Official Report 264KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01114, in the name of Stephen Gethins, on Scotland’s energy opportunity. Members who wish to speak should press their request-to-speak button now.
14:33
It is a pleasure to speak about Scotland’s energy wealth and the opportunities that it brings for Scotland.
It has been a busy summer for me, getting to grips with my portfolios. During the past few weeks, I have engaged with colleagues across the energy sector in every part of Scotland. I have been grateful to everyone who has taken the time to talk to me about the associated challenges and opportunities. Let me put on the record my thanks to those businesses and other stakeholders.
The message that I have received has been clear: the energy sector as a whole is delivering the transformation that we need and Scotland is well placed—we have decades of experience, skills, expertise, infrastructure and the other necessary ingredients that place us at a competitive advantage. There is no question but that there are significant challenges, and no doubt we will discuss some of those today. However, it has been good to hear about the transformation that is being delivered now and to hear the message that Scotland is a good place in which to invest and to do business.
In the spirit of collegiality, I take the opportunity to thank colleagues from across the chamber who have engaged with me. Debate and disagreement are at the heart of a good democracy and better decision making, but so is consensus and the sharing of ideas—I am grateful for colleagues who have done that.
I also place on record my thanks to colleagues in the United Kingdom Government who have engaged with me, including Michael Shanks, the Minister of State for Energy. I will always seek to engage constructively where possible, and those who work in the sector would expect no less from us.
In that spirit—although I will come on to speak about the other amendments—I accept the Labour amendment in the name of Daniel Johnson, albeit with some conditions that I know he will be aware of and will expect: we still have significant concerns about UK Government policy on issues such as the grid, transmission charging, alignment with the European Union and energy bills, and we are still awaiting the strategic spatial energy plan.
North Sea oil and gas has played, and continues to play, a vital role in our energy system and our security mix. It has delivered jobs in the north-east and allowed us to develop decades of experience and expertise in energy production, including the experience and expertise developed in the offshore environment. However, the North Sea is a maturing basin and the challenge before us is to manage the energy transition in a way that is fair and responsible, ensuring that the skills, talent and expertise built up over those decades are carried forward. There is an opportunity to secure jobs, investment and economic growth for communities the length and breadth of Scotland, supporting energy security not only in this country but across Europe, where there is increasing concern from our European partners.
Crucially, our renewables potential is globally recognised and we are seeing large-scale investment that matches the scale of that potential. That transition is not something that will take place in the future; it is happening right now. We already host some of the world’s largest operational floating offshore wind farms, including Hywind Scotland and the Kincardine wind farm, with Green Volt expected to become the world’s largest floating wind farm when completed.
Our world-class facilities are already supporting the global-scale build-out of offshore wind. Kishorn port has one of Europe’s largest dry docks and is being further expanded to support the next generation of offshore energy. Montrose port is also set to become one of the largest offshore wind operations and maintenance hubs, and the port of Leith is playing a key role in the construction of the 1.1GW Inchcape offshore wind farm which can be seen, as we all know, from across Edinburgh and Fife. Over the summer, I visited Sumitomo Electric’s £350 million high-voltage subsea cable manufacturing facility at Nigg. It is the first of its kind in the UK, strengthening domestic supply chains for offshore wind while creating hundreds of well-paid jobs. Those are not isolated examples, and they demonstrate that the energy transition is already creating industrial opportunities in Scotland.
On skills and jobs, the Scottish Government is proactively supporting our North Sea workers to carry their expertise and experience into the renewable energy sector, including through the oil and gas transition training fund. Our offshore wind skills programme is backed by £3.85 million of investment in targeted education, training and workforce transition interventions, with six projects approved so far, with a combined value of £2.5 million.
I have listened intently to what the minister is saying. He will be aware that a recent report from Robert Gordon University says that the economic value of every lost offshore energy job in oil and gas needs to be replaced by around two jobs elsewhere in the economy. Is he confident that he can actually deliver a proper transformation?
I appreciate Mr Kerr raising that issue. I have been up to Aberdeen several times since I was appointed, and the First Minister himself was there just yesterday. We are seeing that transition happening now. I will give some more facts and figures about the transition in a moment, but what has been impressive is seeing how the energy sector is working together. The skills and experience that are being delivered to the offshore renewables sector put us at a competitive advantage. Those skills are found among people in Mr Kerr’s own constituency and I know that they are found in mine.
The energy transition offers a scale of opportunity like no other and is delivering tens of thousands of jobs. I ask members not just to take my word for it—Mr Kerr will be glad of that. A 2026 Confederation of British Industry report indicates that the net zero economy in Scotland already supports over 105,000 jobs and generates £10.2 billion in economic value, with activities spanning energy, manufacturing, engineering and professional services, and that around 3,000 businesses are already part of the net zero economy. Members of the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee will be glad to hear that we are committed to that.
However, if we are to make the most of the opportunity, we must all also learn the lessons of the past. Scotland generated enormous wealth for the UK Treasury from oil and gas, but we did not see the long-term benefit. That was a structural failing over the past half century of energy policy. The UK was one of the only states on earth to discover oil and gas but not establish some kind of futures fund to ensure that future generations would benefit from what is a finite resource. I know that members will acknowledge that.
Will the minister take an intervention?
On the point about those failures, I will be glad to take the member’s intervention.
Why are so many companies that are involved in wind farm assets, such as Ørsted, foreign owned, with most of the profits being repatriated abroad rather than being held in Scotland. Is that acceptable?
I know that Reform is not into foreigners very much, but I am very much in favour of an international and outward-looking Parliament and economy. I encourage Ms Ross to go back and read the CBI report that I mentioned, which mentions the jobs and the economic value that are being delivered to Scotland not in the future, but right now. Reform is a party that wants us to be isolated from the rest of the world, and its policies would cost £250 million a day in lost tax revenues because it wants us to be isolated from the EU. That is not the policy of this Government, which will work in an international vein as we secure European energy security, delivering jobs at home.
We have to learn from the past, and a futures fund must be developed.
I acknowledge the Green amendment, which notes that the energy transition must drive community wealth, and I look forward to supporting that. I also acknowledge the Liberal Democrat amendment, which mentions community benefits and how we can make the most of them. In the spirit of collegiality, we will also accept that amendment, but I want to work with Liberal Democrat and other colleagues on how we can deliver that.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will take Monica Lennon’s intervention, and then I must make progress.
I welcome the minister to his post. I welcome the Government’s plans to increase community ownership of Scotland’s renewable resources. Can he tell the Parliament when the ScotWind wealth fund will be established?
I welcome the member to her post. It is nice to see her here. She is more experienced than I am in this place and I should have taken the opportunity to welcome her. I am going to talk about community benefit right now, and I will touch on some of the issues that I know are important to her.
As well as community benefit, the transition must create jobs in ports and coastal communities, opportunities for young people, contracts for Scottish businesses and stronger local economies. We will talk about ScotWind more generally, but, on community benefit, let me talk about some of the benefits that are already in place. SSEN Transmission’s support for the delivery of 1,000 new homes across the north of Scotland is an example of the long-term impacts. Ms Lennon will be pleased to hear that we will establish a ScotWind wealth fund during the current session of Parliament. That is a sensible step that we can take to ensure that the renewable energy transition creates long-term benefits for future generations, and I Iook forward to working with Ms Lennon and others on that.
I urge the UK Government to learn from the failures of the past and look at how, even at this stage, a futures fund can be established while the Treasury continues to make billions from our energy sector—not least from the energy profits levy, which has been so damaging to the sector.
However, we know that it is not just about Westminster—the Scottish Government is taking action as well. We will deploy all our devolved powers to ensure that projects are delivered as quickly as possible, creating sustainable opportunities. In offshore wind alone, we have already unlocked almost £900 million of investment, putting our investment of over £150 million to work, crowding in £70 million from UK public finance institutions and leveraging up to £675 million of private investment into projects, with the potential to support 5,000 jobs. We are demonstrating that the public and private sectors in Scotland can work together at pace to deliver high-quality green jobs and drive growth.
In the previous debate that I led in this Parliament, not just those in my party but we, as a Parliament, voted for energy policy to be devolved. That is because industry is actively telling us where the barriers are to renewables deployment. Without full devolution, we need Westminster to take action. I have been clear that a strategic spatial energy plan that fully reflects Scotland’s renewable energy pipeline, including our global leadership in floating off-shore wind—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take one very briefly, because I am wondering whether the member is still going to talk about “net stupid zero”, as he did in his previous comment. Maybe he can put on the record that he takes that back.
On the point about devolution, does that mean that the Scottish Government will be paying contract for difference subsidies? Will the Scottish Government be paying for the £39 billion that Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks keeps boasting about? Is it the Government’s commitment today that it will pay for them?
As well as noting that Mr Massey has not taken the opportunity to retract the dangerous and damaging remarks that he made previously—I hope that he might do so later, although I wonder if he is being gazumped this time by his leader, who will be speaking in this debate instead—I have to say that his party is isolationist. Scotland exports electricity. If we align with the rest of Europe, we can export even further. When it comes to energy security, we are part of the solution, delivering jobs and investment back home here in Scotland.
However, there are damaging Westminster policies. One of those is transmission charging. We want to get rid of that so that Scottish projects do not continue to be unfairly penalised. That would also mean a more stable and predictable contracts for difference regime. I underline that point to Labour colleagues in relation to their amendment. We also need to see greater investment and delivery from the UK Government in supply chains, manufacturing capability, ports, infrastructure and—crucially—grid. Scotland is ready and delivering. Industry is ready and delivering. The projects are ready and delivering. What is needed now is for the UK Government to match Scotland’s ambition with action.
In conclusion, the energy transition is not far off—it is happening now. I am determined to continue to build on the work that has been done to deliver on that during this parliamentary session. However, this opportunity is bigger than any one Government, sector, parliamentary term or party. We will get further with the support and collaboration of Parliament, and we call on everyone in the chamber to work with us. That is why I have tried to accept as many amendments as I possibly could today. No other economic opportunity currently available to Scotland promises the scale of jobs and growth for people and local communities as the energy transition does.
