Energy Future Inquiry
Item 2 is consideration of a remit and terms of reference for the committee's inquiry into Scotland's energy future. Our clerking team has produced a paper that includes a number of recommendations and suggested titles for the inquiry. The paper considers the inquiry's remit and raises four principal issues in the middle—I hope that that approach helps Lewis Macdonald, who made a point about the remit of the tourism industry inquiry. Other points are made at the end of the paper.
I open the floor to members to discuss the suggested remit of the inquiry, the timescale that we should proceed with and other factors. Members had better say something, or we will have a long wait until 11 o'clock. Christopher Harvie must say something controversial to get us going. Come on.
I will respond to your appeal, convener.
This morning, I read in The Herald that a potential leader of the Liberal party is talking about renewable energy and Scotland becoming a powerhouse. We should certainly consider renewable energy, which is an issue that constantly arises. It is clear that Scotland can do well in that area if our focus is directed in the right way.
The effects of energy conservation, rather than what we are doing about energy mix and so on, arose at our round-table discussion. If I remember the figures correctly, energy demand can be reduced by 20 per cent simply as a result of implementing lots of different energy conservation measures. I would like to think that we will have a close look at such matters. I was cartooned, so to speak, in Scotland on Sunday for suggesting that we go for low-energy light bulbs, but people have done so elsewhere, and that has had a big effect. I see no reason why we cannot at least ask what reduction in energy demand there would be if Scotland moved towards having low-energy light bulbs. I hasten to add that I do not have shares in any company that makes low-energy light bulbs.
I am grateful for David Whitton's plug for the Liberal Democrat leadership campaign, as I breakfasted this morning with people who are involved in it.
I back up what has been said. Another interesting issue that may be dealt with in the United Kingdom energy bill before we begin our inquiry is the metering of domestic consumers, which is clearly of great interest to committee members, as it relates to energy conservation and fuel poverty. Such issues may be relevant if we are to consider reducing demand for energy, which is important. However, what we will consider in that regard will partly depend on what is in the Westminster energy bill.
That is a good point.
One thing that struck me about the paper was that the proposed timing of the inquiry would help us to pick up on what is in the energy bill from London, which Lewis Macdonald mentioned, and the Scottish Government's energy paper—or whatever it may be formally called—which is to be produced at the tail-end of this year. Our team was right to suggest a timetable that picks up on what those documents include. I am sure that the documents will be complementary in many ways and different in others.
Considering decentralised energy is important. Other parts of Europe are taking a decentralised approach. We should think about some of the—dare I say—nimbyish arguments that have been strongly made in many communities that are worried about various technological developments. Some smaller-scale decentralised power systems are at least worth considering. I can think of good examples in that respect. That is my pitch.
I understand that later this week we will be lobbied by people who are concerned that implementing decentralised energy systems is difficult. The difficulties arise because the matter is covered by planning legislation, which is a significant inhibitor to implementing systems that should be good for the environment, as they reduce energy use or result in people generating energy in a renewable way. That issue could also be considered as part and parcel of the inquiry.
Another potential barrier to ensuring that we get the proper affordable mix is the regulatory environment, not all of which the Scottish Parliament controls. While you were off looking after the interests of sheep farmers on Shetland, convener, we had an interesting discussion with the gentleman from the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. It might be appropriate to include as part and parcel of the remit a reference to the role that Ofgem plays in respect of connection charges. I did not see such a reference in the paper, although I may have missed it.
We should discuss decentralisation and making use of all the potential for power generation up both the east and the west coasts. Issues arise in relation to connection into the grid. Admittedly, decentralisation is only part of the solution; we will still need a national grid and our renewable resources will need to connect to the grid. If the regulatory environment acts to inhibit those connections, we should address the issue.
The proposed remit is reasonably concise; we can make of it what we will. On this occasion, the fact that it is also relatively broad may be helpful to us. Things will happen between now and the start of the inquiry. We may decide to focus the remit. I am content with the paper and the suggestions that it contains. The title is not important. I am more than happy to endorse the proposed remit.
