Enterprise and Culture Committee, 18 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Official Report 177KB pdf

---

Renewable Energy Inquiry

Agenda item 4 is on the renewable energy inquiry. We have a paper that makes certain recommendations on how we might proceed in taking evidence, although I do not propose to go through the whole inquiry. A call has gone out for written evidence and we have identified the three main areas on which we might want to take oral evidence. However, the list is illustrative and does not preclude our taking evidence on other issues that members raise, or which become more obvious as we receive written evidence. We already have three public petitions to consider as part of the inquiry and there are potentially another two, depending on what we decide under agenda item 5.

It seems that it would be sensible to hold at least one committee meeting outside Edinburgh. We are thinking of Kintyre, which is one area in Scotland in which the renewable energy industry—leaving aside hydro power—is established, not only in generating industry, but in creating commercial advantage. We must also consider whether to meet outside Edinburgh so that we can talk to people who wish to protest about wind farms. The problem that I foresee is that, because those people are not centred in one part of Scotland—the two main areas that seem to be cropping up are the Moray coast and the Ochils—there is no central location that would suit people from both those areas.

It is clear that there are opportunities for case studies and I suspect that it might prove to be useful for three members at one time to go on one of the case studies that we have identified. Again, the list is perhaps just illustrative; for example, I am conscious that hydro power is not mentioned and that there might be other examples that we should examine. We do not necessarily have to confine ourselves to the examples that have been given.

It might also be sensible to do an overseas case study. I suggested Denmark because it already has considerable experience in the field, and Portugal because of its policy commitment to funding renewable energy development. However, I suspect that Denmark would be the better bet because of its breadth and depth of experience. Of course, I realise that Portugal might hold more attractions at this time of year.

I have also distributed a schedule of proposed meetings. Those meetings will be weekly to start with, but will thereafter alternate with our business growth inquiry.

Finally, I make this proposal now to get it out of the way: although it is some time away, it is suggested that consideration of our interim findings and final report should be discussed in private. Are there any comments?

If I am reading the first two paragraphs of page 2 correctly, you are saying that the anti-wind-farm people will be asked to give evidence at the Campbeltown meeting.

No. I know that the paper might give that impression, but that is not what I meant. Although I redrafted that paragraph, I am conscious that I did not get it quite right. I am not aware that there is any significant body of objectors in Campbeltown at the moment. We are getting an economically positive message from that area, although if there are people in the Kintyre peninsula who think that the whole thing is going in the wrong direction, the committee would be a useful place at which they could give that evidence. I am saying that if we are to hear from some of the current campaigns against wind farms, particularly in relation to the petitions that we are going to be discussing, we would not hold that meeting in Kintyre because it would not be very convenient for the Ochils or the Moray coast.

That clarifies matters. As you rightly say, there is no real pattern—objectors are scattered all over the place, so that sort of evidence could be heard here in Edinburgh. We might want to put a bit of weighting for that into our annex A.

I have made the point that the many people who contact me—and, I am sure, those who contact the convener—must co-ordinate their efforts and find people who can speak on behalf of them all. Otherwise we will become bogged down. The name has occurred to me of someone who has written to all of us. John Campbell QC has fought several anti-wind-farm campaigns. It is up to the committee to decide, but it would be very effective if he came here, especially on the day when he is due to take evidence from me at the Holyrood inquiry.

We will leave that one sticking to the wall.

We will set aside one evidence session for objections to wind farms. It is clear that we will have to be selective about whom we invite, but I do not want to prejudge whether certain organisations could be involved because some are lobbying organisations. I would like to get some genuine grass-roots opinion. We will have to use the written evidence that comes in to judge who we should ask to come before the committee.

I had a members' business debate on wind farms the other week in which there was substantial public interest. It was clear from that that people were prepared to travel to Edinburgh to make their cases. I do not think that we have to worry too much about going beyond Edinburgh to take evidence from people who might be objectors.

