The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-14109, in the name of Mike MacKenzie, on community energy fortnight 2015. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes Community Energy Fortnight 2015, which takes place from 5 to 20 September, with events across Scotland to celebrate and highlight what it considers the important role that communities have in promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency; notes that events to mark the fortnight include site visits and knowledge-sharing events in the Highlands and Islands, South Lanarkshire and in other local authority areas; recognises what it sees as the vital role that communities will play in helping to meet Scotland’s carbon and renewables targets, and congratulates the Scottish Community Energy Coalition and other groups that support communities and rural businesses to develop renewable energy schemes to create sustainable communities across Scotland.
17:04
I am delighted to have secured this debate as an opportunity to highlight the significant contribution that has been made by communities across the Highlands and Islands and, indeed, the rest of Scotland in ushering in for Scotland a new energy future that is brighter, cleaner and greener, in which we have greater energy resilience and security, and which is less dependent on a few big companies as the sole providers of energy.
I share the Scottish Government’s vision of a future in which communities are empowered in every sense of the word—not just politically, but economically—and are able to invest in and develop their own community assets and opportunities. Community energy projects are an obvious opportunity to capture the benefits of renewable energy and to produce funding streams that will, in turn, empower other projects in a virtuous spiral. That has enabled many communities to tackle local problems more effectively than they could be tackled by other agencies.
That is why I am so glad that the Scottish Government has set the ambitious target of 500MW by 2020 for community and locally owned renewables. I am glad that, thanks to the efforts of small businesses and communities throughout the country, we are well over halfway to meeting that target. I was also glad when the Scottish Government set up and invested in the community and renewable energy scheme—CARES—loan fund to de-risk the early pre-planning stages of community renewables projects.
My passion for community-owned renewables began when the “dancing ladies” of Gigha—Scotland’s first community-owned wind turbines—were erected in 2003. I was a board member of my own community’s development trust then and was lucky enough to be invited, with representatives from community organisations throughout Scotland, to attend a conference, over a weekend on Gigha, to learn from the experience there. The generosity of the Gigha folk in sharing their hard-won knowledge and their generous hospitality on a wonderful weekend are etched in my memory.
One further thing that is not quite so positive remains etched in my memory. The local planning officer who dealt with the application gave a presentation. He started his talk to the 200 or so good folk in the audience by saying in tones of bureaucratic bombast that there were only two words in the planner’s lexicon: “no” and “maybe”. I was as shocked as the majority of the listeners were. I agree with him that there should be two words that guide our planners, but they should undoubtedly be “yes” and “maybe”.
I have touched on that because often the hurdles in our planning system are the first hurdles that are experienced by communities that are considering renewable energy projects. That is why I am pleased that the First Minister announced a root-and-branch review of our planning system two weeks ago, when Parliament resumed.
Our planning system should be the midwife of sustainable development, and community renewable energy projects are often the embodiment of the principles of sustainable development. As such, community renewables projects need the assistance—not the resistance—of local planners.
We have come a long way since the dancing ladies of Gigha were first erected. I was particularly pleased to see the successful deployment of the world’s first community-owned tidal generator off the Shetland island of Yell last summer. The developer of the device—Nova Innovation—is due much credit, not least because at least 25 per cent of the total development expenditure was spent on Shetland. Shetland Composites, which is a small local business, manufactured the carbon-fibre turbine blades, for example.
There are many more good examples of community-owned renewables projects, many of which are aimed at tackling fuel poverty or paying for badly needed renovation of local homes. That is what the community on Gigha is doing.
Mike MacKenzie makes a point about the dancing ladies of Gigha and the money that they bring in. Why does he think that the Gigha community is in such a bad way financially despite that?
I do not necessarily accept the proposition that the Gigha community is in a bad way financially. Communities often have to borrow money, but when we look at their balance sheets properly, we realise that although there is a bit of borrowing, overall, they are in a good situation. I think that the people in Gigha are due great credit for being prepared to shoulder some risk in borrowing money to advance their projects, so I do not necessarily accept that view.
