Official Report 797KB pdf
Our final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S7M-01592, in the name of Donald MacKinnon, on realising the economic potential of marine energy. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the significant economic opportunity that it considers Scotland’s marine energy sector presents, particularly for the coastal and island communities of the Highlands and Islands; notes the findings of the University of Edinburgh report, Future Economic Potential of Tidal Stream and Wave Energy in Scotland, which estimates that marine energy could contribute more than £8 billion to Scotland’s economy and support over 15,000 high-value jobs by 2050; further notes the report’s conclusion that sustained technology innovation through public and private funding will be required if Scotland is to realise this opportunity, alongside the development of supply chains and supporting infrastructure; recognises that the Programme for Government places innovation at the heart of economic growth, the energy transition and public service reform, building on approaches that are already working; notes concerns about an absence of clear strategic leadership for the marine energy sector within the Scottish Government in recent years; further notes the withdrawal of funding from Wave Energy Scotland, whose technology development programmes have attracted international recognition and helped establish Scotland as a global leader in technology innovation; considers that the resulting loss of expertise, experience and institutional knowledge developed through Wave Energy Scotland could impede the development and commercialisation of Scotland’s marine energy technologies, and result in missed opportunities to apply these capabilities in support of other offshore renewable energy sectors; notes the belief that the Scottish Government should provide a clear statement of policy intent for marine energy, and acknowledges the view that there is an urgent need to retain and build upon Wave Energy Scotland’s established expertise and capability in delivering effective publicly funded innovation programmes to provide continuity and maximise the value of previous public investment.
17:32
I thank the members who supported my motion and assisted me in securing this evening’s debate on realising the economic opportunity of marine energy. In particular, I thank Liam McArthur for his work on the topic in the previous session of Parliament and in recent months. I also thank my three constituents who work for Wave Energy Scotland who have taken the time to meet me to help me to understand the situation that we now find ourselves in.
Since its establishment in 2014, Wave Energy Scotland has been a success story. It has supported 132 projects, which have all been delivered on budget, and, importantly, it has been able to keep European money flowing into Scottish projects through its well-established links with international partners and its reputation for delivery. I will return repeatedly to Wave Energy Scotland’s reputation for delivery and its highly regarded staff throughout my contribution.
The decision that the Scottish Government took in the 2026 budget to remove funding, with no warning, from Wave Energy Scotland predates the current Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Energy’s time in office, but he finds himself in the position of having to deal with the fallout of that decision, which was taken without consultation with Wave Energy Scotland and without any acknowledgement of the impact that it would have. As a result of pressure from members in the previous session of Parliament and, importantly, the campaigning of the Public and Commercial Services Union, the Government changed its position and provided funding for the current year. However, that was accompanied by the instruction to wind up the organisation.
I want to make it clear that I think that the Government’s decision on Wave Energy Scotland is an enormous mistake and represents an act of vandalism to our marine energy sector that should be reversed.
I do not want to dwell on past decisions. Instead, I want to look to the future and how we realise the economic opportunity in front of us. The University of Edinburgh report that is referred to in my motion estimates that marine energy could contribute £8 billion to the Scottish economy and support more than 15,000 high-value jobs by 2050, but it concludes that sustained technological innovation through private and public funding will be required if Scotland is to realise that opportunity.
That brings me back to the skills and expertise that have been built up over the past 12 years at Wave Energy Scotland—skills to identify projects that are suitable for investment, to support the development of those projects and to deliver good value for public investment. In the context of the practical hard yards that are required to take Scotland towards a just transition, the specialised skills that are built up through organisations such as Wave Energy Scotland are crucial to securing the orders and the workflow for future renewable energy projects. There is not an exhaustive list of expertise that we can call on, so it is important that we keep the skills and expertise rather than lose them.
We risk making the mistakes of the past that have caused us to lose much of the onshore wind supply chain to abroad in our marine energy sector. We must nurture home-grown technological development in order to unlock the full potential of not only wave and tidal power, but offshore wind, too. Technology that has been developed for the wave energy sector is now poised to be key to the delivery of offshore wind projects. Indeed, if we want to realise the opportunity that is in front of us, we need to continue to invest in emerging technology. I am seriously concerned that the expertise, experience and institutional knowledge developed through Wave Energy Scotland is at risk of being lost, and with it our ability to continue to support that all-important innovation, research and development.
