Official Report 211KB pdf
Colleagues, I open the public part of the eighth meeting in 2009—and the second meeting this week—of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Today's main item of business is evidence on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill from the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. I welcome him for what is probably his first appearance before this committee. I ask him to introduce his team and to make any brief opening remarks.
Convener, I do not intend to make any opening remarks. I am sure that committee members will be able to fill the time with questions.
As the minister will know from the Official Report of our previous meetings, members were concerned about some lack of clarity on the policy direction of the bill. We have asked the minister to come before us today to clarify some of those issues. I ask Wendy Alexander to kick off the questioning.
Good morning, minister. As people will be aware, the witnesses who joined us to discuss the energy efficiency provisions in the bill—in chapter 3 of part 5—were concerned that there are no targets on energy efficiency. Chapter 3 contains no provisions on how performance on energy efficiency will be measured, on how progress will be reported or on what contribution energy efficiency might make to the emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2050. Why was that deemed to be the right approach?
Sorry, let me write down all those points—although I will be happy to be reminded if I miss out any of them.
I ask the minister to remain at the highest level in explaining why the bill contains no targets, performance measurements or reporting requirements on energy efficiency. He seems to have offered the reason that energy efficiency is an area of shared responsibility or competence. Undoubtedly, the European Union has shared competences with national Governments and devolved Governments, but the EU has set a target for improving energy efficiency by 20 per cent by 2020. Let me probe the minister on his implication that the impediment is that energy efficiency is a shared responsibility. Was there any direct discussion with the United Kingdom Government on setting a target, such as the 20 per cent reduction that the EU has adopted?
Let me go back just a little bit before responding directly to the member's question.
The minister mentioned the energy efficiency action plan. He will have noted some anxiety among witnesses about the timetabling of the action plan. I want to press the minister for clarity on that.
The member asked me a range of questions. It would be presumptuous of me to anticipate Parliament's meeting a timetable that I might have in mind for the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. I would certainly like the bill to be passed around the middle of the year, but I am in the hands of Parliament on that. The co-operation and collaboration of the members present and those elsewhere would be welcome.
Why cannot the minister simply put a date on it? This is an executive action; why do you not simply name a date now?
I come back to the fact that the provisions of the bill as passed will to some extent determine the way forward. It would be presumptuous of me, as a minister—and I think that I would attract some criticism—if I took for granted the parliamentary process. If, on the other hand, the members present, perhaps representing the majority of the members of Parliament, can give me an absolute date for when the bill will be passed, I might be able to take action. However, the member will recognise that essentially I have said that action will be taken during this calendar year—sooner rather than later—which is entirely different from the three years that the member suggested.
The time set out for publication of the energy efficiency action plan is 12 months from the date of commencement of section 48. Even in the best-case scenario—if the bill follows your desire and is passed quickly—we could be into the middle or indeed near the end of 2010 before the plan is in place. Given that carbon emissions targets have been set for 2010, I am concerned that if no plan will be in place until the middle or the end of that year, energy efficiency will not make the contribution that it can make to cutting emissions. At our previous meeting, a range of bodies provided good evidence that, because a lot of the work has already been done, 12 months will not be needed to put the plan in place; indeed, it has been suggested that only three months will be required. Is there any way of speeding up the process to ensure that energy efficiency can make a meaningful contribution to the 2010 target?
We plan to publish our outline proposal in the next few weeks; I cannot give you an exact day at the moment, because a number of processes still have to be gone through. In any case, the proposals will be published very shortly and, as I have said, the plan will be published after the bill's passage.
Before we turn to questions on specific sections, I have a general question that is relevant to the three areas that the committee is considering, including energy efficiency and other energy aspects. Is the Parliament being asked to take too much on trust with the bill? Although an awful lot of work will put flesh on some of the bill's bones, most of it will be carried out after the committees complete their stage 1 consideration. For example, you mentioned the outline of the energy efficiency action plan, which officials at a previous meeting said would be produced by March.
Let me begin by accepting a pretty obvious point: in every bill, there is a tension between what is contained in primary legislation and what is drawn forward in secondary legislation. It is quite proper that there is a debate on whether in any particular bill the right balance has been struck in that respect.
