I point out—this seems to get missed in the chamber quite a bit, regardless of which side of the debate members are on—the number of stakeholders that have a say and exercise control over the whole system with regard to pylons, consenting and the expansion of the grid. It is not just the Scottish Government.

Despite energy featuring so heavily in debates in the chamber week in, week out, I have learned a lot while preparing for today’s debate. It has been really helpful to understand a bit more about the community energy landscape, the opportunities that are created by Scotland’s community energy generation growth fund and the challenges that are faced, and how we can respond in general terms with regard to developing community energy opportunities.

We have already heard that, as well as generating renewable energy through large-scale projects, it makes sense to have smaller-scale projects bringing together households or businesses—or both—to create community energy schemes. As members would expect, there are many wind and hydro projects in rural areas of Scotland, making the most of our natural resources to reach our interim target of 2GW of renewable energy capacity in local ownership by 2030.

Wind turbine projects seem to be the most common option, even if they are sometimes a bit controversial. Hydro schemes seem viable but limited, due to requiring communities to be located near a watercourse. There are many other options, too, including district heat networks. The city of Aberdeen hosts several district heat networks, including in my constituency, supplying low-cost energy to homes, public buildings and businesses. With strong political leadership, funding and policy clarity, heat networks offer opportunities to maximise the benefit of heat decarbonisation. One business in my constituency produces significant heat as a byproduct of the process that it uses to produce fishmeal. That heat could contribute to the local district heat network scheme but, to date, that has proved to be unsuccessful.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s new £8 million community energy generation growth fund, which will support local communities to install wind turbines and solar panels or to develop other types of renewable energy generation, such as hydro, to heat and power local homes and businesses. Significant progress has already been made thanks to the work of CARES, which we have heard about and which has provided more than £67 million of funding to more than 990 community projects. I enjoyed listening to Michael Matheson outlining some of the benefits that CARES has already delivered in his constituency and beyond.

I am grateful to everyone who assisted me in thinking about some points that are worth further exploration and some challenges that I do not think are insurmountable.

The first challenge is definition. The “Community Ownership in Scotland User Guide”, published in 2024, defines a community according to its geography, but the problem for developers is the risk that someone will be left out. There will always be a line on the map and a community on the wrong side of that line.

Are community groups the right target for community ownership? As we have already heard, not every community has the experience, expertise or desire to engage with those opportunities, so how can we enable communities to consider community energy projects in the first place? Which models work well, are outcome-driven and can genuinely be delivered by communities? Will they be able to raise the capital to invest or to buy up to, say, 10 per cent of a project? Is there flexibility that can make investment more attractive, for example by offering the option of making, say, a 5 per cent investment?

Other speakers have highlighted the potential role of local authorities in supporting community energy projects, whether by the provision of land or by investing in projects—if, indeed, they are permitted to do so.

I agree 100 per cent. There may be a specific piece of work to look at how we can do that, and I would be happy to be part of that work.

We have already heard about the possibility of communities investing in projects outwith their geographical area. Not all communities are created equal with regard to their ability to create energy, so is there scope to develop a system to share the funds that are generated by our renewable energy? Communities may feel that something is their project and that they are the ones impacted by it, but such restrictions might cut off communities that could benefit from additional investment and revenue. How might investors respond when presented with a project that includes an obligation to sell a percentage on to a community partner? I think that many investors would welcome that opportunity, but how would that sit with their obligations? That links to Patrick Harvie’s well made distinction between community ownership and community benefit.

What sources of investment would community projects require, over and above funding? I note that the UK Government’s recent call for evidence on community energy projects cited funding as the biggest barrier, so the announcement of funding from the Scottish Government is really welcome.

I also note the commitment by GB Energy to provide £20 million over the next financial year to support community projects, and hope that we will see tangible benefits coming to Scotland. There is no doubt that community energy projects have the potential to leave a lasting legacy and that developers, Governments and the public want to be part of that.

I commend the work of Community Energy Scotland, the Scottish Government and the many other organisations and stakeholders that work in that space. It is important that communities understand the likely parameters and economic realities of community investment or shared ownership schemes, which will help to strengthen the social contract around renewables, ensuring that it is truly just, fair and lasting.

On the point that Stephen Kerr has just made—Jackson Carlaw made a similar point—does he agree that conveners sometimes find it quite difficult to achieve the balance between being too liberal and flexible during a meeting and ensuring that there is the expected formality?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the net zero secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding how the recently announced proof of concept fund will encourage an innovative just transition in the North East Scotland region. (S6O-04699)

It is vital that we work to support innovation at all levels, particularly when we are furthering our investment and ambitions to deliver our green energy transition. In that regard, my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine and the wider north-east host a wealth of innovators and inventors. Can the cabinet secretary say more about how the Scottish Government is supporting young tech innovators and entrepreneurs across Scotland?

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and, in my role as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, to give some personal reflections on committee effectiveness. I pay tribute to the work of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in securing the debate following its important and interesting inquiry.

I also thank all members of the Criminal Justice Committee and those who have been members during my time as convener. I believe that we have demonstrated what an effective committee looks like. Without being immodest, I think that the committee has worked hard to secure its reputation for robust scrutiny, whether in committee-led inquiries or when scrutinising legislation that comes under our remit. My goodness, there has been a lot of legislation.

On a point that some members have raised, my view, certainly in the context of criminal justice, is that there is a need for some pre-prepared questions, which help to ensure that all aspects of a bill’s provisions are the subject of evidence taking during committee scrutiny. However, it is important to extend some flexibility to members who are interested in following their own line of questioning.

Will the member give way?

