 The final item of business today is the member's business debate on motion number 12218 in the name of Liam McArthur on the wave energy sector in Scotland. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put and I'd be grateful if those members who wish to speak could please press the request to speak buttons. A call on Liam McArthur to open the debate, seven minutes, please, Mr McArthur. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. In time on our fashion, can I start by thanking all those who signed the motion and particularly those who have made time to participate in the debate, and I very much look forward to their contributions and that of the minister. While such gratitude is customary, it is genuinely heartfelt in this instance, as it has made possible a parliamentary debate on the future of wave energy sector in Scotland that has been conspicuously absent in the three months since Palamas wave power went into administration. I acknowledge that the minister, the Deputy First Minister, have both responded to questions in this chamber and I'm particularly grateful to Mr Ewing for his willingness to meet privately with myself and with other members with an interest in this issue to discuss in more detail our concerns. Nevertheless, I still believe that this Parliament has been ill-served by being denied a proper debate on this issue before now, something that would have been inconceivable had it been the UK rather than the Scottish Government responsible for withdrawing the loan facility from Palamas. This debate matters because it provides an opportunity for this Parliament to restate in unambiguous terms our support for the wave energy sector, to acknowledge the significant achievements that it has already secured and to reiterate our collective confidence in the contribution that wave energy still has to make to our renewables future. That is not to diminish or gloss over the problems that the sector faces. In some senses, those provide a sobering reminder that, if anyone were needed, that this is not easy and, if it had been, we would have cracked it some time ago. In the face of those who appear to want to read wave energy at its last rites, or delight in saying, I told you so, that it is vital that this and future Governments absolutely stay the course. There is every reason for doing so. We should draw confidence from the world first and the world onlys that companies such as Palamas, Aquamarine and others have achieved over a remarkably short period. Confidence, too, from the world-leading skills and expertise that we have in our research and company-based, not to mention the test facilities at Emac in my constituency, and confidence, finally, from the abundant natural resources around our shores. Those are difficult and uncertain times for all those involved in the sector, but now more than ever we need to signal our continued support and our willingness to be brave. For those who have already lost their jobs, such support will come too late. I know many former staff at Palamas, for example, feel aggrieved at what has happened, the speed at which decisions were taken, the lack of consultation and the loss of earnings due have all left a bitter taste. One constituent wrote to me recently saying, I came back to Orkney with a young family and now facing having to relocate. If I do, I doubt I will return. He goes on to say, all responses to redundancy stated we will be supported by pace. This has not happened. This is troubling for a number of reasons beyond the obvious personal tragedy of a lost job and possibly career. It raises concerns, for example, about the ability of this sector to attract the sort of people it will need to make it a success in the future. That is just one of the very many challenges facing Wave Energy Scotland. How does it replicate the sort of mission and vision that enabled Palamas and other companies to persuade talented individuals with a range of skills to commit their futures to building a new industry? As I have said before, in the circumstances, I entirely welcome the establishment of Wes. There may be questions about why it was not brought into being prior to the demise of Palamas to allow for a more managed transition, but nevertheless it is to the future we all must now look. To that end, Scottish Renewables argued that Wes provides an opportunity to start afresh, moving away from company-focused and array driven funding models and an approach to R&D that avoids duplication of effort on common challenges. That makes sense, though I would be worried if it heralds a complete retreat back into the labs, getting machines wet in the sort of environment provided by EMEC is where the greatest amount of learning takes place. If we lose sight of this, the risk is that we take two steps back but fail then to take the requisite number of steps forward. In that context, I believe that the decision to locate Wes in Inverness is short sighted. Orkney has been a must remain in the vanguard of our efforts to deliver a wave energy industry. It is therefore the logical place for Wes to be based and anything else sends entirely the wrong signal about how serious we are. I realise that we are not talking about large numbers of jobs, but that is to miss the point. How serious we are will obviously be judged by the objectives for Wes and, as importantly, the budget that is attached to meeting those objectives. Clarity on both is needed without delay, a key message from all those with an interest in the sector. We need Wes to be brave, but we need ministers to be brave as well. As a former engineer with Aquamarine Power explained to me recently, there is no point spending little pots of money here and there and expecting much to change. To do so, he argued, would be self-deluding and unjustifiable given