Edward Mountain
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“They should spare a thought for the 1,700 people who make this place work. Do not ignore them. It is they who make it possible for members to do what they do on a daily basis. Secondly, make friends across the chamber. I have tried to do that, and it has delivered for me. Thirdly, focus on one issue. My issue found me.”
“There will be £6.6 billion in co-benefits from the changes in the transport sector, relating to improved health outcomes, increased exercise and reduced pollution, which I mentioned in my statement. I mentioned the changes from the draft plan in my statement and in my response to Sarah Boyack.”
“The other thing that has frustrated me and, I think, many people across Scotland is the constant deflections that we hear. There are cries of, “If only we had the tools and the levers of power that we need.” I gently remind politicians in this Parliament that it is about what is possible, and much is possible in this Parliament.”
“Rhoda Grant has been an incredible champion for crofting—I have seen that come to the fore through the passage of this legislation—and a force for the Highlands and Islands. She has also called for the right to food.”
“Elements of the legislation will help crofters to begin the process of adaptation, but there was room in the bill to speed things up. At stage 2, we proposed giving crofters the benefits from environmental use of the land, an environmental use advice service and public financing.”
“As this will be my last speech in the Parliament, I hope that the minister will excuse me if I touch only briefly on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. It is nothing like what we were promised in 2016.”
The complete record
Every one of 490 lines we hold for Edward Mountain, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
“I remember sitting on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and hearing calls for a moratorium on salmon farming. In the end, two members dissented from the part of the report in which we did not call for a moratorium. I was one of those who did not want a moratorium, but my position might have changed.”
“However, we must be clear that those businesses cannot do that at any price. It would be wrong to scoot past without reminding members of the fable of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Members will recall that, in that story, events resulted in the Emperor going out undressed because people were incompetent and gullible and pretended not to know what was going on. I am none of those things and, when it comes to salmon farming, I will not be any of those things. In 2018, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee told this Parliament that there were things wrong with salmon farming. It made 65 recommendations, and I am disappointed that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, having looked at some of those recommendations again, is having to acknowledge that a lot of them have not been complied with.”
“I am delighted to be able to open this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Before I go any further, I remind Parliament of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I have an interest in a wild salmon fishery. I have had that interest for 45 years, during which time I have been involved in watching salmon farming around the coasts of Scotland. I, too, would like to thank committee members for all the work that they have done. I know how difficult it has been, as I have been there before, when the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee considered the issue in 2018. As a Conservative, I support businesses. I support businesses that bring a great deal to Scotland’s economy in terms of employment and opportunities, and in terms of our balance of payments.”
“The Government is now talking about a direct tender process, but it has not done the one thing that it has been asked to do, which is to sort out the whole procedure. We have CMAL, Transport Scotland and CalMac—a plethora of organisations—but we have no one in control, and the whole thing is tumbling out of control. I am sad to be standing up in Parliament saying this. I am sad that the Government cannot give me a date for delivery of the Glen Rosa, because no one seems to know that, and I am sad that the Government has sold Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow down the river. It is a disgrace. 15:30”
“Is it inexperience? Was it a gamble? I do not know. It is probably all those things. What we do know is that the Government appointed the board and the turnaround director and approved the appointment of the CEOs. I am sorry to say this, but I believe that the Government has sold the workforce down the river. It is a disgrace. I am disappointed that I have to stand here in the Parliament and say that, but it is a fact. I turn to the west coast ferry services. Ms Hyslop sat on the very committee that took evidence on ferry services for the Western Isles, and we heard very clearly during an evidence session that there should be a direct award only if islanders supported it. I have had no evidence presented to me—or to the committee that I sit on—that islanders now approve of a direct award.”
