Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Official Report 302KB pdf

---

Scotland's Energy Future Inquiry

Item 4 is consideration of the remit of our inquiry into Scotland's energy future. The clerks have circulated a paper containing a draft remit and terms of reference, which I am sure colleagues have had an opportunity to read.

On the remit, I suggest that there is not much difference, if any, among us that the number 1 energy issue in coming years is the need to reduce the country's CO2 emissions, which is a national, international, European and worldwide perspective. It might therefore be better to define that as the remit's starting point, from which the hows and wheres will flow. Nowadays, I think that everyone in politics recognises that we are under that pressure. We could start with the need for targets—let us not mention a specific target, as there are different views on which target is the most appropriate—and with the acceptance of the need to reduce CO2 emissions.

I entirely understand the convener's point, but does the remit as drafted pay sufficient attention to renewable energy? The remit refers to the Scottish Government's objective of reducing emissions, but it does not give sufficient standing to the objective of increasing renewable energy generation. That seems to be the weaker part of the remit, whereas the need to reduce carbon emissions is already firmly included.

My other comment relates to the remit's final sentence, which refers to economic benefits of clean technologies. Again, I could not possibly agree more with that, but I think that an inquiry into Scotland's energy future should consider the economic benefits from our energy industries rather than narrow the issue down to the benefits of clean technologies. One cannot be separated from the other.

Perhaps another way of putting that point is that our inquiry needs to examine how we can have a secure sustainable energy supply. The sustainable aspect would include the need to reduce CO2 emissions and the need to generate renewable energy. In the light of our previous discussion, security of supply is also terribly important. However, I do not object to highlighting the need to reduce CO2 emissions. Perhaps we are just dealing in semantics.

There seems to be a slight contradiction in that the remit and call for evidence refer a couple of times to "within the devolved context", but the questions that are listed overleaf as being linked to the three key issues include:

"What is needed in the short and medium-term, particularly from the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish and other governments, to deliver Scotland's energy future?"

Might we unduly restrict ourselves by using that terminology about the devolved context? Given that we will be looking at Scotland's energy needs and requirements, some fairly broad issues might flow from those.

I imagine that the drafting of the first bullet point in the call for evidence simply reflects the Parliament's current responsibilities. One might have views—particularly this week—about how those might change.

Many other issues will impact on our discussions.

My judgment is that the committee will not be slow to point out those things and consider them if it so wishes. However, I take your point.

Does Gavin Brown want to comment on the remit and terms of reference?

I confess that I do not have a great deal to add.

One area that needs to be highlighted is the avoidance of domestic consumption of energy. In Germany, there is the concept of the Passivhaus—a house that does not expend energy and is super-insulated. The avoidance of energy use in housing and the need for far higher building standards—building standards are not a high priority in this country—ought to be part of our inquiry.

Okay. Stephen Imrie rightly points out that the first bullet point under the heading "Linked to these three key issues are the following—" could encompass those areas. Nevertheless, I take your point.

In Germany, people receive whacking great tax rebates for installing photovoltaic panels on their roofs. That idea is not very promising in Scotland, in a way, but we could provide that sort of tax aid for installation of insulation. That is an area in which we could make tremendous economies.

On the remit of the call for evidence, I agree with Dave Thompson that the phrase "In a devolved context" is in the wrong place. It should be in the preceding line, which would begin "As part of this inquiry, the Committee seeks evidence in a devolved context". The devolved bit—the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament—is part of the context, and the question about what type of future is needed should not be unduly constrained.

Also, the way the first bullet point is termed implies that efficiency is the key. Efficiency is important, but instead of looking at

"the more efficient use, production and distribution of energy",

we would do better to consider what type of future is needed in Scotland in terms of the production, distribution and more efficient use of energy. Production and distribution of energy are important regardless of whether they are efficient, although obviously the more efficient they are, the better. We need to look at production and distribution across the board, not simply in terms of energy efficiency, which is another issue.

There is a third issue, which might also have underlain Dave Thompson's concern. I do not think that it would be in anybody's interest if a question about who should be responsible for the delivery of Scotland's energy future became an argument about devolved and reserved responsibilities. Whether or not we support the idea, we all know that people have different responsibilities in those areas. The question, therefore, is about how those people should work together or how their responsibilities should relate to one another. We should not get into a debate about who should be in charge of what: that might not be very productive.

Okay. Let us see whether we can tidy up what has been said. It strikes me that a lot of the issues are about tone and the best way in which to word things. If members leave that to Stephen Imrie and me, we will redraft the paper, circulate it and ensure that colleagues are content with it in the usual way. We will try to get it signed off this week.

I am happy to do that, but I have one more point to make, I am afraid. Looking at the list of linked issues, I did not think that how demand for energy can be reduced in Scotland would be my starting point. In my view, this is not an energy efficiency inquiry, although energy efficiency is part of it. I thought that the first question ought to be "Which energy sectors offer the best prospect of economic growth and reduced carbon emissions, and how should those be secured?" Our inquiry is into Scotland's energy future, and reduction of demand is a part of that; however, stimulation of supply is also important. Right at the top of the list of challenges, I would put a question about what energy sectors we want to support and how.

Okay. We will play around with that and see what we can come up with. We will circulate the redrafted paper.

Can I just ask a question? You are going to launch the paper at the all-energy conference.

That is a grand way of putting it.

Is your speech going to be circulated in advance?

It might be, once it has been written, but that is many months ahead.

Meeting closed at 12:14.