Official Report 347KB pdf
Item 4 is an approach paper on the national planning framework. We are considering the paper before the national planning framework has been published, so we are working based on guesswork a little, although we are fairly sure that the national planning framework 2 will be published tomorrow. Had we waited, we would not have had time to consider our approach before our Christmas recess, which could delay too much the process into which we need to feed.
I simply have a question. Is Ofgem relevant to panel 2?
Ofgem will give evidence to the committee on 10 February—
That will be on a different matter.
I suspect that the proposed panel is sufficient and I am not sure whether we need Ofgem.
I simply look for guidance—I do not know. I presume that Ofgem regulates connection to the grid.
I am not sure.
To a degree, Ofgem is relevant to the process, but its primary interest is in transmission charging. The committee is primarily considering consenting and planning, in which Ofgem is less of a key player. As the convener said, Ofgem's chief executive still plans to appear before the committee on 10 February. That is consistent with the overall timetable for consideration of the national planning framework. If we start to count the 60 days from the end of this week, Parliament must complete consideration of the NPF by 6 March. That means that the committee could still make further views known to Parliament if anything that was specific to Ofgem arose.
I know from dealing with regulatory matters that we would not want the answer from the panel to a question to be that the matter was not for any of the companies that were represented.
We will check. If Ofgem can send somebody along and its doing so will be useful, we will arrange that. The trouble is that the Christmas recess makes the timetable tight for consulting various groups.
I will raise an associated issue. Forgive me—others might have read the minutiae of what Stephen Imrie circulated on the guidance on thermal power generation. We heard today that the section 36 process involves two aspects—one is carbon capture and the other relates to heat. The matter is largely tangential to the national planning framework, but could somebody in the Scottish Parliament information centre do a brief note on that for us, so that we do not lose the issue about what the guidance says and what we might recommend?
I have asked the minister to keep the committee informed of what is happening with that consultation.
When that arrives, it will no doubt be impenetrable to read, but some worthy person in SPICe could summarise briefly whether the situation is developing.
The SPICe researcher looks really enthusiastic about the prospect of providing us with a note on the matter.
Could Community Energy Scotland attend as part of panel 1? It deals with small-scale community energy, but it raised several issues about grid connection for community energy schemes.
I am sorry—do you mean panel 2?
Community Energy Scotland could be part of either panel.
I am concerned about our restricted time. When panels are too big, they become unmanageable. We must be careful about that.
Do we need to hear from the Beauly-Denny landscape group?
The aim is to provide an alternative to views on how the new planning framework should operate. It would be remiss of the committee to take evidence from only one side of the argument.
I am sorry, convener—I did not quite catch that. The Beauly-Denny landscape group has a view on the landscape between Beauly and Denny. The question is whether it is the relevant alternative voice on electricity and energy needs and on whether such projects should be a national priority. The group might have a view on the proposed development—
You took the words out of my mouth.
The Beauly-Denny landscape group has an interest in one of the schemes that we think will be part of the national planning framework document. We felt that it would be appropriate to hear an alternative to the view that is likely to be presented by Scottish and Southern Energy, Scottish Power and National Grid on the aspects that should be taken into account. We must hear contrasting views.
Does the group include local authority and other organisations that have objected to the development?
I do not believe that the group includes local authorities as such; it is an umbrella body for non-governmental organisations and environmental organisations such as the John Muir Trust, RSPB Scotland and others that have been vocal about the Beauly to Denny power line.
We are attempting to consider what is in the planning framework, not to rerun the inquiry into the line.
I quite agree, and that point will be made clear to the people who give evidence. We will not be rerunning the inquiry; we will be considering how the national planning framework will deal with energy projects. I will certainly rule out any attempts by witnesses to rerun the inquiry into the specifics of this particular scheme. However, we will have to hear from people with experience of schemes, and get their views on how the national planning framework will operate, which is why we have to invite a group such as the Beauly-Denny landscape group, which is an umbrella organisation.
I would like to press a point about Community Energy Scotland, which is a new body for the whole of Scotland.
We have not ruled that body out, but we have to consider the time that will be required to take evidence, and whether anyone will be available.
I accept what you say about the Beauly-Denny landscape group and about how you will rule certain questions out of order, but I would be amazed if the group did not make serious attempts to get stuck in.
I am sure that it will.
Is having the group on the panel wise if it could disrupt the whole meeting?
The committee has a responsibility to take a balanced view. An argument could be made that we do not need to invite all the power organisations. We might ask Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy to agree that one or other of them could present their point of view. That would reduce the number of panellists, which might be helpful.
I agree. I also generally agree with having round-table discussions, but with the national planning framework document we have one group of people who say that it should go further because it does not go far enough for them to get consents through—the energy companies—and another group of people who say that it goes too far and who want local views to prevail. So that our recommendations can be clear, we need two panels. We have to ask people, "Are you happy or are you not?" That will allow us to get clear views on the published document. We should not have a woolly round table at which people pretend to agree. The fundamental question for us is which side of the argument the document should come down on.
If the committee would prefer to have two separate panels, that is easily done. The meeting would probably be slightly longer.
We would need self-discipline. Two panels would give us clarity. We could say to the first one, "Has it gone far enough?" And we could say to the second one, "Where has it gone too far?" The committee could then adjudicate.
I believe that the Beauly to Denny line is not in NPF 2.
We do not know.
We do not know? So, having a specific group on the Beauly to Denny line—
I still think that we should split the witnesses. There will be a constituency in Scotland that thinks that power should remain local, and then there will be the energy companies which will say that we need to consider national priorities. We should be honest about separating the two issues, because we have to reach a judgment on whether the NPF gets the balance right.
The national planning framework will be published tomorrow, so we will reconsider panels in the light of the framework and assess whether any of the proposed witnesses are not relevant to what we want to consider. The committee can leave it to the clerks and me to do that.
If it turns out that Rob Gibson is well informed, then clearly we may have a meeting on why the Beauly to Denny line should be in the national planning framework.
It might just be that where the Beauly to Denny line was in the system meant that it was too late to put it in the national planning framework. I do not know. However, we will find out tomorrow when the framework is published. Do members agree with the proposal, subject to changes being made to it following consultation between me and the clerk after the planning framework is published?
Members indicated agreement.