Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Official Report 467KB pdf

---

Climate Change

Item 3 is the climate change strategy and scrutiny. Under this item, the committee will consider its approach to the scrutiny of relevant sections of the Scottish Government’s forthcoming draft report on proposals and policies consequent to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.

I point out that the Scottish Government intends to publish the draft report on proposals and policies around the time of the budget, but there is no guarantee of that—ministers still have to make a decision. That may slightly affect the timetable to which we can work. I am sure that all members agree that it would be helpful to know sooner rather than later what timetable we are following. We know that part of what can be done depends on the comprehensive spending review, and it is clear that we must take into account it and when the budget will be produced. The schedule is tight, and we have to fit those things in, but I hope that we can agree an approach that means that we can work in a structured fashion.

I have two points to make. First, I understand that the energy efficiency action plan—which has, I think, been awaited for six years—is due to be published this week. Given that we made extensive representations on what the content of that plan should be, and given the congested timetable at the end of November and in December—I will come to that shortly—it would be useful if we could slot in a brief review of the plan’s content and how it reflects our recommendations. Perhaps that review could be done by the energy experts in the Scottish Parliament information centre. That would set the tone for committee consideration of the report on proposals and policies that is proposed in paper 5.

I see that we have dedicated an entire meeting to issues such as Skills Development Scotland’s skills training providers. That is a valuable area, but it is outwith the committee’s scope. If the energy efficiency action plan is being published between now and the first meeting after the recess, that meeting might provide an opportunity for a brief recap of what we suggested and what is in the plan. That would set the scene for the one-off evidence session on the budget. I hope that that bit will be non-controversial.

The energy efficiency action plan has been published, and copies of it are now available. We had papers on that in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee yesterday afternoon, and we will have copies of the plan this week. That plan will, of course, form part of the proposals and policies. We have to see those things as integral, because our approach to decarbonising the economy relies very much on reducing demand. We could, as Wendy Alexander suggests, take advice from our experts in SPICe about how those things come together. The convener might wish to reflect on how best to present things, but the energy efficiency action plan certainly ought to be part of the analysis as early as possible.

My second point is about timetabling. It is simply not true to say that the Government intended to publish the report on proposals and policies in mid-November. As recently as the time of the independent budget review, the Government was saying that it would publish early in the autumn how it would meet its climate change obligations. The decision to tie the report to the budget became apparent only last week through a letter to the convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. The unfortunate consequences of that are revealed by the fact that we will have only three meetings at which to consider the entirety of the budget and how to meet our obligations under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which is notionally the Parliament’s flagship legislation.

The report on proposals and policies certainly does not cover only the next two years; it is meant to cover the period to 2020. The Government has already given a provisional estimate of £8 million in the independent budget review. By holding off publishing the report until the same day as the budget, the time for serious consideration by the Parliament or third bodies is minimised. I regret that. Such an approach is not in keeping with the Parliament’s flagship legislation, but that is the way that the Government has chosen to go. A sum of £8 million that extends over three CSRs could happily have been considered independently, as was the plan until last week, but we can do nothing about that.

The consequence is that it is suggested that the committee should have only two sessions for considering the budget, which we are told will be the worst since 1945, and that neither of those sessions should involve anybody from outside Government. The Government and two Government agencies would be involved. I have no doubt that that was the Government’s intention, but that is not in the interests of good governance of the country. The proposal would leave us with no evidence whatever from the business community, which may not be what the clerks intended.

We have no choice but to devote one of our sessions to the report on proposals and policies, and I accept that that should happen on 24 November as planned. It is suggested that we then devote two committee meetings to the budget, and that, understandably, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and the enterprise agencies should give evidence in them, but it is vital that we have at least one evidence session that would allow any of the organisations that are affected by the proposed budget to share their views on it.

It is important to understand that the approach to the budget has not been finally agreed. As Wendy Alexander identifies, the clerk’s recommendations are one approach, but the convener has yet to weigh up all the approaches. It should also be pointed out that, after the applications in May, the targets for CO2 reduction were finally agreed yesterday by the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, and they are being recommended for the Parliament’s support using affirmative procedure.

The extra time that has been taken to set the targets has affected the proposals and policies, because it was always said that those would follow from the process of setting the targets. The conflation of our consideration of the report with the CSR, the budget and so on is partly the consequence of earlier concerns in the Parliament about what the targets would be. I am glad that the Parliament is likely to accept the proposed targets. If it does not, the proposals and policies may be held up further.

I would like to reiterate the points that Wendy Alexander has made.

They do not need reiteration. You could add to them.

Absolutely. The principle behind Wendy Alexander’s points is that it is for the committee to determine its work programme. We should take on board the issue that has arisen. The constraint on time leaves us at risk of not hearing from external bodies, which is essential to any proper consideration of the budget. I second Wendy Alexander’s proposition that we take more time to hear evidence on the budget from wider sources, because we should not sacrifice the principal responsibility that we have for this bit of the Scottish Government’s budget.

That point has been made and taken on board. As the committee has the right to decide its business, the point will be dealt with and a proposal will be brought back to members. Does the committee agree to take note of the paper and to have the clerks and the convener bring forward business on the basis of the concerns that members have just raised?

Members indicated agreement.