Gretna-Lockerbie-Annan Economic Regeneration Prospectus
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-1877, in the name of David Mundell, on the launch of the Gretna-Lockerbie-Annan economic regeneration prospectus. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the launch earlier this year of the prospectus published by the Corridor Regeneration Strategy Steering Group outlining key objectives and a number of themes to stimulate economic growth in Gretna, Lockerbie and Annan to address the impact on the area of the cessation of power production at Chapelcross; notes that the regeneration strategy, with its four principal themes of wealth, diversity, inspiration and inclusion, recognises not only the challenges that the Gretna-Lockerbie-Annan corridor now faces, but also the opportunities to be seized; congratulates the steering group on its genuine joined-up and cross-party working to date, and believes that the Scottish Executive should provide all the support that it can to the steering group's work and to the regeneration of the Gretna-Lockerbie-Annan corridor.
I very much welcome the opportunity of the members' business debate to draw to the attention of the Parliament—and more particularly the Scottish Executive—the impact that the cessation of power production at, and the ultimate closure of, Chapelcross will have not only on the Gretna, Lockerbie and Annan area, but on the whole of Dumfries and Galloway. I also draw attention to the need for an economic regeneration strategy to counter the potential adverse impact of those events on local communities.
Chapelcross has dominated not only the landscape, but the economy, of lower Annandale for more than 50 years. When power production ceased, it was the longest serving nuclear power station in the world. The facts are simple. The plant is one of the area's largest employers. There are more than 400 British Nuclear Fuels Ltd employees and 100 contracted support workers, plus all the ancillary businesses that are associated with the plant. Together, they put an estimated £20 million into the area's economy.
Given that 80 per cent of the work force lives within nine miles of the plant and given the size of the local population, the closure is, in proportional terms, the equivalent of the closure of large industrial plants, such as Ravenscraig, in more urban areas. That is why action needs to be taken. I very much welcomed the establishment of the corridor regeneration strategy steering group, which has become known as CORES. It involved representatives of key local agencies, including Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway, the local council, Jobcentre Plus and the BNFL work force.
Importantly, there has been cross-party support. I have been particularly pleased to work closely on this issue with Dr Elaine Murray and the current MP for the area, Russell Brown. This is an issue of such importance that it transcends mere party politics. The group has worked hard to establish a factual basis for its work and has commissioned an independent report that demonstrates the scale of the challenge in an area whose other main industries—manufacturing, agriculture, forestry and tourism—show limited opportunities for growth.
The report shows that, without the necessary action, there will be a cumulative reduction in employment, income and supporting social infrastructure that will simply lead to young families and businesses leaving the area. While the area would not experience the traditional rise in the unemployment rate, it would face depopulation and the end of vibrant and balanced communities with economically active individuals.
This view led to the development of a strategy that has four key objectives. They are set out in the document of which I know the minister has a copy. They are: wealth, to raise the income and living standards of residents of an area that has some of the lowest incomes in Scotland; diversity, to ensure that we do not rely on one or two core industries and can provide new and different opportunities for sustainable growth; inspiration, to develop a vision for the area that everyone can aspire to and be part of; and inclusion, so that everyone can feel part of, and benefit from, regeneration.
The strategy also sets out six key market-led opportunities that have been identified for further development: diversifying the existing Chapelcross base; new sector opportunities; developing the potential of the Gretna and Gretna Green brands; capitalising on the connectivity that the area enjoys because of its proximity to the M74 and the west coast main line; creating greater value business resources; and image development.
Time this evening does not allow me to go into the detail of what is set out in the strategy document, but it is clear that the Executive has a vital role in enabling the strategy to be actioned. Action is what local people want. We can have all the glossy documents in the world—and I must say that the prospectus is actually a rather good one—but it is delivery that matters. It is on delivery that I am calling for Executive support.
Without the Scottish Executive as an active partner, I do not believe that many of the aspirations in the strategy can be achieved. I hope that tonight's debate is the start of a process of partnership working, which is often talked about but less often seen in action.
The prospectus identifies a number of specific issues, such as support for the development of Carlisle airport, which throws up a lot of cross-border issues, the possible dualling of the A709 between Lockerbie and Dumfries and a number of other detailed projects.
