Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will not comment on a live legal proceeding.

I just want to say that I will follow up in writing with the committee where it has asked for detail. I give another apology to Mr Doris, whom I contradicted. He was right that we give an allocation to the Climate Change Committee—I think that it is a couple of hundred thousand. We have it at £368,000, so there we go. I have got that on the record, and my apologies to Mr Doris.

Yes.

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 do not think that there are any risks. I have the programme for government here, which says:

“Reviewing Crown Estate Scotland’s governance and operating model to ensure it optimises its unique role in value creation and growing sustainable wealth for Scotland through helping deliver the supply chain side of the offshore renewable energy expansion. This will benefit communities and mitigate against climate change and biodiversity loss.”

That will not necessarily need any legislative change; it is about governance, the operating model and working with Crown Estate Scotland in that area.

The situation with regard to giving borrowing powers is quite complex. We do not have the powers to give Crown Estate Scotland borrowing powers. If borrowing powers are given to the Crown Estate in England and Wales, we would need to have a discussion about what that meant for Crown Estate Scotland and whether it wanted to go down the same route.

We would prefer that any activity and funding associated with the Crown Estate also came to Scotland. That is what we are looking for in relation to parity. We do not want to lose any funding.

No. I am glad to hear that the UK Government has been invited to the committee because that level of detail is for it to provide and those questions are for it to answer. There have been high-level announcements and statements about what it will mean in terms of jobs for the area, where the offices will be situated and so on. We were very pleased that Aberdeen was chosen as the headquarters, but what that means in reality in terms of jobs—forgive me for saying so—is a question for Minister Shanks, as are questions around how the priorities might take shape.

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.

We looked at what was required in terms of the legislation around that; it is not something that we are able to do under the current devolution settlement.

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.