The Finance Committee's report on the financial memorandum states:
Energy performance certificates are already part of the landscape. We might be talking about further provisions that will come forward later. I can never remember what ACEP stands for. Will someone remind me?
It is the assessment of carbon and energy performance, which builds on the existing system of energy performance certificates.
We have gone some of the way in drawing forward some of the measures.
I have a final question before we look at the individual sections of the bill in more detail. You said that it is open to committees to take evidence at stage 2 if they feel that it is necessary. Will you give us an assurance that the Government will co-operate with the timetable for stage 2 to ensure that if committees feel the need to take additional evidence at that stage, there will be sufficient time for them to do so?
It is not for me to speak for the Minister for Parliamentary Business, who represents our interest in such matters. However, I am interested in ensuring that, to the extent that it is possible, we flesh out any policy initiatives that we take and give Parliament the maximum possible understanding of the implications of anything that might be done. Like previous Administrations, the current Administration seeks to support committees' efforts to understand anything that we do at stage 2.
I will follow up one of the convener's questions. Will the obligations under section 50 fall on the landlords or the tenants of non-domestic buildings?
The owners will be responsible.
You say that people will get money back right away but, if the tenants pay the cheaper energy bills from saving energy, the owners will not receive a return.
To an extent, that will depend on the commercial arrangements between the owner and the tenant. In business life, I as the owner of an asset adopted the general principle that I wanted investments that I made to be reflected in revenue. In any event, investment in improved energy efficiency creates an asset that is more valuable in the long term. It is for owners to ensure that they have contracts with their tenants.
Rob Gibson will ask about section 48.
Good morning, minister. We are interested in the suggestion in the evidence from the Carbon Trust that energy efficiency should be defined as a primary objective in the bill. What is your response to that?
The bill's objective is to reduce carbon and carbon dioxide equivalent gases—the greenhouse gases. Diluting that by establishing other primary objectives would create difficulties, because an energy efficiency objective might be pursued in competition with the 80 per cent target that we are setting for 2050. Such matters are of value and merit and should be judged in the context of how they enable us to progress to the 80 per cent reduction. I am prepared to accept that even the 80 per cent reduction is indirect, since we are actually trying to contain the increase in the temperature on the earth to no more than 2° to 2.4°C from the baseline figure. If we keep moving objectives up, we distort policy making.
Energy efficiency is a major part of our efforts to achieve the target, yet we are presented with supplementary evidence in which the question of straying into reserved matters arises—you referred to that. The debate about whether the word "improve" or "promote" is used certainly concerns us, because of how it affects existing legislation. We need more clarity on how using the word "promote" might risk the Scottish Government straying into reserved matters. Why are you concerned about straying into those matters if—as you said—you have close relationships with the London department?
We recognise the issue that the member raises. We are considering how to reflect that concern at stage 2 and ensure that people are clear about our intentions.
In that case, why do you not consider introducing provisions in the bill that would require energy efficiency measures and improvements as the starting point for your discussion? I am surprised that, at this stage in your discussions with London, the issue has, to date, not been clarified.
There are certain issues. We do not have competence on energy matters as such. However, in the creation of a legal framework, we will work with colleagues at Westminster. After all, we share a common purpose with Westminster, which has increased its carbon reduction targets, based on advice and a consideration of the situation. Westminster's targets encompass what we do, so it is in the UK Government's interests to support the efforts that we will make in Scotland. We are discussing the issue with the UK Government. I believe that we will find a way in which to support the UK Government's objectives and therefore, simultaneously, our objectives. When we have completed those deliberations, the outcomes will feed into the energy efficiency action plan.
Will we have clarity before we reach stage 2?
Um—yes. The reason why I hesitate is simply that I do not want to anticipate the exact nature of the agreements and outcomes that we will reach with Westminster. I am absolutely convinced that there is good faith on both sides. In fact, using the word "sides" is wrong. Both parties want to ensure that we get the outcome that we need and I have a high degree of confidence that we will do so. That might be by persuading Westminster to take action within its competence or by establishing with Westminster what we might do within our competence that is consistent with its views. We can resolve the problem in a variety of ways, but please accept that we are engaged extremely strongly in ensuring that we do so.
