Energy Bill
Item 3 is evidence on legislative consent memorandum LCM(S4)20.1, which relates to the United Kingdom Energy Bill. I welcome Fergus Ewing, Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism. He is joined by Katherine White, team leader, electricity market reform, and Mike McElhinney, head of electricity market reform, in the Scottish Government. I welcome you all. Minister, do you want to introduce the item?
Thank you, convener. For the record, and if this is in order, I have some remarks to make that will set out our position with some clarity—I am afraid that they are not brief.
I am grateful for the opportunity to address the committee in respect of the motion that was lodged by Mr Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, on 11 December 2012. As you know, the UK Energy Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 29 November 2012 and completed committee stage on 7 February.
The bill’s main purpose is to implement proposals for electricity market reform. It is fair to say that the proposals are crucial to Scotland’s future energy mix, to maintaining investor confidence and to developing our vast renewables potential and carbon capture and storage technology in Scotland.
We agree with the recommendation in the committee’s report on the achievability of the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets that EMR must deliver
“a new support regime that will have both durability and stability”.
If we are to maintain the considerable momentum in the renewables industry in Scotland, it is clear to us that EMR must provide the same degree of market certainty that the renewables obligation currently delivers. That is key.
I assure the committee that the Scottish Government is working closely with UK Government officials on the content of the bill to get the best outcome for Scotland’s electricity supply industry and Scottish consumers. We have made some progress towards that end. We have secured a statutory consultation role in a number of important areas and we have been working closely with the UK Government and National Grid in the analytical phase for the first delivery plan. I met John Hayes and National Grid in London during the February recess to discuss those matters, inter alia.
Some areas are too important. We want assurance that the right levels of support will be available for the technologies in relation to which Scotland has natural advantages. We need to see progress, to ensure that Scotland’s engagement in the EMR process is robust and meaningful and is clearly set out in legislation. We continue to discuss such issues with the UK Government before the bill is finalised.
Today, we are principally concerned with the provisions that fall within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament and with the legislative consent motion that is required to allow the UK Parliament to legislate on those matters. The elements of the Energy Bill that are the subject of the LCM relate to the introduction of a UK-wide emissions performance standard—EPS—to limit the amount of CO2 emitted by new fossil fuel power stations.
The provisions in the bill for which consent is sought are in clauses 42, 43 and 44, in chapter 8, and will impose a duty on operators of fossil fuel plant not to exceed an annual carbon dioxide emissions limit; provide for a suspension of the emissions limit in exceptional circumstances; and create a duty on the Scottish ministers to put in place an appropriate monitoring and enforcement regime for Scotland, which will be undertaken by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the environmental regulator.
The EPS will act as a regulatory backstop on the amount of carbon emissions that new fossil fuel power stations can emit, providing a clear signal that investment in new power stations must be consistent with our decarbonisation objectives, including the objective for all new coal-fired power stations to have a proportion of their capacity equipped with CCS.
Those provisions fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, in relation to environmental protection and emissions control; they also relate closely to reserved provisions in relation to electricity generation. On balance, the UK Energy Bill represents an appropriate and proportionate legislative vehicle to enable the provisions to apply across the UK, while acknowledging the Scottish ministers’ powers in the area.
We consulted separately on the matter last spring and received a range of responses. The balance of views called for a consistent regulatory approach across the GB market. That factor is important for investor certainty and, as we are committed to a single electricity market following independence, we are agreeing in this case to subscribe to the uniform application of the EPS across the UK.
The Scottish ministers will have a statutory consultation role in relation to the duty where it applies in Scotland and if the emissions duty is suspended. That will ensure that specific Scottish issues can be taken into account as part of the developing regime that will work across the UK.
At the currently proposed level, the EPS alone will not deliver our commitment to a largely decarbonised electricity generation sector, as prescribed in our recently announced target to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation to 50g of CO2 per kilowatt hour by 2030. That target should be seen in the context of our wider policies and powers, including our executively devolved powers under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, our policy on thermal generation with CCS, increased renewable generation and demand management. The principle of a consistent regulatory regime is our overriding objective, which must be used together with existing powers and policies to limit CO2 emissions.
