Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth
Onshore Wind Farms (Guidelines for Local Authorities)
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to produce new guidelines for local authorities on the siting of large-scale onshore wind farms. (S4O-00032)
I should probably refer members to my entry in the register of interests.
Scotland’s national planning policy and spatial strategy for onshore wind energy are set out in national planning framework 2 and Scottish planning policy. That is supported by online renewables planning advice, which was launched in February this year and which includes specific advice for preparing spatial frameworks for large-scale onshore wind farms in development plans and for considering detailed siting matters in determining planning applications for wind turbines.
I hope that I can be excused for welcoming the minister to her post. This is the first opportunity that I have had to do so.
I do not know whether the minister is aware that Dumfries and Galloway Council is consulting on the drawing up of its own guidance for the siting of wind farms to take account of the growing concern at the lack of local democracy in the planning process. Can the minister assure me that, in future, the Scottish Government will respect and adhere to local authority guidance in the event of a developer appealing to the Government following the rejection of any application by the local authority, based on its own guidance?
I thank Alex Fergusson for welcoming me to my post.
I am aware that Dumfries and Galloway Council is consulting on the draft interim planning policy for wind energy development, and I understand that that consultation will run until 22 July. I propose that, if Mr Fergusson has concerns, he should fully engage in that consultation process. Local authorities are, of course, the main planning authorities and their decisions should be respected. However, I would not want to comment on any planning applications that may come before me as minister, in case I prejudice the case.
I, too, welcome the minister to her new post.
The minister will be aware that there is significant wind farm activity in the south Carrick area of my constituency. There has also been a surge in applications for single turbines—so much so that cumulative impact is coming to the fore as a live issue. Guidelines on cumulative impact are not hard and fast. Will the minister consider introducing a more scientific and standardised approach to the assessment of cumulative impact in a given area?
Cumulative impact is considered, and Scottish planning policy provides specific planning direction on the siting of wind farms. Local authorities should support the development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and cumulative impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. However, I take on board Adam Ingram’s points, and will consider them fully.
Living Wage (Public Sector Staff)
To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made in extending the living wage across the public sector. (S4O-00033)
Addressing low pay is a key objective of the Scottish Government, and our current public sector pay policy requires employers to introduce a Scottish living wage at the level recommended by the Scottish living wage campaign. That is currently set at £7.15 an hour. I can confirm that public bodies that are covered by the 2011-12 public sector pay policy are in the process of meeting that requirement in respect of 2011-12 pay settlements. I can also confirm that, from 1 April 2011, all national health service staff in Scotland earn above our Scottish living wage threshold of £7.15.
Local authorities are self-governing bodies that set the terms and conditions under which staff are employed. However, I welcome the fact that a number of them have already introduced a living wage. The Government will continue to press all public sector employers to introduce such a Scottish living wage.
Will the cabinet secretary consider the situation of agency staff, such as security personnel at Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, who have recently been offered an increase only up to £6.85 per hour, so that they can be on the same terms and conditions as directly employed mainstream Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd employees?
If I am correct, the pay offer to which Mr Stewart refers relates to 2010-11, not 2011-12, which is the point at which the Scottish living wage commitment enters the Government’s pay policy. Dialogue on the issue is continuing between the management of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd and the relevant trade unions.
As I said, all public bodies that are covered by the pay policy have been reminded of the importance of meeting the Government’s commitment. I am sure that Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd will follow the guidance that the Government has given.
Arm’s-length Organisations (Paid Directorships)
To ask the Scottish Executive how much council tax payers in Glasgow will save through the ending of paid director positions on arm’s-length external organisations. (S4O-00034)
According to the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee 2010 review report, 40 Glasgow City Council councillors were in receipt of payments totalling approximately £260,000 for serving on arm’s-length external organisations.
Amendment regulations that were laid in Parliament on 2 June will—subject of course to parliamentary approval—stop councils allowing bodies that are within their control, such as arm’s-length external organisations, to pay councillors for serving on their boards. The reallocation of the funding is a matter for those organisations, but the money that is saved could provide additional funds for front-line services.
