Renewable Energy
Good morning. Our first item of business today is a debate on motion S1M-1634, in the name of Robin Harper, on renewable energy, and two amendments to that motion.
It would not be over-portentous to say that the Executive's response to my speech and—more important—to the submissions to the consultation paper on renewables, the last of which should arrive on ministers' desks tomorrow, will have profound implications for the development of Scottish industry, employment and our environment for the next half-century and beyond. If we take one road, we shall fail utterly to realise our potential, meet our Kyoto targets, fulfil our responsibilities to the rest of the world, or to build a secure and viable economy for our successors to inherit. If we take the other road, we will create a strong economy with sustainable employment, protect our environment and contribute to the enormous reduction in consumption that the west needs to make to create a sustainable and equitable world economy.
Scotland's renewable resources are the best in the European Union. For a start, we have 40 per cent of the wind resource, but most wind energy development has been done in Denmark. The Danes are now the world leaders. Denmark employs 18,000 people in wind-turbine manufacture alone; more than are employed in the entire UK coal industry. If we develop a native turbine industry, which Scottish Enterprise research has recently shown to be well within our capabilities, and if we also develop a wave-power industry, the prospects for employment in Scotland are, quite frankly, so great as to be difficult to begin to forecast accurately. However, we must be talking about up to approximately 30,000 jobs by 2010, and a wind market alone that will be worth about £1 billion, with 11.4 gigawatts of installation and a further prospect of doubling that figure by 2020. That does not include the huge number of jobs in renewables that could be created through community schemes, new planning guidelines for housing and all the other renewable technologies that are beginning to be developed in Scotland.
We have 700,000 families in cold homes in Scotland—an appalling housing fuel poverty problem. The Executive should, for a start, make the inclusion of photovoltaic cells compulsory in all new build—although that is not mentioned specifically in my motion. Community-based renewables need not be confined to small schemes. For example, the offshore wind farm near Copenhagen, which will be the biggest in Europe on completion, is a mostly community-funded project.
We need a clear message that small schemes, of whatever kind—biomass, methane recovery, small-scale hydroelectricity, photovoltaic cells, wind, wave, biofuels and so on—will receive some kind of encouragement from the Executive through its facilitation of capital funding, lottery grants, landfill grants, the renewables obligation Scotland scheme, local authority planning guidelines and any other help that the Executive, in its wisdom, might provide.
Lowering the size of renewables obligation certificates to units of 1kWh would be extremely useful in this respect. Allowing autogenerators to qualify could also have a huge effect on the dispersal and growth of renewables suppliers and users. The advantages of that kind of approach would be that a large number of new jobs would be dispersed throughout the rural economy and a secure source of ever-cheaper energy supplies for the future would be created.
In the next 20 years, our coal-fired stations and the three nuclear power stations in Scotland will be coming to the end of their designed lives. I do not believe that we can possibly consider the construction of a new nuclear power station with all the attendant problems of disposal of waste that remain unresolved.
Will Robin Harper give way?
I will not give way at this stage. Mr Home Robertson should make his points during his speech.
I acknowledge that in order to retain base-load reliability in electricity production, we must rely on coal and gas for some time longer, but the replacement of those sources of energy by biomass, which is being successfully pioneered in Sweden, should be our eventual aim, along with pumped hydro storage as a source of base-load reliability. Energy conservation and efficiency, combined with new renewables, should be more than adequate to replace coal and nuclear power if we plan carefully and for the long term.
The target of just 5 per cent new generation in Scotland through renewable energy sources by 2010 is unambitious to say the least. The European Union has set a target of 22.1 per cent of consumption of renewable electricity generation by 2010, which would mean doubling our present target.
Will Robin Harper give way?
No. I will not accept interventions just now. Mr Home Robertson should address his points in his speech.
I argue that, given the potential of our geography, the skills of our work force and the technological expertise of our inventors and researchers, we should be setting an aspirational target that is beyond even the EU's target. We should be setting in train the following strategies in order to make Scotland a world leader in the application, research, development and manufacture of renewable technologies.
We already have the Scottish Energy Environment Foundation, the setting-up of which was announced on 31 January this year. However, it is likely to focus mainly on proven and near-proven technologies and, because the majority of its funding comes from the power companies and the nuclear industry, it is likely to focus on short-term, commercially profitable initiatives. As a Parliament, we must take a longer-term view.
We now have a much greater need to seize the initiative in wave power. Japan, Australia, the United States and Denmark are all investing significantly in wave power technologies that are almost certainly inferior to Scottish designs that are in the pipeline right now. I call on the Executive to invest as a matter of urgency in a Scottish wave power centre to be situated either on the west coast, in Caithness or in Orkney. I remind the Executive—although I do not think that I need to—that Caithness has a robust link to the national grid and that Orkney is already the site of a renewable research centre that is run by Heriot-Watt University.
We have lost to the Danes the lead in wind power that was once ours for the taking. The Danes are now poised to seize the initiative in the development of wave power. It would quite simply be a tragedy if the Executive were to pass up this opportunity to support an industry that could, in the long run, provide jobs throughout the north of Scotland and in the oil fabrication yards of Aberdeen, Methil, the Clyde, Ardersier and Nigg. We have absolutely everything that is required in terms of experience of designing and building for extreme marine conditions, and we have the research and engineering expertise to become world leaders in wave power generation. The potential for providing ourselves with a sustainable supply of energy for centuries to come, as well as an almost limitless export market, is almost incalculable. When I read the consultation paper, I could not believe that there could be any question about wave energy qualifying for capital grants. Capital grant qualification is a prerequisite for wave energy development in this country and must be a part of the Executive's strategy.
The consultation paper also seems to allow for a bizarre contradiction: that the incineration of municipal waste to produce small amounts of energy and cut local authority landfill costs may actually attract support under the ROS scheme, while the construction of new, small-scale hydro schemes might attract no support whatever. If the Scottish Executive elects to go against the European trend, to differ with England and Wales and to give money to develop local authority incinerators, I calculate that between 50 and 100 per cent of the funding that is presently available under the ROS scheme could go up in smoke, gobbled up by incineration. That would be a complete disaster. It would block development of renewables and of sensible waste strategies for up to 25 years. It would also mean that, as we would be operating a different regime in Scotland, energy certificates would not be tradable with the rest of the UK. I hope that Parliament takes note of that danger and that all the MSPs who listen to the debate will do their best to make it certain that, above all, the Executive does not allocate funding under the ROS scheme to the incineration of waste for energy.
To develop a vigorous, imaginative, aspirational, environmentally sound and sustainable renewable energy policy, I call on the Executive to create a new post—that of a commissioner for renewable energy. The commissioner for renewable energy should be provided with a team of advisers, drawing on the resources currently allocated to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and the Minister for Environment, Sport and Culture. I am pleased that Alasdair Morrison, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic is here to listen to the debate.