Although the commercial deployment of wave and tidal projects has seen challenges, they still represent significant and important opportunities for delivering clean energy, jobs and a robust supply chain. There is a global opportunity that Scotland could be at the centre of, and it is estimated that 120GW of tidal and 180GW of wave energy by 2050 is possible. Our early expertise makes us well placed to have good jobs based here that support the roll-out of that technology across the world, but, without nurturing the sector now, we risk losing that opportunity altogether.
The minister was not responsible for the initial decision to defund Wave Energy Scotland, but he has responsibility for it now. My motion calls for the Scottish Government to provide a clear statement of policy intent on marine energy. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the minister will take the opportunity to commit to that and acknowledge the need to retain and build on Wave Energy Scotland’s established expertise and capability in delivering effective, publicly funded innovation programmes.
I congratulate Donald MacKinnon on his speech, all of which I agree with. Does he accept that, in the discussions that we are having about a just transition, if we cannot transition the jobs for people with expertise in the marine renewables sector, we have no chance of transitioning the jobs from the other sectors that will play a part in delivering on the net zero commitments that we all signed up to?
That is an important point, and it goes to the heart of why I lodged the motion. We need to think about the future of those jobs. Retaining the skills and expertise that Wave Energy Scotland has developed over the past 12 years is vital to ensuring that we create those opportunities for the future as we move through a just transition.
We need to build on Wave Energy Scotland’s established expertise and capability in delivering effective, publicly funded innovation programmes in order to provide continuity and maximise the value of previous public investment. At the moment, the signals that the Government is giving are that Scotland is not interested in wave and tidal energy. I sincerely hope that the minister can correct me on that in his response.
Going back to where I started my contribution this evening, my constituents and the staff at Wave Energy Scotland have been treated poorly by this Government in the process that followed the 2026 budget decision, and they continue to have uncertainty about their future. I ask the minister to reflect on that in his response to the debate. It is vital that we do not miss the opportunity to capture the skills and expertise of the staff, so that they can continue to contribute to realising the economic potential of marine energy.
17:39
I welcome the debate. The report from the University of Edinburgh outlines the potential 15,000 highly skilled jobs; the £8 billion in economic benefit; the 9GW of predictable, dependable electricity generation, which is twice Scotland’s current peak winter demand; and the vital chance to be world leading. The phrase “world leading” is used way too often, but tidal stream energy already has a track record in a predominantly UK-based supply chain.
Orbital Marine Power, with its world-leading floating tidal stream generator, has now secured an additional 15MW contracts for difference contract, adding to the 2MW that it has already been generating since 2021. Critically, it has secured a 15MW contract in the Bay of Fundy, in Canada, demonstrating the export opportunities. Now, Orbital has had success as part of the EURO-TIDES partnership, which has been given the go-ahead by the European Commission to create a tidal array, with the aim of getting to commercialisation and supporting a European pipeline of 2GW of tidal energy projects.
There is much to celebrate about Orbital’s journey to date. The next stage will be to support the company, and others like it, to get to larger-scale commercialisation. We have to be grateful for the vision of the European Union and the success of the European Marine Energy Centre, in Orkney, which I have previously been lucky enough to visit. Founded in 2003, EMEC is a leading test and innovation centre that has now created more than 400 skilled jobs. It is hoped that DeepWind, the proposed national floating deepwater wind test site there, will add to the centre’s overall success.
Nova Innovation created the world’s first tidal stream array in 2016—MeyGen, the world’s largest grid-connected tidal array, which is located in the Pentland firth.
However, again, what is clearly needed now is a route to market for scaled-up commercialisation, including public and private investment. Key recommendations in the University of Edinburgh report are largely in the gift of the UK Government to deliver, particularly through ring-fenced CFD moneys. I have to say that the chosen spatial energy plan, on which the decision is still to be made, must not lock out the ScotWind leases and the opportunities there.
The motion refers to the potential loss of funding for Wave Energy Scotland, and we have heard from Donald MacKinnon about that. We have to recognise that the Scottish Government has backed it, to date, with £70 million. However, I understand that, for anybody who is involved with Wave Energy Scotland, that £70 million is in the past and we need to look forward. I agree that, if there are opportunities to continue to develop, we have to look at further funding opportunities, and ScotWind might be one avenue that I would ask the minister to look at.
