Renewable Energy
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-569, in the name of Christine May, on the economic potential of the renewable energy industry. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the outstanding economic potential presented by the renewable energy industry, not only in the field of wind power but also through other forms of energy such as biomass and wave power and further recognises that, if the Scottish Executive is to meet all of its renewable energy targets, it needs to do all it can to encourage all forms of renewable energy so that the market is there to support future projects.
I start by thanking all my colleagues in the chamber for coming to debate what I believe is a very important issue within the wider topic of renewable energy. I will outline why it is vital for the Scottish economy and for the future of the renewables sector in Scotland that work is done now to enable existing and future companies in Scotland to reach their full potential.
Some 5,500 jobs are sustained by the renewables sector in the United Kingdom, 1,300 of which are in Scotland, and, as members will have noted at the weekend, the Department of Trade and Industry's recent supply chain gap analysis predicts that there could be up to 35,000 such jobs in the UK by 2020, of which 10,000 could be in Scotland. I do not need to tell members—especially my colleagues on the Enterprise and Culture Committee, who spent the past couple of days with me in Campbeltown—that Scotland has a huge renewable energy potential, not just in wind. If we realise it fully, we may find that that estimate of 10,000 jobs is conservative.
The location of those potential jobs is important. Broadly speaking, the areas of the country that are best suited to wind, wave and tidal power are situated in rural and remoter areas, which can benefit greatly from an increase in the number of skilled jobs that are available. It is especially important that numbers of jobs should accrue to those areas so that they reap the benefits of having sometimes ugly, usually intrusive energy installations on their doorsteps. There are also fabrication and support-service skills lying unused in many of our former engineering and shipbuilding heartlands, which can and must be used to meet the need for and to supply the fabrication and support skills of the emerging technology.
There is no question but that the political will is there to ensure that a high proportion of our power will be generated by carbon-neutral sources, but much needs to be done to ensure that Scottish companies benefit from our drive towards renewable energy. That means that companies that are working on breakthrough technologies need to be given the funding to bring those technologies forward to the point at which they are a marketable, economical product, rather than just a quaint little interesting project with a name like something out of "The Magic Roundabout" and school dinner money to play with.
It does not help for some Opposition members to offer conflicting arguments in the way that one party's energy spokesperson has done, by being quoted in the local paper as saying that she was in favour of onshore wind farms and then—a week later—participating in a debate calling for a total moratorium on wind farms. It should be—indeed, it is—possible to oppose unacceptable applications without getting in the way of efforts to lead the way in forging a better world for our children. It would also be helpful to bring the wider and sometimes difficult debate on renewable energy to the public instead of focusing solely on wind, which can be only one part of our wider strategy.
I will use a local example to illustrate just how much potential there is in Scotland. In Methil in my constituency, there is a lot of interest—spearheaded by Scottish Enterprise Fife—in developing the former Kvaerner yard into an energy park and I am grateful for the support for that proposal that has been forthcoming from all members in the area, including list members. The site is already being used by Burntisland Fabrications Ltd and Forthwright Fabrication Ltd, which have just built a wave machine on site and are involved in oil-industry fabrication.
There is also a lot of interest from foreign and UK companies that would like to use the site for anything from fabricating wind turbines—tower and all—and wave machines to erecting wind turbines on site. The site is ideal for those purposes because it has large buildings and easy access to the sea. It is in one of the most deprived areas of Fife and would benefit significantly from the injection of money and skilled jobs that such an energy park could bring.
I turn to the money from the Scottish renewables obligation that is lying in the coffers of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. I welcome the minister's recent written answer to me confirming that his department is promoting an amendment to the UK Energy Bill, which will allow £10 million to be paid into the Scottish consolidated fund. I seek an assurance from the minister that that money will all be used to promote renewable energy projects, such as the possible energy park in Methil, and to support the efforts of Scottish Enterprise and the intermediary technology institute for energy in advancing renewables technology in Scotland.
Our visit to Campbeltown over the past two days showed us what can be done for a community by investment in renewable energy technology but, as I have said before, using wind cannot be the be-all and end-all. I was visited today by two members of the energy academy at Heriot-Watt University, who are doing some blue-sky work on hydrogen and clean coal technology. It behoves us to remember that as well as the economic potential from the renewables industry, there is economic potential in cleaning our existing sources of energy supply. In the rush for renewables, we are in danger of forgetting that. Those two must go hand in hand, as must work on conservation.
Does Chris Ballance want to intervene on that point?
I was going to say that conservation is important.
Indeed. Conservation is important, as are the small projects that benefit local communities. There has to be space in our strategy and our plans for all those things, and sources of funding have to be available, not just for revenue, but for capital. I ask the minister to comment on that, if he is in a position to do so, at the end of the debate.
