030 targets as well. All of the funds that we put forward that Mr Lumsons has listed are about ensuring that we are taking steps in different parts of the economy for us to be able to reach those ultimate targets. Some of that is about trying to inspire good behaviour, some of that is about supporting people to be able to take very difficult but necessary decisions around changing the way that they do their operations, but all is geared up for ensuring that we reach 2045. We are evaluating those funds and not waiting until 2045 before you look at it, just to try and see how we are getting the best bang for our buck in terms of those funds. Hi there, happy to come in on that one. If I use the SIETF as an example, which is about encouraging industry to invest in energy efficiencies and decarbonisation processes. We are just about to issue the third call for applicants. The first two calls have been thoroughly evaluated by our client engineer and expert consultants. Those evaluations then play into the third call. We are going through that process just now. It is an on-going evaluation process and the emissions reductions energy savings are evaluated all through the due diligence process and then through the actual deployment phase as well. The last question that I had was the proof. Those funds are absolutely targeted at reducing emissions, but they are also targeted at ensuring that we have a just transition. Support people through the transition, through skills for example. We did quite a lot of that in the just transition fund and also capitalise on our economic opportunities. The emerging energy technology fund that we have been talking about, which covers carbon capture and storage and hydrogen, is absolutely targeted at creating opportunities where Scotland can be on the front foot to really AD carbonise but create the jobs and the GVA of the future. The last question that I had was the programme for government sets out that the Scottish Government will work with industry to create energy transition opportunities at major industrial sites in Scotland. How is the Scottish Government going to support SMEs in reducing their environmental impact? We have already set out some of the funds that are supporting that and also the importance that carbon capture will play there as well as ensuring that there are sectors within the industry that are going through a decarbonisation process. I am thinking of the likes of Musmorran as well as Grangemouth to ensure that there is continued progress being made in those areas as well. The funds that Mr Lumson has raised that Nick and Kersti have given more information on are areas of key focus. Can I follow up on how big a role SNP is going to have in helping our SMEs? The Scottish National Investment Bank is a strange acronym that some people watching may not necessarily pick up on. Sorry, I am sure that everyone here needs that. Thank you, convener. I think that it is important that we... I think that you are right, convener, speaking with as much clarity for people as possible. Obviously, the Scottish National Investment Bank has a key role to play in us reaching net zero. They are obviously independent of government but they have been tasked with the goal that one of their areas of priority is around net zero and ensuring that the investments that they make support us in that area. They have a resource there to utilise and to ensure that they are supporting projects that can help us in our energy transition and do so in a just way. I regularly engage with SNP to ensure that they are updating me on progress, updating me on the work that they are doing. They have also been along at a number of events where they have supported organisations already. Obviously, their investment proposition is going to be important, as is private capital. We know that it will not be possible for public finance alone to be able to help us in this journey. We are not going to be able to realise our renewable energy potential nor our decarbonisation responsibilities without the support of private capital. Ensuring that that continues to be an investable proposition is going to be part of my responsibility alongside other colleagues within government. We continue to engage with the likes of SNP as well as the First Minister's investor panel to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to make sure that our energy, our decarbonisation plans are all as attractive as possible to ensure that we can get maximum response. I make sure that we get to our 2045 targets. You said that that was your last question, two questions ago. You may get in trouble with the rest of the committee. I may come back to you at the end, if I may. Just for clarity, you mentioned farming in your questions. There is no dubiety. I have a share in a family farming partnership, which is declared and on the record. Also, as part of that family farming partnership, there are transmission lines that go over the farm. Nothing unusual there, but I asked a question on transmission lines so that people should be aware. I hope that that has clarified it. Above board, convener. It is always best to keep us all above board, convener. Absolutely. Monica is now going to come in with a heart-hitting question for you, cabinet secretary. No pressure then. Good morning, cabinet secretary and your officials. A brief set of questions for now, I think that I have more later on, but I just wanted to pick up on new oil and gas. I think that it is fair to say that the Scottish and UK Governments hold different positions on the continued exploration of the North Sea, certainly in the medium term. How can the two Governments ensure that, while holding those policy differences, the two Governments can work effectively to give maximum certainty to business and communities during what is quite an uncertain transition period? I think that Ms Lennon's initial proposition is absolutely correct that the Scottish and UK Governments have a very different position regarding new oil and gas. That said, we are very much focused on ensuring the just transition, where it is just why the areas that we have responsibility for, because we do not grant licences for new oil and gas exploration, is focused on the just