Official Report 1069KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16346, in the name of Alasdair Allan, on a legislative consent motion on the Great British Energy Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.
17:01
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to debate the motion to provide legislative consent to the UK Government’s Great British Energy Bill. I look forward to the discussion ahead.
After extensive engagement with the UK Government on certain clauses, we now propose that the Scottish Parliament give consent to the bill. As members might be aware, three UK Government amendments were tabled only on Tuesday this week; we are currently considering the amendments and whether a further supplementary legislative consent memorandum is necessary. However, I stress that the Parliament’s decision on legislative consent today will cover only the memorandum that was lodged on 8 August and the supplementary memorandum that was lodged on 28 January.
Since the bill’s introduction, my officials and I have worked with the UK Government to address issues in the bill that concern the constitutional position of the Parliament.
[Made a request to intervene.]
There is an intervention from Edward Mountain, who joins us remotely.
Sorry, Presiding Officer—I did not want to make an intervention. I just wanted to indicate that I want to speak in the debate. I misread the instructions on the keypad.
Thank you, Mr Mountain. That is clear.
The discussions with the UK Government have centred around clause 5 of the bill, which requires the secretary of state to
“prepare a statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy.”
Subsection (4) of that clause states:
“The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before including in a statement under this section anything which concerns a subject matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, if contained in an Act of that Parliament.”
We were concerned that that subsection merely compels the UK ministers to consult the Scottish Government on Great British Energy’s strategic priorities. We feel that it is crucial that those priorities do not diverge from or conflict with Scottish objectives such that it is imperative that the UK Government should seek the consent of Scottish ministers in that area and not simply consult.
I am pleased to confirm that we have worked constructively with the UK Government on that and it has recognised the need for that to be very clear. UK Government ministers tabled an amendment to the bill on 23 January, stipulating that, without the consent of Scottish ministers, the secretary of state cannot include in a statement of strategic priorities anything that is within devolved legislative competence.
I also wrote to minister Michael Shanks about clause 6 of the bill, which enables the secretary of state to give directions to GB Energy and states that they must consult such persons as they consider appropriate. I requested assurance that, in practice, consultation with the Scottish Government would be included under the clause 6 provision. I am pleased to inform the Parliament that I received written assurance on 23 January that the Scottish Government will be consulted on directions that relate to a matter that is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
These outcomes, which have come from open and constructive engagement between the two Governments, show the benefits of a positive working relationship between Administrations, and I am grateful to UK ministers and their officials for that approach.
In the past few months, in parallel with our legislative discussions, my officials and I have worked with the UK Government to establish how GB Energy may further help Scotland to seize the opportunity of the energy transition. We already have a very highly developed pipeline of renewables in Scotland, so, as the company develops, I want to see what additionality it can provide, particularly for communities and for nascent technologies.
I wonder whether, in her discussions with UK ministers, the acting cabinet secretary has been able to discern exactly what the purpose of GB Energy is. Can she explain to the Parliament what it exists to do? We are at a complete loss at this end.
This does seem to be a hot topic. I have had those discussions not just with ministers but with Juergen Maier. Juergen Maier clearly set out this week what GB Energy is and is not. It is really a matter for Labour members to answer the question whether what GB Energy was purported to be prior to the election has actually come to fruition. I am on record as having some concerns around that myself.
On the substance of the bill, however, we are in agreement that we want to work with the UK Government in ensuring that GB Energy provides additionality to what is already happening in the privately owned landscape. The UK Government has said that it is looking for GB Energy to crowd in investment, including by backing more nascent technologies in the sector, which will be critical to reaching net zero. We will be able to share extensive knowledge of the Scottish energy sector, to ensure support for clean energy production projects in Scotland at the earliest opportunity. I thank the UK Government for the constructive discussions on that.
Despite Scotland already having a strong pipeline of clean energy and growing supply-chain opportunities, there are many opportunities for Scotland still to grasp as we advance our position as one of the world’s leading countries in renewable energy.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that all relevant provisions of the Great British Energy Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 25 July 2024 and subsequently amended, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
I call Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.
17:07
I am pleased that I am now coming in at the right moment.
I am pleased to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Before getting into the detail of the devolved elements of the bill, I wish to outline some serious concerns about the process that the legislative consent motion has brought to light. We are debating the motion barely 48 hours after our committee’s report was published, which has left little time for anyone to consider our findings.