In closing, I know that there is considerable interest in the outcomes of the Energy Bill. I intend to bring this issue and the wider EMR proposals back to the chamber—with the agreement of the relevant parliamentary authorities—before the summer recess. That will allow the Scottish Parliament fully to consider the impact of the proposals before the final amending stage of the bill. As minister, I invite the committee to consider the relevant provisions of the UK Energy Bill relating to an EPS. However, in view of the on-going negotiations that I have sought to outline and my intention to secure an opportunity for the whole Parliament to discuss the bill proposals, the committee may wish to defer a final decision on the LCM until discussions between the UK and Scottish Governments have had the opportunity to progress further. I have already made the convener and committee members aware of that proposal.
In the meantime, along with Katherine White and Mike McElhinney, I am happy to seek to answer members’ questions.
Minister, thank you for that and also for your letter, which is very helpful, as it means that the committee is not under the same time pressure for agreeing the terms of the LCM. It is useful to have the extra time in hand.
Before we come to questions from members, let me say two things. First, we are very short of time this morning. Secondly, our discussion is not about the Energy Bill generally but is very much focused on the terms of the draft motion and the specific proposals contained therein. If members could restrict themselves to addressing those points rather than wider points on the Energy Bill, that would be helpful.
Let me start the questioning. By coincidence—a very timely coincidence—we have just had an evidence session with Scottish Power and SSE in which this very point came up for discussion. Both power companies pointed out that, because of the potential cost, there may in fact be no business case for new combined cycle gas turbines if they are required to attach CCS. Certainly, if there were more stringent emissions standards in Scotland, any future investment in new CCGT plant would likely be made south of the border, which would mean that Scotland would lose out on investment and jobs. Has that been a factor in arriving at your decision?
We obviously bore that factor in mind, along with many others. As I mentioned, when we were consulting on the electricity generation policy statement in March last year, we received a wide range of views, including from SSE and Scottish Power, on the desirability of having a UK-wide target. Obviously, that was repeated in the evidence that the committee has just heard, the tail-end of which I caught. That is one reason why it makes sense that setting the level of EPS at 450g per kilowatt hour should be accepted, as that would ensure that there is, if you like, a broad equivalence within the UK.
Of course, there will be no gas-fired power stations at the moment, because the power companies do not know what the capacity payments will be, because there are no figures and no rules available on that. As a result, sadly, there is an investment hiatus and there is a risk of leakage of investment to other countries. Again, that was made clear in evidence to the UK Parliament by Keith Anderson and Ian Marchant in July last year, when they gave evidence on these matters.
Another factor is that Cockenzie and Longannet, if they were being considered for future investment in gas-fired thermal stations, have the potential advantage of already having the infrastructure that connects them to the grid. In that respect, Cockenzie and Longannet have in-built advantages over greenfield sites. Another factor is that, as I understand it, the transmission charges are generally higher in Scotland than in England, so sadly there has not actually been a level playing field for Scotland under UK policy for some time. I understand that that may be put right if the project transmit proposals eventually become law—which would be a step forward for the mainland, but not for the islands, which is another matter.
The primary answer to your question is that we recognise the broad concerns of the industry about having a reasonable level playing field. There will always be a slight tilt for various factors, as I have mentioned, but we recognise that, and that is one of the reasons behind our decision to go with a single EPS level throughout the UK.
Why has the Scottish Government decided to pass the powers for devising the emissions performance standard to the UK Government in the legislative consent memorandum?
I have sought to work in partnership with the UK Government on the matter, which I think is important. I have had reasonable relations with the various ministers with whom I have dealt and am dealing. As I mentioned, most recently I had a meeting with John Hayes during the February recess; I had several meetings with Charles Hendry before him, and several with Ed Davey.
It is broadly sensible to work in partnership. Why is that? Scotland is a net exporter of electricity to England, and the scale of that will massively increase. I think that the export capacity is going to quadruple to about 8GW by 2014, partly as a result of the investment in the grid about which you heard towards the end of the previous evidence session.
We wish to be as close as possible to being a partner under the devolved arrangements. We wish to have a role and an ability to influence and to be a part of decisions regarding, for example, contracts for difference and strike prices, which will be the meat and potatoes of EMR. We do not know what those are at the moment. We need to know that the capacity payments and strike prices will be sufficient to incentivise renewables and to make CCS work, at long last.