There could be a renewable energy working group, which could be headed by the new commissioner. It is my strong belief that only by setting up such a group will the Executive be able to take forward the development of renewable energy in Scotland with the speed and commitment that the nation deserves, and to apply the strategies that it has been petitioned to initiate by researchers, manufacturers, environmentalists, energy consultants and economists the length and breadth of Scotland. It is important that the Executive recognises that my speech is not simply a party-political piece, but a summary of current thinking on renewable energy in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that (a) Scotland's renewable energy resources have been recorded as being the best in Europe; (b) there is significant potential for creating employment, both through generating renewable energy and from the manufacture of renewable energy generating plant; (c) community based renewable energy projects would benefit rural development in particular; (d) renewable energy can replace fossil fuels and nuclear energy, therefore contributing to a reduction in climate change impacts from greenhouse gas emissions and a reduction in the accumulation of highly radioactive nuclear waste, and (e) there are certain barriers to the development of Scotland's renewable energy potential and these barriers must be rapidly surmounted if Scotland is to capitalise on the potential for job creation and environmental protection and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to (i) set an aspirational target for supply of electricity from renewable sources of at least 22% in line with the recently announced European Union target; (ii) set a further aspirational target for renewable heat generating technologies and fuels such as biomass and solar thermal energy; (iii) establish a Scottish Wave Energy Test Site; (iv) ensure that, under the forthcoming Renewables Obligation Scotland (ROS) scheme, the generation of energy from the incineration of municipal waste does not qualify for support; (v) ensure under ROS that small scale hydroelectricity generation and refurbishment does qualify for support; (vi) ensure under ROS that there is a market for wave energy; (vii) ensure under ROS that Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) may be issued in multiples of as low as one kilowatt hour in order to facilitate the granting of ROCs for domestic scale renewables and auto-generation and that ROCs are fully tradable across the border with England, and (viii) urgently establish a new cross-cutting team within the Scottish Executive drawing on the resources of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and the Minister for Environment, Sport and Culture whose first goal will be to set up a Renewable Energy Working Group headed by a new Commissioner for Renewable Energy and whose remit will be to pursue actively the development of renewable energy in Scotland.
That was spot on time.
On Robin Harper's final point, I do not think that I am wrong to suggest that there is general consensus across party boundaries surrounding this subject. We all agree that Scotland has enormous potential for further renewables development. Scotland's wind energy resource is the best in Europe. The reasons for exploiting that potential are compelling and they underpin the Executive's firm commitment to renewable energy. As Robin Harper outlined, the development of our renewable energy resource has much to offer in terms of economic spin-off. There are also associated rural development opportunities. I firmly believe that our commitment to renewables offers real opportunities in rural areas.
However, even if those reasons did not exist, the threat that is posed by climate change would be sufficient reason for us to promote the development of renewable resources. The Scottish climate change programme, which was launched last November, emphasised the Government's commitment to reducing emissions and protecting Scotland. Renewable energy plays an extremely important part in that programme. We are working with all interested parties to drive forward the development of Scotland's renewable energy resource.
Fortunately, we are not at the start of the process. Scotland is extremely well served by renewable generation. Our established large hydro schemes account for more than 10 per cent of electricity consumption in Scotland. Progress has been made under the Scottish renewables obligation.
What discussions has the Executive had with Scottish and Southern Energy plc on the climate change levy? Like the coal industry, that organisation will not be exempt from the levy. Has the minister spoken to that organisation? Has it been agreed that if it were exempted, it would have a windfall payment, which it could reinvest in hydro schemes to bring its existing plant up to standard? That is something imaginative that the Executive could do.
As Bruce Crawford will appreciate, we have on-going discussions with all commercial interests and all the businesses that are involved in energy generation. Those discussions will continue. The specific matter to which the member refers is a matter for HM Customs and Excise, but in any case I do not think that any conservationist now supports the extension of large-scale hydro schemes.
Since 1994, more than 100 contracts have been awarded under the ROS scheme, offering support to technologies such as wind, hydro, biomass and—uniquely—wave power. Many of the projects have now been commissioned and more have reached the planning stage. We expect more schemes to come on line over the next few years, raising Scotland's use of renewables further to around 13 per cent.
That puts Scotland in a strong position, but we are well aware that it is not enough. We cannot afford to take a relaxed view of the challenges that are before us. We have therefore proposed a further increase of 5 per cent in Scotland's renewables generation by 2010, a proposal which was enthusiastically endorsed as part of the climate change consultation. That should take the total to around 18 per cent by the end of the decade. It will make a major contribution to achieving the UK target of providing 10 per cent of electricity from renewable resources by 2010, on which we will work with our colleagues in England and Wales. We are consulting on the mechanics of our proposals, which include involving all electricity suppliers in a new renewables organisation to provide a set percentage of electricity from qualifying renewable resources.
The response to the consultation on the ROS scheme has been wide-ranging and extremely encouraging. We are grateful to those who have taken the time and trouble to respond. The consultation period ends tomorrow. Although I understand the enthusiasm that lies behind the detail of much of Robin Harper's motion, many of the issues he raises are subject to the outcome of the consultation. I cannot prejudge our response to a consultation process that is on-going.
It remains the case that if we are to prevent distortions to the UK market for renewables under the ROS scheme and the renewables obligations in England and Wales, the central thrust of the schemes must be similar. We can envisage differences in qualifying technologies, but a lower price gap in Scotland could result in renewables generators in Scotland selling all their output to England.
Robin Harper seeks the establishment of a renewable energy working group, headed by a commissioner for renewable energy. We have already taken steps along those lines. Last year, we encouraged the setting up of the Scottish Energy Environment Foundation, to create an international centre of excellence in energy and environmental technologies and to exploit commercial opportunities in those areas. The foundation is funded jointly by the Executive, the Scottish electricity industry and Scottish Enterprise, with support from the University of Edinburgh and the University of Strathclyde. The foundation is now up and running and a director is in place, as is the public and private funding.
There are obstacles to be overcome if we are to meet the targets that we have set. We recognise that and we have taken steps to tackle those obstacles. There is a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, our policy on encouraging renewables and, on the other hand, national policy on landscape and nature conservation. New planning guidelines have been drafted in such a way as to ensure that that balance is struck. We expect the guidelines to aid local authorities in the decision-making process.
One minute.
Excuse me?
You have one minute left.
Okay. Thank you.
The connection of an increasing number of renewable energy plants to the electricity grid in Scotland poses its own set of problems. The capacity of the grid to absorb such projects is not without limit and there are associated costs. We recognise that and I assure Parliament that we are again working closely with the grid owners and the renewables industry to identify the most appropriate solutions. Make no mistake; we are determined to achieve the target that we have set. Our commitment to renewables is real and sits at the heart of our drive towards a truly sustainable Scotland. The opportunities for manufacturing and job creation are also real. We must make funds available to back those in need of an extra push at community level. We want as wide a range of viable and competitive technologies as possible and we will decide in the next year how that can best be achieved.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, renewable energy is of tremendous economic and environmental importance to Scotland. The Executive recognises that and is fully committed to the continuing growth of Scotland's renewables sector.
I move amendment S1M-1634.1, to leave out from "that (a)" to end and insert:
"the vital importance of renewable energy as a means of tackling climate change and promoting sustainable development; acknowledges the potential benefit for the Scottish economy from promoting and encouraging renewable energy projects; endorses the commitment shown by the Scottish Executive to the promotion of renewable energy contained in the document Working Together for Scotland, and supports the Executive's proposals for future policy on renewables as outlined in the current consultation paper on renewable energy policy."
It was clear from Robin Harper's opening speech that the debate is not only about renewable energy, but about Scotland's future and environment.
Robin Harper mentioned that Scotland has a rich potential in renewable energy. Numerous academic studies support that. There are also international comparisons with countries such as Denmark, which Robin Harper made. Denmark employs 15,000 people in renewables. Scotland also has a track record in renewable energy engineering, such as the wind turbines that are made by James Howden & Co Ltd in Glasgow and the ducks for wave power that were invented by Professor Stephen Salter—professor of engineering at the University of Edinburgh. We should remember that track record and progress it, rather than do what we have done in the past.
