Renewable Energy Targets
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-05596, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee report on the achievability of the Scottish Government’s renewable energy targets.
I remind members that time is a bit tight.
15:00
In January 2012 the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee agreed its approach to a short, focused inquiry on the achievability of the Scottish Government’s renewable energy targets. After 11 months of taking evidence, we published our report in November. Some members might infer that the timescale indicates poor convenership on my behalf; what it actually reflects is the seriousness and rigour that committee members—some of whom I see are applauding my last remark—applied in examining the Scottish Government’s ambitious targets for the development of renewable energy technologies by 2020.
Before I comment on the substance of the committee’s report I want to place on record my thanks to everyone who gave evidence to the committee, whether they did so in writing, in person or during a committee visit. The committee is grateful for their time and contributions, which helped to shape the conclusions and recommendations in our report.
I also thank my fellow committee members for their patience and support throughout the lengthy process. We had a number of changes of personnel during the period and I am aware that there was a particular challenge for members who were asked to approve the report when they had not directly heard the evidence.
I thank our very competent team of clerks, who supported us efficiently and with good humour. In particular, I thank Joanna Hardy, who had the difficult job of drafting the report. Thanks are also due to Scottish Parliament information centre staff, in particular Alasdair Reid, and to the Parliament’s media office for handling so well the arrangements for Donald Trump’s appearance before the committee. Whatever our views on his contribution, that was a good day for the Parliament.
In a 13-minute speech I cannot do justice to all the areas that the committee scrutinised and commented on. I will focus on areas that I think are key to achieving the Government’s ambitious targets.
It is worth making the point that this was a report into not the desirability but the achievability of the targets—had it been the former, it might have been even harder to get a consensus around some of the report’s conclusions. Members will be aware that I have views on certain aspects of renewable energy policy, in particular the expansion of onshore wind, which—in my usual understated, shrinking-violet fashion—I occasionally air publicly. However, in this debate I speak as convener of the committee, so today, at least, I will leave it to others to make those arguments, if they wish to do so.
As the committee learned during its inquiry, the renewable energy sector is a rapidly evolving policy area. During the committee’s consideration of our draft report and after its publication there have been a number of policy announcements at Scottish and UK levels. I will endeavour to comment on those, where they are relevant.
First, let us consider the big question. Are the Scottish Government targets achievable? In relation to the target of generating the equivalent of 100 per cent of electricity consumption by 2020, yes. The committee agreed that, on balance, the evidence that we heard is that the target is achievable, but—and this is crucial—it will be achievable only if a number of issues are addressed. I will say more about those issues later.
What about the target for renewable sources to provide the equivalent of 11 per cent of Scotland’s heat demand by 2020? There was a more mixed result in that regard. We recognised that the interim target had been met, but the committee received evidence that there is a risk that the 2020 target might not be met.
Finally, a target has been set for local and community ownership of 500MW energy by 2020. We have doubts about the level at which the target is set and we recommended that separate targets for local and community ownership be established.
I return to those issues that need to be addressed if the 2020 target of generating the equivalent of 100 per cent of electricity consumption is to be achieved. We believe that one of the most challenging issues is planning. As we learned, uncertainty, time delay and complexity within the current planning regime increase the levels of risk and therefore expense for developers, which in turn could place in jeopardy the Scottish Government’s ability to meet its targets. We also heard from many objectors, particularly those who were opposed to inappropriately sited wind turbines, concerns about the way in which the current system works.
As members will be aware from the media, an increasing number of renewable energy applications are being submitted to local authorities for determination. The distribution of those applications across local authorities is resulting in some councils experiencing very high volumes of applications. Combined with the pace at which renewable energy technology is evolving, that can leave councils facing the significant challenge of balancing national priorities with local interests. The committee heard that the pressure had become so great that some councils, such as Aberdeenshire Council and Fife Council, had called for a temporary moratorium on onshore wind-farm applications to allow their planning teams to cope with the volume of work.
One potential remedy for the squeeze on resources that the committee considered is the introduction of higher planning fees to enable an expansion in staff numbers. As members are aware, an increase in planning fees was the subject of a recent Scottish Government announcement, which stated that, subject to parliamentary approval, planning fees will be increased by 20 per cent in April 2013.
Having been involved in the predecessor committee’s inquiry into renewable energy, I recall that the committee reported in 2009 that councils were underresourced with planners. Did the committee look at why the number of planners has been cut further in the time between then and now?
I do not recall that that issue was specifically addressed in the evidence. I would need to go back and check what the witnesses said to us, but I suspect that the issue is a symptom of the broader squeeze on local authority budgets. Perhaps I could come back to the member later if I get the opportunity.
The committee supports the Government’s proposed fee increase for larger-scale planning applications where those will not disadvantage community developers. However, we are clear that, in return for higher fees, planning authorities should look to address duplication of effort for developers and to improve efficiency. One example of removing duplication of effort that we highlighted is that planning authorities could gather information on cumulative visual impact from their own records rather than require each developer to undertake that task separately.
We welcome the minister’s confirmation that the Government, along with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, will look at proposals to link performance with the wider reform of planning fees. We also welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is working with stakeholders to identify and pilot good practice on a proportionate approach to the provision of information to support planning applications. However, it would be helpful if the minster could confirm when that pilot will be completed and evaluated.
Another issue that I want to mention relates to environmental impact assessments, which are required for planning proposals that are likely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue of factors such as size, nature and location. As the committee learned, planning authorities are tending to err on the side of caution in requesting such assessments for medium to small-scale projects, as they are aware that the absence of an environmental statement is open to challenge by objectors. We therefore recommended that the Scottish Government should clarify to local authorities those circumstances under which it is acceptable not to provide an environmental statement.
In its response, the Government explained that the requirements derive from European directives, which the European Commission is currently reviewing. We would welcome information on how the Government is engaging in that review and on how the Government is working with local authorities to ensure that they are not overly cautious in interpreting the circumstances in which an environmental statement is required.
It is a source of frustration to planning authorities that developers ignore spatial plans and put in speculative applications to councils for determination. Spatial plans identify the areas appropriate for siting turbines and provide clarity for developers and local residents on the preferred areas for development contained within the plan. We were extremely disappointed by the progress made by local authorities in producing spatial plans. In its response, COSLA explained that a short-life working group on onshore consents had been formed during the committee’s inquiry and that the working group would look to take forward some of those matters.
Although the committee welcomes that consideration, it remains concerned by the speed of progress in providing spatial plans, which are crucial to informing developers and the public what they might expect in relation to renewable developments in their area. In our report, we also urge developers to play their part in reducing planning authorities’ workload by paying due cognisance to the local spatial framework and areas of search, where those are available.
Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard a strong message from potential investors that strong political leadership and a robust, reliable and predictable investment climate and subsidy regime are crucial if the Government’s targets are to be met.
A range of funding is available to support the development of renewables, including the renewable energy investment fund, the Green Investment Bank and the community and renewable energy scheme. However, the committee heard that small and medium-scale projects faced distinctive difficulties in attracting lending from banks, with some banks withdrawing from the market segment supported by feed-in tariffs, which tends to be the smaller developments.
Given that small-scale installations have a valuable contribution to make towards achieving the Government’s targets and that they are more affordable for farmers, landowners or community groups, it is important that such developers are able to access lending. We therefore regret the reluctance of banks to lend in that sector, but we welcome the commitment of the renewable energy investment fund to support community and rural business projects. We would welcome an indication from the minister of any projects that will be financed by the fund.
I will touch briefly on the question of infrastructure. In addition to the question of transmission and distribution, another issue that arose was the ability of the grid to reach areas where renewable energy resources are most abundant. Infrastructure—or the lack of it—also impacts on Scotland’s capacity to export spare energy. Scottish islands such as Orkney best illustrate the issue. Orkney’s connection to the mainland is at full capacity, but there is no project big enough to provide the critical mass that would provide a return on the investment in a new cable.
Although we heard from some witnesses that there was a strong case for transmission network operators going ahead and increasing capacity in advance of increased demand, the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets’ duty is to ensure that investment does not place in advance of need, in order to protect the consumer from the cost of an asset that is not used. Although we welcome Ofgem’s announcement in April last year that it would fast-track the business plans of Scottish transmission network operators to hasten upgrades to capacity and greater interconnection, we remain concerned that Ofgem is not taking a proactive approach to grid development.
We will also watch with interest the outcome of the Scottish island renewable generation steering group, which was set up by the United Kingdom Government in October 2012 to advise on the barriers to faster connection of Scottish island renewables.
The committee was strongly supportive of grid-connected test facilities, such as the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney and the proposed European offshore wind deployment centre at Aberdeen Bay. We were fortunate enough to see the test centre and the impressive array of other renewables facilities in Orkney and the Pentland Firth. Test facilities are critical to Scotland being at the forefront of newer technologies, proving the case for investment and helping to drive down costs.
I will close by commenting on one of the most contentious issues relating to renewable energy—its potential impact on tourism and Scotland’s rural and remote areas. I do not doubt the strength of feeling on the issues. At the time of reporting, the committee had received no robust, empirical evidence indicating a substantial negative impact. However, given its importance, it is vital that VisitScotland and the Scottish Government continue to gather and take account of evidence from visitors to Scotland and other research in the area, and we welcome the Government’s commitment to do so. Since concluding our evidence taking, I am aware that at least one more study—from the John Muir Trust—into the area has been published. I am sure that there will be more.
The inquiry into the achievability of the Scottish Government’s renewable energy targets may not have ended up being short and focused; nonetheless, I hope that it was valuable. I hope that our recommendations will be helpful to the Government in developing future policy, and that the report will be a useful contribution to the on-going and lively debate about the development of renewable energy in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations in the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s 7th Report, 2012 (Session 4): Report on the achievability of the Scottish Government’s renewable energy targets (SP Paper 220).