“We have an admission from the past CEO and the previous CEO that, every time we build a ferry there, its cost will be 25 to 30 per cent greater than the cost in any other yard in the world. That information was given to the committee in evidence. It is therefore unsurprising that the small vessels replacement programme could not go to Ferguson Marine. I wish that it could have done. However, the board signed off on an investment plan, which was also signed off by the Deputy First Minister, saying that the matter would be solved with the direct award of the small vessels replacement, for which the yard would get £14 million to help it to build, knowing fine well that the permanent secretary had said that a direct award of the small vessels replacement programme would likely be illegal. How do we sum all of that up? Is it incompetence?”
“If the cabinet secretary wants to stand up and tell me when the Glen Rosa will be delivered, I will be delighted, because neither the committee that I sit on nor the Parliament has been told a date, despite the promise that we would be told a date before the end of January. We are now told that we might get it by the end of March if we are lucky. I will take an intervention on that if the cabinet secretary wants to respond. The yard should be the pride of Scotland and it should be delivering ferries for Scotland, but at the moment there is no CEO and the chair has never built a ship in his life, having been involved in aircraft for a lot of it. The yard is costing Scottish taxpayers £20 million a year in unrecoverable costs just to stay open.”
“I thank Claire Baker and the Labour Party for their motion, which allows us to discuss a subject that I have been involved with for nine years on various committees that I have sat on. For me, the debate is split into two parts. I hope that I will have time to get to the second part, but let me start with the first part, which is the delivery of ferries. During the nine years in which I have been involved, I have seen two owners of the yard, four CEOs or turnaround directors, three different chairs, goodness knows how many ministers and goodness knows how many cabinet secretaries—I have lost count. What have we got from that? Not a huge amount. We have one boat, which is seven years late and is costing far more than anything else, and we have a yard that is waiting to deliver the Glen Rosa.”
“I move, That the Parliament deplores the continuing economic and social damage inflicted on Clyde and Hebrides communities through the Scottish Government’s failure to provide adequate ferry services; calls on the Scottish Government to reconsider its decision to impose a 10% increase in fares on Scottish Government funded ferry services, contrary to the recommendations of the delivery companies; is concerned that no Scottish yard has been selected to deliver any of the ferries in the Small Vessel Replacement Programme; believes that the governance structure for west coast ferry services has failed, and calls for the award of a new Clyde and Hebrides ferry contract to be accompanied by a fundamental reform of governance, which puts island communities and workers at the heart of decision making and accountability. 14:59”
“We know that previous analysis by the Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership— HITRANS—found that statistics included services that had been removed and, as a result of vessels being sidelined for long periods, the published figures did not reflect the lived reality of passengers. Scotland’s ferry network is crippled, and island communities and Scottish shipbuilding are paying the price. Chronic mismanagement, poor planning and a lack of accountability have left communities cut off and workers without certainty. We know that delivering a modern, affordable ferry network is essential. That requires a proper fleet renewal plan, fair fares and a governance reform that gives communities and workers a real say.”
“The Audit Scotland report underlined the weaknesses in governance arrangements, but what actions have been taken to improve the areas that were identified as needing improvement? Is work taking place to explore the potential for more fundamental reforms? Reliability issues are a huge concern, which is reflected in the responses to the consultation on the islands connectivity plan: 88 per cent of respondents said that the first priority should be improving reliability and increasing resilience. The Government’s amendment points to the high percentage of services that have been delivered. I ask that the cabinet secretary confirm whether those figures take into account all routes and include services that have been removed in advance.”
“If people had a reliable, affordable service that they were happy with, there would be more support for a continuation of the contract. We need to involve island communities and workers in decision making and ensure that proper, efficient and transparent procedures are in place. Island communities deserve more than apologies and excuses—they deserve action. Workers and communities must have a say in how the network is run. The Government’s amendment sets out a position of openness to more fundamental reform, but progress needs to be made. Project Neptune recognised the complex arrangement of the tripartite arrangement, its perceived lack of accountability and the impact of that delivery and cost.”