Today's debate is not technically about the future of the nuclear power industry, but I have never hidden my view that one of the key elements of ensuring the economic prosperity of Annandale is the building of a Chapelcross 2 power station on the Chapelcross site, which is the largest licensed site in Scotland. In that regard, I welcome the campaign by nUKlear21, a workers group. The cover of the current issue of its magazine features the words:
"Who wants a new nuclear power station on their doorstep? We do! Say Chapelcross … workers and communities".
Will the member give way?
Mr Ballance will have a chance to contribute to the debate later.
I welcome that campaign, because I believe that it can make the idea of a new power station in Chapelcross a reality. The fundamental requirement is a commitment to the nuclear industry from the United Kingdom Government, which needs to face down the spurious environmental campaign against the industry.
In a letter that I received this week, representatives of the trade unions at Chapelcross point out that many people who have previously campaigned against nuclear power now realise that it has a key and fundamental part to play in ensuring the security of electricity supply into the future and that, if new nuclear power facilities are to be built, the Chapelcross site is ideal.
Given its powers in respect of planning matters, the Scottish Executive has an important role to play in the future development of the nuclear power industry in Scotland. It would therefore be helpful if, in his summing up, the minister were able to give a clear statement on the Executive's position on further nuclear development in Scotland—which has now been openly suggested by the Secretary of State for Scotland—although the minister might have competing constituency interests on the siting of any plant.
Irrespective of whether a new plant is developed on the Chapelcross site, it is clear that the Executive needs to take action to support those who have produced the regeneration strategy. I hope that the minister feels able to give a clear and unequivocal commitment to supporting the development of that strategy.
I start by congratulating David Mundell on obtaining the debate. I suppose I felt a little bit embarrassed about the fact that we were congratulating the corridor regeneration strategy steering group, since we are members of it and it might have looked as if we were congratulating ourselves. It has been a useful group and a useful exercise.
The group was set up in July 2002, when BNFL announced that it had brought forward to 2005 the date at which power generation would cease at Chapelcross. In fact, power generation has already ceased, although there is still some discussion about when defuelling and decommissioning will commence.
When the steering group was set up, I asked for the Scottish Executive to become involved at official level. At that time, I never expected it to become involved at ministerial level. My colleague, Russell Brown, also asked for engagement from the Department of Trade and Industry. We were a bit disappointed that there was no real engagement at that time. I hope that that will change, now that the document has been published and the work has been done. The opportunity has arrived for the Scottish Executive to get more fully involved in further development. It is certainly not too late for either the Executive or Whitehall to be involved.
We came up with a glossy document. There was some disappointment with it at the time: there was a slight failure to engage with people at all levels of the community. That is something the steering group has to do better. I do not feel that we are engaging the whole community in the way we would like. I was a little bit disappointed at a meeting with some members of the Annan business community. One lady waved the document rather disparagingly at me and she had written on the front—I am quoting her, not being rude:
"This is stating the bloody obvious".
That might be an indication that CORES was getting it right and tapping in to what a lot of people knew were the sorts of solutions that the area needed. Maybe it was a good thing that our solutions were a bit obvious, because it showed that we had engaged with what people were feeling.
We will be able to judge the success or otherwise of the CORES approach only if the prospectus does what it says on the tin and acts as a catalyst. There is no point in having this nice little document lying around; we have to take the ideas forward in the short term, the long term and in the medium term, and engage in these projects.
Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway is making a bid to Scottish Enterprise for funding to implement some of the suggestions. I urge the minister to support Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway and to encourage Scottish Enterprise to provide the funding that will help some of those ideas.
The document acknowledges that we have to be proactive in creating the right business environment, concentrating on what has the greatest potential to ensure that the local work force has the necessary skills and knowledge, and in promoting the area as an attractive place in which to live and work. There was a fair amount of discussion within the steering group about a delivery vehicle—I always thought that that was some sort of lorry until I went to those meetings—that involved the private sector implementing some of the suggestions.