15:14
I thank the committee members and clerks for the report and the huge amount of work that went into producing it.
The report is presented in a balanced fashion and makes a positive and constructive contribution to the debate about Scotland’s energy future. Its publication coincided with our update to the Scottish Government’s renewables route map. Both publications underline the welcome degree of broad consensus in the Parliament about the importance of renewable energy and energy policy as a whole.
I warmly welcome the committee’s central finding that our target to produce the equivalent of 100 per cent of domestic electricity demand from renewables by 2020 can be achieved.
Our renewable heat target is also of the utmost importance. Recent figures from the Energy Saving Trust show that renewable heat is on the increase throughout Scotland. However, monitoring progress is complex and we are working hard to improve in that area.
Meeting our renewables targets will really help to reduce carbon emissions. Figures released this week show a 35 per cent drop in emissions from our fossil fuel power stations between 2006 and 2011. That has coincided with huge growth in our renewable energy output.
The targets are also about jobs and investment. They are about making the cost of energy more affordable to consumers by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.
Renewables are also fundamentally a matter of energy security. This week, Alistair Buchanan—Ofgem’s chief executive—warned us that the United Kingdom’s electricity capacity margin could drop from 14 per cent today to less than 5 per cent by 2015-16. I think that I am right in saying that that repeated the warning that was given to the UK Government last October. It could hardly be more serious. The fact that we have, it is sad to say, reached the pass at which there will be a margin of only 4 or 5 per cent between generation capacity and peak demand can be seen only as a sad indictment of the neglect of energy policy for far too many decades.
Secure supplies are of paramount importance. That is particularly true in the context of the developing UK Energy Bill and its incentives for new renewables and low-carbon thermal capacity. Put simply, Scotland’s renewables output, especially offshore wind, can play a vital role in helping to keep the lights on throughout the UK—something to which, I think, we all subscribe. Our renewable power will, therefore, play a vital role in the UK achieving its binding renewables targets as well as keeping the lights on.
We also hear concerns about the timescales for building new gas capacity. Clear and fast signals are necessary if those investments are to be made and to become available when they are needed. The warnings by Keith Anderson of Scottish Power should be given considerable weight by the UK Government in that respect. That is important because the lower-carbon thermal generation will complement and help to balance Scotland’s renewable generation.
Investment in that new low-carbon capacity creates major implications for the UK grid network. The Beauly to Denny project represents Scotland’s first major grid investment in 20 years and the first of the major reinforcements that will deliver a transmission network that is fit for an energy mix rich in renewables.
Ofgem is fast tracking a £7 billion investment programme by Scottish grid companies to upgrade our network and deliver renewable electricity to the Great Britain market and, potentially, beyond. Crucially, it recognises that cost both to be competitive and to represent value for money for consumers.
Those investments of billions of pounds have been driven strongly by increases in operational and planned onshore wind capacity. That underlines the point that, in the right places, onshore wind developments play, and will continue to play, a vital role in driving investment and creating a platform for the development of our offshore renewables potential.
The recently formed intergovernmental group on island charging—which was formed at my behest and which, I am pleased to say, was agreed to by the UK Government, working in partnership on this matter—will play a crucial role in developing those resources, and I welcome the UK Government’s acknowledgement of the impact of a charging structure that acts as a significant brake on development. That is extremely important work, as members such as Liam McArthur are aware. I am determined to work with members of all parties to drive it forward so that a solution emerges from the intergovernmental group. It is crucial that that solution emerges sooner rather than later, otherwise key projects might be placed in jeopardy.
Murdo Fraser quite rightly highlighted the area of planning, to which I now turn. I was encouraged by the report’s reaction to the ways in which the planning system can help us to achieve our renewables targets, although I recognise the improvements and actions that the committee suggested. The system is well set up to deliver large-scale onshore wind or to steer it away from sensitive locations. My working group on onshore renewables wants to achieve continuous improvements in that respect. On a smaller scale, there are some tensions in the system, which we have addressed.
As Murdo Fraser said, the 20 per cent increase in planning fees that will come into effect from April is intended to help to improve planning performance. In addition, we have provided an extra £673,000 to help planning authorities to process wind turbine applications. We plan to monitor that closely and to share good practice.
Planning policy must continue to support the development of a diverse range of renewable energy technologies and to guide development to appropriate locations. Our review of the national planning framework and Scottish planning policy will reinforce and clarify policy on the areas that we expect to be protected from significant development.
Where the Scottish Government is the decision taker on electricity act consents or on planning appeals, we will approve only the right developments in the right places. Our decisions on such matters are available online and data capture—an issue that the committee highlighted—is improving all the time.
Our published response to the report covered the issues that I have dealt with and the others that the committee highlighted. I am sure that many of them will be raised during the debate, and I look forward to responding towards the end of the debate.
15:22
I echo the thanks that Murdo Fraser expressed to those who took part in the inquiry and who helped to draw up the report.
As has been said, the purpose of the committee’s inquiry was to examine whether the Scottish Government’s 2020 targets for renewable energy could be achieved. The renewables industry is new and developing and weekly developments added to the complication of managing the inquiry and meant that many aspects that are pertinent to the industry were hardly touched on. One such example is energy storage. We talked about pumped hydro and batteries, and we have since been learning about hydrogen. I hope that we will examine all those technologies further in the future, as we did not go into them in any depth in our report.
One of my main concerns at the outset of the inquiry remains: the ability of communities to develop their own renewables for the benefit of those who live locally. Community benefit clauses appear to be the answer, but the committee heard evidence that communities were much more likely to influence a development and to retain much more of the wealth that was created in their area when they had a real stake in it. The bigger the share that a community had in a development, the greater the amount of wealth that was retained, with outright ownership being very much the best option. However, communities struggled to engage in development because of the costs and the red tape involved. We need different criteria and planning processes so that communities can cut the costs of development, and we need to ensure that adequate funding is available to allow them to develop, as Murdo Fraser said.
There was much that the committee agreed on, but an aspect that we could not agree on was how constitutional change would impact on our ability to meet the 2020 targets. There are real concerns that the Scottish Government must address. If it does not, development will stall, which will impact on our ability to meet the targets. The Scottish Government refuses to answer those questions, however, and has used its majority on the committee to remove them from the report.
Does the member not agree that, despite the fact that some witnesses expressed that view, all the evidence is that companies continue to invest in renewable energy in Scotland and that those who are sceptical and talk about uncertainty as a result of constitutional change are really just scaremongering with a political agenda?
Companies that work in Scotland such as SSE cannot be seen as political scaremongers and need to be listened to. It is disappointing that the Government used its majority on the committee to close down the questioning on that aspect. However, the questions will not go away. The question that remains unanswered is: what will the Scottish Government do to honour the subsidy agreements that have been entered into under renewable obligation certificates or contracts for difference should Scotland separate from the United Kingdom?
To ensure that development is not stalled, the Scottish Government needs to give a commitment on that and tell us how it will pay for the subsidies. Currently, the subsidies are met by UK energy customers. In Scotland, we proudly boast of having a third of the UK’s renewable developments, but we have only 10 per cent of the customer base. If the cost of the subsidy falls on that customer base, that will mean substantial increases in energy bills.
The committee heard a number of concerns about renewable heat, some of which appeared to be conflicting. One was that the targets are not ambitious enough, while another was that they are too ambitious and unlikely to be met. Although electricity that is generated by renewables is reasonably easy to distribute, there is no easy way to distribute renewable heat. We heard evidence of district heating systems that work well, but they work only in certain locations and they appear to be economic only when connected with new build, rather than existing properties, because of the cost of retrofit.
It was clear that a number of solutions are required, not least demand management through retrofitting insulation and improving building standards for new builds. If we are to meet our carbon emissions targets, we need to focus on renewable heat.
Paragraph 7 in the executive summary of the committee’s report states that a factor in the difficulties with renewable heat
“has been the UK Government’s delay in agreeing the domestic Renewable Heat Incentive”.
Does the member not accept, therefore, that constitutional change offers benefits for achieving the targets that should not be dismissed?
I do not share the member’s confidence that the Scottish Government would be better than the UK Government at doing that. Indeed, we need retrofit for insulation to cut down demand, as well as the renewable heat incentive. However, I agree that we need that incentive with some speed.
On the grid, the minister talked about the work of the intergovernmental island charging group. It would be useful to get an update from the minister on the progress that the group is making and the timescale within which it hopes to report. If we cannot find a solution to island charging, an awful lot of the projects that are in line, especially community projects, will stall and will no longer be able to continue or to produce the economic benefit that they could bring to communities.
I realise that I am running out of time, Presiding Officer. I wanted to touch on skills shortages and what the Government needs to do to ensure that we reap the full benefit of renewables, but I see that you are indicating that I cannot do so. Therefore, I simply urge the Government to look at what the report says on those issues and act accordingly.
Many thanks. We are short of time, as Rhoda Grant has suggested.
15:28
As usual, I declare an interest in that my son is a project manager for wind farms and is currently working in Aberdeenshire.
I welcome the tone of the debate—so far. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee is to be commended for producing an excellent report that thoroughly addresses the achievability of the Scottish Government’s renewable energy targets. However, I hope that the committee will find time to revisit the report in the current session of Parliament, given that the Government’s understandable response to many of the recommendations is that it is “considering” issues; is “committed” to progress; plans to work with stakeholders; and “notes the Committee’s remarks” on biomass. I hope that the committee’s report and the Government’s response are the start of a journey, rather than the end of one.
There are many aspects of the report that are worthy of debate—as Rhoda Grant has just said—but I will stick to just three issues. The first one is the effect of wind farms on tourism. The committee rightly recommends that VisitScotland and the Scottish Government continue to gather evidence on that from visitors to Scotland. However, I hope that they also listen to the views of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, which states that it is not opposed to renewables; it simply recognises that our wild lands and open spaces are fundamental to Scotland’s character and identity. Many parts of the region that I represent form the last great wilderness in Europe and they should be recognised and valued—
Will the member take an intervention?