“I hear that Labour will now support the direct award of the contract, but at a meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, at which the Labour Party was represented, it was agreed that there would be a direct award only if the islanders approved that. Are you ignoring the islanders now? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members should always speak through the chair. Claire Baker: I hope to hear from the cabinet secretary on that. I understand that she has had a meeting with passenger groups, local authorities, unions and islanders, and that there is support among some islanders for a direct award. I recognise islanders’ frustrations with the ferry service, and possibly with CalMac, but I believe that that is a result of the Government’s mismanagement of the ferry service.”
“Ash Regan: Single-sex spaces are not a “nice to have”. A person cannot self-identify their sex. The Government should not be removing safeguarding—it should be enforcing it. The women and girls of Scotland, quite frankly, deserve nothing less. 16:22”
“When I questioned the chair of the commission two weeks ago, she was unable to answer any of my simple questions to my satisfaction or—I think—to the public’s satisfaction. So, the commission is also failing: it is failing to adhere to the remit that is set out in its enabling legislation. It did not provide a comprehensive analysis of women and girls as vulnerable rights holders during the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is a serious failure. It continues to fail to make interventions on upholding women’s human rights. The Parliament must now act, either to remove the commissioner, to censure the commission or to end its funding. I look forward to speaking to other members about what they think of that suggestion. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Regan, you need to bring your remarks to a close.”
“The position that has been taken by the Scottish Government and local authorities in relation to single-sex changing spaces runs counter to the protections that are outlined under international law. The Scottish Government is responsible for human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, even though it likes to pretend that it is not. The Scottish Parliament retains competence with regard to observing and implementing international human rights obligations. Again, I do not think that the Parliament is taking that up in the way that it should. In my opinion, both the Government and the Parliament are failing to uphold women’s human rights in Scotland. That brings me neatly on to the Scottish Human Rights Commission.”
“Interestingly, a school in the Highlands that I visited the other day does not have toilets for both sexes. There is a single set of toilets, and it is up to the children to police the toilets to keep the sexes separate, which they were doing quite effectively. The female pupils do not want males in their part and the males do not want females in their part, so they have divided the toilets up among themselves and police them themselves. Do you think that that is the right way forward? Ash Regan: I admire their spirit in trying to come up with a compromise that works for everyone, but they should not have to do that themselves. Leadership should be exercised in those areas. On single-sex changing spaces, women have an internationally protected right to privacy, bodily integrity and protection against sexual violence.”
“Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and I discussed not that specific issue but the general question of how we deliver healthcare in areas where recruitment and employment can be a challenge but where, as Mr Mountain correctly puts to me, there is physical capacity to undertake some of that surgical activity in the health board facilities. Part of what we are trying to work on is how we work collaboratively in health boards to address the circumstances that Mr Mountain puts to me, so that we can use that capacity to help us to reduce waiting times and meet the needs of his constituents and others. It is very much a live part of the activity that the health secretary and I are taking forward to ensure that the needs of constituents around the country are met. Two-child”
“NHS Highland’s vascular services have been in terminal decline for years. Sadly, our last vascular surgeon has just resigned because he feels that the way that the service is delivered is a threat to life and limb. Given that NHS Highland has hospital beds and vascular surgery theatres available, will the First Minister ask his health secretary to review the situation? It is unacceptable that patients in the Highlands are being put in taxis and ambulances late at night to get to the central belt in order to get surgery. The First Minister: Mr Mountain raises an important point.”
“It has been suggested that half a trillion dollars will be needed to rebuild that country. Let us not forget or shy away from the fact that Russia took repatriations from East Germany up until the day that the wall came down. If Russia is going to pull out, it can pay for the damage, injury and loss of life that it has caused to Ukraine. To let Russia get away with anything less would be unacceptable. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I call the next speaker, I advise members that, due to the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Colin Beattie to move such a motion. Motion moved, That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Colin Beattie] Motion agreed to. 17:52”
“It would be wrong if I stood here and did not comment on the appalling behaviour that I witnessed, to my eternal shame and embarrassment, going on in the White House. On JD Vance’s behaviour, he should have known better. He was a marine—or it says in his service record that he was a marine; if we dig down into it, we find that he was a journalist with the United States Marines and given the honorary rank of corporal to boot. He should not have been trying to ambush somebody who has lived in fear for their life for three years. It was wrong and disgraceful, and, if no-one is prepared to call him out, we should stand here and do that. Ukraine will face a huge battle at the end of this invasion, when its people win—we must ensure that they win—as they rebuild their country.”