It would help us at stage 2 if the issue was clear, as that would reduce the amount of questions that need to be asked.
We are actively engaged on the matter. I cannot commit another party in the discussions to a particular timetable, but I, too, want the issue to be resolved within that timescale.
I want to pursue the issue. It is a month since we raised the matter with your officials, who assured us that there was no intention to dilute the existing law, although they said that they would have to get back to us on the effect. However, the supplementary evidence that we have received from the Government again refers to intention, but not to effect. There is concern, which was reflected in Rob Gibson's questions, about the uncertainty. Do you accept the view of many of the witnesses who gave evidence a month ago that your proposal to publish a plan for the promotion of energy efficiency is a dilution in relation to housing, compared with the existing law in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006?
There is certainly no intention to dilute. The reason why we are having discussions is to ensure that we provide a legally binding response that ensures that no dilution is possible.
You will be aware that, when Malcolm Chisholm took the Housing (Scotland) Bill through Parliament, the wording was not raised as a difficulty. Have Westminster ministers directly raised a difficulty with you on that?
We have identified a potential difficulty and it is agreed that the subject should be discussed with Westminster. I am highly confident that we will achieve a satisfactory outcome. The policy objective is to ensure that we provide no opportunity whatever—I could not put it more strongly—for dilution of what Malcolm Chisholm successfully took through the Parliament. We are simply trying to deal with technical issues and not trying to deviate from the policy in any sense.
Have you discussed the issues with ministers at Westminster to try to resolve the concerns?
The discussion is at official level, just to be clear.
So it is being discussed at that level. Thank you very much.
The change is that, in section 48(2), the word "promotion" is used in relation to living accommodation instead of "improve", which is the wording in the 2006 act. Section 48(2) concerns only a part of the overall plan for the promotion of energy efficiency, so is it not possible simply to repeat the words of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 in it, rather than dilute the provision? If we had the competence to include the wording in the 2006 act, surely it is competent to have exactly the same wording in the bill.
It is certainly our objective to achieve that, but the mechanism by which we protect what has already been passed will need to await the conclusion of discussions. I am not turning away in any sense the concern about the use of one word in one piece of legislation and the use of another word in a different piece of legislation. It is precisely because we accept that a point is properly being raised on that issue that we seek to ensure that we deal with it appropriately, and I am confident that we shall.
Do you understand that the concern about the wording is merely a reflection of the wider concern about the lack of targets and the lack of precision on what will be included in the energy efficiency action plan?
I think that I covered that in my previous remarks, but I acknowledge what Lewis Macdonald says.
Given the important and effective contribution that microgeneration can make to reducing emissions, why has the Scottish Government not included targets on it? I will frame that with a question on fuel poverty. Increased use of microgeneration technologies, such as air-source heat pumps and solar panels, would particularly benefit the 30 per cent of the population who are off the gas supply and who pay really high prices for inefficient oil heating systems. How much of the proposed member's bill on microgeneration will be taken into account? That proposal has been put on hold until we see what happens with the bill.
I am not able to respond in detail on Ms Boyack's proposed bill because it has not been published. When that bill is introduced, I will be able to make detailed responses on it. However, on the substantive question, power generation is a reserved matter, so we cannot deal directly with it. However, we can remove the inhibitions that make it difficult for people to install microgeneration technologies, and the work that we are doing on permitted development rights is geared to that. It is enabling work.
I may want to come back to that, but my next question is on skills. We have heard that 16,000 jobs are going to be created, but previous witnesses have told us that there would be skills gaps if we were to move to use of air-source heat pumps. If there are already skills gaps in the industry, how are you working with other departments to ensure that the required skills will be available across the industry?
The Scottish Higher and Further Education Funding Council has set up a renewables core skills group, which is dealing with that issue. That group includes representatives from the sector skills councils, Skills Development Scotland, the higher and further education sector and the power companies—Scottish and Southern Energy, Scottish Power and Scottish Renewables. In addition, the sector skills councils are doing research for the Government on long-term sectoral needs, which covers all the issues that the member has raised, from installation of microgeneration to wind farm maintenance and marine energy contractors. We are certainly engaged on the issue and working with partners.
