Official Report 1155KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16526, in the name of Alasdair Allan, on a legislative consent motion for the Great British Energy Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. I call Alasdair Allan to speak to and move the motion.
16:37
I thank the Parliament for giving us further opportunity to debate the Great British Energy Bill and the supplementary legislative consent memorandum that was lodged in Parliament on Monday. I seek that the Parliament gives consent to the UK bill and to the UK Government’s new clause on sustainable development.
During the UK Government bill’s report stage in the House of Lords, four amendments were made to the bill as recently as 11 February, one of which required the supplementary LCM from this Parliament. That amendment introduced clause 7A, which requires Great British Energy to keep
“under review”
its impact
“on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom”.
That clause will likely touch on areas in the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, such as the environment and planning.
I note that a further amendment to the bill was tabled as recently as Monday. It would require the UK Secretary of State to “appoint an independent person”—
Will the member give way?
Yes, I will.
On that technical point, why is the Government not waiting until the final reading to wrap up the LCMs into a single decision for the Parliament?
This is a matter for the UK Government. The bill is proceeding at great pace and my understanding is that royal assent will be granted very soon—within the next few weeks. We must respond quickly to a bill that might quickly become law.
I note that the most recent amendment, tabled on Monday, is not covered by the supplementary LCM that we are debating today, as the UK Government tabled it too late for inclusion in this LCM. That, I am afraid, is how last minute some of those changes have been made at the UK Parliament end.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have to make progress in the little time that I have available.
It is important to note that the Scottish Government was given very little notice of the tabling of the amendment dealing with clause 6A, and that was also the case with the clauses that are covered by today’s supplementary LCM. I note the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s concerns about not having sufficient time to scrutinise today’s LCM. I will be clear that the Scottish Government recognises the importance of Parliament having sufficient time to scrutinise legislation—indeed, we share the committee’s concerns on that point. The lack of time that is afforded to the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the amendments is the result of decisions on timing taken by the UK Government due to the speed at which the bill is moving through the UK Parliament towards royal assent.
I have raised those points with UK ministers and I have emphasised the importance of the Scottish Parliament and its committees having sufficient time to consider matters. I also made it clear that amendments being made at an extremely late stage in the UK bill’s parliamentary passage make it extremely challenging to facilitate the Scottish Parliament’s consideration of motions on legislative consent ahead of the bill getting royal assent. I hope that members will therefore appreciate that the Scottish Government shares some of the concerns that have been expressed and that those concerns have been communicated to the UK Government.
On the substance of the UK bill, I am aware that there is a considerable level of interest in how GB Energy will operate. 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 can help Scotland to seize the boundless opportunities that the energy transition will have here. Despite already having a strong pipeline of clean energy and growing supply chain opportunities, there are still so many opportunities for Scotland to grasp as we advance our position as one of the world’s leading countries in renewable energy production. We are engaging with the UK Government—I believe constructively—on funding priorities across the spectrum of Scottish clean energy interests to ensure that Scottish projects will benefit from GB Energy funding in 2025-26 and beyond.
In discussions with the UK Government, I and the acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy have been clear that GB Energy must deliver real benefits for the people of Scotland and support a just energy transition. It certainly has the potential to do that.
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 in relation to sustainable development (clause 7A) on 11 February 2025, 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.
16:43
Here we go, yet again, debating a legislative consent motion on the GB Energy Bill. The first legislative consent motion was lodged in August last year. It did not set out a clear position on consent or provide much detail at all. That might have been okay if the Scottish Government had followed up on its own clear undertaking to provide a substantive update by September, but it did not. It took until late December to do so, following repeated requests from the committee to get an update by way of a letter. The supplementary LCM then followed in January, setting out progress made in intergovernmental decisions to reach a common position. It came so late in the day that the committee had the time only to take quick evidence and rush out a short report.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, not at the moment.
We did our best under the circumstances, and the report added usefully to the debate, but the committee should have been spared that white-knuckle ride. I make no apology for bringing that up again, because, to be frank, I do not feel that the cabinet secretary engaged with those points when we last debated the bill two weeks ago. They were raised in good faith by the whole committee to ensure that the process works better.
