Chamber and committees

If my previous answer has not addressed that question, I can bring in Mariana Cover to do that. However, I do not think that it is an issue.

There are a number of programmes that are associated with the heat in buildings spend, and I will mention some of them. We have been able to keep the home energy Scotland grant and loan scheme open for applications. It has been hugely subscribed, and I want to ensure that that vehicle, which is working very well, is able to adapt to the demand. Key infrastructure and building decarbonisation is done through the heat network fund, which is an ambitious programme that leverages private investment for delivery.

I am just having a look at some of the other things that are under that. We support 20,000 households to save up to £500 on their energy bills, and we are making homes warmer through a range of schemes. We have the warmer homes Scotland scheme; the social housing net zero heat fund; local authority area-based schemes, which have been very successful—indeed, demand is probably outstripping supply at the moment; the home energy Scotland grant and loan scheme; the small and medium-sized enterprise grant and loan scheme; Scotland’s heat network fund; and the green public sector estate decarbonisation scheme.

That is on the heat in buildings side of things, but there is money going to community energy, too. I know that it is not directly related to heat, but the money for the community and renewable energy scheme—or CARES—allows communities to access advice and support when they are putting community energy projects together. Moreover, as I think that I mentioned last week, we are hoping to get some money from GB Energy’s local power plan. Obviously, that is not part of our budget, but it is a vehicle that has a tangential impact in addition to all the delivery schemes that we continue to fund.

Last year, I asked for an assessment of the first tranche of the just transition fund. We are doing that work because I want the just transition fund to add value and to have a clear effect. I asked my officials to undertake an assessment of how the just transition funding that has been allocated to date has worked and what that has meant in relation to the increased capacity of those who received that funding and to the outcomes.

I want to continue to build on the just transition fund for the north-east and Moray. We have already allocated £75 million, and we are reopening the just transition fund this year. I am in the middle of working with my officials on what the new allocation of that offer will look like. It might have a number of different focuses, but I want it to be outcomes based.

There is a £15.9 million allocation in this year’s budget for the just transition fund, and I will go through some of the other funding. We have the funding for climate action hubs, and the support to the Just Transition Commission and the Climate Change Committee. I apologise to Mr Doris. We do give funding to the Climate Change Committee—he is absolutely right. I did not have the information in front of me, but I am trying to get the figure for him. I apologise, Mr Doris. There is the funding for the Climate Change Committee, the emissions trading scheme authority, the climate justice fund, the Scottish Climate Intelligence Service and Scotland’s climate week.

This year’s allocation for just transition funding will be £15.9 million. I am working on what the funding round that we put out will look like, based on the analysis of what happened with the £75 million allocation. It will be an assessment of who got it, what outcomes were achieved, what capacity it built and so on.

Over 10 years, yes.

I can cover that point, because it is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about. I have already talked about the capacity of companies. Support for the offshore wind supply chain will have maximum impact on Scottish jobs. As we know, the oil and gas supply chain has brought the most economic value to Scotland over the decades, and that will be the case, too, for offshore wind, onshore wind and all the other renewable energies. If we get this right, we could have more people in jobs associated with renewables than we ever had with oil and gas, and we could have an increased number of people working in energy in Scotland as a result.

Yes.

That is a major part of the engagement that I have been having with the new UK Government. Ever since I took up the post of energy minister, I have been clear that community benefits should be mandatory. The previous Conservative Government did not agree with me. I also believe that there should be mandatory community engagement, but the previous Government did not agree with me on that, either. Now, I am in a situation in which I am dealing with a new UK Government and I think that my asks are having an impact.

Last year, we conducted a joint consultation on the issue that you raise. However, the Scottish Government is not waiting for the outcome of that consultation; we are already working on revising our guidance for community engagement as part of our own programme. I would expect that developers would sign up to that on a voluntary basis, but I hope that the UK Government will use its powers over guidance to make community engagement and community benefit mandatory. The previous Government was not interested in that.

I shared the concerns about using ScotWind revenue. ScotWind should have a legacy benefit for Scotland. We have reduced our initial assumed usage of ScotWind revenue, which was mentioned by Ms Lennon, from £424 million to £160 million, and we are working to reduce that fully by the end of this financial year. We are now in a position to invest ScotWind revenues in a wide range of projects that will provide long-term benefits for Scotland—not least in my portfolio—to deliver our ambitions to tackle climate change and invest in growing the economy. We talked about that in relation to the offshore wind money, which I have discussed with your colleagues.

Our capital package is supported by more than £326 million of ScotWind funding, but money is also going to other portfolios from ScotWind. We have £500 million to anchor our supply chain, and we have responded to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities’ ask for funding to respond to the climate emergency by making £40 million available to target local priorities. Another legacy project involves funding of £20 million going to the Orkney and Shetland Councils for interisland connectivity. ScotWind money has not just been used in my portfolio: it is also being used in other portfolios and will have a legacy effect for Scotland and will benefit people.

We also have £16 million for progressing reform of the agriculture and food and drink industries. We are now able to release ScotWind money in ways that will help us to reduce our emissions and ways that will be part of the just transition and of improvement to services and infrastructure. I hope that that has answered Ms Lennon’s question.

There is an awful lot more demand for offshore wind support than there is for green hydrogen support, but that will potentially be ramping up. One of the reasons why green hydrogen will be so important is that we will be generating far more green electricity. Even now, we are generating more green electricity than we can get on to the grid. Even with grid infrastructure upgrades to get green electricity on to the grid—I know that Mr Lumsden has an issue with that—we will still have a surplus of green energy, which is why there will be so many opportunities for green hydrogen.

The innovation work is being done right now, and support for companies that are scaling up is being provided right now. However, the priority is to get INTOG and ScotWind developments under way so that the feedstock of green electricity can be generated.

No.