transition. In that sense, that is where our responsibilities lie. That is where we will continue to provide focus. I also appreciate that those energy companies that are currently involved in oil and gas are transitioning, and that their workforce, their investments and some of Mr Lumsden's contribution will be incredibly important to us to be able to make that just transition. We are not going to be able to get to 2045 without private capital, and a substantial amount of that, particularly in the energy generation sphere, is going to need to come from those energy companies that are currently involved in oil and gas. So making sure that we do take a measured approach that is about appreciating the role that they have to play going forward is going to be absolutely critical, but also pushing them to go as fast as possible in that just transition is absolutely going to be of paramount importance. That is where all of my engagements over the summer have been in that sector and other colleagues within Government about making sure that we make that just transition happen as quickly as possible. I will return to the issues around public communications later on, but Cabinet Secretary, you have clarified that there is a very different position on oil and gas between both Governments. In recent weeks, you will be aware that there has been some criticism that the Scottish Government's position has become less clear in recent times, not answering in a direct way about Government's position on Rose Bank, for example, which is quite different from the position taken on Campbell. A few days ago, the First Minister was urged to get off the fence—not my words, but more than 100 high-profile people from the world of arts, entertainment, performers at the fringe, and members of the public asked this Government to voice opposition to Rose Bank, the new oil fields. Why is the Government not able to give a straight yes or no answer on that? Why is there a perception that you and your colleagues are on the fence and do you want to get off the fence today? Obviously, decisions around new oil and gas licensing are for the UK Government, so making sure that where there is an interest for that type of step change that is targeted at where those decisions are taken, I would suggest, is going to be the most effective form of campaigning. For us, we have been very clear, as I have said to this committee the last time I came, just about wherever I have had media at an event over the summer, that, in terms of new oil and gas licensing, it is a decision for the UK Government. However, we want to see much more transparent and stringent climate compatibility checkpoints. We are not opposed to any new oil and gas, but feel that it has to be passing much more stringent climate compatibility checkpoints. We will make our position regarding the energy strategy and just transition plan clear in response to the consultation's responses as quickly as we can. Obviously, the language is clear in terms of what we are currently expecting the UK Government to do on new oil and gas, and that will be clarified in response to the consultation responses in due course. However, we have a responsibility right now to play our part in responding to the climate emergency. We have also got to make sure that we are having a just transition. We are making sure that we are taking those workers that are currently involved in oil and gas with us, because a proposition of shutting down the North Sea prematurely does not achieve a just transition. We will see workers lost, we will see skills lost, we will see investment lost. It will make it much more difficult for us to be able to reach our net zero targets and to achieve the huge renewable energy potential that we have without that investment, without those skills and workers. We must be very careful about ensuring that we take our climate responsibility seriously but that we do not lose those skills, people and investment that the industry currently comes with. I think that everyone wants a just transition, everyone wants to protect jobs and create good jobs. I do not think that anyone is against a just transition, but I am just trying to understand where something like Rosebank, which is massive in scale, would fit in with a just transition. Just to ask again about the Scottish Government's position, because I fully understand the decision that will sit with ministers in London, but is the Scottish Government neutral on Rosebank? Do you have a view one way or the other? Or is government here happy to sit in and let others go through that compatibility checkpoint and make the decision? I wonder if, in private, you are having discussions that you are not in favour of Rosebank, because I think that people would like to know. No, we are not passive observers here. We have made very clear that for new oil and gas we want to see much worse transparent and stringent climate compatibility checks, regardless of the application or which application we are speaking about. We want to engage with the UK Government on that and to see that forthcoming, because it is their decision. We do, obviously, attempt to engage on that basis to ensure that we are able to see that just transition in evidenced. We will continue to make that case. As elements of the industry as well, they are wanting to see a much clearer, more transparent process as well. We will continue to work to try to achieve that with the UK Government. I think that we are still on the fence, but I will hand back to the convener. I am totally confused. Can we have a yes or no? Do you support Rosebank or do you not? I have made very clear that on new oil and gas we want to see much more stringent climate compatibility checkpoints, regardless of the application that we are talking about. I think that I have made it very clear that we have to be very careful in terms of picking one application or another without having the strategy set out, whether it is for us or for the UK Government. We know that we are going to rely on the oil and gas industry for some time to come. A premature closure of it sees the jobs put at risk, the investment potential and the knowledge and experience go with it. We know that that will be of critical importance. We must also make sure that we are taking on responsibilities to the current climate emergency seriously, which is why we must see a much faster just transition. We are working with the industry to try to push them as fast as we can on the investments that they make to ensure that they are supporting new renewable energy generation, that they are supporting the skills transition as well. We are also looking to push the UK Government to ensure that they are taking much more transparent and stringent climate compatibility checkpoints. I think that I have read into that. Yes, no, maybe, not sure, but I am sorry. Mark wants to come in.  