In the evidence that we have taken, one of the main issues that has been raised with us across the board is the concern around the lack of skills. Something urgent needs to be done on that. What discussions have you and your department had with the bodies that you mentioned in order to press that point?
I have just spoken of the action that is being taken right now, which is drawing to the table the appropriate people. It is a question of striking the right balance between the increasing demand for the skills and the number of installations, and of getting the timetables synchronised. We expect the number of renewables installations to rise, although it will not rise like a cliff face the moment that permitted development rights are changed, but will ramp up over time. The action that we are taking right now is likely to be fit for purpose in that sense. The skills for the renewables sector will be included in the renewables action plan, which will be published no later than the end of June.
I want to pursue the point about the development of microgeneration. I am conscious that, although we have national renewables targets, we do not have any householder renewables targets. The minister might want to consider that such targets would be a sensible way of driving the industry and driving the agenda for all Government agencies. It is now two years since Scottish planning policy 6 was introduced, which is about driving householder renewables and combined heat and power systems for new developments, but no research has been undertaken to monitor the implementation of that policy, nor do we have any research on retrofitting of microgeneration and householder renewables. Would a Scottish Government target help to push the agenda? Do you have an estimate of the contribution that microgen could make to achieving the Government's aspirations on energy efficiency and renewables?
I will step back to a relatively high level and make a rather obvious point. Microgeneration is one contributor to improving the energy efficiency of dwellings and non-domestic buildings but, of course, it is not the only one. To an extent, we will achieve best success if we set targets for energy efficiency rather than mandate particular interventions that people must make.
I know that the minister is enthusiastic about the agenda, so my question is meant to be helpful.
I will treat it as such.
As one of the authors of SPP 6, I know that our political intention was to drive energy efficiency and use of whatever microgeneration, small-scale renewables or combined heat and power system was appropriate at the time. Two years on, I understand that implementation of the policy is not monitored. Do you even have a sense of how many local authorities have put the policy in their local plans? A survey by Friends of the Earth Scotland identified that hardly any local authorities had made progress.
It is suggested that only eight of the 34 planning authorities are fully engaged in implementing SPP 6. I mentioned some of the difficulties, but we expect the policy to be implemented much more widely.
I wonder whether it is hip to be square, then.
It is now, convener.
We need to move on to consider section 50, which is on the energy performance of non-domestic buildings. The Government has announced its intention in respect of building regulations to change the consultation's target for new build carbon emissions reduction from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. Can the minister outline why the Government has decided on a lower target than was originally intended?
One of the key things that the Sullivan report said in that regard was that further work should be done on the costings. That work has been done and it informed our conclusion that we should at this stage consider a 30 per cent target for 2010. It may be useful if I quote something that we received in the past few days from Lynne Sullivan, who chaired the panel. She said:
I hear your answer, minister, but does it not suggest a lack of ambition in what we seek to achieve, given that the standards that we are trying to improve are among the poorest in the world? Certainly, compared with Scandinavia, our standards for domestic and non-domestic buildings are pretty poor.
I would take issue if I may, convener, with the suggestion that we have the poorest standards. On the contrary, we have in many ways led many other jurisdictions to follow our example. One of the interesting things about the panel that was brought together for the Sullivan report was that we brought people from Scandinavia and Austria to participate in it. Interestingly, they were astonished at how much ahead of them we were in certain respects. We had expected much more of a one-way street in that they would be informing us of their progress—they made a substantial contribution—but all three people on the panel took away substantial experience from Scotland. At the moment, we are probably only marginally behind Finland, and our minimum standards for insulation are substantially better than those in Denmark, for example. Far from our standards being poor, by setting the target of 30 per cent on top of what we have already done, we are setting standards that are higher than anywhere else in the British Isles and in the majority of jurisdictions in Europe.
Given that this is the only opportunity to legislate on the matter that is likely to arise in the current session of Parliament, should enabling provisions be included in the bill to increase energy efficiency in the domestic sector as well as in non-domestic buildings?
Do you mean for existing dwellings?
Yes—in relation to section 50.
I think that we have within our competence the necessary powers to go forward.