all the other demands on public funding at this time. If we are serious about making this happen, we need to recognise what it is going to take and not to pretend otherwise. We should bear in mind though that for every pound of public funding, developers have been able to lever in six pounds of private investment. Bravery, vision and commitment must also be demonstrated by any incoming UK Government after May's election. Some of the statements being made about the future of renewables, including marine renewables, by those who could have a say over the make-up of the next UK Administration, are truly alarming. I would argue that retaining a Liberal Democrat influence post May is the surest antidote to some of the nonsense being spoken, but it is important that we build the broadest possible political consensus. That, in turn, needs to translate into genuinely collaborative working between both Scotland's Governments. The challenges facing the wave energy sector are substantial enough without layering on political uncertainty or treating the future of this sector as a pawn in some wider political game. Let me be clear, an obvious and early priority for that joint working is delivering on good connections to our islands. Again, that is something on which we have established a consensus in this chamber and I would hope that that can continue, reflecting the fact that our islands are crucial if Scotland and the UK are to achieve our respective renewables and climate change targets. In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, let me return to where I started. This debate and the support that we collectively reiterate for the wave energy sector is important. After all, this is a sector that plays to our competitive strengths, our natural resources, our research and industrial skills and the world lead that we have already established. It provides an opportunity to create jobs and wealth, including communities, such as the one that I represent. Indeed, the export opportunities for equipment and services is potentially enormous, making a case for wave energy to be treated as a technology and export opportunity rather than simply a source of clean electricity. It is, of course, a source of clean electricity, and if we are to meet our challenging climate change targets and we have not done so yet, wave energy will need to be part of the mix. This debate is long overdue, but I am pleased to have been able to allow it to happen. I very much look forward to hearing what other colleagues and the minister have to say, and I hope that we can send out a strong, decisive, unambiguous message from this Parliament about our collective determination to stay the course. Thank you very much. We now turn to the open debate speeches of four minutes, please, and I call Lewis MacDonald to be followed by Mike McKenzie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful and my apologies to the minister and to Mr MacArthur, as I will leave for other business before the close of the debate, but I congratulate and thank you to MacArthur for bringing this important debate. I was in Saudi Arabia last week as a member of the delegation from the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee looking at the export opportunities for Scottish energy companies in that oil-rich country. I was inevitably reminded of Alex Salmond's description of Scotland as the Saudi Arabia of marine energy. In truth, I am sorry to report that it is hard to imagine a greater contrast between the king of crude in the Arabian desert and the parts of Scotland where the natural resource for our marine energy potential really lies. However, marine energy potential is real nonetheless, and Liam McArthur was absolutely right to say that it is important to emphasise that in addressing some of the issues that have arisen recently. Rather than to suppose that all that we need to do is install the technology for the energy benefits to flow, I think that recent events should focus our efforts on how to take all of those potential technologies from the research and development stage forward to the point where there is a real prospect of successful commercialisation at scale. Palamas going into administration, Aquamarine significantly downsizing its business, our self-evidently disappointing outcomes at this stage for the wave power sector, but, as has been said, those developments need not mark the end of the road. We do, however, need to acknowledge the extent to which those two companies have carried the expectations of the Scottish Government for successful wave power development. Between them, they received nearly £6 million in funding from the Marine Renewables commercialisation fund and the account for more than £11 million, or 44 per cent, of the fossil fuel monies allocated from the renewable energy investment fund from March 2012 to October 2014. The setbacks to those firms are setbacks to the sector as a whole and to the Scottish Government's investment priorities as laid out to the end of last year. It is all the more important now to understand as early as possible how the Government intends to deliver on its plan B, the setting up of wave energy Scotland. I hope that the minister will be able to say more today about this new agency's budget, about its staffing and about when it will bring forward its business plan. Above all, we need a frank assessment of what recent developments actually mean for the future of the sector, both nationally and in particular parts of Scotland. Members—the McArthur has done it already—and other members will rightly emphasise the impact of those developments on local areas, whether that be the centres of natural resources in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland or the places where wave power companies have developed, as in the