Again, I thank colleagues in industry, in Scottish communities and here, in Parliament, for their collegiality and—so far—for their willingness to work together. This is Scotland’s opportunity and I hope that we can seize it together.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that Scotland’s energy transformation provides a generational opportunity to grow the economy, create more high-quality jobs, strengthen communities across Scotland, and place Scotland at the heart of the solution to Europe’s energy security challenge; calls on the UK Government to deliver a stable, transparent policy, regulatory and investment environment to enable timely energy deployment in Scotland at scale, and to deepen Scotland's relationship with the rest of Europe on energy, and agrees to work together to accelerate energy deployment and ensure that the full benefits of Scotland’s energy transformation are realised for the people of Scotland.
I call Daniel Johnson to speak to and move amendment S7M-01114.3.
14:48
I begin by noting the collegiate and consensual approach that the minister is seeking today, because it is important, not least because energy policy is critical to the whole country and the future of the economy. Energy is at the heart of a country’s competitiveness—that was true in the past, it is true in the present and it will be true in the future. In the past, our success was built on access to coal, which was reliable, cost effective and secure. Through the 20th century, access to oil was critical; that industry sustained hundreds of thousands of jobs and continues to employ around 100,000 people.
Energy is also critical for our future, as we seek to do something exceptionally difficult with floating offshore wind. The ability to do engineering in the harshest of environments, out in the North Sea, could deliver dividends for Scotland, and we must ensure that it does. However, that will require long-term planning and consensus. It will also require a degree of candour and acceptance of reality that is sometimes lacking among those on both sides of the argument, which at times is reduced—or traduced, even—to “Drill, baby, drill” versus “Turn off the taps”. Neither of those positions is tenable. For a start, peak oil occurred in 1999 and, according to most sources, we have extracted about 80 to 90 per cent of the extractable resource. However, we will be reliant on gas for decades to come, whether we like it or not.
On that point, the member is unquestionably right. Does he support the licensing of Jackdaw and, indeed, Rosebank?
I would not want to pre-empt the Prime Minister, but let us talk about that. We rely on gas, whether we like it or not, not just because that is how we heat our homes. We use three times as much energy to heat buildings and homes as we do in our consumption of electricity alone. If we wanted to switch overnight, the grid simply does not have the capacity. We are probably not generating enough electricity, certainly across the United Kingdom.
The point is that, if we are going to use gas for decades to come—we need to do so—the carbon footprint of the gas is important. The reality is that gas that is produced in the North Sea has a carbon footprint that is around 50 per cent less than that of the gas that is imported from other parts of the world. We need to ensure that we have secure access to gas and that it has the lowest possible carbon footprint. I suggest that that means using gas from the North Sea.
There is also a point about cost. The reality is that, taking comparable units, it is about 7p per unit of gas versus 26p for electricity. Frankly, an overnight switch would impoverish people on a scale that is hard to imagine. We must talk about the energy mix and the pathway for how we transition away from gas, and we must use all the energy sources that are available to us.
I say gently to SNP members that that includes using nuclear. There are parts of the world, especially South Korea, that have nuclear reactors that produce electricity for £33 per megawatt hour, which is considerably less than the figure for the vast bulk of renewable wind. We need to talk about the energy mix, because we need baseload for when the wind is not blowing. If nuclear is not providing that, it probably needs to be done with pumped hydro, or some combination of the two. That is how Norway and Sweden produce their energy. Let us not forget that France has the cheapest electricity in Europe and we know how it produces it.
It is important to note that 26 per cent of the UK’s renewables and 62 per cent of the UK’s onshore wind are produced in Scotland. It has created 47,000 jobs. We are a net exporter of electricity, but we need to remember that that infrastructure has been built out on the basis of underwriting the price across all UK bill payers. If we look at the aggregate wholesale price versus the price guarantees, the aggregate CFD strike price is £150 per megawatt hour, versus a wholesale price of £90. In Scotland, we received around £500 million in 2025-26 through contracts for difference.
If we are going to talk about devolving energy policy, the Government has to answer the following questions. What happens to those contracts, and will they be honoured? What happens to those costs? Tens of pounds spread across all UK bill payers would turn into hundreds of pounds shouldered by Scottish bill payers. Most importantly, in order for all those things to happen, we need grid upgrades. Who will pay for those?
Will the member give way?
I believe that I am out of time. I apologise—otherwise I would have given way.
We need less rhetoric and more reality. We need plans that are grounded in both climate and geological reality, because we simply cannot rely on fossil fuels for energy security in the future.
I move amendment S7M-01114.3, to insert at end:
“; recognises that Scotland’s energy future must be built on a secure, affordable and sustainable mix of sources for decades to come; welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to putting Scotland at the heart of the UK’s renewable energy generation, through a modern industrial strategy, billions of pounds of public and private investment, and upgrades to the grid to improve electricity transmission, and calls on the Scottish Government to speed up planning, to work with trade unions and industry and to invest in the skills that Scotland’s energy sector needs, and to ensure that local communities share in the wealth generated by Scotland’s energy.”
I remind members that they should not intervene in the last minute of speeches. I call Malcolm Offord to speak to and move amendment S7M-01114.5.
14:53
Scotland’s energy opportunity can be summed up in three simple words: drill, Scotland, drill. Renewables are no silver bullet for cheaper energy in Scotland. Yes, they have a complementary role to play in a balanced clean energy system, but they will never replace the dominant role that hydrocarbons play in our day-to-day lives. Right now, the UK is energised by 75 per cent hydrocarbons and 25 per cent alternatives, including wind, biomass and nuclear. The idea that we can flip that on its head to 75 per cent renewables in 2050 is for the birds. It is never going to happen.
Why? First, it is too expensive. The grid system that we have had for the past 50 years was based on coal-fired power stations in major conurbations that delivered power through the grid to consumers. We are now talking about a new grid system that takes power from the most remote areas—the north of Scotland and the Hebrides—to where local populations are, which is incredibly expensive.
It would be fine if people said to me, “The good news is that we will remove the old grid and replace it with a new one to take all the energy from the Highlands to the south.” However, we apparently have to keep the old grid because, sometimes, the wind does not blow—that is something called intermittency.
Will the member give way?
I would be delighted to.
The member is right to talk about the complexity of grid upgrade—it is hugely complicated. However, does he not acknowledge that, according to the North Sea Transition Authority, 90 per cent of the extractable hydrocarbons have been extracted from the North Sea? The member has said, “Drill, baby, drill,” but from where will that drilling extract the required hydrocarbons?
The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that only 4 billion barrels are left in the North Sea; Offshore Energies UK has said that there are 12 billion; and the operators think that there are considerably more. In the past year, Norway drilled 47 fields; we drilled none. Technology will help us to find more oil and gas. The reality is that, with intermittency, we might pay £1 billion to shut the wind farms but we might not have any gas. Do we send letters to the national health service to say, “We hope your operation happens on a windy day”? How does that work?
That exposes the folly of the Conservative Party policy on energy over 14 years. George Osborne and Theresa May invented that system, and we are now in a mess, with energy prices four times those of the US and seven times those of China. I tried to fix that. Theresa May brought in net zero in 2019 in a 70-minute debate in the House of Commons with no votes. George Osborne created the whole subsidy system—the CFDs—and decided to put that on to consumers rather than general taxation when only one third of consumers’ bills is the cost of electricity. That is the biggest transfer of money from poor people to rich people since Robin Hood.
That is why the Tories cannot be trusted on energy—we should not be fooled by Kemi Badenoch’s latest Damascene conversion, because she just parrots my lines. I tried my best to reform that party, but I tell members that it is stuffed full of renewables zealots. That is why I joined Reform.
What could a balanced energy system look like? If members want a slogan, how about 50:50 by 2050—50 per cent hydrocarbons, 25 per cent renewables and 25 per cent nuclear? China accounts for 30 per cent of global emissions and has already hit 25 per cent renewables; America accounts for 13 per cent of world emissions and has achieved 25 per cent renewables.
The member’s motion calls for the same level of output for nuclear as for renewables. Scotland already has 18GW of renewable capacity, which will increase in the years to come to 30GW. Is he saying that Scotland should have 30GW of nuclear, which would be like 10 Hinkley Point Cs or something like 50 small modular reactors? Is he really saying that that is what should be delivered?
My comment was in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom. I absolutely believe that we should have nuclear at that level—we can see what has happened in France. How has China got to 25 per cent renewables? It has used coal as its transition fuel. America has used shale gas as its transition fuel; we should be using North Sea gas as our transition fuel. We are floating on a sea of gas, yet we import that stuff from the US and from fields in Norway, over the ones that we have shut down. Even the Norwegian energy minister thinks that that is completely daft.
We need a new energy system that is sane. Let us use the acronym SANE—secure in these uncertain times, affordable and giving nationwide employment. Here is the Brucey bonus: the Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform could then take an axe to the ludicrous £5 billion that he and Holyrood are spending on net stupid zero in this financial year, which would solve in one stroke the Scottish Government’s black hole.
I move amendment S7M-01114.5, to leave out from the first “Scotland’s” to end and insert:
“the most important measure for energy policy is the cost of energy to households and businesses; recognises the reality that hydrocarbons will remain a critical component of Scotland's energy mix; endorses the position of renewables playing a complimentary role in the energy mix and not a dominant one, and agrees to a target for nuclear energy output to match renewable energy output by 2050.”
14:59
I declare an interest as a member of Orkney Islands Council.
This is a debate about the programme for government. Although others have perhaps not covered that aspect directly, it is really important that we focus on what the Government is laying in front of us and hold it to account better than we have done before.
Although the text of the motion points to an ambitious approach to Scotland’s energy, I am afraid that the programme for government does not. Scotland’s energy policy is not in Scotland’s hands, but that does not mean that we cannot do anything at all. We have an energy sector in limbo and communities shouting that they want a greater role and stake in our energy system. What has the Government’s response been? To be frank, there has been a lack of leadership and vision. For example, the programme for government is quick to criticise the energy profits levy, but it fails to acknowledge the uncertainty and concern in the sector right now. The strategic spatial energy plan, transmission network use of system charges, grid connection costs—those issues are weighing heavily on the minds of the sector in Scotland, yet they are completely absent from the PFG, and I am glad that the minister acknowledged that.
