The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-12395, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on an energy strategy for Scotland. I call Murdo Fraser to speak to and move the motion.
14:41
Last week, we had yet more unwelcome news about the future of the Longannet power station in Fife. As someone who represents the area, I am well aware of the significance of the plant to the local economy. It was only a few months ago that I made my most recent visit there.
In all the press speculation about the plant’s future, one of our primary concerns should be for the workforce, who undoubtedly face a worrying time. The issue that was highlighted last week in relation to the future of Longannet was that of transmission charging, although there is nothing new about that. Last week, I spoke to both Scottish Power and National Grid about that, and I sincerely hope that a resolution can be found. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets has recently approved a significant change to substantially reduce future generation charges in Scotland, particularly for a plant such as Longannet, which generally tends to run when the wind is not blowing. Those charges are planned to be introduced from April next year. However, we should go further.
Although transmission charging is a serious issue, we should not pretend that it is by any means the only threat to Longannet’s future. New European Union emissions rules and the introduction of carbon pricing mean that the future of Longannet after 2020 is, at best, very uncertain. Therefore, resolving the transmission charging issue is likely to buy, at best, a stay of execution.
It is a serious matter, and not just for those whose jobs are dependent upon the power station. Longannet provides some 20 per cent of Scotland’s electricity output and the figure has been as high as 25 per cent in the recent past. It is also a major buyer of coal from Scottish opencast producers and its possible closure therefore has a wider significance for the Scottish economy. What makes the current situation even more worrying is the fact that Longannet is not the only power station facing closure. Scotland’s three biggest generating stations are Longannet, Torness and Hunterston, the last two of which are nuclear powered and are both scheduled to close by 2025. Those three power stations currently produce 55 per cent of Scotland’s electricity.
We know that the Scottish Government has something of an obsession with renewable energy. The Scottish Conservatives believe that renewable energy has a part to play as a component in the energy mix, but we do not share the Scottish Government’s single-minded obsession with renewable energy, particularly wind power, to the exclusion of all other technologies. The simple fact is that intermittent energy sources cannot provide the base-load that is necessary to provide electricity to Scotland’s homes and businesses at all times, to meet every demand, whether or not the wind is blowing.
Does Murdo Fraser recognise that I have made clear not only for the past four years, but in our “Electricity Generation Policy Statement—2013” that we will continue to need a minimum of 2.5GW of conventional thermal delivered electricity? That has been our position for as long as I have been the minister, despite constant misrepresentation otherwise.
If that is the minister’s position, he is not convincing anyone involved in the industry. Just last week, Professor Paul Younger, the professor of energy engineering at the University of Glasgow—a man who we might expect to know a little bit about the subject—said:
“We’re already getting to where it’s getting too late to design, commission and build new power stations, especially when you have got the Scottish Government making common cause with the anti-everything brigade.”
Given that those are the views of a professor of energy engineering, one would think that the Scottish Government might be listening to them. Instead, the Scottish Government is putting all its eggs in the basket of intermittent wind power, it has slammed the door shut on fracking and the potential for unconventional gas, and it refuses to consent to any new nuclear plants. Within a decade, we will lose 55 per cent of our electricity generating capacity and there is simply no Scottish National Party Government strategy on how we are going to keep the lights on after 2025.
Professor Younger got it right again last week when he said:
“It doesn't help when last week we have got the Scottish Government cheerleading against fossil fuels and then this week saying ‘Oh, hang on a minute, we desperately need them.’ Well, you know, let’s get consistent guys.”
The minister may think that his position is consistent, but that is certainly not reflected in some of his colleagues’ statements. We need a clear statement from the Scottish Government on exactly what its energy strategy for the next decade is.
To be fair to the minister, he can, on occasion, approach the issues with a degree of good sense. Unfortunately, his amendment resorts to the tired old tactic of blaming everything on Westminster. The Scottish Government amendment does not recognise the full picture, even in relation to Longannet. It does not mention the issues of EU emissions targets or of carbon pricing, both of which the SNP Government is fully signed up to. Even in relation to the transmission charging issue it misses the point, because the transmission charging regime, which has been in existence for many years, affects all generating plant in Scotland.
Exactly the same transmission charging regime that applies to Longannet applies to Scottish Power’s other generating asset, the Whitelee wind farm. It sits on more or less the same latitude as Longannet, but the charging regime does not threaten that project’s viability. Indeed, we see applications flooding in daily for wind farms, all over Scotland, that would be subject to the same transmission charging regime that affects conventional stations. Clearly, the transmission charging regime is a barrier that we need to overcome, but it is not insurmountable if one has the right project, with the right technology.