There are lots of different renewable energy sources that we must examine. There is hydroelectric, in which we also have a track record. Sadly, in recent years, it has been starved of finances and almost of a future. I hope that the minister will, when he winds up, make a commitment that hydroelectric schemes will be eligible for grants under the ROS scheme, especially for refurbishment schemes.
Let us consider the energy that could be produced from different renewable energy sources. Hydroelectricity in Scotland could produce capacity equivalent to 250MW. It currently accounts for 11 per cent of capacity, but it could be a great deal more.
Onshore wind could produce 420MW, offshore wind could produce 200MW, wave power could produce 200MW and I could list other energies. By 2010, we could produce 50 per cent of our energy in Scotland from renewable energy.
If we put that against a background of a plan to increase coal generation of electricity by 1,200MW within 10 years, it is clear that renewable energy can produce what we need and that it can produce it more cleanly. We should put our energies into that.
As Scotland has greater potential for renewable energy, the SNP believes that we should set greater targets. We owe that to ourselves and to the environment. The UK's target of 10 per cent is miserly compared with targets throughout the European Community. The Scottish Executive's target of 18 per cent—starting from a base of 13 per cent—is not very exciting. The EC has set a target of 22.1 per cent but, given the figures that I have quoted, the SNP would set a target of providing 25 per cent of electricity from renewable energy by 2010; we could easily achieve that target.
We can achieve the target only if we accept that there are Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. A lot of the effort that is going into renewable energy is about large-scale production. That has its place, but Scotland is a small country so we should concentrate on small-scale solutions.
The problems with the grid have been mentioned. My colleague, Kenny MacAskill, will address those. One of the ways round the problem is local production of renewable energies for local consumption. That would not only contribute to meeting renewable energy targets, it would take us into the ecological and environmental argument that small is beautiful. Farmers could harvest energy and fabrication yards could build plant for renewable energy production, as Robin Harper said.
One minute.
Scotland could do so much; we have to do it. I commend Robin Harper's motion and must condemn the Government's amendment. Allan Wilson mentioned that the ROS consultation will finish tomorrow. As it finishes tomorrow, why has the Government set its stall out today by lodging its amendment and refusing all the Scottish Parliament renewable energy group's consultation responses, which are listed in Robin Harper's motion? The Government has refused those today. It has made its decision and will not wait until tomorrow. It is not listening.
Fiona McLeod is in her last minute.
We must go further; that is what the SNP amendment says. The SNP would go further; we would set a 25 per cent target and we would set up an audit. It was mentioned in the House of Commons recently that we must ensure that we audit our environmental practices properly. In auditing those practices, Scotland could produce a national environment plan that would ensure that we were safeguarding our environment and our future.
I move amendment S1M-1634.2, to leave out from "urgently" to end and insert:
"commission an environmental audit as a forerunner to producing a national environment plan which will encompass a renewable energy capacity audit."
I remind members that I put a notice in the business bulletin last week, which said that the occupant of the chair will give a one-minute warning. That serves two purposes; first, to tell the member who is speaking that they are in their last minute and, secondly, to tell other members not to intervene.
We were all impressed to see in the business bulletin earlier this week what must be the longest motion that we have debated in this Parliament; there seems to be a sub-clause for every colour in the famous scarf that Robin Harper wears.
Last week, I had the privilege to attend Robin's—and I make no apology for calling it Robin's—cross-party meeting to discuss the consultation paper. I saw at first hand the tremendous grasp that he has of the detail, terminology and acronyms—many of which baffle me. His commitment to this cause is well known and he deserves congratulations for bringing these issues before Parliament today.
Robin Harper is very much the Parliament's conscience on the issue but, as he was keen to point out in his speech, his approach is nothing but a practical and realistic approach to our country's future. He highlighted the economic potential of renewable energy and some of the opportunities that have been missed. He mentioned climate change; we are becoming increasingly aware of the potential of climate change to disrupt human civilisation for the worse. He also mentioned the depletion of our natural resources and traditional energy sources. Those are all valid reasons for approaching renewables afresh, with a commitment to adopting realistic but ambitious targets and developing sustainable technologies.
However, the Conservatives will not support Robin Harper's motion, because it is not our policy to close the door on nuclear energy. No one would expect me to present a position other than that today, but that does not mean that we do not have considerable sympathy with Robin's argument in almost every other respect and with many of the points that he made this morning.
Scotland has opportunities in several areas. Robin Harper mentioned wind power, which is with us, although it has been a matter of controversy and aesthetic debate. In driving over Soutra hill—as you will do regularly, Presiding Officer—there is something challenging and majestic about the enormous windmills. We must accept—as we have accepted man's mark on the landscape in so many other ways—that wind power will leave its traces.
As Robin Harper said, there are tremendous opportunities in Scotland for wave power. I hope that the Executive's consultation will reflect some of the practical points that Robin made about the importance of sustaining rural communities through wave power and of finding ways to bring the product of wave power on to the grid.
Robin Harper also mentioned biomass. It is important—if our thinking is going to be joined up—that, as we examine difficulties in the agricultural sector, we examine the options for agriculture and forestry to produce material for renewable energies. Those might be ways to produce energy and sustain rural communities.
I am not as keen on hydro schemes as some other members are. I do a lot of walking in the Highlands and I realise the importance of hydro power, but I think that it is a pity that so much hydro power was developed as it was so long ago. Many glens have been ruined by the engineering and the effect of the water. Again, that is mankind's mark on the landscape and we must accept it. However, if we expand hydro power, I hope that it will be through small-scale schemes that are tailored to blend with the landscape and that will not further scar landscapes that are among the most attractive on our planet.
Robin Harper made detailed points about projects that will and will not qualify for support. Allan Wilson's response indicated that, although the Executive has proposals in its consultation paper, its mind is still open on those issues, so there is every possibility that the points that Robin made will be accepted. On that basis, the Conservatives will support the Executive's amendment. We think that it opens the door to the expansion of renewables and points the way forward, but that does not mean that we do not have considerable sympathy with many of Robin Harper's arguments.
Energy policy is primarily a reserved issue, but the Scottish Executive has responsibility for the Scottish renewables obligation. As has been said, consultation on the new round of the SRO—which has become ROS—will close on Friday, so today's debate is timely.
Liberal Democrats support the ROS scheme, but we are concerned that measures that are being progressed in Scotland are set in the context of a less than coherent UK-wide energy policy. Given the potential for renewable energy generation in Scotland, we should be leading the field in Europe, but the UK Government is not demonstrating the commitment and enthusiasm that it might.
The renewable energy programme to cut greenhouse gas emissions has accelerated, but when a total of £14 million for research and development in the renewable energy sector is contrasted with £100 million to support the coal industry, that illustrates the regrettable relative priority of renewables.
As far as policy is concerned, I should also say in passing that the Liberal Democrats would introduce a carbon tax, which would be fairer and more effective than the climate change levy. However, that point is for a different debate.
The need to promote renewable energy generation is urgent and unarguable. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution points out that any serious and effective strategy to tackle climate change would require the UK to cut its CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. The commission argues that, to have any hope of achieving that target, we would have to expand the use of renewables well beyond the 10 per cent electricity generation from renewable sources that the UK Government has suggested as its target for 2010.
Although Scotland is ahead of the UK game, as we generate about 10 per cent of our electricity from large-scale hydro systems, currently—if members will pardon the pun—we depend on nuclear generation for 50 per cent of our electricity. That source might well be phased out by 2025. Scots should also note that our emissions from the energy sector increased by 13 per cent during the 1990s and they now account for 30 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions.