I appreciate that structural barriers and UK-level plans are not in the Scottish Government’s remit, but I urge the minister not to co-sign an SSEP that will not deliver for Scotland—I ask him to make that commitment today.
Although I welcome the Government’s recommitting to deliver an energy strategy, that cannot become a catch-all excuse to avoid taking clear positions and acting where it can now. I will gladly commit to working with the minister to develop an energy strategy that delivers the ambition and vision that we need in Scotland, but that cannot be put off for the next two years.
Our supply chain stakeholders have been dutifully attending conferences, engagement breakfasts and meet-the-buyer events for years now, and companies of all sizes have been telling me that they see the potential economic opportunity in front of them. However, when I attended the Scottish Renewables onshore wind conference—I know that the minister did as well—stakeholders that I met there expressed frustration that the opportunities that they have been preparing for are not materialising, and frustration that what was, several years ago, an exciting and dynamic outlook for local businesses in this space has become murkier.
Developers tell us that Scotland has a reputation for stable investment and stable development of renewables, and the minister noted that. We have land availability and the resource and capacity factors for wind, among other generation methods, which set us head and shoulders above Europe; however, policy certainty is now in question. There is a reason why so many developers come to Scotland to invest.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not now; I am going to make progress.
There is a reason why many developers come to Scotland to invest and why many of our communities and councils increasingly look to develop ambitious energy projects of their own, as they should, but the programme for government leaves everyone without a clear direction for renewables. If we are not careful, we will begin to undermine the reputation and confidence that we have thus far garnered in Scotland. We must change that course today and inject confidence and stability into the sector. We need to build momentum, get projects consented and have a framework that is fit for purpose and that bakes in and delivers shared ownership en masse.
I do not have time to go through the entire programme for government today, but I look forward to the minister coming to committee.
I want to focus on an issue that we desperately need to address in government and in the Parliament, which is energy ownership. The Scottish Greens have a clear vision for a greener, fairer future based on diversified energy ownership, and we want to empower communities, councils and the Government itself to play a much greater role in owning and reaping the rewards of our country’s energy abundance.
In short, we want to keep Scotland’s energy wealth in Scotland’s hands. The programme for government commits to reviewing community benefits, and I look forward to the Government publishing the long-awaited consultation responses on that subject, but we have been through rounds of that before and nothing substantive changes.
Let us not put off the big problems that we face by focusing entirely on community benefits, only for private companies that wish to ignore them to continue to do so, and by taxing the conscience of those companies that do engage in good faith. Instead, we must unashamedly back community, public and shared energy ownership. The benefits of doing so are crystal clear. Community Land Scotland has crunched the numbers and it found that community-owned turbines bring in an average of 34 times more than what private developers would give back if they paid the old £5,000-per-megawatt community benefit in full. Increasing community benefits to £6,000 per megawatt is not the scale of progress that we need to address the imbalance in ownership. By reclaiming ownership of our energy system, we not only enable decarbonisation but we build community wealth to invest in local infrastructure and the delivery of good-quality, locally delivered public services. Therein lies Scotland’s greener, fairer future, if the Government wants to listen and act.
In Orkney, for example, we are leading the way with a long history of community-owned turbines. We are now implementing plans for council-owned wind farms, and the Our Power Scotland campaign group has pointed out that that publicly owned development is expected to bring in £120 million over its lifetime. That will help to fund front-line services that are operated by Orkney Islands Council. That is what keeping Scotland’s energy wealth in Scotland’s hands looks like, and the Government urgently needs to follow suit.
Compare that with the fact that, according to the Centre for Local Economies, in Scotland, nearly 90 per cent of profits from private wind farms go to corporate shareholders. That is an estimated £5.6 billion during the period 2019 to 2024. However, people living near those wind farms have received less than 3 per cent of that profit. Such injustice is felt by too many communities all across Scotland. The Scottish Greens are clear that we must do better. The Parliament cannot accept a repeat of the oil and gas blunder that the minister has referred to, which is why we are calling on the Government to keep Scotland’s energy wealth in Scotland’s hands.
How can we get there? There is one action that the Scottish Government could take today to set us firmly on that path, and I am glad that the minister has said that he will support our amendment. If the Government really has Scotland’s back, it will fund its proposed ScotWind wealth fund with £300 million from the ScotWind lease money. With £300 million, the wealth fund could get back to work supporting community groups that want to develop their own energy generation projects or take shared ownership stakes with private companies, many of whom already have a good track record of engaging with communities on that. We could support more local authorities to replicate what Orkney Islands Council has done, ensuring a stable source of revenue for more cash-strapped councils, diversifying public income streams.
With £300 million, the wealth fund could even support the Scottish Government to take stakes directly, mirroring what the Welsh Government has done with Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru, which is a registered limited private company that is wholly owned and overseen by the Welsh Government.
We are not alone in calling for this. Indeed, just yesterday, The National reported Dr Josh Doble, the director of policy and advocacy for Community Land Scotland, arguing that
“leftover funds from the ScotWind leasing pot must not be squandered or spent on plugging holes in the budget.”
Likewise, Amanda Grimm, the advocacy lead for Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, noted:
“As we transition from fossil fuels to home-grown renewables, we have the opportunity to make Scotland’s energy system fairer as well as cleaner.”
We in the Scottish Greens completely agree. With a new ScotWind wealth fund that is seeded with £300 million, we could begin our journey to keep Scotland’s energy wealth in Scotland’s hands. By committing all future ScotWind revenue to the wealth fund, the Parliament can ensure that we stay on that path for generations to come. Colleagues in the chamber can build that future with us by backing the Scottish Greens’ amendment today.
There is another immediate action that the minister could take today. He could commit to improving and reviewing the repowering pilot on Forestry and Land Scotland land by extending it to all public land, including Crown Estate land in Scotland, so that communities can develop renewable energy projects in more areas across the country. Similarly, although I understand the pilot projects being limited to 50MW sites, the minister should recognise that some communities can manage bigger projects, especially when in partnership with private developers.
Once successful pilot projects have been delivered, we look forward to working with the Scottish Government to see all public land and repowering sites of any scale give priority access to communities. However, having spoken with representatives from Community Land Scotland, it is clear that the pilot sites will not get off the ground unless three things are sorted out. First, the minister must create an enabling environment by ensuring that community asset transfers are successful. For that to happen, Forestry and Land Scotland must work with communities in close collaboration with the community and renewable energy scheme—CARES—and Local Energy Scotland. Private developers should see that as an opportunity to support communities on shared ownership projects.
Secondly, funding must be unlocked at pace. Of course, CARES serves that function, but it is too restrained. The Scottish Greens’ proposed £300 million ScotWind wealth fund would be in a much better position to seed fund projects through long-term capital and grants, which I would have liked GB Energy to do more of.
Thirdly, the repowering pilot needs to be the start of a wholesale culture change for our Government, energy sector, local authorities and public bodies. The round-table event on this topic to which I have invited the minister—he has yet to reply—must be the start of that culture change. Properly supporting community energy development through the repowering pilot has the chance to enhance that considerably.
Those are two suggestions for actions that the Scottish Government could deploy now that, if delivered properly, would not only drive investment and prosperity in our communities and supply chain but make returns for the Scottish Government. Alone, they would not make up entirely for the other shortcomings of the programme for government that is in front of us, but they would set us firmly on the right track—one on which Scotland’s energy wealth stays in Scotland’s hands.
I move amendment S7M-01114.1, to insert at end:
“recognises that energy policy is a largely reserved competence, but accepts that the Scottish Government should do what it can to provide leadership; believes that Scotland's energy future must and will include significant diversification of ownership of its energy system across private, public and community ownership, and further believes that a ScotWind Wealth Fund should be established during the current parliamentary term, and that consideration should be given to investing the remaining ScotWind leasing options into the new Wealth Fund, which should be tasked with driving community wealth, public and community ownership, and supply chain development.”
15:08
Regrettably, there are no prizes for being the first to be right. However, having stood in the chamber time and again arguing that Scotland needs a pragmatic energy policy that recognises the importance of renewables, the continuing importance of oil and gas, the scientific and practical case for new nuclear energy, the need to invest in grid and storage and, above all, the need to manage the transition rather than pretend that we can simply switch one energy source off and flip to another, it is gratifying to hear how many of my arguments from previous debates have been taken on board.
Having endured Stephen Flynn cheerleading a windfall tax in Westminster, John Swinney and Tom Arthur demanding that it be hiked to astronomical levels, and Nicola Sturgeon demanding that the investment allowances be removed, I am delighted to hear the minister’s conversion to my position that the windfall tax should be removed immediately.
Will Liam Kerr give way?
In two seconds, Mr Johnson. I am also delighted that, after years of blocking investment in the North Sea, and having capitulated to Nicola Sturgeon’s demands to hike the windfall tax and scrap investment allowances, Labour has shifted so substantially on Jackdaw and Rosebank. Although Mr Johnson was too coy to make his position clear, perhaps he will do so now.
I was merely rising to say that, given Liam Kerr’s amazing powers of foresight, does he have the lottery numbers for the weekend?
If I do, I am not giving them to the likes of Daniel Johnson. However, I understand why he is so keen to associate with my position on things. The real world has a habit of intruding on unevidenced political posturing. In the real world, North Sea gas still meets almost half of UK gas demand—in fact, around 84 per cent of homes in the UK are still heated by gas.
What Sanne Dijkstra-Downie misses in her amendment is that the acceleration of electrification—whether in transport, heating or industry—is already happening. The fact is that electricity demand is projected to double by 2050, so the challenge is how we generate enough reliable, affordable electricity to meet that demand.