I return to Lewis Macdonald's point on the United Kingdom dimension. I am not sure whether other members saw Malcolm Wicks, the UK Minister of State for Energy, on "Newsnight" last night, but he spoke about the European dimension and the 20 per cent renewables target. If I understood the debate correctly, the target is a European target and negotiations are under way between European countries. We may want to consider the Scottish dimension to that. Given that the inquiry will take place next year, we can consider the matter then.
Various points come to mind that go beyond energy but which are relevant to it. The first is the disposal of what comes out of energy, which is carbon dioxide. The best way of characterising our relationship with carbon dioxide is that we are rather like the nun who was walled up in Sir Walter Scott's "Marmion": someone who is walled up will eventually choke on the carbon dioxide that they breathe out. That is the way that the world is going at the moment. The notion that we should be euphemistic and call carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas is wrong: the stuff is poison. We produce an enormous amount of it—far more than we burn.
Getting rid of carbon dioxide by some form of carbon capture should be a major Scottish initiative. As an historian of North Sea oil, I can see potential in the North Sea pipelines that will no longer be used for oil or gas, but which could be used—run in reverse—to pump Europe's excess carbon dioxide into the oil fields, thereby getting rid of the stuff and liberating more oil. That could be of enormous benefit to the Scottish economy. In one sense, we would be the dustman of Europe, but people would pay a heck of a lot to get rid of the stuff. We already have the example of the attempt to rejig the Peterhead power station. Carbon dioxide disposal has the potential to be an enormous negative energy—if you like—winner for Scotland.
I have two other points to make, the first of which is about fuel efficiency. In some respects, we might be better to think of things that are non-renewable but mobile. For example, we could combine a combined-cycle power station with a district heating scheme that runs on natural gas. If such a system were 90 per cent efficient, it would probably be more effective than some of the large wind farm developments that require a tremendous amount of concrete, roads, transmission lines and so forth and are in place for only 25 years. That sort of balance should be looked at actuarially.
Secondly, a very strong case can be made for the development of electric forms of transport—rail or non-rail—because of their use of regenerative energy. In Stuttgart, we have a tramway that is 80 per cent efficient: the trams that come down the way generate electricity for the trams that go up the way. That is the sort of advantage that only electrification can bring.
A large amount of freight can be carried on electric railway lines. Austria moves 34 per cent of its freight by rail, compared with about 11 per cent in Britain. Ecologically, it is a far more acceptable form of transport. That goes slightly beyond the inquiry's remit, but that is an area of potential energy use.
While you were talking, I was thinking about all the debates that we had—which David Whitton will also remember—about the clash between commuter railways and freight railways, the pitches that were made by the two sectors, the issues that were raised about who wanted access to the railways and so on. Do not get me started. I could lecture for hours on the subject—boringly. I invite further views.
There is something in our inquiry paper that hits the nail on the head:
"Electricity is only a fraction of the energy used in Scotland".
The point was made strongly at our round-table discussion. I forget the lady's name, but she talked seriously about transport. To what extent would it cut across the work of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee if we looked into that sector? If transport is the biggest factor of all when we talk about energy, should we be touching on it in our inquiry?
That is a fair point. We need to bottom that out in the scoping papers that will inform the committee's deliberations on the evidence that we should be seeking. The Sustainable Development Commission recently published a paper that illustrates the breakdown dramatically. Gavin Brown is absolutely right to highlight transport as one of the significant contributors to the mix. The short answer is that we should stick with energy. We could, however, show the linkages and think about how to tackle the issues in the round. There is a balance to be struck there. I accept his point about considering transport as part of our inquiry.
Does Graeme Cook, who is from the Scottish Parliament information centre, wish to pitch in or add anything?
Graeme Cook (Scottish Parliament Directorate of Access and Information):
The starting point for our paper was the away days and the round-table discussions. We approached the subject by considering what is reserved and what is devolved. That is an important part of the context. However, I have nothing further to add at this point.
Is the committee happy for us to start our inquiry in March? By then, we will know the outcomes of the UK and Scottish Governments' proposals in this area.
Members indicated agreement.