We are not alone, right? Countries around the world are considering how they make a just transition away from oil and gas and do it in a way that is responsible while meeting our current and future energy needs. A lot of the conversations in that space have been around the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. I think that the previous First Minister indicated that the Scottish Government would be getting to a point where we would seek to join in that conversation at some point to be part of that Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance of countries which include Wales and Ireland and Denmark and France and New Zealand. I am just wondering where things are at. In your role as Cabinet Secretary, where are those international conversations and will we be looking again at joining Boga at a level that is appropriate in the months to come? Those discussions are on-going and that is still a proposition that is on the table. Mr Ruskell is right that this is not a conundrum that is facing us alone. There are others around the world facing the very same and we are looking to make sure that we are showing as much leadership as we can and taking responsibilities that we have, the decisions that we can take as seriously as possible and working, collaborating internationally to ensure that we are taking those responsibilities seriously. We had John Kerry here recently, the First Minister introduced him for a very important speech. Other elements of discussion are on-going on that front and we take those responsibilities internationally. Seriously, we have world leading targets to achieve and so for the decisions that we can take supporting the Just Transition Fund, supporting our energy transition, we will take those decisions and try to make sure that where those decisions are currently taken for us that they are taken in the best way possible to ensure that we have an accelerated Just Transition. I mean it would be useful if we could get specific feedback on the on-going gas alliance and whether that is something that would make sure that we follow up on the discussion item. That's all the questions that I have right now. Thanks Mark. Ben, you've got some questions. Sorry, I should say that the deputy convener, Ben, you've got some questions. Thank you, convener and cabinet secretary. I just wanted to emphasise your points about delivering a Just Transition having worked briefly in the renewable energy sector at the end of the session. The innovation technology development end, I can absolutely emphasise with your points around the expertise that comes from the oil and gas industry that then goes into renewable development and I think your points are well made about how if we're broadening that out to a bigger Just Transition, which is of course the aspiration of the country as well as the Government, that that will take a process that will need to be done in a procedural and careful manner so if there's anything more you wanted to add on that it would be interesting to hear. Also the need to continue to grow the salaries that are available in the renewable sector so that they can compete with the oil and gas sector the way it is right now and the tax take considerations on that. Just on Rosebank, your points are absolutely essential to remember here that it will be UK Government that will issue these licences and that's where the campaigning energy for those with concerns about those issues need to be primarily directed. I think the deputy convener's point around the expertise as well made. I mean I've been visiting a number of operations businesses across the summer that are involved in renewable energy and many of those people have already transitioned from oil and gas and many of our ports are doing likewise. Obviously the deputy convener has not a passing interest in this fact but I was also at Montrose to visit the sea green offshore wind farm and the substantial investments that are being made by the Montrose Port Authority in ensuring that their capturing as much of the renewable energy potential is demonstrable. I had a very good conversation with the Aberdeen Port Authority as well that Mr Bar will be interested in as well as Mr Lumsden and again the plans that they have to ensure that they are able to scale up and have the capacity to be able to deal with what is coming from the green industrial revolution if you want to put it that way is huge. So we know that it's there, we know that it's coming, we just need to make sure that the landscape upon which we're operating is encouraging those investment decisions to be making, is supporting people to be making those employment decisions and that we're making that just transition happen as fast as possible. That's the Government's ambition and I'm sure that's the ambition of colleagues on this table as well. Thank you convener and I'm glad that you've pointed out regarding it's not just the oil and gas sector that's transitioning over because we've actually got the fishing sector as well and there's going to be a fair few sectors already starting to transition over if we've not already done so. Good morning Cabinet Secretary, in final sorry I'll just thank you for coming along. My questions are going to be round about energy price rises. So can I ask you what in your opinion how challenging was it last winter for families in Scotland in terms of fuel costs and how confident are you that there is enough support in place in Scotland given that the fuel bills will remain high throughout this coming up. I cannot begin to appreciate just how difficult last winter