I recognise that the issues that we experience in scrutinising legislative consent memorandums are often unavoidable. We are part of a process taking place not only in this Parliament but in another Parliament, with its own deadlines, with two Governments negotiating in a way that we cannot track. Parliamentary scrutiny too often falls victim to unsatisfactory process that sidelines committees. I strongly believe that committees should never be bystanders, providing a last-minute rubber-stamp on inter-Government negotiations. We should be active participants. To that end, I urge the Governments to work harder together to ensure that the Parliament is given its proper constitutional role in the process.
Our report sets out a clear position. When the Scottish Government lodges a memorandum that sets out a holding position, it should lodge a more substantive memorandum as soon as possible. That should not wait until the final amendments are lodged. Committees need proper information at an early stage of their scrutiny, so that they can make an impact.
I will move on to the detail of the bill. Clauses 5 and 6 were the ones that raised issues. Clause 5 requires the secretary of state to
“prepare a statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy.”
Initially, the bill required the Scottish Government to be consulted about that. The Scottish Government requested that that be changed to require its consent. Intergovernment negotiations went well, as we have heard, and the bill is to be amended in line with that request. The committee has often called for the Governments to work together, so we are pleased to see that co-operation, although I reiterate that we should have had a much clearer statement much sooner than we did about what the Government was pursuing.
Clause 6 of the bill grants the secretary of state the power to issue directions to GB Energy. The committee and the Scottish Government have received assurances that that power would be used only rarely, in limited circumstances—for example, in relation to national security—but the bill provides no such limitations.
We have been assured that the UK Government will consult the Scottish ministers before issuing directions that engage devolved interests. The Scottish Government says that it is content with those assurances, but the committee remains concerned. If both Governments agree that the Scottish Government should be consulted, we are unclear why such a provision has not been included in the bill. The inclusion of such a provision would provide a firm, permanent legal footing, as opposed to a non-binding assurance from the Government of the day. Our report calls on the Scottish Government to request that change in whatever time remains of the process.
With that one reservation, the committee agreed, by a majority, to recommend that consent be given. However, what we have seen underlines the importance of ensuring that committees are involved at an early stage so that their concerns do not end up being sidelined because we have run out of time. I urge the Scottish Government and the UK Government to do what they can to improve the process in the future.
17:11
GB Energy is a sham. The Prime Minister is taking my constituents for fools. The structure of GB Energy is absurd, and it will take 20 years to deliver the promised 1,000 jobs. In the next five years, we can expect, at most, 200 jobs to be created. The UK Government’s plan is not a credible plan for economic growth. Instead, it represents 20 years of pain and decline for the north-east of Scotland. Tens of thousands of jobs will be lost as Labour shuts down the oil and gas sector without offering a meaningful replacement.
Labour is blatantly attempting to hoodwink the public. Before the general election, Ed Miliband promised to cut energy bills by £300 through Labour’s net zero policy. What rubbish. Where is that promise now? Why would the Scottish Government wave through the legislative consent motion? Maybe it does not have a plan of its own. The energy strategy and just transition plan is years late, and it is still nowhere to be seen. The devolved Scottish National Party Government seems content to agree to the motion even though the details of GB Energy are so thin on the ground.
We already have applications for developments in the North Sea that will provide 30GW of energy. GB Energy will have no impact on that investment, so I have to ask: what is the point? It is a political bung that is being provided in an attempt to placate the residents of Aberdeen.
How will all that energy be transported? It will be transported by destroying our countryside and communities with monster pylons. The Labour Party wants to carpet bomb the countryside with pylons and substations, and the SNP devolved Government is only too happy to supply the ammunition.
We need to drill more wells, issue more licences and extract more oil. The economically illiterate socialists on the other side of the chamber, supported by the extremist, unhinged Greens, have tried for years to destroy the livelihoods of my constituents. No one in Aberdeen is buying it. The pathetic and desperate attempts to throw the words “just transition” in front of everything that we do in relation to wind turbines and battery storage do not wash with my constituents in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
Oil and gas from the North Sea are good for Britain, good for Scotland, good for the environment and good for jobs. The devolved SNP Government likes to talk about how we are the Saudi Arabia of renewables. What a lot of hot air. Why do we not talk about using all the oil and gas infrastructure that has been built up over years and generated billions in tax profits?
Does my fellow committee member Douglas Lumsden intend to speak to the terms of the LCM at any point, rather than engaging in a party-political rant?
Bob Doris knows only too well that the LCM is about the creation of GB Energy, which will provide absolutely nothing for my constituents. Instead of supporting an industry that brings in money, Labour has made it clear through the establishment of GB Energy that it is doubling down on an industry that we subsidise through contracts for difference and constraint payments. I have nothing against building a renewable energy source, but why on earth are we not supporting oil and gas extraction?