If we seize the opportunity, renewable energy generation could present a major boost to Scotland's economy. For once, rural areas and coastal communities could have an advantage in reaping the benefits of wind and wave energy generation, which could also have significant manufacturing opportunities.
We have missed the boat on wind energy manufacturing, because the Danes have made the investment and developed the technology and now supply two thirds of the world's wind turbines. They have created an industry that supports 30,000 Danish jobs and has grown at a rate of 25 per cent a year for the past 10 years. It would be nice if we could have that.
However, the point is that we could have that it if we got cracking to exploit our potential for wave energy and capitalise on the marine-based skills that we have developed through oil and gas exploration. Such skills are transferable to the development of wave and wind energy generation. The figures that define that potential make one giddy. For example, wind power in global terms is already a $2.5 billion industry that has grown by 40 per cent every year for the past five years, and it is predicted that the wave power market could be worth £20 billion in the UK and £500 billion world-wide.
If we are to grasp this opportunity, it is time to get serious about developing wave technology. We need the necessary Government investment in research and development to establish such technology, to lever in continuing investment. Funding for research into renewables is the responsibility of the UK Government and is administered by the Department of Trade and Industry. This financial year, £14 million has been made available, which will increase to £18 million in 2001-02. However, according to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, UK spending on energy-related research and development is lower as a percentage of gross domestic product than that of almost any other developed nation. If we do not wake up our ideas, we will squander a significant opportunity.
There are short-term issues for the industry that could be described as institutional barriers to development. Although action has been taken to tackle planning control, grid access and electricity trading, a new planning issue has emerged that could severely limit the development of new wind farms. Planning applications for new land-based wind farms now attract routine objections from national air traffic services and the Ministry of Defence. Apparently the radar issue is merely technical and could be solved by the use of smarter processing software. However, the MOD has not explained why it objects to wind turbine installations that are higher than 100ft—which effectively means all modern wind turbines—in tactical training areas.
This debate is topical and exciting. We should proceed rapidly and enthusiastically to becoming what we should be—the best in Europe in renewables, not the second worst.
I will attempt to keep my remarks brief. This morning's debate is very welcome; in lodging his motion, Robin Harper has outlined a number of issues that we should all consider. Furthermore, Allan Wilson's speech was constructive. He indicated that, as the consultation period has not yet closed, no firm commitments should be made at this point. Instead, we should have the debate, consider the range of opinions and reach conclusions at a later date.
Fiona McLeod indicated disagreement.
The tone of Fiona McLeod's comments and the fact that she is shaking her head disappoint me. Her condemnation of the Executive is not particularly helpful.
As many members will know, I represent a constituency that for many years relied on the coal industry and where many of the better-paid jobs still rely on opencast coal mining. I have a strong commitment to the renewable energy sector; indeed, I have had the pleasure of being involved with several initiatives that Robin Harper has helped to develop, such as the Scottish Parliament renewable energy group and the Commission for Wave Power.
Over the next period, we have to examine the realities. It is not as easy as we might hope for the renewable energy sector immediately to provide a huge amount of our resources; however, it is correct that we set targets for doing so and that programmes and bodies work side by side over that period.
I have been involved with the Commission for Wave Power and have read its constructive report outlining options and possibilities for the future. The commission's response to the Executive says:
"In the short term, the single biggest requirement wave power has is a dedicated test site".
If we are to consider what can be delivered in practical terms, it is absolutely vital that we test that energy source on a scale that will allow us to find out whether it has any long-term commercial viability. For too long, wind and wave power and other renewable energy sources were seen as being on the fringes; it was felt that they could not form an integral part of the infrastructure. Although that view has changed with the level of support that the Executive has given to consideration of renewables, we must take the next step and make them an integral feature of the future.
Given the member's commitment to a Scottish wave energy test site, how can she support the Government's amendment, which will delete that part of Robin Harper's motion?
The minister made it perfectly clear that it is inappropriate to reach any conclusions in today's debate, as the consultation period has not yet closed. The Executive has received the submission from the Commission for Wave Power, and I am simply asking the minister to consider all the views that have been expressed. I am sure that, when he sums up, he will confirm that he will do so.
There has been discussion in my constituency about the possibility of wind farms. We must educate the general public on the issue, as they seem to have some fears and misconceptions about it. In any event, local people must be involved from the earliest stage in any such proposal.
As the Executive has acknowledged, the public are also concerned about the cost to the consumer. We have to make it clear that, although we should work towards making renewable energy sources part of the process, consumers, especially those on low incomes, will not be expected to bear an additional burden that they cannot afford.
I speak in support of Fiona McLeod's amendment, which is meant to enhance not detract from Robin Harper's lengthy but worthy motion.
I should make two preliminary points. First, green energy and economic growth go hand in hand. Green matters are often viewed as an impediment to—indeed, as antipathetic to—economic development. The motion presents a clear example of how the two can be intertwined and synonymous, and it is important that we proceed in that manner.
Secondly, our climate and location are frequently seen as an impediment, either because of the country's distance from markets or because of its inclement weather. Indeed, just yesterday, Andy Kerr and I were asked on television about various difficulties that arise from our geography. However, Scotland's geographical location and much of its resulting climate present opportunities—such as onshore and offshore wind energy, wave energy and biomass—that we must harness and use. This debate is not just about the environment; it is about Scotland's economic prosperity as well as individual benefit.
Robin Harper and Nora Radcliffe mentioned wind power. Scotland was at one stage a leader in wind power technology. We have to learn lessons from that fact and apply them to wave power. As both members said, Denmark has numerous jobs in the wind power sector. A considerable proportion of Danish gross domestic product is generated by the technology for wind energy, and Danish exports benefit from that technology.
Does Kenny MacAskill agree that one of the reasons that Denmark has driven so hard to develop wind energy is that, unlike Scotland, which has huge quantities of coal and oil, Denmark has no indigenous natural energy resources?
In view of Denmark's location in the North sea and its historical oil-development links with the Faroe Islands, I had always assumed that it was in the forefront of the gas industry. The nature of the Danish climate, geography and topography encourages the Danes to harness both onshore and offshore wind, but to say that that is the only factor is not true. The fact is that the Danes saw an opportunity. They took it up and ran to where we had been going. Howden and all the other firms in Scotland that had been at the forefront of developments lagged behind. We are now without that technology and are importing wind turbines. I hope that wind power jobs will go to Campbeltown, as there is talk about Vestas Wind Systems and whatever else.
We should have been at the forefront of wind power technology. We have the opportunity to be at the forefront of wave power technology. That is why I do not agree with the Executive's sentiment that we should delete the requirement for a test centre from Robin Harper's motion.
The requirement for a test centre is fundamental, as is improvement and enhancement of the grid. There is no point in reaping the benefit from the brains that we have in Scotland if we do not have the necessary capacity on the grid, especially on the west coast. That is the impediment. We have to deal with the infrastructure.
Offshore wind power also gives Scotland an opportunity. We now have a significant abandonment and decommissioning problem in the North sea oil sector. Our subsea technology allows us to be at the technological forefront, far in advance of what had to be created from scratch in Denmark and other countries that are developing offshore wind power. We must encourage and enhance the development for which we have the opportunity. The technology for offshore wind power is distinct from that for onshore wind power. Yards that are idle because of the decline in the North sea oil sector could be transformed into yards for offshore wind power technology.