The SNP amendment leaves us with the question: what exactly is the SNP electricity generation policy? Is it to rely wholly on renewables? The minister is fond of saying that, in energy, variety is everything. However, there are no concrete proposals to replace our existing nuclear capacity or conventional generation. Although the SNP may not like nuclear power, it is a low-carbon green energy and we will need that if we want to meet our climate change targets while keeping the lights on.
I have before me a letter. It is—members have heard me use this phrase before—a “Dear Chic, from Nick” letter. It talks about the coalition’s objectives on new nuclear stations and how those can go ahead as long as that happens without subsidy. How does Murdo Fraser explain the £35 million-plus that is about to be spent on the Hinkley Point reactor, largely through Government subsidy?
The reality is that all energy sources require a level of subsidy. That is the regime that we have under contracts for difference. However, Mr Brodie needs to bear it in mind that new nuclear power is cheaper than every form of renewable technology, including onshore wind. Members on the SNP benches should bear that in mind.
Will Mr Fraser give way?
No—I need to make some progress.
In his amendment, the minister mentions
“the need for increased investment in large-scale flexible electricity storage solutions, including pumped storage”.
If we are to rely on intermittent sources of energy, he is right to say that we need more storage, but how much more? Does the Government know? I have seen an assessment this week that says that we would need 20 large-scale pump storage schemes. Does the minister agree? If the figure is not 20, how many such schemes do we need? Where would they be built? What would the cost be? Those projects would cost billions in capital expenditure to create. What would the impact on electricity bills be? Does the minister have any answer to those questions, or is he simply making it up as he goes along? We will hear from him shortly.
I turn briefly to the other amendments. Although I agree with the tone of much of Lewis Macdonald’s amendment, unfortunately it deletes the motion’s reference to the closure of Hunterston and Torness, which makes it difficult for us to support it. In addition, I see that Labour’s famous resilience fund is getting yet another run-out; I wonder how many times over that pocket of money has been spent.
The kindest thing that I can say about Patrick Harvie’s amendment is that, after yesterday’s campaign launch, it is good to know that at least one person in the Green Party can finish a sentence. As to the substance, it is the stuff of fantasy. I do not know anyone with a professional involvement in power generation who believes that we can rely wholly on renewables for our energy supply. Even the industry trade body, Scottish Renewables, does not make that claim.
Over the past decade, we have heard a lot from the Scottish National Party and from the former First Minister about how Scotland is to be the Saudi Arabia of renewables and how we are an oil-rich, energy-rich nation, so what an irony it would be if the only way of keeping the lights on in Scotland would be to import power from England, yet that is exactly where we are heading. Members should not take my word for it—that is the view of Professor Younger, who said last week:
“We will be reliant on importing power from England for about 25% of Scottish demand”.
We need at least one new gas-powered generating station for Scotland, and if we are not going to replace Torness and Hunterston with new nuclear capacity, we will probably need more than one. I would like to make a bid for a new gas station to be located at Longannet in Fife. The infrastructure is there, the skills are there and the workforce is there. If the existing station at Longannet has to close—sadly, that looks inevitable, whatever happens to transmission charging—let us have a replacement in that corner of Fife. That needs to be part of a broader energy strategy, which is currently lacking.
I will close by again quoting Professor Younger. Talking of the Scottish Government’s approach, he said:
“We need to be consistent here and have a bit of leadership”.
I agree entirely with that. We need an updated energy strategy for Scotland, and we need that urgently before the lights go out.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern the latest threats to the continued operation of Longannet Power Station in Fife, contributing 25% of Scotland’s electricity output at its peak; urges Scottish Power and National Grid to work toward a resolution of the transmission charging issue, but recognises that EU emissions rules and carbon pricing mean that the future of Longannet beyond 2020 is very uncertain; further notes that Scotland’s two nuclear power stations, at Torness and Hunterston, which produced 35% of Scotland’s electricity output between them in 2013, are due to close by 2025; acknowledges the significant loss of electricity generating capacity that this is likely to cause in the next decade; notes that renewable energy, while having a part to play in the energy mix, cannot supply baseload from intermittent sources and that the Scottish Government is opposed to any new nuclear stations being built, and calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward as a matter of urgency a new energy strategy, setting out how new generating capacity will be created to ensure that the lights are kept on without Scotland having to rely on importing energy from the rest of the UK.