No. Certainly not from Mike MacKenzie, sorry.
They should be recognised and valued in this year of natural Scotland.
The John Muir Trust also confirmed that 80 per cent of respondents to its survey considered that some areas need protection from wind turbines, yet VisitScotland claims that 40 per cent of the responses that it got say that it does not matter. Given that we have these claims and counterclaims, there is no doubt a need for thorough and accurate research. It is not just visitors to Scotland who should be taken into account in making determinations on or justifying wind farms, but all of us who live in Scotland, particularly those of us who live in remote and rural areas and who value the wild land and scenery around us.
I appreciate that many studies were done some years ago—
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not; and no, certainly not.
There are now 10 times the number of turbines in Scotland that there were in 2004.
My second point is on the intermittency of supply. That is a critical issue, yet one on which the Government “notes the committee’s views”. I know that Fergus Ewing has a good reputation for working in partnership with the United Kingdom Government. I hope that, in summing up, he will give a commitment to working on further research into and adoption of storage technology, which, as Rhoda Grant mentioned, will ensure far greater utilisation of our existing resource—particularly of wind turbines. It would increase production from the existing wind farms and would undoubtedly be a positive approach.
As the minister said, we should be concerned about the warnings of Ofgem. I will not repeat what he said on that, but I agree.
Conservatives support the new third and fourth-generation nuclear power stations, with their improved efficiency and safety standards. I remind members that we would need around 5,200 onshore wind turbines to generate the same output as one nuclear power station, which would last for 60 to—
Will the member take an intervention?
Certainly not, Mr Brodie.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, and if I have to keep repeating myself, I will take 20 minutes to finish my speech.
I think that it is fair to say that Ms Scanlon is not taking interventions.
We would need around 5,200 onshore wind turbines to generate the same output as one nuclear power station, which would last for 60 to 100 years as opposed to the 25-year lifespan of wind turbines.
My third point is on planning, which often leads to heated debate. A claim that I hear more often than any other is about the lack of local democracy as regards planning. Local residents can engage with their councillors and the planning committee can determine an application, but if it is refused, the developer gets a second chance, with the Scottish Government quite often overturning the decision that was made by elected councillors.
There are also concerns over section 36 applications, and I was disappointed that that area received only one mention in the committee report, at paragraph 55. If councillors are acceptable arbitrators on applications with an output of less than 50MW, why are they simply consultees on applications with outputs of more than 50MW?
I hope that in the planning review, the minister will look at that requirement, which I understand is based on the Electricity Act 1989. However, planning is now devolved to the Scottish Government. Also, the requirement was brought in at a time when large power stations were being built, not local wind farms, so I hope that the minister will look at it again.
Just finally, Presiding Officer—
Just finally.
The visualisations that are submitted with planning applications lack consistency. In the Daviot application, the wind turbines were about twice as high in the information that was given to the council as they were in the local information.
You must close, please.
I would also like the minister to look at buffer zones.
15:35
First, I commend my colleagues on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for their extensive work on this important inquiry. I also commend our team of clerks and advisers for their patience and professionalism and I thank the many witnesses who gave evidence.
The result is a comprehensive and valuable report on a subject that is of the utmost importance to Scotland. The issue is big and complex, and our inquiry was necessarily long. In such a fast-moving field, much has happened since we finished taking evidence. I am pleased that most of that has been positive.
I particularly welcome the First Minister’s announcement of an even more challenging, but achievable, interim target of generating 50 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2015. Political will is the vital ingredient in assuring our success in achieving such targets and—fortunately—we have that in abundance.
Renewable energy is important not only because we enjoy significant opportunities and economic advantages from such technologies but because, of all the commodities in the modern world, energy is the king. With sufficient low-cost energy, we can solve all our other problems. That, along with our oil and gas reserves, gives Scotland a huge comparative advantage that makes it difficult to see how we are not set for a future of long-term and sustainable economic success.
Of course, there are challenges in achieving the targets—if there were not, that would mean that we had not set the targets high enough. However, the committee painstakingly explored those challenges, and the overwhelming conclusion was that they are surmountable and that we are on course to achieve the targets.
Just as there are challenges, so are there many opportunities for jobs and growth, as well as for local social benefits, including the means in many areas to tackle the scourge of fuel poverty. It is an absolute disgrace that energy-rich Scotland should suffer fuel poverty to the extent that it does.
I am glad to note that, since the report was published, the difficulties that we indicated with the planning system have been at least partially dealt with. The planning minister recently announced a 20 per cent increase in fees and provided a fund, to which colleagues have referred, of £673,000 to help to deal with wind turbine applications.
I am glad that the committee successfully exploded some of the myths that surround renewable energy. The myth that onshore wind destroys tourism was thoroughly explored and no evidence to support it was found. The myth that wind power does not reduce carbon intensity was blown away in the breeze by no less an authority than National Grid itself.
The myth that wind intermittency presents a problem and negates carbon savings was revealed to be nonsense by National Grid and others. Another myth was that consumers are paying very high premiums to subsidise renewables, but the figure is now known to be of the order of £21 per annum, which is a tiny fraction of annual fuel bills. The committee made its view clear in paragraph 196 of the report, which says:
“It is the Committee’s view therefore that renewable energy represents a safe bet both for energy security and for protection from price shock.”
I particularly welcome the target of 500MW for community renewables, which offers the possibility of transformational change across the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere. When I look at what the Shetlanders have done—I thought that Tavish Scott was here, but he is not—with their oil fund, whereby a small levy on the oil that passes through their community has provided community facilities that are second to none, I see a model for what can be done in the rest of Scotland.
When I think of the difficulties faced by Scotland’s islanders, who have struggled for generations in the teeth of a hostile climate, and the opportunities now offered by these exciting technologies, I am filled with great hope. That hope is increased when I see the world-leading research that is being done at the European Marine Energy Centre, with young Orcadians returning to Orkney to take up the exciting and cutting-edge career opportunities that are now available.
In considering the challenges in achieving our targets and the full potential of our renewables opportunity, one group of problems looms larger than others—those that are entirely within the province of the UK Government. Those include: damaging and disproportionate transmission charges for Scotland’s islands; a failure to invest enough or early enough in upgrading the grid; delay and uncertainty on energy policy, manifested now in setting strike prices for contracts for differences; inordinate delay in introducing the domestic renewable heat incentive; and a green deal that is not the right deal for the right people.
The list is long and, once again, the UK Government has made the case quite eloquently for such decisions being best taken here in Scotland, in this Parliament.
15:41
I was not a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee when it held its inquiry and produced its subsequent report on the achievability of the Scottish Government’s renewable energy targets, but I look forward to participating in the debate today.
While reading the report, it struck me that, though they are ambitious, Scotland’s renewable energy targets are achievable. However, numerous issues need to be addressed, because there is little point in setting ambitious targets and not taking the steps required to meet them.
If the targets are to be met, we need to ensure that we have the proper courses in place to deliver people with the right skills sets. Worryingly, a lot of the evidence in the report seems to suggest that we are falling short on that. Although I recognise that the Government is working in partnership with the industry and educators, it seems that something is being lost in translation.
For example, in evidence to the committee, Rob Moore from the National Skills Academy for Power stated:
“We have the potential to reach the targets, but it will take a lot of work. If we do not do things differently, we will not meet them.”
Linda Greig from Carnegie College said:
“we will not meet the targets, because we are not taking into account that people are leaving and the fact that we have a workforce that is skewed over the age of 35.”—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 28 March 2012; c 1251.]
Robin MacLaren from the Institution of Engineering expressed concerns over the availability of skills and the fact that we are operating in a global market. It seems that something is going wrong in our ability to attract young people—particularly young women—into the sector.
I agree with the committee that we need to work with colleges, sector skills councils and employers to equip people with the right skills and to deliver hands-on, intensive, accelerated training schemes. However, I fear that that might not be achievable due to colleges already being overstretched and having had their budgets slashed once again.
The other point that I wish to raise is community engagement. Interaction with communities and developers generally comes from onshore wind farm developments in rural areas. In North Ayrshire, currently three sites operate, according to the register of community benefits from renewables, and they have all supported local groups, local schools and the larger community through community benefit payments. However, I hear that in some cases those sums of money come with conditions attached. For example, if a local group receives funding, it has to make an agreed number of appearances a year on behalf of the site—in other words, it has to promote the wind farm.
What is more worrying, as noted in some of the written evidence, is that those benefits seem to undermine the planning process and are used by the developers to build favour. In North Ayrshire recently, we saw exactly that happen when a community wind farm submitted a planning application to extend its site. The wind farm has made contributions to two primary schools in Dalry. They are grateful for that; however, the children’s school bags were used to deliver a draft letter in support of the wind farm planning application. It was fully prepared and even addressed to the North Ayrshire Council planning officer so that all the parent had to do was sign it and send it off. The council has said that whether to distribute the letters was at the headteacher’s discretion and the schools justified it as being part of an eco-course and a “Getting involved in your community” project that the children were doing. Does the minister agree that it is inappropriate to use children in that way, under the guise of environmental education? That is not to mention the conflict of interest for the school, given that it is part of the local authority that will decide on the planning application.
I am supportive of community benefits in principle, which, as the committee report notes, can stabilise fragile communities, provide and promote energy efficiency, thereby reducing energy bills, and help to promote renewable energy developments, which in turn will help us to achieve our targets. However, we need to make sure that those benefits are not then used as a form of bribe to get local support for planning applications. As the committee report says, community engagement should be a two-way street and developers should have to adopt a code of practice.
We need better connectivity with the industry and educational bodies to provide the right skills courses to attract more young people, particularly women, into the sector.