There are many more possibilities for further community-owned renewable energy projects, but I would be remiss if I did not say that future projects are threatened by the United Kingdom Government’s energy policy—by a UK Government that is forsaking renewable energy in favour of nuclear power, by a UK Government that has failed to invest in the grid infrastructure upgrades that are necessary to allow renewable energy projects to develop, and by a UK Government that is significantly reducing feed-in tariffs as well as bringing the renewables obligation certificate scheme to an early close. It is important to realise that it is not just onshore wind projects that are threatened by that energy policy; all renewable energy technologies are threatened.
It is time that full powers over energy were devolved to this Parliament so that the Scottish Government can continue to support Scotland’s communities in harvesting the benefits of local community energy.
17:11
I congratulate Mike MacKenzie on securing the debate. It is both timely and important, and I very much welcome his motion. In celebrating community energy fortnight 2015, we should celebrate the fact that there are 144 projects that we know about that bring in about £10 million of benefit to communities every single year. That is absolutely something to celebrate.
I want to highlight that renewable energy and energy efficiency should go together. Particularly for rural communities, where people are living in hard-to-heat homes, one of the big benefits of community energy schemes has been the capacity of communities to reinvest in the housing stock in their areas, not just to create new energy that people can draw on but to reduce the amount of energy that they need to consume. It is that win-win situation that we need to highlight.
There is a fuel poverty crisis, so the issue is partly about the supply of energy being owned at the community level and the opportunity of community co-operatives but it is also about the retrofitting of people’s existing homes.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I want to crack on—I only have two and a half minutes.
I congratulate Mike. I particularly welcome the community energy coalition because it is an important coalition. It has the knowledge of environmental campaigning and the experience that comes from Friends of the Earth—I say that as a member; the expertise that comes from the Energy Saving Trust; the knowledge about our buildings that comes from the National Trust for Scotland; and the experience of the National Union of Students, many of whose members are living in incredibly expensive rented accommodation with really bad energy efficiency standards. That is a powerful combination to lobby for change.
I very much agree with the comments that were made about the retrograde step of the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff being dramatically reduced at the UK level. That step is already jeopardising investment in renewables projects. We should be campaigning against it and pushing the UK Government to change. I do not think that anyone would dispute the fact that we can reduce subsidies for mature technologies as the costs come down and instead target the newer, innovative renewables that we want to see. However, the cavalier approach that is being taken puts jobs at risk, so I hope that we can work together to get that changed.
As a former planner, I agree with Mike that more can be done on planning, but one of the biggest things that we could have done in the Parliament in the past 10 years would have been to remove the requirement for applications for small-scale developments. I have been campaigning on permitted development rights for more than a decade now. I put the measure in a proposed member’s bill and I campaigned for it to be included in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
It sounds like a small thing, but the red tape and cost that are involved in applying for planning permission for solar photovoltaic projects and other small projects on houses mean that many people do not go through the process. We could fix that instantly. Therefore, I ask the energy minister whether he will act on that now. Many people have missed out on the opportunity to take up the feed-in tariff but, if the minister could make that change, that would give some support to emergent community projects.
I would like the Scottish Government to support more community projects. We would like many more to move ahead. I have visited projects in Edinburgh, Fife, Gigha, Aberdeen, South Lanarkshire and Glasgow. The most recent one, the Harlaw energy project in the Balerno area of Edinburgh, will make a real difference to energy production and will provide a benefit to the shareholders. Surely, we should be encouraging that across the country.
There are benefits for individuals and communities. We need to reinvest in green jobs, as we need more of them in Scotland. Let us hope that community energy fortnight will raise awareness and political support for action in Scotland and at UK level.
Before we move on, I remind members to use full names, please. It is important for the Official Report and for the public who are watching proceedings.
I have a wee bit of time in hand if members care to take interventions, although that is of course the member’s choice.
17:16
Thank you, Presiding Officer, and welcome back.
I congratulate Mike MacKenzie on securing the debate, and I welcome the opportunity to support his motion. Mr MacKenzie made a good speech. As he might expect, I did not agree with all of it, and I will come to the point of disagreement later, but he made the case well.
I am pleased to support the principle of community energy. The first community energy fortnight was held in 2013 and, in a short space of time, it has become an established fixture in the calendar. I am sure that all members can point to community projects in their areas that have been a success. I will mention just two in my region.