As a considerable number of members wish to speak in the debate—15 in all—I will have to make it a very strict three minutes each, because I am not allowed to go beyond 6 o'clock.
This is an interesting debate, which was preceded by an extremely aggressive press release that attempted to suggest that members opposite to Christine May—members on my party's benches—are blowing hot and cold on renewable energy. The press release is an incredible collection of half-truths, fabrications and extracts, yet the content of the debate is about attempting to get people to work together. We would prefer by far to work together with people to ensure that Scotland has renewable energy, and we would like to think that it is possible that Labour members would try to do the same.
The political will—if it exists—must have steel in its backbone to put off the problems that face us.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you very much.
Other members of the Labour party are scaremongering about power cuts and the inability of the Executive to meet the targets that have been set for renewable energy. That is not helpful to the debate in Scotland or to people working together. I hope that Labour members will do their best to quell the words of the old nuclear warriors who are trying to take advantage of the difficulties of moving to a renewables programme as the basis for energy in Scotland. It is extremely annoying to people in Scotland to be told that we have to go back to old technologies that create so much waste when we are trying to move forward to those that do not. As we are talking about frequent power cuts, it would be good to cut some of what those speakers say.
In the Highlands, our council has been attempting to get national guidelines for many of the onshore renewable energy items. Many councils want such national guidelines because existing guidelines are inadequate. I ask the minister to respond to that point, as I do not have time to deal with it in detail.
We have to ask people to try to save energy so that we do not view the amount of energy that is currently being produced as essential in the future. If we were saving energy, we would be able to cut out much of the nuclear power and anticipate the debate about removing it. I ask members to take those matters on board and I am interested in hearing what the minister has to say.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given that the debate is oversubscribed, can I propose that it be extended by another 20 minutes?
I will ask someone to do that later. However, even if I extend the debate, we cannot go past 6 o'clock.
I congratulate Christine May on securing today's debate. Her timing is, as ever, impeccable because it follows upon the Enterprise and Culture Committee's evidence taking in Campbeltown. Some of us were blown flat by the wind at the top of the hill; I see Murdo Fraser smiling. Specs and hats were forcibly removed by the elements.
I turn to the issue of tidal power. I am aware that the University of St Andrews and the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen have set up an interesting project to build a large underwater propeller-cum-turbine. The Pentland firth, between Caithness and Orkney—between my constituency and that of Jim Wallace—is one of the most treacherous bits of water around Scotland, as people in the Highlands know. It is famous for the tidal rip that surges through it. People who know about the tidal power industry have described it as potentially being the Saudi Arabia of tidal power. The project is in its early stages but I commend the Scottish Executive for putting its money where its mouth is. No less than £177,000 has gone to the project from the Scottish Enterprise proof-of-concept fund. Amen to all that; it could be something for the future. It has been suggested that tidal power in the Pentland firth alone might create something like 6,000 jobs. Members can imagine what a bonanza that would be for Orkney, north Sutherland and Caithness.
Arising from and linked to that point is another. We took evidence from Scottish Power and others in Campbeltown. Although I cannot prejudge the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report or predict what it will say, I pushed the witnesses on the nightmare scenario of what we would do when the wind does not blow. Their answer was that we would rely on coal-fired stations, and they pushed the nuclear industry for that reason. The fact is that, using electrolysis, we can create substantial quantities of hydrogen that can be burnt, with a by-product of only water. Hydrogen is the ultimate clean fuel.
I am delighted to say that, as members can see from the picture that I am holding up, in the Pentland firth project, hydrogen storage tanks are incorporated in the boom above the propeller. Therefore, during the change of tides or when the wind does not blow, the hydrogen can be burnt. I believe that that is the way forward. The project is exciting for my constituency and for Orkney, and it could set the trend for Scotland and the world over.
I commend Christine May and her motion, and I welcome another opportunity to discuss the important issue of renewable energy. Members will recall that I lodged a motion, which was debated last November, on the slightly different, but related, issue of planning policy for wind farms. That debate attracted a great deal of public interest.
I therefore start with wind power, the issue that is covered in Christine May's motion. Members will be aware that concerns have been raised throughout Scotland about the proliferation of planning applications for wind farms. During the November debate, I called for a moratorium on the granting of planning applications for wind farms where there was local opposition to them until such time as new planning guidance was issued. There seems to be a growing consensus that we need better planning guidance on the issue. The Enterprise and Culture Committee has heard from people from all different sectors; not just objectors but those involved in the development of wind power.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am terribly sorry but I have only three minutes.
We have heard evidence that the existing planning guidance is inadequate because it does not take account of the cumulative impact of wind farms, and there is no opportunity for the development of local strategies. There are issues that have to be addressed. I am delighted to see that some Liberal Democrat councillors in Aberdeenshire now support my call for a moratorium, which I am sure will give the Liberal Democrat members present something to think about.
