 Welcome back to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee's 31st meeting of 2018, before we move to the sixth item in the agenda. Remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones as they may affect the broadcasting system. The sixth item on our agenda today is to consider a proposal by the Scottish Government to consent to the UK Government legislation using the powers under the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, in relation to the storage of carbon dioxide regulations 2018. We are joined by Stuart Mackay this afternoon, the head of carbon capture utilisation and storage for the Scottish Government. Thank you for coming along to answer our questions. My first question is about the timing of the receipt of this notification to the committee. It was sent on Thursday, 26 November, with the expectation that it will be laid at Westminster a week later on 29 November. The lights and background is as to why I think there has been so little time given to the Parliament to consider this notification. We received the invite today to speak. We received the notification from the UK Government on 6 November, which is outside the 28 day period to begin with. I went through the usual processes. I had to consult the Scottish Government legal department and other policy officials and eventually get it through to the minister. It was very late in getting to you. I suppose that I want to know what discussion the Scottish Government had with Bays on the scope to lay the SI at this date, given that the Parliament would have a very short period of time in which to scrutinise and consider it. Of course. We have conveyed to the UK Government that this is not ideal and that it is challenging. We have sent a holding response to the UK Government and it conveys that message. Do you give any idea as to why this one has been particularly urgent? I think that it is because of the acceleration in this policy at the moment from the UK Government. I did send a note as an update to the committee, which sets out the activity that has happened in the past 12 months in the UK Government. That is a policy error that is accelerating in its development at the moment. The correspondence that we got did not indicate whether the draft SI had actually been shared by the Scottish Government from the UK Government, has it? We have not got the draft SI yet. I will pass on to some questions, given that you have said that. Can I just correct that? We have the draft SI and we have been consulted on that over the past few weeks, but we have not got the final one. You have not got the final one. That is what I meant to say. I apologise. The drafting, as it is, that you have seen thus far? Yes. It appears to be minor in a technical change rather than anything else. Our legal department is satisfied also. Questions from Anagis MacDonald? With regard to the categorisation of the notification, it has been classified as a category A. The notification indicates that the SI would transfer power to the UK Secretary of State. I would be keen to know what are the reasons for classifying the notification as category A rather than category B, given that it creates new powers for the UK Secretary of State. What that addresses is minor changes in a technical nature. Part of the legislation means that the UK Government would have to consult with the European Commission. That is about changing that to the Secretary of State. However, where it affects the Scottish Government is to do with the pipelines. If the pipelines cross the 12 nautical mile limit of the Scottish Government, it has an interaction with Scottish ministers. Because those pipelines will naturally come from onshore, in Scotland in this case, to offshore, crossing the boundary of the 12 nautical miles into the UK continental shelf, they straddle the boundary. In the process of accessing those pipelines and in the termination and decommissioning of those pipelines at the eventual end of life, there will be an interaction with the Scottish Government naturally. That is where those two things meet. However, what it does not affect is the Scottish Government's licensing ability or capability or competence. We also have licensing powers for CCS, but that refers to licensing CCS activities within the 12 nautical miles of the territorial seas of Scotland. It is very much because pipelines go across these boundaries, there will always be this interaction. What kind of interaction is that case of permissions, agreement? It would be consultation and agreement to decommission, for instance, in a certain way, to make sure that the Scottish ministers are content with that, and for access, for maintenance, etc. I appreciate the clarification, but given that there is a complexity, I would have thought that it should have been category B, but here we go. I think that it is just because of the sort of minor changes here in terms of changing the European Commission, consulting them to consulting in the Secretary of State of Scotland for the Secretary of State of the UK Government. It is always CCS because it crosses these boundaries between the 12 nautical mile limit and the UK continental shelf. It has always been a mixture of both Governments agreeing. I am not understanding your answers to Angus MacDonald just for the record, because you may already have answered some of those questions. What impact does the proposed statutory instrument have on devolved areas, and what are the practical implications? It does not really have any impact, to be honest. As I said, those pipelines are always by agreement because they cross the both boundaries. Both Governments are required in order to consent, to gain access and to terminate and decommission. Depending on which part of the sea that your activity takes place. As I said, it does not affect the Scottish ministers' competencies