Renewable Energy (Rural Communities)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3751, in the name of George Lyon. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the ambitious targets set by the Scottish Executive for renewable energy generation; recognises the potential job benefits to be gained from a Scottish manufacturing support base for renewable energy; further recognises the crucial importance of communities benefiting from wind farms and other renewable energy developments in their areas; notes the growing number of wind farm planning applications across rural Scotland; notes with concern the hostile reception such applications have received from members of the local community, who perceive no benefit to the community; further notes that benefits can be delivered through community ownership, rental income, reduced electricity bills or other methods, and considers that the Executive should ensure that the Scottish economy and affected communities benefit from the expansion of renewable energy.
I wish to draw to the attention of the Parliament and the Executive my concern about the impact of the development of renewable energy throughout Scotland, particularly in the coastal communities of the west coast of Scotland.
My constituency is in the forefront of renewable energy development in Scotland. Currently, we have five operational wind farms, one that has passed the planning stage, four that are pending planning approval and eight that have been refused planning permission. Also, Scotland's only operational wave-power machine is based off Islay in my constituency. The UK's only dedicated fabrication facility for wind power turbines, which employs 140 people, is based in Campbeltown, which is also in my constituency. Argyll and Bute is reaping the benefits of the Scottish Executive's commitment to renewable energy.
As we all know, the Scottish Executive has a target of 18 per cent of our generation coming from renewable energy by 2010 and is currently consulting on a new target of 40 per cent. I believe that a commitment to a 40 per cent target could bring further benefits not only to my constituency, but to fragile communities all along the west and north coasts of Scotland. Many of us believe that there exists the potential for a North sea oil-boom type of situation in the west coast of Scotland, which would be based on the development of renewable energy.
However, concerns are emerging in my constituency that the long-term financial benefits from the generation of renewable energy will not accrue to the communities in which the towers are based, although they will have to put up with having the wind turbines on their doorsteps for the next hundred years. To encourage development and ensure that growth continues, we must ensure that there is a financial incentive for those communities to grant planning permission.
Of course, financial benefits flow into the communities during the construction of the wind farms; for example, from construction jobs, from contracts for local firms that service those who bring the towers into the sites, from purchase of cement for the project and so on. There are many short-term jobs and short-term benefits but, so far, companies such as Scottish Power plc and Powergen Ltd have dominated the take-up of renewable energy in my constituency.
For comparison, members should consider a previous development in renewable energy in my constituency, which happened when the hydroelectric dams—of which there are a good number in my constituency—were constructed. The situation was exactly the same: in the beginning, there were lots of jobs in the construction phase, but after the construction phase was past, very few jobs were associated with the generation of hydroelectric power. There are some jobs to be had in maintaining dams, but not huge numbers of them.
The one community wind-power development in my constituency—the exception—is Shane Cadzow's in Ling. Shane Cadzow is an individual farmer-landowner who has constructed three wind towers of his own with help from the Scottish Executive through Highlands and Islands Enterprise, from which he received a grant. By and large, communities and individuals show little interest in renewables. Most landowners seem to think that the best way forward is to negotiate a lease deal with Powergen and Scottish Power that will run over the lifetime of the wind turbines that are situated on their land. That is completely the opposite of the experience in Denmark and Germany, where community-developed wind turbines and wind farms drove the huge expansion in wind power because of the way that the renewables obligations in those countries were constructed. Those obligations gave small communities the ability to borrow against future earnings.
My great concern is that, if we do not develop mechanisms that will encourage small scale wind-farm developments in our communities, and which will also encourage financial benefits from wind power to flow to communities over the long term, we will see greater and greater protest against, and objections to, the construction of wind farms in constituencies such as mine. In the motion, I allude to a number of ways in which we could encourage community ownership, and to small-scale wind-power developments that we could consider. I realise that some of the matters that I mention might be reserved.
Rental income is one way in which to encourage financial benefits into a community. One company that runs some of the wind-power developments in my constituency has voluntarily committed itself to paying £16,000 to £18,000 per year to local community councils around Beinn an Tuirc over 25 years. That is only the generosity of the company; there is no requirement for it to do that. I suggest that such a requirement is one mechanism that we should consider.