The real issue is that Scotland must speculate to accumulate. We must take the lead as a nation, rather than leave the technology up to the private interests of individuals. We cannot simply leave it to the entrepreneurial spirits and the brains. They will be siphoned off and taken away. They cannot be expected to operate in a vacuum. The wave energy entrepreneurs and brains are already being encouraged to relocate to places such as Ireland and the Azores. That is why wave energy is a national concern and must be addressed. It is also why we oppose the Executive amendment. The development must be led from the top, where there is an add-on from the Government; it must not just be left to individuals.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I congratulate Robin Harper on raising an important matter. I share his enthusiasm for renewable energy and for the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland. I am delighted that wind generators are being erected in the Lammermuir hills around the boundary of my constituency.
Mr Harper may be aware that Stephen Salter used to be one of my constituents and that I was involved in the wave energy debate quite a long time ago. I took Stephen Salter to meet the Tory ministers at Westminster in the mid-1980s, when we faced a difficult time over the issue. I am with Robin Harper on that matter.
We should all continue to support the case for wind and wave power, but wind and wave power must not be the whole story—life is not as simple as that. Members of the Scottish Parliament and my colleagues in the United Kingdom Parliament must accept the fact that, whether we like it or not, we have a duty to invest in a safe, permanent repository for the nuclear waste that we have inherited from earlier generations and in recent years. That includes the waste not only from nuclear power stations, but from medical research, submarine reactors and decommissioned nuclear power stations. We cannot avoid our responsibility; a repository must be built.
When such a safe repository is built, it would make sense to include the cleanest source of base-load electricity—nuclear power—in our assessment of options for the future. It is important to remember that nuclear power stations do not emit greenhouse gases. I am grateful for the opportunity to put that fact on record. I pay tribute to my constituents who work at the Torness nuclear power station and the Cockenzie coal-burning power station for their excellent efforts in running efficient generators that are keeping Scotland warm through a very cold winter.
Charles Dickens would have been proud of the length of Robin Harper's motion. However, as it does not mention wind energy, there is certainly no hot air or wind-baggery about it.
To many distressed farmers in the Highlands and Islands, small hydro schemes and wind farms have supplied a lifeline that has greatly benefited the local economy; I commend such schemes. However, many of those pioneer projects face problems—their incomes from electricity have dropped enormously because the initial seven-year guaranteed payments have run out and the price has fallen from 7p per unit to 1.5p per unit. It is vital that the money from the climate change levy exemption—small though it is—reaches those operators soon and that the introduction of green tickets, which should be worth 3p per unit, is not deferred but starts in October as was originally planned.
I presume that the price of those tickets will be determined by the new electricity trading arrangements. Because they are a UK obligation to Kyoto rather than a European one, those tickets should be traded only within the UK, to protect the price and to encourage the UK to meet the green targets to which Scotland will make a significant contribution.
Scotland desperately needs new and improved electricity infrastructures for transmission and distribution. The existing infrastructures were designed in the 1950s and are now woefully inadequate; they are dominated by east coast generation, although most of the renewable resources lie to the west. If we make electricity, we must have the means to transport it.
The Conservative party is committed to creating an environment strategy that balances a clean environment with economic development. We want a clean, efficient environment in which the needs of business are met not just by our words in the Parliament, but by an atmosphere for the right legislation.
Conservatives want to promote not only the generation of renewable forms of energy, but the manufacture of equipment to harness such energy, and we support the proposal for a wind farm turbine manufacturing unit in Campbeltown. I know that commercial sensitivities surround that proposal, but, as a representative of the Highlands and Islands, I feel that the development must be encouraged. It would provide a wonderful opportunity actively to promote renewable energy for national and local benefit. It would also supply a lifeline to Campbeltown and create much-needed jobs in the area. I agree with Nora Radcliffe, who said that the Danes are 20 years ahead of us in wind farm technology. However, she must acknowledge that the transfer of the technology to Scotland would be of great benefit to our country. The manufacturing of wind farm turbines would improve employment prospects in rural industry.
I ask the Executive also to consider projects for the creation of energy from waste—especially from forestry waste, as that would help to tidy up felled forestry areas. It is interesting to note that the Knoydart peninsula is upgrading its hydro system, as that is a cheaper option than bringing centrally generated electricity to the area. Self-sufficiency from renewable energy is to be encouraged; small renewable energy projects will have an increasing value to the Scottish economy. Many schemes, such as the Arnish Moor wind generation project in Lewis, the Shieldaig and Slattadale hydro project and the Islay wave energy project offer exciting prospects. The Parliament should encourage clean energy.
I thank Robin Harper for securing this debate on a most important issue. We must be bold in embracing renewable energy projects and work towards restructuring the economics of the energy market so that it favours renewables.
The Highlands have long led the way in renewable energy. The hydroelectric network was established in the middle of the last century—10 per cent of Scotland's energy is still derived from hydroelectricity. The construction of the schemes brought work, investment and income to the Highlands. The provision of electricity was one of the main engines of economic progress and it prevented depopulation. I despair of the attitude of the Murray Toshes of this world.
The post-war Labour Government supported the investment necessary for hydro schemes and we must have the same vision. We have tremendous opportunities to develop renewable energy schemes in the Highlands and the north-east of Scotland. The Novar wind farm in Easter Ross already supplies 40 per cent of the electricity needs of the local area, and the wind farm in Lorn supplies a quarter of the local needs. There is plenty of scope for more such schemes, large and small, and for the manufacturing and assembly of wind turbines in the Highlands—soon, I hope, in Kintyre.
We lead the world in wave power. No country in Europe has a greater potential than Scotland for generating electricity from waves and tides. In Aberdeen, Robert Gordon University is researching designs for tidal plants and developing a centre for sustainable engineering, specialising in marine energy. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council has granted £120,000 for research into the optimisation of tide farms. In Islay, Wavegen is testing prototypes. We need sustained investment in wave power, first through research and development and then through capital grants. Research into wave power and the manufacture of turbines could bring badly needed engineering jobs to the Moray firth, the north coast and the north-east. It is crucial that we do not let this opportunity slip thorough our fingers.
The Highlands also has great potential in relation to electricity from biomass. As a result of the harvesting of the forests in the north over the next 20 years, there will be plenty of brash available for power generation—enough to boil the Cromarty firth, one enthusiast told me.
Our problem in the Highlands and Islands and in the north-east is that we have an embarrassment of riches. We are capable of generating an enormous amount of renewable energy—and renewable obligation certificates—but we cannot send it anywhere because, north of the Highland line, the grid is not capable of bearing the additional load. The grid capacity is being investigated; there should be a report on the findings in mid-March. I am sure that the extension of capacity will come with a serious price tag, but that price must be paid if we are to have an energy industry that does not destroy and pollute and an energy policy that maximises Scotland's national assets and gives us a chance to return to the cutting edge of energy technology.
In preparing for today's debate, I had a look back at a previous debate that had been called by the Scottish Green Party. The motion, like today's, was an admirable one, which the SNP was happy generally to support. It covered housing energy efficiency, a subject that is related to today's. Sadly, Robin Harper's motion was amended by the Executive in the now predictable, self-congratulatory manner. Today's motion, like Fiona McLeod's amendment, is ambitious and aspirational. That is what the Parliament and Scotland should be.
I often think that the terminology that is necessary to describe green initiatives and alternative energy strategies seems a bit futuristic and does not quite touch people in the here and now. Let us face it: if someone is living in a house that is damp and badly insulated and that they cannot afford to heat, they will not give high priority to meeting climate change protocols or worrying about greenhouse gas emissions.