Those things need to be done with a grid system that operates across the mainland. Scotland’s advantages have been recognised through the fast-tracking of grid approval to a value of £7 billion. To take advantage of that decision, it makes sense to operate on a share basis. A consistent approach is very important for investor certainty—I cannot overemphasise the importance of having a system that attracts the necessary investment for CCS and renewables.
At the moment, I am afraid, we are not quite there, and we need a bit more certainty from the UK end of the partnership, it is reasonable to say. However, we will have a statutory consultation role in relation to the application of the emissions duty, and we will have a responsibility to put in place monitoring and enforcement arrangements, which will ensure that any specific Scottish issue can be taken into account within the developing regime across the UK.
Mike McElhinney (Scottish Government)
Support for the UK-wide EPS level is contingent on securing concessions from parts of the electricity market reform process, as ministers have made clear from the outset. As we are still in negotiations, the suggestion is that it is becoming difficult to separate that out from a wider consideration of some other points of detail around electricity market reform.
Those points of detail will be quite important, for a number of reasons. Earlier, convener, you spoke about incentivisation for CCS. There will be a strike price for CCS, which may well mitigate the impact of other parts of the market framework for CCS in Scotland. We do not have that line of sight yet. We are working very hard with our colleagues at UK level, who are doing some proactive work on that, and we are in there, but we are not yet at the stage in the negotiations of having the necessary assurance and confidence to transition into proposals in the way that we would perhaps like.
With respect, neither of those replies answered my question, which was about why we are transferring those EPS powers to the UK Government. Could we not retain the powers and do all of it?
12:00
If the policy recognises that the market should operate across the UK, logically we need to work in partnership for all elements That would apply post independence as it applies now. That is a matter of practicality and common sense, and we must recognise that. That is what the industry wants.
I do not know whether Rhoda Grant is proposing some independent Scotland option in which we disengage from the national grid, but I should clarify that, as Mike McElhinney has quite rightly suggested, although the areas where we think progress needs to be made are details of the bill, they are still fundamentally important. I do not want to leave any impression that these matters are trivial; for example, we need to get a result for the islands from the intergovernmental working group on transmission charges and do not feel that it would be prudent to cede power until we know that the islands are going to take part in renewable policies and not be excluded from them. I know—or at least expect—that Rhoda Grant would support that line of argument.
That is all well and good, minister, but it does not really answer my question. Let me give you an example: given that our grid decarbonisation target is different from that for the rest of the UK, it seems to me strange that we are giving up powers over emissions performance standards to the UK. There is no reason why we cannot retain those powers, pin them to the UK’s approach and work collectively on the matter. I totally agree that we need to work collectively, but I do not really get the policy of having different targets in one area but then giving up powers to set targets in a similar area.
Let me try a slightly different answer in the hope that it will curry more favour with Rhoda Grant.
I am just looking for an answer, minister.
The decarbonisation target is one measure but the fact is that EPS alone will not deliver it. Other important elements, levers and means of achieving it include increased interconnection and transmission upgrades capable of supporting the projected growth in renewables. At the moment, too many developments are constrained or simply cannot get on to the grid. Once they can get on to the grid through, for example, the investment in the south of Scotland that we have heard about—including, I should add, investment in training people in the grid in Dumfries and in renewables in Ayr—more renewables can be exported to England.
The second extra lever in achieving our decarbonisation target is the demonstration of commercial-scale CCS in Scotland and the third is, of course, demand management. CCS is extremely important. Although I cannot predict or prejudge any planning application that might fall to local authorities for a decision, there are two potentially exciting applications—Summit Power’s proposed development at Grangemouth and a joint venture between SSE and Shell at Peterhead—that I believe have reached the final stage of the CCS commercialisation programme, which we support. To be fair to the UK Government, I should say that it, too, supports CCS and the huge supply chain advantages that will arise if we make it a reality.
It is reasonable to point out that this is not just about setting a target or figure but about putting in place implementation measures. As a result, we need more renewables and a grid that enables such a move; more CCS; and demand management measures to reduce the amount of energy that we waste. We will all recognise, I think, that those three key measures will be sine qua nons in achieving our target and are areas in which our objectives are broadly consonant with those of the UK Government.
That does not really answer the question of why we are giving up the lever that I mentioned, but I will move on. Given that, as we have been told, the performance standards have been set so high that they will do nothing to encourage CCS, what steps is the Scottish Government taking to encourage it?