GB Energy is a policy of national self-harm. Yet again, the nationalists and the socialists are doing what Putin and his cronies want. Perhaps if the Labour Party took less money from eco zealots and started talking to oil and gas workers, Anas Sarwar and Keir Starmer would know that and would understand the truly existential issue in Aberdeen. Just as Harold Wilson closed more coal mines than any other Prime Minister, Keir Starmer will be the Prime Minister who shuts down the North Sea oil and gas industry.
No one—and I mean no one—knows what GB Energy is going to do, but I can tell members what it will not do. It will not stand up for oil and gas workers, it will not support oil and gas extraction and it will not make bills cheaper. What makes bills cheaper? More domestic oil and gas production and drilling, which has the side effect of providing secure and well-paid employment for years to come. That is what my constituents need right now, not empty promises from the SNP or empty offices from Labour.
Before I call Ms Boyack, I remind all members that language is important and that we should strive to be courteous and respectful to one another.
17:15
Some constructive points have been made here thus far, particularly by the acting cabinet secretary and the committee convener, but Douglas Lumsden’s utterly negative and inaccurate speech has not helped the work that political parties across this chamber need to do.
There has been constructive dialogue between Governments. It took a Labour Government in Westminster to actually take the decisive steps to start delivering.
We were promised 1,000 jobs in Aberdeen but have now been told that that is going to take 20 years. Were we misled?
It is utterly inaccurate to ignore the work that is happening already. It has been just months since we got here. The election was in July and now here we are having practical discussions. We have already seen investment across the UK, a change in renewables and new green investment in industry, so we can see those jobs starting and there has been important progress.
Those who read the committee report will see—
Will the member give way?
No, thank you. I am actually going to make a positive comment about one of the member’s contributions.
When Michael Shanks spoke to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, he highlighted that this is a different way of doing things in this country and that it will ensure clean, secure power, with public ownership and investment being key to ensuring that all our communities have a stake in the future of our energy supply. That is surely something that this Parliament must support.
Making sure that we have energy security that will benefit our communities and tackle the climate crisis while creating new jobs is crucial. If members look at the Official Report of that meeting or at what Juergen Maier has said, they will see that GB Energy will incentivise new and emerging technologies such as marine renewables and floating offshore wind, so that we maximise the opportunities for a range of new clean energy and heat supplies and, critically, can support supply chains in Scotland and investment in green manufacturing.
We need a more joined-up approach, so it is not an exaggeration to say that GB Energy is absolutely essential to the future of the UK and Scotland, delivering new jobs in our communities and working for the planet.
I will go back to the work that is being done by the two Governments. It is important that our Governments are serious about creating new jobs and tackling the climate emergency, but our local authorities are absolutely critical too. If we look at our Nordic neighbours or at other European countries, we see many more municipal and co-operatively owned heat and power networks. We have not had those yet in Scotland and we need more leadership.
It is crucial to empower our communities and spread local knowledge. They are ready to go but we are not getting enough from the Scottish Government, so that constructive approach between Governments is critical. The £3.3 billion that is coming from the national wealth fund for community projects and investment is absolutely critical, but we need to see delivery on the ground.
Will Sarah Boyack give way?
I will take a brief comment from Bob Doris.
I will be very brief. I wonder whether Sarah Boyack can understand why the majority of committee members would have preferred clause 6 of the bill to ensure that the Scottish Government is consulted and ideally would have to give its consent in relation to GB Energy and devolved matters? The UK Government has not conceded on that point, although it was clearly the committee’s preference.
Please conclude, Ms Boyack.
I have looked at the committee’s discussions. Intelligent questions were asked of the acting cabinet secretary and the energy minister, Michael Shanks. The fact that we are here today with what I hope will be future clarity about those issues is critical.
The points that Edward Mountain made are important. We need to make sure that we get effective accountability and scrutiny for any process that we put through this Parliament, but the constructive dialogue that we have seen so far is critical.
The whole Parliament should support the advent of GB Energy, given the difference that it will make. We live in an era in which we are seeing climate change denial, which is not acceptable. We need to work together. We do not have to agree on everything, but we need to support new investment in our country, because—
Thank you, Ms Boyack.
—our constituents need that, and they need it now.