When it comes to oil and gas, what the Green Party always misses is that stopping domestic production does not stop demand: it simply changes from where that demand is met. The more that we meet that demand from imports, the higher the emissions and the greater the impact on the environment, the higher the unemployment—1,000 jobs a month, according to Offshore Energies UK—the lower our energy security and the lower our tax take.
Once those capabilities have disappeared, they are extraordinarily difficult to rebuild—so says RGU’s energy transition institute in its latest report, “Delivering Positive Energy”. It says that more than 42,000 people were employed in the north-east offshore energy workforce in 2024, and around 90 per cent of those were in oil and gas. However, it warns of catastrophic potential job losses by 2035. It also tells us something more hopeful—if that is managed properly, more than 90 per cent of the region’s offshore energy skills are transferable to renewables and the like.
In short, the people who built the North Sea industry can also build our future. We already have the experts in subsea engineering, fabrication, project management, vessels, ports and offshore construction, and they can help us to make a global centre for renewables and a genuine energy transition. That is why RGU talks of a Goldilocks zone, in which reducing oil and gas employment is matched by a growth in renewables.
That is where I come to Reform’s positioning and yesterday’s report from Energy Voice that highlighted its hostility to renewable energy. There are legitimate questions around costs, subsidies, intermittency, storage and planning of renewable technologies, but to describe renewable energy as a “big, fat racket”, as Malcolm Offord did in this Parliament just a few months ago, is not a serious contribution to the energy debate.
The renewable energy sector already employs perhaps 40,000 people in Scotland. It generates around £13.3 billion in turnover. Those are my constituents—those are our constituents—so to have someone come in here and trash an entire sector is, frankly, irresponsible.
Has Liam Kerr discussed his enthusiasm for North Sea oil and gas with senior members of the Conservative Party such as Theresa May, John Selwyn Gummer and Alok Sharma? They certainly do not share his enthusiasm.
I am grateful to Mr Offord for acknowledging my enthusiasm for oil and gas, which has never been in doubt, and I assure him that senior members of the Conservative Party, or, indeed, members of this Parliament, have never had any doubt about that. I have discussed at every opportunity how we promote North Sea oil and gas.
Every energy technology has its costs and benefits. Every technology involves hard choices about investment, infrastructure, reliability and security. That is why I want to pick up on something that Daniel Johnson said. If we accept the doubling of electricity demand by 2050, that the North Sea reserves are in decline and that intermittent renewables are vulnerable to events such as a dunkelflaute, which is the word that Mr Offord was searching for earlier, we need firm, reliable, dispatchable capacity, or, for Alan Brown’s benefit, let us call it baseload.
The indisputable fact is that nuclear provides that dependable low-carbon power, alongside intermittent renewables. Scotland already has the nuclear skills, the sites and the engineering expertise. The argument is not that nuclear should replace renewables, as some wish to suggest that it is, but rather that there is no coherent reason to voluntarily exclude a key source of reliable low-carbon power from the balanced energy system that Scotland needs.
This is a new session of Parliament, so we have a real opportunity.
Will the member take an intervention?
I really do not have time.
The member is concluding.
I am delighted that the SNP and Labour have moved to support my position. I genuinely offer to work with the Government on a proper energy strategy to replace its wholly discredited draft, with its ludicrous and deeply damaging presumption against oil and gas.
I hope that the Greens finally see that their attempt to switch off the North Sea is simply economic, environmental and energy security vandalism, and I truly hope that Reform will eventually develop a grown-up energy policy that does not trash an entire sector or propose opencast coal mining on the granite of Aberdeenshire.
The Scottish Conservatives have the energy policy that Scotland needs. That is the transition that I want to see.
I move amendment S7M-01114.4, to insert at end:
“expresses deep concern that 1,000 jobs each month are being lost in Scotland’s oil and gas industry; calls on the UK Labour administration to scrap the damaging energy profits levy and to approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields; urges the Scottish Government to publish a new energy strategy, which abandons its presumption against oil and gas; calls on the Scottish Government to stop blocking new nuclear sites and to explore the roll-out of small modular reactors, and warns that failing to invest in a diverse energy mix will have an adverse effect on Scotland’s energy security.”
15:16
I, too, welcome the minister’s collegiate approach, because Scotland has an enormous energy opportunity. The challenge is to deliver on that opportunity with the ambition and the holistic approach that it requires. Our focus must be on not only how much energy can be produced—although that is, of course, important—but who benefits from it, how much of it we use and what the transformation can deliver for the people of Scotland.
To my mind, community benefit for energy projects must be at the heart of Scotland’s energy transformation. It is imperative that the communities that host new onshore renewable developments see the benefits of those developments in their own communities. We are asking them to accommodate large infrastructure developments on their doorsteps. Turbines, pylons, batteries and generators are big structures that often fundamentally change the landscape that they live in. It is difficult to build support for renewable energy when communities face disruption without seeing any of the benefits.
The Government’s proposals for updated community benefit guidelines, which it published back in February, were underwhelming and fell far short of the demands of councils, communities and campaigners. For instance, the proposed figure of £6,000 per megawatt represents a real-terms cut compared with the rate of £5,000 per megawatt that was set 12 years ago. That cannot be right, so we ask the Government to reflect on that and set levels that are more ambitious than those that were set out in its recent working paper, and to include pumped storage, which is currently not covered in the guidelines.
However, the benefits to communities should be about more than a cheque. They should include local jobs, investment, skills and, where possible, a genuine stake in the infrastructure that is being developed.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not just now, thank you.
Scotland has the capacity and the ability to lead the world in renewable energy, but we must ensure that the opportunity touches every community, from Kelso to Thurso.
Increasing renewables capacity is only part of the equation. We can have all the wind turbines in the world, but if the grid cannot get the electricity to where it is needed, that is pointless. We can have all the solar panels in the world, but if cars still run on petrol and boilers on gas, emissions will not go down. We need to drive down demand for oil and gas by accelerating electrification in all sectors.
I appreciate the point that Liam Kerr made. Of course that work is already happening; my point is that it needs to go faster. That needs to happen in relation to how we heat our homes, through heat pumps and heat networks, through to how we power our transportation.
We also need to use less energy through a range of energy efficiency measures. Liberal Democrats have long called for a nationwide insulation programme.
If the member is proposing that we should move away from fossil fuels and electrify as much as possible, from which source does she propose that we generate that electricity?
Liam Kerr’s point about the need for a mix of energy sources is important, but renewables must be a crucial part of that mix. That is why we want to ensure that community benefits are strengthened. We want to ensure that we have buy-in from communities so that we can accelerate the transformation to renewables.
Returning to insulation, we want a programme that is targeted at those least able to pay. Measures such as those will help us to make our homes and buildings more efficient, lower household bills and provide greater security from volatile global energy prices.
Of course, none of that means that we should turn our backs on the people and communities whose livelihoods have historically depended on oil and gas. Scotland has developed an enormous pool of expertise in engineering, technical and industrial skills over many years. That expertise will be essential to building the industries of the future. The transition should be about taking those skills with us and making sure that the people who have powered Scotland’s energy economy can play a leading role in its future.
Will the member give way?
Not just now.
However, we cannot simply assume that high-quality employment opportunities will magically appear. Workers need access to the training, investment and pathways that allow them to move into other industries. A successful transition should build on the strengths that we already have, instead of treating the past and future of Scotland’s energy sector as distinct, separate entities.
We also need to recognise that the transition will not look the same in every part of Scotland. The answer cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. The transition will require change, and we should be honest about that. However, change is much easier to support when people do not feel that the change is leaving them behind.
Although I welcome both the ambition and the tone of the Government’s motion, we must acknowledge, as I am sure that the minister does, that the opportunity that Scotland has is about more than how much energy can be produced or how quickly new infrastructure is built. It is about what that energy transformation delivers for the people of Scotland. It is about making our homes warmer, reducing household bills, creating good jobs and helping communities to benefit from the infrastructure they host. It is about using our renewable resources to reduce our dependence on oil and gas while taking the skills and expertise of our existing energy workforce with us.
If we can get those things right, we can build an energy system that is cleaner, fairer and more secure and benefits communities across Scotland.
I move amendment S7M-01114.2, to insert at end:
“; recognises that work on this transformation also requires urgent action to reduce demand for fossil fuels through the acceleration of electrification and a focus on energy efficiency measures, such as insulation, in order to reduce carbon emissions and lower energy bills, and further calls for the Scottish Government's Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments to be made more ambitious than the level set out in the recent working paper, which proposed a real-terms cut compared to the 2014 guidance, based on the principle that people should benefit more from the money that companies make from generating, storing and transmitting renewable energy near them.”
We now move to the open debate. I remind members who have yet to press their request-to-speak button to do so now.
15:21
Scotland is a net exporter of energy. We create six or seven times more energy than we use, yet we have some of the highest energy costs in Europe. Why? It is because most of the powers over energy are reserved and the UK Government has always neglected energy policy, particularly with regard to policies that would benefit the people of Scotland. As a result, households and businesses are suffering.
Labour promised us GB Energy, with Scotland as the powerhouse of our clean energy mission. It promised 1,000 skilled jobs in the north-east but has delivered only 132, and 46 of those are done by people living outside Scotland. It promised millions of pounds of investment in Scottish renewables but, instead, it has delivered millions of pounds of investment in English solar panels.
It is not just Labour that has let us down. The Tories absolutely failed to invest in upgrading the grid for decades. The challenge with moving energy around is one of the main reasons why we are not fully utilising the renewable energy that is created in Scotland. When the grid does not have capacity, it creates bottlenecks, and we have to turn on the gas to create electricity, which pushes up our unit price. Curtailment has already cost more than £1 billion this year.
As has been mentioned, the National Energy System Operator is now bringing forward its strategic spatial energy plan. That work was jointly commissioned by the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments, but NESO is sharing the half-dozen or so scenarios that it has produced only with the UK Government, which will decide which one goes out to consultation.
That is a strategy that has enormous consequences for Scotland. If we do not see investment in increasing the capacity of the grid in a way that enables renewable energy to flow from where it is produced to the places where it will be used, the consequences for us could be catastrophic.