We support the commercialisation programme, which represents £1 billion of capital funding for commercial-scale CCS and is targeted specifically at reducing its cost to ensure that it can be commercially deployed by 2020. The problem is that CCS technology has not really been applied in the UK or Europe at the kind of commercial scale that the industry believes is necessary for it to be able to submit applications for developments that reduce costs and make CCS capable of being commercially deployed from 2020 onwards.
The other facet that will support CCS is contracts for difference. That will be key. The £1 billion could be divided up in several ways and we are not sure what the outcome is going to be, although I discussed the matter with John Hayes last week and we hope that a decision is imminent. For CCS to be made to work, it will require CFD and a strike price, and that will have to be sufficient to merit a commercial decision by the two potential operators that I mentioned, or by any others who propose CCS schemes. Otherwise, it will not happen. Mike McElhinney is an expert on this, so he will come in now.
That brings us back to the process of negotiation with the UK Government. The key determinants in the discussion will be the strike prices that are set for CCS, how they are framed, how enduring they are and how much confidence they give developers who want to develop and deploy CCS that some of the potential market disadvantages or challenges of doing so will be edged out. We will not see the indicative strike prices until April or May this year. We are working to get detail on them to ensure that they are robust and defensible, but we are not quite there yet.
As we said earlier, the key policy approach is to work with the grain of the proposals. If we accept the outcomes of the consultation on the EPS and go for a UK-wide application of it, we will look at how that works across different parts of the UK. Other parts of the process should also be designed in such a way that we have equal influence over them, for example strike price setting and the strategic policy statement for Ofgem that is covered elsewhere in this bill, which is wide ranging and significant.
As in any other discussion between Governments, there is an opportunity to deploy powers in one way in one part and to deploy them differently or engage differently in the joint exercise of functions in another part. The underlying rationale for doing that is that we engage with all parts of the market and we hear that there is an underlying need to deliver stability and on-going confidence in the market. There has been much discussion around the Energy Bill proposals about an investment hiatus and a lack of investor confidence. We believe that it is incumbent on us to try to mitigate that as far as possible by working with the grain of the proposals. That is why we are so keen to continue the negotiations with the UK Government to try to deliver outcomes that work for both Scottish Government energy policy and UK energy policy.
Okay. In view of the time, I need to bring in other members. I sometimes wonder whether I have entered a parallel universe in which the nationalist minister is proposing the ceding of powers to Westminster and his Labour Opposition is opposing him, but anyway—
I am questioning him. [Laughter.]
We are clear that the Scottish Government does not intend to set a Scottish EPS and we have confirmed that the LCM recognises that the EPS on its own will not deliver decarbonised electricity generation. We have also heard about the other measures that the Government intends to pursue to limit CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power stations. Will the final electricity generation statement include additional measures that add up to meet the decarbonisation targets?
Sorry. I do not understand what you mean.
Given the recognition in the LCM that the EPS on its own will not deliver the Government’s commitment to a largely decarbonised sector, do you intend that the final electricity generation policy statement will include additional measures that add up to our meeting that decarbonisation commitment?
The purpose of the EGPS is to set out how Scotland’s requirements for electricity supply will be met and to demonstrate that we can achieve our target, but also to show from which sources it will be met. A variety of sources is needed for us to keep the lights on. There are many good reasons why we need a mixture of sources such as renewables and—certainly at present—thermal generation back-ups. However, it is not the purpose of the EGPS to provide all the explanations. Its purpose is to show how, by 2020, electricity needs will be met through a policy that recognises that, when it comes to electricity supply, as Churchill once said, the priority is “variety and variety alone.”
That is the purpose of the EGPS. The purpose is not really to be an all-encompassing policy document and to set out what I have just said, which is that we also need great improvements in renewables capacity and to demonstrate CCS on a commercial scale.
I hope that the Greens support CCS, but I am not quite sure. Perhaps Alison Johnstone could keep me right on that point.
We would certainly welcome further investment. As we heard from our earlier witnesses, there are still serious concerns about CCS and we need to see a live project that shows us the technology’s potential.
Can I ask how SEPA will monitor and enforce the emissions limit and what the costs of that might be for it?
You can ask, but I am afraid that the answer will have to come from SEPA, because I could not competently speak on its behalf.