Malcolm Chisholm constituency in Leith. I would like to close by mentioning and emphasising the importance of this sector in Aberdeen in the north-east because of the potential for oil and gas service and support companies to diversify into offshore renewable energy development. The Aberdeen renewable energy group lists some 70 companies and institutions in their area with an interest in marine renewables, varying from Aberdeen and Robert Gordon universities with their focus on research and development, to engineering companies such as the bullmoral group who supply component parts. The RGU has an ocean tank test, which allows new technologies to be tested in a very real way. Of course, the RGU itself is leading the way in offshore wind development with its plans for an offshore wind testing and demonstration centre in Aberdeen bay, but it recognises the potential to go beyond that and explore marine energy too. I hope that the minister will have words of encouragement for the sector this evening, but diversifying Scotland's energy economy will of course take more than wishful thinking. It will take a serious commitment to addressing the obstacles to commercialisation that have been highlighted in the last few weeks, and it will need a clear business plan for Waverett Energy Scotland to get us back into play over the next few years. I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing the debate, because it is a very important debate for his constituency of Orkney. Without any doubt, Orkney is the world leader in the marine renewable technologies of wave and tidal power. It is a very important debate for Scotland, because we have 10 per cent of Europe's wave energy potential and 25 per cent of Europe's tidal energy potential. It is also very important for the UK, because Scotland's wave and tidal energy can help to keep the lights on in England, as well as making a significant contribution to meeting UK climate change targets. However, the benefits are not just about decarbonising our energy supply and meeting climate change targets. There are huge socioeconomic benefits to be gained and not least for Scotland's islands. The Scottish Islands Renewables Report, jointly commissioned by the UK and Scottish Government published in 2013, suggested a total resource across Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles equivalent to 20 per cent of the UK's electricity requirement. It suggested that 10,000 jobs could be created in these islands by 2030, with a further 29,000 jobs across the UK. After generations of socioeconomic decline, the waves and tides around our islands represent the biggest opportunity that our islands have ever had. As if this was not enough reason to develop these technologies, Scottish Renewables estimates a world market for wave and tidal technology worth £460 billion. The European Marine Energy Centre at Stromness in Orkney is 10 years ahead of the rest of the world in wave and tidal research. Scotland is a proven expertise in marine engineering, amply demonstrated, as Lewis MacDonald suggested, in our oil and gas sector, where supply chain exports now exceed the amounts earned in the UK continental shelf. We can do exactly the same in marine renewables. Therefore, it astonishes me that the UK Government would turn their back on these opportunities as they have done with their recent energy market reform bill. It astonishes me that they should fail to provide interconnectors to our islands, as Liam McArthur has acknowledged, after more than a decade of prevarication. It also astonishes me that they should penalise Scottish generators with punitive transmission charges, as we have heard this week with the debacle over Long Annab. We should be no doubt that it is not the lack of technological process that has deterred investors. It is the failure of the UK Government to support this vital industry that has led to the liquidation of Palamas, to the loss of jobs at Aquatera, just as it was the failure to provide the long-overdue interconnector that led to seetricity relocating from Orkney to Cornwall. Liam McArthur, if he points the finger of blame, should point it at his Tory friends in Westminster, because everyone throughout the renewables industry in Scotland knows where the blame lies, and everyone throughout the renewables industry in Scotland knows that this Scottish Government, and that Mr Ewing in particular, has done everything possible and will continue to do everything possible to support our renewables industry. However, if the UK Government should decide to support this industry, Scotland's wave sector, and put some hard cash on the table, I will be the first person to welcome that. Indeed, in this regard, I may even apologise. Thank you very much. It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing time for a very important issue, especially important to Orkney, Caithness and Sutherland, and the Highlands and Islands more generally. We live in a time where energy security is becoming more and more important. Wave energy is an exciting way of generating power, but by no means new. The idea of converting one of the great forces of nature into electricity has been around since at least 1799, when the first known patent was filed in Paris. The Scottish Conservatives have for a long time been and fully remain highly supportive of this technology. If we want to avert the consequences of climate change, we must cut down on our carbon dioxide emissions, and wave power can play an important part in doing so. Future energy supply must stand firmly on a base of safe and efficient nuclear power, whilst also harnessing the awesome power of Mother Nature in terms of wave, wind, hydro, tidal and solar power. Scotland is well placed for renewables and should therefore take a lead in all those fields. They