The Scottish Government must be able to shape that strategy, or we could continue to see reliance on switching on the gas when we cannot get renewable energy to where it is needed, which pushes up our unit price and adds hundreds of pounds to household bills.
If energy was devolved, who would pay for the maintenance and expansion of the grid infrastructure?
It is interesting that the party that allowed the grid to get into the state that it is in today—the state that is costing households hundreds of pounds—would pose that question. Like everything, when we become an independent country, we will work out how to manage our resources in a way that is best for the people of Scotland. I have no doubt about that.
The situation that I outlined pushes up our unit price and puts hundreds of pounds on to household bills. Those are the bills that Labour promised would go down by £300 but which have gone up by £600. We should not be surprised, however, because, in energy as in all else, Scotland has repeatedly been let down by UK Government after UK Government, going right back to Thatcher not creating a futures fund when there was the opportunity. That opportunity has gone.
In Tuesday’s debate on the economy, I heard Duncan Massey talk about a return to peak North Sea oil production. Either he does not understand or he is prepared to mislead people: as has been said, the reality is that the North Sea is a mature basin. Production has halved since 1999, which was peak oil. There is not much oil left, and the cost of extraction is high—and that is before we even consider the climate consequences of continued extraction.
We have seen wildfires this summer—
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
No—I will continue to make progress.
More than 250,000 people were displaced across southern Europe. Here in rainy Scotland, we had wildfires in the Cairngorms and just outside this building, on Arthur’s Seat, and there was the glacial collapse in Tibet and Nepal. The Amazon rainforest is at risk of wildfire. That is an area that should be saturated with water. Climate change is very real and must be part of the conversation on energy.
Fossil fuels are nearing the end of life, and any responsible Government should be focused on the transformation, protecting jobs and transitioning skills for the industry and supporting sectors. For those pushing nuclear as an alternative, I point out that the cost of nuclear is prohibitive. We heard from Professor Helm at the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee last week. As he said, new nuclear is costing
“£16 billion per gigawatt, while gas costs £500 million to £1 billion per gigawatt.”—[Official Report, Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee, 1 September 2026; c 11.]
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
No—I will continue to make progress.
The future is renewables—although there are challenges. As has been said, grid capacity is a huge one, and the UK Government needs to invest in it. Intermittency is also a challenge, and we need to invest in research and development for energy storage.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
There is also the diversification of our energy supply to consider. Here is the really critical thing: continued reliance on fossil fuels equals continued price instability. A future with renewables means that we can create price stability. We can insulate ourselves from geopolitical shocks, such as the war in Ukraine and Trump’s war in Iran—and such shocks will inevitably continue to happen.
About 10 per cent of gas costs are capital up-front costs, and 90 per cent are variable ongoing costs—primarily the cost of the fuel. With renewables, that is reversed. Most of the costs are capital costs. Because we know those costs up front, we know what the price will be in five or 10 years’ time. That is so important—and it does not just concern the cost of living for households. Energy costs are impacting the public sector, which delivers the services that we rely on, and they are impacting businesses. When business costs go up, so do prices. Then, jobs are lost.
We need to break that cycle. Long-term energy security is vital for us all. We can achieve that only with renewables, and we can fully achieve our potential only with a Government that is focused on delivering the infrastructure that we need. That will only ever be the Scottish Government, and it must be a Scottish Government, with full powers over energy policy—the full powers that can come only with independence.
15:28
This debate is about the enormous opportunity that Scotland’s energy resources represent, for my constituents in East Lothian Coast and Lammermuirs, for communities across Scotland and for our shared future.
Scotland is energy rich. We have won the natural lottery twice: first with North Sea oil and gas, and now with world-class renewable resources in wind, wave and tidal, and the potential for green hydrogen. Too many households still struggle with high bills, however, and too many communities see the wealth generated from their local resources flow elsewhere. That cannot be right.
In East Lothian, we see both the challenge and the opportunity. We have two onshore wind farms and three offshore grid connections.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will progress a little bit further into my speech, if that is okay.
Torness has been an employer in East Lothian since the 1980s. As we look to the future of that site, my focus, and the focus of the Scottish Government, is clear: clean, green renewable energy and the skilled jobs that come with it.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take the intervention from Mr Offord.
I was down at Torness during the election campaign. On the day when I was there, Torness was providing 45 per cent of Scotland’s electricity. What would Mr McLennan’s plan be when Torness is shut down?
I will come to that in my speech. I inform Mr Offord that I was a councillor down there for 15 years, so I have been engaging with Torness regularly on that issue, and I will continue to do so. The baseload issue and the future of renewables will be picked up in the future energy strategy, which Mr Gethins will be talking about.
As we look to the future of the Torness site, my focus—and the Scottish Government’s focus—is clear: clean, green renewable energy and the skilled jobs that come with it. Scotland has the raw ingredients for low-cost green hydrogen in abundance, and we have concentrations of energy expertise, including at Torness, that can harness the wind, wave and tidal power to produce it.
Just on Monday, we met representatives from Torness and Hynamics, which is part of the EDF Group, to discuss the hydrogen opportunities that exist on the site. The decommissioning and transition at Torness can, and must, deliver opportunities for the existing workforce while creating new ones. Mr Gethins and I have had a chat about the future of Torness, and he will shortly receive an invite from me and the station manager to discuss that. Mr Gethin has said that he would be quite happy to go down and see that, so we will be talking about Torness. As I said to Mr Offord, I engage with people from Torness regularly.
Will the member take an intervention?
If I can have the time back.
Yes.
The member founds upon wind, wave and tidal power for Scotland’s future but, like Kate Campbell, he makes absolutely no account for the baseload that he was asked about. Does he acknowledge the need for baseload? If so, where is it coming from?
As I said in my response to Malcolm Offord, I am sure that Mr Gethins will bring that forward in the energy strategy, and we will see about the future of renewables.
I come back to the point that I was making. After my election in 2021, I established the East Lothian energy forum. We now have an annual conference, which is coming up in two weeks. We bring together all the providers, including Torness, Scottish Power, SSE, Scottish Gas and EDF, and we bring together local communities through community councils, which is important, and local companies such as Sunamp and Had Fab.
I will touch on Had Fab, which I mentioned in my speech just the other day when we were talking about another issue. Had Fab, which is a fabrication company, has seen a massive increase in its workforce. Gillian Martin and I visited it earlier this year and we heard from the growing number of apprentices. Had Fab has seen a threefold increase in its workforce in that regard.
Of course, there are other such companies—we are already growing employment through the renewables supply chain. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit and the CBI advise that around 1,500 green jobs are already in place in East Lothian, and the number is growing. Those are people who work and live in East Lothian.
We have seen community benefits, including support with energy costs for local families, and we know there is far more potential if the full value of our energy stays here in Scotland. Nationally, the picture is the same. Kristopher Leask made an important point about the importance of community energy. When we talked about community benefits in my area, I brought the communities together, along with the developers, and we developed a framework around that, which works really well.
Let us not forget that—as a few members have mentioned already—Scotland generates far more electricity than it consumes. Net electricity exports have been substantial, yet households face rising bills and businesses face costs that undermine competitiveness.
Analysis has shown that we need a different policy approach: one that properly values our low-cost renewable generation, increases storage and ends the waste of what is, when we think about it, paying generators not to produce. I will touch on that issue further on in my speech. Such an approach could deliver the lowest wholesale electricity prices in western Europe and cut household bills by a third, as we have heard Octopus Energy mention on a number of occasions. That would ease cost of living pressures for families in East Lothian.
The Scottish Government is already acting within the powers that we have, reforming the energy consents process to bring forward more low-cost energy—
Will the member take an intervention?
I have already taken two interventions; I want to progress a bit further, if that is okay.
We are reforming the energy consents process to bring forward more low-cost renewables projects more quickly, including community renewables; investing in the hydrogen sector; and, as has been mentioned, planning a ScotWind wealth fund so that more of the benefit reaches people in Scotland.
We are determined to make Scotland an energy superpower and ensure a just transition that creates good jobs and supports workers and communities through change. However, the crucial point is inescapable. Scotland has the energy, but it does not yet have the full power to decide how the energy is used and how its wealth is shared. Energy powers remain mostly reserved.
There are still challenges. Last week, I hosted a round-table meeting with EDF Power Solutions and the issues discussed were as follows. Grid capacity is still a major issue. In those discussions, the company mentioned the issue of the strategic spatial energy plan, and the lack of involvement from the sector—that was coming from EDF—and from the Scottish Government. The process is still to take around another 18 months. That is far too slow; the Scottish Government has not been fully involved in the process, and nor has the UK Government. There needs to be movement, because that is hindering development at this stage.
Developers need certainty from distribution network operators and transmission operators. Scotland has to be included and fully consulted in the review of the electricity market arrangements. Consumer and investment confidence is already being impacted by the delay.
As Mr Gethins has talked about, the Scottish Government is working on the energy strategy and the just transition plan. The Scottish Government also needs to develop a skilled workforce to meet future demand.
This is Scotland’s second great energy opportunity and we must not miss it. We must place Scotland’s energy in Scotland’s hands to lower bills, create and retain high-quality jobs, give communities a real stake in the projects around them, accelerate progress toward net zero and build a fairer, more prosperous country. I support the motion and urge colleagues to do the same.
15:35
Last month, I attended an international conference on community energy storage in my constituency, at the Stornoway campus of UHI North, West and Hebrides. It was a fascinating event, which showcased the wide range of options for energy storage that could be part of our energy future. From hydrogen to battery storage, they present huge potential, and integration with community energy projects would create the possibility of even more benefits. Na h-Eileanan an Iar leads the way in community energy, with projects in Barra, South Uist, North Uist, Lewis and Harris. Those include the largest community energy project in the UK, the 9MW Point and Sandwick wind farm, which generates an average annual profit of £1 million that is reinvested in the community.