14:52
I genuinely welcome the opportunity to debate this important matter, and I thank Murdo Fraser and his party for raising it in the chamber. Few things are of more immediate importance than the future of Longannet power station, because that future is under imminent threat.
Like Mr Fraser, I have visited Longannet on more than one occasion—I did so most recently on Monday—and I pay tribute to the professionalism of the staff there. The station was built to have a life of 25 years and 150,000 running hours, but it has delivered electricity for this country for 42 years over 215,000 running hours. I was informed by the manager of Longannet that last year was its best operational year ever. I think that that says a lot for the professionalism of those who have worked there over four decades, many of whom have served for most of that period. In addition, I believe that the company has invested in the order of £200 million in meeting the challenges that it faces, such as those that relate to emissions of sulphur dioxide and other gases. It has quite rightly sought to address the environmental concerns.
I want to start by finding some consensus. I feel that there is a broad consensus in Scotland that Longannet has served us well, that we continue to need it now and that although it faces a challenging future beyond 2020, broadly speaking—political disagreements aside—we all want a solution to be found that will allow the station to continue to operate for several years to come.
The record will show that, as energy minister, I have been pretty consistent in arguing that to meet our need for security of supply, reasonable cost and reliability we need a balance to our electricity mix. Not only have I argued that time and again in speeches in the chamber, but in 2013 I ensured that it was set out in the “Electricity Generation Policy Statement—2013”, which was prepared by technical experts. I am not such an expert—and neither, I suspect, are many members in the chamber—but that policy document was prepared on expert advice. Whatever is said by various people who write for tabloid newspapers or who communicate what they purport to be news to the outside world does not detract from the fact that we have been entirely consistent in calling for a balanced means of electricity supply and that we have set that out clearly in writing and in great technical detail.
Does the minister include in his denigration of all those who disagree with his stance Professor Paul Younger, professor of energy engineering at Glasgow university? Why does Professor Younger not buy into the vision that the minister has just set out?
The member has asked three questions. I will not be drawn into commenting on particular individuals, but if Mr Fraser can demonstrate that I have said anything that contradicts what I have just said, I will be very interested to hear it. Such comments do not exist.
I want to make some progress, because I have only seven minutes and I want to get to the meat of the issue. I point out gently to Murdo Fraser that there are a couple of difficulties with his motion, which, I am sad to say, is factually wrong. For example, it
“urges Scottish Power and National Grid to work toward a resolution of the transmission charging issue”.
Scottish Power and National Grid are not working towards any such resolution. The new grid contract sought by Scottish Power is not a resolution of the transmission charging problem, but simply a very limited stop-gap measure under the supplementary balancing reserve to enable Longannet to continue to operate. It only partly addresses the symptoms of a much deeper problem—that is, the discriminatory grid charges.
Let me introduce some facts into the debate. The grid charge for Peterhead is £22.97 per kW; for Longannet, £18.02; for Hunterston, £16; for Torness, £14; and for Eggborough in Yorkshire, £7.61. Didcot, which is in Oxfordshire, gets paid 83p, while Taylors Lane in London gets paid £3.78. That is the evidence. What does that mean? It means that, in addition to the legal obligations that I accept exist in respect of industrial emissions and carbon duties and which affect all stations, Longannet has to pay an extra £40 million.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have the time. I might come back to the member in my closing speech.
The central conundrum for the Scottish Conservatives is this: as I have made clear ad infinitum, we agree that we need more conventional thermal generation in Scotland—indeed, I gave consent to 1GW of new gas generation at Cockenzie—but the fact is that no one is going to build those stations, because it makes no economic sense. The great irony, therefore, is that the Tories are calling for something that is economically impossible. No one is going to do this. The discrimination with regard to transmission charging must be addressed in the long term, and that is a crystal-clear problem to which the Scottish Conservatives with, I am sad to say, their flawed motion have brought forward no solution whatever.