The first is the Levenmouth community energy project at Methil in Fife, which was awarded £4.3 million from the local energy Scotland challenge fund in July. It is located at the hydrogen office in Methil and will generate renewable energy for use in creating hydrogen gas to run a fleet of up to 25 hydrogen vehicles. The scheme will use hydrogen as an energy store for grid balancing on the local energy park. Given the growing interest in energy storage, it is encouraging to see that innovative project being supported.
The second project is a hydroelectric scheme at Callander in Stirlingshire. It is a 425kW scheme on the Stank Burn that was built with more than £2 million of grants and loans and which hopes to generate around 1.3 million kilowatt hours of energy per year for the next 20 years. Those are both good examples of the sort of projects that are being supported.
I suppose that it was inevitable that there would be some criticism during the debate of the UK Government’s recent moves, which were announced earlier in the year, to reduce subsidies for wind power. We will have the opportunity to debate the issue in more detail on Thursday, so I simply point out to members and remind them that the reforms have been widely welcomed by many communities across Scotland.
The economist Tony Mackay has calculated that the level of subsidy for onshore wind power was between two and a half and three times higher than necessary. The result is that consumers have been paying higher bills for too long to support wind projects that should have been sustainable with a much lower level of subsidy. I therefore welcome the initiative that the UK Government has taken, which will deliver lower bills to consumers, and I again highlight the need for a more balanced energy policy.
I want to raise two issues in connection with the CARES fund, which Mike MacKenzie referred to. I support the principle of assisting community projects that enjoy local support. However, it is important that what are badged as community projects are in fact that and not just a means of developers trying to increase their chances of getting consent for schemes.
Two specific examples in different parts of the country—one close to where I live—have been drawn to my attention. In both, commercial projects have been promoted by developers, attracted very strong opposition and then, in effect, been rebadged as community projects with the help of sympathetic individuals who live in the area. However, of course, the same opposition still exists. To attract financial support from the CARES fund—which is taxpayers’ money—a community project should be able to demonstrate that it has strong community support.
The second point is related. I am aware of payments having been made from the CARES fund for community developments to which there was substantial community opposition. In such cases, the community development is promoted by a small minority of individuals in the community and faces substantial opposition.
Does Murdo Fraser accept that some projects are of a scale or complexity that means that it would not be feasible for communities to take them forward on their own but it is perfectly valid for them to do so in partnership with commercial developers?
I do not disagree with that, but Mr MacKenzie rather misses the point that I am making, which is that, if a project is a community one, it must be able to demonstrate community support.
It has been galling for the majority of a local community, who are opposed to a development, to see their money as taxpayers being used to fund a planning application that they then have to oppose without any commensurate public support for their opposition. There is a simple way to cure that problem: to require community projects to demonstrate substantial local support—perhaps through the support of a community council or in a local referendum—before they are able to access public funds. I hope that the Scottish Government is prepared to consider that further.
With those caveats, I am happy to support the development of community energy and the good work that is going on.
17:22
I join others in congratulating Mike MacKenzie on securing the debate, which enables us to put on record our collective support for community energy fortnight and our thanks to those who are involved in the community energy coalition. As there will be an opportunity on Thursday to pick up more general issues on renewable energy, I will focus my brief remarks on some specific aspects of community energy.
To pick up a theme that Murdo Fraser was worrying away at towards the end of his speech, I reiterate the point that there is a distinction between community energy and local energy. Both undoubtedly have an important part to play, but there is a danger that, in the Scottish ministers setting an overall target for both, the two become conflated. They are different and provide different benefits. I understand some of the concerns that Murdo Fraser raised, even if I do not entirely share them.
Community ownership and co-ordinated action on energy are a powerful means of embedding renewable energy, energy efficiency and local value into our communities. They also provide practical, grass-roots initiatives that help to transform communities by enabling people to take responsibility. The Shapinsay Development Trust’s wind to agri-energy project, which is quoted in the local energy Scotland briefing, is an excellent example on one island in my constituency and has a good track record in that regard. That is reflected not only on Shapinsay but in a wide range of different projects in Orkney, which provides a good—but by no means perfect—illustration of a mixed economy on renewables.
