Official Report 347KB pdf
We need to crack on, as I know that members have other business that they want to get through at lunch time. Item 2 is consideration of an initial approach paper by the clerks on the next stage of our energy inquiry. It would be useful if members could identify any specific issues that they want to be included in stage 2 of the inquiry. Quite a number of issues have been picked up—for example, it is extremely important that we consider how energy demand can be reduced. I certainly recommend that we hold evidence sessions on the issues that the paper identifies. Connectivity to the grid has come up frequently in our three round-table discussions, and we have already obtained agreement from the chief executive of Ofgem to give evidence on that. Other witnesses will be involved in that session, too. If there are any other issues that are not covered in the paper that members want to highlight, I invite them to do so quickly.
Jason Ormiston's suggestion of a session specifically on heat is an excellent idea. The committee could drive that issue forward because, at the moment, it is the ugly sister; it needs to be much higher up the agenda.
Cinders comes to mind. Will we visit a combined heat and power plant?
Possibly. It is possible that we might be able to fit in such a visit, especially on one of our overseas visits.
If it is helpful, I can recommend some excellent combined heat and power plants in my constituency. I know that Aberdeen is on your list of potential destinations.
We certainly intend to go to Aberdeen for a committee hearing on the oil and gas industry, and it might be possible to fit in additional visits around that.
We are talking about going to Brussels. Would the committee be able to take evidence in Brussels?
The rule is that we cannot take evidence formally outwith Scotland, but we can do so informally. If we go to Brussels, it is certainly my intention that we meet the European Commission and others to discuss energy policy. If there are specific organisations that members would like us to meet in Brussels, please pass that information on to the clerks.
Combined heat and power plants are prevalent on the continent, and there is interest in international grids, which are a key issue, as is Scotland's relationship to the ability of the UK and Europe to meet the 2020 targets.
If I heard Rob Gibson correctly, he is right that one of the key recommendations that we should consider is about the grid. We should certainly take evidence both on projects that are in play and on potential future connections to the grid.
We know what needs to happen on the grid and on planning and that it all needs to be in our report. Europe is ahead of us, however, on energy and heat, so those are the two areas that commend themselves for examination during our overseas visits. If we are going to Scandinavia, or elsewhere in Europe, I am particularly interested in focusing on those two issues, on which we have the furthest to travel and the best lessons to learn.
We are investigating several options, but the best one looks like going to Copenhagen. There are some combined heat and power projects in Copenhagen city, and we would also have the opportunity of going across the bridge to Sweden to take in some of the Swedish projects.
Carbon capture and storage could also be considered—northern Germany is the best for that.
Yes, there is a plant there. I know that a company is keen to facilitate our European visits, so it might be able to provide some help. It has some interests in the countries in which we are interested.
I commend paragraph 5 of the clerk's paper as it recognises that we need some structure to the next stage of our inquiry. It offers a structure that allows us to recognise when we have different views and how we can fit the issues into the wider picture.
Wendy Alexander made a key point during the round-table discussion. Our job is not to say that we need a nuclear power plant or wind farm in one place but not another; it is to map our progress and say specifically what the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government should be doing over the next three, four or five years to get us moving in the right direction. That should be the focus. The more detailed evidence should be on pinning down the decisions that need to be taken and what we should be doing over the next three to five years.
That is helpful, and we are working in the context of the 2020 targets.
The context is the direction of travel for 2050—not 2020—and what we need to do.
I am thinking about the legislative timetable. We could add some real value by making specific proposals for the next three or four years, but I am aware that two things are already in the parliamentary timetable. One is secondary legislation and on-going discussions on planning, and the other is the parliamentary consideration of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.
Those discussions are on-going, and we have indicated that we would be interested in being a secondary committee on the bill. If there are specific issues on which we want to take evidence or even if we want just to make known our views as a result of what we already know, we will be able to do that.
The main thing is to resist the temptation to do too much. We need to focus on a handful of issues on which we can do some work and make recommendations that will make a difference. It would be far too easy for us to let the inquiry grow out of all proportion. There is so much that we could look at.
Would it be helpful for us to continue the dialogue with the clerks between now and the next meeting?
Absolutely. If any member has additional points to make to the clerks after they have had time to reflect—and allowing for the two visits that we are to make before 14 January—they should feed them in. Obviously, the earlier that the clerks receive the information, the easier it will be for it to be incorporated and background work to be done on visits.
Members indicated agreement.
Let me remind members that the next stage of the inquiry involves the visits to Torness next Wednesday and to Braes of Doune wind farm project on 7 January.
Previous
Council of Economic Advisers