will have been for families across Scotland. Families already struggling but also families that will have ordinarily felt that they were relatively comfortable found last winter incredibly difficult. We're now in a situation to compound that where interest rate rises are posing people difficulties with mortgage payments as well as our current situation where the new price cap is going to keep energy prices double where they were a few years ago. So the pressure on households is still grim and we're doing what we can with the resources that we have available to us to mitigate some of that. The First Minister's first action was to see the fuel and security fund not doubled but trebled. We hope that that will provide some comfort and support over this winter but really what we need is structural change. The sad irony is not lost in me that we're talking earlier about the massive, not just the renewable potential but also the current energy generation that is coming from Scotland. I saw yesterday at SSEN where that energy is generated four or five times beyond requirements in that particular area that I was looking at. We are generating way beyond our need and yet we have some of the highest energy bills and highest levels of fuel poverty in Scotland. That's why we need structural change on energy pricing. We need to see it decoupled from wholesale gas prices and see the benefit that we have in Scotland of having the huge resource that we have put to use on supporting households and businesses. I was in Rutherglen yesterday and the businesses that I was talking to, Brexit was the number one issue but the second issue that we were talking about was energy costs. It's been absolutely prilling not just for households but also for businesses as well. We need to see that support continue for off-gem and the UK Government to intervene and to see a wholesale change in the way that the market currently operates. Some of my constituents have contacted me regarding bills. It's getting to the point with some of them that they're actually being charged more for their standing charges than they are actually using the fuel because they're trying to cut down as much as possible. I totally get that standing charges need to be in place because it needs to help to pay the background work. Prepaid meters are way more expensive than anything else. Is there anything that we can do in Scotland to try and get things like that changed for the most vulnerable people? I've said, convener, that the work that we've done with the fuel and security fund to mitigate some of those pressures is important. On both of those areas, it's a responsibility for off-gem and the UK Government to come forward. There's obviously been quite a considerable campaign. The Scottish Government has supported that for an ending of the increased charges for pre-payment meters. Welcome progress being made with some of my colleagues at Westminster that have really led the charge on that. We need to see more action. Elements like that are minor mitigations, but the structural change is what is needed to ensure that we're taking advantage of the resources that we've got and that we're able to put them to use for our people and to see demonstrable benefit for them in reduced energy prices. I mean, I've even heard of a couple of cases where there's pre-paid meters. The person's gone and put in their top-up card and it's been put to zero because there was a bill outstanding from the former tenant and I just think that we need to address that as well. I don't know if this gives Jackie Gumpar comfort or not, but I've had case work in Erdogan shots around that. I'm sure that all our colleagues in the committee will have had similar. It is genuinely crippling people. As I say, households but also businesses. We know from surveys that this is one of the top areas of concern for businesses and particularly those that are involved in energy-intensive businesses. The first thing in terms of where your challenges are that I was asking business about, not just yesterday in Erdogan but throughout the summer, is saying the impact that Brexit has had on their trading environment. The second issue, the second and third pretty close, was there an energy cost and then access to labour? It is a massive issue for our entire economy. We can't afford to allow it to fester. We need to make sure that there is action coming forward. We'll continue to make that call on the UK Government and to provide greater protection for people this winter. Fyel poverty act sets out the legal binding targets to reduce fuel poverty in each local authority within Scotland, where the first targets come in 2030. Do you have a view on how challenging it is going to be to achieve those targets in the context of significantly higher fuel costs, as we've mentioned? I think it goes without saying how challenging it's going to be for all the reasons that I've already set out to Ms Dunbar and for the reasons that she's set out in her line of questioning. We're sitting at the moment where fuel bills are double for many customers. The change in the price cap, although welcome, has had a marginal difference in fuel poverty rates. It's moved from 34 per cent to 33 per cent of all households. That just shows the scale of the challenge that is before us and what that shift in the energy price cap has done in helping to alleviate the pressure on households, 34 per cent to 33 per cent. I think it was something like 20,000 households that actually lifted out fuel poverty. We need much greater structural intervention as well as mitigations to ensure that this winter isn't a very cold one for people across Scotland. While the green heat finance is changing the way that we heat our homes is primarily within the remit of the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, we know that we need to see urgent action on heat decarbonisation. What are your views on the delays to the green heat finance taskforce report and the heat and buildings bill and what input have you had into those? I know that the green heat taskforce continues to work on bringing forward its report. I know that that is work on going. Work is going to be incredibly important. In my view, as I said earlier, on energy