Critically, however, I would also ask where the Great British energy funding stream is. Why are our oil and gas revenues not being directed to promote Scottish renewables? As Liam McArthur said, we need a just transition, and it should be funded by those oil and gas revenues.
I have to return to my hobby-horse, which is nuclear power. Sizewell C has had £8 billion of direct taxpayer support, it is underwritten by bill payers, and the UK sovereign wealth fund is supplying £37 billion-worth of finance for it. Not surprisingly, line 1 of the recent Public Accounts Committee report on Sizewell C states:
“Sizewell C represents a terrible deal for the … taxpayer.”
We need to end the nuclear obsession and forget the hype about the so-called small modular reactors, which is another distraction to the detriment of other technologies. I return to the fact that there are fantastic opportunities to build on in world-leading developments, to create a manufacturing services supply chain, and to not only create domestic energy but use it for export purposes. We cannot have a repeat of innovation and development while losing the scale-up opportunities to other countries, so let us grasp those opportunities for true green, baseload-type dependable energy and build the supply chain and the export opportunities.
17:43
I welcome the discussion and the potential economic benefits that marine energy may bring to Scotland, particularly for the Highlands and Islands and the north-east. I support the development of Scotland’s marine energy, but we must be clear-eyed: it is not an economic replacement for existing industries, nor a solution to the challenges that we currently face.
The focus of this debate is on what tidal and wave power might deliver in the future: potentially lower energy bills for households and new high-skilled opportunities for young Scots. Those are worthwhile aims. Members have discussed deindustrialisation, brain drain and the depopulation of rural and coastal areas as young people leave in search of work. We should, however, prioritise what can deliver economic certainty now, which is Scotland’s oil and gas sector.
Although I understand the emphasis on the potential benefits, they remain modest relative to the scale of the challenges that we face. According to Offshore Energies UK, Scotland’s oil and gas industry supports an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 jobs. By contrast, a University of Edinburgh report suggests that marine energy could create around 15,000 jobs by 2050. That will be welcome progress for those who secure them, but it represents only a fraction of the jobs that the oil and gas sector provides today, and it is more than two decades away. Unlocking the North Sea, to which the First Minister has indicated openness, would allow us to put people back to work within months and restore investment to local economies such as that of Aberdeen.
We must also consider whether one industry is being advanced at the expense of another. Fishermen in Peterhead have described how offshore wind farms are restricting their traditional fishing grounds.
I support the development and strengthening of marine energy in Scotland, but we should recognise that it is not a silver bullet for our economic problems and that an emerging industry must not undermine the historic industries on which many of our coastal communities still rely.
17:45
I will get back to the topic at hand. I am glad that we are having this debate. The marine energy sector is often cited as one of our innovation success stories, and its success has largely been delivered in the Highlands and Islands. It has also provided its fair share of photo opportunities for ministers over the years, but that is perhaps by the by.
The European Marine Energy Centre, which is in my and Liam McArthur’s home of Orkney, has led the sector across Scotland and the UK for two decades, and it continues to be a linchpin of our globally significant marine energy capability.
Progress on the development of a scaled-up marine energy sector is within touching distance, but the Scottish and UK Governments must now make a conscious choice. They must decide whether they want to have a world-leading marine energy sector or not. Policy certainty, funding stability and political leadership are now crucial, especially when the broader energy sector in Scotland faces such uncertainty about the strategic spatial energy plan.
The marine energy sector is at a transition point. Tidal energy is moving into scaled commercial deployment, taking us beyond simply grant-funded testing and innovation work. Wave energy remains pre-commercial, but it has longer-term potential to mirror tidal growth, with developers such as CorPower leading the way. The supply chain for marine logistics is growing alongside offshore wind, but opportunities have been reduced by delays and because the scale of the work has been undeliverable for smaller local businesses in the offshore wind space.
