Chamber and committees

You have rightly mentioned several times the issue of resourcing and the need for what would presumably be extra resources, or the repurposing of current staffing resources, in order to produce the plans. What are the Scottish Government’s projections of the cost to local authorities of that extra resourcing? Do you expect the Scottish Government to support that resourcing? If so, will that support cover the whole process or just a part of it?

I will direct my questions to Ross Dornan. A matter arises from Keith Anderson’s useful answer around profits. Many of your members reported large profits this year, prompting some to call for a windfall tax. Earlier, Dan Alchin said that we need to accelerate the transition to renewables. From my visits to many of your members, I am aware that they are investing huge sums not only in North Sea production, which, of course, positively impacts on jobs and energy security, but, crucially, in research, development and the transition to renewables and green jobs.

I have two questions, the first of which arises from Keith Anderson’s answer. Do record profits for your members mean record dividends to the shareholders? Secondly, what impact does talk of a windfall tax and/or negative public relations, or, indeed bringing in a windfall tax, have on companies’ and investors’ willingness to invest in the basin, in renewables development and in what you called earlier a “fair, managed transition” to a better energy mix?

Good morning. My questions relate to some of the points that the convener raised. Article 5 of the instrument suggests that the Scottish Government will provide guidance to local authorities to assist them in developing their plans. When does the Scottish Government expect to publish that guidance? From your discussions with the likes of COSLA, how long do you anticipate that local authorities will need between publication of the guidance and production of the plans? How will you ensure that public bodies have sufficient time to prepare their final plans after the publication of that guidance?

I will stick with you, Tim, for my final question. Thank you for that interesting answer, in which you talked about the next five years on nuclear. You may not be able to answer the question, in which case, if any of the other panellists can do so, I would be grateful.

In January, I asked the Scottish Government what impact closing Hunterston B and Torness would have on consumer energy bills. The Scottish Government was unable to tell me, because apparently it has not modelled that. I went on to ask what the price is of electricity generated by Hunterston B and Torness, in an attempt to reverse engineer the answer. However, again, the Scottish Government does not know the answer to that, which I find rather surprising. Do you have that data, or could any of the other panel members source it? In any event, can you theorise what impact shutting those two generation stations in Scotland might have on consumer energy bills?

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I point out that I was quoting figures from the Scottish Parliament information centre blog “Energy price crisis—impacts and remedies in Scotland”.

My second question is for Tim Lord. Again according to SPICe, one of the key drivers of the recent increase in the wholesale price of gas was

“a relatively windless summer in 2021”,

which

“made it difficult to generate wind energy”.

Tim Lord said earlier that we need another reliable way to satisfy demand, and Dr Lowes referred to the National Grid’s “Future Energy Scenarios”, which specifically suggests that nuclear might be a significant part of our journey to net zero. What is your view, Tim? Is nuclear generation that reliable source? What impact could new nuclear have on the price for consumers if it can provide a reliable baseload?

Does either of the other two witnesses have anything to say on that? I appreciate that it is a slightly niche question.

I can see that Dr Hannon wants to come in.

Good morning, panel. I will direct my first question to Dr Lowes. I was quite surprised to hear you say that North Sea gas might run out by 2035. I presume that that is a reference to the North Sea Transition Authority’s discussion of investment rather than reserves. I wonder if you would clarify that, before we set any hares running.

On that point, gas currently generates about 36 per cent of UK energy and, as I understand it, imported gas is the last unit bought to satisfy demand. That contributes to the overall price. Imported liquefied natural gas, for example from Qatar, has two to three times the carbon footprint of gas that is locally generated. Does it therefore stand to reason that one way to reduce energy prices and push us on the journey to net zero, while demand exists, is to ensure more domestic gas?

I am grateful to all the witnesses.

I have one final thing to raise, convener, if I may. It is something that my friend Monica Lennon brought up earlier that really troubles me. Mr Hebblethwaite, you accept that you wilfully, consciously, and knowingly broke the law. You offended against UK employment law, a law that Parliament felt to be so important that it attached a protective award to it to mandate compliance. Does that not trouble you, as a company director, and make you question whether you are truly a fit and proper person and are discharging fiduciary duties to your company if you are content simply to break one of the strongest laws that Parliament has put in place?

On a point of clarification, I am not suggesting that you are being very generous.

It is interesting that a two-year payback period leads to the conclusion that you cannot carry out the consultation required by statute, but I will let others pick up that point.

I will move on to an issue that is interesting from the point of view of various parties. In 2019 and 2020, P&O registered losses of around £130 million, and the suggestion is that there will be a further £131 million loss in 2021, for which DP World has offered a facility of £100 million. That begs the question, how certain are you that P&O is good for the £36 million settlement and the agency fees? Have you given the agencies guarantees? They may feel that they are taking a financial risk by doing business with a company that you described earlier as “unviable” and that chooses to ignore the law of the land if a bit of money is thrown around.