So, in the Government's view, the standard is appropriate for non-domestic buildings but inappropriate for domestic buildings.
Sorry?
I am probing the distinction between domestic and non-domestic buildings.
We have set the same targets for both.
That is for new buildings.
Yes, but I am talking about the retrofitting of existing buildings.
We believe that we can make the necessary progress under the existing legislation. Nonetheless, I am always happy to be advised if there is a particular inhibition in our legislative competence or powers that we have not spotted. I would be happy to hear now or later from Wendy Alexander or the committee on that subject. It is certainly not my intention to deprive myself or my successor ministers of powers to take necessary action.
I have a follow-up question on the separation of domestic and non-domestic buildings in relation to general permitted development rights. You have drafted a provision—albeit a limited one—in relation to the domestic sector, but you intend to address the non-domestic sector separately. Can you explain why? What are the differences that, in your view, justify a separate process for the non-domestic sector?
Lewis Macdonald must remember that non-domestic buildings will be on a different scale from domestic buildings—although that is, inevitably, a very general statement—and a different process will be needed to make a substantial contribution to changing their energy efficiency. For example, the retail distribution centres in West Lothian are immense, and that would probably be something that we would want to pursue through the normal planning system. There are successful examples: for example, rainwater recovery systems have successfully gone through the planning system in West Lothian, and the Michelin factory in Dundee has wind turbines that are substantially larger than we would allow through permitted development rights, which have successfully gone through the planning system. A range of things can be done.
If I understand the answer correctly, it is less encouraging than I had hoped it would be. I had expected you to address the differences and suggest that you would provide general permitted development rights in certain respects for non-domestic buildings, but you seem to be saying that you do not see a case for general permitted development rights for them, at all.
No—I am not seeking to say that. If we were to apply to non-domestic buildings exactly the same rules that we have applied to domestic dwellings, the impact of such development would be substantially less. That is a rather obvious point, because of the constraints on the height and location of wind turbines and the fact that one can have only one of them. The constraints are probably less onerous in relation to things such as photovoltaic technology and solar water heating. Nonetheless, the benefits are different, simply because in non-domestic buildings we are dealing with a much more diverse range of buildings in terms of geography, size and purpose. The planning system has not thus far been shown to create major problems for non-domestic buildings in that regard. Generally, when changes are being contemplated for non-domestic buildings, it is often the case that that is part of a wider set of changes that the owners of the buildings are making. For example, with regard to a building that I visited in West Lothian, substantial investment was made in ways of collecting rainwater, which could then be used in processes inside the building. That does not directly relate to climate change, of course, although reducing water usage is helpful. The planning system appears to be responding to the agenda, although I am happy to listen to views to the contrary.
You would not rule out general permitted development rights.
I would not wish to rule anything out; I am just saying that there is less scope for that.
In some senses, you seem to be implying that there is more scope, because a renewable unit at a large non-domestic building clearly has a much greater carbon-saving impact than one at an individual house.
I am absolutely happy to accept that point, because it is self evidently true. If you can cover the south-facing roof of a large warehouse with a photovoltaic array or solar water-heating apparatus, that will make a substantial contribution, and is something that we would wish to encourage. I am simply dealing with the narrow point of whether that should be covered by the planning system or by permitted development rights. I am not in any sense trying to deny that that would be a good thing to do. I absolutely accept that it would be.
Turning to my hobby-horse topic of the enhanced energy performance certificates, is the minister in a position to give us an indication of the policy direction of the Government in relation to EPCs? The seven scenarios that are included in the documentation with the bill range from having a fairly limited enhanced EPC that would accompany the sale or rent of larger public buildings, with additional guidance, through to enhanced EPCs for all non-domestic buildings, with compulsory uptake of recommendations. That is a fairly broad scope. Could you give us an indication of what level the Government intends to go for?
We expect to publish the response to the consultation next week. In the early years, we are likely to think in terms of option 2. However, if we do not make the appropriate progress, we think that a policy that follows the lines of option 5 is likely to be pursued. We are making progress in that regard.
So, if insufficient progress is made under a regime that involves increased guidance and the promotion of the uptake of recommendations for larger buildings, the intention is to move over time to a regime under which there would be compulsory uptake of recommendations for all buildings.