At the conference, we heard from former member of Parliament Calum MacDonald about Point and Sandwick’s plans for a battery storage installation in Stornoway. That would provide resilience to community energy generators in the island by helping to balance the grid in the event of any disruption to supply to the mainland. Currently, outages result in a diesel-fired power station in Stornoway taking over the island’s electricity supply and wind turbines being switched off. The benefits of community energy are well understood in our islands and, as we heard from Kristopher Leask in his excellent speech, research shows that community-owned renewables projects provide 34 times the financial benefit to local communities that is provided by privately owned wind farms.
Energy in our islands is a story of two parts: on one hand, community-owned energy, and, on the other, large-scale multinational-owned proposals. In 2022, a 1.8GW interconnector was approved for Lewis. At the same time, the ScotWind leasing round opened up opportunities for three sites off the coast of Lewis—two to the north off the Butt of Lewis and one just 3 miles off the west coast. With two of those ScotWind projects looking to connect to the interconnector, alongside existing proposed onshore commercial developments, the grid is now oversubscribed. The situation puts at risk the opportunities for community projects to connect to the grid. Asking community projects to compete with multinationals is not fair, and grid reform must reflect that. I hope that the minister will take forward those arguments with his UK counterparts.
It is also vital that the projects continue to receive the support that they need from the community and renewable energy scheme—CARES—to put them in the best possible situation to take up grid connection offers when they arise. I am pleased to see the commitment in the PFG to investment in CARES.
This does not need to be an either/or situation. Yes, something has to give to allow community projects to progress, but power at scale by private developers will also be part of the story of the energy future of our islands. The example of Eilean Siar Energy shows what ambitious collaboration between communities and large-scale projects can look like. The project is looking to take up a 20 per cent share option in onshore projects. However, to do that, it will need support and I hope that the minister will be there right behind it.
Supply chain benefits are important, and investment in ports and infrastructure will help to ensure that benefits are felt throughout the country. In my constituency, we are seeing the investment by SSEN in housing that will ultimately be available for social rent. We also need to invest in jobs and skills, like at UHI North, West and Hebrides, as I talked about earlier.
I know that not everyone is in favour of energy projects at the scale that is being proposed. The views of communities are important and must be taken on board in the consenting process. For developers and for those who oppose the projects, the last thing that we need is long limbo periods where consenting hangs in the balance, causing distress to communities and risking investment from developers. The consenting process must reflect the changing landscape that we are operating in and ensure that community voices are heard and that communities benefit from development—when those developments are appropriate.
We have a tremendous opportunity in front of us but to fully realise those opportunities will require collaboration between Governments and with communities.
15:39
The word “opportunity” seems to be the most important one in today’s motion. This is a huge opportunity, but I am afraid that, thanks to UK energy policy, when we look back on the renewables boom in Scotland, it will be hard to ignore the opportunity that has been lost.
There can be lasting benefit to local communities—more jobs, legacy housing developments and ownership of assets that can continue to bring in energy and income for those areas long term. As there can be such things, I believe that there must be such things.
In a situation where Scotland is generating so much energy, we in the Highlands should not be struggling to pay our energy bills. We can get to a situation in which it is possible to notice cheaper renewable energy generation when we read our energy bill, rather than the unaffordable prices that we currently see tied to gas prices.
We cannot keep pretending that little pots of money here and there are good enough. Scotland has the natural resources to generate green energy. We have the knowledge to operate developments and the innovation to keep on creating better ways to do things and store that energy. We do not have a fair regulatory and legal framework that puts the communities hosting those developments and living in cold homes first.
I am looking forward to seeing the detail of the ScotWind fund, but it is clear that ownership is key. Gillian Martin made progress on that during the previous parliamentary session, but we have to force the issue. We could take a more active role in ensuring that there are opportunities not just for those community organisations that already have the expertise and the capital behind them to push their way in but for all the communities that are in a position to take ownership of local generation.
There are other areas that we could put more effort into. Scottish Land & Estates sent a briefing to MSPs ahead of this debate. One of the things that it is calling for is co-location of energy development and other economic activity, and an example that it has given is anaerobic digestion plans located next to farms.
I have seen the benefits that that can bring—gas production and the by-products being used to help nearby farmers, who might also be starting the process again by providing energy-related crops. I visited Biogen at Tornagrain in the summer, and I previously got to see how Fearn Farm is benefiting from the nearby Acorn plant. Co-location is entirely possible, and it is a way to gain the trust and involvement of at least some of those in the communities that are hosting such developments.
Some of the places that I went to see during my time as a Highlands and Islands MSP that stick with me the most are energy related, because it makes a huge difference when communities have ownership. The Assynt crofters became experts in hydro. The local turbines in Yell and Rousey provide a constant source of income for those communities, who can then use that to build affordable housing for key workers. There are also farms that are literally becoming circular economies by working alongside local whisky distillers and anaerobic digesters.
Rural areas know how to make land work for lots of different things at once. We do that every day, but grid constraints and rarely updated regulations are strangling the process. Our ambition for the UK should be bigger than the occasional funnelling of public money to energy companies that already make staggering profits, rather than changing the system that allows them to do that while thousands of people desperately reach out to Citizens Advice or MSPs because every time they turn on the heating all they can think of is the debt that they are accruing.
The Highlands has a lot going on right now. Over the years, I have been very impressed with the work that is going on at the port of Ardersier under Haventus. From the before and after vistas that I have seen on visits and the individual stories about high-quality employment that I have heard, I know that it is very inspiring, modern and brandy. Port workers take pride in the changes that have already been made, as well as the opportunity that lies ahead. I was very pleased that Hannah Mary Goodlad was able to visit the port in the summer recess. I cannot overestimate the importance of the place not only to the local area but to Scotland’s energy resilience and economy.
Although many UK Government decisions have had a negative impact on the communities that I represent in Inverness and Nairn, I cannot recall one coming up as often as the blocking of the Ming Yang investment in Ardersier did on the doorsteps ahead of this year’s election. People in my constituency understand the importance and value of local jobs. I hope that a way forward can be found with the new UK Government, as there is huge potential.
As for the bigger picture, I hold out little hope of a UK Government ever taking the right action. I say that not because I believe that there is a competence issue but because it is a matter of interest—the UK Government is not interested. Scotland is producing lots of energy and the UK is benefiting. Scottish people should benefit and our communities should be rich, owning their own developments and with no one unable to afford to heat their home. Whether the Prime Minister is unable to look past Greater London or unable to look past Manchester, the result in Inverness is the same. We must be able to benefit from what we have, we need to align legislation with our goals and we need power over our energy.
15:45
I moved to Argyll and Bute 15 years ago. I am an east coaster, but the west coast of Scotland has always been a draw to me. History, sea and landscape, and people—eachdraidh, sealladh-mara agus tìr, agus daoine—are all connected. As I said in my first speech in the chamber, Argyll and Bute could be the powerhouse of renewable energy in Scotland. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, because I have a personal investment in the Islay Energy Community Benefit Society, which owns the Islay community wind turbine, and I am a member of the Islay Energy Trust.
Islands are full of gifted people who want to do their bit for energy generation. For example, Tiree and Islay have community wind turbines and solar arrays; Jura’s Inver estate has hydro and solar schemes that provide power to the Jura distillery; and Mull and Iona Community Trust has a community hydro scheme. Many of those renewable energy schemes have been supported by the Scottish Government, and they were all initiated by members of island communities for the benefit of those communities. They are similar to the schemes that Donald MacKinnon spoke about.
However, when discussing renewable energy, I am frustrated by the split between devolved areas and reserved areas and by the way that the charging system operates, as Emma Roddick eloquently said. People who live in Argyll and Bute experience some of the highest energy prices in the UK while seeing the power that is generated on their doorsteps flowing between the pylons that march across their landscape. My question yesterday highlighted both those issues, and I thank the minister for his answers. The chuntering reaction from members who were sitting to my left showed that I clearly pressed the right buttons.
Over the past five years, I have noticed a change in my conversations with constituents about renewable energy. There has always been an understanding that renewable energy is required to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, but their concerns now focus on what the benefits to their community, to Argyll and Bute and to the rest of Scotland will be. I agree with much of what Sanne Dijkstra-Downie said about community benefit.
Last year, our SNP Government took a positive step on the repowering of wind farms, and Argyll and Bute is at the heart of that. As Kristopher Leask said, Forestry and Land Scotland is piloting an opportunity for community organisations to develop onshore wind repowering projects on public land, primarily on that managed by Forestry and Land Scotland. That will help communities to move beyond receiving an annual community benefit payment to leaving a lasting legacy for future generations. I look forward to engaging further with them to progress that work.
Does Jenni Minto recognise that a lot of communities across Scotland, including those in Dumfries and Galloway and East Lothian, are keen on investment in nuclear energy and that it is time that her party and the Scottish Government got rid of their student politics obsession with opposition to nuclear power?
My husband filmed in Chernobyl 10 years after what happened there. Nothing will change my mind on the impact that nuclear energy can have on the people who live in our precious world.
The plans that I mentioned illustrate that the Scottish Government is doing what it can with its limited powers. Imagine what could be done with independence and with all the powers needed to run an energy system that works for everyone in Scotland. For example, power produced in Argyll and Bute could directly benefit those who live there.
I am supportive of Our Power Scotland’s calls on the Scottish Government to
“Take a stake in all future offshore wind projects to generate public revenue … Fund councils to invest in local renewable energy projects to generate local income”—
I believe that that fits in with public service reform—
“Give more local communities the chance to own energy projects”
and
“Create secure, well paid jobs by building an offshore wind manufacturing industry.”
Renewable Parts in Lochgilphead is a major success story in that area.
Will Jenni Minto take an intervention?
I will not. I have quite a bit to say.
Our wind turbines are a clear illustration that Scotland is harnessing the power of the wind to create green electricity. However, they must be in the right place, and people who live in the communities that are impacted need to be listened to. I note and agree with the points that Kristopher Leask made about community wealth building, and I also listened closely to Donald MacKinnon’s speech about community views on renewable energy.
I have spent time listening to constituents about the proposed MachairWind offshore development. Yesterday, I met the community councils of Colonsay, Iona and Islay, which have all raised objections that cover impacts on landscape, seascape, cultural heritage, the socioeconomic development of islands and biodiversity. They have also raised concerns about the environmental impact assessment and the evidence that it contains.