17:20
Scottish Greens will back the legislative consent motion at decision time, but I want to sound a note of caution, because we have come through a period in which devolution in Scotland and Wales faced unprecedented attacks from the previous Westminster Government. Intergovernmental ways of working in the UK are still largely based on precedent and good will, rather than being codified in legislation as they are in most other countries that have a devolved context. Ways of working that are based on principles of respect, such as the Sewel convention, have been seriously undermined and contested in recent years to a point where they have become almost meaningless.
In the context of the Great British Energy Bill, I welcome the changes that the Scottish Government has secured to embed a more consultative approach between the Administrations, but there is still a danger of overreach from a future Westminster Government. There will be a role for this Parliament to bring transparency to those relationships, and the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee made some important points about the role of the committees in that.
When we reflect on the evidence that the committee received, there is clearly a sense that the Labour Government is working more collaboratively with Scottish ministers, which is very welcome. However, despite all the bluster from Anas Sarwar at First Minister’s question time today, when I asked Michael Shanks at committee about the role of GB Energy in promoting nuclear projects, he sounded pretty reasonable. He said:
“Clearly, we have a political difference on nuclear”.
He went on:
“there are no plans and there will be no engagement on that issue, because it is clear that the Scottish Government would block those applications.
That is the legitimate position that the Scottish Government has taken on that planning matter, and I do not think that there is a confrontation or a conflict on that.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 21 January 2025; c 53.]
That was real clarity—no new nuclear in Scotland. That is what Labour head office says, and that is probably the best news that Labour back benchers have had all week.
However, Stephen Kerr raised a valid question, because it is still not really clear what GB Energy will do in Scotland, how many jobs it will create and how long it will take to do that. I take on board Sarah Boyack’s point that it is early days, but I note for clarity that there is a huge record of success in the development of renewable energy in Scotland, which is bringing down bills and keeping the lights on across the UK. For example, the onshore wind sector deal, which the Greens were proud to work on with SNP ministers during our time in government, is now starting to help to double the generation capacity from onshore wind in Scotland by 2030. With that will come opportunities for community benefit and community ownership, and that is real energy security.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am just closing.
I hope that GB Energy will build on the success that we have had in Scotland and grow the economy in the right way to create the green jobs that are needed to meet our energy needs going forward. For those reasons, on balance, we will support the LCM at decision time.
17:23
I have not been on the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and I have not been immersed in the details of the legislative consent motion, but there is a striking contrast between the Scottish Government’s relationship with the previous UK Government and its relationship with the current one. It is a step in the right direction, although it is still clunky, as the convener of the committee acknowledged. Mark Ruskell is right—we need to codify an awful lot of the relationships rather than relying on good will. Perhaps a federalist structure is, finally, the answer to the issue.
I want to talk about community benefit, which was an important subject in our discussions with the Scottish Government during the budget process. Those who are close observers will have noticed from our exchange of letters that we secured a commitment that the revenues from ScotWind will be used for day-to-day spending only in extreme circumstances. That was in severe doubt last year, when the Government was dipping into those resources to fund health and other services. That would be a concern in the long term, because we need to use those revenues for economic benefit in communities.
The change that is coming is significant. Look at the pump storage facilities that are coming in in Perth and Kinross, Dumfries and Galloway, and the Highlands; significant extra housing and improvements to roads, schools and health services will be required in areas where those services are already struggling to cope. We therefore need to have a debate about how we use the revenues from ScotWind and the community benefit revenues from many onshore and offshore wind and pump storage schemes, so that those communities can see a direct benefit now, in order to cope with the pressures that are being faced, and a lasting legacy. SSE has given an indication of the extra 1,000 houses that it will build to help with the construction of its facilities.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have only four minutes, and I would like to get through a few other things.
That gives an indication of the pressure that is to come. We should not see a restriction on activities and development in those areas because of the lack of local services and infrastructure.
That brings us to the revenues themselves. There are two questions. How much do we secure from the schemes and what do we use it for? Until now, there has been significant investment in what we might call astroturf schemes—local facilities and halls. In communities that have already seen significant benefits, there are only so many astroturf pitches that can be put down, so what should we be using those resources for? I would argue that we should be using them for housing, schools, roads and so on, as leverage to get more resources into those communities.
That is something that Angus MacDonald, my colleague in the House of Commons, has been talking about. He has suggested that 5 per cent of the revenue of any particular renewable energy scheme should be ploughed back into that kind of community benefit. I do not know whether that figure is right—it might work for some and not for others—but we should be debating how we can best get and use resources from those schemes in order to ensure that we have lasting and immediate benefits for those areas. In communities such as Shetland, where there are great aspirations to build tunnels between the islands rather than relying on ferries, there is a significant desire to secure such investment in order to leave a lasting legacy.