“We have not done enough to stop all those countries arming Russia and standing up for Putin against Ukraine. As the United Kingdom, however, we have done a considerable amount. I think that we have spent nearly £12 billion in supporting Ukraine. I am proud that we have done that. I know that there is a cost involved, but I understand why we had to do it. I also support Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to build up the British Army again. We need to. I have made no apologies for my Government, which hollowed out the armed forces and took the peace dividend from the cold war. That was wrong. I am glad that he has seen that, and I am glad that the west is now standing on its own two feet and will do something about it.”
“I have to say that, as an ex- soldier, I am incredibly impressed by the fight that the 200 soldiers there put up, which basically prevented Ukraine from falling to Putin. They did one hell of a job, and we should be proud of them. We, from all parties, should understand and accept that that is why we need armed forces: to prevent people like that from coming in. What has Ukraine had to face since then? It has had to face the Wagner group. I do not think that I have ever come across a more disreputable group of people in my life—not that I am aware that I have met any of them. It has also had to deal with North Korean troops being shipped across, and it has had to cope with arms and weapons coming from Iran and Syria. We were prepared to let that go.”
“The Americans did just that. At that time, we said that we would guarantee Ukraine’s security. What happened? I will tell members what happened. On 18 March 2014, Putin decided to invade Crimea. What did we do about that? Absolutely nothing. President Barack Obama stood by and said that he did not think that it was a serious event. Let me tell you: it was a serious event—it emboldened Putin and gave him the scope to do what he is doing today. That started the creeping war, as I call it, in the Donbas in eastern Ukraine and in Luhansk, where Putin pushed and pushed at the door to see how far he would get—and we did not do anything. To our eternal shame, we stood back. We had the ability to do something, and we did nothing. That resulted in the lightning strike by Putin to capture Kyiv airport.”
“I thank Colin Beattie for lodging the motion that we are debating this evening, which offers us a chance to speak of our three years of solidarity with Ukraine. Of course, that solidarity goes back much further than three years. I will touch on that, but I first want to make it clear that the events of 24 February 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, go down in infamy with the events of 4 November 1956, when Russia marched into Hungary, and with the events of 24 December 1979, when Russia marched into Afghanistan. There are similarities. Why does our solidarity with Ukraine go back further? Let us go back to the Budapest memorandum of 5 December 1994, when Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, the US and the UK agreed to stand together to guarantee the sovereignty of Ukraine in order to get rid of the nuclear weapons that it had.”
“And this at a time when electricity has never been more important in the lifeblood of modern society.” The words of the late Donald Miller ring very true today. It was rather prophetic of him to say that 10 years ago. I wish that the Government would take more cognisance of the expertise in this country and harness it to deliver a true industrial renaissance. 16:21”
“The decommissioning of our conventional generation is fast approaching”— since then, it has approached— “and yet there are no plans to replace the generating capacity at Longannet or the nuclear. Even more incomprehensible is that we shall, in a few years, be importing power for much of the time from the new nuclear station to be built just over the border in England”. As he said, we may wonder “just why Scotland (birthplace of so much engineering)”— and a pioneer of nuclear energy— “should be importing power we could well generate here, exporting highly skilled jobs in the process. And moreover ending up with the least reliable and insecure electricity supply that we have seen for a hundred years.”