Given yesterday’s announcement that some of the council’s ALEOs are being closed down, amalgamated with other ALEOs or possibly brought back into council control, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is clear that the primary purpose for the creation and continuation of those bodies was to reward and control Labour councillors and not to benefit the council tax payers of Glasgow? Does he share my view that the money, possibly running to millions of pounds, would have been much better used to protect Glasgow’s charities and carers, and that a full independent investigation should be carried out into Glasgow’s misuse of public funds to ensure that the people of Glasgow are never ripped off in such a fashion again?
We must separate the issue of arm’s-length external organisations from the question of remuneration of directors of arm’s-length external organisations. There is a case for such organisations to function. There are good examples throughout the country in which the approach has protected the delivery of elements of public services. However, to get to the nub of Mr Dornan’s question, there must be a proven need and requirement for those arm’s-length external organisations. If Glasgow City Council can operate without that range of organisations, that certainly raises questions about why they were there in the first place.
On remuneration of directors of arm’s-length external organisations, the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee was crystal clear with me that remuneration for directors of such organisations that was additional to the councillors remuneration framework served to undermine the strength of the local authority remuneration framework. For that reason, I have taken action to close the arrangement and to ensure that there is no additional remuneration beyond the remuneration framework that Parliament put in place and which is clearly appropriate for local authority service.
Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth Directorates (Accountability and Transparency)
To ask the Scottish Executive what action it takes to ensure the highest level of accountability and transparency in its finance, employment and sustainable growth directorates. (S4O-00035)
Accountability and transparency are essential features of the duty of best value that is placed on accountable officers and applied throughout the Scottish Government directorates and designated by the permanent secretary, in his statutory role as principal accountable officer for the Scottish Government. The implementation of the duty of best value is subject to scrutiny by the Auditor General.
How does that objective equate with the Scottish Government spending an estimated £53,000 to £103,000 of taxpayers’ money to suppress a freedom of information request relating to the costs that were associated with the Government’s policy to introduce a local income tax? In the interests of openness, transparency and accountability, will the cabinet secretary confirm the actual cost to date of suppressing that information, and tell us whether he considers that to be value for money and a good use of taxpayers’ money?
I will deal with the first misnomer in Margaret Mitchell’s question, which is the notion of “suppressing” a freedom of information request. A freedom of information request was made to the Government, which took the view that the release of the requested information would breach the legislation that this Parliament put in place.
The fact that the Scottish Information Commissioner may take a different view is a matter for debate, but the Government is perfectly entitled to exercise its judgment when it receives freedom of information requests if any of the exemption tests are met. It is the Government’s firm view that the exemptions enabled us not to release that information, because it constituted advice to ministers that they are perfectly entitled to receive.
The second misnomer is that somehow all information must be released. I venture to suggest to Margaret Mitchell that if we do not have exemptions—which Parliament put in place—ministers may not be on the receiving end of the most comprehensive, open and transparent advice from civil servants that we could get on particular issues.
The issue is vested in those two clear points. Ministers considered whether it was appropriate to release information, and we will of course keep Parliament updated on any issues that arise in that regard. I say to Margaret Mitchell that I am absolutely certain that the Government was entitled to spend the public money that it spent in defending the law that this Parliament has passed.
Will the cabinet secretary ensure that his directorates enable greater scrutiny of Government spending by Parliament by publishing figures at level 4 detail in his draft budget this September?
We make available level 4 information in many areas of policy, as requested by parliamentary committees. I certainly recollect that the Justice Committee has asked us for level 4 information, as I am pretty sure the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has done, and the Government has provided it.
We have been reluctant to provide level 4 detail in the published budget document because it might turn out to be something of a heavier tome for Mr Baker to wander up to the railway station clutching in his briefcase. I am always concerned for the welfare of Mr Baker and the heavy briefcase that he has to carry. I will consider the issue that he has raised, because ensuring that a sufficient level of financial information is available to members of Parliament for the scrutiny of the budget process and for on-going priorities is an important consideration for me.
Tourism (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support tourism in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. (S4O-00036)
In common with localities throughout Scotland, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth benefits from VisitScotland’s significant national investment in marketing, information provision and quality assurance. In addition, VisitScotland works hard to boost tourism at a local level by actively providing advice and support to partnership bodies such as VisitLanarkshire and the Lanarkshire area tourism partnership.
I thank the minister for that answer and welcome him to his new role. He may be aware of the Duncarron fort that is being built in the Carron valley by the Clanranald Trust for Scotland. Russell Crowe recently visited the site, and I am sure that a visit from the tourism minister would add further glamour; he is welcome to come any time.