To return to CCS for the moment, convener, the matter is serious. When I attended the Council of Ministers in Brussels with the UK delegation in November 2011, the leader of the International Energy Authority made a statement to the assembled ministers from all European Union states basically saying that, without CCS, European emissions targets could not be achieved.
Let us step back for a moment and think about that. How can carbon emissions be reduced unless carbon-emitting power stations cease to emit carbon or massively reduce their carbon emissions? How can it be done? It is blindingly obvious, is it not? Therefore, the longer we wait in the UK for CCS to be tried out, the less prospect there is of achieving targets—an objective that, I think, is shared by all parties.
As Alison Johnstone fairly says, CCS needs to be tried out and demonstrated, but it seems to me to be a sine qua non of green policies as I understand them.
Katherine White (Scottish Government)
I could answer some of the points on SEPA in relation to the LCM, if that would be helpful.
We have talked about part of the LCM giving consent to the UK-wide application of the EPS, but the second part of it concerns additional powers that the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament would have in relation to setting the monitoring and enforcement regime for the EPS. We would develop that; there would be a secondary legislative process under the UK Energy Bill to develop the monitoring and enforcement regime.
We have talked to SEPA about that several times and are meeting again tomorrow to talk about the development of the EPS, what SEPA’s role in that will be and how to design the regulations to make them work for SEPA. The timeframe for developing those regulations will be into 2014.
The costs have been estimated by the UK Government. We have not done any cost exercises with SEPA, but the principle will be that SEPA will be able to recover the costs of running the monitoring regime from the power companies. The costs should be quite low, because the data that will be required will already be received as part of the EU emissions trading scheme monitoring.
Will SEPA be able to provide public information on the efficiency of the plants?
I assume that it will to the extent that it does already. I am not sure exactly what it will report on in terms of efficiency, but there will be a range of reporting mechanisms and data collection. We can discuss that later if that would be helpful.
Minister, for management purposes will you clarify that you need to be away at quarter past 12? Is that right? Other members want to come in.
I am quite happy. I have lunch in the diary for 12.15, but I am sure that that can be postponed.
We need to be out of this room by 12.30 so, if it is all right for you, we will run on for another 15 minutes, because other members want to come in.
I have a follow-up question to your response to Alison Johnstone on CCS. Given everything that you have said about the centrality of CCS to meeting our targets, what will we do if the approach does not work?
12:15
With respect, convener, neither of us is an expert in this area. However, I speak to people like Mike Farley of Doosan Power Systems and Graeme Sweeney, formerly of Shell, who head up the carbon capture and storage sub-group of the Scottish energy advisory board. I co-chair the sub-group and have attended several of its meetings, so it has been impossible for me to avoid acquiring some knowledge of the topic over tens of hours of meetings on it. There is no doubt that the technology can work; it is the commercial application of it that needs to be pursued. I do not think that there is any doubt that it can be achieved technically.
The value of the process is enormous. We have asked the UK Government to pursue an industrial strategy to demonstrate the value to the supply chain of CCS. I think that the conventional view is that opportunities for businesses in the UK in the supply chain for CCS are very substantial and strong, given the engineering excellence of businesses north and south of the border. I hope that I am not overstating the case, but I think that it is fair to say that the technology exists but has not yet been put into practice sufficiently. Is that fair, Mike?
We have other potential commercial and research and development advantages in Scotland. We have some of the best CCS storage sites in Europe, extremely strong R and D capacity in Scottish universities and colleges, and extremely strong industrial capability in the offshore oil and gas sector. So, if CCS is going to work anywhere, it will be in Scotland.
But you are still saying “if”, which is my concern. The fact that the UK Government is going to do a trial of CCS suggests that it is not a done deal. Anyway, we will leave that hanging. Marco Biagi has a question.
I am putting on my pedant’s hat in order to clarify something for the record. I wonder whether you can confirm that the legislative consent memorandum is a consent to legislate for one bill rather than, as it perhaps has been described thus far, a re-reservation of the power to set an EPS. Rather than handing back an EPS to the UK Government, are we not simply consenting to the passing of this particular EPS.
It is even less than that, because the consent is to just three clauses of the bill and not the whole bill, so it has limited application in that regard. However, basically, the answer to your question is yes.