generation and the infrastructure that we're going to require on ensuring that we have decarbonisation of heat networks for building users, it's going to be important that private finance is also leveraged where we possibly can. There's expert advice on where that might be possible. All the green heat taskforce is going to 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. Have you had any input into those? I have, obviously, an awareness of the work that's being done. I continue to work closely with Mary McCallan and Patrick Harvie on the work that's coming forward. I would expect to have a copy of the report when it's forthcoming in to ensure that the stakeholders that I have an involvement with in the private sector investment landscape are able to play their part in what's going to be required in that heat in buildings work. I think that last year the committee looked at the budget lines that the Scottish Government had given to provide advice and support during last year's cost to living crisis and energy. What have you learnt from that and will you be repeating the support this year and is there a budget for it? Obviously, we'll keep that under review and where there is a demand and we have a responsibility, we'll obviously look to try to meet that demand where we can. You'll be aware of the very tight public finances that we're currently operating within. It is the most challenging public finance situation that many of my colleagues that have been Government much longer than I have ever seen. We will obviously look to make sure that one of our key priorities is obviously reducing child poverty and ensuring that we are supporting that endeavour by supporting initiatives such as you've outlined to ensure that those people facing, I think I described it grim earlier, winter going forward with energy costs in households double what they were a few years ago. We will do what we can to try to help people mitigate that as far as we can. Again, this is an area of responsibility for UK ministers and off-gem. It's not the specific interventions that you've spoken about but the energy costs that we are facing are the responsibility of UK ministers and off-gem to regulate. I would expect much greater action from them to ensure that households have been protected this winter. The next question is from Monica Lennon. I was dropping hints earlier on but I'm keen to explore your understanding of the public moods around a lot of this. What assessment has been made of how ready the general public are for all of the changes needed to decarbonise the economy including around renewable energy, heat and transport decarbonisation? I think that we've all got a responsibility to play there in all being leaders in the public discourse around what is going to be required. Government is going to be taking, we've already taken many actions, we're supporting some of our stakeholders in the actions that they take, for instance, with local government. The action that's going to be required in terms of what we've touched on, the transmission infrastructure and the understandable need for communities to have information and comfort around what that is going to mean for them. But making sure that people have an understanding of why that is all going to be necessary. There are going to be difficult things that are going to mean that we all have to change our behaviours and that are going to impact all of our lives but the challenge that we face is going to be even greater if we don't take this action. We've already seen in this summer in Hawaii, in the Greek islands, in parts of Scotland, the wildfires and the extreme weather that has been hitting parts of the world that have had major impacts from the climate change. It's incumbent on us to ensure that we are taking our responsibility seriously but that we're also taking people with us and explaining that. As I say, it's a responsibility of government but it's also a responsibility on all of us. I think that some of the public debate, to be fair, mostly outside of these walls and in other institutions, has not been helpful. I really fear that the public discourse that we get from elsewhere on the need for climate change measures, on net zero measures that are going to be uncomfortable for some people, is not helpful. We need much stronger leadership on the responsibilities that we all have and that we'll collectively play at pay as a society in order to achieve those targets that are absolutely essential that we meet. How do you think that we can best achieve that public buy and that public support that we need to have? The debate that we had on programme for government on opportunity last Thursday, I was really heartened by Daniel Johnson's offer, for instance, on having a discussion around some of the energy infrastructure changes that are going to be required and some of the other net zero policies that are going to be needed. Having the discussion between parties about understanding where we stand and having a greater understanding of why we're going to be needing to take some of the decisions that we're going to need to take and having clear lines of communication and consultation on how we might be able to meet them together is going to be really important. And where we can find common cause, which is why the Bute House agreement is so important, where we can find common cause and work together, we should be doing it. My door is open to that. I'm sure that I know that my colleagues in government's door is open to respective spokespeople and others to be able to input. I hope that the discourse that we have is on an evidence base and has taken people with us, rather than seeking to divide communities, which is what I'm seeing coming from elsewhere at the moment. I'm also trying to deny that this is an issue that we need to face up to at all. We have to face up to it. Very helpful. Just to get into a bit more detail about what the Government can do in your very clear leadership role, is there room for improvement in terms of the Government's communication strategy and detailed plans around us? Are there any public information campaigns coming out? Is there anything else that you can point to as an example? I think that we all accept the