Will the minister set out the additional support that the Scottish Government could give to this important local project? It could be a great tourism project for the area.
I am aware of the excellent work by Charlie Allan to develop Duncarron fort, and I wish the Clanranald Trust every success with that exciting and innovative project. I am happy to take on many roles in life, but I have not and do not expect to be asked to take on the role of a “Braveheart” extra, no matter how well suited I may be to it.
Crichton Campus (Jobs and Economic Benefits)
To ask the Scottish Government how many jobs have been created in Dumfries and Galloway and what other economic benefits have arisen as a result of the University of Glasgow’s Crichton campus since 2007. (S4O-00037)
The only available study that addresses Ms McAlpine’s question is a local government-funded study that found that the impact of the universities brought in £10 million per year and supported more than 450 jobs across Dumfries and Galloway. There are obviously additional benefits brought by other campus partners, such as Dumfries and Galloway College and the Crichton Carbon Centre. To realise those benefits, we are currently providing £1.5 million to ensure a vibrant and sustainable long-term future for the campus.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the threat to the liberal arts subjects at the Crichton is of great concern, given the economic contribution of the campus to the area—which he has described—and given the importance of the creative industries in particular to the economy of Dumfries and Galloway?
The university is currently consulting on the future of the liberal arts. I understand that the court of the University of Glasgow will meet on 22 June to consider proposals. At this stage, no final decisions have been made.
I made it clear in my earlier answer that the work of the Crichton campus has been enormously significant in encouraging economic regeneration in the south-west of Scotland. It provides a broadly based educational opportunity for a range of citizens in the area. To ensure that that can continue, broad propositions must be made to those people on how they can pursue their academic interests.
I am sure that the University of Glasgow will be aware of Joan McAlpine’s strong views on this issue. I am sure that it would be willing to engage with the member.
I will take a supplementary question from Mr Fergusson, if he keeps it brief.
Of course I will, Presiding Officer. I would not dream of doing anything else, as you well know.
I hesitate to correct the cabinet secretary, but the consultation has been completed. Next Wednesday, I understand that the court of the University of Glasgow will take a decision on whether to close down the Liberal Democrats—[Laughter.]
That was a Freudian slip and wishful thinking, Presiding Officer.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the decision to phase out the liberal arts degree courses, if taken, can only have an adverse effect on the local economy, given the recent growth in arts-related economic activity in the region? Will he urge the court to postpone the decision until a proper, genuine and open consultation has taken place? To date, that has not happened.
I am tempted to say to Mr Fergusson that he was right the first time, but I do not want to offend my Liberal Democrat friends.
As I said to Joan McAlpine, the University of Glasgow is consulting on this issue. It meets on 22 June to consider its position; it has not yet taken any final decisions.
The importance of the Crichton campus cannot be overstated. In the south-west of Scotland, it offers opportunities for economic benefit and educational attainment. There is proven evidence that accessibility to institutions such as the Crichton campus can change people’s decisions on whether they should study locally or should travel elsewhere. I hope that the university will listen carefully to the representations that have been made. As I have said, it will be important to have a broad educational proposition available at the Crichton campus.
Question 7 was not lodged.
Living Wage (Local Authority Staff)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding the implementation of a living wage for staff across local authorities. (S4O-00039)
Local authorities are self-governing bodies and set the terms and conditions under which staff are employed. I have had a number of discussions with COSLA on pay issues and I welcome the fact that a number of local authorities have already introduced a living wage. The Government will continue to press all public sector employers to introduce the Scottish living wage.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that if the minimum wage is kept as low as it currently is there will continue to be a longer-term problem, because local government is paying a higher wage rate than the private companies that are competing with it? Will he join me in expressing disappointment with both the Labour and the Conservative Governments at Westminster, which have refused to raise the minimum wage?
There is always a challenge with regard to the level at which the minimum wage is set. That must take into account a range of factors, not least of which is the economic circumstances and conditions within which we currently operate. The Scottish Government is trying to ensure that, across the public sector, we respond to the importance of tackling the problem of low pay in our society and give individuals appropriate remuneration for the important tasks that they carry out in our public services. The Scottish Government will take that approach consistently across the pay remits for which we have responsibility and will continue to argue for the living wage to be applied across all public bodies in Scotland.