I turn to the second supplementary LCM, which the committee first saw late on Monday night. We then had to produce a report in time for today’s debate. That left us with no realistic prospect whatsoever to come to a considered position on the bill amendment that triggered the new memorandum—far less take any evidence. Therefore, as a committee, we can express no collective informed view on consent.
The concerns that we raised in our earlier report bear repeating. If there are delays in information reaching the Parliament, we end up as bystanders and not participants in the process, as we should be. We end up where we are today, whereby a committee has literally gone through the motions to produce a report that meets the formal requirements of standing orders but does not meaningfully contribute to the policy debate.
I said in the previous debate, and I repeat today, that the committee is all for constructive intergovernmental discussions aimed at hammering out agreement on legislative consent. I know that the Scottish Government can be blindsided, like the rest of us, by amendments that are tabled late in the day at Westminster, as we have heard. However, in the present case, I wonder aloud—especially given the dates that the minister has told us—when Scottish ministers were first told by a UK Government minister that the amendment would be tabled. We have been told that that was more than seven days ago, and there is a seven-day gap between an amendment being tabled and an LCM appearing.
With respect, the new LCM does not provide much analysis of the new clause and its implication for devolved competence. It mainly repeats observations about supporting the broad aims of GB Energy.
Getting the LCM a bit earlier would have given the committee more chance to do the job that standing orders have given us to do, and which we have every right to do. I urge both Governments to work together to ensure that this Parliament has as much time as possible to meaningfully scrutinise LCMs. Otherwise, the risk is that the committee’s role in the consent process is reduced to that of undertaking an empty ritual, which, as a parliamentarian and convener, I find totally unacceptable.
16:47
It is a pleasure to speak to the motion, which is on my favourite topic—the myth that is GB Energy.
GB Energy will do nothing for my constituents. It is a fraudulent front that seeks to rob hard-working oil and gas workers of their livelihoods. What is worse is that my constituents are expected to be grateful for GB Energy being based in Aberdeen, for new pylons covering the countryside and that they were promised 1,000 jobs, only for the chair of GB Energy to roll back on that commitment and tell us that it might be 200 jobs over the next five years. We were told before the election that GB Energy would reduce bills, but what we see is bills increasing.
I will give way to Daniel Johnson to tell us when bills will decrease.
The word “fraud” has a very precise meaning. Perhaps Douglas Lumsden could explain his use of it.
In case he is not aware of the way in which legislation works, I note that the bill is not yet passed, and that GB Energy will not be able to be up and running until it is passed. Perhaps he wants to reconsider his language somewhat.
It is fraudulent when we are promised 1,000 jobs but the chair of GB Energy then says, “Well, those jobs will perhaps come in 20 years’ time.” That is what I call fraudulent: it is a joke.
We have Labour and the SNP—two partners in crime—determined to destroy the countryside with pylons, and both turning a blind eye to the desecration of the north and north-east of Scotland. We have Labour and the SNP—two partners in crime—determined to destroy the oil and gas industry and, with it, tens of thousands of well-paid jobs.
It is common sense not to have a ban without a plan. We on this side of the chamber understand that, and Unite the union understands it. Like Unite, I will fight for my constituents and to save the jobs of the North Sea oil workers. It is shameful how few Labour MSPs have signed up to Unite’s campaign. It is a party that is meant to stand up for workers. Instead, it is siding with its donors and Just Stop Oil.
Like GB Energy itself, the process that we are being asked to follow in approving the LCM is a joke. We had an LCM a couple of weeks back and a supplementary one was lodged on Monday, which—as the convener said—gave no time for the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to scrutinise the impact before the Parliament makes the decision today. That is complete disrespect for this Parliament. It sounds as though we might have another LCM coming next week.
What will the LCM change? From what I can gather, it will add amendments on sustainable development. The definition of sustainable development is:
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
What about the future generations who will have their countryside ruined by the overindustrialisation that we are seeing? What about the future generations who will have prime agricultural land taken away and replaced by battery storage sites, substations or solar panels?
Earlier this week, I met the Angus Pylon Action Group. It has asked to speak to Gillian Martin, but its request has fallen on deaf ears, as have requests from all other campaign groups. Members of the APAG are devastated by what they are facing. They feel ignored and abandoned by the Government, which talks about engaging with communities but does not want to listen to them. They have real concerns, but are struggling to get answers.
