Select committee inquiry
Low carbon innovation
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“In June 2010, the NAO reported that DECC had inherited a poorly coordinated approach towards direct support for renewable energy technologies. This made it impossible to demonstrate whether the Government was achieving value for money from public funds towards to the UK’s legally binding targets: The EU Renewable Energy Directive (2009): to increase the share of renewable energy in the UK’s energy mix from 1.3% in 2005 to 15% by 2020; The Climate Change Act 2008: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, relative to 1990 levels. The Committee will be looking at the Government's current strategy for low carbon innovation, in particular the costs and benefits of the Government's approach.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What the government said
The government responded on 23 October 2014.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The Government welcomes the Committee's input and agrees on some points, such as scope to do more on EU leverage, while not accepting the Committee's characterisation of LCICG governance.
- On EU engagement, it agrees "more can be done to leverage greater value from EU programmes" and says DECC has doubled the resource working on EU innovation funding to three FTEs as of April 2014.
- On metrics, it says a pilot of 52 offshore wind projects is under way, results will be discussed by LCICG in Autumn 2014, and it is "anticipated" the metrics will be applied to all TINA technology areas by Spring 2015.
- On governance, it says "We do not accept the Committee's characterisation of the LCICG's governance". Ofgem concluded it should remain an associate member, as it is a regulator and not a public sector-backed funder of innovation.
- On resourcing, DECC's secretariat resource is "to be increased to 1 FTE", and Ministers "will look at the scope for further involvement in the Group's work".
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 15 October 2013 to 23 October 2014.
- Oral evidence 3 sessions
- Report 4 Aug 2014
- Government response 23 Oct 2014
What it recommended 6 recommendations · 3 conclusions
1DECC has admitted that a lack of staff resource is preventing it from engaging fully...
Concluded (the committee's words)
DECC has admitted that a lack of staff resource is preventing it from engaging fully on European issues that are of direct relevance to UK innovators. These include the ability to shape funding programmes, help UK innovators access EU funding, and help shape EU standards. DECC should carry out a detailed assessment of staffing needs on European innovation issues in order to determine how much additional staff resource is required. DECC should work with the Low Carbon Innovation Co- ordination Group (LCICG) to deliver better support on EU issues for UK innovators.
2We are concerned that the lack of responsive, timely metrics may cloud investment decisions by...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We are concerned that the lack of responsive, timely metrics may cloud investment decisions by the Government and LCICG and we recommend that the LCICG reports back with a plan to improve the rate at which information on metrics is shared.
3We welcome efforts to develop common metrics to compare technologies across different sectors.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We welcome efforts to develop common metrics to compare technologies across different sectors. The Government should provide in its response to this report an update on the pilot and how long it will be before the metrics are applied to all sectors.
4Ensuring that UK innovators benefit more from their intellectual property will help to build greater...
Recommended (the committee's words)
Ensuring that UK innovators benefit more from their intellectual property will help to build greater confidence for potential investors to support low carbon innovation. We support the idea of developing a tool similar to the export finance guarantee that offers protection to UK innovators and entrepreneurs. We recommend that the Government further develops this idea and report back to us on the viability of such a tool.
5We conclude that the governance of the LCICG is muddled, with an unhelpful mix of...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We conclude that the governance of the LCICG is muddled, with an unhelpful mix of core and associate members and inadequate transparency on decision-making and information sharing. Ofgem should be a core member of the Low Carbon Innovation Co-ordination Group. If the Government considers that there may be a conflict of interest with Ofgem’s role as a regulator, it should explain in its response to us why this is the case. We further recommend that the LCICG reassess its membership structure regularly to reflect developments in the low carbon innovation sector, including encouraging greater participation from ad-hoc members and developing sub-groups when appropriate.
6The LCICG is the key tool for delivering the Government’s low carbon objectives, but there...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The LCICG is the key tool for delivering the Government’s low carbon objectives, but there is a mismatch between the resources allocated by the Government and its level of ambition. We recommend greater ministerial engagement with the LCICG along with a better resourced secretariat.
7The LCICG Strategic Framework should be the Government’s main way of engaging innovators for this...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The LCICG Strategic Framework should be the Government’s main way of engaging innovators for this complex policy area. Yet given that the NAO first reported in 2010 and again in 2013 that LCICG communications needed to improve, we were surprised and disappointed to hear witnesses express continual frustration at the lack of consultation and publicity surrounding the framework and its launch. We consider that a lack of staff for the LCICG Secretariat may contribute to the ineffective communication between LCICG and relevant stakeholders. The Department for Energy and Climate Change, along with other LCICG members, must develop a communication strategy which will strengthen their engagement with non-LCICG members in the wider UK innovation sector. The LCICG should proactively identify relevant parties and communicate with them regularly.
8We recognise that low carbon innovation is a complex policy area.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We recognise that low carbon innovation is a complex policy area. Innovators and their business and academic partners value long-term certainty of structures (and where possible, longer-term certainty on funding). It is imperative that DECC ensures effective coordination of existing programmes, regular interaction between funders to minimise the risk of gaps or duplications in support for innovation, and proactive communication with the UK innovation community. The current resource levels and structure between the Government and the LCICG on low carbon innovation have not enabled this. The Government must reconsider how the LCICG or a reconstituted group can help to deliver low carbon innovation objectives.
9To date communication has been ineffective.
Concluded (the committee's words)
To date communication has been ineffective. It is unsatisfactory that four years on from the NAO’s initial criticisms this remains a major concern. DECC must put more resource into managing the LCICG (both in terms of providing secretariat support and ministerial oversight) otherwise the potential for low carbon innovation to help meet important policy objectives such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, as bound by the Climate Change Act 2008, will not be realised.
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 3
- 18 Mar 2014No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗
- 26 Feb 2014No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗
- 14 Jan 2014No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