Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. We look at EU alignment in absolutely everything that we do, both in terms of whether we give consent and in terms of our own bills. Nothing in this bill suggests anything in relation to EU alignment, so I am content in that area. It is a short answer, but effectively there is nothing that is an issue.

There are other things. GB Energy is a consideration, but there is more than just that. We have a new UK Government that has very quickly become quite active in the energy space, particularly in consultation with us. We have had discussions about things such as community benefits. We have long been calling for the mandating of community benefits and having guidelines associated with consultation with the public. We are doing our own, because we are not waiting for the UK Government, but we want to work with the UK Government on any of its plans in mandating all that.

There has been quite a lot of policy shift from the UK Government, and the impact of that is why we have not published our energy strategy. We are coming to grips with that, and we are involved in it.

GB Energy is not feeding into our energy strategy, but our reaction to the policy shifts from the new UK Government has been taken into account. There is quite a lot there that we have to grapple with, and it is making a material difference to some of the things that we have in the energy strategy. We do not want to publish an energy strategy that goes out of date.

You rightly point out that we have the consenting powers associated with that. Our policy is well known.

I can give a concise answer. My discussions with the UK on hydrogen have not been in the space of GB Energy. They have been on the export infrastructure for hydrogen and on how are we going to get hydrogen from Scotland, which is going to be a major producer of green hydrogen, to our customer base, which is largely going to be Germany. We need that infrastructure, and we need to work with the EU on that, as well as on the technical aspects of the standards that are associated with the production and export of hydrogen.

The discussions have not been specifically on hydrogen projects. If GB Energy wants to do hydrogen projects—again, how it might do that is a question for it—I would suggest that there is an opportunity. I do not want to upset the convener by going back to talking about Grangemouth, but there is a big opportunity there for the production of blue, and then green, hydrogen. A lot of that would be made much more commercially viable if we had track status on carbon capture and storage as well.

I have been having those discussions around hydrogen, but not necessarily in relation to my focus on GB Energy, on the bill and on ensuring that we have the consent responsibilities that I want us to have.

I want to make sure that a fair share of the investment funding for any technology that goes to GB Energy comes to Scotland, so that we do not reinvent the wheel when it comes to the vehicles that are used to give out that funding. We already have well-established funding streams that have done very well and are oversubscribed. To increase capacity, we need to make sure that the funding that is associated with GB Energy’s funding streams in that area is coming to Scotland.

Thank you very much, convener. Happy new year to you all. I thank you and the committee for inviting me to discuss our approach to the UK Government’s Great British Energy Bill as well as our reaction to the bill and some of the discussions that we have had with the UK Government on aspects of the bill.

The UK Government has said that GB Energy has been designed to do four things: the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy; the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels; improvements in energy efficiency; and measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy. Many of the bill’s objectives, particularly the production of clean energy, are already commercially under way in Scotland, and I am keen to investigate how Scotland can benefit, given our current advanced status as a green energy-producing nation.

We already have a strong pipeline of clean energy and a growing supply chain. We are at the forefront of floating offshore wind development, and we have a depth of knowledge and experience of community and local energy.

To date, I have had very positive discussions with the UK Government about the role of GB Energy and how it will dovetail with our already well-established activity, communities and sectors. Those positive discussions have been framed by the joint vision statement that I signed with the secretary of state in late summer last year, which commits the Scottish and UK Governments, alongside our public bodies, to working together to maximise the public benefit of GB Energy’s activities in Scotland.

The bill will provide a statutory basis for Great British Energy as a publicly owned and operationally independent energy company and will give the UK secretary of state the ability to provide financial assistance to GB Energy to enable it to become operational.

Since our legislative consent motion was lodged in August, my officials and I have taken part in many discussions on the bill with the UK Government. I am grateful to my UK Government counterparts for the positive tone of those discussions.

The Scottish Government is broadly supportive of the bill, and we have been working closely with the UK Government to ensure that it delivers for the people of Scotland. However, there were issues with two clauses that we wanted to iron out. Our negotiations on the bill focused in particular on clause 5(4), which concerns the level of engagement that the UK secretary of state would have to have with the Scottish ministers when preparing a statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy. I am keen to ensure that the bill contains proper recognition of devolved interests and that the Scottish Parliament has opportunities to scrutinise matters within its competence.

I am pleased to say that discussions have progressed well, and I have emphasised to the UK Government the importance of tabling the relevant amendment in a timely manner, so that we are in a position to give legislative consent to the bill. That will allow the Scottish Parliament and this committee to have sufficient opportunity to scrutinise the bill. We will lodge a supplementary legislative consent memorandum once the UK Government has tabled the amendment that we have been negotiating on.

I will continue to work with counterparts in the UK Government as its plans for GB Energy progress, not only in relation to the bill but once it has been passed. I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.

The main issue that I had to bottom out with UK Government ministers was the fact that, initially, Scottish Government ministers would be consulted only on the strategic priorities of GB Energy and would not be asked to give consent.

Given that much of the bill and the activity of GB Energy would be in devolved areas in which we have powers, we thought that it was particularly important that consent had to be given. It took us a wee while to go back and forth on that, but I am confident that we have reached a point at which the UK Government is satisfied that it should table such an amendment. I have not seen the amendments to the bill, as they have not been tabled, but should things go in the direction that I hope they will—I have had an exchange of letters with the relevant UK minister, Michael Shanks, which indicates that our concerns are being dealt with—we will be happy to give our consent.

We discussed that issue as part of our constructive engagement on the bill. There is now an understanding that it is important that we are asked to give consent, for two reasons. If we are asked to give consent, the committee will have the opportunity to scrutinise us on why we are giving—or are not giving—consent to certain things.

It depends on parliamentary timelines as well. As soon as we see the amendments, we will be able to produce an LCM. We will do that as soon as we can. It looks like we will be supportive of the bill and will want to give consent. The negotiations have come to fruition and, if the amendments are the way that we hope they will be, we will produce that LCM immediately.

I understand that, but I do want to answer Ms Lennon’s questions.

I have not had discussions specifically on the numbers that you have mentioned. Obviously, they have said that there is going to be employment at the levels that they have projected. Douglas Lumsden mentioned that, too. I think that that is a question for them. Have they overstated the amount of jobs associated with GB Energy?

Given that GB Energy’s priority will be the projects, it is quite difficult to put a number on the employment that will come from GB Energy. What were the 1,000 jobs? What were the 200 jobs? Are the 200 jobs associated with the operation of the company or are they associated with the projects? Forgive me, Mr Stewart, but those are questions that I have, too. I really hope that the UK Government takes the opportunity to come and speak to the committee about that kind of detail.