The reason why I have raised the matter in Parliament is to flag up the concerns that are starting to emerge in my constituency, which is at the forefront of developing renewable energy. It is in the Scottish Executive's interest not only to consider how we encourage community development and individual development of wind power in future, but to ensure that the communities that must put up with wind turbines for the next 100 years can see clear financial and community benefits over that period. I encourage the minister to consider closely how we might achieve that.
I congratulate George Lyon on securing the debate. It is a timeous debate, because this week has been a renewable energy week. The Executive launched its community renewables initiative a couple of weeks back and then relaunched it at Our Dynamic Earth on Tuesday, at which I was privileged to be invited to speak. Then, at the Scottish Parliament renewable energy group—SPREG—at which John Scott was present the other day, we also discussed renewable energy in the light of what the Executive has started for small-scale renewable energy developments.
There are two aspects to the debate. One is the effect of large-scale renewable energy developments and the other is how to engage local communities—as George Lyon correctly pointed out—so that they will not only get benefits from the developments, but see those benefits and want the developments to come to their areas. We should be trying to set up a mechanism whereby communities pledge to engage with big companies and help them to set up wind farms in their areas—such communities will be able to see the benefits not just for the nation and the world, but for themselves.
The cross-party group received a presentation from Angela Williams on the problems of merely refurbishing a small-scale hydro scheme that had come into the ownership of a community in Knoydart. That presentation highlighted the urgent need for the Executive to come up with very detailed advice for local communities once they have started up their community energy schemes. Such advice is very much required.
I emphasise my strong support for the general thrust of George Lyon's speech, which was that we must find ways in which to get the big companies to engage in such schemes, not only in communities but through taking advantage of the huge possibilities that Scotland offers in the engineering sector. We have the inventiveness and the technology-development capabilities. All sorts of exciting things are happening in that area, but not enough is being done by the Executive to get all those things together in a combined thrust that will allow Scotland to make the most that it can from the development of renewable energy.
I join Robin Harper in thanking George Lyon for bringing the topic before us. Scotland has such huge potential in renewable energy, and we have to start at the beginning if we are to ensure that we get it right so that, when we exploit that potential, we will gain benefits for everybody.
George Lyon spoke about the ambitious targets that have been set and about the fact that the Scottish Executive has put out to consultation the idea of exceeding its target of 18 per cent for renewable energy by 2010; it is hoped that it will achieve a level of 40 per cent by 2020. The minister will not be surprised to hear me say that I would like the Executive to be a lot more ambitious. Based on the current figures and on the capacity that we are already planning for, it would be possible to achieve a lot more. That is why the SNP has set targets of drawing 25 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 50 per cent by 2020.
Robin Harper spoke about Scotland being inventive in this area. We have a history of being inventive, but of not reaping the economic benefits of that inventiveness, which the SNP would be very keen to see. We must ask the Executive where the green job strategy is. We must ensure that we are not just dealing with inward investment by foreign companies to build wave or other turbines here. We should use the expertise that exists here and we should employ our people here in Scotland.
Much of George Lyon's speech concentrated on the worries that communities might have. Although they might be unfounded, those worries exist. When we plan for renewable energy, the SNP would very much like it if we considered community involvement. On local plans for individual local authority areas we could, in consultation with communities, consider zoning areas for renewable energy, which would give rise to much more co-operation from those communities. Similarly, communities could reap some of the direct economic benefits. That is already happening—I am aware that Evanton community council receives a substantial sum of money each year from the wind farm in that area. We could also consider setting up trusts, through which a community would receive, say, a penny per megawatt. To deal with things in those terms might ensure that the benefits were reaped locally.
The minister will not be surprised to hear that I hope that the Scottish Executive will use its devolved powers in the matter to ensure that we go all out to ensure that renewable energy schemes go ahead. We might have to re-examine the renewables obligation Scotland scheme—ROS—to give more of a leg-up to wave power and tidal power, which have huge potential for Scotland.
We know that some of the issues that are related to renewables are reserved, but let us not worry about those. Let us go for independence, so that we can have a renewable Scotland in an independent Scotland.
I agree with almost everything that Fiona McLeod said—apart from her last statement, in which she lost the plot.
I congratulate George Lyon on securing the debate. Although I do not agree with the motion in its entirety, I am happy to support many elements of it. In particular, I welcome the growing realisation in the Parliament of the job creation opportunities that renewables present. Every engineering company, university department and inventor should turn their mind to developing or refining machinery that is capable of harvesting our natural resource of renewable energy.