However, it is exactly at uncertain times such as these that we must champion what we are good at, and marine energy is an example of that. A national opportunity is sitting in front of us. For example, a deep-water and floating wind test site in Orkney, as proposed by EMEC and supported by the sector, will be a valuable, globally significant asset for the energy economy of the future. Orkney waters and the Pentland Firth alone hold 300MW of tidal stream project capacity, and it is predicated on a 50 per cent Scottish supply chain. Parliament needs to back those opportunities and others to deliver dispersed economic development in our rural and island communities.
In the context of recognising the opportunity in front of us, it is important that decisions about the future of Wave Energy Scotland are considered not solely through the lens of programme delivery or budgets, but as part of a broader strategic approach to Scotland’s marine energy ecosystem. I have written to the minister and raised the matter directly with him numerous times, and it would be remiss of me not to raise it here as well.
Significant risks are associated with allowing Wave Energy Scotland’s core capabilities to dissipate, including the loss of publicly funded intellectual property and programme learning, reduced investor confidence in Scotland’s marine energy sector and the potential erosion of supply chain capability as expertise and activity move elsewhere. Given the scale of the public sector investment that has helped to establish Scotland’s leadership position, the retention of those assets and capabilities should be a key priority.
At the same time, there is a real opportunity to explore how Wave Energy Scotland’s functions could evolve within a revised delivery model that is more closely aligned with commercial deployment pathways and wider marine energy policy. Such an approach can safeguard existing intellectual property, maintain sector capabilities and skills, strengthen links between innovation and deployment, and support continued growth in Scottish supply chains and export opportunities. As I said to the minister months ago, that revised model has a natural home in Orkney.
That integrated approach for Wave Energy Scotland must be embedded in a wider policy landscape that provides vision and stability, and it must be part of a sectoral policy statement for tidal energy. I ask the minister, in his closing remarks, to join the broad support that I expect to be expressed in the chamber tonight and to commit to delivering that policy statement and the Government leadership that the sector needs and wants.
17:49
It is a pleasure to follow Kristopher Leask, all of whose comments I strongly endorse. I also congratulate Donald MacKinnon on leading his first members’ business debate, and I thank him for facilitating the discussion that we are having this evening. I express my thanks to colleagues across the parties who engaged with the round table that I hosted alongside Wave Energy Scotland shortly before the summer recess, which has given rise to this evening’s debate.
We all acknowledge that there is a significant opportunity cost if we do not find a way to capitalise on the economic opportunities of Scotland’s marine energy sector and, more specifically, the expertise and knowledge that are retained within Wave Energy Scotland.
As Kristopher Leask identified, he, I and Donald MacKinnon represent a part of the country with huge potential for marine technologies to drive economic growth. Orkney has demonstrated what sustained investment in the sector can achieve, with the development of internationally recognised research through EMEC, the world’s first and leading test centre for marine energy. EMEC has generated £130 million in economic benefits since its creation, in 2003, alongside 224 jobs, and it has tested more marine energy devices than any other single site anywhere in the world. The £15 million of investment by UK Research and Innovation in EMEC’s blue horizon project now presents an opportunity to increase the scale and output of that work. It is therefore little wonder that Scottish Renewables points to the pivotal role that marine energy can play in sustaining and growing the long-term resilience of our coastal and island communities.
While Orkney has a unique and world-leading capacity in the development of marine energy as a sector, that sector is of huge importance to Scotland’s economic growth more generally. At a time when much of the focus is on North Sea exploration—we have heard about that this evening—I recognise the ongoing need to have oil and gas as part of our energy mix for many years to come. However, it is evident that neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Government has done enough to drive down our reliance on fossil fuels and to increase renewables capacity. Marine energy is uniquely well placed to play its part in that. Its predictability and reliability, and the estimations of its being cheaper than most alternative renewable and fossil fuel sources in the future, all set it apart. If executed successfully, deployment across the UK could generate more than £8 billion of economic benefit for Scotland by 2050 and more than 15,000 high-class Scottish jobs, as we have heard.
Now more than ever, we need a clear statement of intent from the Government that gives the sector the confidence and support that it needs in order to plan and grow. The Scottish Government’s announced intention to withdraw funding from Wave Energy Scotland at the beginning of the year sent the opposite message. Noting the Government’s own legal obligations on existing energy projects backed by the European Commission, there is cause for concern about the implications.