need for a cross-party work in and for all of us being responsible. What are the communication tools that the Government is using? All of us have a voice and all of us have an ability to set a very clear narrative around why this work is important and why we cannot deny the fact that climate change isn't just something for the future but it is happening now. I think that the work that the committee has done on ensuring that there is greater public understanding will go away and consider what we can do more, understanding that on grid infrastructure clearly this is a UK Government responsibility, but what we can do to provide as much information as we can, how we can help to work with industry on that. Obviously, where there are suggestions, we would always consider them and look to do what we can to try to provide as much information as possible but also give a greater context as to why the actions that we are going to need to take going forward might be uncomfortable for some people, might change the way that we have to live our lives are necessary. If we don't take that action, if we don't meet our net zero objectives, if global warming continues to happen then that is going to be an even greater discomfort because of the more extreme weather and the imposition that it has on people's lives and livelihoods from the impact of climate change. To explore that a little bit further because we are talking about behaviour change for individuals and organisations, but ultimately we need big radical system change for that to have any meaningful impact. You have mentioned a few times today about your engagement with business and industry. What more should private companies do to communicate their plans for infrastructure investment? I would always encourage that. I know from the engagements that I have had in the summer that there is a lot of work going on both in terms of the innovation that is going to be required to assist us, a huge amount of innovation happening here in Scotland both in terms of energy generation but also system changes that Ms Lennon references to assist us in that progress. They are also looking at what they can do in their own operations, whether they are involved in energy transition, anything to do with net zero or not. Businesses that I deal with, by and large, are wanting to be doing the right thing and are looking to try to decarbonise, try to make sure that they are contributing in their own way. I think that Ms Lennon is right in making sure that we have people looking to do that, that we exemplify it, that we point it out. I say we in government but also the engagements that the committee will have with your stakeholders as well in making sure that where there has been good practice, best practice, that we are sharing that, exemplifying it and passing it forward as an example to others and also making sure that we are pointing people in the right direction of the interventions. That we are making that I was sharing with Mr Lums to ensure that people know that the support is there for them to be doing this work as well. The committee loves to shine a light on good practice and innovation but earlier on you did talk about the need for transparency and decision making. I suppose for people to have the tools to combat misinformation and to identify greenwashing when they see it. I think again about the Government's communication strategy. What more could be done to make sure that when people are given information it is factual, it is credible, it is evidence based and people can be trusting of what they are hearing? It is obviously incumbent on Government to be coming forward with information in the way that Ms Lennon outlines and making sure that it is credible, evidence based, factual. It is incumbent on ministers to do that but also making sure that the public discourse is as informed as possible as well. I think that the best approach is not to demonise bad behaviour but to exemplify good behaviour and to exemplify where good work is being done to transition and to ensure that people are taking the right decisions and moving in the right direction. I think that it is the best approach because we know that, particularly in the energy sector, in response to Ms Lennon's earlier questions, we are going to need those people, those investments, those skills for as speedy as possible just transition. So taking them with us as we need to take the public with us is going to be of critical importance. Cabinet Secretary, there are some questions from me now. The first one is a question of clarity. We have been trying to find out as a committee who is responsible for what. Let me see now that we have finally got the answer to our question barely last week, which we posed in June. When it comes to ferries, as I understand it, Fiona Hyslop is responsible for ferry contracts, i.e. the running of them and routes. Murray McAllan is responsible for new overseas ferry bills. Cabinet Secretary, you're responsible for Ferguson Marine and 801 and 802. Perfect, so we've got the right person to ask questions on 801 and 802. Cabinet Secretary, when will 801 be in service, not when will it be handed over, when will it be in service with CalMac? Obviously, the chief executive of Ferguson Marine is due to give an update to this committee at the end of September around the costs and the timeline that has had an impact largely but not exclusively due to the MCA taking a different approach in terms of its regulation on crew escape from 801. There's been a number of areas of change to the original design that have been required. Obviously, the conversations that I have with the management at Ferguson Marine, as do my colleagues including Vicky in the civil service, are about making sure that the ferries are delivered as quickly as possible. Without any undue cost overrun, not least because our island communities need and deserve these ferries to be running as possible. I appreciate that, Cabinet Secretary, but it was a direct question. When will it be in service with CalMac? It doesn't need David Timon to come to this committee and tell us that you're in charge of Ferguson Marine. You must know. I'm asking you a question. When will it be in service with CalMac? With due respect, convener, I did give that answer that Mr Timon will be giving the committee an update. That's got to be based on decisions that are still to be taken by the MCA as to whether or not the mitigations that are going to be taken on the design of the ferry are going to be appropriate for the MCA to pass those ferries as being safe to operate.  