I welcome to the chamber some representatives of the Chapelcross work force. We have Sean Marshall, John Rogerson, Ronnie Ogilvie and Jim Tait from nUKlear 21, which David Mundell mentioned. I am pleased that they have been able to come to listen to the debate. They also met the minister this afternoon, so they were able to give him the work force's view directly, which is important.
Sean Marshall and John Rogerson have both been on the CORES group with David Mundell, Russell Brown, me and others, and they have made an important contribution to the work and the production of this vehicle.
My position on the second-generation nuclear power station is not the position of my party or of many of my colleagues. I believe that we need to have a balanced and secure energy policy for the UK, involving energy that is generated in the UK. That energy could be generated from renewable sources, from clean coal and from the new nuclear technologies. Scientific and public opinion is beginning to flow in that direction, and politicians must listen carefully instead of relying on outdated prejudices that refer to old technology that is long past its sell-by date. We are talking about new nuclear generation and new technology. Yes, we must solve the issues of waste, but let us get on and conduct research into that and move things forward. The UK needs nuclear power to keep the lights on in future years.
I believe that there is a future for power generation at Chapelcross. There are interesting proposals for a 250MW biomass power generation station there, and I support those as well. It does not have to be either/or; we can have renewable power generation and new nuclear power generation. We do not have to make a choice between those two. That is one way forward for Chapelcross as a site of power generation, which it always has been. We should look at new technologies to take that forward.
Out of a threat that has hung over the area for a long time—that Chapelcross would cease to exist—we have created a whole load of new opportunities. It is important that the new group, the Scottish Executive and those who engage with it take the opportunities that have come out of the problems arising from the cessation of power generation at Chapelcross to re-create the area, to regenerate it and to provide more and better paid jobs in the area. I will be interested to hear the minister's response to the debate.
I, too, congratulate David Mundell on obtaining the debate. I agree with him about the relative seriousness of the closure of Chapelcross power station for the local economy. The problem is not just that the numbers, taken in the context of the Dumfriesshire economy, are relatively high, although they are relatively small in national terms; it is also the relative distance of Annan from other potential sources of employment. Often, in the central belt, there are places where alternative employment is available. In view of the public and private transport infrastructure in Dumfriesshire, other sources of employment are relatively far away.
We all campaign for the expansion of jobs and employment opportunities in rural areas, and we are all very glad when a factory expands or takes on new labour. Nevertheless, every time that happens, if we are alive to the situation, we look nervously over our shoulder and wonder whether it is getting almost too big for the local economy. If an employer in a small community is very successful, the impact on the local economy of that industry closing down can be very damaging.
Assuming that we do not just want to congratulate the members of the steering group or even the present MP for Dumfries, what are we here to do? We are here to tell the Executive what we think it can do in relation to the regeneration of the area.
Any development depends heavily on infrastructure. We need to look much more closely at the local road infrastructure in the area, especially at the possibilities for trunking and dualling the A709, which is the current Lockerbie to Dumfries road. The Executive should be interested in that, as it would be much cheaper for it than the alternative of keeping both the A701 and the A75 as trunk routes from Dumfries eastwards. That would be a useful addition to the local economy. There may also be the possibility of using the old Annan to Canonbie railway line, which has been closed for some years but which might make a useful access route to the area around Chapelcross. The formation of that railway is still in situ.
As regards training and education in the area, the presence of the Crichton university campus is an important factor, but I know that the Crichton is struggling to some extent, particularly because of what the University of Glasgow sees as the inequitable funding allocation for university places there. That is another thing that the Executive could do something about, through the funding councils.
We have heard a lot about job dispersal to Dumfries and Galloway, which is an area where the Executive can create jobs, but it has not happened. In fact, following the recent announcement of job centre closures throughout Dumfries and Galloway, we have seen jobs flowing the other way. It is rather ironic that that should happen while unemployment increases.
When the ownership of the site eventually passes to the Department of Trade and Industry, as I think it will at some stage, the Executive will have a role in facilitating the transfer of the land from the DTI for alternative uses.
I was disappointed by David Mundell's mention of nuclear power. The future for Chapelcross is not a new nuclear power station that would probably employ about 70 people. That is not the way to replace jobs for 400 people. The problem with having a nuclear power station there is that it would rule out all other potential uses for the site, which has significant potential.
