Chamber and committees

Thank you.

We know that, in Edinburgh, as soon as the schools go on holiday, the transport eases quite markedly. When it comes to powers that local authorities should have to tackle school issues in particular, what more do you think needs to be done? Is it just a case of people resources? How do we make sure that we do not have cars idling around our schools, and that we try to reduce the number of car journeys to schools?

Finally, how does Ofgem plan to ensure that the electricity distribution network is ready for the anticipated increases in demand, particularly for heat and for transport and electrification? How are you planning for the potential reduction in demand for the gas distribution network?

I think that we are getting to the nub of the issue and the concerns about it. Clearly, when there are queues, there is the potential for delays, for a number of reasons. Currently, because you have to create the conditions for a market investment, all the risk for grid delays lies with the developer and the generators. Is there anything that you can do to rebalance that? You imply that you would want to investigate the viability of some of the proposals. That is a shift from being an enabler to being—dare I say it?—a market interrogator. Is that what you are suggesting would lead to greater flexibility, adaptability and investment?

However, with regard to your existing responsibilities, particularly to customers, the issue is the location of demand, and we have seen charging costs, especially transmission costs, increasing rapidly in Scotland. That sort of thing leads to uncertainty, which we know business does not like when it comes to making the immense amounts of investment that you have referred to. Can something be done to send out clear, positive signals for investment? Is the dichotomy that has existed to date going to change in the future?

I want to take you back to the first question. The name Circularity Scotland implies that the process will be circular and end to end, but you have said in your answers that you are responsible only for the producers. You offloaded retail responsibility to SEPA, trade associations and the Scottish Government. Are you implying that a similar organisation should have been set up for retailers that would do something similar to what you do for producers?

There is clearly a mismatch, bearing in mind that, as far as we are aware, Scotland has the most expensive transmission costs in Europe, and that—thinking about your responsibility for customer pricing, too—we also have some of the most severe fuel poverty among our energy customers. We are able to generate so much renewable energy precisely because of the rural nature of our geography and the offshore and coastal lines that harness the wind. I think that the mismatch is caused by the speed at which decisions are made. When will the pieces of work that you have mentioned emerge so as to change that policy and give more certainty for investment?

I will then ask a final question, if that is okay, convener.

You have addressed the point that there are risks to delaying the approval, but in making that assessment and in relation to the overall extension, we understand from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that the Scottish Government has not sought advice from it. How did you make your assessment on that?

How has the Scottish Government kept you updated or informed in relation to whether a United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 exclusion will be granted? Have you sought or received any guidance from the Scottish Government or sought independent legal advice on how to prepare for different scenarios? Bearing in mind the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds of private company investment has been put into the scheme to go live on 16 August, is there a risk of legal action for compensation from any of those private companies, or whoever might be concerned, in relation to a refusal of that exclusion?

I agree with Mark Ruskell and think that we should write in those terms to the Scottish Government. I am also minded that we acknowledge the letter from Rebecca Pow. We wrote it at quite short notice, following our meeting last week, and I think that the prompt response was very helpful, so we should indicate that.

There were two things to consider in that letter. One was that the UK minister referred to the alternative transitional registration model for UK REACH, which I think that we should express our on-going interest in. The second was that in the letter the minister said:

“We are conscious of the question of divergence and that both industry and NGO stakeholders wish to keep unnecessary divergence to a minimum.”

I suppose that our issue is what is “necessary” divergence; we want to continue to monitor that.

We should write on those terms and thank the UK minister for replying so promptly, because this is an area of such concern. I agree with Mark Ruskell that an indication of how common frameworks can and should work is going to be important to us in our on-going work on looking at implications, particularly for the environment.