Although I certainly do not want to see community benefits removed, they do seem to create problems with the planning process, so we need more clarity on that. I ask the minister to develop robust new guidelines so that incidents such as the one that I mentioned in North Ayrshire do not happen again.
15:47
Like Mary Scanlon, I draw attention to the declaration in the report.
The very first question in the terms of reference for the inquiry was:
“Are the 2020 renewables targets (for electricity and heat) achievable?”
The answer was, quite clearly, yes. Progress on renewable electricity has raced ahead further and faster than anybody could have hoped or imagined. It is very easy to be cynical about politics in today’s world—one could even say that it is fashionable—but such progress gives permission to everybody who is ambitious and believes that politics and political decision making can change things. We can move forward and do better than to make the mistakes of the past, whether in energy or any other field of endeavour.
I remember knocking on doors in the election two years ago. Even though the question of how energy is generated is a bit far from most people’s lives, time and again I saw that spark of inspiration in people’s eyes when they realised that their Government has this sort of vision.
After some careful and, I have to say, arduous drafting, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee reached a common position—“consensus” would be too strong a word—on almost everything in the report. That, too, is refreshing and would be welcomed by the public who, after all, always say that we should work together and overcome our differences, rather than argue all the time.
However, politics is about differences and if we all agreed on everything, we would not need a Parliament. So, to keep things interesting, I will dwell on a couple of the divisions. Given that I am one of the members to whom Murdo Fraser referred who was not present during the evidence, I have to draw more on the experience of drafting the report.
It is fair to say that the committee mirrored the difference of opinion that exists between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Government on nuclear power, in particular. Contracts for difference are the price support mechanism that is being introduced for the UK. Everyone recognises that they are the new UK Government’s subsidy mechanism for renewables, but nuclear power is also eligible, so the contracts are, ipso facto, also a subsidy for nuclear power, which is one of the points of contention in the report.
Although there are silos for the different energy types, nuclear draws from the same limited pot of money as renewables do. A lot depends on the strike price and implementation, but I am uncomfortable that they are sitting at the same table. My approach to nuclear power would probably be to take it, lock it up with a padlock in a cupboard and throw away the key. That is an aspect of UK energy market reform that has implications for Scotland and which the committee rightly opposed, although only by a majority. I do not think that any energy source should hide behind greenwash and hoover up subsidy that is intended to support genuinely green energy. That goes for Scotland as much as anywhere else.
Rhoda Grant alluded to paragraph 185 of the committee’s report, which states:
“the support the Scottish Government can provide to the development of the renewables sector is limited by the current constitutional arrangements.”
That is factually true, as head D in part II of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 remains in effect.
Rhoda Grant rose—
I can only assume that the three members who voted against that paragraph did so not because it is false, but because it is an inconvenient truth. If Rhoda Grant would like to challenge that, I will give way to her.
I want to correct Marco Biagi. The paragraph to which I referred is in annex C. The paragraph that the Government party voted down reads:
“The Committee believes that there are significant issues regarding the subsidy regime in light of the constitutional debate that require to be addressed and calls on Ministers to continue to update the Committee on these matters.”
That was the paragraph that I was concerned about.
I was referring to the paragraph that Rhoda Grant alluded to. On the paragraph that she has referred to, I note that the replacement paragraph was proposed by Patrick Harvie, who is not a member of the Government and who would, I believe, put green energy in front of independence at any opportunity.
We have achieved a great deal in Scotland, and I very much welcome the minister’s constructive tone, but as we were drafting the report, I kept on seeing issues in respect of which, instead of being able to act, we had only the power to ask nicely. Perhaps a bit more peace has broken out on transmission charging and the fossil fuel levy, but we still have challenges in the contracts for difference, the Crown Estate, funding for demand reduction, and—perhaps most of all—accessing private finance. WWF has asked us to increase the renewable heat target, but would that be a target for which we had very limited levers, because renewable heat incentives are a reserved issue?
A related issue that is of particular interest is the report on proposals and policies 2. A great deal of importance is attached to carbon capture and storage. That may well be a necessary counterpart to providing the base-load that is needed for the 100 per cent target, but I would be delighted if, in his closing speech, the minister could provide some reassurance and information on how we in the Scottish Parliament can attempt to lever that in with the powers that we have. I do not think that a policy of a 2014 yes vote is really sufficient in that respect, much as I would be overjoyed by that result.
To look ahead, Murdo Fraser wanted to separate desirability and achievability.
You are in your final five seconds.
Those two things are very connected. Rather than endanger the confidence that has been shown with uncertainty fostered by an unsupportive UK Government, which does not have a strong commitment to renewable energy, there should be no barriers to our ambition. The sky is the limit.
15:53
I congratulate the rigorous Murdo Fraser and his committee colleagues on the report, whose gestation, as Marco Biagi suggested, was not always smooth. I also thank members for taking the time to come to my constituency, which is the home not only of marine renewables, but of community renewables.
I welcome the unanimous support for the targets, which are ambitious but achievable. It is important that the political steer is clear on our commitment to decarbonise our economy, and on creating a genuine renewables powerhouse in this country. The committee was right to set out a number of challenges for Scotland’s Governments and others to ensure that that happens.
It is regrettable that there are areas of division along party lines, some of which have been explored, but there can be no dispute that, as SSE has confirmed, the potential break-up of the UK is being factored in as a potential cost in assessing future investment. It is not just SSE that is saying that. That is not a complaint about the Scottish Government and it is certainly not a complaint about the minister, who I know is held in high regard.
I am not suggesting that investments are not being made, but I have to say that the nature of the investments and the timeframe for making decisions are interesting. Next to no one is arguing that independence is the answer to the sector’s prayers, and businesses are understandably reluctant to put their heads above the parapet. They do not like uncertainty—financial, regulatory or political—and they have enough on their plate as it is with decarbonising our economy, including our transport system and heat, while keeping the lights on and bills manageable.
As a result, reform is essential. The report is right to highlight concerns about the lack of detail on electricity market reform and to highlight delays in the domestic renewable heat incentive. I hear those concerns myself and I support the comments in the report. I also acknowledge WWF Scotland’s points about the importance of heat, which constitutes half of demand and is responsible for 47 per cent of emissions and 60 per cent of household energy costs.
However, that only illustrates the paradox for Fergus Ewing, for whom I have the utmost respect, with whom I have worked very collaboratively for a number of years and who very much takes a collaborative approach. The fact is that the better the deal on electricity market reform, transmission charging or whatever, the more we have to lose with separation.
Will the member give way?
No. We have heard enough of Mr MacKenzie’s views.
The report makes a number of very helpful recommendations on a range of issues such as skills, workforce development, the supply chain and community development. I agree that we need separate targets for community and locally owned developments. Although Orkney has excellent examples of both, they perform different functions and are seen very differently.
Before I turn to the grid, I will focus on transmission charging, which we debated in the chamber shortly before Christmas. Then, I said that locational charging is now anathema to our achieving our objectives; it is discriminatory, hampers future investment and distorts decisions about where to locate. The Scottish Renewables report “Swimming Against the Tide: The Impact of TNUOS Charging on Marine Energy Development in Scotland” highlights cost comparisons with regard to grid charges and the dramatic effect of charging islands-based developers for what are called “local works”, such as undersea cabling. That disparity, with an up to 120 per cent increase in charges by 2020, potentially undermines the ability of our islands, including Orkney, to fulfil their potential. That, in turn, will compromise the ability of Scotland and the UK to deliver on their climate change and renewables targets. Given the global lead in wave and tidal energy that we currently enjoy, that would be a scandalously wasted opportunity to create thousands of jobs, attract millions of pounds of investment and develop the skills and expertise to allow us to build the sector internationally.
I entirely agree with Liam McArthur’s analysis of the potentially damaging consequences of not finding a solution to transmission charging in the islands. I emphasised that very point to John Hayes when I met him last week in London. Does the member agree that it would be extremely helpful if Mr Hayes or Mr Davey could attend a meeting of the intergovernmental group as soon as the consultant’s report is concluded so that we can find, once and for all, a solution to the islands’ transmission charging problem?
I certainly agree. The minister and I have already discussed the issue and I will repeat what I said privately: I fully support such a move and will lend what support I can with regard to my UK colleagues.
The renewables steering group has been strongly commended and is making progress. A couple of options for a solution are emerging, including enhanced ROCs for the islands to compensate for the additional charging burden, which would have the benefit of relative simplicity, or the use of section 185 orders to reduce charges around our islands. However, with the second option, amendments would need to be made, given the 10-year time limit on such orders. There is cause for optimism but, as the minister has said, we must maintain momentum.
The other area of concern, which I highlighted last year, is the grid. On the back of those concerns, the minister helped by setting up the steering committee and its subgroups at Orkney level. However, since then, Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Limited has announced a further delay in laying the 132kV cable. That is hugely disappointing; I find the reasons for the delay difficult to accept in certain instances, and there is no doubt that the decision is having an impact on confidence and, potentially, on reputation. That will flow into impacts on investment and, in the meantime, lost opportunities. We need to reinforce and maintain the steering committee’s work. I hope that I can count on the minister’s support in that respect.
You should be drawing to a close, Mr McArthur.
There are many areas that I did not have a chance to touch on, notably fuel poverty. Again, I point to the work on teleswitching and the use of renewables in assisting fuel-poor households in Orkney.
The report’s message is that targets are achievable. Much work is still to be done and we need to ensure that our islands, including those that I represent, play a full part. We have the skills, the natural resources—
You must close, please.
—and the appetite; we now need a more level playing field and an opportunity to be totally competitive. In return—
Thank you very much.
15:59
I welcome the report from Murdo Fraser and the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. When the report was published back in November, it was reassuring to note the committee’s central finding that the
“renewable energy target for electricity generation is achievable”.