Local Government Finance Formula
To ask the Scottish Government when it will bring forward details of changes to the local government finance formula. (S4O-00040)
Details of any agreed changes to the distribution formula will be brought forward in time to inform the statutory consultation on the 2012-13 local government finance settlement, which will be announced later this year.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that, with financial and management decisions being at the forefront of local authorities’ minds right now—because of my constituency interest, I am concerned principally with the City of Edinburgh Council—it would be helpful to have indications of the direction of any change as soon as possible? Does he accept that this is a matter of some urgency?
The Government tried at all stages during its previous term of office to ensure that local authorities were advised of the details of the funding settlement and distribution arrangements as early as possible. The Government has made a number of commitments in relation to local government finance, not least of which is the provision of a floor for the financing of individual local authorities. We will bring forward our proposals in that respect as part of the preparations for the local government finance settlement. I expect the details of the shape of local authority finance to be set out in the budget statement that will come to Parliament in September and the specific allocations to individual local authorities to come later in the year, probably in early December.
Marco Biagi makes a valid point about the need of all councils, including Orkney Islands Council, for certainty so that they can plan ahead. The cabinet secretary will be aware that, over a lengthy period, there have been concerns in Orkney about the discrepancy between the settlement per head of population for Orkney and the settlements for Shetland and the Western Isles. As part of the development of his thinking, will he commit to meeting representatives of Orkney Islands Council to discuss ways in which the issue can be addressed, either through the formula or by some other means?
I acknowledge Mr McArthur’s point. Over many years, Orkney Islands Council has made a number of representations about the difference in per capita allocation between the Orkney Islands, Shetland and the Western Isles. As Mr McArthur knows, the formula specifically takes into account island status, and the per capita funding settlements for the three exclusively island authorities are the highest in Scotland. It is perfectly proper that that issue should be taken into account. However, within that judgment is an assessment of relative need. The formula takes into account the different circumstances on the different islands.
I would be happy to discuss the issue with Orkney Islands Council. As I said in my answer to Mr Biagi, we will bring forward our proposals in good time, to enable local authorities to do the appropriate financial planning.
Will the cabinet secretary go further and use the handsome mandate that the Scottish people granted to the Government to move away from relying on the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to set the proportion of support for local authorities, to ensure that in future Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council are not exposed to the vested interests of their peers?
We have had a fascinating question time session this afternoon, with glamour for Mr Ewing and handsome mandates for me. That has certainly put a bit of extra colour into the afternoon.
I hear Mr Johnstone’s point. To some extent, I draw on the answer that I gave to Mr McArthur: these issues are essentially driven by an assessment of need, which underpins the distribution formula. We said in our election manifesto that we would ensure that no local authority’s per capita allocation fell below 85 per cent of the Scottish average. We will take that commitment forward in the 2012-13 settlement. It is important to continue to have dialogue with COSLA and local authorities to come to agreed positions, working collectively and collaboratively.
Planning Regulations (Green Belt Land)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to relax the planning regulations relating to land designated as green belt. (S4O-00041)
The Scottish Government’s policy on green belts is set out in the Scottish planning policy that was published in February 2010. There are currently no plans to revise it.
Is the minister aware of the master plan for the 650 acre Murray Estates site to the west of Edinburgh, which envisages the building of 3,500 family homes and a new sports complex? Constituents from the surrounding areas have raised concerns about the potential development, which they reckon would be detrimental to the communities of Baberton, Hermiston and Juniper Green. Does the minister agree that the green belt enhances the quality, character, landscape setting and identity of towns and villages, and that it should be protected?
I am aware of the proposals by Murray Estates for development to the west of Edinburgh. They have been submitted to the strategic planning authority for Edinburgh and south-east Scotland, and they will be considered through the development plan process. SESplan’s proposed plan will be published for consultation towards the end of this year. If Mr MacDonald’s constituents are concerned about the situation, they should raise their concerns during the consultation period.
Green belt policy is set out in the Scottish planning policy, and green belt designation is a strategic planning tool. As Gordon MacDonald has stated, green belts enhance the quality, character and landscape of our towns and cities and give access to open space.
