Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

As Mr Matheson will know intricately, Scottish Government ministers have powers to consent to developments of all types in the Crown estate, the sea bed and the landmass of Scotland. If we were to merely be consulted on things that were happening with GB Energy, that would take away from that power. A requirement for consent would dovetail with the consents that come to us.

The issue is really important when it comes to the strategic goals of GB Energy. Initially, when GB Energy was floated as an idea before the election, we all asked about what it would be. I am keen that we are an equal partner in the strategic actions that GB Energy takes. It is not there as a competitor to other operations; it must add to what we already have in Scotland. Having “consult” instead of “consent” means that, whatever those strategic priorities end up being, we would be consenting to them.

As the company develops, I want to see those strategic priorities provide additionality to what is already in the energy sector in Scotland and increase capacity in areas where required. For example, I am keen that whatever GB Energy is doing in the community energy space does not reinvent the wheel. We already have Local Energy Scotland, which is an organisation that was set up by the Scottish Government. I do not want to see another body—it would be confusing for the public and I do not think that there is any need for it. I was able to discuss with Michael Shanks how we could work together so that, if we already have vehicles in Scotland for activity that GB Energy is carrying out, we would be able to use those organisations and add the funding to their capacity, rather than have separate entities set up and badged with GB Energy. Those are a couple of examples.

If the strategic priorities require our consent, it means that, as it develops—I do not think that GB Energy is fully developed yet, but that is the point—we have the proving part in place such that, whatever direction it goes in, it must be with the consent of the Scottish ministers. It is very early days in relation to what GB Energy will achieve.

The concerns that you have just outlined are the same as my and the Government’s initial concerns when the draft was put in front of us. That is why we have worked so hard to ask for a change to the wording in clause 5 and to get agreement in clause 6 that we will be involved in the consultation around the direction that is given to GB Energy.

I feel confident that the change from “consult” to “consent” will allow future proofing to happen. I am also heartened by the willingness of the chief executive officer, Juergen Maier, to engage with me and the First Minister very early on in his appointment, and to talk about working together. There is also the Secretary of State for Scotland. It will be good for both Governments to have a relationship where consent is in statute, because that will ensure that the Scottish Government is treated as an equal partner.

There is a recognition that the Scottish Government is well ahead—particularly with the work that we have done with Crown Estate Scotland on ScotWind and so on, our onshore wind sector deal, our hydrogen strategy and community energy with the community and rural energy scheme. We are not just an equal partner but—I hope—a source of advice on how GB Energy will best operate in Scotland. From speaking to Juergen Maier, I certainly get the feeling that that will be the case. I have also offered that expertise and discussion to ministers, throughout the process of creating GB Energy. That is why I want the amendment to include the word “consent”.

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.

That is effectively what I mean by future proofing. GB Energy will be a publicly owned company. It has highlighted its five strategic priorities, but they are very wide, and we want to give our consent to them as they evolve.

Clause 6 enables the secretary of state to give direction to GB Energy. At the moment, clause 6 says that the secretary of state should consult GB Energy and

“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

We have asked for an assurance that the Scottish Government will be specifically included in that list, so that is another area where we have reached agreement.

I am being careful, because I do not want to pre-empt anything. It is important that we see the wording of the amendments before we can say that we are absolutely satisfied.

That is true.

We have concentrated on the areas that have devolved implications, particularly in clause 5, but not so much in clause 6, which is about the company more generally, rather than about acting in the Scottish space. We have had those discussions. Clause 5 is the one that we really had to get “consent” into, because that makes the most material difference in terms of things happening in the devolved space and some of the issues that Mr Matheson brought up.

I will wait to see the wording of the amendment before I lodge an LCM, but we have an agreement that that has been taken on board.

The Crown Estate in Scotland is a separate legal entity, so, as you know very well, Mr Ruskell, there would be a separate bill associated with that. The UK Government is looking to modernise the Crown Estate in England and Wales so that it can be in a position to act, I imagine, more like the Scottish Crown Estate. The UK Government has presumably looked at what we have done with ScotWind in that respect, and at what the Crown Estate in England and Wales needs.

My understanding is that the Deputy First Minister has been negotiating with the UK Government on the Crown Estate Bill, and the Crown Estate has asked us to ensure that there is parity. However, we need to look very carefully at what ends up being in the Crown Estate Bill for England and Wales in terms of borrowing powers, because that would have implications for the limit on our borrowing powers. The Deputy First Minister is working on that.

We always look to see whether the Crown Estate legislation in Scotland is fit for purpose, and we review the governance and the operating model to make sure that it is fit for purpose as things progress. We optimise that role in value creation.

At the moment, our view is that we should keep an eye on the legislation on the Crown Estate in England and Wales and see if there is anything in that bill that we would like to adopt when we look to our legislation, but at the moment, we do not know. I think that it is getting a reading tomorrow—is that right? It is definitely upcoming. The Deputy First Minister is leading on that.