That is where the Scottish Government is also to blame. In the weeks since the last time that we had this debate, there has been no news on the energy strategy. That strategy is now years late. There is no strategy, no plan and no clue. That sums up this devolved Government. We are still working under the shadow of its presumption against new oil and gas, and its presumptions that we should import oil and gas rather than use our own resources, that we should protect jobs in Azerbaijan rather than in Aberdeen and that we should make ourselves poorer while we make the Saudis richer.
We need a commonsense strategy for our energy that puts our own resources and workers at its heart. This Government does not care about oil and gas and it certainly does not care about the people working offshore or in the supply chain. Oil and gas from the North Sea is good for Britain, good for Scotland, good for the environment and good for jobs.
Let us drop the pretence that GB Energy will bring down bills, or be good for investment or for my constituents, because it simply will not.
16:52
Members will remember that, in the debate two weeks ago in which when we agreed to the LCM on the Great British Energy Bill, it was flagged up that there would be subsequent amendments that would require our approval in the Scottish Parliament.
The amendment states that GB Energy
“must keep under review the impact of its activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.”
It is a crucial amendment because it ensures that we have more joined-up thinking, which some of us have been calling for for a long time—and continue to do so; for example, in my upcoming wellbeing and sustainable development bill.
Many of the sustainable development goals that need to be addressed fall under the remit of the Scottish Government, so our Parliament needs to debate the issue and give its consent to the LCM. Scottish Labour will support the LCM today.
GB Energy will incentivise new and emerging technologies, such as marine renewables and floating offshore wind, so that we can maximise the new job opportunities and get the range of new clean energy and heat supplies that we urgently need to support supply chains and investment in green manufacturing.
In my previous speech on the issue, I focused on the need for a “more joined-up approach” between the new UK Government, the Scottish Government and our councils. However, we also need to focus on decent job opportunities. Financial support for offshore wind developers so that they invest in their areas, including in traditional oil and gas communities, is part of the clean industry bonus deal.
As Ed Miliband said, this is our clean energy “superpower” mission. Part of the transition is about kick-starting growth, delivering energy security and transforming towns and cities, from the ports of Nigg and Leith to the manufacturing hubs of Blyth and Hull. We need to be part of that process and we need a just and fair transition. If we are to get sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, decent work for all and the building of resilient infrastructure and the promotion of inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, we need to see GB Energy delivering in practice. As I raised with the First Minister this week, the work of the Scottish Government sits alongside that, including the
“long-awaited energy strategy and just transition plan”.—[Official Report, 18 February 2025; c 39.]
Does Sarah Boyack think that this Parliament has had sufficient time to consider the LCM?
The irony is that we are debating a very straightforward amendment, because we have debated sustainable development on numerous occasions in the Parliament.
The point is about the end of a stage of a bill. We have the same issue in the Scottish Parliament when we go from stage 2 to stage 3, when, suddenly, key actors see events coming up in stage 3. The point that was made by the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee was well made, as it was the last time.
We have to debate the issue now. We need to take decisive and rapid climate action. That is more urgent than ever. We cannot just have another negative debate promoted by the Tories. We have to make sure that we are engaged in the process and that we take it seriously, because the climate emergency will impact on our economy more regularly. The last Friday in January, when Scotland pretty much shut down, is a good example of the negative impact of the climate emergency.
Although the UK Labour Government is serious about delivering for Scotland and our planet, and the SNP Government now reluctantly admits it, the Tories are determined to drag us away from progress. That is desperate politics: our constituents and our communities need more grown-up politics.
Will the member take an intervention?
I certainly will not. I am winding up.
Our UK Labour Government has taken more climate action in six months than the Tories did in 14 years in government. That says it all.
16:56
It is very Edward Mountain to consider a legislative consent motion that is based on an amendment in the House of Lords on the Great British Energy Bill to be a “white-knuckle ride”. That is the kind of rock-and-roll life that he lives.