We need to stimulate the overall Scottish economy. Local areas, and rural areas in particular, cannot flourish unless the Scottish economy as a whole is growing—and it is not growing nearly fast enough or nearly as fast as the economies of our competitors in Europe.
Like other members, I congratulate my colleague David Mundell on bringing the issue to the chamber. The debate has been the focus of attention for members with interests in the south-west of Scotland, but nonetheless the issue is important.
Chapelcross is not in my immediate constituency, but the footfall of its economic impact most certainly is. Indeed, many former and some current employees live in Galloway and the relevance of the debate is every bit as important in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale as it is in Dumfries. I will speak, if I may, from the regionwide perspective.
I am tempted to say that, for those of us with an interest in the south-west of Scotland, Chapelcross is our Motorola. However, the situation is far worse than that, because the final decision to close Chapelcross came on top of the virtual mothballing by the Ministry of Defence of the West Freugh airbase in the west of the region. That was yet another public sector closure in an area where replacement jobs are nowhere near as easy to find as they are around Livingston, for example. That is a major difference in our region and I hope that that fact gives the Parliament considerable cause for concern.
As the constituency member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, I wish the economic regeneration strategy group every success, as the knock-on effect of that success will undoubtedly be keenly felt in my constituency. However, I am slightly concerned that we have several such regeneration groups in the one region: we have the group at Gretna-Lockerbie-Annan; we have a West Freugh regeneration group; we have the Stranraer harbour redevelopment group; and we have a fledgling and badly needed regeneration group in Upper Nithsdale. All those groups are important and badly needed but, given the infinitely superior transport links that the Gretna-Lockerbie-Annan area enjoys over the other areas that I mentioned, there is a danger that the main thrust for economic regeneration could deflect the focus away from those other areas, which are arguably in even greater need of economic regeneration than the Gretna-Lockerbie-Annan area.
After speaking to some of the local enterprise officials this afternoon, I am comforted to learn that they are keenly aware of that danger. I hope that they will therefore try to ensure that the different strategies work as much as possible in a complementary, rather than competitive, manner.
In seeking to highlight the need for economic regeneration throughout the region, we should not underestimate the importance of public sector jobs in an area that one could argue is still too heavily dependent on agriculture, forestry and the traditional industries for its economic well-being. It will be for ever a matter of considerable local regret that the Executive did not see fit to relocate the Forest Enterprise jobs to Dumfries, given the importance of forestry in the region.
To that end, I understand that an interesting ministerial announcement—if I can put it that way—will be made in Dumfries next week. I hope that ministers will seriously consider the merits of jobs relocation to places such as Newton Stewart and Stranraer—smaller places in more remote areas—as part of any sensible regeneration strategy. Private efforts can do only so much, but I applaud the role that local stakeholders have played in all the strategy groups, along with the enterprise company, right across the region.
The Motorola job losses were hugely regrettable, but they seemed to be absorbed rapidly into the dynamic economic activity of the central belt. The fact that that level of activity is not reflected in Dumfries and Galloway underlines the need for robust, proactive Executive support for the excellent work that is being done locally. Such support can encompass infrastructure improvements in road and rail, to which Alasdair Morgan referred. Moreover, Scottish Water needs some serious heads to be banged together, or even heads to be seriously banged together—both, probably. There is also a crying need for local housing provision, which brings economic regeneration in its wake.
The Executive can and should accelerate all those matters. For the sake of the whole region, as well as for the interests of my immediate constituency, I urge the Executive to do so. I support the motion.
I, too, congratulate David Mundell on securing the debate.
I was pleased to meet Scottish Enterprise and regeneration corridor officials earlier this afternoon and to hear them describe Chapelcross as potentially a gem of a site for attracting alternative new businesses. I was also pleased to hear that proposals for possible successors to the site are being discussed confidentially. That is good news indeed.
Chapelcross is a gem of site because of its good connections and its geography. We can celebrate and build on that. I agree with everything that has been said so far in the debate about the Executive's failure to support the Dumfries and Galloway region through jobs dispersals from Edinburgh. I hope that the minister will address that matter and feed it into future Cabinet discussions. The area needs central jobs to give it an identity and to strengthen its economy.
