Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Official Report 302KB pdf

---

Emergency Oil Stocks Regime

Item 2 is consideration of the modernisation of the emergency oil stock regime. We have a paper from the clerks, which includes a series of recommendations on how to take forward the matter. Given Christopher Harvie's expertise, no doubt he has something to say. What are members' views?

My initial take on reading the European Commission consultation paper was that we should make a submission. However, I re-read the paper, which is full of specialist and technical detail, and was left with a series of questions. Is it better to retain the existing, fragmented legislation or move to one piece of legislation; change from EU to International Energy Agency practices, incorporate the "10% deduction"; employ "audits and country reviews" and

"transparency of oil stock data."

As a committee, we could spend a long time in getting up to speed on the issue and making a submission, but that might best be done by others. Having thought things through, that is my take on the matter.

On whether we should write to the Scottish Government to suggest that it make a submission, my answer is that we should definitely do that. Given the events of recent weeks, the Scottish Government and the UK Government have good experience of managing oil stocks. As I said, I am not convinced that the committee should make a submission.

We have material for a full-blown inquiry, if we want to conduct one, although I cannot see where it could be fitted into our work programme.

The present crisis has shown how our oil supply is now held almost on a just-in-time basis. In the past, oil was held in quite considerable quantities in various regional depots. Everything has now been reduced to a situation where oil goes from refinery to tanker and on to domestic and local filling station use. That is a relatively recent development, from the 1990s onwards. Perhaps we should return to using local facilities, some of which are still in place. That would ensure that we had greater local supplies. In the 1960s, supplies were delivered by rail to those depots. We had one in Aberystwyth, for example.

Nowadays, the big tanker comes direct to the customer from the refinery. That makes things difficult to deal with in crisis situations such as the one that we have just had—situations that could become more frequent.

I could not agree more.

Yes, it is an important area.

I agree with Gavin Brown's proposition that we should write to the Scottish Government on the matter. The proposal in the paper is that we should receive a copy of the submission. Perhaps we could request a discussion with the Government prior to that, or we could simply talk to the appropriate minister after the submission has been made. The point is perhaps more procedural.

I am not advocating that we hold a full-blown inquiry. As the convener said, there is potential for that but no space in our work programme. That said, we might want to engage with the Government on the matter and not simply wait until we receive a copy of its submission.

Let me try to roll Lewis Macdonald's and Christopher Harvie's points into one. We can ask the Government to give us early sight of its developing thinking on the issue. We can then pursue that—perhaps not in a formal committee meeting but by other forms of communication—given that all of us will have views along the lines of Christopher Harvie's point about how the country withstood the recent shock. I agree with Christopher Harvie that the most recent incident will not be the last. We can ask to be involved in the process earlier and, if appropriate, take evidence from the minister through a formal discussion on the Government's submission. Is that acceptable?

Members indicated agreement.