Chamber and committees

Yes. There are those examples, but there are other examples as well.

Given the maturity of the sector in Scotland with regard to renewable energy and, in particular, community energy, it is important that we are able to work as a helpful partner. We have already done quite a lot of the things that are being tabled, which are not as mature in other parts of the UK. It comes back to the point about not reinventing the wheel. We already have organisations, strategies and priorities here.

I will give another example. It was in my mind that I did not want a situation in which GB Energy projects would be able to leapfrog any commercial projects in getting grid connection. I asked about that very early on, because we have organisations that are waiting for grid connection, which is the major investment driver for projects that are already under way. I was given the assurance that that would not happen. I want developments to have parity. That is another practical example.

On the types of energies that are happening in Scotland, some areas, for example wave and tidal, are quite nascent technologies. I see GB Energy potentially helping the Scottish Government to close the gaps in nascent technologies that need Government support as they come to commercial fruition.

I do not think anyone is saying that there are not enough wind opportunities in Scotland. We have the commercial round of ScotWind and we have onshore wind. However, in wave and tidal, which are still at an early stage—not in technology terms, because the technology is proven, but in commercial and scaling—there is a real opportunity for Scotland to concentrate on areas that we would expect a public body to lift up and assist to reach commercial maturity, in the way that wind has been assisted.

For me, the notion of consent is important in that equal partner relationship. It is a good thing for the UK Government to have our consent. Scotland is so far ahead in the renewables sector and in the work that the Scottish Government has done that we know where the gaps are and where we need added value. We can therefore work as an equal partner in helping GB Energy to set out its strategic priorities when it is operating in Scotland.

I am being careful, because I do not want to pre-empt anything. It is important that we see the wording of the amendments before we can say that we are absolutely satisfied.

As Mr Matheson will know intricately, Scottish Government ministers have powers to consent to developments of all types in the Crown estate, the sea bed and the landmass of Scotland. If we were to merely be consulted on things that were happening with GB Energy, that would take away from that power. A requirement for consent would dovetail with the consents that come to us.

The issue is really important when it comes to the strategic goals of GB Energy. Initially, when GB Energy was floated as an idea before the election, we all asked about what it would be. I am keen that we are an equal partner in the strategic actions that GB Energy takes. It is not there as a competitor to other operations; it must add to what we already have in Scotland. Having “consent” instead of “consult” would mean that, whatever those strategic priorities end up being, we would be consenting to them.

As the company develops, I want to see those strategic priorities provide additionality to what is already in the energy sector in Scotland and increase capacity in areas where required. For example, I am keen that whatever GB Energy is doing in the community energy space does not reinvent the wheel. We already have Local Energy Scotland, which is an organisation that was set up by the Scottish Government. I do not want to see another body—it would be confusing for the public and I do not think that there is any need for it. I was able to discuss with Michael Shanks how we could work together so that, if we already have vehicles in Scotland for activity that GB Energy is carrying out, we would be able to use those organisations and add the funding to their capacity, rather than have separate entities set up and badged with GB Energy. Those are a couple of examples.

If the strategic priorities require our consent, it means that, as it develops—I do not think that GB Energy is fully developed yet, but that is the point—we have the proving part in place such that, whatever direction it goes in, it must be with the consent of the Scottish ministers. It is very early days in relation to what GB Energy will achieve.

That is effectively what I mean by future proofing. GB Energy will be a publicly owned company. It has highlighted its five strategic priorities, but they are very wide, and we want to give our consent to them as they evolve.

Clause 6 enables the secretary of state to give direction to GB Energy. At the moment, clause 6 says that the secretary of state should consult GB Energy and

“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

We have asked for an assurance that the Scottish Government will be specifically included in that list, so that is another area where we have reached agreement.

No. I wrote to Minister Shanks on 16 December, and we have sought agreement from the UK Government on the wording of clause 6. Discussions on that are still taking place but are very positive. At the moment, clause 5 is pretty much nailed down; we are still in discussion on clause 6, but I am hopeful.

The Crown Estate in Scotland is a separate legal entity, so, as you know very well, Mr Ruskell, there would be a separate bill associated with that. The UK Government is looking to modernise the Crown Estate in England and Wales so that it can be in a position to act, I imagine, more like the Scottish Crown Estate. The UK Government has presumably looked at what we have done with ScotWind in that respect, and at what the Crown Estate in England and Wales needs.