As for inward investment, we must first build on the strengths of Dumfries and Galloway. Forty per cent of the work force is unqualified, according to Scottish Enterprise. There is a strong need for more training to improve the skills of our people. Dumfries and Galloway College and the Crichton campus have been disappointed by Jim Wallace's responses regarding development and securing the future of the campus. I trust that that issue will be addressed.
I, too, support the idea of having a centre of excellence in nuclear decommissioning at Crichton. I was pleased to hear this afternoon that the liaison issues with BNFL over that appear to have been resolved.
It is important to build up human capital and arts and culture in Dumfries and Galloway. For example, we should provide a good hall as a music venue to attract and keep our young people and to draw them back if they have gone away to college.
We must also build up small-scale investments. I have an interest in that, of which members will be aware. One of the great successes in Dumfries and Galloway over the past 10 years has been the development of Wigtown book town.
I remember after the round of school closures in 1975 being taken round Dumfries and Galloway by an official to be shown the attempts by the schools to set up a craft trail—a trail of craftspeople—in the region. That trail is still in existence and has brought in tourism and industry.
We also need a grade 1, must-see visitor attraction that would draw tourists to the region. For example, an observatory to take advantage of the night skies has been suggested for the Newton Stewart area and there is the National Galleries of Scotland project in Kirkcudbright.
We hear much from the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party about the need to dual more roads. The Conservatives are looking to dual more than 100 miles of road in Dumfries and Galloway, on the A75, the A77, the A701, the A709 and the A7. My plea is that some money should first be spent on rail services, including on reopening the small stations, with increased local services from Lockerbie and Beattock—in parts of the region, rail services are non-existent. Even if that is not possible, disabled access to Lockerbie station should be provided at the very least. That is a real problem and has to be addressed very soon.
In the long term, the Dumfries to Stranraer line could bring more tourists to the region. In a recent study, the Highland rail partnership discovered that 40 per cent of tourists on the rail services in its area would not have come to the Highlands had the rail services not existed there.
I would like to address the question of Chapelcross, which has been raised by David Mundell and Elaine Murray. I have made no secret of the fact that I do not regret the closure of Chapelcross, whose aerial emissions made it one of the dirtiest reactors in the world. Chapelcross produced more tritium than Sellafield, Sizewell A and Torness put together and it produced less electricity per tonne of nuclear waste than any other nuclear site in the United Kingdom—and all that for the same installed capacity as a large wind farm.
A new BNFL advanced passive 1000 reactor, as is proposed, would create only 70 jobs—half the jobs that are guaranteed by decommissioning. It is a truism that more jobs are guaranteed by decommissioning than by running a nuclear power station. Decommissioning, for which no timeline for Chapelcross is yet available, could take up to 100 years, which is the timeline for Hunterston A, and 95 per cent of the cost of the project will have to be met by the taxpayer, as the nuclear industry has consistently underestimated the cost of decommissioning. The decommissioning of Chapelcross is a real advantage and provides a real opportunity for the region. I very much hope that we can take advantage of that opportunity and I welcome the work that is being done by the regeneration project to bring good alternative jobs into the area.
It is no surprise to me that David Mundell has lodged his motion and referred to Chapelcross in the way that he has. I well recall that, even before his election to the Scottish Parliament, he and I visited Chapelcross and talked to the work force about the power station's record. Quite honestly, I find Chris Ballance's remarks about Chapelcross quite shameful. The fact is that Chapelcross was almost the first nuclear generation plant in the world. It was the forerunner of many great successors right across the world, and to deride the achievements of those at Chapelcross is to my mind absolutely wrong and disgraceful.
Chris Ballance talked about a grade 1 visitor centre. Perhaps Chapelcross itself could become that visitor centre, given its place in the history of nuclear generation. Just along the road, at Kirkcudbright, we have another great generation centre with the hydro scheme at Tongland—another visitor centre that could well be developed and used to promote the area. I suspect that, had the Greens been around back in the 1920s, when all that concrete was to be poured into the Glenkens, they would have been up in arms saying, "How disgraceful it is that we drain the lochs and create those great dam monstrosities." The fact is that hydro generation technology has been used in a way that has benefited society for the 70 years that have followed and will be used in that way, I suspect, for the next 30 or 40 years to come.