That is clearly subject to caveats, but in an international context it is not an exaggeration to say that Scotland is leading Europe and the world in terms of renewable energy and the wider transition to the green economy, as emissions from energy production fall.
Turning to the European Commission’s “Energy roadmap 2050”, the Commission’s renewables target is 20 per cent by 2020. In Scotland, we are talking about meeting, or at least coming very close to achieving 50 per cent in the next two years—not to mention the figure of 100 per cent. It is therefore high time that some members of the Parliament refrained from describing the targets as “ludicrous”.
It is important to keep an eye on the prize: a Scotland that is virtually self-sustaining in terms of energy generation and consumption. We should redouble our efforts to achieve that. That includes supporting the development and deployment of renewable technologies, which is in line with the “Energy roadmap 2050” and is necessary in order to meet our emissions reduction targets under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
Looking internationally, the Energiewende in Germany—the transition to sustainable energy generation and consumption—is well under way. In the league of large European nations, Germany is more than pulling its weight in the process, with more than 25 per cent of supply coming from renewable sources, according to the latest figures, compared with the UK’s 9.4 per cent and France’s 20 per cent. Despite that, Angela Merkel’s CDU-led coalition has come under serious criticism for cutting back on subsidies for renewables too early, which is putting thousands of jobs at risk and potentially stalling Germany’s impressive momentum.
However, Germany’s decision to decommission all of its nuclear reactors by 2022 in response to the Fukushima disaster has been warmly greeted by environmental organisations around the world. Aside from the enormous subsidies that are associated with building and running nuclear power stations, and the astronomical costs of storing waste, the true cost of disasters to the state can be five times higher than the price that the nuclear industry has paid by way of insurance, as the Fukushima example showed.
Will Roderick Campbell give way on that point?
No. I do not have enough time.
There are concerns about the siting of wind turbines. Local authorities must ensure that they fully assess the cumulative impact of plans before making decisions. They need to undertake proper consultation of residents and businesses and to take into account guidance from important agencies such as Scottish Natural Heritage and VisitScotland. That is an important recommendation in the committee’s report because we need carefully to balance the interests of everyone in the planning process.
As the committee suggested and as the Government has accepted, we need to make progress in identifying local spatial frameworks. We must acknowledge—as Fergus Ewing has stated—that the national policy on wind turbine development is under review as part of the review of Scotland’s planning policy.
We need to consider those things in context. We must take a full view of subsidies in relation to wind farm development, rather than pursuing calls for slashing the funding to the industry while failing to take into account the fact that contracts for difference, as they are proposed, represent a subsidy in relation to nuclear industries—a point that was agreed, with one exception, I think, by the committee. That is not to mention the failure to take account of the substantial nuclear clean-up costs, which is, to say the least, unfortunate. If we were to accept the arguments about reducing funding, we would seriously jeopardise the energy and emissions targets that were agreed by Parliament.
At the end of last year I corresponded with and met representatives of a company that is based in north-east Fife that is promoting new and innovative designs for tidal energy generation. It is precisely that kind of sustainable industry that we need to support into the future. We must also recognise that the Scottish Government’s saltire prize is an extremely useful incentive for developers of wave and tidal energy sources, in particular.
The debate surrounding energy production and consumption should not be seen just in terms of targets and Government strategies. Individual households and businesses have a role to play in reducing demand by consuming less. That includes proactive measures such as installing more efficient heating systems, replacing boilers through the scrappage scheme, designing new homes and fitting existing homes with the highest levels of insulation to increase energy efficiency, and making simple efforts around the home to use less energy.
As for the renewable heat targets, we should take heart from the fact that the interim target for renewable heat sources has been exceeded. Discussions between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the detail of the renewable heat incentive scheme to be launched this summer could clear the way for more progress towards the 11 per cent target for 2020, which has hitherto been delayed by the UK Government’s failure to act decisively on the matter, which was mentioned by Marco Biagi and is also mentioned in the committee’s report.
However, as WWF Scotland says, heat accounts for more than half of energy demand in Scotland, 47 per cent of CO2 emissions and 60 per cent of household energy costs, so perhaps we should consider being a little bit more adventurous than 11 per cent.
The committee’s report is valuable and I am pleased to note that the Government is taking it seriously. I welcome this afternoon’s debate.
16:05
There is no doubt that Scotland’s energy future is central to our economic prospects, to say nothing of the fact that it is crucial to the extent to which we can mitigate or reverse the damage that we do to our environment locally, nationally and globally. In the long run, that means delivering a shift to renewable energy technologies, so the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee should be congratulated on its important inquiry and the exhaustive range of evidence that it took from witnesses both erudite and—sometimes—colourful.
However, the central conclusion in the committee’s report—that the target of 100 per cent equivalent energy consumption from renewables is achievable—hides more than it reveals. In its evidence, EDF stated that
“it may be technically feasible”
to achieve the target, but it went on to say that doing so would rely on subsidy levels, investment in transmission infrastructure, storage and a UK energy market, all of which are uncertain. The committee identified skills shortages, delayed grid development, intermittency and the affordability of offshore wind as genuine risks to meeting the target.
The committee rightly draws attention, too, to the risk to investment that is posed by uncertainty in transmission charging and electricity market reform. All the evidence pleaded for clarity, durability and stability in the support regime for renewables. However, people cannot seriously argue, as some colleagues have tried to do this afternoon, that uncertainty over the details of EMR is damaging but uncertainty over the potential future of EMR post-2014 does no damage whatsoever. That is simply not credible.
The member mentioned that there is a single UK market. The committee heard in evidence that, in future, we will move into a European market with a North Sea interconnector. When electrons are pushed down the wires, consumers do not care what the country of origin was. When they pay for them at the eventual point of use—
Please be brief, Mr MacKenzie.
—the subsidy will be contained in the final price.
I can give you your time back, Mr Gray.
In exactly the same way, the electricity consumers of England and Wales do not care where the electrons come from, and if they have cheaper alternatives to expensive subsidised renewable energy that is produced in Scotland, they may well choose to get their electrons from those alternatives. That is exactly the uncertainty that is affecting investments at present.
My constituency of East Lothian has a key role in meeting the targets. It already has significant installed wind capacity and it is close to consented offshore sites. However, we need to look at what is happening on the ground. If we consider planning, the committee emphasises the need for local spatial plans to give a clear indication of where developments might be approved. In East Lothian, we already have a carefully constructed local capacity framework for wind turbines, but in recent months we have seen four single turbines that were deemed inappropriate by East Lothian Council simply railroaded through on appeal. In one case, the reporter explicitly says that the local spatial framework can and should be disregarded.
The minister needs to understand that that contempt for local democratic decision making for the sake of relatively insignificant capacity is driving many of my constituents to oppose all wind generation.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.
It is also undermining confidence in the planning system. In East Lothian, ministerial decisions are driving wind turbines into sensitive and inappropriate areas. Yes, that was my constituents laughing when they heard the minister’s description of how he believes his planning system is operating. The situation is not helped by ministers imposing an unwanted energy-from-waste incinerator on my constituency and then expanding its consent so that waste will be shipped in from all over Scotland.
Locally, serious efforts are being made to use the opportunity of offshore developments to regenerate Dunbar harbour, exactly as the committee suggests that we should. However, any funding for that has so far had to come from hard-pressed council resources, and the dangling of the same prize in front of many competing communities is fuelling uncertainty there, too.
Meanwhile, Cockenzie power station closes next month, removing 1,000MW of capacity from the Scottish grid, with no sign yet of the already consented replacement gas power station. The minister acknowledged the importance of thermal base-load to back up renewables. As well as his UK counterparts, he has a role to play in ensuring that the project is delivered in my constituency.
Of course, East Lothian still provides up to a quarter of our electricity on any given day, with zero carbon emissions, 500 high-quality jobs and apprenticeships and training for the next generation. However, that is at Torness—unacknowledged, unsupported and unwanted by ministers and, indeed, the majority of the committee.
My county has always provided more than its share of Scotland’s energy, from coal mines, to nuclear power, to wind farms in the Lammermuirs. Our local problems now are not unique. They reflect the weaknesses in the national energy strategy: planning issues; too narrow a focus on wind; an illogical and ideological opposition to nuclear power; a failure to develop the supply chain and grid infrastructure quickly enough; and, above all, a failure to take the public along with the energy strategy, which might yet be the biggest risk to the Government’s 2020 targets. Those risks are all to be found in the committee’s report. I sincerely hope that it is to them that the minister and the Scottish Government respond, rather than to the bland conclusion that the targets can be met.
16:12
As a former member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, and one who took part in the inquiry up to the signing-off of the report, I will focus on some of the general findings as well as looking at how planning issues can impact on the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets.
The report is the result of a lot of work not just by the committee members past and present but by the clerking team, which once again provided excellent support to the committee. I want to put on record my appreciation and thanks to my former colleagues on the committee and to the members of the clerking team for their efforts. I also thank everyone who provided evidence to the committee.
As we know, Scotland has the potential to be a world leader in renewable energy, and it is in that context that we must look at the achievability of the ambitious targets that have been set by the Scottish Government. The committee’s report is positive and highlights that the targets are within our reach, even if we have some issues to iron out.
One of those issues, which has been discussed already today, is the planning system. There was a concern that the pressure on the planning system is due in part to the high number of renewable energy applications. However, the Scottish Government has taken measures to address that, including a commitment to provide more funding to planning authorities.
I welcome the idea within the report of potentially increasing the planning fees that are charged for larger-scale applications, as long as they do not disadvantage community developers. That additional finance could be used to boost resources in individual planning departments where necessary. I also welcome the Scottish Government’s announcement of the planning fees increase, which Murdo Fraser and the minister talked about earlier.
There should be greater clarity on environmental impact assessments. The Scottish Government and local authorities should come together to address that issue, providing greater standardisation and guidance on matters such as visualisation standards and noise assessments. The report touched on those points.