School Building Programme (Costs)
To ask the Scottish Executive what estimate it has made of additional costs to local authorities in moving from capital grant to revenue funding for the school building programme. (S4O-00042)
The Scottish Government has indicated to local authorities that, under revenue-funded projects, their total funding contribution towards the design and construction of schools will be no more than it would have been under capital-funded projects. Therefore, there will be no additional costs for authorities in moving from capital grant to revenue funding for the school building programme.
That was an interesting response, given that ministers and Scottish National Party back benchers have repeatedly made claims about the cost of public-private partnership programmes compared with traditional procurement. North Lanarkshire Council, whose area is one of those affected, suggests:
“The most significant change resulting from the change to revenue funding support is that Hard FM and Lifecycle must be included in the project but these costs will not be funded by the Scottish Government.”
Is that the case? Will the Scottish Government not make up any shortfall? Does it expect councils to do so, or does it expect schools to reduce the facilities that are planned?
Local authorities have been provided with the outline detail of the funding model by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust. Local authorities will be in a no better, no worse situation compared with the position of schools that were funded by capital grants. Regardless of how a building is funded, maintenance still needs to be covered. That is good practice for ensuring that substantial investment is not wasted.
As for a comparison with the private finance initiative, I remind Ken Macintosh that, under the present model, authorities will not pay the sort of credit card repayment rates that applied to local authorities under PFI.
Mass Waste Incinerators
To ask the Scottish Executive what it considers constitutes a mass waste incinerator and what factors it may take into account when considering applications for these. (S4O-00043)
There is no precise definition of mass waste incinerator. The zero waste plan policy is to recycle 70 per cent of waste by 2025. Forthcoming regulations to restrict inputs to energy-from-waste plants will make the mass incineration of unsorted or untreated waste less of an option in future. The development plan, national planning, waste and energy policy and the views of consultees and local communities would be among the factors to be taken into account when considering applications.
The minister may be interested to know that in its state of the nation report today, the Institution of Civil Engineers ruled out any place, need or demand for mass waste incinerators. However, there is a certain confusion in the mind of the public about what is a waste incinerator and what is a mass waste incinerator. Would she consider it reasonable, for example, to regard the processing of 1 million to 1.5 million tonnes of waste as constituting mass waste incineration? Can she confirm that I have been thorough in my researches when I assert that no Government paper or planning policy favours mass waste incineration or has determined the need for such projects, or can she point to something that contradicts that assertion?
The Scottish Government and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have a general presumption against large-scale, inefficient energy-from-waste facilities. It is not possible to comment on the proposal at Newton Mearns, which will come before Scottish ministers for determination, but I will look at the document that Jackson Carlaw referred to in his question.
With regard to the proposed pyrolysis incinerator for Coatbridge, what specific factors were considered when the Scottish Government decided not to refuse the application on appeal, which would have been within its power under paragraph 3 of schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997? The views of the community and the local authority did not seem to be a factor.
In practice, the decision-making function in relation to appeals is delegated to reporters acting under delegated powers. That is the situation under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment stated in this chamber:
“the Government is opposed to large, inefficient energy-from-waste plants.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2008; c 5494.]
Jim Mather, the previous energy minister, stated:
“I reaffirm that the Scottish Government’s position remains that we do not support large-scale, inefficient energy-from-waste facilities.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2011; c 34244.]
I invite the minister to confirm that the Government’s policy on that matter remains as stated by Richard Lochhead, and again by Jim Mather just before the election.
As I said in my reply to Jackson Carlaw, I confirm that, on incineration, the Scottish Government and SEPA have a general presumption against large-scale, inefficient energy-from-waste facilities. SEPA defines large scale as being more than 300,000 tonnes annual capacity.
Public Contracts (Small Companies)
To ask the Scottish Government what support it gives to help small companies bid for public contracts. (S4O-00044)
The easier it is for Scotland’s small businesses to bid for public sector contracts, the greater the economic impact across the land. We continue to work with the supplier group chaired by Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce to ensure that all Scottish businesses have fair access to public contracts. That will build on the success of public contracts Scotland—the single online portal for finding contract opportunities from the Borders to the northern isles. Of the 53,000 suppliers that have registered for free on public contracts Scotland, 84 per cent are small and medium-sized enterprises and more than 90 per cent say that it is now easier to bid for contracts.
I thank the minister for his response and welcome him to his post.
The Government needs to do everything possible to allow small companies to access public contracts. Are there regular discussions with the Federation of Small Businesses on some of the difficulties faced by businesses?
