Seamus Logan: Much about GB Energy still isn’t stacking up

I sat through four hours of contributions on the Labour government’s plans for the creation of the frustratingly named Great British Energy.

Why was I frustrated? For a start because at least 75% of the UK’s energy production comes from Scotland! It reminded me of so many occasions watching Andy Murray on the tennis court. When he was victorious, he was invariably the “great British champion Andy Murray”. In defeat he was always “Scotland’s Andy Murray”.

READ MORE: Scotland's net zero transition needs significant investment to avoid failure - report

At the end of the debate, I was even more frustrated because I was left with more questions than I’d received answers to. We learned a lot about Labour’s claims for what this organisation will achieve but not a great deal about how it will manage to do so. Confusion still reigns.

For example, we were told that taxpayers’ money will leverage private sector investment. As a result, our energy bills will come down because of a massive offshore wind farm development leading to between 20-30 gigawatts of additional electricity generation. But will it work, particularly in the timescales that Labour boldly claim?

We were also told that GB Energy is a new partnership between the Government and the Crown Estate, which owns the seabed for 12 miles off Scotland’s shores. But before we look at those matters, let’s focus on one simple question that has yet to be answered: where will this organisation be based?

On behalf of the many thousands of people who work in the energy sector in the north-east of Scotland, I must assert the case for Aberdeen to be the home of GB Energy.

As I said in my speech during the debate, the bulk of offshore renewables production will be within a 100-mile radius of Aberdeen. The ports that will be essential to servicing the renewables sector are on the east coast close to the Moray Firth, not least the larger ports in my own constituency at Peterhead and Fraserburgh but also other smaller ports such as Buckie.

We have a workforce with relevant skills and unrivalled experience already in place. According to research published last year by Robert Gordon University, around one in five jobs across north-east Scotland is in oil and gas. We must capitalise on the skills these workers possess, the vast majority of which are “crossover” skills.

READ MORE: Scottish Government 'will need to find £100m to mitigate Labour cuts', minister says

This is what a managed and just transition means. It means never abandoning the people and the communities that have delivered billions of pounds of revenue every year into the UK Treasury for close to 50 years now.

Returning to Labour’s claims of lower energy bills by the end of this parliament, this is at best an unrealistically bold claim and at worst one based on potentially riding roughshod over the rights of local communities in planning matters, rights which are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

What we know is that the infrastructure necessary to deliver the energy to our homes – cables, pylons, battery storage facilities, new sub-stations – is well behind schedule. Even with a helpful planning context, some of the schemes may not be generating power for another 10-15 years.

But this helpful planning context may involve dismissing local concerns in areas of outstanding natural beauty in order to meet the Westminster government promise. It may also involve another power grab on Holyrood.

Of course there must be a balance between national interests and local concerns but not at any cost. Properly informing and addressing community concerns takes time and that is something this new government has already left itself short on.

Another point of concern for me is something I directly challenged the Energy Minister Michael Shanks to address. While this new company is called GB Energy, it seems it can do nothing to directly lower the cost of gas, which Ed Miliband has already acknowledged is sold on the open international market.

Shanks dismissed my question as ill-informed, but he failed to answer regarding the role of GB Energy in helping our thousands of gas consumers who have been paying through the nose other than to claim more electricity means less gas. Really?

It shouldn’t be called GB Energy – possibly GB Electric or GB Renewables – but in my view, it really should be called Scottish Energy. It should belong to the people of Scotland who are continuing to pay the highest standing charges in the UK while living in the coldest parts of these islands.

The shores off the coast of this nation should belong the people of this country, not the monarchy which is already rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

And what of the Labour Party’s broken promise on their £28 billion investment in green energy? What will the next cut be?

One final question concerning the elephant in the room: modular nuclear reactors. Will we be forced to accept their construction on Scottish soil? Again, local communities will wonder if their opinions will count in the face of Labour’s plans.

The only real solution for the people here in Scotland to obtain a better energy future for their children and grandchildren is for Scotland to own its assets and determine its own future as an independent, sovereign nation.