I am very pleased that my colleague Kevin Stewart secured a debate that celebrates and highlights the return of the tall ships races to Aberdeen. As we have heard, the tall ships races are a wonderful opportunity for the city, the wider north-east and Scotland, and I believe that parliamentary recognition of them is fitting. I extend my thanks to Kevin Stewart for the debate—I wish him well—and I thank Jackie Dunbar for stepping in today.

As we have heard, in 57 days, the tall ships races will visit Aberdeen’s shores for the third time between 19 and 22 July. During that time, the Port of Aberdeen and a whole host of other businesses and organisations will welcome at least 50 tall ships that will be visiting from all over the world.

Like my colleague Jackie Dunbar, I extend my sympathies to the families of the two cadets who lost their lives earlier this week in the tragic incident involving a Mexican tall ship that was due to participate in the event.

As part of the tall ships races, 240 young people living in Aberdeen or Aberdeenshire will be offered the life-changing experience of joining the crew of a tall ship that will sail from Dunkirk to Aberdeen or from Aberdeen to Kristiansand. I am sure that the rest of the chamber will join me in wishing good luck to the young cadets who will be embarking on their first voyage.

As we have heard, the tall ships races will bring a significant economic opportunity. Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce anticipates that it will inject tens of millions of pounds into the city and region’s economy. To capitalise on that opportunity, local business and charities will participate in activities such as Charlie House’s “Curated on the Quayside” initiative, which will allow the north-east to further showcase local culture and produce in a wonderful open-air market event that will be held across the city, including in the area of the harbour.

In addition to the economic benefits, the tall ships races provide a platform to showcase Scottish and Doric culture. Local musicians, artwork, and vibrant street performances will be displayed throughout the city. Aberdeen’s history and maritime contributions will also be highlighted in free informative events. As we have heard, Aberdeen art gallery has a stunning range of tall ship-themed souvenirs that have been created by local creators and makers that reflects the maritime history and sheer spectacle of the tall ships. We have also heard that there will be a programme of open-air gigs, which will see our very own Deacon Blue, Kaiser Chiefs and Tide Lines entertain visitors.

It certainly goes without saying that this year’s tall ships races will greatly benefit Aberdeen city and the surrounding region. With that in mind, I reflect on the impact of the previous tall ships races in Aberdeen. As we have heard, the tall ships races first visited Aberdeen in 1991. Crowds of more than 300,000 flocked to the granite city to witness the great sailing ships and to enjoy a variety of performances. Aberdeen welcomed the tall ships races for a second time in 1997, coinciding with the bicentenary of the renowned Aberdeen Line, a shipping company known for its excellence and efficiency. That event proved to be even more popular, with more than 500,000 people attending. The races are a cherished memory for all those who attended, as well as for the city itself. As a result, they have left a truly lasting legacy.

In closing, I congratulate everyone involved in the organisation and running of the 2025 tall ships races in Aberdeen, including all the volunteers who will support the event. With their hard work, the tall ships races will remain a cherished part of Aberdeen’s legacy. I again thank Kevin Stewart for securing the debate and I invite anyone and everyone to visit the tall ships races in July.

I agree. It is the responsibility of each member to consider their own lines of questioning. However, one of the advantages of having prepared questions is that it ensures that we take evidence across a broad spectrum of provisions, particularly when we scrutinise bills.

Even as a member of the Government party, I have always taken the view that our committee is a critical friend of that Government. By that I mean that we are not frightened to criticise when improvements are needed, but we do so constructively by working with ministers and others on as much of a shared agenda as we can, across the parties. Our committee’s record demonstrates that.

In no small part, that is due to all committee members being prepared—most of the time—to set aside party politics and seek to attain real change. That is so whether it be through our scrutiny of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which could make fundamental changes to our justice system, through seeking to improve the ways in which the mental wellbeing of our police officers is supported or through supporting calls to end Friday releases from prison. As its convener, I have been keen that our committee is one that, when possible, seeks consensus across political parties and that, regardless of its members’ political affiliations, considers matters in a fair way, with a focus on improving Scotland’s criminal justice system. I believe that we have done that.

I believe, too, that, in addition to working collaboratively, effective committees have excellent relationships and dialogue with the stakeholders and individuals who are relevant to their remit, and that they respond to them by tackling their concerns. By being fleet of foot and creative, our committee has always been willing to find a way to make progress on an issue by considering evidence and, when appropriate, encouraging ministers to take action.

I cannot talk about our committee’s work programme without commending our clerking team, without whom I would certainly be lost. Nothing is too much trouble for them, and the huge workload that the team carries to make our committee work so well is not lost on any of our members. The support that we receive from our Scottish Parliament information centre, communications, and participation and communities team—PACT—colleagues is second to none, and we are indebted to them all. It is worth noting the sensitivity of some of our committee’s work, which has involved our taking evidence from highly vulnerable witnesses. The complex and detailed support that the PACT team provides to make such evidence sessions happen ensures that we get the best evidence from all our witnesses.

In this parliamentary session, the Criminal Justice Committee has seen relatively few membership changes. Continuity with our members, clerks and researchers has meant that we have built up a good understanding of our remit and what needs to be done. Richard Leonard articulated that point well in his contribution.

We have also been innovative in working with two other committees to scrutinise the Scottish Government’s response to tackling drug harm and reducing the number of drug deaths, and in supporting the work of its national mission on drugs. That cross-committee work supported a people’s panel process that brought together members of the public to consider what Scotland should do differently to reduce the number of drug deaths.

I firmly believe that our committees are at their most effective when we work collectively, without fear or favour towards the Government, and when we are creative and persistent about achieving real change within our remits.

Convening a committee is an utter privilege. It is also not without its pressures and demands, but they are made so much easier by the support that is provided by all our members. For that support, I extend my grateful thanks.