Official Report 131KB pdf
We move on to the next agenda item, the draft remit for the proposed renewable energy inquiry. I have had a couple of amendments suggested to me that we will cover as we go through the brief.
I have no doubt that, as you have said yourself, people will flood you with submissions or requests to put forward submissions. However, I am concerned that the inquiry should be balanced at all times. Although some groups are very vocal, others are less so.
I take that point. The inquiry is not about wind farms but about all aspects of renewable energy, and we are undertaking it not just because we have responsibility for energy, but because we have responsibility for enterprise and the economy. We need to consider all aspects of the issue and to ensure that all points of view are represented. However, that does not mean that we will take evidence from everyone who has written to me. If that happened, the queue would be down to the end of George IV Bridge and beyond.
Let us hope that if the queue continues over the Forth bridge the people in it pay their tolls.
As long as it also stretches to the Skye bridge.
Indeed. On the convener's point that the committee is responsible for examining not just the issue of renewable energy but its enterprise aspects and economic benefits, that is not stated in the remit—I apologise for not putting in that comment. Nothing in the remit sets the issue in its enterprise and economic context. Unless we do that, we will miss a significant body of evidence as well as the opportunity to have any significant influence or to make comments.
Point taken. With that in mind and since specific amendments have been proposed—[Interruption.] I did not notice you there, Brian.
Mike Watson rightly pointed out that the Finance Committee is examining an area that is of significant interest to us. It is somewhat dangerous for us to stray beyond the issue of the economy if we do not set matters in context. However, I do not think that we can examine the issue in isolation. For example, someone rightly mentioned planning issues. We need to specify all the important areas within the remit and to indicate within it that we will concentrate primarily on the economy, the continuous supply of energy and the balance of energy resources. It is up to others to examine the planning and environmental issues, because they do not fall within our remit.
Perhaps we could concentrate on sustainability.
Perhaps the answer is that, when we consider areas where we are in danger of straying outwith our remit, we should examine them at a macro rather than a micro level. In other words, although we might conclude that there needs to be a robust planning framework, I do not think that we would need to go beyond such a statement and get into the detail of that framework. Certainly, as far as the environmental issues are concerned, we should take it as read that the Executive has set a target of 40 per cent or whatever from renewable energy because of environmental reasons. Perhaps I am getting on to dodgier ground here, but we do not necessarily need to ask the Executive to justify that target on environmental grounds—we should take the target as read and ask about its consequences for what we are considering.
As Brian Adam and Christine May said, we need a clear understanding of, and we need to focus on, the economic context of the matter, although we will obviously consider the sector's environmental impact. Under "implications for the reliability of supply", I hope that we consider where current providers of energy are going and how they will play into the mix of energy provision. That issue has come home to me from discussions in other committees about, for example, Longannet power station's coming to an end earlier than we would have thought.
I certainly do not want a remit that rules out issues that we should consider, which is obviously a danger if we try to draw too narrow a remit. Equally, if we give ourselves a broad remit, we must not use it to stray into matters in which we should not be involved. We will need to discipline ourselves. There will always be a temptation to stray widely as a result of the breadth and importance of the subject.
People will soon know that we are having an inquiry into renewable energy. I am not singling out Views of Scotland because I support or do not support it, but if it gets wind of the fact that we are conducting an inquiry into renewable energy, it will inevitably have a view and will want that view to be heard. I would have thought that it was not appropriate for the committee to hear such views, but that—as Richard Baker mentioned—manufacturers of equipment and various power companies should give evidence rather than those with a particular interest in the environmental and planning side. I say that in case we end up focusing more on environmental and planning processes.
That is a fairly fundamental point, but I am not sure that I would like to go as far as that. Are you saying that we should not take evidence from anyone who wants to say that wind farms would be fine if they did not despoil the landscape?
In essence, I agree with you that we should take it as read that goals for renewables have been set and that perhaps we should hear how those goals might be achieved and about the balance between the goals. However, I would not have thought that organisations whose primary interest is the environment or planning would be the first port of call for evidence, albeit that they might have something to contribute. Such organisations will not discuss the economy, enterprise and jobs that might be provided. Instead, they would discuss the consequences to society as a whole, although such consequences are important.
I remind the committee that, at a meeting a considerable time ago, we agreed to put on hold a couple of petitions that had been sent to us about wind farms on the basis that we would have an inquiry later. As one might expect, the petitions oppose wind farms.
I hear what Brian Adam says, but the fact is that the word about the inquiry is already out there—that is why the convener has been deluged by petitions and letters.
Regardless of how we frame the remit of the inquiry, any objector worth their salt will be able to frame their objection so that it falls within that remit. As Jamie Stone says, a commonly used argument is the economic one that wind farms spoil the view and scare the tourists.
