Chamber and committees

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.

GB Energy is not involved in the grid infrastructure. The only discussion that I have had around that is one that I mentioned earlier, in which I wanted to ensure that GB Energy projects would not be able to leapfrog organisations that are in the existing queue for a grid. You raise a very interesting point, Mr Stewart, and I will come back and speak to you about some of those things—at another session, maybe.

There are two elements to that. First, the issue in the bill that we want to bottom out is about consent for strategic decisions on GB Energy’s operations in Scotland—there should be a requirement for consent, not consultation. Secondly, there is the legislative consent for the bill. At the moment, I think that the bill is with the Lords. Once it has come through the Lords, we will see what the UK Government is putting forward by way of amendments to clause 5 and to clause 6, which I might come on to talk about, because that is another issue on which we have had discussions.

We will put in place our supplementary LCM as soon as we see those amendments. If they are in the shape that we hope they will be, that will be a very quick process, because we want to give you as much time as possible.

I do not think that I have worked more closely on anything with the UK Government than I have on the Grangemouth situation. I have also worked with partners in the community of Grangemouth, including the unions, representatives of the workforce, Petroineos, the local council leadership in the area, and the Grangemouth future industry board. I do not think that I have ever been involved in anything that has been so focused on a practical just transition. Both Governments have put substantial funding into project willow but, for us, project willow is not a study; it is a commercial opportunity, and we want to encourage investors to look at it seriously, with a view to the Grangemouth refinery site becoming sustainable, running into the future and bringing massive economic benefit to the country.

Yes.

My understanding is that the bill will be out of the Lords within the next couple of weeks, and there may be amendments made by the Lords. At that point, there will be amendments from the UK Government. As soon as the UK Government tables its amendments, that will effectively be the starting pistol being fired for us to look at those amendments and give our consent.

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.

Yes, and Siobhian Brown is leading on that. I will provide more detail on access to justice. In case I did not make this clear earlier, Ms Brown has introduced an exemption for court fees for Aarhus cases. That is in addition to the protective expenses order system, because that can restrict applicants’ liability in such cases. Under the PEO regime, the applicant’s liability in expenses is limited to £5,000, and the respondent’s liability to the applicant is limited to £30,000. The Scottish Civil Justice Council has undertaken a review of the protective expenses order regime and will be consulting on the proposal to extend PEO for certain relevant litigation in the sheriff court, too.

Those are some of the measures that Ms Brown has been actively working on in order to improve access to justice. That is separate from what she is doing in relation to her review of legal aid. That has already been done in relation to Aarhus cases. In the past couple of weeks, she has made public statements to say that she is now reviewing access to legal aid as well. That will weave in with her work on compliance with Aarhus.

The primary aim of the human rights bill was to embed a human rights culture in public bodies. Getting it right first time is better than having to take public bodies to court.

I come back to where Environmental Standards Scotland fits in. It works with public bodies to prevent a situation in which someone might feel that they have to go down a legal route. The most important thing is getting a result—an improvement in environmental standards. There should be proactive improvements in the work that Environmental Standards Scotland does in scrutinising how things are working—whether in Government, local authorities or other public bodies—but also a response to consistent issues in a particular area as a result of non-compliance with existing environmental law. It will go in and can issue improvement reports and compliance notices. That ability to prevent things getting to a legal situation is critical.

That is really for Parliament to decide. ESS is doing a strategic review, and it is not for the Government to dictate what its strategy should be or what its review should include because, as I said, it is completely independent of Government. It is answerable to Parliament and, indeed, to this committee.

If ESS comes forward with recommendations on expansion of its remit, the law under which to set them up would be the 2021 act. ESS has a lot of flexibility within that act in relation to its role. When ESS reports on its strategic review it will, I presume, bring that to the committee. Obviously, it will copy in ministers as well, but it does not report to ministers. I will be very interested to see what its strategic review includes and what direction it wants to move in.

If ESS wanted an independent review body, which it might suggest, I do not know whether it could fulfil that role itself. That would be up to ESS. Obviously, Parliament will scrutinise any proposal and come to a decision.

I do not have a date in front of me. Tim Ellis is showing me a bit of paper. I will have to go to Tim on this. The matter is very specific.