I support the benefits of community-generated renewable energy and I agree with the report that the Scottish Government should consider making adjustments to planning policy that would include clearer consideration of the local economic benefit of projects through the planning system.
The generation of energy by local authorities came up during the discussion about RPP2 in yesterday’s meeting of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. Local authorities have the power to generate energy, if they want to do so. Start-up costs are high, but in some post-industrial areas there might be infrastructure that could be invested in and brought back into use. There is certainly potential in relation to hydro schemes across the country.
I welcome the letter from the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism and the Minister for Local Government and Planning to COSLA and Heads of Planning Scotland, which set out the Scottish Government’s requirement for spatial frameworks to be part of local development plans. There is concern about local authorities’ rates of progress in producing spatial frameworks. The timely development of local spatial development plans that are agreed locally in an open, transparent and democratic process, with due regard to national targets, can reduce the costly and inefficient disputes about renewable energy developments that take place throughout Scotland. Greater clarity on the type of development that is likely to be permitted and where such developments are likely to be permitted in a local authority area can give citizens and developers more certainty about the planning process.
Local authorities must ensure that local development plans are consistent with national objectives and targets. Every planning authority has its own plans and policies, but there should be consistency for developers, who should expect a broadly similar service, regardless of where they make an application. As we know, the Scottish Government’s planning policy is under review. I look forward to seeing what comes out of the process.
We heard from Liam McArthur, the member for Orkney. I was one of the members who went to Orkney. It was a fascinating trip and I learned a great deal. A key point for me was that the people there appreciate the tremendous opportunity that they have and that Scotland has. The enthusiasm with which they are trying to develop that opportunity is outstanding. They are building expertise daily, which will help not just Orkney but all Scotland.
I tried to intervene during Mary Scanlon’s speech, but I was unsuccessful. I wanted to make the point that I am not aware that tourist numbers in Orkney have decreased as a result of the location of wind turbines there.
Renewable energy presents an opportunity for Scotland, which we must grab with both hands. The tough targets that have been set will help to steer a clear path for developers and communities and will help to create job opportunities for young people in Scotland.
16:18
This is a vast subject, which the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee dealt with in a long inquiry. I thank the clerks for their work and I thank the many witnesses who shared their expertise, to help us to scrutinise and shape policy on renewables, which is an incredibly important task.
I am pleased that we have a chance to debate the committee’s report and I will concentrate on two important areas, which do not always get the attention that they deserve, although several members, including Rhoda Grant and Stuart McMillan, have helped to address the deficit during the debate. Those areas are the heat targets and community ownership of renewables.
Heat accounts for roughly half of Scotland’s energy use. We are currently delivering 3.8 per cent of heat demand from renewable resources, with an estimated 5.6 per cent in the pipeline. The target is to deliver 11 per cent by 2020. There is promising progress, but as the committee’s convener said, during the inquiry we heard evidence that suggests that we will not reach 11 per cent, because incentives have been delayed, development of the necessary infrastructure is too rare and there are serious concerns about biomass sustainability.
Those are challenges, but they are not insurmountable. Aberdeen Heat and Power Company’s written evidence to the inquiry told an inspirational story. The arm’s-length, not-for-profit company was set up 10 years ago by Aberdeen City Council, with the aim of providing clean, affordable energy. It provides district heating to 1,500 homes and more than 10 public buildings. Heating and water charges have dropped by 40 to 50 per cent, fuel poverty has reduced markedly, damp has been eliminated and homes have been created that people want to live in. There have been carbon savings of up to 40 per cent. The company does not even use a heating method that is renewable; it has simply found a vastly more efficient way of organising how we deliver heat.
That story demonstrates the leadership role that local authorities and other public sector bodies can play, as is stressed in the report’s recommendations. The Government, as its response makes clear, agrees.
I welcome Ms Johnstone’s mention of Aberdeen Heat and Power, which does a fantastic job. Does she agree that other local authorities have exactly the same opportunities as Aberdeen City Council and that they should probably look at what has happened in Aberdeen? We need to ensure that best practice is adopted throughout Scotland.
Certainly. I also like to think that the Government will take every opportunity to provide leadership in ensuring that that happens.
As members will recall, the Greens dedicated debating time last year to the role that publicly owned renewable energy companies could play in delivering on our climate targets and in providing important extra revenue for public services. Given that the Government’s response demonstrates its support for the recommendation in paragraph 266 of the committee’s report, I hope that the Government will do all that it can to revitalise and support the publicly owned energy company idea.
We are seeing a renewables revolution in Scotland, and it is exciting. I am really pleased that, after listening to the evidence, the committee was able to agree—by and large—a very positive report. The public favour renewables, too, but there is scant support for big companies coming in, building turbines and keeping the vast amount of benefits for themselves and their shareholders. That simply does not feel fair, and there are far better models out there.
An exciting community-driven project in my region is Balerno Village Trust’s plans to build a micro-hydro electricity generator on the Harlaw reservoir in the Pentlands. The project, which has planning permission and a licence from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, is waiting for a lease from the City of Edinburgh Council and a grid connection before it can start to raise capital. The grant from Community Energy Scotland was essential in kick-starting the project, but more needs to be done to help to smooth the process of grid connection.
The Edinburgh community groups Greener Leith and PEDAL-Portobello Transition Town worked hard together to secure energyshare funding to push forward their plans for a community turbine on the coast. Unfortunately, there are issues with the site. However, their commitment to the project highlights their belief in the many benefits that such an asset would bring to the community.
Kirknewton is another community in my region that is champing at the bit to get renewable energy projects off the ground. Kirknewton is progressing numerous initiatives but, by an accident of geography, Edinburgh airport’s radar has frustrated the community’s attempts to build its own turbine. However, alternatives are being looked at.
Those are just two communities that have come up against barriers to their renewables ambitions by an accident of geography. We need to tap into, develop and support community interest. Kirknewton’s commonsense suggestion is for a match-making scheme to help to ensure that the maximum amount of community benefit comes from renewable projects on the national forest estate. Up to 49 per cent of any national forest estate renewables project is available to the communities that live nearby—if those communities can raise enough money to buy into the scheme. However, raising the money is not always possible. In those cases, the suggestion from Kirknewton is that another community that is keen to develop renewables but is unable to do so on its own land could be brought in to help. That might be an ideal way for urban communities to participate, too.
I have talked about heat and the potential role that publicly owned energy companies have in delivering heat networks and generating new revenue for public services. I have talked about the desire of communities to have renewables projects that truly benefit the local area directly. Both of those link to the debate over the fair distribution of benefit. To maintain public support for ambitious targets, the benefits of the renewables revolution must be distributed in a fair and transparent way, not just to the large companies—although they of course have a role to play—but to the public, to the co-operative sector and to the community sector, too.
16:24
Along with other members who have spoken in the debate, I welcome the committee’s inquiry and its conclusion that Scotland’s renewable energy targets can be met. That point was put rather well in the oral evidence of Graeme Blackett of Biggar Economics, who said:
“The short answer is that they are achievable. I am not suggesting that they will be met by onshore wind alone but, taking into account what has already been installed, what is being constructed and what is going through the planning system, I think that that and our current hydro capacity will get us pretty close to the 100 per cent target—and that is before we consider the offshore sector.”—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 14 March 2012; c 1108.]
Why is it so important that we achieve our renewables ambition by 2020? That is about more than simply delivering energy security and providing protection from volatile gas prices while being mindful that the gas price largely drives the electricity price. It also means a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as agreed by the Parliament. In fact, a Cambridge Econometrics study into the economics of gas and offshore wind, which was published on behalf of Greenpeace and WWF in November last year, clearly showed that the deployment of wind could reduce carbon emissions by two thirds across the UK.
One of the biggest prizes in achieving our renewable energy targets will be the reindustrialisation of Scotland—a process that will see the creation of highly skilled and high-technology jobs for Scotland’s future workforce, including jobs in civil engineering, wind farm development, turbine production, 3D modelling and many more besides.
Over the next four years, Scotland aims to deliver 2,000 modern apprenticeships specifically for the industries involved in renewable energy and climate change, and a pilot apprenticeship framework in wind turbine manufacture has been created at Carnegie College, which was referred to by Margaret McDougall.
According to the industry’s route map, which was published by the offshore wind industry group in January,
“securing one third of the UK offshore wind market would secure an estimated GVA”—
gross value added—
“in Scotland of £7 billion and create 28,377 jobs.”
Over the past three years, the Scottish Government has offered considerable encouragement to the industry. It has done more than that: it has taken the necessary steps to deliver confidence, demand and certainty. Those steps have paid off.
The reality is that, in the past year, applications were submitted for more than 4,000MW of new offshore generation. To put that into context, that represents the capacity of almost half of the generating plant in operation in Scotland. That is a greater amount of generation capacity than has ever been in planning at any given time—and more is to come.
The formation of East Coast Renewables, which is an alliance of 10 local authorities working together to achieve Scotland’s renewables targets, and the involvement of organisations and companies from Aberdeen—which Kevin Stewart referred to—to East Lothian, represented by Iain Gray, is a hugely positive development. Now that the industry has submitted its applications and its environmental assessments, it has provided a picture of what the economic opportunity will look like. There will be a new sector located within a 200-mile radius of Scotland’s east coast that will require the construction and fabrication of upwards of 900 offshore substructures, each of which will be up to 300 feet high, and made of steel or concrete. On top of those will sit a similar number of turbines, their associated blades, gearboxes and control systems. All the turbines will need to be connected to scores of new technology high-voltage current offshore substation platforms. That will be done with hundreds of miles of subsea cabling, which will eventually take the power to shore. To install that we will need dedicated installation vessels and the development and deployment of specialised deepwater installation techniques. To operate all that, we will need new and dedicated onshore facilities for a new and permanent workforce.