I was just looking down the list of potential witnesses; it seems to be weighted towards the interests of the producers. Perhaps we should consider bodies that might have a different opinion. I recall that, at our committee away day, we heard from a chap—his name completely escapes me now—who gave us what I thought was a fairly objective and interesting opinion on renewable energy and wind power. I dare say that we could hear from him again, although I am sorry that I cannot remember who he was. Perhaps he might suggest some people who would give a slightly different opinion.

I accept that point—I had a meeting with the chap subsequently. His name escapes me, as well. [Interruption.] I am informed that his name is Chris Bronsdon. Although he was from an organisation that supports renewable energy, he certainly gave a balanced presentation. It might be useful to take evidence from him.

People would clearly be prepared to come to Edinburgh, but I suspect that we might wish to consider somewhere like Perth, which is handy for the Ochils and a lot handier for people coming down from Moray, which is a fair journey away. I am conscious that any meeting outside Parliament incurs a fair amount of cost, given the need for an Official Report of the meeting and so on.

I will make a couple more points, if I may. The suggested case studies do not include offshore wind, which we should also consider. However, I appreciate that the list is not intended to be exclusive.

On overseas case studies, Denmark would be interesting because, having made a huge investment in renewable energy, Denmark is now going a bit cold on the idea, I understand. Although the weather in Portugal in February will be a lot warmer than the weather in Denmark, Denmark would probably be the more useful case study.

I think that there are other potential case studies, although I suspect that it will be possible to do some as desk studies rather than as actual visits. You are right that some objectors cite Denmark as an example in their favour. Hopefully, by studying Denmark, we might get some indication as to where the truth of the arguments lies.

For the anti-wind-farm case, we need to be clear about the parameters within which we want to take evidence. For example, we might want to hear from some folk about planning issues, such as the planning system's capacity, but they must come with personal experience and evidence about the nature of the problem. It will not be helpful to our inquiry just to throw it open to anyone who wants to protest about wind farms per se.

On the case studies, I was pleased to hear the convener say that the list was for illustrative purposes. I suspect that, as the remit of the inquiry becomes better known, we will receive notification of other examples that might be more interesting or more relevant. Those might be combined with other suggestions to make a day visit more appropriate. On whether we should have an overseas visit, I say yes. Why not? However, I could not go in February. Could I go some other time?

Indeed.

On oral evidence, clearly the first route is for people to provide written evidence. It is only fair that people who have lodged petitions be heard. Other people will be selected on the basis of how representative or interesting their views are and based on what scope would be provided by interviewing them in person. If people have nothing further to add to what they said in writing, taking oral evidence from them will not be a good use of anyone's time.

I am sorry that we will not see Christine May in Denmark—

Does that mean that the committee has decided to go to Denmark?

No—that is up to the committee, although Denmark seems to be the more reasonable option.

On the case studies, all requests for approval for travel must go to the Conveners Group, but I suspect that we could decide later that, say, three members should go on a particular visit. That would not be a major project; such a visit would usually involve being away for just one day. I am sure that other visits can be arranged if sensible suggestions are made. We are seeking only approval in principle that we undertake case studies, rather than approval of these specific case studies.

Are there any other comments?

The people who have been selected for oral evidence so far are very much the large-scale producers. Is there any room for smaller bodies? I am also a little worried that not enough time is being made for organisations that, to quote from the paper, "make interesting written submissions." I imagine that that day will be taken up with objectors. Apart from that, there is a little space for taking witnesses on an ad hoc basis on 24 February. I wonder whether the time scale might be a little optimistic; we might need to schedule another day for oral evidence.

One of the reasons why the names of the smaller-scale producers are not included in the paper is that we do not know them. The call for written evidence or the announcement that an inquiry is to be held allows such people to make themselves known to us.

One of the issues that flows from the problems with the grid is that renewable energy may be more suited to being produced locally to meet local needs. I would like us to pursue that issue. We have not excluded it. I hope that some of the smaller-scale producers will give evidence and I hope that some of the case studies might produce local evidence.