I will agree with Jamie Stone and take issue with Brian Adam. If we are having an inquiry into renewable energy, the public will not consider the minutiae of our remit but will expect the inquiry to be comprehensive. If we do not cover all the aspects, the public will ask what other committee will consider, for example, the environmental aspect or the planning aspect. Of course, other committees will not do that: if we do an inquiry into renewable energy, it will be the only opportunity for such a committee inquiry in this session of Parliament. We have to have a comprehensive inquiry. However, our main focus must be on economic development.
Okay, we have kicked this around a fair bit. I suggest that we go through the draft remit, amending, inserting or deleting as we do so.
Can we come back to those paragraphs if necessary?
By all means. Okay, we will go through the three bullet points on the second page. If anyone then wishes to add a further bullet point, by all means do so. The first bullet point asks whether the Executive targets will be met. Chris Ballance has suggested an amendment that I suspect will lead to a fourth point under that heading. Perhaps Chris, not I, should explain it, so that his meaning is exactly clear.
I want to suggest insertions rather than amendments, because the draft remit is very good. However, there are two or three areas in which we could insert extra points. Under the first bullet point, I would suggest inserting, "What are the implications for production if the Executive's targets are not met?"
Production of what?
Of electricity.
So you are not asking about the general economy, only power.
I am not sure what the word is—is it a dash point, or something?—but Chris is suggesting that, after the third dash point under the first bullet point, we insert another dash point asking, "What are the implications for electricity production if the Executive's targets are not met?"
That is fair enough, but we are not confining our remit to the production of electricity; we are talking about energy. Could we find another word, Chris, that might achieve the same end but not be restricted to electricity production?
That is possibly why I did not use the word "electricity" when I was thinking about my suggested addition.
Can we think of something that would cover the broad range of areas?
We could just put, "What are the implications if the Executive's targets are not met?"
Earlier, I said that we should set the inquiry firmly in the enterprise and economic contexts. If that point does not go in the preamble, it should probably go under this first bullet point.
So, you are suggesting a question along the lines of, "What are the implications of these targets for the economy?"
Something like that.
Or perhaps, "What are the opportunities and implications of these targets for the economy?"
Yes, that covers the pros and the cons.
Would that be reasonable?
As we have consensus, we will move swiftly on to the second bullet point. Chris, do you have another suggestion to go under "global issues"?
It is another dash point.
It is another subheading.
As well as global issues and local issues, I felt that there were two—
Hang on; let us go through what is there first of all. Are we happy with what is under the "global issues" subheading?
Chris, do you want to insert another subheading called "local issues"?
Yes. There are two local issues that are potential barriers to the Executive's targets being met. The first question that I suggest should be inserted is, "What opportunities are there/should there be for local community involvement in and benefit from renewable energy schemes?" We have not considered the community's role in relation to its local wind farm development, for example, at all. To include that question would allow that aspect into the remit as a possible line of inquiry.
I warmly support Chris Ballance's first suggestion. All rural members know that there is a cash question of the money stream that goes to communities. Some say that it is not what it should be—that it should be far more—and some say something else, but what if, in a 30-turbine development, the community owned one of the turbines or a 31st turbine? Where appropriate, that could be a wonderful way of making the money and the accounting much more visible and could underpin communities.
It is 40MW or 50MW.
In my constituency, a number of truly huge developments are coming forward. I wonder whether the relevant Executive department has sufficient resource to handle that—I do not know the answer. I suggest that we add reference to SNH, planning departments and Scottish Executive departments.
We could shorten the question and ask, "Are the resources in place to make the planning system work?"
I would prefer that.
Okay.
I am supportive of the sentiments behind, but uncomfortable with the detailed wording of, both suggestions. In light of the detailed points that Jamie Stone raised on the first one, I would like it to be reworded so that it is at least specifically about economic benefits, because local community involvement is widely talked about as an end in itself for all sorts of purposes and the question is too obliquely worded at the moment. However, I am happy to embrace the point.
Okay. Do we agree that it makes sense to include something on local issues? We could certainly add the word "economic", or some reference to economic activity.
Sorry, I wanted to raise a different point.
Do we agree to include local issues under that point, albeit with the insertion of the word "economic"?
I hear your point. However, the point has been made to me that there are barriers in relation to the speed at which some of the statutory authorities can respond. Perhaps that will come up anyway as part of the question on what the current barriers are.
I suspect that wind farm developers sometimes think that it takes for ever and a day to move their proposals forward.
Could we not incorporate the word "constraints" into the bullet point? We are really talking about constraints. That would include capacity within the planning system or the consultation system and the relationship between the Executive's national planning policy guidelines and local capacity to implement them—all those aspects could be incorporated into that point.
What we are discussing might relate to the Subordinate Legislation Committee's work this morning—perhaps members did not watch the meeting on their monitors this morning, for reasons that I can hardly understand. We have included illustrative, rather than prescriptive, lists under each bullet point and our illustrative lists do not necessarily exclude other items from consideration. If we make that clear somewhere in the remit, would that solve the problem?
