Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Official Report 516KB pdf

---

Work Programme

The last item on the agenda is an update on the committee’s work programme. We had a discussion last week about our work programme. There is nothing further to say about the business planning day except that if any member has suggestions to make in addition to the very good suggestions that were made last week, they should please send them to the clerk this week. I would like us to agree formally at our next meeting the shape, date and so on of the business planning day. As agreed at our previous meeting, our next meeting will be on 29 June.

Regarding the work programme, I read in one of the newspapers this morning about the potential changes in banking legislation. I cannot remember whether we discussed the matter at our meeting last week, but it might be worth putting that on the agenda.

Sorry, but I missed the start of what you just said.

I read in one of the newspapers this morning about the potential changes to banking legislation that may be made by the UK Government. I recommend that we put that issue on our work programme to be discussed at our away day, to see exactly what is proposed and what the effects will be on the banking sector in Scotland.

Agreed—that is a good suggestion. I think that the independent commission on banking will report in September. What was trailed today was the concept of ring fencing retail banking from investment banking. The committee should definitely look at that.

We agreed that we will invite the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets and energy suppliers to our next meeting to talk to us about energy prices on the back of the price rise that was announced last week. That meeting will take place two weeks from today, on 29 June, and there will be three panels of witnesses. On the first panel, we will have Energy Action Scotland and Consumer Focus Scotland, who have agreed to talk to us about some of the issues. For the second panel, we invited the big six energy suppliers to give evidence to us. Scottish Power, Scottish Gas, E.ON, npower and EDF Energy have all accepted that invitation. Scottish and Southern Energy wrote to tell us that nobody was available on that day. As it stands, five of the big six will give evidence to the committee. The third panel will be the chief executive of Ofgem. We have a pretty full agenda for that meeting. Everybody whom we initially wanted will be here, plus a few more, so the meeting has the potential to be very useful.

I am glad that we are bringing in more than just Scottish Power. As I said at the previous meeting, we should not focus simply on that company, as we know what is likely to happen with the other companies. I ask that we get as much detail as we can from the Scottish Parliament information centre about the tariffs. The Scottish Power proposal is not for a rise of 19 per cent; the feed-in tariff is about 30 per cent. It would help us if we could get some clarity around the questions that we might ask.

That is a good point. Last week, we asked SPICe to produce a paper containing as much detail as possible and I met a member of SPICe the following day to go through what we are looking for in a bit more detail. Your point is a good one and I am sure that that information will be incorporated. I hope that we will get the fullest briefing possible, so that we can make it the best session possible.

If the committee wants, I can ask Scottish and Southern Energy to reconsider whether there is a possibility of somebody coming here on that day so that we can hear from all of the big six. Do committee members think that that would be a good idea?

Absolutely, convener. If the other five companies are coming, Scottish and Southern Energy might be prepared to reconsider its decision.

11:30

That is a good idea. However, I would have thought that if Scottish and Southern Energy was at all able to send a representative it would have agreed to do so. Perhaps we could ask it for a written submission. If, following the meeting, there are questions that we have asked the representatives of the other companies on which we think it would be helpful to have additional responses from Scottish and Southern Energy, perhaps the company would be willing to oblige.

That is a good suggestion. In the past, Scottish and Southern Energy has been pretty good at attending when we have asked. Its track record is good in that regard.

We will ask the company to reconsider and see whether there is any way for it to get somebody to attend on the day; otherwise, Rhoda Grant’s written submission suggestion is a good one.

I am concerned about the idea of just asking Scottish and Southern Energy for a written submission. If we agree to let Scottish and Southern make a written submission, the other companies might suggest that there should be parity, and that they, too, could just supply a written submission. Perhaps not—but that is my concern. I agree with Stuart McMillan that we should ask Scottish and Southern Energy to send someone along.

It is a fair concern, but I do not think that that would happen. We asked all six companies, and five of them accepted. There was no question of company representatives appearing only if the others also accepted. I do not think that there is any prospect of people pulling out just because one company is making a written submission. Although you might be right, I would be pretty surprised.

If Scottish and Southern Energy is aware that the other five companies are prepared to have someone come along to the committee, it might reconsider its position and, hopefully, find someone to send along to give evidence that day.

We hope that the discussion will stimulate a debate around Scotland on the energy pricing policies of some of the major companies. That was the intention behind the decision to hold such a session. We heard today from the two cabinet secretaries about economic security, and energy prices have the potential to destabilise it for many families, as we are aware.

One or two of us met representatives of Ofgem at lunch time on the day of our previous meeting. We were enlightened with respect to some of the issues that Ofgem identified. My particular concern was about the number of people who will find themselves pushed further into fuel poverty. The committee and the Parliament must concentrate on that, so that people in Scotland are protected as much as possible from price hikes such as those that we have discussed—whether in the energy sector or elsewhere.

I will write to the company in those terms, and we will see the results. A good briefing will be produced before our next meeting. The public part of the meeting will start at 10 o’clock; I invite members to attend a pre-briefing at 9.30, to discuss where we are going and to ensure that we maximise the time that we have.

As members have no further points to raise, I close the meeting. I will see everybody in two weeks.

Meeting closed at 11:33.