There are too many people in that situation. A 1996 Scottish house conditions survey showed that almost 180,000 households use more than 20 per cent of their income on heating and hot water. Fuel poverty has always been high in Scotland, partly because of the cold, damp climate. Other European countries have similar climates—the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, for example—but Norway, Sweden and Denmark have a long-standing commitment to energy efficiency in housing, using the tools of rigorous building regulations and innovative solutions that not only improve living standards in the domestic market but strive to achieve measurable results in the reduction of energy consumption and harmful emissions. Denmark and the Netherlands have implemented successful solar energy programmes that, as we have heard, have created considerable employment.
What has happened in Scotland, however? BP has moved its solar headquarters out of Scotland and Shell announced last year its intention to cease its photovoltaic panels activities here. That is sad and shameful. Scotland has not embraced the philosophy of sustainable housing development. We have had innovative schemes here and there, which are to be applauded, but the fact is that nine out of 10 of our homes were built before the introduction of improved energy efficiency standards. Fewer than one in three homes have the desirable combination of central heating, adequate insulation and double glazing.
There is a lot of catching up to be done and a lot of serious decisions to be made about Scotland's housing stock. We have to bite the bullet and not only radically amend building regulations for new stock but be truly committed to the improvement of existing properties. Our grant system is likely to be slightly improved by the Housing (Scotland) Bill, but why not commit to real improvement and innovative solutions such as take-up grants for the installation of solar water heaters and renewable energy technology? The Executive should be providing information and incentives.
Achieving those goals would cost money. However, we should not think only of the initial capital cost, but try to achieve best value through lifetime, social and environmental costing. Our European partners in the Scandinavian countries have shown the way in developing energy-efficient homes as part of their environmental commitments. Such homes should be a central plank of our environmental, health and anti-poverty strategies. However, the long-term benefits will come only after the initial commitment and investment. I support the Scottish Green Party's motion as amended by Fiona McLeod. I ask the Scottish Government to stop congratulating itself and to commit to and invest in Scotland's future.
I congratulate Robin Harper on his motion. Having been a lone voice in local government for many years, I am aware that, although everyone will vote against his motion, a lot of his ideas will in due course appear in other people's motions as their ideas. I offer him the encouraging advice that, if he keeps on pushing, he will get there in the end. That, regrettably, is the way in which the political game is played.
Whether we are in government, outside government or whatever I am, we need to keep pushing for a greener and more sensible approach to renewable energy. The Liberal Democrats are committed to that idea, but we are sometimes a bit timid. We need to push harder, as do the other parties.
The UK establishment, the civil service and the ethos of the country is profoundly conservative and inactive. British politics is about politicians stirring up inertia to ensure that people do not vote against them. If James Watt and the railway pioneers had lived in the present atmosphere, we would still be travelling to London by stagecoach and relying on the Clyde to drive our mills. There would have been no progress. We used to be an entrepreneurial, get-up-and-go society; now other people are and we are not.
I went with an all-party group of Westminster MPs—if I may confess that—to Denmark to study wind energy facilities. Denmark got its lead in that area because, after the oil price crisis in the early 1970s, it decided that it had to do something about the fact that it imported all its coal and oil. At that point, the Danes gave real help to renewable energy.
I think that wind towers, whether they are in the middle of the sea or inland, are spectacular. As a regular driver along the M8, much of which is dreich in the extreme, I can say that the view would be greatly improved by an avenue of wind towers. I gather that Scotland has a problem in that a lot of its shoreline is not suited to wind power facilities, which require to be placed in shallow waters. However, I am sure that we could find suitable places on the land and in the sea. I was assured that, if we had enough guaranteed trade for new wind towers, the companies would be happy to build them in Scotland, which would provide employment.
It is most important that we do not lose out on wave power. I recall—as will John Home Robertson, who was involved in Edinburgh politics at the time—that when Professor Salter had his ducks, nobody showed any interest. Salter's ducks were really good stuff and there is other good technology now. We missed the boat and we risk missing it again.
It may be a lost cause to try to persuade Westminster and Whitehall to do anything about this matter, but we and the Scottish Executive can take a lead. We can make it worth while for initiative to be taken. We could bully the electricity people. We could tell the bosses of the electricity quangos, companies or whatever they are that, if they wish to keep their jobs, they must allow this wave-generated stuff into the grid at a reasonable price. At the moment, it is priced out of the market.
There are a lot of things that the Executive and the Parliament can do to promote the greener approach that many people want. However, we are too timid and there are too many bureaucratic and financial obstacles in the way. If we can crack those problems, we can create a huge number of jobs and a much better society. If we get stuck into it, there will be a win-win situation.
I am not a scaremonger. I do not think that the world is about to end as oil runs out or as we pollute ourselves to death. It is tempting to use such cataclysmic, apocalyptic language when we discuss what we are doing to our environment, but we need not talk in such absolute terms to appreciate that what we are doing to our environment and how we treat our energy resources is wrong.
I prefer to look at matters from a socialist perspective and to consider this issue as one of fairness. It is not right that we, in one of the richest countries in the world, should be using up so much of the world's energy resources. If it is part of our task as MSPs to tackle inequalities and social justice, we must tackle the iniquitous fact that we, the energy rich, take advantage of our position and exploit the environment at the expense of the energy poor.
The decisions that we will have to take on renewable energy will not be easy. It is tempting to think of green issues as a soft option. Being in favour of renewable energy is a bit like being in favour of apple pie—we help cut pollution and everyone gets the energy they need at little cost to the environment—but real financial costs are involved.
When we discuss a sustainable development policy, we often concentrate on the sustainability side of the equation. We must be aware that decisions taken today will affect all of us in the future. In considering the other side of the equation—development—we recognise our need as a society to grow and move forward. We should recognise that we have a legitimate expectation to develop and that the decisions that we take that affect our environment should reflect those expectations. I do not want that to sound like a cop-out—that we can defer all the difficult decisions to some unspecified time in the future. Decisions need to be taken now. We cannot take a flat-earth approach.
The Government has faced up to some difficult choices. The targets that were set following the Kyoto agreement are challenging. The commitment to move towards more renewable energy is genuine. However, there is one aspect of the Government's policy that gives me particular concern—it has already been referred to by Robin Harper and others: whether waste incineration should qualify as a renewable technology. I am sure that no one questions the desirability of making best use of the energy that is released through waste incineration, but we should not be encouraging that activity as a way of handling our municipal waste. Renewable energy must be viewed as part of the bigger picture. When it comes to handling rubbish, that bigger picture is not pretty.
In Germany, the recycling of waste is second nature to citizens. There is no reason to think that it should not be the same here. It is not difficult to envisage a time when recycling and a more environmental approach to packaging will effectively become a marketable asset and something that we choose to support. However, we are a long way from that stage.
I do not think that we should be taking backward steps, such as encouraging the creation of more waste incinerators. Where incinerators exists, and if there are no viable alternatives, their energy should be exploited, but we should resist any measures to boost their attractiveness to energy companies.
There is general agreement about the opportunities that renewable energy holds for Scotland, particularly for its rural areas. The debate seems to be more about the speed of the journey than about the destination—and that is a legitimate and valuable debate. Some of our audience might argue that if we could harness the wind generated in this chamber, it would probably light up the whole of Edinburgh—that too is a legitimate debate.
Under Westminster control, renewable energy in Scotland was going nowhere—it did not command a high priority. I would argue that since the Scottish Executive or Government has taken power, there has been a step change in the attitude here towards renewable energy. In my constituency, we are already starting to benefit from that change. Wind farms are actually having their planning applications accepted. At Taynuilt, one is already up and running. It is interesting to note that it has turned into a tourist attraction and that a large number of people travel up on to the hill there to view the wonderful site of the new wind farm. Another is about to be constructed at Beinn an Tuirc in Kintyre. That represents a significant step forward and there are many more such projects in the pipeline. The fact that planning applications are now getting through the process provides us with a real opportunity.