I will quote briefly from one community council’s objection. It said:
“The Community Council wishes to be clear at the outset about what this objection is, and what it is not. It is not opposition to offshore wind, and it is not a demand that these waters be left untouched … The principle is one of simple proportion: a development close to a stunning, scenic, pristine Atlantic inhabited coast must be modest, and a vast development must stand far away. What has been applied for honours neither half of that principle.”
In Bella Bathurst’s book “The Lighthouse Stevensons”, there is an interesting historical parallel with the building of wind turbines. I quote:
“The Board recorded only petitions of the governmental organisations and the shipowners. The sailors who were most at risk from Skerryvore—the islanders and the local fishermen—stayed silent. Money and politics, as usual, shouted loudest.”
The voices of islanders and communities must be heard. I have been swayed by some of their arguments—which, if I am honest, is not what I expected. I whole-heartedly agree with the Scottish Government’s journey towards net zero. However, communities that are impacted must be listened to. To put it simply, consideration must be made of the impact on eachdraidh, sealladh-mara agus tìr, agus daoine—history, sea and landscape, and people.
15:52
Scotland has some of the best nuclear engineers in the world, but we have an SNP Government that maintains a long-standing and absolute opposition to the construction of civilian nuclear power stations in Scotland.
The claim that Scotland has some of the best nuclear engineers in the world is a bold one, so let me qualify that. In the north, we have had the shore test facility Vulcan and the Dounreay fast reactor. Both of those sites have played a major role in supporting the local economies of Thurso and Caithness for decades, but, more than that, they have developed a workforce at the cutting edge of nuclear innovation and technologies. The workforce is highly skilled and highly trained, and it takes safety and security incredibly seriously. We should all acknowledge what a credit it is to Scotland. However, it is being let down by a Scottish Government that does not value its work.
In 2013-14, I was a senior commissioning engineer working for the dockside test organisation at Barrow-in-Furness, commissioning the nuclear reactor on Astute boat 3. During the commissioning, a team of engineers from Thurso came down to assist. They brought their expertise, their excellent work ethic and their excellent humour to the project, and they were an absolute pleasure to work alongside. However, more and more of our nuclear engineering excellence is leaving Scotland to find employment elsewhere. It is estimated that approximately 1,200 highly skilled, excellent Scottish nuclear engineers are now working on the Hinkley C project because they cannot find a job in Scotland.
If we move west, we have His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde, which is the base port for all UK submarines. It is maintained and operated by the Royal Navy and civilian staff working side by side. Naval nuclear reactors are governed by all the same rules and regulations as there are for civilian nuclear reactors, and they have an outstanding safety record. Maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent is a tremendous feat of engineering, and it is further evidence of the knowledge and skills base in Scotland.
A little further south, we have Hunterston power station—another nuclear site that is being decommissioned, with another highly skilled workforce whose jobs are not valued by the Scottish Government.
It has taken me a second to process what David Smith has been saying. We have heard nothing but bad news about leaks at Faslane, so if he is saying that there is an excellent safety record, he obviously must not have read any of the investigative journalism about the state of the base and the maintenance of the submarines, which are putting everybody near them at risk.
Let me say, for Heather Anderson’s benefit, that I have operated nuclear submarines at Faslane. I have been a nuclear reactor operator and maintainer, and I have written the safety cases. She is talking about incidents, not accidents. There is often overreporting, and a lot of people do not understand what is actually going on. If she wants to talk about a specific incident, I am happy to sit down and talk her through exactly what has happened. There have been no primary coolant leaks at Faslane—it will be some other type of water. Everything gets reported. There is a very high level of safety. There is almost overreporting, because people pick up on things that they do not necessarily understand.
As I said, a little further south, we have Hunterston—another nuclear site that is undergoing decommissioning, with a highly skilled workforce whose jobs are not valued by the Scottish Government.
To the east, we have Torness nuclear power station. That power station is still operating, but it is coming to the end of its life. Without a replacement, the local economy in Dunbar and the surrounding areas will really struggle. It should therefore come as no surprise that East Lothian Council passed a motion in August 2025 supporting new nuclear at Torness.
Will David Smith take an intervention?
If Paul McLennan wishes to make an intervention, he should press his button. That allows official report staff to know who is about to speak.
As I have mentioned, I have mentioned with those at Torness on a number of issues. The station manager was at Hunterston, and work has already been done on replacing those jobs. As I said in my speech, there are already 1,500 green jobs in East Lothian, and that figure is growing. “Net stupid zero”—which is the rhetoric that is used—accounts for 1,500 green jobs in East Lothian. A balance needs to be struck. Jobs are being replaced. Please acknowledge the 1,500 green and renewable energy jobs in East Lothian. Those people live and work in East Lothian and contribute to it in that way.
I am speaking solely on the value of the nuclear industry in Scotland, and I will not deviate from that. The issue that Paul McLennan raised is part of a wider debate.
As I said, it should come as no surprise that East Lothian Council passed a motion in August 2025 to support new nuclear. However, it seems to have made no impact on the Government’s position.
I know a young man who is completing an electrical engineering apprenticeship. He has been forced to travel to Sellafield in Cumbria each week for work because of a lack of opportunities in Scotland.
Will David Smith take an intervention?
I have taken two interventions, so I will not be taking another one just now.
I know another young man who recently graduated from the University of Glasgow after completing a degree in physics. He would love a job in the nuclear sector, but, instead, he has been forced to work in the financial sector due to the lack of nuclear engineering opportunities in Scotland.
Many of the difficulties that our young workforce in Scotland faces could be addressed by the Scottish Government backing new nuclear. In recent years, England has generated 43,000 new jobs in nuclear—well-paid, highly skilled, long-term jobs. If the Scottish Government was truly progressive and truly committed to growth, regeneration and energy security, it would back new nuclear. Indeed, if Scotland was able to keep pace with England, an additional 5,000 jobs would be available for Scottish workers in Scotland.
Let me move to nuclear waste. The United Kingdom is the best place in the world for reprocessing and storing nuclear waste. That is another bold claim, but I will explain it. All nuclear waste in the UK is reprocessed at Sellafield, which also reprocesses waste for many other countries, including Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Australia and the Netherlands. Those are all technologically advanced countries that have put their trust and faith in the United Kingdom—
Mr Smith, you have gone well over your time, so you need to come to a conclusion.
I will bring my remarks to a close. We have some of the best nuclear engineers in the world. When we are this good at doing something, especially something that contributes so much to our society, we should keep doing it. I encourage the Government to urgently reconsider its position and back new nuclear.
16:01
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a serving councillor for Dundee City Council.
The city of Dundee is perfectly poised to support and benefit from Scotland’s green energy revolution. With our history of innovation and industry, combined with our educational institutions—including the University of Dundee, Abertay University and Dundee and Angus College—Dundee is ensuring that the future workforce is ready and capable of meeting the challenge of the new energy landscape. Our location on the Firth of Tay gives us direct access to the North Sea, while the port of Dundee is ideally located for offshore wind repair and support and North Sea repair and eventual decommissioning.
Forth Ports has invested £40 million to build its renewables hub, which is Scotland’s first purpose-built offshore wind marshalling and assembly facility. Thanks to that investment, Dundee has been selected as the pre-installation and marshalling harbour for the Inch Cape project. Inch Cape is just up the coast, and the 72 Vestas wind turbines are some of the tallest in the world. I point out that they are bigger than a Dundee multi, but the kit in Dundee can handle them.
Heather Anderson commented with pride about the scale and size of the turbines around the Tayside. How does she feel about the fact that not a single blade is made in Scotland?
I would welcome the blades being made in Scotland, which is why I want there to be investment in renewable energy development and the supply chain. That is what I am talking about.
The Inch Cape project will meet 10 per cent of the Scottish Government’s 11GW offshore wind ambition for 2030, and it will generate sufficient energy to heat half the homes in Scotland—just think about that. Dundee and Angus College has thought about it, and it never misses a trick. In May, it signed a memorandum of understanding with Inch Cape to ensure that students at the college could access hands-on training and have a clear pathway to a career in offshore wind. Young people in Dundee will have the opportunity to get the best training and to match the skills that they need to be a mechanic with the skills that they need to fix a turbine. My message is clear, and I am sure that Reform members will agree: dinna tow your turbines to Norway for repair; deliver them to Dundee and we will fix them.
In the summer, I was lucky enough to join a number of other MSPs on a visit to Scotland’s largest offshore wind farm at Seagreen, just 17 miles from Montrose port. Seagreen is one of the deepest fixed-bottom wind farms in the world. People come from all over the world to understand the engineering and to see what SSE is doing. The 114 turbines produce enough power to heat the equivalent of two thirds of the homes in Scotland. It is astonishing technology. Once again, Scotland is showing ingenuity in using its natural resources and skills to generate energy.
Tackling climate change is no longer a technical problem; it is a political problem. I am heartened that our programme for government is clear about our preferred direction of travel.
Scotland’s economy grew by 68.5 per cent in real terms between 1990 and 2024; at the same time, we cut greenhouse gas emissions in half. Reaching net zero and growing a thriving green economy go hand in hand. In 2025, we generated enough renewable energy to heat 16.5 million homes for a year. The problem is not ingenuity, skills or capacity; the problem is distribution.
Will Heather Anderson take an intervention?
I will not take an intervention—sorry.
We are acting to accelerate the delivery of offshore renewables, which will genuinely strengthen our energy resilience.
The benefits of the green economy to Scotland are enormous. The CBI estimates that net zero-related industries are already worth more than £10 billion to the Scottish economy and already support 100,000 jobs. We will publish a refreshed energy strategy—it has been referred to several times today, and we all look forward to seeing it—and establish a ScotWind wealth fund by the end of this parliamentary session to ensure that the public benefits from our renewables. The fact that all of us want more community ownership and more benefits for the people of Scotland has been echoed again and again today.