Alison Johnstone talked about the renewables revolution. Scotland has not had a better opportunity—in this generation—to achieve economic prosperity. The prize is the reindustrialisation of Scotland, the reinvigoration of our manufacturing base and the rediscovery of world leadership in heavy engineering.
16:29
I was interested to note how Murdo Fraser introduced the debate to Parliament. I thought that he was statesmanlike, but it occurred to me that, had he been sitting where I am sitting, he might have made a different speech. The duty falls to me to at least attempt to make the speech that he might have chosen to give.
The debate has been excellent and brought out a lot that was positive. There are one or two people whom I will praise for that as I go through my speech. Unfortunately, it also brought out one or two eminently predictable points, and I may mention a few names in that regard when we get to the appropriate stage.
The first thing that the minister said—it has been repeated several times—is that Scotland can achieve 100 per cent of its required electricity generation capacity from renewables by 2020. Whether that is desirable or whether we will show adequate concern for the victims of that policy remains to be seen. That is what I will talk about.
One of the key issues that were raised earlier in the debate and on which we have touched several times is planning. Planning has been the bane of the renewables industry since the start, particularly when it comes to onshore wind turbines. We have never adequately solved the problem.
We are getting to the phase at which significant numbers of turbines are being erected day on day. It is now rare for me to drive across the north-east and not spot a turbine that was not there the last time that I passed that way. People are now beginning to see the effects of the turbines. Cumulative visual impact will be of concern to very many people.
I have spoken to some of the people in the Angus glens, for example, who are concerned that their proximity to Perthshire means that turbines are being erected with seemingly little reference to what is happening on the other side of the boundary. I can only share their concern.
Will Alex Johnstone give way?
I want to deal with that specific point at this stage.
At the end of her speech, Mary Scanlon tried to raise the issue of buffer zones but, unfortunately, did not have the chance. I draw everybody’s attention to paragraph 74 of the report, which says that most authorities are applying Scottish planning policy on the 2km separation from settlements appropriately. However, there seems to be a difference between the separation of turbines from settlements and the separation from individual houses, or groups of houses, in remote areas.
For example, someone living in Inverness will know that no large turbines can be built within 2km of the city. However, someone who lives in a more sparsely populated area could have turbines less than 1km from their home. Many people in rural areas are concerned that turbines are being approved in areas where they impose themselves on individuals who live in sparsely populated communities.
Is Alex Johnstone aware that, at the previous council elections, the Scottish National Party in Aberdeenshire offered to look at harmonising the separation distance with authorities adjacent to Aberdeenshire Council? It remains at 400m in Aberdeenshire, where the Tories lead the council. They are yet to review the separation distances.
I am fully aware that the SNP is capable of saying one thing in Aberdeenshire and another in Edinburgh. There is nothing new in that.
I will move on to one or two of the other issues that have been raised.
I will talk about fuel poverty. Several speakers mentioned that our pursuit of the renewables target will drive up the cost of electricity. It seems to me simple arithmetic that, if we have a system that uses renewables obligation certificates and feed-in tariffs to encourage and underpin an industry and if the consumer pays for those additional subsidies, the consumer will suffer as a result. If we achieve our objective, we are forcing up the price of electricity.
Will Alex Johnstone give way?
Will Alex Johnstone give way?
I am running out of time.
We have always argued that it is necessary to have a balanced energy policy. We have joined the Government in criticising the previous Labour Government for its failure to show adequate vision in energy policy, but the SNP—in opposition and government—has shown what some would describe as an irrational distaste for nuclear energy.
We heard that again today from a number of speakers. The reason why I call it irrational is that we hear people such as Roddy Campbell praising Germany because it will close its nuclear power stations by some time in the middle of the next decade and not mentioning the fact that that it is building 12 new coal-fired power stations to achieve that. If only we had our old friend Christopher Harvie with us to tell us how they do things in Germany—he might have had a bit to say about the old East German brown coal industry that might have informed us.
There is much that has been discussed in the debate that will require a lot of attention, but even the minister made it quite clear that most of the things that we need to deal with will have to be dealt with on an international—or, at least, a UK-wide—basis. Once again, Fergus Ewing has given us the opportunity to ask that Scotland’s two Governments work together in harmony to achieve our renewable energy objectives without having the damaging consequences that the SNP’s policy—and independence—could have.
16:35
The committee’s report and the debate have revealed a tentative consensus. Mary Scanlon said that she welcomed the tone of the debate “so far”. Marco Biagi said that “consensus” was perhaps too strong a word; he was right to say that the committee reached a “common position”. He then went on to dwell on the divisions, which I hope that I will not do too much.
The report reveals agreement on the direction of travel but a surprising level of disagreement on how to get to where we are going and on the scale of the obstacles in the way. I will start with planning. It is clear that there is general support across Scotland for onshore wind, but the committee accurately identified the concern among some local communities about being overwhelmed by development. It would be unfortunate indeed if, in our genuine desire to promote renewables and tackle carbon emissions, we created an incentive for small landowners to overpopulate the countryside with single or small numbers of highly visible but environmentally unhelpful wind turbines. On behalf of the committee, Murdo Fraser highlighted the need for spatial plans to be developed in every area of Scotland.
In an excellent speech, Iain Gray flagged up the problems that are created when democratically accountable local authorities reject applications for wind farms only to find those decisions being repeatedly overturned by the Scottish Government. As he concluded, the net effect of central Government seeming to approve every application, regardless of the circumstances, is to undermine confidence in the system and to provoke greater resistance to wind farms generally.
If neighbouring farmers each apply for a turbine on farms that are less than 2km apart, would Ken Macintosh say that one of them should not get approval? Given that 76 per cent of farmers find it difficult to get planning approval for turbines, does he think that we are making the best use of a natural resource by having such a restriction in the countryside?
I think that Mr Gibson points out that such decisions are not easy, but surely we should trust the local authorities to work in harmony with developers and the Scottish Government instead of working against one another. For the Scottish Government to come in heavy-handed and pretend that it knows better than local communities does our shared objectives no good whatever. There is room for planned development in Scotland, but I would not have thought that overdevelopment was something that any of us would wish to see.
In the past, the Parliament has united on the need to ensure a fairer system of transmission charges to and from our islands, and the committee did so again. Liam McArthur and others have pointed out that the development of not just onshore wind farms on our islands, but offshore wind and potential future wave and tidal energy projects depend on the establishment of island connections to the grid with sufficient capacity to cope. The charging regime has yet to be finally agreed by Ofgem and industry, and our message that the Scottish islands must not be disadvantaged is a clear one. I welcome the fact that the minister said that he was keen to work consensually to resolve the situation.
However, I have a slight concern on the issue, which follows on from the publication this week of the Scottish Government’s supplementary response to its consultation on the renewables obligation banding review. As the committee recommended, if the transmission charging regime cannot be amended, there is still a duty on all parties, including the Scottish Government, to find a remedy to the problem. The ROC system could have been part of the remedy, but this week’s paper failed to address the issue at all. In fact, a number of the Government’s conclusions on ROCs left me worried, particularly on biomass.
I welcomed Alison Johnstone’s comments on the role of heat but, like my colleague Rhoda Grant, I was slightly unsure about where the committee was heading in its conclusions on renewable heat. I thought that the minister agreed with Labour and many others that there is a role for small-scale biomass and potentially for good-quality combined heat and power generators, but his announcement this week gives the green light to develop plant that operates at 35 per cent efficiency, despite the European recommendation of a 70 per cent efficiency rate. In the past, the minister’s excuse has been to highlight a 10MW cap on power-only plants, but he now appears to have raised that by 50 per cent. I hope that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee will give the matter further consideration when the regulations on that come before it.
Several members raised the importance of securing community benefit, and there is an excellent section in the committee’s report on that. As Rhoda Grant highlighted, the Scottish Government could do more to promote community ownership—rather than just benefit—by tackling the costs and red tape that get in the way.
Perhaps the most important issue that is raised in the report is the skills shortage. Witnesses to the committee were unanimous in flagging up the seriousness of the problem, with several stating clearly that we will not meet the renewables targets without an appropriately skilled workforce. Evidence to the committee identified some of the problems that stand in the way of building the workforce, such as competition from other industries and the failure of workers to transfer from the oil and gas sector. The committee went on to talk about how we might promote the science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects at an earlier age and challenge the gender segregation that still puts many young women off a career in engineering.
I agree with Margaret McDougall that the Scottish Government’s actions in clearly favouring higher education over further education and in funding universities but not colleges send out a pretty negative message. All the work that we did in the first eight years of the Parliament to break down the academic-vocational divide and to build the knowledge economy is undone with that decision to cut college funding.
I had to laugh, or at least give a wry smile—I would not laugh at the report—when I read the committee’s conclusions on electricity market reform. It is not that I disagree with the concerns that are raised about the complexity of introducing the new contracts for difference and the potential destabilising effect that that might have on securing investment in renewables; what made me smile was the contrast between the report’s constant references to the damaging effects of uncertainty created by EMR being followed, a matter of paragraphs later, by the admittedly dissented conclusion that apparently there is no such uncertainty over the impact of the referendum. My colleague Iain Gray clearly also saw the same unintended ironic contrast. The committee is willing to flag up the uncertainty of EMR, but rejects all other uncertainties or risks, despite having much evidence on them.
Presiding Officer, I want briefly to mention—
You do not have much time left.
I do not have enough time, so I suggest to the minister that the words are fine and, if words were all it takes, we would be there already, but we need action. I will support the Scottish Government if it actually follows through with actions that overcome the obstacles.
16:43
The debate has been extremely useful and wide ranging. I will try to do it justice and to reply to some of the requests from individual members.