Minds were concentrated on Chapelcross once again when closure was announced, and there is another feature that has not been mentioned today—the terrible epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease that struck just a year or two ago. I would like to think that one of the things that we will ensure—although it may not be the minister's direct responsibility—is that the results of a foot-and-mouth epidemic will never again be felt in Scotland. To make another point that is perhaps slightly remote from the subject of the debate, it worries me that the situation with regard to veterinary services does not give rise to confidence in our ability to control foot-and-mouth disease in future.
Tony Blair is making the United Kingdom's contribution to the continuing talks under the Lisbon agreement. One of the criteria of that agreement is security of supply. If we really want to meet our emission targets, nuclear energy has to be a major consideration for whichever Government is in place at Westminster and in Scotland.
We should be looking at the wonderfully safe record that nuclear generation in Scotland has at Hunterston, Torness and elsewhere. We have benefited both from supply and, above all, from security of supply.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will give way in a minute.
When Chris Ballance mentioned the wind farm option, he spoke about Chapelcross being a waste of space and about its low levels of generation. I point him to the situation a little further north of Chapelcross in the triangle between Dalmellington, New Cumnock and Carsphairn in South Ayrshire. There are plans to locate almost 400 wind turbine generators in that area and yet the output will be only about a third of one of the units that is produced at Torness or Hunterston in any one year. To my mind, that is environmental pollution—and pollution without due reward.
Will the member give way?
I promised Chris Ballance that I would give way to him.
Phil Gallie spoke about the safety record at Hunterston. Perhaps he is not aware of the news that 81,000 m³ of ground at the plant has been found to be contaminated. The reason that he might not be aware of it is that there was no announcement when the leak happened—in the 1970s. Given this week's news, how can Phil Gallie possibly talk about the safety of Hunterston?
I do not have any difficulty whatsoever. We are comparing a postage stamp of land with the large area on which Chris Ballance wants 400 wind generation monstrosities to be sited. A balance has to be struck. The contamination at Hunterston is not a particular problem; the material can be contained for its lifespan.
If we look at the wider implications of the steering group's recommendations, the minister should take many of them on board. There is merit in looking at the potential to learn from the decommissioning process and the job creation possibilities that it offers. When we look at the expertise that is in the Annan area, we can see that there is a building block in the area that should be developed. The location of Annan—its proximity to the M6 in particular—offers great potential for development that starts in Alex Fergusson's constituency and reaches out throughout the south-west. The development of the A75 would allow the objectives of the steering group to be met.
Again, I congratulate David Mundell on securing the debate and on the motion for debate. As the Tory member for the South of Scotland, the motion speaks of the activities that I would like to see in the Dumfries area and beyond. On that basis, he has my full confidence, as well as the confidence of members of other political parties, in projecting his views on the subject.
The remainder of the time is yours, minister.
You are generous as ever in your time allocations, Presiding Officer.
You have about nine minutes, minister.
Thank you. The debate has been tremendous. I want to start off where Phil Gallie left off—which is a statement that members do not hear that often—by congratulating David Mundell on securing the debate. Along with my colleague Elaine Murray, David Mundell has done sterling work on the corridor regeneration strategy steering group. Phil Gallie's testimony is not misplaced in that regard.
In many ways, the work of the group is a lesson in how to do things well. Everyone involved—the local council, Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway and other agencies—saw the end of power production at Chapelcross as an opportunity to stimulate economic development in the area. Through partnership working with BNFL, local agencies and the communities themselves, the group has developed a strategy that is aimed at regenerating and—which is important and which was mentioned by Alasdair Morgan and others—diversifying the economy of Gretna, Lockerbie, Annan and beyond.
I am delighted that the local enterprise company is playing a central role in the process. That is what it is for. It is providing expertise and input on a wide range of issues, and will ensure that plans for the corridor correspond with the overarching themes of "A Smart, Successful Scotland", which we are in the process of refreshing. I would like the Scottish Executive's input into the process to be channelled through our agents in the enterprise companies and the enterprise network more generally.