Uncertainty persists over the future of WES, with a wealth of specialist knowledge and wave energy expertise, as well as innovation capability, at risk of being lost. As I said in my intervention on Donald MacKinnon, if we cannot effect a transition of the expertise contained in WES during the process, what chance do we have of effecting a transition in other sectors, including oil and gas?
WES is not alone in making the point that there is a lack of evidence of a clear Government strategy for the marine sector, with tidal stream policy also sparse. Scottish Renewables continues to emphasise its call for a statement of policy intent. We are at a critical juncture for the commercialisation of the sector. If we are to capitalise on the successes of Scotland’s marine energy sector to date, we need clear leadership from the Scottish Government. From my engagement with the minister to date, I know that he will recognise the importance of that, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
To fail to retain the valuable innovation capabilities that Wave Energy Scotland has built up would be a mistake. I hope that the Government will heed the call that has been made this evening to ensure that the expertise developed by WES through existing public investment can be put to use in supporting the ongoing expansion of renewables and marine technology in Scotland.
I thank Donald MacKinnon again for enabling this debate to take place, and I welcome the strong cross-party support that has been shown for the sector. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say, as well as to the meeting that he has generously offered to have with colleagues across the parties to see whether we can find a way of making progress to secure the success in the marine energy sector that I am convinced we all wish to see.
17:55
I, too, commend Donald MacKinnon for bringing the debate to the chamber.
The story of marine energy development in Scotland has been going on for several decades. As others have emphasised, it is important to distinguish between wave energy technology and tidal energy technology. They are part of the same grouping but are different in terms of their development and in the leadership and processes that have been involved in their journey thus far with regard to the innovation that has happened here, in our country.
Wave Energy Scotland’s creation, in 2014, followed quite significant public investment in a number of wave energy companies, including Pelamis, which Lorna Slater used to work for, and Aquamarine Power, which I used to work for. Those were two remarkable businesses that were trying to do ambitious things. However, as is the case with many innovative processes, they both got to a point where it was difficult to develop the technology in the commercial environment that they found themselves in. Wisely, to preserve the benefit of the expertise, investment, innovation and research that had accrued in the sector up to 2014, Wave Energy Scotland was created.
At the same time, there was the development of tidal technology, and many people transitioned from wave technology to tidal technology. In Scotland, we have, indeed, seen remarkable progress in the creation, deployment and, to an extent, commercialisation of tidal technology, including by Nova Innovation, which is headquartered in Leith, in my constituency, and deploys mostly in Liam McArthur’s constituency. I cite Nova Innovation in particular because it is a small company that has always engaged in remarkable and successful innovation. Its tidal technology development has been successful internationally, but it has often encountered challenges in gaining support for its technology in the UK. To an extent, that has involved the issue, which Alan Brown mentioned, of contracts for difference not having been forthcoming from UK Governments in past years, and it also partly involves what some have argued is an unfair emphasis on larger projects and deployments rather than on the success of our small and medium-sized enterprises that are involved in developing marine technology.
We have been on a journey. Mark Simpson emphasised his view of where there should be a prioritisation of public investment or commercial support for technological development. However, there would not be North Sea oil and gas drilling if there had not been investment, commercial or otherwise, in the innovation that is necessary to create the technology that that sector uses. If it were not for that investment, we would still be burning coal, to a large extent. Every energy transition has involved risk and investment.
I thank Ben Macpherson for his considered and informed comments. He has talked about the transition of some workers from the wave sector to the tidal sector. At the heart of the intervention that I made earlier was the fact that, although we are not necessarily talking about additional Government funding to support people transitioning into other roles, in any other situation in which there was the closure of a business of scale and importance, there would be an expectation that the Government, through its enterprise agencies, would help with people’s reskilling and transition into new roles. Does Ben Macpherson agree that the current situation provides a perfect example of how, following what has happened in the sector over the years, the Government can play a role in facilitating a transition that will retain expertise and skills in a sector that will desperately need them?
As is so often the case, Liam McArthur makes wise points, on which I am sure the minister will want to respond. The minister is committed to a meeting, and I look forward to hearing his summing-up speech.