Rhoda Grant asked what progress has been made on the intergovernmental island charging group. A consultant has been appointed, by agreement among Ed Davey, me and the other members of the group. Evidence-gathering sessions took place in the Western Isles on 13 February and are due to take place in Shetland on 27 and 28 February and in Orkney on 28 February and 1 March. Thereafter, my request to John Hayes, which was relayed at a meeting with him last week, was that, because of the huge importance of the issue, there should be ministerial attendance at the intergovernmental group.
Liam McArthur suggested some possible solutions. There are of course several possible solutions. One is an island ROC, which could be X plus Y, where X is the evidence-based island ROC and Y is the cost of transmission. That would be a buffer and would ensure a return for investors. However, that would take us up only to 2017, so there would probably need to be a CFD solution as well. Thirdly, those solutions could be combined with others and with a section 185 order, which would put a cap on existing charges.
It must be said that we are in this position because the UK regulator, Ofgem, did not provide a solution for the whole of the UK. Indeed, the islands have been separated from a solution that has been offered to the mainland. That is a serious state of affairs.
There must be a solution, so I will continue to work positively and constructively with the UK Government and with colleagues in the Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Green parties in this Parliament. I will keep members informed about the progress of this important issue to the best of my ability. The matter will be raised at the convention of the Highlands and Islands, which I think is due to take place in Lerwick next month and which I will certainly attend. I will keep members fully advised about that.
Alison Johnstone made an excellent speech covering many topics that others perhaps did not cover. In relation to district heating, we have had an expert commission and I have chaired some of its meetings because I am passionately committed to taking forward district heating. Alison Johnstone rightly praised the success of district heating in Aberdeen. There has been success in Shetland and Glasgow as well.
What is at stake is the tackling of fuel poverty in an effective way. One lady tenant in a flat in Glasgow, who is in a tower block that has had the benefit of the district heating scheme, put it simply. She said, “This scheme has meant that I do not have to wear my duffle coat indoors any more.” That puts it as well as it can be put.
Does the minister welcome the Ignis scheme in Wick, where 200 people in the town are now getting heat and the distillery is getting steam? Indeed, it can be expounded as another district heating system that is a great success.
I was aware of that. I think that I have been invited to visit the scheme, which I hope to do. If I do, I will certainly combine it with a visit to the Pulteney distillery, whose best product is not steam.
Many members have touched on community renewables. I am advised that, prior to the end of this financial year, we expect funding for six community projects to be approved, five of which came through the community and renewable energy scheme pre-planning pipeline. That will result in a spend of around £2 million in the community renewables sector. I was pleased that so many members—including Mary Scanlon, Alison Johnstone, Stuart McMillan and Rob Gibson—highlighted that issue.
We want to do far more on community renewables but we recognise that the mechanics are extremely challenging and difficult. There is no doubt about that at all. Our job, through Community Energy Scotland, CARES and some excellent civil servants who are fully committed to making this successful, is to spread out the benefits to as many communities as possible. I am keen to work with members from all parties on community renewables.
Margaret McDougall mentioned skills at some length—quite rightly so. Ken Macintosh mentioned skills as a particular challenge. I agree: the skills issue is a challenge. It is a challenge for the whole world. We are short of engineers; the whole world is short of engineers, as I know from when I visited Calgary and the First Minister visited Norway. It is a challenge that is faced by all nations, not simply with regard to renewable energy but with regard to oil and gas and across the spectrum.
Part of the answer, of course, is for more emphasis on STEM topics. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government has provided nearly £2 million in funding for this academic year to allow the funding council to support an additional 300 funded STEM university places, increasing the total number to 1,200.
Out of the 25,000 modern apprenticeships, we have ring fenced 500 starts for energy during each year in this session, and engineering and energy-related modern apprenticeship starts show a 13 per cent increase over the past two years. That is welcome, but we need to do more: we recognise that. There is no point in backslapping and congratulating ourselves on what has been achieved—that is no use as a minister. Ministers always have to look to tomorrow and do better, and that is what we are determined to do. I am grateful that the skills issue has emerged clearly as a topic.
I also recognise the work that SSE and Scottish Power have done in setting up and supporting apprenticeships and work in places such as Carnegie, Inverness, Ayr, and Dumfries. That work also means that throughout those parts of Scotland, where, understandably, there are many people who are antagonistic towards aspects of the renewable energy policy, people can at least see that somebody—a son of somebody they know—is getting an apprenticeship or a job in the area. That is immensely important.
Nuclear energy has been touched on. I say with respect to Iain Gray that—as I think he knows—I have visited Torness and paid tribute to the professionalism of the work there. We are not opposed to continuing existing nuclear power stations in use, when that can safely happen.
I recognise the professionalism of the operation in Torness and in Hunterston, whose life extension we supported. However, we do not believe that it would be sensible to build new nuclear power stations, when the costs of those that are being built in France and Finland have exceeded their estimates by two or three times and when the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster has estimated that the costs of decommissioning Sellafield alone amount to £67.5 billion. To be frank, that strikes me as game over for new nuclear power stations.
Will the minister give way?
The minister is just concluding.
I am sorry—as always, I am happy to continue our discourse later.
Please come to a conclusion, minister.
The committee’s report is a solid piece of work. There are challenges and it will not be easy to achieve the targets but, in setting the targets, Scotland has created an interest and an investment. That will mean jobs and businesses in Scotland now and tomorrow, which will be good for all of us and good for a proper energy policy.
16:51
I welcome the—almost—consensuality of the debate. The committee’s inquiry explored whether the Government’s renewable energy targets are achievable; the report proves that they are.
Before I start on the meat of my speech, I offer my thanks to past and present committee members, to the convener—who was not poor—and to the 87 witnesses who gave evidence. The committee received 183 submissions and 21 items of supplementary evidence and it visited Orkney, Caithness, Perth and Fife in producing the report, which took 11 months to prepare. It was more like “War and Peace”; we had a few skirmishes but, in general, the whole thing was a constructive team effort.
The debate has added constructively to the report. In support of that, the committee welcomes the Government’s route map for renewable energy and the good practice wind project, from which the good practice guide has now been published. Those documents will add to the report’s findings, as will the briefings that have been received from many professionals in the industry.
A significant proportion of the committee’s time—perhaps a disproportionate amount—was spent on onshore wind. However, the significance of having a balanced energy supply from various sources was recognised, as was the need to consider how best to reduce domestic and transport energy demand and to secure our low-carbon emissions targets.
After full consideration, the general summation is that Scotland will achieve its renewables targets for electricity and heat. It is hoped that the positive recommendations in the report will be accepted. I believe that the Government has recognised them in its positive response to the report.
Many members talked about planning issues, which I will touch on because planning is a key element in achieving the targets. How do we ease the planning process and the guidelines that planning authorities provide? The increased number of planning applications is largely, but not wholly, born of the past subsidy regime’s suggested favouring of single turbine applications. Hydro and small biomass applications will, in time, add to that. That is why we welcome the recent funding and fees measures that the Government has taken to address resource obstacles. We need to understand, through regular reporting by local authorities, where we are on scoping, planning and approvals.
As the convener said, the committee felt that, if increased fees for larger-scale planning applications were applied, it would not be unreasonable to expect planning authorities to improve their efficiency by taking on at the centre the job of collecting and gathering data on cumulative and environmental impacts. That, I believe, will help to take some wind and heat out of local disputes.
Although a number of studies demonstrate that the majority of Scots support the development of onshore and offshore wind, we recognise that there has to be much greater involvement of, communication with and investment by communities, so that we get a balanced view on planning approvals. Guidelines, understanding and practice in, between and across planning authorities and bodies such as Scottish Natural Heritage need to be better established and applied.
As Margaret McDougall and Ken Macintosh mentioned, a major gating factor to achieving our targets is the availability and take-up of requisite skills—particularly in STEM subjects, as the minister mentioned. The interchangeability of skills requirements and competition for skills between the renewables industry and the still-burgeoning oil and gas industry provide a challenge to be met. I am encouraged by the engagement between the Scottish Government, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and the energy skills partnership, which is critical to overcoming that challenge and is welcome. However, the demographic demand requires much greater involvement of teachers and parents, who need to be actually taken out to the industry to be shown that engineering, for example, is not a dirty industry.
Scotland is leading the way on technology through EMEC and the European offshore wind deployment centre and it can establish a skilled workforce that will give the country global reach in the renewables industry.
Finance was briefly mentioned by Marco Biagi, and certainly by Mary Scanlon. The committee recognises that when the relevant technologies are developed, and with them the potential for a higher proportion of tidal and offshore wave power, Scotland could secure up to £46 billion of investment and nearly 40,000 jobs in renewables by 2020. There are, however, some uncertainties, as has been said. The greatest financial challenge that we face is the uncertainty that is created by DECC and Westminster regarding the lack of clarity on ROCs to 2014, the currently apparently rudderless passage of EMR and an unsure Energy Bill.
Despite the coalition’s agreement that there would be no subsidy for nuclear power, we heard just this week that the UK Government is now talking about 40-year subsidies for new nuclear stations. That is absolutely disgraceful and will certainly be fought rigorously.
In declaring that uncertainty, the committee found no significant evidence that there is uncertainty due to the current constitutional debate. I take Rhoda Grant’s point, but in his answer to that point the minister indicated that the Scottish Government is trying to have meaningful conversations with the Westminster Government.
This has been a good debate. Eight minutes is not enough time to do justice to the time and effort of the witnesses, clerks and committee members.
The summary of the report is this: in the face of uncertainty, which has certainly been created by the situation at Westminster regarding EMR and the Energy Bill, I believe that with greater development of decentralised generation; demand reduction; storage; better and fairer interconnections; the involvement and awareness of individuals; and the involvement of communities, local authorities, suppliers, developers and investors, we can and will achieve our renewable electricity, heat and low-carbon emissions targets.
I hope that the report has contributed seriously to the debate and to securing the energy future of Scotland.