In a moment, I will come to more examples, including potential opportunities for matching local supply and demand more effectively and productively than happens at present. First, I will reflect on the problems that are created for community energy in Orkney by the continued limits of grid capacity.
As one constituent with intimate knowledge of such issues observed to me recently, the requirement for community projects to be actively managed on a non-firm grid connection calls into question their commercial viability. The active management system was an innovative solution to sweat the local grid asset, but it now appears to be curtailing development despite strong community demand and support.
Being more innovative in identifying local sources of demand would help. For example, the heating system for the replacement Balfour hospital in Kirkwall must make maximum use of installed renewables, which are already in place. I suggest to the minister that anything less would be not just a missed opportunity but a costly dereliction of duty on that key landmark project.
A recent Orkney renewable energy forum audit, which was funded by community energy Scotland and undertaken by Aquatera, showed that marine diesel accounts for the biggest fuel use in Orkney. Again, the inevitable replacement of the interisland ferry fleet offers an opportunity to test, learn about and demonstrate the use of renewables through the use of hydrogen as a renewable sourced fuel.
The project is similar to the one that Murdo Fraser highlighted. The local council and community energy Scotland are on the case with the surf ’n’ turf project—with Government funding—which uses hydrogen to run the ships that are tied up at the quay. It is training mariners in using hydrogen and preparing them for the impending hydrogen economy. Such developments are good, innovative projects that will ease grid constraints for other community projects while utilising local resources and developing a local skills base.
Community action also offers scope for more effectively tackling fuel poverty, including extreme fuel poverty, for which Orkney sits at the top of the nationwide table. THAW—tackling household affordable warmth—Orkney and its predecessor bodies have done excellent work in looking at linking local generation with local affordable warmth, including affordable tariffs. Although the area is highly regulated, I am in no doubt that there are opportunities, with the right support, to make a real difference in addressing the scourge of fuel poverty in my community and in our society.
We have seen recently that, without the restraint of Liberal Democrats in coalition, the UK Tory Government is quite happy to cut support for renewables. One effect of that is that approximately £100 million of community-based renewables projects will not now go ahead. I therefore urge the minister to press his UK counterpart for genuine financial differentiation for so-called community FITs, or feed-in tariffs. I am sure that that would help to deliver more of the projects that are at the heart of community energy fortnight and the wide range of benefits that I have seen at first hand in Orkney.
17:27
I am pleased to take part in this debate during community energy fortnight and I thank Mike MacKenzie for giving us the opportunity to debate the topic this evening. I welcome the motion’s focus on energy efficiency, rather than just on promotion of renewable energy, because we cannot benefit fully from investment in energy if we do not have windtight, watertight and well-insulated homes.
As we have heard, community energy fortnight celebrates community-owned renewable energy projects and aims to promote communities owning and generating energy together. I believe that we cannot overstate the importance of the topic, and that it can and should form a more central plank of our energy policy.
In its briefing, Friends of the Earth Scotland states:
“In the context of climate change and the historical carbon debt of industrialised countries, a renewable energy transition is imperative.”
It is clear that that essential transition has many potential benefits. Renewables lend themselves to community ownership in a way that fossil fuels, nuclear power and unconventional gas do not. Community-owned renewables can help us to address the power imbalance that promotes inequality in the current system, which is centralised and inflexible and has resulted in the monopoly of the big six companies.
Scotland is energy rich, but access to that abundance is not as equitable as it should be. Even the World Bank has recognised that business as usual “will not remotely suffice” if we are to meet the goals of clean and universal energy. We will, on hearing such a statement, think of the billion-plus people in developing countries who live without access to electricity, but we should also consider those who suffer from extreme fuel poverty in Scotland. Earlier this year, at Energy Action Scotland’s conference, we learned that 71 per cent of homes in the Western Isles are regarded as being in fuel poverty.
There are many benefits to enabling willing communities in Scotland to play an important role in meeting carbon, renewables and climate change targets, and they are worth fighting for. I believe that there is a universal will in Parliament to demand change and investment in that important area.