We will be driven by the outcomes that we achieve. In other words, compulsion will be necessary if the outcomes are not achieved. That is rather self-evident. However, this agenda is so important that we would not wish at this stage to rule out for ever and absolutely the use of compulsion.
Who would police that? Who would the enforcement body be?
The bill leaves it open, but we have certainly had some dialogue with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on that point, and there has been a lot of support for local authorities being involved in the enforcement side of things.
What would be the cost of that? Has that been discussed?
We are considering a system of penalty charge notices, which would mean that the cost would not affect local authorities too much, as they could recoup the costs of the actions that they took.
To make the obvious point, until we bring forward a proposal, we are not formally making any response on the issue of costs. However, it is not our intention to create burdens for local authorities that they would be incapable of bearing. That would run entirely against the spirit of the Government's desire to work as equal partners with local government.
You say that you are considering going for scenario 2. The explanatory notes say that the average annual cost to the private sector of that option could be as much as £9.6 million, and would cover
It comes from the work that would be done on the buildings.
So you would get more bang for your buck from scenario 5 than scenario 2.
Well, you clearly get more bucks for your bang.
We would welcome seeing a copy of the responses to the consultation, but we would also like to see the impact assessments that have been done and an indication of what energy efficiency improvements you would expect to be made in non-domestic buildings as a result of each of the scenarios in the explanatory notes. It will be hard for us to judge whether the Government's decision to go for scenario 2 is correct if we do not know how it compares to the other scenarios in terms of improvements to energy efficiency, which is what the bill is about.
As I said, the explanatory notes reflect our thoughts at the moment. In due course, we will announce our definitive position, with the information that committees such as this one will need in order to make the necessary judgments.
With respect, that information will be necessary if we are to make a realistic judgment about whether what is in the bill is adequate for it to complete stage 1.
Sorry, was that a question?
It was a statement with an implied question mark at the end of it. Do you accept that we need that information to be able to judge whether section 50 is adequate?
I return to a point that I have made before. The bill is a framework bill. The details of how its provisions will be implemented will largely be in secondary legislation. When the Government presents secondary legislation or policy documents, committees and parliamentarians generally will be able to probe the accompanying explanations and justifications, as is appropriate.
With respect, it is for the Parliament to decide whether what is in the bill at stage 1 is adequate. An indication of where secondary legislation is likely to go is a key aspect of any stage 1 consideration of a bill.
I add a tiny wee point. I should have said earlier that we plan to provide the lead committee with a range of draft secondary legislation at stage 2. That is one reason why I said that it would not be a great surprise if there were further committee engagement at stage 2.
I repeat the point that the Government has to get the bill past stage 1 before it can get to stage 2.
I want to ask about non-residential buildings, with special reference to supermarkets and the bundle of energy issues connected with them. Scotland has seen a revolution in its retail landscape over the past decade. Large out-of-town supermarkets have been reported to contribute more than 5 per cent of Scotland's energy emissions.
Today's evidence session is about particular parts of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. I am sure that the member, and other committee members, will have noticed our intention to include international shipping and aviation in our considerations. Clearly, that will address part of the freight issue. We are also investing substantially in the railway network. Continuing the policies of the previous Administration, we have a range of freight grants. If I recall correctly, no Administration so far has been able to spend its entire budget for freight grants. We are therefore encouraging people to come forward with more and better applications.
An almost analogous situation is the consumption of energy in defence establishments. I was recently in St Andrews and heard a tremendous racket coming from the air base at Leuchars, which was a jet engine being tested—God knows what the carbon consequences of that were. With large defence establishments in Scotland, the buildings probably account for only a fraction of the energy use, given the energy demands of transportation to and from the establishments and the testing of equipment. To what extent are you capable of influencing that?
The carbon reduction commitment applies to defence establishments. Therefore, notwithstanding the potential for matters such as Crown immunity to come into play, at UK Government level—I am not responsible for what goes on in defence establishment territory in general terms—the subject is inside the tent of the broader agenda that is being pursued. I suspect that we might be travelling slightly away from where the committee hopes to go, but I am happy to respond in those terms.