I am relaxed about the time scale. The schedule that is set out in the paper is illustrative—if issues arise that are interesting or that appear to need further investigation, I am prepared to extend the inquiry as far as is required. Issues such as the energy problem and the global warming problem are going to be with us for a long time. We do not have to finish the inquiry by the middle of May.

I have a quick question to which, I am sure, the convener or the clerks can give me the answer. When we considered the remit of the inquiry at our previous meeting, I am sure that we said that we would like to quantify the benefits for communities—by that I mean the sums of money that are involved. Where are the bullet points in the paper that would allow those facts to be brought out?

We can ask the different providers of alternative energy about the benefits that they perceive for the communities in which they are located. Our meeting in Campbeltown is the obvious location to bring that out.

Is it your intention not only that we get community representatives to meet us, but that we draw out of them what they perceive the benefits to be?

I think so. We need to explore the precise structure a little more. We want to draw out that evidence, which is an important part of the debate.

Others have suggested that there is a preponderance of industry interests on the list. Why are we to have Scottish Power plc and Scottish and Southern Energy plc? What will one company tell us that the other will not? Why should we hear from two nuclear power firms?

The clerk reminds me that the paper is based on suggestions that members made at the last meeting. The problem, Brian, is that I am just too democratic.

I am just intrigued to know what British Energy plc would tell us that would be different to what British Nuclear Fuels Ltd would say.

To some extent, there is value in two people's saying the same thing to us. That said, some people might feel that British Energy is not quite the same as BNFL in many aspects of its operation. If two companies appear to be too similar, we can put their representatives on the same panel. That way they will not take up any more time.

That was partly the point that I wanted to make when I said that we could include some more interesting, useful or relevant suggestions for witnesses. For example, an Aberdeen offshore energy company might come forward with something in respect of wave energy that we might want to look at. Talisman Energy (UK) Ltd has a big project for a 200-turbine offshore plant and we might also want to consider that. Rather than make a commitment to any of the names, I suggest that we note them at the moment and, as the next couple of weeks unfold, we can add or subtract names.

We need to start slotting in names. When dealing with firms, in particular, we need to set up evidence-taking sessions well in advance to ensure that people are available to give evidence and that we receive submissions from them in good time. However, we will try to be as flexible as possible.

The nuclear industry's argument that nuclear power is a source of renewable energy does not meet with agreement everywhere. However, the point is also made that when we use renewable energy we need to ensure that there is a base load. Some people say that that load would best be provided by nuclear power. We need to explore those arguments.

Are members happy to agree recommendations 1 to 6 and the points in recommendation 7, for which we need to seek authorisation?

Members indicated agreement.

Can we specify Campbeltown as the venue for the meeting that will be held outwith Edinburgh?

Members indicated agreement.

We do not need at this stage to worry about case studies. However, because the Conveners Group is not meeting often in this session, we need to decide now where we want to go if we go abroad. Denmark seems to be the best option. Is that acceptable?

Members indicated agreement.

I will come with you. I will not make you go on your own.

Point ii) under recommendation 6 uses the phrase

"members to conduct each case study".

It might be helpful for us to decide now who will do what. I would like to conduct the study of wave and tidal power, rather than a study on either Denmark or Portugal. I put down that marker, in case we choose not to make a decision now. However, for the sake of members' planning, it might make sense for us to do that.

We have not nailed down which case studies we will do. We will put more work into that because we would like the matter to be clear in our diaries before we break up for the Christmas recess—hopefully, by early December.

Recommendation 2 invites the committee to

"give the clerks direction regarding oral evidence".

We have agreed to do that, but have we actually done it? What direction have we given?

At the moment, the direction is to proceed with the indicative list that is before us and to identify further potential witnesses as written evidence is received. As always, members are invited to submit suggestions to the clerks.