Energy Bill
Item 2 is discussion of the Energy Bill that the United Kingdom Parliament is considering. Mr Mather's officials are swapping places.
The committee will consider a legislative consent memorandum that has been lodged by John Swinney—LCM(S3)12.1. Again, we will take evidence from the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Jim Mather. He has been joined by Ross Loveridge, who is a senior energy policy adviser in the Scottish Government's enterprise, energy and tourism directorate; Norman MacLeod, who is a senior principal legal officer for the Government; and Bruce Stewart, who is a policy executive in the marine strategy branch of the marine directorate.
While those gentlemen settle themselves, I say in passing to Mr Mather that it would be helpful if he submitted any other evidence that he has on the energy technologies institute, although I am not asking for that today. The committee is keen to draw consideration of that to a conclusion before the summer. Obviously, the ball is in the minister's court. We are keen to hear his position on the institute to help us to reach a final understanding of it.
I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement on the Energy Bill.
Thank you for inviting me to answer your questions on the Scottish Government's legislative consent memorandum on the UK Energy Bill.
As members know, the bill includes the UK Government's proposals following the publication of its energy white paper in 2007, including proposals relating to gas importation and storage, carbon dioxide storage, nuclear power stations and changes to the renewables obligation. The Scottish Government has been in discussions with the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, John Hutton, and we have reached agreement with the UK Government on aspects of the bill that touch on devolved competence.
On nuclear power, the UK Government accepted our strong arguments on the decommissioning provisions being devolved. The provisions do not extend to Scotland. That approach was welcomed in the Scottish Parliament debate that took place on 17 January this year.
On the renewables obligation, existing powers are executively devolved. The bill will amend existing provisions to allow the introduction of banded support for different technologies. Those powers will be executively devolved by a new section 63 order.
On carbon dioxide storage, the bill provides a framework for licensing in the offshore area. The Scottish Government's view was that a common framework quickly achieved through the legislation would be best. Therefore, the bill extends to Scotland on a devolved matter in territorial waters. Scottish ministers will exercise powers from 0 to 12 miles, and the UK secretary of state will exercise powers from 12 to 200 miles. We will negotiate with the UK Government a memorandum of understanding that will ensure that Scottish ministers are consulted on all storage licences in the 12 to 200-mile zone, and ensure a common licensing regime that is simplified and straightforward for the industry. The LCM seeks the Scottish Parliament's consent only on the carbon dioxide provisions.
In summary, the LCM seeks the Scottish Parliament's approval to allow Westminster to legislate on its behalf to give Scottish ministers powers to regulate carbon storage from 0 to 12 miles offshore.
The Scottish Government believes that a single UK framework for carbon storage is not only in the best interests of the energy industry but is consistent with our belief in deregulation and simplified administration. Given the potential for geological stores to straddle the 12-mile boundary, it does not make sense to have two separate legal frameworks in Scottish waters.
As the committee will know, the bill's provisions on carbon storage deal with only one part of the carbon capture, transportation and storage chain that is crucial to the Scottish Government's ambitious climate change target to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. As some committee members heard two weeks ago at the joint meeting of the cross-party group on oil and gas and the cross-party group on science and technology, carbon capture and storage have the potential to reduce emissions by up to 90 per cent. I am sure that members will agree that that makes it imperative that we have the correct legal framework in place as soon as possible.
Currently, the storage of carbon dioxide under the sea is prohibited under European Union directives, the London convention and the OSPAR—Oslo and Paris—convention. In essence, the OSPAR commission manages the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic. In January, the EU issued a draft directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide, which is expected to be agreed by the end of this year. The UK Energy Bill implements the storage aspects of the new EU directive. The UK is also negotiating on the conventions that I have just mentioned. The carbon capture and transportation aspects of carbon capture and storage can be dealt with under existing UK and Scottish powers.
I am confident that the agreement that we have reached with the UK Government on the bill's carbon storage provisions is in the best interests of Scotland in meeting our climate change targets. I commend the LCM to members. I am happy to take questions.
Thank you, minister.
I am happy to be debating the legislative consent memorandum this morning. When we debated these matters in the chamber in January, the minister will recall that his position at the time was not to bring forward an LCM, albeit that members on our side of the chamber encouraged him to do so. I am glad that he has decided to do that. What happened to change your mind on the matter since January, minister? What justification can you give for changing your position? As I said, I welcome it, but if I recollect the debate correctly, I believe that ministers said that they were looking for a different outcome in respect of waters between 12 and 200 miles. Did I understand correctly what you said?
Where we are now is that we are keen to see a situation develop in which we clarify matters for the industry, give them a simplified basis on which to operate and encourage them to take advantage of the opportunity. We wanted neither to clutter the landscape with too many legal frameworks nor leave ourselves open to the charge that we were not making things as simple and straightforward as we should be.
We now have a regulatory review group, the members of which I listen to intently. I am keen to ensure that regulation in Scotland goes forward in a way that makes Scotland as competitive as possible. This is pragmatism.
If I understand the minister correctly, the outcome is that both Governments will consult both within and beyond the 12-mile limit.
That is indeed the case.
And that, therefore, when the regulations finally come forward, they will be introduced in identical form, albeit that they will be made in separate legislative forums.
Absolutely right.
At the risk of becoming party political, minister, is this not exactly the kind of complex area in which decluttering the landscape—as you are wont to put it—would be useful? If we are looking at changes to powers, would not this be a sensible area for change? The aim of the change would be to have control of it all—whether to 12 or 200 miles—under one authority. Surely the most appropriate authority would be the Scottish Government.
Do not feel that you have to answer that, minister.
The member describes the ultimate pragmatism that I prefer.
That is one way of putting it. I am not going to allow a political debate on that, or we will be here all morning. Are members content to recommend in a report to the Parliament that consent be granted to the UK Parliament to consider the bill, as set out in the draft legislative consent motion?
Members indicated agreement.
Are colleagues content for the convener, deputy convener and clerk to sort out a report in respect of that?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the minister.