However, Edward Mountain made a valid point about the legislative process. The Parliament gets a lot of things wrong, but the one thing that it does pretty well is the legislative process. It takes a long time for consultation, pre-stage 1 reports, stage 2 amendments and then, in the chamber, stage 3. It takes as long as it takes. I have experienced the Westminster system and, to be fair, that is a white-knuckle ride. It is rushed and there is not enough time to consider all the consequences. That is what we are feeling today, to be fair to the minister. I hope that, in the long run, we will see changes to the legislative processes in the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
One of the amendments that was passed in the House of Lords that does not affect the LCM was won by one of our members, who secured an amendment on community energy, which is incredibly important. It will mean that GB Energy is required to collaborate with local communities on boosting local economies, jobs and investment for community energy projects, which is a good thing.
We will support the LCM today because GB Energy could be broadly a good thing. It is led by Jürgen Maier, who is a dynamic force. He was previously chief executive officer at Siemens and he knows the territory. He will make a difference and we should support things that make a difference.
I want to return to the points that I made in the debate two weeks ago about the use of community benefit funds and licensing revenues. We need to consider several questions. First, how much do we require from the companies? My colleague Angus MacDonald wants to increase the £5,000 per megawatt installed capacity to a higher level and he has a case for that. We need to make sure that it is not so much that it discourages development, but that there is capacity to increase it.
There is also a question about who we do it with. Will it be done through community equity and community ownership, or should the funds be given to local authorities or other vehicles for delivery? After Tom Arthur’s statement earlier this week, we should take the opportunity to explore community wellbeing in more detail.
The area that requires a much more substantial change is what we use community benefit funds for. Many communities have benefited significantly from community facilities such as astroturf pitches, village halls and the like, which are good things and they require to be invested in. However, only so many astroturf pitches can be built in communities. There is a crying need for improvement in infrastructure and in roads and housing in certain communities—particularly in the Highlands and Islands, where we will be installing not just wind turbines but pump storage facilities that will put quite a lot of pressure on the local road network and increase demand for housing. We should be looking to use some of those revenues and funds for investment in local communities to make sure that the funds have a lasting legacy that outlasts the projects themselves, so that people can see longer-term benefits for their areas.
We will support the LCM today, but I hope that the minister will take on board the arguments about wider benefits and community benefit.
16:59
Presiding Officer,
“The untapped resources of the North Sea are as nothing compared to the untapped resources of our people.”
Fifty-three years after Jimmy Reid uttered that line as part of a speech entitled “Alienation”, those words still hold true, as does so much else of that speech. Today, folk are feeling alienated. Many feel themselves to be victims of economic forces beyond their control. They are feeling frustration, hopelessness and despair. Eight months ago, many of those people voted for change. They voted for their energy bills to be £300 lower. They voted for Scotland to be the powerhouse of a clean energy mission. They voted for a GB Energy based in Scotland that would see 1,000 new jobs created.
So, where are we now? My constituents’ bills are not £300 lower—they are £279 higher. Some are double that amount out of pocket after Labour took away their winter fuel payment. Funding for the Acorn project, which would move a just transition on leaps and bounds, has been put on pause. When the Labour UK Government announced £22 billion for carbon capture, Scotland did not even get a mention. At Grangemouth, where Labour pledged to save the refinery and jobs, the workers have been betrayed by the UK Government, while Scottish Labour has been shamefully silent.
Meanwhile, in my Donside constituency, we finally got the news that GB Energy was going to be based in Aberdeen, which was always the obvious choice. I welcomed it, but then the news got taken back because, of course, Labour conference was just around the corner, so any investment got put on pause until it could be reannounced. A month later, a chair was announced for Aberdeen-based GB Energy, and he was going to be based in Manchester. Those 1,000 jobs that we were promised are apparently still coming. We just need to wait for 20 years.
It is no wonder that folk feel betrayed and alienated. Do not get me wrong. I welcome any investment in a just transition. I welcome any investment in clean and green energy. I welcome any new jobs coming to Aberdeen. I welcome and support those things, because they will benefit the folk who I represent. I will support the motion, but I really wish that I was welcoming more.
North Sea oil has given Scotland, and the north-east in particular, a lot of advantages, the biggest of which is that the north-east now has a workforce that is world leading in many ways. Some of those folk were born and raised in Aberdeen and have spent their whole careers there. Some learned their skills there, travelled the world, gained experience and came back. Some moved to Aberdeen because of the industry and have put down roots there. Wherever they are from, they are some of the best in the world, and we are lucky to have them in Aberdeen. However, if we want to keep those workers there—if we want their help in delivering a just transition, guaranteeing our energy security and making our energy supply cleaner, greener and cheaper—we need to invest properly in the north-east and give them a reason to build their futures in Scotland, while they build Scotland’s future. If the UK Government will not go far enough and fast enough, let Scotland deliver it herself. We have the energy; we just need the power.