I know from my own travels that the corridor around Gretna, Lockerbie and Annan is an area of tremendous potential. Businesses need to be well connected and, with the west coast main line and the A74 connecting the corridor to markets throughout the UK, the region is well placed to attract high-quality investment.
Dumfries and Galloway is also capitalising on its core strengths of tourism, agriculture, food and forestry—an area that I had something to do with over the past few years. For example, as everyone here will know, James Jones and Sons announced last week that it plans to invest £18 million to expand its Lockerbie-based timber business. I had the pleasure of visiting the plant in my capacity as forestry minister comparatively recently, and it was impressive. I am sure that we all wish the company well in its new venture.
There is now the potential to diversify the local economy using some of the area's natural resources. We are well aware of the proposals that Elaine Murray and others mentioned from E.ON UK for a 40MW wood-fuelled biomass power plant at Lockerbie, and from Scottish BioPower for a biomass plant and related energy park at Chapelcross. Like Elaine Murray and others, I do not view the two proposals as incompatible. Dumfries and Galloway is ideally placed for the development of biomass power plants, as it is an area of high wood-fuel resource. Arguably, there could not be a better location. My officials will continue to work with the companies involved as they develop the proposals.
As Elaine Murray said, energy and the Chapelcross site will continue to be prominent features of the local economy. I had much pleasure in meeting the stewards from Chapelcross earlier today—John Rogerson, Sean Marshall and Frank McGovern—and listening to their plans and proposals. I will be pleased to respond to them in the fullness of time.
The decommissioning of the site will give rise to work over the next decade, and Dumfries and Galloway is well placed to benefit from what is a growing industry. A range of courses is being delivered by Dumfries and Galloway College, in conjunction with the North Highland College, to create a pool of skilled workers who will be able to respond to opportunities within the energy sector. Ultimately, it is hoped that an international decommissioning centre of excellence can be created in Dumfries and Galloway.
David Mundell and Phil Gallie raised nuclear energy and the future of nuclear power more generally. I agreed largely with what Phil said. At this stage, it is important to keep all future options open in order to meet security-of-supply objectives, as well as carbon objectives. It would be wrong to take a firm position now that might rule out any particular energy source over the next 50 years. That is certainly the Executive's position.
There are many other success stories in the region. Rhodia Pharma Solutions, a medical manufacturing company, recently opened a world-class production facility in Annan. Some £1.8 million of additional investment from Scottish Enterprise's R&D plus programme helped to bring forward the timescale of the project and improved capacity within the site. That allowed the company to secure external contracts, resulting in the creation of up to 65 new high-value jobs in the life science sector at the Annan site. As we know, life sciences are a growth sector in the Scottish economy and, as Alasdair Morgan and others have said, it is important to ensure that not all our economic eggs are in one basket and that we can diversify into growth sectors. That is significant investment, which will bring valuable research and development capabilities and skills to Scotland and could spread health benefits throughout the world.
The strategy that has been developed provides a focused direction and will help to ensure that the regeneration of the area is done in a positive, sustainable way. I am very interested in the delivery model that is being proposed down there. Regeneration is not just about improving the physical environment; it is about transforming economically disadvantaged areas, boosting economic activity and improving access to economic opportunity. In that context, we understand the transport issues that have been raised and we are committed to carrying out a strategic transport projects review, which is due to commence and which will inform investment plans across all the transport modes, including the trunk-road network.
The regeneration strategy for Gretna, Lockerbie and Annan is a good example of how a partnership approach has delivered more than what would have been achieved had the individual organisations worked in isolation. It is a solid base on which to revitalise the area. As I said, I am interested in the proposed delivery model and I would encourage the partners to continue their efforts right through to delivery. I look forward—hopefully in this job—to seeing the results materialise on the ground in the months and, dare I say it, years ahead.
It has been a genuine pleasure to have participated in the debate and to have seen colleagues working together so positively for the common good in Lockerbie, Annan and Gretna.
Meeting closed at 17:58.