“He mentioned that, when he retired from the South of Scotland Electricity Board in the early 1990s, he could take a great deal of satisfaction from the fact that Scotland had “one of the most secure and cost effective systems” of electricity generation worldwide. He said: “Some 60% of our energy was from nuclear and with the hydro we could, incidentally, also claim to be one of the greenest systems with the lowest carbon emissions.” He added that “The coal fired station at Longannet”— which was recently decommissioned but was groundbreaking when it was built— “was used mainly for back up and profitable exports to England for the benefit of Scottish consumers.” However, he said: “Today we see a very different picture.”
“We know that the reason why petrochemicals in this country are quickly becoming uncompetitive is the throttling of competitive manufacturing due to high gas prices, which drive our electricity costs. We must avoid missing other opportunities like that and move to a more pragmatic approach whereby nuclear energy is part of the mix. Mr Simpson mentioned what has happened in Germany, which is a warning sign for what could happen in the UK—indeed, it is happening, with the high industrial energy costs that we have here. We must also take cognisance of what one of our best-ever engineers, the late Sir Donald Miller, told us more than a decade ago.”
“That would give us the ability to use the existing turbine plant at the sites that I mentioned and to repower them at a fraction of the capital cost of building a new nuclear power station from scratch. SMRs are also well suited to replacing fossil-fuel fired plants. For example, Longannet had the same generator plant as Hunterston and Torness. It was a shame that it was dynamited and cleared when it could have been repowered using SMRs. We can utilise more of those sites and, in doing so, generate power more efficiently. It was also really disappointing to learn that, in 2022, the Scottish Government fundamentally rejected any proposal from Ineos and Rolls-Royce to power the Grangemouth refinery using a small modular reactor.”
“The member is so right. I need only look at 3 November, when 50 per cent of our energy came from gas, 30 per cent from nuclear and 3 per cent from wind. Can he explain why the Government is so against nuclear, except when the wind does not blow and it is prepared to accept nuclear power from France to keep the lights on in Scotland? Paul Sweeney: The member highlights the fallacy and logical inconsistency that lie at the heart of the Government’s position. It is largely a sunk-cost fallacy—the Government has been so wedded to that position for so long that it is hard for it to walk back from it. Rolls-Royce has developed new small modular reactor technology, which is around a third of the size of second-generation nuclear plant, such as the existing advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet in Scotland.”
“The late amendment in question looks unobjectionable, but that is a matter of chance and might not always be the case. Although the committee supports the motion, it feels that we should actively explore, with our counterparts, ways to ensure that we do not have to go through this rather futile process again. 14:07”
“The first time round, I had some strong words for the Scottish Government, after the committee had been made to wait for months for a substantive legislative consent memorandum, and I hope that it listened. The present case concerns an amendment with devolved elements, which was tabled and agreed late in the day at Westminster. That was not the Scottish Government’s doing, and I accept that, like death and taxes, late amendments will always be with us. However, it seems that there cannot be a mechanism to hit the pause button at Westminster whenever that happens. Why not? It would buy us a little more time to consider such amendments. That is not an unreasonable ask, and the committee thinks that the Scottish Parliament should explore it further.”
“Members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee support the motion, but with reluctance and with more than some frustration. When we debated the second legislative consent motion on the Great British Energy Bill, five short days ago, I talked about the committee literally rushing through the motions for the sake of standing orders in order to produce a report that could say almost nothing. The present motion would prevent us from having to go through that again, in even more extreme circumstances, and in that sense it is welcome. However, any objective observer can see that this is not the way in which our legislative consent process is meant to work. This is the third time that I have stood here to talk about the bill.”
“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”
“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.”
“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.”
“Edward Mountain: 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.”
“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. Alasdair Allan: Will the member take an intervention?”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not get my device to connect; I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Mountain. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“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”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“Gillian Martin: 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.”
“[Made a request to intervene.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is an intervention from Edward Mountain, who joins us remotely. Edward Mountain: 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. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Mountain. That is clear.”