17:03
It is somewhat ironic to hold a debate on energy at this point on a Thursday afternoon, so let me try that witticism to begin with.
In some ways, Jackie Dunbar is absolutely right to articulate frustration. The burning imperative in front of us is that we have to make the just transition in energy work. However, there is some irony in being frustrated about what GB Energy should be delivering when we have not yet passed the bill. Notwithstanding the frustrations of the legislative process, what we are here to do is to agree to the LCM. Let us focus on the aim of the LCM. We need GB Energy to be up and running.
Let me deal head on with the assertions and the, frankly, slightly wild accusations made by Douglas Lumsden. Let us be clear. He treats the issue as though it is binary—that we have the option of either using oil and gas or turning to renewables. However, that is a false choice. Whether we like it or not, there needs to be a transition. Whether we listen to the North Sea Transition Authority or the Wood Group, it is clear that more than 90 per cent of the extractable resource of the North Sea has been extracted. Peak oil was in 1999. We need to transition our North Sea energy sector regardless of the net zero imperative. When people talk to representatives of the oil and gas sector, as I do, they will not hear them asking whether we should have GB Energy; they want to get on with it, because they recognise the need to transition.
I absolutely accept that there is a need for transition, but a plan needs to be in place. I have signed Unite the union’s campaign pledge for no ban without a plan. I think that Jackie Dunbar has, too. Has Daniel Johnson signed it?
What does Douglas Lumsden think GB Energy is about?
We do not know. Where is the plan?
It is central to the plan. If Douglas Lumsden wants a plan, he should back GB Energy. For goodness’ sake, we cannot, on the one hand, say that we need a plan and then oppose GB Energy. The Tories should not be ridiculous—seriously.
The reality is that we need a transition. We also need GB Energy, for two critical reasons. First, the transition has to happen at such a pace that, if there were no state intervention, it could not occur. Secondly, it will rely on innovation, technology and engineering that we do not yet have in place. Unless we derisk the process and the investment, the transition will not happen and we will squander the legacy of the North Sea. When people talk to industry representatives, one thing is abundantly clear: our North Sea legacy gives us the ability to do engineering work offshore, at sea, in the harshest of conditions, which we will need to do if we are to reap the benefits of the energy transition.
I agree that we need to reap those benefits. We also need to keep the workforce.
I recognise what Mr Johnson said about the legislation not being passed, but we have already seen pledges being rolled back on. That is of deep concern to the people of Aberdeen, the north-east and elsewhere. Will Mr Johnson use his good offices to talk to his colleagues in London and get them to tell us exactly what all this means?
I do not need to talk to them in London. I talk to them here, because they are up here regularly. I was talking to Michael Shanks just this morning, and I will be talking to colleagues over the weekend. I talk to Ian Murray regularly. Believe you me—Scottish Labour wants to get this done, as do our UK Government colleagues. If members want to see a plan, let us get on with establishing GB Energy.
I understand members’ frustrations. We live in difficult times, and we want to see as much investment as possible flow through GB Energy. If that frustration is tempered, it is by the appalling legacy that the previous UK Government has been left by the Westminster counterparts of the Scottish Tories sitting across the way in the chamber. That is the reality. I understand the frustrations of the legislative process, but let us be clear about getting on with the transition and backing GB Energy.
17:07
Like Edward Mountain, I take the Parliament’s work very seriously. I like things to be done properly, whatever the outcome. The consideration of the LCM that is before us today is an example of how not to do things properly.
I agree with Mr Simpson on the question of parliamentary scrutiny. In that respect, does he share my concern that not a single member of the Scottish Green Party has contributed to the debate? None of them is in the chamber this afternoon. It is as though they do not care about the issue of green energy.
Yes, I certainly do. It is rather bizarre.
I agree with the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, who has set out the issues very clearly. We cannot expect a committee to do its work properly with so little time for detailed scrutiny. Committees of the Parliament are not rubber-stamping bodies. When the NZET Committee says, in its hastily written report on the LCM, that the
“agreement of this short report amounts to ... an almost literal case of a committee going through the motions”,
it is correct. That is treating the Parliament with contempt—something that I thought the Government was against. If this had been a Conservative Government bill, the reaction would have been howls of derision. How times change.