It might be encouraging for Christopher Harvie to know that at least the fuel for the Royal Air Force base at Leuchars comes in by train and is then piped into the base. That is one positive aspect.
When the committee considered the bill previously, the issue of council tax rebates for renewable heat and other efficiency measures was raised. There has been success south of the border with that type of initiative. At that previous meeting, the Government's position was that the council tax was to be replaced by a local income tax, on which there was to be a great announcement a week later. Given the content of that announcement and the fact that the council tax will remain, certainly for the parliamentary session, will the Government revisit the issue of a council tax rebate?
We have indicated that we seek to freeze the council tax for the duration of the parliamentary session. The freeze is a huge contribution to the domestic economies of the houses concerned. The member is right that our proposals for a more equitable, income-based way in which to fund local government are merely deferred and not abandoned. It is worth saying that stakeholders have not raised the issue with us. There is a plan to produce a renewable heat incentive, which is probably an easier and more appropriate approach.
The council tax freeze is welcome, but it is not linked directly to energy efficiency or renewable heat. The issue has been raised by stakeholders, which is why the Government, via Colin Imrie, the deputy director of the Government's energy markets division, responded to the committee directly on the matter. I take issue with the point that the matter has not been raised. Given the success south of the border, will the Government at least examine the results there and reconsider the possibility of a council tax rebate?
I am always happy to consider these matters and work with my ministerial colleagues on the subject. However, the member should accept that, for the time being, we are focusing our efforts on a council tax freeze. The important point is to support people who wish to make their houses more energy efficient or to install microrenewable technologies. We already have a range of measures in place through the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative, the Scottish rural development programme, the energy saving Scotland network, small business loans and the public sector central energy efficiency fund. There are also broad enabling powers in the Energy Act 2008 to establish a renewable heat initiative, and further work is being undertaken on that.
The Energy Saving Trust has done research that has shown the effectiveness of council tax rebates. Surely you are not saying that because you have accepted a delay in your plans on local government taxation, the opportunity to promote energy efficiency through fiscal incentives should simply be abandoned.
We can promote energy efficiency in a positive way by supporting changes that can be made. We are considering other options, including loans and cashback offers. There is a variety of ways of proceeding on this agenda. We are quite open-minded but, within a constrained financial position, we have to come to conclusions about which intervention will deliver the biggest bang for the buck, to use a phrase that has already occurred in the meeting.
The minister will be aware that Northern Ireland has followed England and Wales in going down that track. They clearly regard it as a positive and effective way to promote and incentivise people to take up renewables, microrenewables and energy efficiency.
It is for each Administration to take its own view. I will look with great interest at what happens in other jurisdictions. From time to time, I meet other ministers and, more often, I discuss with other ministers what approach they are taking.
It is completely understood that decisions on local government taxation in the next parliamentary session will be taken in the context of that session. In the meantime, would it not show a degree of urgency in promoting energy efficiency to follow the route, for the next few years, that has been taken by those other Administrations in the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future?
We will look with interest. We have other interventions.
That does not sound terribly urgent.
I do not think that I have more to say.
Without great hope or expectation of getting a different answer from the minister after those detailed questions, I ask him to consider the fact that, last week, we had a very good presentation from his officials at the cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Their ideas for the energy efficiency work that will be funded by the Scottish Government look similar to work that is being done by the power companies and local authorities south of the border, which have flexibility to choose from a range of options, including council tax rebates. Will the minister consider giving us similar flexibility here? It would require primary legislation to give local authorities that opportunity. When I consulted on the issue for my member's bill, I received a strong response from local authorities in favour of having that flexibility and the option of working with power companies. That is, in a sense, a plea to the minister.
We are pursuing a substantial range of options. This minister, by instinct, is a copyist—if there is a good idea elsewhere, I will grab it with both hands, and both feet as well if that is necessary.
Section 51(1) says:
The process is slightly more complex than the minister simply issuing a fiat on the subject. The consultations on what we will introduce at stage 2 are in progress. I can assure the member that that is one of the issues that are being considered.
That answer is almost as woolly as section 51(1).
It is the best answer that I am able, procedurally, to give you at this stage.