The motion is about the economic potential of renewable energy, which I acknowledge. The Enterprise and Culture Committee visited the Vestas-Celtic Wind Technology Ltd plant in Campbeltown, and it is indisputable that the plant has created jobs in what was an economic and employment black spot. However, I have two caveats. I suspect strongly that if there were no subsidies, no one would be building any onshore wind farms, because there are question marks over their efficiency. There is also concern about the potential economic downside to wind farms and about the possibility that widespread development of wind farms in scenic areas will do nothing for our tourism industry, which is a vital part of our economy.
There are, of course, wider issues. As Christine May acknowledged, there are other technologies such as wave and tidal power. I am little bit concerned that by concentrating too much on wind power, we might miss economic opportunities in the other technologies. Although we have factories producing wind farms for Scotland, the technology for them was developed elsewhere, so we are left simply with production jobs. I hope that we can learn from that, so that Scotland can be at the forefront of developing other forms of renewable energy, such as tidal and wave power. Given our great natural resources, we have the opportunity to be ahead of the game.
Let us not put all our eggs in one basket. Let us consider how we can develop other technologies and ensure that it is not just onshore wind farms that are the priority. I could raise many other matters, but time does not permit it. This has been a welcome opportunity to debate the issues once more and I am sure that this will not be the last word on the matter. I look forward to the conclusion of the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report on renewable energy.
There was me thinking that participating in debates was part of an MSP's job description—clearly not in the political background that Christine May comes from.
The Presiding Officer might be a little puzzled about what is happening in here. I suspect that she will not have read the press release that was put out on the back of this debate, which I could categorise as falling into one of three categories. It is either just totally stupid, wilfully ignorant or, perhaps more truthfully, maliciously mendacious.
Will the member give way?
No. I have only three minutes.
I will quote something that was said during the debate in November, to which Murdo Fraser referred. A member said:
"I strongly support … renewable energy. … However, we must ensure that the locations of wind farms are suitable."
I agree. The member said:
"A strategic approach will guide … developments to areas where the effects on our natural heritage are minimised."
I agree. The member also said:
"The planning framework … will seek to address energy issues. … but it must also identify environmentally sensitive sites where development is inappropriate."
Again I agree. In a prescient condemnation of Ms May's current attitude, the member also said:
"let us have a sensible debate on this issue without those who register concern about the impact of wind farms on environmentally sensitive areas being stereotyped as being anti-jobs."—[Official Report, 6 November 2003; c 3113-4.]
I agree. See Rhona Brankin, see me: we agree. It is a pity that the member who brought this debate to the chamber did not concentrate on the issue that she was trying to debate, rather than the nonsensical rubbish that she put out today. The fundamental problem with wind farms is the lack of a national strategy.
We have debated the issue before and I expect that we will debate it again. It is not just members in the chamber who have concerns, but Scottish Natural Heritage. There is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Taking the attitude of members such as Christine May is not going to make the problem go away. Nor will it help if she ignores the big problem in her party, which is that proponents such as Brian Wilson, in their desperate attempts to push nuclear power on Scotland, want to do down the commitment to renewable energy and to pretend that it will not work. One of the biggest problems that Christine May and her colleagues have to address is the fact that Brian Wilson and others want to push us down the road of an environmentally unsustainable nuclear power programme. I would like to hear whether anything will be said about that today.
Yes, we need to get in on the ground floor of some of the developing renewables, particularly wave power. We have missed our chance on much of what is going on with wind farms: we have let the Danes and the Norwegians make all the running and we are not going to get some of the benefits that we might have. Let us not miss the boat again when it comes to wave power. Let us address the issue so that we do not go down one single road on renewable energy. We need to address the problem and develop technologies right across the board.
I welcome this debate on the economic potential of the Scottish renewables industry, which is an issue that is at the very heart of the Green party's policies on the environment and the economy. I use the word "economy" advisedly. There are those who take pleasure in labelling the Greens as luddites. I would counter that because, when we see possibilities for economic growth that do not pose an unacceptable threat to the environment, we embrace them whole-heartedly.
Up to now, the renewables debate has been dominated by a vocal minority who are opposed to wind energy. I ask that we hear more of the views of the silent majority, who see renewable energy as a welcome alternative to polluting energy and a source of badly needed employment. Renewable energy is a win-win opportunity for Scotland that we will continue to support to the best of our abilities.
The Scottish Executive has made some impressive pledges on the future of renewables and we welcome those commitments. By 2020, the Executive wants 40 per cent of our electricity to be generated by renewable means. That is a realistic target, to which we will hold the Executive. However, even that ambitious goal is only the beginning. Scotland has renewable sources that could generate all our power and leave us plenty left over to export to our English neighbours.