I am a shareholder in Harlaw Hydro Ltd, which has much in common with other projects that we have heard about this evening. The learning that those small projects are gaining will be shared, and the pathways to such projects will therefore be smoother in the future. The projects can share information about stumbling blocks and can develop a shared understanding of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s websites. They can discuss next steps and—most important—they can discuss their successes. Two projects that have tried to get off the ground are in Portobello and Leith, and hydro-power feasibility for the water of Leith is currently being considered.
We are on track to deliver almost twice as much renewable energy from community renewables as the Scottish Government’s target of 500MW by 2020. Let us increase that target to 1GW and aim for 2GW by 2030, because there are so many benefits if we commit to and invest in delivering clean low-carbon energy, in terms of local employment opportunities, community development funds and fuel poverty alleviation, for example.
In Denmark, there is right-to-invest legislation that requires developers to offer 20 per cent ownership of wind projects to local communities. An incredible figure—70 to 80 per cent—of wind turbines in Denmark are under some form of community ownership. Denmark has the first island that is entirely renewably powered, by 11 onshore and 10 offshore turbines. That bottom-up approach has enabled that community to invest in the things that are important to it, whether it is a 3G football pitch, a youth club or—as Sarah Boyack mentioned—better housing.
Denmark is a fantastic example. In Denmark and Germany, citizens and communities have been the driving force not only for the development of renewable energy as a revolution, but for its acceptance. That is very important. I remind Murdo Fraser that fossil fuels continue to receive billions of pounds of public subsidy. Many of the constituents who write to me would like to see that transferred into the clean green low-carbon technology of the future.
17:31
I, too, thank Mike MacKenzie for bringing the debate to the chamber this evening. Mike is a great champion of renewables combined with communities, particularly rural communities. Some of us have learned a lot from Mike.
As the motion says, local community projects play a “vital role” in meeting our carbon and renewables targets. They also make a major contribution to the overall economic performance of rural areas and the country generally. It is not just about wind. The term “community energy” is used in a variety of contexts, including electricity generation, grid relationship and collective purchasing power. Not so long ago, community benefits were seen as being somewhat narrow and divisive, and not necessarily directed to longer-term returns on investment in communities.
There have to be some common characteristics in any community energy scheme. The first is that ordinary people are involved in managing and running the projects through co-operatives or development trusts, and are able to access the required finance to allow them to set up their projects. Secondly, there must be a democratic and non-corporate structure. Thirdly, there should be tangible local outcomes for people living or working close to the projects, and fourthly, the profits should go back to the community or be reinvested in other community energy schemes. There is a bit of an analogy between wind turbines and the revolving door for community investment.
The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill supports local energy companies in achieving their goals. The main policy goal of the bill is to empower community bodies through the ownership of land and buildings, and to strengthen their voices in decisions that matter to them—no less so than on energy provision.
As has been mentioned, the planning process is also important. Perhaps all schemes should be mandated to ensure that they hold a pre-application process with local communities to allow extensive and inclusive discussions to take place around community ownership, co-ownership, rewards and benefits.
As we know, the Government has set an ambitious target of the equivalent of 100 per cent demand for electricity being met from our renewable sources by 2020. There is also a target for 2020 of 500MW being produced through locally owned schemes. The Scottish Government has assisted community projects through the community and renewable energy scheme, the renewable energy infrastructure fund and the £20 million local energy fund.
There are some great examples of local schemes throughout Scotland, but there are opportunities for many more. Community Energy Scotland is, of course, a registered charity that aims to build confidence, resilience and wealth at community level through sustainable energy development. In its submission to the Smith commission it highlighted significant obstacles to realising that potential.
There is considerable scope for innovation through smarter grid management, local supply-chain arrangements and smarter approaches to demand management. The biggest obstacle, however, is that all main incentives for renewable energy development and renewables are reserved to and controlled by Westminster.
It has been suggested that the new centralised contracts for difference make it much harder for community projects to access them because of the cost and complexity.
It is essential that the power to determine and set renewable energy incentive policies, levels and licences be fully devolved, thereby enabling the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to apply an effective development regime to meet Scottish requirements, in tandem with the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which would certainly help to achieve the objective. Local authorities should be encouraged to demonstrate leadership by supporting community groups.
Community energy projects play a vital role in employment, building physical and social capital, combating fuel poverty and, of course, helping Scotland to reach its renewable energy targets. We should do all that we can to support existing schemes and to encourage new schemes across Scotland.