are such opportunities for new employment and incomes in Orkney and Caithness and Sutherland particularly. Wave power remains one of the forces of nature that has so far not been tamed, but which remains an obvious provider if used in a responsible and economically viable way. It is therefore regrettable that Pallamys wave power has gone into administration and aquamarine power forced to downsize. Support is needed for wave power during this critical period so that we can create an environment where collaborative research and development can flourish in order to achieve a breakthrough for the industry. The industry is loudly calling for collaboration so the answer must be for scientists and the wave power industry to work together to achieve not only a concept but a commercially viable product to generate electricity around the UK coast and particularly in the Pentland Firth, which has been often described as the Rolls-Royce of renewables. I think that Mr Salmond once said that. The Scottish Government's Wave Energy Scotland initiative might be able to deliver this, however it is essential that we take advantage of the financing and expertise of the UK as a whole. We have in the past shown that when we work together as one, great things can be achieved. One example of how wave power is already working can be found in Argyll and Bute on Eila where the limpid has been operational since 2000. This is the world's first commercial wave power generator. It produces only 250 kilowatts but it is important that we now 15 years later look back and see what lessons can be learned for the future. Eila is also the location for a significant tidal power development and this is another promising technology with a guaranteed power source every 24 hours. I note that the people on Ling are four times every 24 hours. I note that the people on Ling are calling for a fixed link to the mainland for the island and are suggesting housing a tidal generator as well. The idea must be good if it can work in practice. In conclusion, wave power is another avenue forward that we must explore in order to deal with our carbon legacy. Scotland is an ideal place to harness the power of the waves. It is a question surely of hurrying the technology forward to achieve this and I ask the minister what will happen now and what will be done now to achieve this aim. Recent developments have obviously not been too encouraging. However, it cannot be impossible with collaboration to ensure that this technology becomes viable. A pan-UK approach to wave power should be adopted drawing upon the pool of expertise and funding available to us. If we work together like we have in the past, commercially viable wave power will surely become a reality. I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing this debate and welcome the opportunity to discuss the importance of wave power to both Scotland's economy and our ambitious targets for renewable energy and carbon reduction. Investment in this key growth sector is of national importance, and I hope that in discussing the way forward today, we can find a shared agenda to support it through current difficulties. Even this month, there has been a number of fairly damaging developments as a result of the Palamys power firm closure in my constituency and Orkney, of course. Only a few weeks ago, the Swedish utility company Vattenfall announced that agar wave power adjoit venture with Palamys was being liquidated and as a result, a large project near the Shetland Islands was being cancelled. The Palamys closure occurred as a result of a failure to secure development funding, which is a huge disappointment not only for the individuals who work there but to the whole Leith community. That was a key employer for Leith, and it was with great sadness that we learned the news of its closure at the end of last year. Palamys was an exceptional firm. As its website stated, it was the world's most advanced wave energy technology company, the world's first wave energy company to deliver electricity from offshore wave power to the national grid. It also succeeded in securing the first export order for a wave energy device in Scotland. As the blog site Common Space rightly asks, how could a company with such award-winning credibility backed by government investment in an industry that is estimated to be worth a potential £4.5 billion by 2030 collapse so quickly? The situation around the demise of Palamys is not entirely clear, but the Government tells us that EU state rules dictate that the necessary development funding had to, in part, come from private investment. Of course, we know that that was not forthcoming. When it could not be secured, this vital part of our local and national infrastructure was lost. It is worth saying, however, that state aid rules are notoriously complex, and I would like to ask the Government whether the EU commission was consulted in regard to this aspect of state aid rules. I certainly know that the employees and their families meant all of them. I am sure that they were distraught and that many of them contacted me to share their great sadness and distress at what happened, but also to ask certain questions. One question that has been asked is how could the funding have stopped so abruptly? Of course, the result of that was a forced administration and the quick dismissal of the staff within a few days. I understand that the fear of an overseas investor perhaps influenced the Scottish Government, but could the Scottish Government have done more to champion another bidder? Again, those are questions that have been put to me, so I am putting them to the minister. Finally, where there are other bidders that the Scottish Government outbid, so I think that there is a certain amount of uncertainty about that whole situation, so