Those who see a future comprised merely of wind turbines can take heart from the possibilities that are offered by technologies such as offshore wind, wave and tidal energy. It has been calculated that tidal energy from around Orkney alone has the potential to generate over 10 gigawatts of electricity, which is more than today's Scottish electricity demand. Such power would be both predictable and unobtrusive.
Although the renewable resource exists, the infrastructure that is required to carry those enormous amounts of power is lacking. We need urgent investment in the national grid to ensure that the remote locations where wave, tidal and offshore wind resources are located have adequate grid connections to be able to connect the supply with the demand.
The British electricity trading and transmission arrangements—BETTA—are designed to benefit both consumers and generators. However, certain aspects of the arrangements seem to be designed to act as a massive disincentive to the investment that the Scottish renewables industry so badly needs. Because the supply of renewable energy is often situated far away from centres of population and demand, Scottish renewable operators would face massively increased costs for every unit of electricity that they supply to the grid. Such a scheme may be "BETTA" for generators in the English shires, but it will be a great deal worse for our renewable generators.
It would be a travesty if regulations drawn up in Whitehall were to stifle investment and opportunities in the Scottish renewables industry. I call upon the Scottish Executive to make representations to the UK Government to ensure that BETTA does not disadvantage the renewables industry, which offers so much promise to Scotland and the wider Scottish economy.
Let me start off by congratulating Christine May on securing this important debate. Like others, I want to promote Scotland's renewables industry's win-win potential that could create jobs and prosperity while safeguarding our environment. I know that the partnership agreement has a clear green thread that links commitments on actions with policy in order to create a clear framework for delivering sustainable development in Scotland.
We need to embrace renewable energy if we are to get the economic benefits that it can bring. Christine May was absolutely right to highlight the potential for job creation, but I want to focus on the jobs that could be created across the whole of Scotland. It is important that the Vestas-Celtic project in Campbeltown is taking jobs to one of the most economically depressed parts of Scotland. In an area such as Campbeltown, the creation of 300 jobs has a massive impact. We need to see more jobs like that in fabrication and in the creation of renewables technologies across Scotland.
We have a target that 40 per cent of all our electricity needs should come from renewable sources by 2020. I know that the Executive is looking at how we will deliver that and how we might further increase the proportion of electricity that is supplied from renewable sources. Any increase in the targets requires parallel work to be done on the national grid now. Other members have already commented on BETTA, but a key point is the need to strengthen the grid in Scotland. Given that, as far as the national grid is concerned, many of our renewable sources are at the end of the tree, we need a prioritisation process to ensure that new wave and wind developments can be connected to the grid. There is also an issue about the renewables obligation. We need to ensure that we have long-term financial security to ensure that the financial sector is prepared to invest in renewables.
I want to focus on something that nobody else has talked about yet. The motion is right to talk about the need to explore all forms of renewable energy and the one that I want to explore is solar energy in the form of solar heat and solar electricity. Scotland has a huge opportunity in that regard. Published research has shown that we have one of the best climates for solar power in Europe. That might not meet our expectations, but solar energy is a huge opportunity when considered in the light of our energy demand throughout the year and our cold climate. A domestic solar or air heating system in Scotland can provide massive carbon dioxide savings. Just 4sq m of panelling can provide about half of the hot water that a house in Scotland will use in a year. Including installation, a domestic solar water system costs £1,500 and solar heating costs between £400 and £700. Once those costs have been met, the energy is free. I ask the Executive to build that into its procurement process for new schools and for the massive amount of public sector housing that will be built through housing associations. We should ensure that solar energy is built in with the bricks. This is a way in which we can deliver social justice, create new jobs, save people money and save our environment.
Finally, these technologies are delivered in Scotland. Solartwin is a Scottish company. We should be including these Scottish companies in our procurement systems. We should set targets that ensure that we support the industry. I hope that the minister will specifically address the point about the opportunities that Scotland has with regard to solar energy.
In this debate, we take as read the environmental imperative to develop renewable energy. From the environmentalists' point of view, the economic potential might be the icing on the cake, but it is a huge imperative to companies that are building business, individuals who are looking for jobs or an Executive that is committed to a healthy economy. I would like some of the barriers to the full development of the economic potential of renewable energy to be tackled a little more vigorously. There should be a little less timidity about expanding wind generation. The impact that unnecessary delays in development have on Scotland based companies that need a steady and predictable sequence of orders to secure investment and maintain their work force is not always appreciated.
I would emphatically not want to subvert the planning system, but I have to say that, on occasion, there has been a reluctance to be decisive in dealing with planning applications and that that has created delays that have had adverse impacts.
