Hansard

I am delighted to hear that, and I stand corrected, if what I have said is incorrect.

It was two years ago that the committee made the case for an

“independent body, one that can provide oversight, continuity and a long-term framework … positioned at the heart of energy policy and market transition, strategic in its long-term thinking and planning while prepared and flexible enough to react to change as it happens.”

I am grateful to the minister for his intervention, if it indicates that that is what the Government is seeking to move towards.

The minister may not have read this quote from P G Wodehouse, who said:

“Routine is the death to heroism.”

That is perhaps what the committee would like us to avoid in our approach to this matter.

Strategic oversight is something that we also need more of when it comes to EVs. The Scottish Government is committed to phasing out new petrol and diesel cars by 2032, and it is rumoured that the United Kingdom Government will bring forward a ban to 2030. We asked how that transition will be nationally co-ordinated, strategically planned and supported by reliable infrastructure. We put that point to the Scottish Government and to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

We heard of considerable variation at local level in the quality of provision. Dundee won praise—Edinburgh, not so much. Councils are doing their best with the resources that they have, but staff leading on infrastructure planning often do so as an add-on to their day job.

COSLA’s response to our inquiry came as little surprise. COSLA stated,

“we wholeheartedly recognise the importance and intent”

of one of the committee’s recommendations: that examples of innovation and best practice be collected from around the country. I could pick out a few other phrases: “progressive mainstreaming”, “sustained collaboration”, “critical junctures” and “intrinsically multi-agency”—we get the idea.

Local energy was the third and final strand of our report, and that brings us on to public awareness and community engagement, which was a recurring theme of the inquiry. Some of our witnesses found the scorecard to be less than impressive. The RSE underlines the need to develop policy that is acceptable to the public and that is sustainable and just, and to be up front about the choices available, about what is achievable and about the changes that have to happen. Otherwise, what chance do we have of changing our habits—be it the kind of car we drive or how we heat our home?

The refrain is that we need to start doing things with people, not to people, and that we need to move beyond a top-down approach. No longer is it enough simply to focus on technocratic and engineering solutions; we should view the broader policy agenda alongside “local happenstance”, as it has been called. Whether it involves ground-source heating for homes near local parks, flooded coal mines or brownfield sites, or solar energy for new builds, what works for one community may not work for another.

Two of my committee colleagues visited the ReFLEX project in Orkney, and they saw for themselves what is happening to connect electricity, transport and heat—the aim being not only to deliver affordable locally generated energy and to decarbonise the islands by 2030 but to export the model elsewhere in Scotland, the UK and beyond.

The Committee on Climate Change advises the Scottish Government on green recovery. One of its six principles is to lead a shift towards positive long-term behaviours, which it sees as

“an opportunity to embed new social norms, especially for travel.”

It suggests that the Scottish Government should lead the way with its own work, with public communications and infrastructure for example.

According to Tacitus—I refer to the ancient Roman historian with whom all members are familiar, not to the cat of the same name, who lives in Kirkliston—

“good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere.”

The context was public virtue in the first century, but the point still stands. If we can change how we think about energy, we can change how we consume it. Smart meters are not so smart if they teach us only that the kettle uses a lot of electricity but not the necessity of heating our home better.

The fourth aspect of the quadrilemma—public acceptability—becomes ever more critical.

I now have a quadrilemma in the sense that I am over my time and the Presiding Officer is indicating that I should finish up, which I shall do at this point. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say on the matter when he rises to speak.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the findings set out in the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee's Energy Inquiry, which were published on 8 July 2020.—[Gordon Lindhurst]