any light that the minister could throw in that would be welcome. I have only got one minute left to look to the future, and clearly now that is what we have to focus on. We all welcome the creation of Wave Energy Scotland, and we hope, of course, that it can take over a lot of the expertise, including from Palamus, that has been lost. However, as the motion says, there is a risk of delay, and the Scottish Government urgently needs to act and urgently needs to clarify details on the business plan, staffing and budget for Wave Energy Scotland. In principle, we all think that this is a good way forward, seeking to retain intellectual property, enabling technology to reach commercial readiness, encouraging collaboration, fostering standardisation and a design consensus that will provide a platform for the commercialisation of the industry. In principle, Wave Energy Scotland is a good development, but we certainly hope that it takes over its neuro very quickly. I think that it is right, just as a final point to say that the UK Government has had some responsibility for that as well, and it should certainly take meaningful steps to adjust the electricity market framework to provide greater support to the Wave Energy sector. I hope that the two Governments can work collaboratively to make sure that Scotland still will become the leader in the development of Wave Energy. Thank you very much. It is clear that we are agreed that we need to fight for this industry and for the massive jobs and the export potential that it holds. It is incredibly frustrating to see Palamas and Aquamarine Power's world-leading progress stumble. I have met and spoken with, I have emails from constituents and ex-employees who desperately want to see Wave Energy become a Scottish success story, but who lost their jobs at the end of last year. They were not only devastated because they had lost a job, but because they had lost a job in an industry that they had worked in, helped to develop and passionately believed in. I welcome today's debate, and I thank Liam McArthur for bringing it to the chamber. The Government's response to the serious break in Wave Energy progress has been to bring forward Wave Energy Scotland. I am very pleased that it was successful in inquiring the intellectual property and other assets of Palamas. However, as the motion says, I hope that the minister can outline more details regarding the budget and the likely operation of Wave Energy Scotland. I know he and Alex Patterson met with industry representatives last month, and I hope that he can tell us how the discussion with industry is progressing. It is clear that new technologies need patient capital funding. The long-term nature of the investment that is required is at odds with the demands of shareholders who look for short-term profits, but it is vital that we support this sector. It has, after all, attracted some £70 million in contributions to the Scottish economy. Over the past two decades, Scotland and the UK have lost out on a domestic supply chain for wind power. In contrast, the Danish Government invested £800 million over a 20-year period, and they made Denmark the place that we now import our turbines from. Speaking to staff from Palamas and Aquamarine Power in recent weeks, it is clear that they believe that Wave Power Scotland is technically placed better than ever. We really do not want to be buying back this technology in a decades time because of a lack of commitment or foresight. There are a good handful of on-going projects and companies working in Scotland to harness the sea's power, but sadly we can add age year to those we have to say farewell to, but the opportunity is still there to make Wave and Tidal a success. I hope that the Government will look at how to harness the sub-sea skills of the oil and gas industry to add those to the engineers already in Wave Power. I would like to ask the minister too how much contact has been made with the offshore renewable energy catapult organisation. Their headquarters in Glasgow appear to have very similar objectives to Wave Energy Scotland, albeit for the wider offshore energy sector. Are HIE and the Catapult Centre collaborating? We are all agreed too that some of the support for Wave has to come from the UK. The energy market reform process has been traumatic for many, and high transmission charges remain a problem. However, instead of hearing our First Minister call for more tax cuts for fossil fuels—personally, I thought that we were beyond that—I would like to hear more calls for a fair transition to offshore renewables as a key demand. Scottish companies took this technology out of the lab and into the open ocean, but some of those talented engineers are now working in the same industry overseas, in companies where technology is lagging behind APL or Palamus. However, with on-going Government investment in those countries, they will catch up. We have to do all that we can, and we have to work tirelessly to maintain our global lead. We have developed this, and it is essential that we fully benefit from its commercialisation. We will benefit environmentally and socially. We know that there are tens of thousands of jobs in the industry and billions of pounds in exports. I know that we will continue to work together, but I would ask the Government to champion the industry. We really need to make sure that the UK Government is, no doubt, the strength of Scottish feeling about this issue. Thank you very much. I now invite Fergus Ewing to respond to the debate minister around seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I would like to thank Liam McArthur for bringing this matter to a debate. I genuinely welcome the fact that we can have a proper debate here. Of course, we did have a fairly detailed parliamentary consideration