in licensing CCS within their jurisdiction. Right. Quite specifically, does the function of legislating to amend certain technical requirements in areas where the oil and gas authority is the licensing authority impact in any way on devolved areas, in addition to what you have already said? We do not believe so. There is reference within the legislation to updating technical innovations and other matters with that technology. The reference is that you would look to the European Commission to gain those updates and adopt them into your legislation. That part has changed because of that. That would be to the UK Government and the Scottish Government to update wherever that is relevant in technical terms. For the record, does the Scottish Government anticipate having a role in the exercise of this power, for example? Does it expect to be consulted on changes to UK technical requirements currently set out in the CCS directive? The answer to that is yes. The answer to that is yes. We have consulted with the UK Government on this throughout the years. Is it the intention of the Scottish ministers to have an equivalent power to modify technical requirements within the territorial sea adjacent to Scotland? If so, how does the Scottish Government anticipate that those powers will interact in practice? It is our intention to address the same technical issues. It is not a priority. We have other things that need to be done quicker than that. There are no live projects with CCS-injected CO2 into the geological formations, expected for a couple of years at best, so we feel that we have time to address that. The notification states that this addresses minor EU exit-related amendments and non-EU exit-related cross-referencing errors. What are those, in plain speak? CCS, by its nature, is affected by a number of things. One of them is the ETS, which I think the committee has discussed. A CCS project would need an ETS permit, for instance, if there was a live project happening. The interaction between the ETS and what happens with the ETS connects CCS in that way. Is that helpful? That is the purpose of those additional amendments and cross-referencing errors. The cross-referencing, yes. Again, some of the cross-referencing is to take out the European Commission and put in place the UK Government's Secretary of State for this particular SI. That leads me neatly on to just asking a couple more questions about CCS and the relationship with the EU ETS and what replaces that. How will the current incentives on carbon storage sites to avoid carbon leakage be replaced in the UK? We will have a carbon taxation mechanism. What is your understanding of how that will work? That is not my exact area, but in order to try and help, whatever replaces the ETS, a CCS project will be part of that and will need a permit from whatever is decided, like many large industrial projects. There is still uncertainty around the proposed mechanism and what the impact of that may be in capturing emissions and reducing emissions? Yes, there is. From my point of view, I am looking at CCS. The CCS project needs a permit for ETS. If ETS is replaced by something else, whatever that may be, that will stay the same. The CCS projects will still… There is no intention to change that at all. So the intention and the effect will be the same then? Yes, whatever that solution is, we will address the CCS. There is no intention to change that at all. I hope that that is helpful. Is CCS leaky? Would you expect projects to be using ETS or some other mechanism? I do not want to use the word backstab. It needs to be there in place, but the Schleipner project from Norway has been storing CO2 for 20 years in the North Sea without incident. Our geologists tell us that that is a safe thing to do. The way that you would choose a store would have to be characterised in such a way that the geology is suitable. There is an awful lot of hurdles to get through before you can say that a site is suitable for that sort of activity. The notification relates to the proposed SI and states that it does not amend the Scottish equivalent to the licensing regulations, the storage of carbon dioxide, Scotland regulations 2011. The regulations relate to the licensing of geological storage within the Scottish territorial waters and are expected to be amended in due course. I know that you have said that there is nothing coming forward for the next few years, but are there any implications in not amending the relevant Scottish licensing concurrently to ensure cohesive licensing? It is a matter of priority. We have chosen to prioritise other things at the moment. However, that is definitely on the list of things to do. It needs to happen, definitely. Any idea when? I do not have any exact date, but in due course it has already begun. There are no implications without it not being concurrent now. We do not have any live projects at the moment storing CO2. We have a number of projects that are starting to be developed, which is very interesting. There are no live projects operational. Any other members have any other questions that they want to ask? Or do you have anything that you want to say in relation to this that you have not covered already? Just to reiterate that it is a minor technical change and that we are addressing the Scottish part of that separately. Thank you very much for joining us. That is very helpful. That concludes the items of the committee's agenda in public session. It is next meeting on 4 December. The committee will hear evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform and the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity on a number of environmental issues arising from the UK's exit from the European Union. As previously agreed, the committee will now move into private session. I request that the public gallery now be vacated.