The true test is in the construction industry. Vestas Wind Systems, the Danish firm that is the leading wind tower constructor in the world, is now seriously considering locating a manufacturing plant in Kintyre. It needed reassurance that the Scottish Government was serious about developing wind power. A multinational company such as Vestas will not come to Scotland unless it is so reassured. That is why, when it has come to choosing between Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, Scotland has come out on top.
I am confident that a positive outcome—the location of that project in Campbeltown—will arise from the bid. Once that decision is taken, we will see that the Scottish Executive is serious about wind power, because it is putting money where its mouth is. If it were not for that change, I do not believe that Vestas would seriously consider coming to Scotland.
More work must be done if we are to develop wave power. We should have no doubt: harnessing the sea's energy, particularly off the west coast of Scotland, is not easy. There have already been disasters off the north coast of Scotland, where it has been tried. The key issue is our requirement for more research and development. That needs to be backed by the Government if we are to introduce the new technology successfully. In fact, the technology has still not been developed sufficiently for it to be successful.
I back what Robin Harper had to say: I hope that there will emerge from the consultation a commitment from the Executive to develop a proper wave site where we can start to test the technology so that we can develop this exciting prospect for the west coast of Scotland.
A further major issue that we must address is the transmission system. We have a huge energy resource on the west coast, but we do not have the means to transfer it onshore to our cities and towns. That is a major hurdle. I welcome the Executive's commitment to assess what is needed. Its study into the constraints on the network is necessary. That will allow us to identify how and when the investment has to take place. We should have no doubt: the whole of the west coast, from Argyll northwards, is disadvantaged. Without major investment, the transmission system will not bring the huge energy resource to Scotland. I hope that the required work will come to fruition over the next year or two.
It is generally agreed that wind and wave energy are a tremendous natural resource for Scotland. To exploit that resource for the people of Scotland, a long-term view is required. Short-termism will not work in the renewable energies industry. Denmark took a long-term view 20 years ago—one of its companies is now the world leader in wind technology. We have to do the same with developing wave technology. I believe that the Scottish Government has taken a significant step in that direction, but more needs to be done to harness our bountiful supply of energy for the people of Scotland. I support the Government amendment.
I, too, congratulate Robin Harper on his motion and on its length—is such output sustainable?
There is little in the debate with which one can disagree in aspirational terms—we all want a better, cleaner, more energy-efficient and sustainable future, and the creation of jobs in fragile rural economies.
Conservatives readily acknowledge Scotland's huge untapped resources of renewable energy. We welcome the Scottish Executive's consultation paper on renewable energy obligations. The major source of renewable energy in Scotland is wind. The point must be made loud and clear that Scotland has 40 per cent of Europe's potential wind energy. As Robin Harper said, wind is obviously an asset that must be tapped into.
Unlike the SNP, I do not believe that we have missed the boat; wind energy is still in development. Many members agree that it is time to consider proactively managing and harvesting that asset, but if a policy of significantly increasing wind farming is pursued, it must be done sympathetically so that, wherever possible, the visual impact is kept to a minimum. As Allan Wilson and Murray Tosh said, a balance must be struck.
Studies show that public attitudes to wind farming are largely favourable. The idea of getting something for nothing appeals to most Scots. Using a natural asset to create electricity makes sense in these days of pollution and realisation of the exhaustibility of fossil fuels. It is a policy that is driven by pragmatism—acting as needs must—so the argument is no longer about whether renewables are a good idea but about the best way of delivering a co-ordinated approach, where best to do it and when best to promote it.
The Executive's target of 18 per cent for ROS seems realistic. The targets offered by Robin Harper and Fiona McLeod—of, respectively, 22 per cent and 25 per cent—are simply aspirational. We must take a measured but positive approach, rather than act in haste and repent at leisure.
In South Ayrshire, calculations show that we have a potential renewable energy resource of around 6,630 million kWh, of which 98 per cent is in the form of wind energy. Not only do we have the wind in Ayrshire, we have the South Ayrshire Energy Agency, which is the first of its kind in Scotland. It has been established to provide energy advice and to promote energy efficiency in both the domestic and the business sector. Linda Fabiani drew attention to the need for that. Perhaps the agency could be used as a model for other areas in Scotland.
Given the advent of the climate change levy, which will increase electricity charges by 0.43p per kWh, the need for such agencies grows daily and the need for small and medium enterprises to cut costs and remain competitive is paramount. The Liberal proposal to introduce a carbon tax would just increase costs.
Another welcome source of renewable energy creation in Ayrshire is the Alba proposals for Killoch and Piperhill. That project's potential to provide integrated waste management disposal solutions and create, as a by-product, a renewable energy resource strikes the right chord. I wish such projects every success. However, whether they should attract capital grant funding must be examined carefully.
Another type of project, which is still at the concept stage but which I sense has great potential—it is my hobby-horse—involves what are, in effect, underwater wind farms harnessing the energy of tidal currents. I hope that that makes sense. Such a project could work well between Orkney and mainland Scotland, where giant underwater turbines could be used to tap into the enormous tidal currents in the area.
I think that we are all largely agreed on this matter. I support the Executive's position and look forward to developments.
Like other members, I congratulate Robin Harper on putting his case with the clear commitment and passion that we have come to expect from him on this subject. I agree with him that the lack of ambition in the Executive's target is worrying. I also agree that we do not want to miss out on wave power as we have done on wind power. It would be a tragedy if the Executive did not ensure that we become world leaders in that industry.
Bruce Crawford has repeated the claim that the Executive's target is unambitious. Does he accept that 18 per cent represents a milestone rather than a destination beyond which no further targets can be set?
That does not detract from the startling lack of ambition in the target that has been set. Everyone can say that they will reach a certain level and go on from there. We want to reach 25 per cent by 2010, but the Executive wants to reach 18 per cent by then; there marks the difference.
Fiona McLeod set out clearly where gains can be made in wind, wave and tidal power. Scotland should set stretching but achievable targets. Twenty-five per cent is entirely achievable. We should consider the targets that other small countries in Europe have set. Austria is aiming for 78.1 per cent by 2010, Denmark for 29 per cent, Finland for 35 per cent, Portugal for 45 per cent, and Sweden for 60 per cent.
Exactly how much is the SNP willing to spend to reach a target of 25 per cent? How much will it cost to reach that target? What extra investment will the SNP make?
George Lyon talked about the problems with the grid on the west coast of Scotland. It is okay to hold discussions, but addressing those problems requires hard cash. A Scottish public service trust could invest £250 million to sort them out and would give Scotland the opportunity to become Europe's green powerhouse—it just requires a bit of imagination.
Kenny MacAskill discussed how renewable energy is not just about the environment, but about having a successful economy. He talked sense on the lost opportunities of the past and the need to speculate to accumulate and to turn Scotland round so that it is a world leader in this area.
I do not share Murray Tosh's views on hydroelectric power. I know that much concern has been expressed in the past. For a couple of decades after the second world war, there was a major investment in hydro power by the North of Scotland Hydroelectric Board. That process was brought to an end in the early '60s, when the UK claimed that the future lay with cheap oil and nuclear power. Now, hydro is by far the cheapest source of electricity in Scotland and it supplies about 13 per cent of our needs.