of the matter, and rightly so, when I brought it to Parliament at the earliest opportunity at topical questions on 25 November, but that is no substitute for a debate. So today we have had that, and I thank all members who have participated in it for their contributions. I think that there has been a welcome consensus about support of the principle of wave energy, its potential for Scotland and the desire that we should continue to play a leading role in developing wave energy here and for the world. I think that we all agree about that. I have also endeavoured to provide face-to-face briefings to members of Liam McArthur to which Liam McArthur alluded, and I also met Malcolm Chisholm in November and Alison Johnstone on 15 January. My door is open for further meetings. Presiding Officer, many members and their contributions have alluded to the success that Palamas achieved, to the success that they achieved because of the skills, the expertise, the determination and the commitment of their employees. I play tribute to their employees. The reference has been made to the sadness, the anger, the bitterness perhaps and disappointment that many must have felt on the circumstances of the determination of the company's existence, and I understand that and I share those concerns as two have Scottish renewables in their briefing for this debate, and many members have spoken eloquently about that. There is no easy part of being made redundant. Many people in Scotland face that across sadly a whole range of businesses and I, in my responsibilities as Minister for Business, am acutely aware of that. I would also like to specifically say that the two P2 devices deployed at EMEC together had more than 11,800 total hours of grid-connected operation. The reason I think that it is important to say that is to give the impression from this debate to those who read it that there is not only a cross-party consensus about the principle but that Palamas delivered in practice a very substantial amount of electricity to the grid of operation. I am told that the longest continuous period the device generated electricity was 19.5 days. The challenges of operating in the marine environment, however, are known to all members. I am no expert, but I understand that the main challenges facing developers, device developers are reliability, survivability and installability, and issues like power take-off are matters that I have spent a lot of time discussing experts within the industry, not only from former Palamas but also from Aquamarine, Albatern, AWS and other companies. I have made it my business prior to deciding what form, shape, objectives, funding, roles WES should fulfil. I have made it my business to have detailed discussions with many of the leading players in industry. Alison Johnstone alluded to the fact that we had a two-armed lengthy meeting at St Andrew's house followed by a dinner with many of the leading players. The purpose of this engagement and of the more substantial work that HIE is taking forward is to ensure that WES is set up in the right way. Many members have asked specific details about WES. I look forward to giving Parliament details of WES budget, its business plan, its programme of activity to Parliament on Wednesday 25 February by an appropriate parliamentary channel. I say that to members and I will ensure that all members are appropriately informed. I am not saying that that will be a parliamentary statement, but I think that what members want is the detail, and I will provide that detail, whether through a question or otherwise, as yet to be determined. I want to say to members that we are nearly in a position to give members information that they have quite fairly and reasonably asked for. I will follow that with an address to the wider investment community at the Renewable UK Wave and Tidal Conference in Edinburgh on the same day, but Parliament will be informed first. Questions have been raised quite rightly about the funding. Palamys received funding of around £95 million. Of that, the private sector contributed £70 million. There is a positive point to be made here that private sector investment was attracted. There were a number of private sector investors, and they contributed most of the money. There are detractors of wave energy in general, they are not here in this debate and there is no voice, but they are out there. In response to them, I would say, look, private sector investors put £70 million into this technology and it resulted in the successful generation of electricity as a result of the skill of the individuals involved. The public funding came to around £25 million, and I have a breakdown here. The difficulty that arose, Presiding Officer, is well known, that, sadly, there was no prospect of further commercial investment. I can assure all members that both the Scottish Government and the Enterprise Network spent a considerable amount of time and effort in looking at potential options about what we could do, but the stark reality was that, after the withdrawal of the last private sector investment, it did not seem possible to us, for the Scottish Government to shoulder the total burden of the funding that would have been, according to experts, required to take Palamas forward. There is no easy way to say that, but that is the truth of the matter. It is important for me to be candid and straightforward in my dealings. That is what I generally try to do and, therefore, that was the situation. Mr Mackenzie mentioned the UK Government. I have sought to deal constructively with the UK Government. Indeed, Greg Barker and I jointly opened the Pentland First and Orkney Waters Marine Energy Park some years ago. I also met Amber Rudd in October at the margins of the Ocean Energy Europe Conference in Paris. Amber Rudd seemed