Well, because the discussions with the MCA are still on-going with respect, convener, that's why ensuring that Mr Timon has the opportunity to be able to give the committee and myself that update on the conclusion of those, which I hope will be a positive conclusion of those discussions with the MCA, I can't give an update until those discussions are concluded. I think that's pretty clear. I think it's really bizarre that we started with a delivery date in autumn. I understand and we'll come to the MCA changeover with—perceived MCA changeover of regulations that we were told autumn. Then we're told by Mr Timon in the update that was written to us that it might be spring next year. You must have had these discussions. I'm asking you a straightforward question because islanders are asking every honest question. When is it going to be? It doesn't appear that you can answer me. With respect, it's not just a minor thing, the MCA's decision making on the safety of crew escapes from the ships. This is pretty fundamental to whether or not the design of the ferry allows it to sail. It's not an inconsequential matter. I hope, obviously, that the last update in spring can be met, but until those discussions with the MCA are concluded, I cannot give any further definitive update. I think that it would be unfair to suggest that the MCA's decision making is anything other than critical to the delivery of these ferries. So, we've got a hope for spring and we're still hoping for autumn next year for 802. Absolutely. I'm wanting these ferries delivered as quickly as possible. I was born in an island community. I continue to have family living in an island community. I know how critical having ferries and lifeline operations are to people living in these communities and for those businesses that are operating in these communities as well. I fully understand and appreciate that. That is why we've been pushing as hard as possible for these to be built as quickly as possible. To be fair, the MCA are a regulator. It would be inappropriate for me to try to intervene on the MCA's decision making. That is for those discussions that are for the Ferguson Marine and the MCA to carry out and for those mitigations to the design of the ferries to be brought up to what the MCA is now expecting. I hope that that can be completed as quickly as possible for all the reasons that I've already set out. So, the MCA, when they looked at the ferries, said that the requirements for the safety stairwells for crew exit were insufficient. You would have asked, I'm sure as I would have asked, when the MCA or what ruling or what regulation the MCA was basing that comment on. Do you know what regulation it was and what year it came into effect? I'll need to reply in writing to provide full clarity on that for you, convener. I think that it would also be appropriate for me to say that it's not appropriate for me to be intervening in the decision making of the MCA nor the negotiations between Ferguson Marine and the MCA. There was a change in the application of what the MCA was expecting in terms of the crew escapes as opposed to the previous expectation was that this would be based on cargo escape regulations as opposed to passenger. For the MCA to determine, I respect that process. That has meant that there isn't a need for changes to the design of those ferries. Ensuring that design meets the satisfaction of the MCA to ensure that it is safe to operate is what is currently, those discussions are currently on going with Ferguson Marine and the MCA. I would support both in arriving at a conclusion as quickly as possible. So, would you accept that the MCA was bought in early enough so that there wouldn't have been this issue when it came to effect? Because my understanding is the regulations that the MCA are relying on date back to pre 2020. Therefore, my problem is that nothing has changed since 2020 in those regulations. It's just that the ferries don't meet the requirements that could have been consulted on with the MCA earlier. When were they first bought in to discuss this? Was it just when you thought or when Ferguson Marine thought it was ready to be launched? I'll provide detail on that in writing in consultation with David Timon. My understanding is that there has been on-going discussions on all aspects of the 801 and 802 with the MCA over a long period of time. I'll make sure that I have the full detail and clarity for you in writing. It would be helpful if you could clarify whether that came out of the blue was something that had never been discussed before and was not based on a regulation that predated 2020. I'm not looking to point any fingers. I'm fully respectful of the fact that the MCA has a job to do in making sure that the ferries that they need to sign off are operationally safe. I'll make sure that I furnish you with the further information and do so as quickly as we can. When David Timon came to see you and said, look, there's a serious problem. We're going to have to build new stairwells. That's quite considerable because of all the miles of cabling and pipe work that I've inspected and I'm sure you've inspected and the implications relating to that. We could get on to all the jointing that was a problem with the previous cabling, which all had to be replaced. Did he tell you how much that was going to cost in his estimate? Part of the revised costings that Mr Timon provided to the committee earlier in the summer reflected that but until there is a full conclusion over what the MCA is going to accept in terms of the final design, that's why we need to wait for that until we get the full picture. You're right. Many of the problems that we're facing are due to original design issues and, convener, if you have been round 801, you'll have had that pointed out to you as I did. We're still living with that and will do up until the ferries are signed off and