17:36
I, too, thank Mike MacKenzie for bringing this significant debate to the chamber today, and for the comprehensive briefing that he and his office provided. I recognise the contribution of the Scottish community energy coalition in community energy fortnight 2015.
The development of community energy is a climate-justice issue, as Alison Johnstone said, not only globally in the lead-up to the Paris summit but here in Scotland itself, as I have stressed on a number of occasions.
From rural to urban areas, there are many different models for community energy to enable power and warm homes for our people.
The Friends of the Earth briefing, “Community Power—building on success” draws attention to the
“recent European Energy Package which talks about putting citizens at the heart of the energy transition.”
As a member of the Scottish Parliament’s Co-operative group of MSPs I want to start by highlighting the value of co-operative models in this context. Energy4All, one of the coalition members, has been a key player in this regard. In my region, the Spirit of Lanarkshire Wind Energy Co-operative is now fully up and running. I was at its launch with the former MP Tom Greatrex, who was also supportive of it. Having raised £2.7 million in 2013, both its developments—Nutberry near Coalburn and West Browncastle near Strathaven—are now fully on stream. Despite relatively poor wind speeds in some cases and some technical issues, the 906 members of the co-operative have just enjoyed a return of 7.63 per cent for the period up to March 2015. The board of the co-op is now looking for ways to use some of the profits to support local communities in the coming years.
In an urban context, the Edinburgh Community Solar Co-operative launch will take place at the end of this month. In commending the co-operative model, I wish that group well, too.
Some of the co-operative models are for part of a larger multinational wind farm development and others are working in their communities in their own right.
I want to take a step back and look at the potential of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill in relation to community energy. In the past, I have visited Dumfries house, which along with Douglas & Angus Estates, and a number of estates throughout Scotland, has installed biomass boilers, from which tenants get benefit. In its submission to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, the Druidaig estate points out that “I am about to sell”—I am so sorry. If only it said that. It says:
“I am about to let three areas of ground to a company who plan to install mini hydro schemes to generate electricity. This will not just benefit us at Druidaig Lodge but the residents of Letterfearn as well.
My view of the proposed Land Reform Bill is that it will be of no advantage to Scotland to remove certain land from Landlords for it to be managed by the local community.”
NHS Health Scotland sets out a different view in its 2012-17 corporate strategy, “A Fairer Healthier Scotland”, which says:
“Our vision is a Scotland in which all of our people and communities have a fairer share of the opportunities, resources and confidence to live longer, healthier lives.”
In its submission to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, it said that
“several case studies, where Scottish land has transferred to community ownership, have highlighted a number of potential benefits. For example, community ownership of land in rural areas has enabled investment in local resources”
such as
“social housing and renewable energy schemes, which in turn have helped to increase population and school numbers.”
I add that such things also bring local jobs.
Part 5 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill sets out the right to buy land to further sustainable development. I am clear that that should include looking favourably on community purchase of land for community energy use. The Scottish community energy coalition believes that community energy can and should, among other things,
“Encourage people to act cooperatively to create sustainable communities and give everyone an equal opportunity to own and control shared assets democratically.”
I hope that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will take that vision into account.
I invite Fergus Ewing to respond to the debate.
17:41
Thanks are due to Mike MacKenzie for giving us the opportunity to debate community energy during community energy fortnight, which is—rightly—supported across the chamber. There was a prolonged discussion about the dancing ladies of Gigha, about whom I had not heard before. I wondered at first whether they were a Caledonian equivalent of the Folies Bergère, but I rapidly learned that they were not so.
We went on swiftly to extol community energy’s benefits. I know that Mike MacKenzie is a doughty campaigner who has devoted a huge amount of time to helping communities to benefit from the resources that are on their doorsteps. I thank him very much for the work that he continues to do in that important area.
I will respond to some questions now in case I omit to do so later. To answer Sarah Boyack, I say that we are keen on extending permitted development rights. We are consulting on air-source heat pumps. If she wants to write to me about solar PV and small projects, I undertake to consider that. In principle, she is absolutely right: we do not want our planners’ work to be taken up with unnecessary applications. We want to remove that problem and let planners get on with the more controversial issues.