I emphasise that, as well as retaining the human expertise, it is worth considering the research capability that goes alongside that. One of the pieces of work that I remember doing with engineers at Aquamarine Power, in the brief time that I worked there, looked at how this country—the UK—has historically had a comparative advantage in onshore wind technology. However, that advantage was lost, primarily to Denmark and Germany. Although the resource is potentially smaller, there is significant tidal and wave resource across the world, and we want Scottish technology companies to get the lion’s share of that market. We have a comparative advantage that, if we can, we should maintain.
18:00
I congratulate Donald MacKinnon on securing the debate, and all the members who have allowed it to happen, notably those representing island communities. I have only a few remarks to make before I return to landlocked East Kilbride.
This is a timely and important debate. It is not an isolated debate but is part of a wider conversation about the future of marine energy and renewables, and it is also part of a wider conversation about how we reform our public services. The only two points that I want to make in support of my colleagues come down to this. First, the objective of good public service reform should be to identify the changes that we can make to build capacity rather than diminish it; to foster more collaboration, not less; and to place outcomes before short-term savings. I accept that Wave Energy Scotland has a particular status because of its history. However, the treatment of Wave Energy Scotland and its workers has been an example of how not to reform public services, given the way that funding was removed with too little thought of the practical consequences or the contractual commitments that could be upended—or, indeed, the impact on a sector that still has great potential, as a number of speakers have said. I thank PCS, and the coalition of supporters that it has built, for putting those uncomfortable truths before Parliament and for identifying alternatives to the path that we have been placed on. If I had any appeal to make to the minister today, it would be simply that he engage fully with PCS on the next steps.
The second point that I wish to make is perhaps a bit more pointed in that it is about a remark made by the First Minister earlier today. In response to a question from Mr Greer, he said that
“we have a journey to make on renewable energy, for which Scotland has all the ingredients. All we need is a supportive approach from the United Kingdom Government, because it controls energy policy.”
The First Minister is entitled to disagree with the UK Government; indeed, I sometimes wonder whether he thinks that that is all that he is entitled to do. However, seriously, that was an unwise statement. The reality is that, if there is to be a sustainable future for that sector, it has to be a shared endeavour. Scottish Renewables has made that point consistently.
It is a question not only of energy policy, but also of how we innovate, commercialise, nurture talent, retain the knowledge and experience that we have built, and even of how we reform the architecture of the state. That is why the decisions made by the Scottish Government matter, and that is why I urge the Government to reflect seriously on the points that have been made this evening.
That concludes the open debate. I call Stephen Gethins to respond to the debate.
18:03
I join colleagues in thanking and congratulating Donald MacKinnon for securing the debate, which is an important one. I know that it is also his first members’ business debate, and I thank him for bringing this particular issue to the chamber through his first such debate.
We all agree that Scotland has huge potential in marine energy. Scotland is home to world-leading marine energy facilities, which we have heard about in relation to different constituencies. That is reflective of what is going on in Scotland.
Mr Leask and Mr McArthur mentioned EMEC, which I was able to visit earlier in order to see some of the fantastic work that is going on there. However, there are also areas with potential elsewhere. We have seen investments in the Western Isles, for example, in relation to port infrastructure, manufacturing capability and supply chain development—I had a look at those earlier, too—and it would be remiss of me not to mention my own constituency, where a lot of fantastic work is going on in the port of Dundee. I hope that you will forgive me for mentioning that, Deputy Presiding Officer. Mr Fagan talked about the fact that there is so much work going on across Scotland, which reflects the huge opportunity that we have. The challenge, as ever, is to translate technological innovation into commercial deployment, investment, skilled jobs and lasting economic benefits.
I will reflect briefly on Wave Energy Scotland. I know that this is a debate about marine energy in general, but I will respond to some of the specific points that Donald MacKinnon, in particular, raised. The Scottish Government has invested more than £70 million through Wave Energy Scotland. I acknowledge the concerns expressed in the chamber in relation to expertise and capability; however, officials continue to engage with Wave Energy Scotland and the PCS union on those matters—I thank them for their continued engagement. Against a backdrop of constrained budgets, we must take difficult decisions about how limited resources are prioritised, and, although Wave Energy Scotland has long-term potential, commercialisation is not a near-term prospect.
More broadly, Scotland has invested significantly—more than £87 million in total—in marine energy innovation.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Because it is his debate, I shall permit the member to intervene.