Recently, someone said that no one comes to Scotland for our weather, but that is not true; people in the renewable energy business are coming to Scotland in numbers because of our weather. Most of them are in the wind-power business. Scottish Power, Powergen and other international companies, such as ATCO, recognise that we have a valuable wind resource in Scotland, but the problem lies in harvesting that resource. All those who are taking part in tonight's debate, including Conservative members, want a thriving renewables sector. It is absolutely vital that we encourage the development of wind farming, but only on appropriate sites. We do not believe that Scotland should be covered with thousands of 300ft-high concrete towers. The appropriate places for wind farms are places where local communities are happy to welcome them. There is no point in forcing wind farms on communities if they are opposed to them. As with so many projects, in this instance location is everything.
That is why George Lyon's motion moves the debate forward. It is human nature that people's disapproval of wind farming might evaporate if they feel that, notwithstanding the visual intrusion or noise of turbines, they will receive benefit from them. Although it might go against the grain for landowners to give away some of their potential gain when developing sites, it might be necessary to deliver community enhancement projects from profits. That is a well-established principle in urban areas and it is known as planning gain.
Where planning gain takes the form of local electricity provision or enhancement of public facilities, it is vital to involve and seek the approval of local communities so that they feel the benefit of wind farming. The Knoydart Foundation, which, as Robin Harper mentioned, gave a presentation to the SPREG on Tuesday night, is a good example of that. Communities will be able to exercise their right to buy land under the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which was passed into law today, in order to build wind farms on it.
That is all very well, but significant harvesting of our wind resource will not happen unless the infrastructure—the national grid—is enhanced and upgraded. Many potentially ideally situated wind farms will never get beyond the concept stage unless the electricity that they produce can be fed into the national grid. As we all know, that capacity does not exist at the moment.
I look forward to hearing the minister's response to the debate. In his summing up, he might tell us how his plans—and those of the Department of Trade and Industry—to upgrade power lines in the west of Scotland in order to allow us to harvest our Scottish wind resource are developing. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing other members' speeches and to finding out about their views on the matter.
George Lyon is to be congratulated on lodging a well-balanced motion, which sets out the plus side of renewable energies, but indicates clearly the potential dangers posed by local concern about wind farms.
The best motor of human progress is enlightened self-interest. Some are motivated by idealism, which is very nice, but not enough people go for that. However, if there is something for people in a measure, they may support it. I cannot understand why, if people in urban and rural areas install solar panels, they cannot gain from that. They should be able to contribute to the grid, as well as drawing from it. In rural areas, the community as a whole should benefit from the presence of wind turbines and wave machines. We need to have investment in the grid to ensure that the waves beating on the rocks of Skye can contribute to the electricity in Glasgow or London and that local people can benefit from that.
We need much more investment in advancing technologies. We nearly missed the boat on a lot of things. We could have had very much more advanced wave power if previous Governments had invested in research.
The other side of the picture is that we have to have rigorous monitoring to ensure that the renewable energy systems deliver and do not cause local troubles.
There are two sides to this. We need more investment from the Government, to get other interested parties involved in developing better renewable energies and we need better monitoring to ensure that they deliver.
A valuable underlying issue in George Lyon's suggestion is community benefit. We are not very good at considering that at the moment—it is all private enterprise and devil take the hindmost. If we can get better co-operation among communities and make it worth while for them to co-operate, we will improve the quality of life of a lot of people. The issue is important and I hope that the minister will take it seriously.
I congratulate George Lyon on bringing this debate before the Parliament, because I think that the issue is extremely important.
My memory goes back far enough for me to remember the days when Tony Benn was the Secretary of State for Energy in the 1970s. Those members who read what I sometimes find to be his very tedious diaries will know that he ruled in favour of nuclear energy rather than Salter's duck and claimed that he had been misled by civil servants.
The SNP's record is substantial on this issue and Fiona McLeod has expounded the party's policy on it, so I will not rehearse our stance.
When we talk about renewable energy, we discuss aspects other than wind power. My understanding is that the wave power experiments that we have held in Scotland have examined only onshore wave power and not offshore wave power. That matter should be considered and I think that there is a strong demand to see more research and development in Scotland on renewable energy. We welcome what is being done, but a centre for excellence, perhaps based at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, would be helpful.