Murdo Fraser said that communities that do not support projects are in a difficult situation, but he did not give any examples of the projects to which he alluded. That might have been because of sensitivities. If he wants to give me examples, we can look at them.
The Scottish Government’s good practice principles for shared ownership of onshore renewable energy developments—as it happens, I will launch them later this evening—will set out clearly what is good practice. I assure Murdo Fraser that all CARES community applicants must be properly constituted not-for-profit community groups.
Some schemes are delivering substantial returns in communities in which not every member originally supported the scheme. I do not know of many community members who want to send back the money or the benefit. Murdo Fraser raised a point, but he gave no examples.
I did not want to embarrass any individuals by naming them in the chamber, but I am happy to write to the minister with specific examples if he wants to investigate the matter further.
I would be happy to receive such correspondence. However, I hope that the launch of the shared-ownership principles will help to avoid any such issues by promoting good practice.
Mr Fraser referred to a Callander community scheme that is delivering up to £2.85 million over 20 years and which might help to fund new businesses, transport links for health services, help for young people and so on. I could mention many other such projects, such as those at Point and Sandwick in Lewis, and in Mull. Liam McArthur mentioned many in his constituency, which is in many ways the renewables capital of Scotland. Alison Johnstone referred to the Harlaw Hydro scheme, which I had the pleasure of opening three weeks ago. I did not know that she is a shareholder, but I wish her luck. I understand from the development trust that a good commercial return is being promised. Sarah Boyack, Claudia Beamish and Chic Brodie all mentioned schemes around the country. There are 140 schemes, in which nearly £9 million a year is being invested.
More than the money, the empowerment of communities working together for a common purpose gives many people and communities a sense of creating a legacy for children. At the Harlaw Hydro opening ceremony, the local primary school’s children sang a song that they had written for the occasion. There was something moving about the thought that a benefit that will last for 100 years had been created.
I suggested that there is an important distinction between community-based projects and individual projects. They both deliver benefits for communities, but they deliver different benefits. There is a global target of 500MW for community and individual projects, but will the minister give a breakdown of community projects as opposed to individual projects? Will he undertake to separate those two aspects when referring to the target in the future?
I can come back to that point in the second, more full, debate that we will have on the issue later in the week. Of course, we support community benefit and community ownership. However, we aspire to community ownership and think that it is the best option possible. In the good practice principles, there are three options for the ownership of a project. It can be a joint-venture project, a shared-revenue project or a split-ownership project. Each of those arrangements is appropriate on various occasions, and flexibility is very much part of what we want to encourage.
CARES was mentioned, by Murdo Fraser in particular. I extol the practical benefits of CARES, which provides information, a start-up grant of up to £20,000 and framework contractors who support communities. Local energy Scotland has expert contractors who go around Scotland helping communities—they have great human skills, too, which help to navigate some of the differing views in communities.
CARES provides a pre-planning loan of up to £150,000, a development officer network—again, with local energy Scotland—and the CARES toolkit, with a community investment module. I have taken about a minute to mention those elements, but they represent thousands of hours of work. We encourage commercial developers to go for community ownership, which is a good thing.
The less positive news concerns the UK Government’s attack on renewables. Reference was made to a report that says that renewables get more support than they should. However, the UK Government set the level of support not long ago, so it cannot have things both ways. In the time that I have, I cannot go over all the concerns that we have about the attack on feed-in tariffs, the inhibiting of the Green Investment Bank from supporting aggregated community projects and the removal of pre-accreditation, which is already creating uncertainty and confusion among investors.
The key message is that I think that almost all of us in this Parliament support community projects, and the frustration is that we fear that recent policy decisions in Westminster, which we might debate in more detail on another occasion, will inhibit and perhaps even block community projects, just when I sense that there is momentum behind such projects in Scotland, because more and more communities have seen that they work and deliver enormous benefits.
This is above politics. When the community energy movement is just beginning to gain unstoppable momentum, it would be tragic if the movement were stopped in its tracks because of a lack of support from Westminster. I hope that we can debate those matters later this week.
I commend Mike MacKenzie and all members who took part in the debate for their support for community energy in Scotland.
Meeting closed at 17:50.Previous
Decision Time