I move amendment S4M-12395.1, to leave out from “contributing” to end and insert:
“brought about by the UK’s discriminatory transmission charging regime; further notes that cleaner thermal generation progressively fitted with carbon capture and storage technology will continue to play an important role in securing Scotland’s future energy mix, alongside the expansion of renewables, as set out in the Scottish Government’s Electricity Generation Policy Statement 2013; recognises that UK energy policy and regulation actively discourages the construction of new conventional thermal generating plants in Scotland compared with other locations in the UK, given the higher transmission charges faced by Scottish generators; shares the Scottish Government’s disappointment at the further delay in implementing transmission pricing reforms stemming from Ofgem’s Project TransmiT; recognises the significant progress in renewables deployment in Scotland, with over 44% of gross electricity consumption met from renewable sources in 2013; supports the need for increased investment in large-scale flexible electricity storage solutions, including pumped storage, to complement the increasing deployment of renewable technologies, and further supports the First Minister’s call for the UK Government to undertake a dedicated electricity capacity assessment for Scotland and to transfer to the Scottish Parliament the authority to set a Scottish security and quality of supply standard for electricity.”
14:59
Longannet power station is under threat of closure, which is a matter of regret, but it should come as no surprise to anyone and least of all to ministers in the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government’s report on proposals and policies, which is supposed to show how ministers intend to meet binding carbon emission targets that were agreed by Parliament, assumes that Longannet will be closed by 2020. The plant is acknowledged to be seriously polluting by European standards, and European Union requirements on carbon emissions mean that it cannot survive in its current form without substantial additional investment. That investment has not yet been forthcoming. Scottish Power has not invested to date, and the company’s decision not to bid in the capacity market auction from 2018-19 gives a pretty clear indication of its intentions.
The best recent hope for Longannet in the medium term was a scheme to enable investment in carbon capture and storage. That scheme did not reach fruition in part because Scottish Power deemed the billion pounds of public money that were potentially on offer not to be enough. Once that decision was taken, the die was cast and the chances of Longannet surviving into the 2020s in its current form effectively came to an end.
The Scottish Government’s responsibility in that situation is to be open and honest with the communities of west Fife about the power station’s prospects. However, the Scottish National Party’s amendment fails to address the prospect of closure, be it in 2018, 2020 or beyond. Instead, Mr Ewing asserts that
“cleaner thermal generation progressively fitted with carbon capture and storage technology will continue to play an important role”,
as if such cleaner thermal generation already plays a part. Of course it does not, and it might not do so for some time. Although the technology certainly exists, it does not yet operate at scale, and it has some proving to do before it can do so.
Does Lewis Macdonald accept that CCS schemes—gas CCS at Peterhead and the white rose project for coal south of the border—are being agreed to go ahead? I thought that we all welcomed that.
I am sure that we all welcome that. I heard a good deal about the Peterhead gas CCS project last night at the Shell springboard event in Edinburgh. That is an exciting prospect, and I wish it well. I hope that it can prove the commercial feasibility of gas carbon capture, and I hope that white rose can do the same for coal, but both projects are at a very early stage in proving their effectiveness, so it would be a mistake to make assumptions about either of them, and neither project bears directly on the position at Longannet.
The Scottish Government’s amendment refers to the Scottish Government’s “Electricity Generation Policy Statement—2013”, which the minister quoted on Radio Scotland last week when he was interviewed about the position at Longannet. He quoted that policy statement again today. It envisages
“The scheduled closure of existing plants”
and, as the minister said,
“the construction of a minimum of 2.5 GW of new or replacement efficient fossil fuel electricity generation progressively fitted with CCS”.
The phrase “progressively fitted with CCS” is interesting. It appears to mean possibly building a new coal or gas-fired power station in the 2020s in the hope that it can be successfully retrofitted with carbon capture technology after the event. I hope that that will prove to be the case, but there are many problems with that basic proposition in the Government’s position.
There is an obvious paradox between a legal obligation to seek to meet world-leading targets on carbon emissions and a policy choice to allow new coal-burning plant without CCS built in from the beginning. There is an equally obvious risk in basing an energy policy on the retrofitting of a new technology before that retrofitting or that technology has been shown to work at the required scale. Most seriously, by appearing to imply that future energy needs can be met by burning coal, there is a real risk of the Government misleading the workforce at Longannet on the prospects for their jobs.
Hundreds of valuable jobs are provided directly at Longannet and hundreds more are provided indirectly. The sudden loss of so many jobs in the event of an early closure would hit the local economy hard, especially if the Government and its agencies have not fully engaged with the community in good time. That prospect makes the case again for a resilience fund to be open to councils to bid for support in the case of a sudden economic shock, and we call for such a fund again today.