The alternative seems to be the unspoken proposition among some members of a unilaterally lower EPS in Scotland. We heard from one of the power companies earlier that the only implication of that would be that plants would be built in England. I have looked at some reports that project an entirely non-thermal generation future in Scotland, which project increased imports from England. I presume that they too model the plants being built in England. Do you agree that the likely outcome of a unilaterally lower EPS in Scotland is that the same plants would be built, but they would be built somewhere else, and that we would not assist the environment overall?
That is certainly a possibility; there is a risk that that is what might occur. However, the 2030 decarbonisation target that we have set is an essential means of giving confidence to a number of important sectors, including offshore wind. There is great worry that the lack of a matched target from the UK Government is not providing the confidence that the sector requires.
The committee might be interested to look at the Cambridge Econometrics report that considers offshore wind versus gas and studies the pros and cons economically and otherwise. The report’s conclusion is that if there were to be the entirely supportive approach that we are urging from the UK Government, UK gross domestic product could grow by nearly 1 per cent by 2030.
Why is that? At the moment, the UK Government is supporting offshore wind and other renewable sources of energy, but it will do so only to 2020 and until the £7 billion runs out. If you are a turbine manufacturer who is looking to locate in Scotland—several are—you want to know that there is a business beyond 2020 and that there will be support for your business in the UK after the current round is, as it were, exhausted and applications proceed.
On the wider issues, beyond the scope of the LCM, which it is inevitable that we will be considering, I recommend to the committee the Cambridge Econometrics report, which is an interesting study of the huge benefits that would accrue to Scotland and the UK if we pursue what I would call a whole-hearted approach to incentivising appropriately the offshore wind sector in particular.
Margaret McDougall would like to ask a question. I ask for brevity.
I will be brief, as I am not very knowledgeable in this field.
SEPA is already working with the Scottish Government on the better regulation bill. How closely are you going to match that with the LCM?
That has been part of our discussions with SEPA and we will pick the matter up again tomorrow. Unfortunately, given the timing—with this bill coming in a bit later than the review associated with the better regulation bill—we will align SEPA’s functions, if they are revised or refreshed, with the EPS. However, SEPA is aware of the EPS provisions coming in. We have done our best so far and we will keep it on the radar.
You are doing that so there is no duplication of work.
Exactly.
I am sure that SEPA will monitor, enforce limits and report regularly. Do we exchange information with the Westminster Government in relation to plants outwith Scotland? How do we ensure that the same rigorous level of monitoring and enforcement is happening elsewhere?
The monitoring framework will operate under the EPS directive. The information is collected by SEPA and goes into a UK-wide depository of data. The Environment Agency in England and Wales performs the same function down south as SEPA does in Scotland. The framework is strict, so I do not believe that there will be any inconsistencies between the regimes.
I hope that you are right, but I got a terrible feeling of panic when I watched the select committee considering the Energy Bill—panic with a small P at this stage, perhaps. The idea that we will be the only ones who are applying rigorous monitoring of the situation worries me.
The EPS concerns new plants. Probably a relatively small number of plants will be monitored.
The point about ensuring the consistency of the measures across the piece is important. We are having a discussion with our UK counterparts about how we can build a future-proof process, which will allow the Governments of Scotland and the UK to assure themselves that the application across the GB market as a whole is equitable, transparent, open and robust so that, if there are areas in which we have policy differences, we have a space within Government to have a discussion about them. The last thing that a sector such as the energy sector wants, given that it works to relatively long investment timescales, is for that sort of discussion to happen in a confrontational way.
It is incumbent on us to work with the grain of the proposals in order to deliver stability in the future market. Ensuring consistency of EPS monitoring across the GB system will be as important as ensuring that the capacity market works across the GB system and that the strike prices are set appropriately across the GB system. Also important is the fact that the National Grid will have a key role in controlling the future strike prices, and we need to ensure that no conflicts of interest emerge in the way in which the National Grid acts.
The market will be regulated in a different way from the way in which it is currently regulated. There are lots of opportunities for obfuscation and lack of transparency to creep in. We want to get to a place with the UK Government in which we have a future-proof process through a statutory presence in the bill, which is strengthened through a joint memorandum of understanding or a mechanism of joint working between Governments, so that we lock each other into a set of behaviours and ensure that we are working in a way that helps our mutual interests.
I thank the minister and his officials for coming along. Because of the timescale that the minister referred to earlier, we do not need to agree today on our report on the LCM or make a recommendation on it.
12:25
Meeting suspended.
13:03
On resuming—