very willing to do so and agreed to that she or her senior officials would meet Palamas. That undertaking was not delivered, but I do not really say that with any political intent. I think that, frankly, by that stage, it was probably too late to turn around the situation. I do not particularly want to point blame at the UK Government. Indeed, in one sense, although I have some sympathy with many of the points that Mr Mackenzie made, part of the opportunity and part of the way that we can deliver the aspirations that members have described in this debate is to look forward to the scenario post May this year to see whether there can be more of a financial contribution towards the wave sector in Scotland from the UK Government. In particular, I work to ensure that the increasing support from the EU for the marine energy sector is now part of the EU set plan, which means that it is now eligible for funding. The work that Shan George has done of ocean energy is very positive and bears with it the possibility that there could be realistic financial support from the EU. I mention that because I wish to be as positive as I can in this debate. I do not want to pre-empt the announcements that will be made on 25 February. I wanted to make the statement clear today that that decision will be made, but let me briefly in conclusion say why it has taken until 25 February in order to complete our plans. The reasons are broadly twofold. First of all, it was determined—and I made this clear in my statements in response to the topical question that I alluded to—that we wished to seek to secure for Scotland the intellectual property in the Palamys devices and other apparatus and equipment. That proved to be a more protracted process than we had hoped. That is very often the case in dealing with administrators for various technical and unavoidable reasons. We work closely with KPMG. I kept in constant contact with Alex Paterson of HIE who led the negotiations. We were closely involved at all points. Those negotiations were successfully concluded, like most. They were not particularly easy, but in response to Mr Chisholm I can say that, ultimately, there were no other bidders. I believe that that is an accurate description, although I have not seen confirmation in writing that from KPMG. I was advised that, although there were interested parties, as so often happens, that does not translate into actual bids of a realistic commercial value. Therefore, I think that answers some of the questions that Mr Chisholm's constituents have and perhaps some of them may be here in the gallery this evening, Presiding Officer, to hear responses to perfectly straight, reasonable, fair questions. The first thing that we had to do was to secure that. That was secured on the 19th of January, as I reported to Parliament around the 19th of January. The second, perhaps more important reason, is that we are setting up an extremely important new body. I wanted to make sure that it begins its life after we have worked with the industry, with several of the leaders in the industry, to ensure that it is set up on a proper footing, to ensure that it does not become a body that purely carries out desk-based research, to ensure that it is not a body that spends too much of its money, of its budget on running itself, to ensure that as much of its funding is designed to take forward the various challenges with which Palamys Aquamarine, Albatern and others have been grappling. Two of the constant themes that we had from the meetings and discussions, both Alex Paterson and his colleagues at HIE, were that almost all the players in the sector felt that there could have been perhaps in the past benefits from a more collaborative approach with regard to specific areas. I have mentioned power take-off as one. Secondly, we wanted to ensure that the principle is applied when we make the announcement that the West will, in its modus operandi, be guided very carefully by people with experience of the sector, of business, of the technology, and therefore we want it to be guided in the work that it does, the deployment of the funding that it has, by the people who know what they are talking about. I was determined that that should be the case and that that model should be applied when it is set up. I am conscious that there were a lot of questions and conclusions, Presiding Officer, that perhaps I have not answered. As I always say, my officials will look at the official report and if there are any particular further questions that I have not answered of fact, I will ensure that they are dealt with. If members wish to seek further information, of course, on any points that they feel I have not sufficiently answered in this debate, of course I will be happy to deal with all of them, especially since I think there is a confluence of objectives in this chamber. Let me conclude with the promise that this Government will do everything that we possibly can in every practical way to make the dream of wave energy a dream that has been converted almost into a reality of reliable, sufficient and steady stream of electricity such that it can become commercially capable of being developed. It will make that dream a reality. Scotland has some of the best potential wave resource in the world—more important than that in Emac, in Orkney, in Mr MacArthur's constituency and throughout the coast, especially of the highlands and islands. We have communities that are committed to the support of wave energy and we will do our utmost to ensure that Scotland realises its ambitions for wave energy and, within a matter of the next five to ten years, converts it into a reality in a world-leading role. Thank you. That concludes Liam MacArthur's debate on the wave energy sector in Scotland, and I now close this meeting of Parliament.