There is a duty on ministers to engage in meaningful discussion with the council and the community about what will happen when Longannet ceases to generate electricity from coal. That engagement needs to happen urgently and it needs to happen now. It is on that basis that I move the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S4M-12395.3, to leave out from “further notes” to end and insert:
“believes that the Scottish Government is responsible both for its stewardship of the Scottish economy and for the choices that it has made in relation to future energy generation; regrets its failure to address the likely impact of the closure of Longannet on the west Fife economy to date, and calls on it to do so now as a matter of urgency, and further calls for the establishment of a resilience fund, to help support communities affected by a sudden economic shock such as the threatened closure of Longannet.”
15:05
Murdo Fraser indicated that he had tried to find the kindest thing that he could say about my amendment. I appreciate the effort that he went to, but I am happy to acknowledge that I could have survived without that particular kindness this week. However, let me repay the compliment, because there was something in his opening remarks that we can agree on. He made it clear that the Government’s position of placing the emphasis regarding recent developments at Longannet purely on the transmission charging regime is at best a partial description of current circumstances. In that regard, his motion is right to refer to
“EU emissions rules and carbon pricing”.
I happily acknowledge that the transmission charging regime is clearly a factor; I will go as far in the minister’s direction as that. However, it is not a new factor but a long-standing one. I find it hard to rationalise a position that places such a heavy emphasis on that long-standing factor to explain recent events, which is what the minister does.
On the face of it, that is a fair point, but Mr Harvie will recollect quite well that SNP members—including Mike Weir back in 2005—and then the SNP Government and the First Minister campaigned for what became project transmit, which was supposed to deliver a significantly improved position by reducing price discrimination. However, that process has been delayed until 2016 and potentially beyond that because of judicial review.
I hope that the general point is made that the transmission charging regime is one factor among many and that the minister has failed to place sufficient emphasis on, or failed to sufficiently recognise, the issues of emission rules and carbon pricing.
However, Mr Fraser’s motion only partially emphasises some aspects. For example, it states that Longannet contributes
“25% of Scotland’s electricity output at its peak”.
In considering such questions, it is not enough to look only at electricity output; we also have to acknowledge that Longannet is far and away the biggest contributor in Scotland to climate change, because it is the biggest contributor to the carbon emissions that are driving climate change, which is one of the most crucial threats that our civilisation faces in the 21st century. It is a partial description of the situation to look only at the electricity output and not at the carbon emissions factor.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have to move on.
Lewis Macdonald rightly emphasised the slight ambiguity in the wording on CCS in the minister’s amendment. The suggestion in the amendment that CCS will continue to play a role implies that it currently plays a significant role, which it does not. As Mr Macdonald rightly identified, the word “progressively” in the amendment seems to leave open the possibility that additional fossil-fuel generating capacity will be approved without CCS being an existing element.
I refer members to the WWF briefing for the debate, in which WWF acknowledges its support for research into CCS. I, too, have never been against research into CCS or public support for such research. However, the briefing makes it clear that the commercialisation of CCS has not been happening at pace. It states:
“The Scottish Government has a responsibility to plan and cater for a scenario in which CCS does not establish itself commercially as quickly as might previously have been hoped.”
WWF calls on the Scottish Government to review its electricity generation policy statement accordingly. WWF’s point is an important one that is consistent with the Scottish Government’s long-standing assumption, which I think is mentioned in RPP2, that Longannet might close by 2020.
We should acknowledge that the transition that we are in must be just and that there must be a far greater emphasis by both levels of government on the diversification of local economies that currently depend heavily on short-term forms of energy generation that have no long-term future.
Mr Macdonald’s amendment states:
“the Scottish Government is responsible ... for ... stewardship of the Scottish economy”.
Would that that was so. Responsibility is clearly divided between two Governments, and it is not enough to say that one Government has responsibility without it having the power. The wider issues about the just transition are echoed in the final part of the Green amendment, which I commend to Parliament.
I move amendment S4M-12395.2, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:
“supports an energy strategy for Scotland based on a step-change in energy efficiency, a focus on demand reduction, increased storage capacity, development of a North Sea transmission grid and a rapid transition to low-carbon power production with an emphasis on local and community ownership; notes research such as the World Wildlife Fund’s Pathways to Power, which demonstrates that an almost fully renewables-based electricity generation system is technically feasible and achievable in 2030; recognises that Longannet’s age, EU emissions rules and carbon pricing mean that the closure of the plant is inevitable, and believes that this closure, coupled with recent oil price volatility, demonstrates the need to focus on a just transition for workers and communities from fossil fuels to a secure low-carbon energy system.”
We move to the open debate. We are very tight for time, as I said. Members have up to four minutes.