Does the minister realise that withdrawing funding and support from Wave Energy Scotland makes it less likely that we will see the commercialisation and realisation of those opportunities in marine energy, wave and tidal?
I am glad that Mr MacKinnon has raised that issue. However, as I said, we continue to engage with WES and the PCS union on those matters. I was going to come to this point in a minute, but let me deal with it now. A lot of members have talked about Scotland’s particular advantages, which I think we can all agree on, and one of those advantages is our skills. We have talked about skills and expertise in the marine environment, and I have heard others talk about those who have worked in the North Sea, for example, which is relevant to everywhere in Scotland. That is why we have worked with the UK Government to invest in developing skills among those who are involved in, for example, the oil and gas sector. There is expertise among those who work in those environments.
I will move on to some of the other points that have been raised. I acknowledge Alan Brown’s point, and the points that others raised, about the role of the UK Government. Yes, there are areas on which we can work with it.
Mr Fagan made a point about the First Minister’s remarks earlier today. I think that people will understand why we sometimes feel slight frustration. I wish that I had the full range of powers—others would wish otherwise—however, I have to work within the reality of those that I have.
Mr Leask made a number of good points, including about the strategic spatial energy plan, which we are waiting for. How that plan is deployed over the next little while will be absolutely pivotal.
Will the minister give way?
I have a couple of other points to make on that, but I will give way to Liam McArthur briefly.
I again thank the minister for his offer to meet me and colleagues in due course.
Yes, the UK Government has a part to play in the development of the marine energy sector. However, WES is the creation of the Scottish Government—for good reasons, which Ben Macpherson very fairly articulated. If a transition away from that model is required, it is incumbent on the Scottish Government to ensure that happens in an appropriate manner and to engage with those who will be directly affected. We know that some people who were previously employed with WES have already left for roles that probably do not retain their skills and expertise in the sector in Scotland. In relation to the engagement that is going on, I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government’s objective is to retain the skills that WES has at the moment, so that we can benefit from them in the future.
Of course; I look forward to continuing the conversation. However, I think that I covered the points in Mr McArthur’s intervention when I spoke about the engagement that is going on at the moment. I would not want to pre-empt those talks, which are going on just now.
Mr MacArthur and others also talked about contracts for difference, and I want to raise one other point.
Will the minister give way?
If Mr Brown can be very brief, I will let him come in, since I have been generous to others.
I do not want to put the minister on the spot, but, in thinking about the funding streams that have been allocated to keep Wave Energy Scotland going, it seems to me that there is an opportunity to use ScotWind money, which I mentioned. Even though we use that as a second reserve, it could provide an opportunity.
Mr Brown’s eyesight must be very good, because I was just coming on to some of those points.
There is a point about how to invest, because, when we are in a transition, there are areas in which we should seek to invest.
I will make a final point about the UK Government’s responsibilities, which Mr Brown mentioned. One of the biggest failures of UK energy policy in the past half century has been the failure to establish a futures fund. The chancellor has acknowledged that £1 trillion could have been in such a fund, but it is not. The UK is one of the few countries in the world to have discovered significant oil and gas and not to have established some kind of futures fund. I have written to the UK Government on that matter, to seek clarity.
I acknowledge the point about ScotWind and how we can do things better in the future.
There was mention of how we can keep the European money flowing. I think that Mr MacKinnon mentioned that, and it is an important element. Scotland has a huge contribution to make to pan-European energy security, so I hope that there is some progress in the talks at the end of next week between the UK and the EU. It has been good to hear more positive signals coming out of the UK Government, as that pan-European element remains important.
I am mindful of the time, so I will conclude. Realising the full potential of marine energy requires continued collaboration between the Government, industry, academia and delivery partners. I look forward to the publication of the recommendations of the marine energy task force, which will help to inform the next phase of the sector’s development. As I said to Mr McArthur, I also look forward to continuing to engage with colleagues from across the chamber.
Scotland has the natural resources, expertise and track record of innovation to remain at the forefront of global marine energy, but we cannot do that on our own. I will continue to engage positively with the UK Government and with colleagues in the Parliament on this issue and others. I again thank Mr MacKinnon for bringing the debate to the Parliament.
Meeting closed at 18:12.
Previous
Decision Time