My understanding is that the Deputy First Minister has been negotiating with the UK Government on the Crown Estate Bill, and the Crown Estate has asked us to ensure that there is parity. However, we need to look very carefully at what ends up being in the Crown Estate Bill for England and Wales in terms of borrowing powers, because that would have implications for the limit on our borrowing powers. The Deputy First Minister is working on that.

We always look to see whether the Crown Estate legislation in Scotland is fit for purpose, and we review the governance and the operating model to make sure that it is fit for purpose as things progress. We optimise that role in value creation.

At the moment, our view is that we should keep an eye on the legislation on the Crown Estate in England and Wales and see if there is anything in that bill that we would like to adopt when we look to our legislation, but at the moment, we do not know. I think that it is getting a reading tomorrow—is that right? It is definitely upcoming. The Deputy First Minister is leading on that.

In the summer, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and I signed a joint vision statement, which is in the public domain, specifically about engagement with Scottish public bodies. Work has also been done by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on working with Scottish bodies. It does not want to be in a situation where, going back to what Mr Matheson said, anything butts up against any of the priorities or processes of Crown Estate Scotland or SNIB, for example.

The Crown Estate Bill for England and Wales is currently going through the UK Parliament. We passed our own legislation for Scotland—the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019—about five years ago, so our Crown Estate is a separate entity, but we would expect that GB Energy will be working with it. We are also keen to make progress on ensuring that there is parity between the Crown Estate in Scotland and the Crown Estate in England in their relationships with GB Energy.

The recognition that GB Energy will interact with Scottish public bodies, and that we will be kept aware of what those interactions are, was set out in the vision statement.

That has not been mentioned in my discussions. Again, I think that CCUS is separate; I have not had those discussions about CCUS. My discussions have been around the priorities that have been laid out, which are about energy generation.

I am glad that you have brought up that point, however, because it gives me the opportunity to say yet again, on record, that carbon capture, utilisation and storage in Scotland has huge potential but we need that track status. CCUS is another real area of economic growth. In addition, it has always been said in all the reports that have come from the UK Climate Change Committee that CCUS is a fundamental part of helping us to get to net zero.

I had a meeting on that with the Scottish Trades Union Congress and relevant union heads in St Andrew’s house—I think it might have been in July or August. They wanted to feed their thoughts into the draft energy strategy and just transition plan in person, and they also made those points to me. The issue will sit more within the just transition plan space.

Again, I am not going to pre-empt what will be in the plan when it is launched. Given what I have just said to Mark Ruskell, the matter has been looked at, particularly in relation to the energy strategy, given what has been happening in the UK space, not just with policy but with some of the issues that have been brought up and decisions that have been made around legal proceedings, if I can put it that way. All I can say to Ms Lennon is that we engage with the unions all the time on the matter, and I had that specific meeting with them to go through some of the issues that she mentioned.

I had a meeting yesterday with the secretary of state and representatives from Petroineos. The company is going into stage 2 of its consultations with the workforce. It is starting to have one-to-one meetings with members of the workforce, particularly those that it has not been able to redeploy.

I have asked for more detail from the company on the workforce that it is retaining for the import terminal, the shutdown of the refinery and the processes that are associated with that shutdown. I have also asked for information on people who have other employment, whether in other parts of the Grangemouth industrial complex or elsewhere. Petroineos said that it would try to provide that for me, because it is important that we know what is going on there.

I am also due to have a review of the study that has been done. I refer to project willow, which is looking at the various commercial opportunities for the Grangemouth site. It is far advanced. The secretary of state had his discussion with Ernst & Young on that before Christmas. Mine is due next week, so I will be able to have a lot more discussion about it. Once that study is published, it is our aim to work with the UK Government, Petroineos and any potential investors that we have in the UK and Scotland on some of the opportunities that there will be for that site.

Some of those opportunities are exciting. I look forward to hearing more about the detail of project willow. It says to me that there are, initially, four or five particular streams of opportunity for what that site could become that could be really exciting for Scotland, the rest of the UK and the workforce at Grangemouth.