In retrospect, I think that the hydroelectric power programme was a magnificent investment for a sustainable future. Sadly, no more plant was built and Scotland received more than its fair share of UK nuclear power. The UK gets about 20 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, but the corresponding figure for Scotland is about 50 per cent. The development of RE in Scotland has been severely hampered by the nuclear industry. Oversupply of nuclear-generated capacity has been an excuse to cut Scotland out completely from the first two rounds of the UK's very modest renewable energy programme.
How do we ensure that Scotland becomes the world leader that we know it should be? At the moment, the Scottish Parliament has a limited remit to encourage RE in Scotland. I believe that Scotland will need to achieve the status of a normal nation in Europe before we begin the fundamental shift in attitudes and vision from the old policies of the UK Government that have left Scotland far behind in RE technologies. Only by achieving that status will it be possible for all to see that they can play their part in making Scotland Europe's green powerhouse.
This has been an informed debate. I congratulate Robin Harper on his choice of subject. What has been said confirms that it is a matter of great importance to Scotland. I confirm to Cathy Jamieson and all other members who have expressed views on the renewables obligations for Scotland that the consultation will be considered by the Executive. I would be treating that process with contempt if I prejudged its outcome before the consultation concludes tomorrow.
Many members have asked questions about the validity of recovering energy from waste and about the impact of wind turbines on Scotland's environment. I am conscious of the strong feelings that wind power whips up, if you will excuse the pun, Presiding Officer. The Executive does not envisage vast tracts of Scotland being populated by wind turbines. Not even the most enthusiastic advocate of wind energy would wish that. To reiterate what John Scott said, a balance has to be struck. If we are to meet our renewable energy targets, wind energy clearly has a major part to play, but that consideration should be set against our other important commitment to safeguard as far as possible our natural heritage from the impact of excessive and inappropriate development.
The SNP amendment reflects a position on central planning. Our new planning guidelines were warmly welcomed and new guidance has led to a real upsurge in interest in new renewable energy developments. Approvals of wind farm applications in Scotland are running at 60 to 70 per cent, which is much higher than the rate in England and Wales. We do not need an audit plan or any of the other trappings; we need to get on with the situation in hand.
If Fiona McLeod does not mind, I would like to continue.
On grants for existing hydro generation, I say to Bruce Crawford that small hydro stations under 10 MW will be eligible for support, and support for incremental output from larger hydro stations is still under discussion.
Maureen Macmillan, Nora Radcliffe and others have made much of the potential of wave power. I unequivocally support and encourage the work that is being done in Scotland to allow us to harness that resource. In particular, I wish to commend the LiMPET project in Islay, which is the first commercially operating wave-power plant anywhere in the world. Wavegen in Inverness deserves to be congratulated on its achievement. The LiMPET project is in place with continuing support under the Scottish renewable energy obligation because of the unique effort and unique support offered in Scotland.
On the recovery of energy from waste, I say to Kenneth Macintosh that our consultation document is just that—a genuine consultation. The Executive does not see a compelling argument for or against recovering energy from waste. We are, however, mindful of the duties that are imposed on all of us—and particularly on Scotland's local authorities—by our waste strategy. We accept that incineration alone is not an ideal way to deal with waste, but it has a part to play in waste management in the right circumstances.
We are also conscious of the new technology benefits that Scotland could derive from being a leader in gasification and pyrolysis. I agree with Kenny MacAskill's point about the need to make an economic case for renewables rather than an emotional one. Much has been said about the lack of economic benefits from our renewables project, but gasification and pyrolysis represent one set of possibilities and I am sure that there will be others.
George Lyon and Jamie McGrigor were among those who advised us to consider spending public money to upgrade the electricity network. There are clear indications that investment must be made in those networks, which are privately owned, if we are to realise our targets. We have commissioned a study to examine what action will be required and that study will report in mid-March. The fairly odd proposition made by Fiona McLeod and Bruce Crawford—that biomass can replace energy generated by coal and nuclear power—is simply not considered feasible. Nuclear power meets more than 50 per cent of Scotland's energy needs, whereas biomass is both expensive and small scale.
I have tried to answer all the points that have been raised during the debate, but I am conscious that time is against me. I will reply in writing to all the points that I have not covered in my speech.
The spirit in which I brought my motion before the chamber was best exemplified by Cathy Jamieson's speech. My intention was to draw to the Executive's attention the amount of support in the chamber for renewables and for some of the specific issues that I raised in my opening speech. When members consult the newspapers, they will see how much that support is reflected in the other speeches that have been made.
Before I respond to the individual points that have been raised during the debate, it is important that I stress that wave energy is the most important and urgent issue that I addressed during my opening speech. We must create a fledgling market for wave energy in Scotland as soon as possible. I hope that the Executive will come up with support for wave energy well before it has finished discussing the responses to the renewables consultation paper. It has been indicated that those discussions could take up to a year; we cannot wait so long for a response.
Several members, including Fiona McLeod, Jamie McGrigor and—[Interruption.] Where are my notes? I will mention members by name in due course, but those members pointed out the advantage of community schemes of any kind, and particularly hydroelectric schemes in the north of Scotland. Labour members, at least, will remember Tom Johnston, who had a dream that all hydro in the north of Scotland would be controlled by the Highland community and that all the profits from such schemes would go back into the community rather than to a hydro board or a privatised firm. It is sad that Tom Johnston's original vision has disappeared, but we could get it back with the new development of renewables in Scotland. We should think global but act local, and the Executive should consider supporting as many community schemes as possible.
I was delighted to hear Kenny Macintosh's comments on incinerators. On the debate about where ROS should lead to, the Executive must accept that there is a compelling argument not to fund incineration of waste for energy through the ROS. Let us leave the rest of that debate for later.
I was happy to hear Linda Fabiani's comments. I hinted in my opening speech that we must consider all the ways that renewables link into energy efficiency and the ways in which life for the poorest people in Scotland's communities can be improved, to which I referred during a speech that I made last year.
I thank Donald Gorrie for his encouragement and Maureen Macmillan for her plea for small-scale developments in the Highlands. I am afraid that John Home Robertson and I will have to agree to disagree—
About wave power?
No, about nuclear power. However, that is a debate for another day and I thank John Home Robertson for his support for the other ideas that I put before the chamber.
Apart from occasional moments of political sniping, we have had a high-class debate, which has left me with a sense of unanimity about the urgency with which we must make progress on the development of all renewables in Scotland.
I ask the Executive to be as modest as possible when it talks about progress, about where it has got to and about the level of support that it is giving. The Executive is giving only £30,000 a year—one person's salary—to the Scottish Energy Environment Foundation in Glasgow. While some small community environment projects receive similar amounts of support, it is good that that the Executive's small amount of support for the foundation seems to have levered in an enormous sum from industry. I have to give the Executive credit for that.
On climate change, I ask that people be more modest about what is likely to happen in transport in Scotland. We have no target for transport reduction, which means that transport is unlikely, certainly in the near future, to make a real contribution to a reduction in CO2 emissions.
I am afraid that the number of houses that are being converted to conform to standards of insulation—which are still relatively low—will not produce CO2 reduction. If we are to solve the problems of fuel poverty and its effects on the poorest people in our communities, and if we are to achieve fuel efficiency in our housing, we need a step change in the number of houses being converted within the next 10 years.
I end by pleading with the Executive to take on board—as I am sure it will—everything that it has heard today. Will the Executive please, as a matter of urgency—because this is even supported by wave power's competitors in the renewable energy industries across Scotland—address the problems faced by the wave power industry and give it the extra support it needs?