I would be grateful if you could update the committee on that as soon as you can. It would be helpful for any recommendations that we wish to make on the matter.
Again, we return to the word "promote". Of course, energy, as such, is not within our competence. We are engaged with the issue of biodiesel—or biofuels generally. We have been supportive of a number of initiatives, which we expect to see reflected in our action plans.
I am not sure that that answers my question.
On Monday, the committee visited the Aberdeen combined heat and power plant and saw the benefits for users. That is extremely positive, but an issue that arises is the lack of capital to extend the approach to other areas that did not have the foresight that Aberdeen had six or seven years ago, when the plant was established. In the context of which action plan does the minister expect further steps to be taken in that regard? Will that include a commitment of resources by the Scottish Government to make that possible?
We are currently consulting jointly with the UK Government on heat and energy saving, which includes the issue of combined heat and power. The renewable heat action plan will also look at the renewable heat element. On the steps that we need to take—we are not quite at that stage—as part of the action plan we are considering where we need to go to mainstream that sort of technology where possible.
That is helpful. On the capital funding of schemes and setting resources aside, will there be some adjustment to the financial memorandum to reflect the commitment to put Government support behind schemes of that kind?
This is not the time or place for me to anticipate the cost of outcomes or to make any commitments in that regard, but if what we bring forward by working with the UK Government—it is important that there is partnership working on that—has financial implications, of course we will have to share them with Parliament.
I want to ask the minister about the accuracy of the financial memorandum. I appreciate fully that the bill is in many respects an enabling piece of legislation, but might there be merit in revising the financial memorandum? The memorandum states currently that the duty to promote energy efficiency in its wide sense is
I do not want to trade words, but I do not think that financial memorandums claim to be accurate. They claim to be estimates, which is a rather different thing. Accuracy is what we see from outcomes. Inevitably, financial memorandums are an attempt to look forward to the implications of what is done. There is judgment, but they are not absolutist. I just make the general point that financial memorandums give the best available figures, or they should do. I am happy to continue to engage.
When we started the meeting some time ago, I suggested that Nigel Don, who is substituting for another member today, is a utility player. He will take the role of sweeper on the issue.
Utilities might be fairly close to where I am coming from.
Yes.
Secondly, are you aware of any inhibitor in the current regulations that prevents people from insulating either domestic or non-domestic buildings in a sensible way?
Well, I cannot write a blank cheque on that, because, for example, listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas are subject to particular regulations. In the generality, however, the answer is no. There are no inhibitions that are material. That is a rather qualified answer, but deliberately so.
Thirdly, I return to a point that Lewis Macdonald made. We saw Aberdeen's combined heat and power system, which has the huge advantage of being a vastly more efficient process thermodynamically. The minister will be well aware of that. Does the bill contain any inhibitions to the development of such systems? Given that I do not think that there are, what does the Government propose to do to maximise the thermodynamic efficiency of our heat generation, in so far as it is within its gift to do so? I recognise that energy production is a reserved matter.
We already have grants for district heating schemes through the community grants scheme, and we have the Scottish business heat scheme. The issues that arise from having power and heat generation close to domestic dwellings are simply environmental ones that are dealt with in the normal way through the planning process. If emissions are closer to domestic dwellings and indeed offices, there are issues that might not be present when they are much further away.
I am conscious that the minister is constrained by time as he has a flight to catch—I hope that he has paid the carbon offset.
We have.
I am glad to hear that.
I would prefer to take the train, but on this occasion I cannot.
We have not been able to get to one or two questions. I presume that the minister would be happy to take those in writing and to get back to us on them as quickly as possible.
Absolutely. I am grateful for your co-operation—my meeting in London is at 3.30.
You will struggle to get back for decision time.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
If members have any outstanding questions that they want me to put to the minister, they should let the clerks have them as soon as possible. I will ask for a single sheet from the Government outlining all the consultations that are currently taking place and the papers that have been produced by the Scottish and UK Governments.
I would like a matrix diagram. I tried to produce one myself last week with little boxes but failed miserably.
I was going to say that we might ask for a Jim Mather mind map, but that might be too complicated for all of us.
Next
Tourism