Wind is only one of a range of resources that is available to us. We need them all. Scotland was in the vanguard of the delivery of wind technology but we lost our initial lead because we did not support the embryonic technology through its development to commercial application and a profitable industry. We are now in the vanguard of wind and tidal energy development and I hope that we have learned the lesson of wind power well—I wish that I felt more confident about that.
I worry about the funding that is available for development. A lot will depend on how the intermediate technology institutes operate and I hope that some of the funding stream will be available to small and developing companies as well as to academic institutions. For example, siGEN, a company in my part of the world, is doing excellent and pioneering work on hydrogen fuel cell technology, but lives from hand to mouth in relation to funding.
The enterprise companies have an important role. It would be extremely helpful if the Executive would make it clear to enterprise companies that, in order to do their job properly, they need to be less risk averse. A significant proportion of their financial support for innovation will disappear if they do their job properly.
Another threat to the exploitation of renewable energy is how the electricity market operates. Provisions in the UK Energy Bill will be crucial in fostering the generation of electricity from renewable sources.
Scotland has the raw resources and the intellectual resources to prosper, if they are matched by political encouragement and financial investment.
Obviously, there is broad consensus about the need to develop renewable energy.
I say sincerely to Christine May that it is a pity that the debate has been marred by the press release that was issued earlier today. I remember that when she spoke in a previous debate, she said that she was against deceit and duplicity in politics. It would be a great tragedy for the Parliament if members' business debates were allowed to descend into an exchange of cheap jibes. In this case, many of the jibes were wholly inaccurate. I recognise that Christine May is a new member and I say to her that this incident is unfortunate. Perhaps the press release should have been headed, "Dear Jack, will you gie us a job the next time that you have a reshuffle?"
Will the member take an intervention?
Sorry, I do not have time. I am sure that Jack will gie you a job.
What about me?
Jamie Stone is guaranteed to get a job, especially after getting gag of the week. I hope that I get injury time for this, by the way.
No, you will not. You have only a minute and a bit left.
The earliest form of renewable energy in Scotland was, of course, hydro power. The motion is not about renewable energy per se, but about its economic potential. The best example of huge economic potential coming from renewable energy is the development of the hydroelectric industry in the Highlands and Islands in the 1940s under the direction of Tom Johnston. The important lesson to be learned from the development of hydro power is not just the fact that an enormous number of jobs were gained during the construction period, when the dams were built, the pylons laid and the connections made.
You have one minute left.
The establishment of hydroelectric power also allowed the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to be developed economically and it attracted other industries that are totally unrelated to renewable energy. We must consider how we can do the same with whatever form of renewable energy we develop in future.
There are three essential ingredients for success. First, there must be a steady flow of projects to attract manufacturing activity. Without that, we will not be able to get the investment that we need in the downstream activity. Secondly, the economic development agencies must play a major role—and yes, subsidy is required at that stage. Subsidy is often required in new industries, so let us give subsidies to get the industry off the ground. The final ingredient is critical mass. There must be enough of any form of renewable energy for us to realise its economic potential. Finally, Presiding Officer, can I say—
No, you cannot. Will you sit down, please.
We are back to this three-minute speech stuff, which is one of the reasons why—
Mr Neil, you are cutting someone else out of the debate. Will you sit down, please.
—this Parliament's reputation out there is becoming so poor.
Because of the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders that the debate be extended until 6 o'clock.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that Members' Business on 21 January 2004 be extended by up to 20 minutes.—[Mr Mark Ruskell.]
Motion agreed to.
I congratulate Christine May on securing the debate. I have not seen her press release, so I am afraid that I cannot comment on it.
I agree fully about the importance of renewables and the jobs that they provide, but I agree with Murdo Fraser that a moratorium on all opposed onshore wind farm planning applications is the best way to ensure that decisions are not taken that could irreversibly affect some of our most sensitive environments. Few parts of the country are more attractive than north-east Fife, with its mixture of rural and coastal scenery, including historic villages such as Falkland and Ceres and fishing communities such as Crail and Pittenweem. They attract tourists in huge numbers and tourism plays a vital part in the local economy.
The Scottish Executive's planning policy on renewable energy, as stated in national planning policy guideline 6, is that
"developments should not be permitted where they would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby".
However, Scottish Power proposes a large scale wind farm on Clatto hill, which is one of the most visible uplands in north-east Fife. At 93m high, each of the proposed 18 turbines will be one and a half times the height of the Scott monument. They will be widely visible from many of Fife's most visited tourist spots, as well as from Dundee to the north and Edinburgh to the south. Few more serious acts of visual desecration could be perpetrated anywhere in Scotland. I hope that Christine May, whose constituency adjoins the site, agrees with that judgment.