I hope that the member will be glad to know that Ocean Power Delivery Ltd is shortly to test an offshore system.
That is good news indeed. I thank Robin Harper for that information.
I want to make a couple of points quickly on the communities that now face wind farms. Earlier this week the Minister for Environment and Rural Development approved the development of Cairn Uish in my constituency, which will be the biggest wind-farm site in the UK, producing 56MW, which is 10 per cent of Scotland's renewable energy target for 2010 and one third of Moray's domestic, industrial and public sector needs. Constituents raise with me the question whether it will make any difference to their costs and the use that they have or whether it will all just go into the national grid.
The Executive is also considering proposals for Paul's Hill at the moment. People in my constituency want me to ask why, if the Executive has considered two sites—which I visited and where, I have to say, I rather inelegantly fell off an agrocart—there are three further applications in the Moray Council area.
There is a genuine concern that that beautiful part of Scotland is going to become just a mass of wind farms. Some of the industries, such as the whisky industry, are worried about the impact that that might have on the area. We should look more effectively at the planning procedures and ensure that it is not just certain parts of the country that take all the renewable energy wind farms, but that they are spread across the whole of Scotland.
It is nice to see Mrs Ewing speaking in the chamber this afternoon.
I have some sympathy for the minister, who has had to sit through two days of land reform, although by the look of his winding-up speech in the stage 3 debate he was thoroughly enjoying himself. We look forward to a thoroughly entertaining winding-up speech this evening.
Margaret Ewing raised an interesting point. Policy makers and Government have to confront two important dilemmas with renewable developments. The first is the concerns of communities, representatives, environmentalists and environmental non-governmental organisations about the siting of renewable energy developments. As George Lyon—my colleague who has brought this debate before us—said, that conflicts with the desire to reduce greenhouse gases and develop renewables to meet the United Kingdom's energy needs.
The second dilemma, which is equally important, is the desire of consumers and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets for cheap power, against the requirement to upgrade transmission lines and the national grid, in order that we can move the renewable power from areas such as the constituencies of George Lyon and Margaret Ewing into areas of Scotland where the power is needed most, in other words where the great mass of our population lives. Those are two fundamental policy issues that we must confront.
I share Robin Harper's enthusiasm for the Scottish community renewables initiative. I have two thoughts on that. The potential for the draughty public hall in many outlying areas to be warm all through the winter, so that youth groups or whatever can take advantage of that, and so that the snooker table's cloth is not so slow that the ball hardly crosses the table, is considerable. The fact that grants of up to £100,000 are available is highly desirable, as is the fact that grants are now available to individuals. I suspect that the minister's budget will quickly be exceeded, because the demand for such projects will be considerable. That is only to the good, because the issue is also one of raising awareness and helping to confront the dilemmas that I mentioned by encouraging an understanding of renewables and developing it.
I was pleased on Tuesday night to attend the Shetland renewable energy forum in Scalloway, instead of my group meeting—it was preferable to my group meeting. At that we discussed a series of issues, and I will reflect on one or two of them. One of them was the point that George Lyon made about community ownership of, or involvement in, the development of renewable power. The planning bill that an Executive will bring forward after May will provide an opportunity to consider such issues. I hope that such matters are considered in the minister's discussions with his planning colleagues. I know that Shetland Islands Council and Highland Council and, I presume, others are examining carefully the provisions that could be put into such a bill to deal with some of the issues that Margaret Ewing rightly raised, and the point that George Lyon raised about community involvement.
It would be remiss of me if I did not quickly mention one of the great problems with renewable developments, and that is the disgraceful activities of the Crown Estate Commission, which will take money away from, and affect the financial viability of, renewables offshore, because it will charge for the use of the seabed. As I have politely suggested to him in the past, I hope that the minister will continue to make representations to colleagues south of the border on removing such a power.
I have one final thought, which concerns the benefits to engineering and the potential manufacturing benefits. We need to develop the industry by using the engineering talents that we have in many parts of Scotland—not least on the Clyde—to develop the necessary manufacturing techniques and to use that expertise for the development of what can be a great Scottish industry for the future.
I thank George Lyon for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic. As my colleague Fiona McLeod made clear, SNP members are enthusiastic about the future role of renewables in Scotland. She asked me whether I could come up with an idea for exploiting one resource that we have not talked about: rain. I know that that is exploited through hydropower, but I have come up with another idea. You never know—I could be a millionaire yet.