There is a snag, however. All that energy from Seagreen makes landfall at Montrose, but it does not go to the Scottish grid, because we do not have one—it goes to the national grid. The National Grid Group’s great grid upgrade is billed as an opportunity to, as it says, move clean power from where it is generated to where it is needed. However, from looking at its maps—I have a few with me—although it is clear that clean power is generated here, it is crystal clear that here is not where it is going. Most galling of all for the people who never wanted to leave the European Union, clean power is being extracted south and then exported to Europe, not by Scotland but by the UK.
It sounds as though Heather Anderson does not appreciate the power being exported and would like to stop the exports of electricity to England. Is that what she is saying?
Ms Anderson, we are already into extra time, so you will not be able to take any further interventions.
I would absolutely love to export the energy. We will be an exporter, but we simply do not get the benefit at the moment. I would like us to get the money from the extraction of our natural resources. As we do not have any power over our own energy, we cannot do a thing about any of that.
Scotland is one of the National Energy Systems Operators’ 11 regions. NESO is not in any way confused or ambivalent about Scotland’s enormous energy wealth; it is simply not its job to ensure that the people of Scotland benefit from it. The end result is that a family in Dundee has to pay £55 more in standing charges than a family in London does, before it uses a single unit of electricity. That is what happens when we do not have power over our own energy.
Everyone in the chamber will be hearing from constituents who are increasingly frustrated by what they regard as a rip-off—because it is a rip-off. They are genuinely asking why our renewable energy is not benefiting them or their communities—they can see the turbines and pylons but not the benefit. That is why the demand for powers over the extraction of our natural resources and our energy must be heard and answered. Scotland has an enormous economic advantage: we are an energy-rich nation again. This time, we need the powers over energy to ensure that the people of Scotland benefit. History must not repeat itself.
I would be delighted if the minister would consider a visit to the port of Dundee in the coming weeks.
16:09
I am really glad that we are debating Scotland’s energy opportunity. As I listen to the debate, it feels that the Parliament that I rejoined a week ago feels and sounds quite different to the one that I left before the election. Although most of us understand that the climate crisis is becoming more serious by the day, I feel that climate change denial has crept into the chamber. I hope that I am wrong, because we must be in no doubt that the climate crisis is an existential threat to our health, to our living standards and to our communities.
We need a new energy future that will help us to tackle the climate crisis, and I am optimistic about the economic opportunities that that will bring. However, the question in my mind is, who owns that future and who will benefit? Hundreds of my Glasgow constituents have been in touch through the Our Power Scotland campaign. They are fed up of watching private companies and overseas investors get richer while Scots miss out. As they put it,
“we have the wind, we have the workers, but we lack ownership”.
They are demanding more public ownership, more community wealth building and secure well-paid jobs through a proper offshore wind manufacturing industry, and they are right to do so.
In the year in which BP has said that it will exit the North Sea, is it not incredibly important that we are open and embrace private capital investment in our energy market, as well as broader solutions?
I will come on to talk in a moment or two about big oil and gas and the eye-watering profits that they continue to make and about how we need to use some of that money to fund the just transition. What is evident is that Scotland is world leading in offshore wind and has abundant renewable resources. We have heard from the minister that we are creating thousands of good jobs, we are strengthening our energy security and we are building an economy that is fit for the future; however, we need to go further and faster.
Climate change is already causing havoc—something that I do not think that Reform and the Conservatives have mentioned today—from the wildfires in the Cairngorms and excess deaths from heat to the devastating loss of life from climate impacts in Nepal. Meanwhile, workers and communities are paying the price, while big oil and gas continue to make billions and record profits.
We need those profiteers—I hope that the members on the benches across from me agree—to pay more tax and contribute more to the just transition. Those members are shaking their heads, so perhaps they do not agree. That would help the workers who are facing redundancy due to the geology of the North Sea.
[Made a request to intervene.]
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will make some progress; I have only three minutes.
I do not know whether Rosebank and Jackdaw will ultimately be approved, but I do know that we cannot drill our way to lower energy bills, to long-term jobs and energy security or out of the climate crisis. We need to accelerate the just transition, and that must include having trade unions at the table—I know that we do not all agree with or believe in trade unions, but we need to have them at the table. We need investment in skills, domestic manufacturing, insulation of homes and acceleration of electrification—
[Made a request to intervene.]
The member cannot take an intervention because she is already in additional time.
I was allocated only three minutes. I will try to conclude very quickly.
We need democratic control of our energy wealth alongside properly resourced planning.
I pay tribute to campaigners, including those across Glasgow, and especially to our young people, who are demanding action. They understand that international climate justice is not a weakness but a strength.
I am pleased that the minister has pledged to work constructively with MPs and also with the UK Government, because we should co-operate more. I want to hear a bit more precision around dates for the ScotWind wealth fund and the long-awaited energy strategy.
Scotland can meet the climate challenge if we have the right strategy and plans. We can meet the moment when it comes to our energy future, but we need to shift the power from multinational profiteers and distant investors to our workers, communities and the Scottish public. It is not only about changing how we generate energy; it is about changing who has power in our economy and our democracy.
Scotland has the natural resources, we have the workers and we have the opportunities. What we need now is the political will and action from the Scottish Government to put that power and opportunity into the hands of the Scottish people.
16:14
For more than half a century, Scotland and Norway have looked across the same sea, at the same extraordinary natural wealth. We both discovered oil and we both saw billions generated from beneath the North Sea, but only one of us was able to fully decide what happened to that wealth. Norway has invested in a fund for future generations, but under Westminster, Scotland could not.
The lesson is simple: possessing extraordinary natural wealth is not enough. The key test is how it is used, and Scotland faces that test yet again. This time, the wealth is not treasure that is buried beneath our feet; it is blowing over our hills and moving through our seas. Last week, Professor Sir Dieter Helm told the Parliament that Scotland’s peak electricity demand is around 5GW, while our strategy is for around 20GW of additional renewable capacity. Therefore, much of what we generate will be exported. The question is, who will own Scotland’s energy, who will profit from it and where will that wealth go?
Will Lloyd Melville take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Just off the Angus coast—
Will Lloyd Melville give way?
No, thank you.
Just off the Angus coast, the Seagreen wind farm is already capable of generating enough electricity for more than 1.6 million homes. Inch Cape wind farm is under construction, just 15km from the Angus coast. In our county, a new offshore skills academy will help to train the workforce that those industries need. That is what it looks like when an energy opportunity becomes an economic one: not just turbines in Scottish waters, but skills here, supply chains here and communities benefiting here.
Lloyd Melville is talking about exporting energy as if “export” was a dirty word. He is talking about people being trained for the energy industry, but is that just for domestic use? He does not want us to have an export industry—is that what I am to take from SNP policy?
Unfortunately, Mr Langan is incorrect. I am a big proponent of exporting electricity. What I would like, however, is for us to receive the financial benefit from that, which we currently do not.
On investment—
[Made a request to intervene.]
Lord Offord, do you want to come in? On you go.
Thank you, Mr Melville. I was not sure where you were going with that so I just wanted to ask a question. I was the exports minister, and I applaud exports. However, who would buy that energy at the right price when the expense of getting it from northern Scotland to Europe would be extortionate? At the moment, the expense of the grid distribution system is covered by 70 million people in the UK. If it were covered by only 5.5 million people, our abundant energy would be the most expensive energy in the world. Who would buy it?
There is enormous demand for clean green electricity. Scotland will be well placed to export across Europe when we are an independent country.
On investment, which I was coming to before Lord Offord came in, the Scottish Parliament does not have the final say. I want to note a point that Emma Roddick put on the parliamentary record, which is that £1.5 billion of investment from Ming Yang was blocked, with 1,500 jobs moved elsewhere. National security must of course be taken seriously, but what made that pill harder to swallow was that the very same UK Government returned from China boasting about Chinese investment elsewhere in Britain. UK ministers welcomed it in Liverpool, and they have welcomed it in London. They are open for business, but not when the business is to come to Scotland. We also saw that in the broken promises on Grangemouth. While some people make empty promises for an ermine cloak, this Parliament must fulfil the promise of Scotland’s energy future.
We have something enormously valuable to build from. For 50 years, the North Sea has built world-class engineering, subsea and offshore expertise here, and that expertise is an inheritance.
On skills, a critical issue that has not been part of the debate so far is decommissioning and the jobs that are required in that sector. Such jobs would be welcomed across site groups, among major stakeholders, by the previous parliamentary session’s cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency and by the Scottish councils committee on radioactive substances, which includes councils and stakeholders. Despite the decrying, there is a need to find good, highly skilled jobs. Does Lloyd Melville agree that that should be recognised and celebrated?
Absolutely. Michelle Campbell has put that point on the record so eloquently, and I thank her for it.
We must invest to turn the foundation of those jobs into the foundation of the next energy industry. We cannot watch one industry decline while waiting for another to arrive—we must build the bridge between them.
I agree with Kristopher Leask—he is not now in his seat—who talked earlier about ScotWind. The first ScotWind leasing round raised more than £750 million, and if we have learned anything from Norway, it is that some of today’s windfall should be invested in a future generations fund. That is why I am pleased to hear that the Government has committed to doing just that. Money from Scotland’s energy should not just sit on a balance sheet but help us to build industry here in Scotland.
Future ScotWind proceeds should help us to invest in Scottish wind turbine manufacturing, supply chains and the industrial capacity that allows us to keep more of the value that we create. That wealth should still be working for Scotland decades from now. It cannot simply be the North Sea oil story but with wind turbines instead of rigs. It is not enough for the wind to be ours if the factories are elsewhere. It is not enough for the power to be generated here if the jobs, investment and profits flow elsewhere. We must capture the value as well as produce the power.
Scotland has been here before. We know what it means to possess extraordinary natural wealth and watch too much of its value leave our shores.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member cannot take an intervention as he is in extra time.
I apologise, Mr Langan.
This time, that wealth must leave something lasting behind in the industries that we build and the skills that we pass on, as well as in wealth that we preserve for the generations yet to come.
We move on to the closing speeches.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.
Previous
First Minister’s Question Time