handed over. Obviously, we're looking to try to ensure that Ferguson Marine is taking as much action as possible, as early as possible, with 802 to mitigate as far as possible in learning from what has happened with 801 to ensure that the impact on 802 in terms of cost and delivery time is lessened, but some of that is going to be unavoidable. That's why I continue to engage, obviously, as you'd expect, both myself and my officials on a weekly basis with Ferguson Marine and a regular basis at ministerial level to ensure that we're delivering those ferries for our island communities as quickly as we possibly can. And they've been waiting, goodness knows. They've been waiting, which you would accept. It would be helpful in that letter, cabinet secretary, if you could itemise the cost for 801. In fairness, when David Tymon wrote to the committee in June, it was before this problem came to light, so I don't believe the extra additional costs that he'd alluded to there related to these issues that have come about from the MCA. But I suspect there will be considerable additional costs, and it would be helpful to know what those are. And it would be helpful to know if you then, on the back of those, if you'd known about those costs, whether you would have still used the ministerial direction to instruct that the ferries would still be built, despite the fact that they weren't cost effective. Because if we'd known about those costs when you made that decision, it might have reviewed your position. And one other point just to clarity on that when it comes to the additional costs. What concerns me is that the costs will be considerable because you will then have to go through the whole design structure as well, will you not, to make sure that it's fit for class, not just fit for MCA standards. Will that delay the ferries coming into service to make sure that everyone's happy with all the changes to the design, the insurers and all the people who supplied all the equipment? Will it affect any of their warranties? There are a number of questions in that. I'll try to take them in turn. The first one is about the authority that I gave to proceed. That was specifically in relation to 802, not 801, because 801 is close to delivery. There was no issue in terms of the cost there. On 802, obviously I would have needed to consider any additional cost overrun. I continue to consider that as to whether it continues to be, in my view, with the wider elements that I have a responsibility to consider in terms of the local economy, in terms of those island communities having those ferries as quickly as possible. I suspect that I would still have given ministerial authority, given what we know now. In terms of the points that you make around the further regulatory interactions, I know that Ferguson's continued to discuss these matters with Lloyd's and continued to have an iterative sign-off process for that and that will continue. I obviously hope that that process won't be impacted by what we're currently discussing. In terms of the manufacturer's warranty, that's obviously matters that CalMac are responsible for in terms of negotiations that are there on the warranty side between Ferguson's and CalMac. I know that those discussions will not be on-going on where it's required. I will ensure that I am kept abreast of that and ensure that CalMac get the ferries as quickly as possible, but also in a way that meets with the contracted demands as well. I'm just struggling in my brain cabinet secretary that it was over four years ago, the 16th of August, I think, 2019, that the government nationalised Ferguson Marine, and you've been in charge of it. What I don't understand is how we're in a situation that just before the ferry is to be ready and hand over to Sea Trials to CalMac, that we suddenly come up with a whole list of other faults that no one knew about. I guess that if I'd been running a business for four years and I was in that position, somebody would ask me to consider whether I was in the right position. I look forward to your answers. I think they are very, very serious and I think we need to question who knew what because I don't believe these have come out of the blue. I look forward to them, and I look forward to getting the update from Dave Taiman at the end of September, where all the costs and delivery times will be laid out for the committee in great detail, I guess, after today's meeting. Is there any other questions from any other committee? Douglas, you want to come in. Thank you, convener. I was just really at the point of clarity. You mentioned that discussions with the MCA were on-going for some time. What do you mean six months or six weeks? What sort of timescale are we looking at there? As I said to the convener, I'll make sure that there is further detail provided on those discussions and I'll need to make sure that I consult with Mr Taiman, who obviously has a responsibility for that interaction. Do you know if those discussions were taken place before the last update to Parliament, which I think you gave, or were those discussions taken place after that last update to Parliament? I'll need to consult Mr Taiman on the discussions that have been taken place with the MCA to ensure that I'm given an accurate reflection of what has been taking place. At this point, you're not aware of whether those discussions were taken place before that last update to Parliament? In terms of the most recent issues with regard to the change of application of the rules and the regulation around crew escape and whether that is to be dealt with under the cargo regulations or passenger regulations and that specific information, I will need to consult Mr Taiman as to whether those discussions were happening. So you weren't aware of an issue before you gave that last update to Parliament? No, thank you. I think that that comes to the end of our questions cabinet secretary. I'd like to thank you on behalf of the committee and your team for attending here today and answering the questions. We look forward to receiving the various correspondence that you've offered to send to the committee in relation to today's meeting. So that concludes our public meeting and we'll now move into private session.