I am grateful for the member’s good wishes, although it feels as if I have already been in post for quite a long time. Back in the early days, I met the representative of the FSB. I will most certainly continue to work with Colin Borland and his colleagues, who so well represent small businesses in Scotland. He knows that three quarters of the contracts that are advertised on public contracts Scotland go to small and medium-sized enterprises. In the United Kingdom, only 25 per cent of contracts go to SMEs. We intend to remain well ahead of the UK in that regard.
Meetings (Skills Development Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Executive when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth last met the chief executive of Skills Development Scotland and what matters were discussed. (S4O-00045)
I last met the chief executive of Skills Development Scotland at the national economic forum on 15 December 2010. The discussion at that event centred around building a stronger economic future for Scotland.
When the cabinet secretary next meets Skills Development Scotland will he raise with it the bureaucratic hurdles that many training providers feel it puts in the way of their performance? Many believe that the SDS is a middle man that gets in the way of delivering the vocational training that this Parliament wants to be delivered. In particular, will he look into the case that train Shetland raised with me concerning its 2011 marine vessel deckhand apprenticeship programme, which is being stopped by Skills Development Scotland and is therefore stopping two school leavers getting into jobs?
If Mr Scott sends me the details of that case, I will be happy to take it up with the chief executive of Skills Development Scotland.
The objective of Skills Development Scotland is to ensure that the training interventions that Mr Scott quite properly says this Parliament wishes to be made can be delivered effectively and efficiently in all communities throughout the country.
Council Tax Freeze (Charges for Council Services)
To ask the Scottish Executive what the average change in charges for council services has been for households since the introduction of the council tax freeze. (S4O-00046)
The setting of charges for council services is a matter for individual local authorities, but as the council tax freeze has been fully funded by the Scottish Government it should have had no direct impact on charges for council services.
Does the minister recognise that the underfunded council tax freeze provides little or no benefit to those who rely most on council services, because cuts in services and increases in charges for services such as home care can easily outweigh any benefit? What is the Scottish Government doing to address the regressive nature of the tax freeze?
I will make three points to Mr Pentland. The first, which concerns regression, is that analysis shows that the council tax freeze represents a more significant proportion of the income of those on lower incomes than those on higher incomes.
The second point is about whether the council tax freeze is fully funded. I put in place the resources to fully fund the council tax freeze over the past four years, and I intend to do so in the years to come.
The third point is that I am bewildered that the Labour Party is again raising with me the council tax freeze when, just a few weeks ago, it was committed to the maintenance of the council tax freeze for a two-year period. Before the election, I was a bit sceptical about the suggestion that there had been a wholesale and universal conversion to the council tax freeze by the Labour Party, and I am now beginning to feel that my suspicions were securely founded, and that the move was just an electoral gimmick that unfortunately—or should I say fortunately—did not work.
Microgeneration (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to support microgeneration. (S4O-00047)
Our ambition is for more householders, public sector organisations and businesses to generate their own energy from microrenewables, and we will publish a microgeneration strategy by the end of the year. It will set out our plans to build on the range of support that is already available, such as the energy saving Scotland home renewables advice service, action on skills and accreditation, and maximising investment in Scotland from the feed-in tariff and the renewable heat incentive.
Does the minister agree that a more streamlined and quicker planning process for small microgeneration providers would be desirable?
There is already much progress in that regard. Permitted development rights apply to domestic microgeneration equipment, and were introduced in 2009 and 2010. Permitted development rights for non-domestic microgeneration equipment were introduced in March this year.
Permitted development rights remove the requirement for planning permission for specified equipment that falls within set thresholds, which speeds up matters considerably. However, we are also considering what more might be done to support the renewable energy industry and planners to facilitate technology that requires planning permission through the planning application process.
How much electricity is generated annually by microgeneration on Scottish Government buildings?
We retain a lot of statistics in our brains, but that is not one of the statistics that I have in my frontal lobes.
I can share with Mr Brown the very good news that 1,300 microgeneration installations in Scotland benefited in the first year of the feed-in tariff, delivering 7.5MW of capacity. In 2011-12, we expect 2,600 householders to take up energy saving Scotland’s free service. A great deal of progress is therefore being made. If the requested information is held centrally, I will endeavour to get it to Mr Brown.