Official Report 495KB pdf
We move to item 5. The Scottish Government has provided a response to the committee’s recent report on the second climate change report on proposals and policies—RPP2—which we have before us, along with supplementary evidence from Professor Sean Smith of Edinburgh Napier University and from Stop Climate Chaos Scotland and WWF Scotland.
I am happy to wait until we come to our consideration of Professor Sean Smith’s response.
We are there now.
Okay. At paragraph 3 of his submission, Professor Smith states:
I am entirely in the committee’s hands on that matter. Professor Smith raised that issue when he gave evidence to the committee, and we had an extended discussion about it at the time. He is referring to the additional technical potential in the figures for abatement in domestic dwellings. His evidence was very strong, and he said that it is just basically a made-up figure—a balancing figure, in accountancy terms—and that we do not know where that additional potential will come from.
I take the points that Professor Smith and Alison Johnstone have made. However, we have fast-moving technologies that may give us a better understanding of what we can do—to improve domestic energy efficiency, for instance—and so we cannot look into our crystal ball and know exactly what the solutions are.
I have a slight concern about Sean Smith’s supplementary evidence, on which Mike MacKenzie has commented. The evidence is worthy, but it seems to be saying, “Those measures are rubbish—and, by the way, I am coming up with a new method of working and I have applied for funding.” That really does not help his cause.
Or maybe it does.
Well, in my view, it does not help his cause. If he had included some historical evidence to say, “These were the targets that were set and, on the basis of the information that we currently have, they are rubbish”, it might have been better than saying, “They are rubbish—and, by the way, I have new methods and I am looking for a grant from the Scottish funding council to set up a team of experts.” I wish him the best of luck, but he really has not helped his cause.
That is something of an ad hominem attack on Professor Smith.
As usual, I said at the beginning that his evidence was worthy, but there we are.
The technical annex to the initial draft RPP2 referred to an in-house modelling exercise by the Scottish Government, which I believe was also mentioned in oral evidence to the committee.
There are a number of routes that we can take. We could do nothing, or we could ask the Scottish Government for a response to Professor Smith’s fresh evidence.
Why do we not write to the Scottish Government and ask for its response?
Are members content to write to the Scottish Government to say that Professor Smith has given us supplementary evidence and to ask for its opinion on that?
Yes.
Can we ask the Government not simply for a reaction but for a response that is supported by information from its technical people on how the measures are produced?
Yes, we can do that. Are members content with that approach?
Does anyone want to raise anything else regarding the Government’s response to RPP2 or the other evidence that we have received?
I welcome the fact that all the things that we asked for—such as better information and clarity—were included in the final draft of RPP2. It is easy for us, as a committee, to complain when things that we ask for are not done, but when they are, due thanks is appropriate. I am not suggesting that we write to thank the Government, but I wanted to put that on the record.
I find it quite heartening that Professor Smith has felt able to state his views very clearly and then say that he would like funding for another project. It would be less than honest for him to hold his views back and come at us and say, “I’d like funding for another project.” Such honesty is admirable.
I take your point, but it would be more helpful if he had said, “I wish to see the abatement measures met, and here is why I think our measurements will be better”, rather than saying, “These are not good—and by the way, I am now looking for funding.”
I do not think that he is saying that they are not good. He is simply saying, “What are they?” Frankly, I do not want to rely on a crystal ball to work out how we will meet our climate change targets, but I think that he is saying that they are being missed and that there is no suggestion as to what those abatement measures are.
I accept that, but he says that they are without foundation. I would like to have seen an explanation of why that is the case, instead of what he has said. I say good luck to him—I hope that he gets the funding that would allow him to do whatever he wants to do—but it would have been fairer to say, “They are without foundation, and here are the reasons why.”
To be fair, when Professor Smith originally gave evidence he was quite clear about why he felt that they were without foundation. He felt that the idea of additional technical developments that would allow the gap to be met was a very nebulous concept.
Yes—that might inform our discussion regarding Sean Smith’s concerns.
Okay. Are we happy to consider the funding of climate change measures that are set out in RPP2 as part of our budget scrutiny?
We can keep a watching brief on the issue of the energy company obligation and the green deal energy efficiency schemes in Scotland. That will come up in the budget scrutiny, but we will want to keep an eye on it. We can consider Scotland’s progress in meeting emissions targets when the next annual target report is produced in summer or autumn of 2014.
Thank you. With that, we move into private session.
Previous
Bannockburn 2014