The proposal also contradicts the Cupar and Howe of Fife local plan, which was adopted in March 2003, on several counts. The plan says that outwith settlement limits,
"development will only be supported where it … can demonstrate that neutral or positive net environmental impact will occur."
The proposed development will have neither a neutral nor a positive environmental impact. The plan also says that countryside developments must be
"sympathetic to the local landscape character in terms of scale, form, use of materials, and visual impact."
The development is totally unsympathetic to the local landscape's character.
Reaching renewables targets is important, but surely it is no more important than protecting for future generations the qualities of amenity and beauty that set so much of Scotland apart, and few places more so than north-east Fife. That is why we need a moratorium now on opposed wind farm planning applications and why I support fully the line that is taken by Murdo Fraser and some SNP members who have spoken.
I thank Christine May for introducing this important topic for discussion. In this century, Scotland will be able to meet 100 per cent of its electricity needs from renewable energy, but we will encounter some problems in achieving that. One problem is that we will need predictable sources of renewable energy supply to meet the base-load requirement. To do that, we will need wave, tidal and biomass energy in addition to wind power.
And hydrogen.
Hydrogen energy is a possibility, too.
The problem is that those forms of renewable energy are far-market renewables, which means that they are not currently competitive. However, they could over time become competitive through a development process. I would like the minister to give an assurance that the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland, which is a ministerial working group, will provide a route map with milestones and targets for developing each form of renewable energy.
We also need co-ordination between academia, industry and Government and we need investment. I support calls from prominent academics for a university of energy in Scotland to help to focus academic collaboration.
I am glad that Christine May referred to Methil, because the former oil rig fabrication yard at Methil has tremendous potential as a renewable energy park, at which a cluster of companies could work together and create synergy. The potential also exists to generate electricity on the site using wind power. As important as that is the fact that we would put all the underused manufacturing skills in Fife to positive use at a renewable energy park.
We must have confidence in our manufacturing skills. I welcome Scottish Enterprise's support for the renewable energy park, but it is unhelpful for Scottish Enterprise and the local press to downplay the future of manufacturing in Fife. We also need investment in the site in Methil in order to develop its infrastructure. I ask the minister again what match funding the Executive will be prepared to offer inward investors who want to invest in the former Kvaerner yard at Methil.
On a recent visit to the Kvaerner yard, I went into the old office block and saw all the old pictures of the platforms and structures that had been built at the site over the years. That was a proud tradition of considerable achievements, but it responded to last century's priority: oil. We need a response to this century's priorities, which are renewable energy and tackling climate change.
I have been asked to tender the apologies of George Lyon, our chief whip, who has unfortunately had to leave the chamber hurriedly.
The debate is on renewable energy, which presents a massive opportunity for Scotland to reduce harmful emissions and to create thousands of jobs in related manufacturing industry. There is an interesting announcement in the press today about a massive investment in the grid line from the north of Scotland down to the central belt. Some 500 jobs and investment of £200 million have been mentioned.
The Scottish economy and people can and should benefit from renewable energy. Communities can gain from generating their own energy or from receiving rental income, and the potential for manufacturing jobs—which the location of Vestas in Campbeltown illustrates—must be exploited. Several members have mentioned Vestas, which came to invest around £12 million in Scotland only because of the positive attitude to wind power and the activity in the industry. Currently, it employs 210 people in Campbeltown and 50 people throughout the rest of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Equally important, it supports 20 jobs in haulage, 60 to 70 jobs at the Stornoway Arnish yard, 60 to 70 jobs in Nigg and 50 jobs around Aberdeen in supply industries. Huge potential therefore exists.
Some campaigners want a moratorium on wind farms, but there are communities, farmers, crofters and individuals throughout Scotland who want to gain from the location of wind turbines on their land. We do not think that one group should be able to impose its views to such an extent on others. The Knoydart community, for example, is now receiving energy from its own hydroelectric scheme. That scheme had been starved of investment for years under private landowners, but it has now been refurbished after the community purchased their land. The Assynt crofters have done the same. They have created their own hydroelectric scheme and now enjoy its benefits.
The current furore over wind farm applications could sour people's attitudes to other forms of renewable energy that offer even greater potential for Scotland. We have heard about wave and tidal power in particular; they have great potential. Wavegen Projects Ltd in Inverness is doing a tremendous amount of research into such areas.
I see that my time is running out. In conclusion, I suggest that if we do not switch to cleaner forms of energy, climate change will severely and irrevocably alter much of our landscape as well as the animal and plant life that it contains.
I join members in congratulating Christine May on securing this debate. Like her and other members who have spoken, I am a member of the Enterprise and Culture Committee and have therefore been somewhat immersed over recent weeks in the issue that we are discussing. I would like briefly to add a few points to the debate, although I do not want to pre-empt any conclusions that the committee might ultimately draw on the issue.