We are at a crossroads. About 100 wind farms might be constructed in Scotland in the coming years, if the Executive rubber-stamps everything. We must ensure that we take the right direction, especially for our rural communities, which will be directly affected by the construction of such wind farms.
How do we get that right? We must think about several issues. It is all very well for the commercial companies that develop the wind farms graciously to provide some funds for local development, but that must be part of the process and locked in—not just an act of good will.
I say to Tavish Scott that we must ensure that we are not snookered by the objections of those who live closest to wind farms. Perhaps they should benefit from the cheaper power sources. Some who live next to proposed wind farms are concerned that their houses are being devalued. It would be great if those houses were heated for free by the commercial wind farm that was on their doorstep. I know that difficulties are encountered in stepping down voltages for domestic use, but they are solvable. In our more rural western and north-eastern communities and in other rural communities, that would be a huge benefit.
Fabrication yards will be needed to manufacture turbines. We have one; let us get more.
Other members referred to the national grid. What they talked about will not happen unless we have the capacity to take the product to market. My constituency has a large gas-fired power station, but one third of its capacity cannot be operated as the facility to take away the product does not exist. Because of that absence, we lose many benefits.
For local communities that have wind farms on their doorstep, we need a rigorous and clear planning process. Some of my constituents in Stoneyhill near Peterhead are exercised by the prospect of a wind farm near them. We need clear evidence and criteria—not just a preset agenda in support of renewables—to determine the decisions on any planning requests.
Evidence that was published in 2000 said that wind farms were viewed more favourably after their construction by people who lived closest to them, but a parliamentary answer says that that survey had some technical flaws. My conversations suggest that those flaws are purely technical. They might or might not invalidate the results, but we need clarity. I hope that the minister can tell us that that will be sorted out soon.
We look to the minister to assure all of us whose constituents might be affected by wind farm developments this year, next year or in the coming years as we proceed to the Executive's target, or our target, that we will consider the needs of the people who live close to the wind farms and protect them from any actual or perceived disadvantages.
I agree with the thrust of the motion, but I also agree with John Scott that attention must be paid to local communities' concerns about the siting of wind farms when they impinge on people's lives. I have heard many concerns about wind farms from people in the Inverliever area of Loch Aweside and from residents of Skye.
I am excited by the suggestion that an enormous ocean energy plant might be established off the Western Isles. Construction might revitalise the Arnish yard in Stornoway, which would be enormously important for that town, just as the construction of the Vestas factory at Machrihanish has been important for Campbeltown.
I will talk briefly about a subject that I raised during the Executive debate on forestry the other day. It would be a good idea to put the non-fossil-fuel premium on forestry wood chips. That would open up a new industry in Scotland with a material that is carbon neutral and eternally renewable and can be used for heating and light. In Malmö in Sweden, 100,000 houses are heated with that material. A pilot project near Lochgilphead in Argyll heats some 50 homes.
Putting the non-fossil-fuel premium on wood would give an added bonus to the forestry industry, which is going through a hard time. It would also allow extra employment through the creation of new mills. Finally, it would cut down on the waste of forest products, which would mean tidier and cleaner forests in Scotland.
Like other members, I want to express my appreciation to George Lyon for securing today's debate. I applaud his commitment to the development of our rural communities; it is a commitment that is well known in the chamber.
I will touch on the comments that three or four members made about the grid. The introduction last year of the renewables obligation to Scotland prompted a huge increase in the number of applications for consents for large and small renewable energy projects. Those projects require hooking up to the grid, which is a reserved issue and one that is primarily a matter for the operators of the grid.
I reported to the chamber comparatively recently that progress continues apace in discussions that are taking place between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Executive, the operators and Ofgem, with a view to a fair and equitable charging mechanism that will help to pay for investment in the grid being introduced. I say to Fiona McLeod that far from facilitating that process, independence would be the death of it. We need a single market in energy across the United Kingdom and a fair and equitable distribution mechanism to finance improvement in the grid. We cannot rely only on Scottish consumers, as that could force up electricity prices and might not finance the investment that is required.
Does the minister accept that, as the UK exports electricity to other states, the market is not confined by the boundaries of the current state?