I have listened with interest to members, not least to Douglas Lumsden, who went off on one of his regular tirades—for good reason, of course. If we cut through the amusing froth of Mr Lumsden’s strident contribution, he makes a very good point indeed, namely that GB Energy is a myth, a sham.
Members—including Jackie Dunbar, in an excellent speech—have spoken about how Aberdeen and the north-east were promised one thing but are to get quite another. Labour told us that it would cut our energy bills, but the reverse is happening, and Ed Miliband’s net zero obsession is more likely to increase costs. None of us, least of all the Labour members, can truly say whether we are any clearer on what GB Energy is for or what it will do. Daniel Johnson obviously did not get an answer to that when he spoke to Michael Shanks earlier.
There is no evidence that GB Energy will drive down costs and bills—for that to happen, there needs to be a plan to do so, and there is not one. That is not to say that the state, local or regional authorities cannot do that, because they can. There are examples elsewhere in the world of that happening, but it will not happen here, and we all know it.
What is before us is not the whole bill but just one clause—clause 7A. It says:
“Great British Energy must keep under review the impact of its activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.”
“Sustainable development” could mean whatever you want it to mean. It is very woolly language to use in a bill. The amendment was lodged by energy minister Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who really should have known better. He said:
“We see sustainable development as a broad category.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, Vol 843, 11 Feb 2025; c 1204.]
He can say that again. The vagueness of the clause makes it so close to being meaningless that it pushes me to say that it should not be in legislation. It might be harmful or it might not be; it depends on how he interprets it, and that is not good enough.
However, the main reason for rejecting the LCM is the lack of time to properly scrutinise it. I call on Parliament to back itself and to reject the LCM.
17:12
I thank all the members who have contributed usefully to today’s debate, as well as Mr Lumsden. I recommend that Parliament votes to give consent to all clauses in the bill, including the new clause 7A. As I said earlier, I am very disappointed with the length of time that the Parliament has been given to consider the new amendments by the UK Government. I nonetheless believe that it is important that we look at ways to ensure that the opportunities that GB Energy can provide to Scotland are realised. I believe that the agreement to give consent to the LCM will help to support that effort.
Mr Rennie and others have expressed concerns about process and timings. I hear those concerns loud and clear and I share many of them. I reiterate to the UK Government the importance of our parliamentary process and the need to give the Scottish Parliament sufficient time to scrutinise legislation, including late-stage amendments. Given the fact that the bill requires the consent of this Parliament, it is crucial that members are given sufficient time to consider proposed changes. That process has at points not met that test, and I have made that point to the UK Government.
To pick up on Daniel Johnson’s very sensible question about why we could not have waited until later in the UK bill’s progress to deal with an LCM, I should perhaps clarify that LCMs have to be lodged within 14 days of a Government amendment being taken, which I hope explains our reasoning on that.
On Edward Mountain’s point about what has been happening since last summer on these issues, I make no apology at all for seeking assurances from the UK Government that would ensure that the interests of this Parliament would be assured in devolved areas when the bill becomes law.
By way of conclusion, despite the concerns that have rightly been expressed by members and the justified scepticism from Jackie Dunbar about the Labour Government’s election commitments, it is sensible for us to continue to work with partners, including GB Energy, the UK Government and our public bodies, to continue to grow the community energy sector.
The other week, the cabinet secretary said that there had been good conversations with the UK Government. Can the minister assure us that he and the cabinet secretary will express the ire of this Parliament regarding the fact that we are dealing with this issue very late in the process and that there is not enough time for scrutiny? At the very least, UK ministers need to take into consideration the views of this Parliament on devolved issues. I think that that is part of the problem that was expressed by Mr Mountain earlier.
I can confirm that I have already done that and will seek to do so again.
We will continue to work with partners to continue to grow the community energy sector, clean energy and supply chain opportunities. We look forward to further engagement to support those important priorities, which are vital for Scotland’s economic growth and net zero ambitions.
I urge the Parliament to back the motion granting legislative consent to all clauses within the UK bill, including clause 7A.
Air adhart
Decision Time