Official Report 281KB pdf
Item 2 is the Scottish Government's response to our energy inquiry report. The item was on the agenda for last week's meeting, but I suggested that members should have a bit more time to consider the response.
It is interesting that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is consulting on a new grid access regime, which is important to us. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets is undergoing considerable structural change and it would be interesting to find out how the DECC views that.
Yes, we will. One of the clearest findings from our inquiry was that the access and charging regime that currently operates in the UK is not conducive to renewables development. If progress is not being made in the direction that we sought in our report, we will want to follow it up.
A number of issues arise from paragraphs 133 and 134, on heat mapping and heat initiatives. I was bemused to discover that the Scottish Government's heat mapping pilot is being undertaken with Highland Council. The issue has currency throughout the country, but if we accept that combined heat and power is particularly appropriate in urban situations, Highland Council seems an odd choice of local authority partner for the exercise. I welcome the exercise, but I am bemused by the choice of perhaps our most rural authority as the partner. Can we find out why ministers made that interesting choice?
Surely most people in Highland live in towns.
That is true. Nonetheless, Highland Council is not the obvious, intuitive choice, although I welcome the council's enthusiasm for the work.
I request that the convener writes to the minister on the issue of fuel poverty to check what the Government's view is, because we were told previously that it is committed to eliminating fuel poverty by 2016, but the Government's response states that it is committed to eliminating it
That is a valid point. In respect of the energy efficiency section, we were clear that we were seeking the publication of the energy efficiency plan this autumn. We have been told that there will be another draft energy efficiency plan, which is not the same thing by any manner of means.
I agree. I refer in particular to paragraphs 122 and 131, in which we raised concerns about consents and the planning process and pointed out the scale of consent refusals in the past two years, but the Government seems to have paid no heed to those points and has simply said, "We are happy with what we've done, and that is an adequate answer." That does not seem to be an adequate answer. The Government's failure to turn the rhetoric of support for renewables into approval of projects is a profound weakness in the response.
I will raise points under both paragraph 138, on supporting the oil and gas industry, and paragraph 140, on newer, emerging technologies.
That is a good point. Christopher Harvie will recall that in Aberdeen—
I was not there.
What we saw there was similar, as the plant that we visited was a relatively small-scale CHP gas plant.
The difference is that the size of the plant in Aberdeen meant that to make it economically viable it relied to an extent on part of the building being a public building, because the swimming pool and leisure complex was a key aspect, whereas Chris Harvie is referring to a smaller plant that would be viable in itself. That is interesting.
The idea is that Volkswagen could turn its car plants over to producing those CHP plants.
The housing in German cities is perhaps different from the housing in Scottish cities, which might make such a development less viable here, but it must be worth considering.
Going beyond heat mapping, we need to see a positive response from the Government on how it is investing in CHP to make it happen.
I have questions about paragraphs 146 and 147. Paragraph 146, on the clutter in the training sector, asked about the support that is being given to the energy industry to promote job skills and take economic opportunities. I would like to know about the timescale for that, because we asked for it to be addressed by the summer of 2010. Why are only the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland involved? The issue reaches further than those two agencies alone, so how will the Government bring in other agencies?
On paragraph 146, I was struck that when we pointed out
Other agencies would also need to be consulted.
I assume that the joint skills committee of the Scottish funding council and Skills Development Scotland would discuss matters with other agencies, but we can seek clarification on that.
And on timescales, please.
Does the committee agree that, as part of our budget scrutiny, we should take evidence on modern apprenticeships, and perhaps on funding for energy efficiency measures, to which we referred in paragraph 108?
Members indicated agreement.
My intention is to write to the minister asking for further clarification on the points that have been highlighted, preferably before the debate on 30 September—or whenever it is—so that we can include them. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Financial Services Inquiry