Of course we export energy. We also wish to continue to export energy. For the SNP's targets to mean anything in terms of Scotland having a market for the final product, we have to get electricity to the consumer in the south of England and, preferably, beyond. In order to do that, we have to upgrade the interconnectors in England. If we are to do that, we have to invest. Where does the money come from? It comes from the consumer—the UK consumer—and, for a fair and equitable charging system to be applied to pay for that investment, a single UK energy market is required. The SNP's policy of independence in relation to energy production and its distribution is fatally flawed. Anyway—where were we?
I believe that most of us agree with George Lyon that Scotland's communities should share in the economic and environmental benefits that are associated with the new developments. To illustrate the wider benefits, we can point to the establishment of the Vestas wind turbine facility near Campbeltown, which created 150 new jobs in an economically deprived part of George Lyon's constituency. The 65 new jobs that have been created in our island communities have also been mentioned.
The wider position is not always the most important. The crucial aspect of the motion is that it acknowledges the opposition that some projects engender at the local level and calls upon the Executive to ensure that local communities can and do benefit from the projected increase in developments.
I agree fundamentally with the motion. I am a wee bit worried by some of the noises that the nationalists and the Tories have made. It is one thing to set targets and aspirations and for members to stand up in the chamber and say how much they support renewable energy projects, but if their troops at local level go out and support or engender opposition to planning applications, those people are frustrating the parties' objectives. The Opposition parties have to address that challenge.
I have to move on—I think that the SNP gets the point I am making. It is simply not possible for planning applications to be rubber stamped or for people to ride roughshod over them, and nor should it be.
This week, as Margaret Ewing mentioned, Lewis Macdonald announced the first section 36 wind farm consent in Scotland, at Cairn Uish in Moray. Cairn Uish serves as an example of how such developments can benefit local communities in terms of construction jobs and subsequent employment. We are talking about millions of pounds-worth of contracts.
More important—to answer a point that Fiona McLeod made—the developer, in line with industry best practice, has provided for a community trust fund to develop community projects in Margaret Ewing's constituency. The fund will give thousands of pounds to community projects each year during the lifetime of the scheme. That is how to demonstrate to local people the benefit of renewal energy projects and how to overcome some of the opposition to the construction of such farms that can arise.
In that context, today's debate is timely. As Robin Harper said—he was there—we launched a major initiative last week to encourage the uptake of renewables technologies by Scottish communities and householders. Some £3.7 million will be made available over the next three years for the Scottish community renewables initiative grant scheme. That will enable grants to be made available for communities to set up renewable energy projects in schools, hospitals and community centres, for example. We have also established the first network of community renewables advisers throughout Scotland to assist those communities to take their first steps.
In the light of John Scott's vision of wind farms marching across Scotland, does the minister agree that it is important to reflect that even if we exploited commercially available wind power in Scotland to the absolute maximum, it would take up no more than 3 per cent of Scotland's surface land area?
Yes—hence the importance of other sources of renewable energy generation, not least wave and tidal power, which other members have mentioned. My priority, which is possibly shared by all members in the chamber, is to get those projects off the drawing board and into production so that we can begin to receive the benefits of the technology to which members have referred. In theory, such technology exists, but it has not proven itself in practice in respect of wave and tidal energy production.
Tavish Scott spoke about the potential for district heating schemes. We will support heat and electricity projects under the Scottish community renewables initiative. We want that to act as the first step towards developing a viable network of businesses specialising in the installation of renewable energy technologies to community and household properties throughout Scotland. The initiative can perform an important task by educating and demonstrating to the wider public how our communities can benefit from renewable energy development.
The recent injection of new funds to which I referred has created tremendous interest. We have received more than 100 expressions of interest since the launch of the grant scheme last week. That is indicative of the potential. We will also financially support the establishment of a wave test centre off the coast of Orkney. I expect to make a further announcement about that shortly.
We will continue to urge full and proper involvement of local interests in communities in renewables development and continue to empower communities to set up their own renewable energy projects—as George Lyon wishes—so that they can reap the economic and sustainability benefits that such schemes can afford.
I assure Tavish Scott that I will continue to press the Crown Estate Commission in respect of its tax of the foreshore so that we can return the foreshore to the people.
That could take 100 years.
I hasten to add that the last part of my speech was not in the ministerial script.
We love it when the minister ad libs. Are you finished?
Yes, thanks.
I am sorry—it was not clear that you had.
That concludes today's business.
Meeting closed at 17:59.