First, I want to address the perennial issue of wind farm developments, which has again been raised. Wind farm developments are a classic area in which politicians cannot have their cake and eat it. I remain to be convinced that there is a great new green thread running through the Scottish Tories—populism and opportunism have much more to do with their calls for a moratorium. If we are serious about even beginning to think about reaching the aspirational targets that the Executive has set, we cannot simply set our faces against developments in the way that some members have suggested. Of course, we must be sensitive to environmental concerns, visual impacts and so on, but there are many developments throughout Scotland that show that a balance can be achieved.
I want to make two specific points, to which I would like the minister to respond. First, I echo the point that several members have made about the need for us to build on lessons that have been learned and, indeed, on successes to date in the development of onshore wind in respect of employment and a wider energy policy. It is crucial that we ensure that there is pace and momentum behind Scotland's development of newer technologies, such as wave, tidal, biomass, photovoltaics and several other technologies that have been mentioned. It is true that this country is rich in natural resources. We should learn the lessons of the past and be quicker at creating research, development, marketing and manufacturing opportunities in those technologies than we have been in the past with onshore wind development.
The second issue to which I would like the minister to respond and which has not really been referred to is skills gaps. If we are going to make progress on renewable energy, achieve the targets for renewables and maximise employment opportunities, we need to have the right skills in the right place at the right time. There are serious problems with engineering capacity throughout Scotland in a range of sectors, but specifically in renewable energy. That is something on which the Enterprise and Culture Committee has already heard evidence. I note also from the visit to Campbeltown, which has been mentioned, and the visit to Vestas-Celtic Wind Technology's facility that there are real problems in securing traditional trades, such as welding. Those issues need to be addressed—and quickly—if we are to maximise the potential in renewable energy.
I pay tribute to somebody else in the debate: Sarah Boyack. It is worth recording that, in the Enterprise and Culture Committee's visit to Campbeltown, a large number of people made specific reference to the actions that she took in the Parliament's early years to lay the foundation stones that have allowed us to get to where we are now. We have short memories in politics, and her work should be remembered.
I certainly supported Sarah Boyack's plea for support for Scottish renewable energy companies. I should state for the record that I have a shareholding in a Scottish utility company. Sadly, it is rather a small share.
I will address the real topic of the debate—the economic potential of renewable energy—and the barriers that Nora Radcliffe mentioned. I will touch on two barriers, because that is all that time permits.
The first barrier is the lack of any national strategy for the development of wind power. Its development has been ad hoc, deil tak the hindmost, ill thought out and disorganised. The Scottish National Party is and always has been supportive of renewable energy. I have supported it in my constituency. I have supported the development that adjoins John Farquhar Munro's constituency, namely, the hydro scheme at Glen Doe. I have supported the biomass plans for the Arjo Wiggins Carbonless Papers Ltd paper mill at Corpach, which are still waiting for an answer from the Department of Trade and Industry . I have also supported communities that, by and large, although one or two people are opposed, want proper community benefit. That is a lacuna, which I discussed with the minister at a meeting and which he said could not be implemented because, if we did, Scottish companies would find that all the wind farm developments would suddenly plonk themselves in Wales and England because the companies would be scared off, which is absolute nonsense.
The second barrier concerns biomass. It should be encouraged, but in practice many biomass industries go down, as did Torren Energy in my constituency. Where was the support for that venture? There were words on a page, but practical support was non-existent.
There is something that the UK Government has been failing to do and must do quickly if biomass, which in turn depends on a healthy timber industry, is to develop. It concerns the problem of certification. I do not have time to go into it in great detail, but at the moment the Forest Stewardship Council, which is an unelected and unaccountable body based in Mexico, controls what UK-produced wood is used. Many people believe that an alternative from the Pan-European Forest Certification Council, which has received a great deal of support from many quarters, should be extended, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been dilatory in pursuing that.
If we are to have successful biomass, we must prevent an unfair disadvantage being placed on our panelled-products industry, which in turn means that we must be able to avail ourselves of the wall of wood, because we will see a rise from 6,000,000m3 to 10,000,000m3 of wood available for production by 2017. If we are to avail ourselves of that massive opportunity of the best renewable source of energy, the Government must tackle the red tape and do what it says that it will do, not just debate words on a page from a member whose sole purpose was to make a cheap and ineffective political attack.
I start by congratulating Christine May on securing the debate and on speaking to the motion constructively and positively.
I will deal first with some of the negative points that have been made in the debate. Like Susan Deacon, I point out that all those who demand a moratorium, whether temporary or permanent, on wind energy development are entirely missing the point of how we achieve the economic potential of renewable energy.