I hope that the minister will respond to some of those remarks in her closing speech. I would like to see the Government go further to make sure that we ring fence, secure and invest greater resources in the right areas for a lasting legacy.
I call the cabinet secretary to wind up. Cabinet secretary, you have up to three minutes.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My understanding was that there would be time for a contribution from the SNP back benches within the time allocated for this debate on the LCM, but that does not seem to be the case, and I am wondering why it is not the case. I was going to be that speaker, and I wanted to highlight the fact that, this week, Juergen Maier, the chair of GB Energy, admitted that it would be 20 years before Aberdeen got 1,000 jobs and could not put a date on when Labour’s pledge to cut energy—
Mr Stewart, the points that you have just raised are not, in fact, a point of order, so I will ask that you refrain from making them.
I am afraid that I have made a point of order—
Mr Stewart—
And that I have the time to make a point of order—
Mr Stewart, I am happy to address your query about timing, although it is not a point of order.
The Parliament voted for a business motion that allocated a specific amount of time to a specific item. That happened. The matter was proposed at the Parliamentary Bureau and agreed by the Parliamentary Bureau, and it came into the Parliament and was voted on and accepted by all members, including those here, I imagine. The issue has not been raised until this moment, and the Parliament has allotted 30 minutes to this item. We are taking up time, which is being taken away from the debate, so I would be grateful if we could proceed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Recognising the genuine concern that Kevin Stewart has expressed about the importance of the debate and the time allocated to it, can I apply under the relevant standing order for the debate to be extended by 30 minutes?
Thank you for your comments, Mr Kerr. At this point, I cannot agree to such a request. The business of the week is fully discussed at the Parliamentary Bureau. It is then brought to the chamber, where every member has an opportunity to speak against or to oppose a motion that they are not content with. Therefore, I will not allow this to continue, because that would be discourteous to the vast majority of members.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. May I seek your guidance?
Briefly, Mr Kerr.
In what circumstances would it be appropriate, as is done in other settings, to extend the time that is allocated for the debate by 30 minutes by virtue of a motion of the Parliament?
Mr Kerr, we are currently conducting an item of parliamentary business. We are not in the chamber at this moment to discuss how we run parliamentary business. I am happy to do that with Mr Kerr or any other member in another setting. In this instance, it is not appropriate and I am not going to think of hypothetical situations that I might address by allowing an extension of business.
I call the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate.
17:32
I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I know that there is a great deal to be discussed in relation to what GB Energy is going to be and how it is going to be developed, and I want to be involved in those discussions, because I think that there is an issue with what was promised.
I would like to be involved in those discussions, too. I want clarity from the UK Government on how many jobs there will be for Aberdeen. We were promised that there would be 1,000 jobs, but it is now saying that it will take 20 years before Aberdeen will get 1,000 jobs. It pledged to cut energy bills by £300, but Juergen Maier could not give us a timescale for that either. It seems that the UK Government and GB Energy are failing to invest in the north-east of Scotland and in Scotland’s renewable industries, and are failing to reduce energy costs for the public and businesses. I wish the cabinet secretary well in her discussions with the UK Government and I hope that she can get answers to the questions that I and my constituents have.
I want to reiterate some of the comments that I made in response to Stephen Kerr. I think that it is for Labour members—those who were parliamentary candidates and those members who are sitting in the seats to my right—to answer why the promises that were made about what GB Energy would do will not come to fruition. I had my doubts about those promises from the start.
I hope that the Parliament votes to give consent to all the clauses in the bill, because I want us to work on the development of the project in good faith. I want GB Energy to work alongside the Scottish Government and Scottish public bodies to support community and local energy projects, which are vital for Scotland’s economic growth and net zero ambitions.
I know that I do not have much time, but I want to mention community benefits, which Willie Rennie touched on, although he is not in his seat at the moment. I am doing a separate stream of work to encourage the UK Government to mandate community benefits for all projects. He is absolutely right that there must be legacy benefits and that we should look at the infrastructure that is required, but I do not see GB Energy being part of that work.
We want all Scottish consumers to be able to rely on affordable, sustainable and secure energy for years to come. I am hopeful that GB Energy can play a valuable part in pursuing that goal, but I will leave it there. I move that the Parliament backs the motion and grants legislative consent to the clauses that are in the bill.
Air ais
Miscarriage CareAir adhart
Decision Time