Yes.
Okay.
I wanted to make a separate point. I apologise for not raising the matter when we were discussing global issues and I need to take the convener's guidance on whether it is appropriate to raise it. The proposed Westminster energy bill, which is currently in consultation, must have some relevance to the economic case for renewables in Scotland. Am I treading on all sorts of toes by raising that matter?
I suppose that we could expand the point about the renewables obligation to include the general legislative framework. That would cover anything.
Proposed legislation is going through Westminster that will have a profound impact on the economic situation in Scotland and I think that it is only right that we take account of that.
Okay. We will widen out the point to include that.
I do not know how members feel about flagging up the grid in that section or elsewhere.
That is covered by the reference to the transmission network.
Is it? I am sorry; you are dead right.
Are you happy with that point?
That was easily settled.
We talked about local benefits, and many wind farms and other renewable energy projects will be on a relatively small scale. Once electricity is in the grid, it is in the grid, but the further it is transmitted, the less value it has, because it is dissipated. Is there value in considering where electricity goes and whether electricity generation will provide a local economic benefit? We should at least doff our caps to the idea that we should generate electricity where it is needed and used, rather than somewhere far away in a safe environment where nothing can be polluted.
Can we quote Brian Adam on that in debate?
I am talking about an element that is more local than global.
I am sure that that is a big issue that will arise throughout the inquiry, so I do not know whether we need to change the remit. Local generation for local consumption has implications not only for wind farms, but for hydro schemes. Many more large-scale hydro schemes are unlikely, but very small-scale hydro schemes have a clear role. That has an impact on the grid and on whether the grid is needed to the same extent, although the grid is needed in dry summers when the wind is not blowing.
My amendment would add just one word, but it is a large word. Christine May mentioned the concern that everything in the remit is about electricity, which represents less than 20 per cent of total energy in Scotland. Transport is a major matter for which renewable development is at an early stage and on which our research and development could have important knock-on economic benefits in the next 20 or so years, through measures such as the development of hydrogen cells and other methods of powering transport.
That point is well meaning and I hear what you say. Are you talking about cars that are powered by chicken manure and that sort of thing?
No.
That will be just for cars in Caithness. The rest of us will use fuel cells.
The only trouble that I have is with where the line is drawn.
I think that hydrogen energy is more important. The line is drawn according to the serious development proposals on which developers tell us that more emphasis needs to be placed.
Could that be the subject of a later inquiry?
Chris Ballance has raised a fundamental point. Our inquiry relates to the Executive's targets, which are clearly about renewable electricity generation—I say that subject to correction. The question whether we want to consider the totality of energy generation and consumption is valid, but the problem is that if we do that, we need not bother discussing the rest of our work programme for the next four years, because we will have enough to keep us going. That is the only caveat. If members want to go down that road, let us hear from them.
If we are being practical, we can say that the biggest element of the debate will be renewable energy, which involves the production of power to put into the electricity grid. However, other elements that will probably be peripheral to the economic case should not be ruled out. We could get round that by changing the word "electricity" in the second indent of the list of global issues to the word "energy", because we are dealing with a global energy, rather than electricity, market. That would allow us to consider work that is being done in universities to develop hydrogen cells, which are probably still 20 years from any viable commercial application and will probably not be central to our inquiry in the way that power generation for homes will be. My suggestion does not discount the consideration of other issues. The issue is covered in the final indent, which mentions "non-electricity"—we should leave it at that.
I take that point on board, but I highlight the importance of the direction of the electricity market and of the economic viability of future renewables schemes. We must not lose sight of those issues. The transport issue that Chris Ballance raised is hugely important, but, like you, convener, I am concerned about the breadth of the inquiry. We could spend a huge amount of time on the inquiry and it is important that we do justice to the issues that are laid out in the paper. We should not water down the amount of time that we can spend on those issues by broadening the inquiry too much.
As Richard Baker said, we certainly need to leave in "the electricity market" as a separate phrase, because it is there to allow us to consider BETTA—the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements. The question is whether we want to provide flexibility—although we may already have it—by including a general point about energy consumption. That would allow us to cover the matter when we want to, although we do not intend to make it an overwhelming part of the inquiry.
I support Christine May's point. The issue will by no means be central, but it is important and we should not rule it out.
Would it give too many hostages to fortune if we put energy consumption as a fourth point under "global issues"? That would allow us to cover matters such as insulation.
"Non-electricity" is mentioned in the final indent under "examination by sector", beside "other/longer-term". Perhaps that is sufficient.
That is reasonable.
As long as that does not rule out someone saying to us that they would like Executive support on a certain issue. We might say that the issue is not relevant because it relates to transport.
I do not think that the suggestion will rule out anyone.
We have agreed to take agenda item 4 in private.
Meeting continued in private until 15:37.
Previous
Work Programme