In our debate on wind farms late last year, I made it clear that the complaints about a lack of planning guidance were simply not founded. Murdo Fraser mentioned the planning guidance today and I should tell him that NPPG 6 allows cumulative impact to be taken into account and enables councils to take a locational approach to renewables in their development plans, as a number of councils have done.
Many applications for wind energy and other renewables developments are being made. That is to be welcomed, rather than condemned. As Alex Neil, Nora Radcliffe and other members have said, the future growth of companies and jobs in renewable energy in Scotland depends on orders from developers that have made successful applications. That cannot happen unless the planning system is geared—as it is—to encouraging applications to be made and to encouraging good schemes to go ahead.
Will the minister give way?
I am pressed for time, but I will come back to the member in a moment.
I am sad that some members do not yet understand that we live in a very competitive world. We will not capture the economic benefits of renewable energy just by wishing to do so. We have competitors. If Scotland wants the economic benefits of renewable energy, it must support the development of the technology.
I return to the issue of planning guidance. If current planning guidance is so perfect, why has the Enterprise and Culture Committee received representations on the issue from across the board—from bodies as diverse as power companies and Argyll and Bute Council, which at our meeting yesterday indicated that it believed that planning guidance was not sufficient?
There are pressures on local authorities—that is in the nature of any planning process in which developments are proposed. However, the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament is to look to the wider national benefit. Community benefit matters at local level—I encourage local authorities and communities to work together on issues of community benefit to share their experience. However, the focus of the Scottish Executive's policy and of the Scottish Parliament must be the benefit for the national community.
I look forward to visiting Campbeltown and the Vestas plant next week. I also look forward to visiting Methil—later this year, I hope—as that project progresses. It is not yet at the funding stage, but I hope that it will reach that stage. I hope that I will have the opportunity to see the project as it develops in Christine May's constituency.
We must be very clear about how we proceed to capture the economic benefits of renewable energy. This debate is timely for a number of reasons. First, as has been mentioned, only last Friday the Scottish Executive, together with the Department of Trade and Industry, published the results of a study that we commissioned jointly with the enterprise networks into the current state of the renewable energy industry across the United Kingdom and the prospects for future growth. The renewable supply chain gap analysis report found that—excluding the large hydro plant that has existed for some years—the renewable energy industry already sustains approximately 8,000 jobs across the UK. Approximately a quarter of those jobs are here in Scotland. The total monetary value of the industry is of the order of £290 million. Again, between a quarter and a third of that can be attributed to Scotland. Looking to the future, the study found that, across the UK, between 17,000 and 35,000 jobs could be sustained by 2020 and that Scotland could look to attract at least a quarter of those. We are determined to do much better than that.
Secondly, the debate is timely because only on Monday I chaired the second meeting of the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland. FREDS represents the energy industries—electricity generators, offshore oil operators and the cutting-edge new-tech companies in the renewables sector. It also includes representatives of investors, scientists, trade unions, the DTI agency Renewables UK and the enterprise networks. On Monday, we were joined for the first time by Tony Amor, the new chief executive of the intermediary technology institutes for energy.
All that expertise comes together because we share the agenda that is set out in the motion—how to get the best out of renewables in business and jobs for Scotland. We see the attainment of our targets as a two-stage process. We have set targets for renewable energy to provide 18 per cent of our electricity by the end of this decade and 40 per cent by the end of the next. To meet those targets, the energy production that we need from renewable sources in this decade must come from the technologies that are already in the marketplace: hydro power and wind power. However, the technologies that are not yet in the marketplace and that a number of members have highlighted are essential if we are to achieve our targets for the next decade. That is why FREDS has focused on marine energy and the potential for wind and tidal energy, on biomass, which it will consider later this year, and on a range of other technologies that have been mentioned, such as solar power, photovoltaics and the hydrogen and fuel cell potential that exists. FREDS is therefore very clear in its focus.
Vestas is a tremendous example of how we can exploit wind energy, and there are already jobs in hydro, but if we are to capture the economic potential of renewables and create the thousands of jobs that we believe it will be possible to create from them, we need not only to manufacture things and provide services, but to be at the leading edge of the technology.
The big picture is that, if we want that leading-edge technology to be here in Scotland and if we want to create the intellectual property for it, thereby bringing long-term economic benefits to Scotland, we must position ourselves as the country within the United Kingdom and the European Union that is most friendly to, supportive of and encouraging towards renewable energy in general. I hope that the Enterprise and Culture Committee recognises that, as it is certainly the agenda of the Scottish Executive and our partners in FREDS.
If we want renewable energy to generate economic benefits, we must look beyond the short-term, local issues to the wider national interest and we must pull together. At the start of the debate, members talked about the need for an approach based on unity. Such an approach can work and the benefits can be delivered only if the absolute imperative of getting behind renewable energy from start to finish is recognised.
Meeting closed at 18:01.