Seòmar agus comataidhean

The main issue that I had to bottom out with UK Government ministers was the fact that, initially, Scottish Government ministers would be consulted only on the strategic priorities of GB Energy and would not be asked to give consent.

Given that much of the bill and the activity of GB Energy would be in devolved areas in which we have powers, we thought that it was particularly important that consent had to be given. It took us a wee while to go back and forth on that, but I am confident that we have reached a point at which the UK Government is satisfied that it should table such an amendment. I have not seen the amendments to the bill, as they have not been tabled, but should things go in the direction that I hope they will—I have had an exchange of letters with the relevant UK minister, Michael Shanks, which indicates that our concerns are being dealt with—we will be happy to give our consent.

We discussed that issue as part of our constructive engagement on the bill. There is now an understanding that it is important that we are asked to give consent, for two reasons. If we are asked to give consent, the committee will have the opportunity to scrutinise us on why we are giving—or are not giving—consent to certain things.

You rightly point out that we have the consenting powers associated with that. Our policy is well known.

I understand that, but I do want to answer Ms Lennon’s questions.

I have not had discussions specifically on the numbers that you have mentioned. Obviously, they have said that there is going to be employment at the levels that they have projected. Douglas Lumsden mentioned that, too. I think that that is a question for them. Have they overstated the amount of jobs associated with GB Energy?

Given that GB Energy’s priority will be the projects, it is quite difficult to put a number on the employment that will come from GB Energy. What were the 1,000 jobs? What were the 200 jobs? Are the 200 jobs associated with the operation of the company or are they associated with the projects? Forgive me, Mr Stewart, but those are questions that I have, too. I really hope that the UK Government takes the opportunity to come and speak to the committee about that kind of detail.

I want to make sure that a fair share of the investment funding for any technology that goes to GB Energy comes to Scotland, so that we do not reinvent the wheel when it comes to the vehicles that are used to give out that funding. We already have well-established funding streams that have done very well and are oversubscribed. To increase capacity, we need to make sure that the funding that is associated with GB Energy’s funding streams in that area is coming to Scotland.

No. I am glad to hear that the UK Government has been invited to the committee because that level of detail is for it to provide and those questions are for it to answer. There have been high-level announcements and statements about what it will mean in terms of jobs for the area, where the offices will be situated and so on. We were very pleased that Aberdeen was chosen as the headquarters, but what that means in reality in terms of jobs—forgive me for saying so—is a question for Minister Shanks, as are questions around how the priorities might take shape.

We looked at what was required in terms of the legislation around that; it is not something that we are able to do under the current devolution settlement.

The concerns that you have just outlined are the same as my and the Government’s initial concerns when the draft was put in front of us. That is why we have worked so hard to ask for a change to the wording in clause 5 and to get agreement in clause 6 that we will be involved in the consultation around the direction that is given to GB Energy.

I feel confident that the change from “consult” to “consent” will allow future proofing to happen. I am also heartened by the willingness of the chief executive officer, Juergen Maier, to engage with me and the First Minister very early on in his appointment, and to talk about working together. There is also the Secretary of State for Scotland. It will be good for both Governments to have a relationship where consent is in statute, because that will ensure that the Scottish Government is treated as an equal partner.

There is a recognition that the Scottish Government is well ahead—particularly with the work that we have done with Crown Estate Scotland on ScotWind and so on, our onshore wind sector deal, our hydrogen strategy and community energy with the community and rural energy scheme. We are not just an equal partner but—I hope—a source of advice on how GB Energy will best operate in Scotland. From speaking to Juergen Maier, I certainly get the feeling that that will be the case. I have also offered that expertise and discussion to ministers, throughout the process of creating GB Energy. That is why I want the amendment to include the word “consent”.

I do not think that there are any risks. I have the programme for government here, which says:

“Reviewing Crown Estate Scotland’s governance and operating model to ensure it optimises its unique role in value creation and growing sustainable wealth for Scotland through helping deliver the supply chain side of the offshore renewable energy expansion. This will benefit communities and mitigate against climate change and biodiversity loss.”

That will not necessarily need any legislative change; it is about governance, the operating model and working with Crown Estate Scotland in that area.

The situation with regard to giving borrowing powers is quite complex. We do not have the powers to give Crown Estate Scotland borrowing powers. If borrowing powers are given to the Crown Estate in England and Wales, we would need to have a discussion about what that meant for Crown Estate Scotland and whether it wanted to go down the same route.

We would prefer that any activity and funding associated with the Crown Estate also came to Scotland. That is what we are looking for in relation to parity. We do not want to lose any funding.

That is a good question. I think that carbon capture and storage will be a separate thing. I do not think that the committee will be surprised to hear me say that, in respect of carbon capture and storage, the GB Energy Bill is not the big-ticket item—that would be track status being given. We have been waiting for years now for track status to be given to the Acorn project, which is—I say this without any kind of bias—probably one of the most advanced propositions for carbon capture and storage. I do not think that GB Energy itself is going to provide the momentum—putting that project on the track 2 status will be the mechanism that will allow it to go ahead.

Again, the committee might want to get UK Government representatives in front of it and ask where they see their role with carbon capture and storage. My understanding, however, is that GB Energy is about energy generation rather than carbon capture and storage.

On hydro, however, you make a very good point. I personally believe that we could do an awful lot more on hydro in Scotland. Again, I do not know whether that would be in a GB Energy space or whether it would be more about looking at how hydro has been supported more generally by the UK Government. Hydro has perhaps not had the support more generally from the UK Government to enable it to flourish and grow in the way that it should have done. Whether that is for GB Energy to pursue, I do not know; I think that GB Energy will be more project based. If there is a role for GB Energy in projects to do with hydro, again, that is a question for the company itself. There is an awful lot more capacity in hydro in Scotland than we are already realising, so that may be an area that it might want to look at, but, again, that is a question for GB Energy.