15:10
I have a lot to get through in my four minutes, so let us crack on.
On Longannet, I hear the comments that are being made that transmission charging is only a part of what is affecting the station, but it is a £40 million part. The press release that has been issued by Prospect, the union, states:
“The union representing engineers, technicians and other professional staff in the electricity supply industry has warned the viability of Scottish Power-run Longannet, Scotland’s largest power station, is threatened by a £40m charge for connecting it to the grid, which penalises it in comparison to similar energy generation south of the border.”
That is a like-with-like comparison. Prospect’s national secretary said of Fergus Ewing:
“We welcome the minister’s commitment to continue to put pressure on the Westminster Government who have responsibility for this matter.”
The union is identifying transmission charging as the key element in the Longannet situation.
Will Mr McDonald give way?
I have only four minutes and I have a lot that I need to get through.
We should also accept that—contrary to Murdo Fraser’s statements—transmission charging impacts on the renewables industry. Scottish Renewables states in its briefing to members:
“Levying higher charges on generators using the transmission network located furthest away from the main centre of demands can present a barrier to renewable energy generators which must locate where the resource is strongest, often far from the main centres of demand.”
Renewable energy, in terms of its location, is not as flexible as other forms of energy generation might be, because of the requirements of the resource from which the electricity is delivered into the grid.
On Murdo Fraser’s call for a new gas power station on the site of Longannet, it is worth noting that without resolution of the transmission charging regime situation, any future station of the type that Murdo Fraser envisages will, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the proposal, simply find itself being affected by the same transmission charging problems and the same economic barriers that Longannet is facing. The key is to address the discriminatory transmission charging regime, which results in—as the minister highlighted—projects in the south of England being subsidised for connection and projects in Scotland paying through the nose to connect.
I am becoming a little bit concerned that the Scottish Conservatives are becoming overly obsessed with wind energy to the point of its being detrimental to them. I note that they do not mind wind farms as long as they are, perhaps, beneficiaries as a consequence of the income. However, it is a little bit perverse that while the Tories seem to object to people being able to see turbines from their windows, they seem at the same time to be pretty gung-ho about having the same property drilled under as part of fracking and hydraulic exploration. The position that the minister has taken of imposing a moratorium in order that we can address the clear questions that need to be answered is sensible. I certainly do not wish him to go down the gung-ho route that Murdo Fraser and his colleagues seem to wish to go down.
Will you draw to a close, please?
On security of supply, it is worth noting that, despite the Tories’ obsession with wind, there are other renewables options. The briefing by Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce states that wave and tidal power is a significant area that its members wish to see being developed to meet future demand. It is also worth noting that British Chambers of Commerce has said—
You must close.
British Chambers of Commerce has said that it wants a 50-year energy security strategy from the UK Government. It would be worth our while to call for that before we look for an update to the sensible energy strategy that the Scottish Government is pursuing.
15:14
I am pleased to take part in today’s debate on an issue that is of huge importance to Fife and to Scotland. Longannet sits on the west side of my constituency and many of its 260 employees are my constituents. Hundreds more are employed as contractors and subcontractors, and many local jobs in Kincardine and west Fife are dependent on the plant having a future.
As members are all well aware, Longannet has been generating electricity since 1970 and has the capacity to put around 2,000MW into the national grid. When I met Longannet management and workers just a few months ago, they were confident that there could be a future for the plant to 2020 and for quite a few years beyond that, but events in the past 10 days appear to cast doubt on that and there is now renewed concern about security of supply and about the future of the workforce. That is no surprise when we consider that Longannet keeps the lights on for more than 2 million homes and businesses.
I am a supporter of renewable energy and I think that we need to do more to promote renewable energy sources, just as we all need to do more to save energy if we are to have any hope of meeting our climate change targets in Scotland. However, we must also be able to guarantee that when we flick the light switch the lights will come on. We need backup and we cannot rely solely on an energy supply that depends on when the wind blows or when water flows.
About 25 per cent of the energy that we consume is produced at Longannet, and although we are hearing assurances that security of supply is not an issue, if we want to be self-sufficient in Scotland, as SNP members want, that is clearly a problem. Right now, Scotland relies on imports of English electricity to meet demand in one out of every six days. Professor Younger, who has already been quoted by Murdo Fraser, has warned that Longannet’s closure would leave Scotland in “serious trouble” and “absolutely dependent” on England to keep the lights on.
The talks between Scottish Power and National Grid have apparently broken down, which sparked this debate, and it seems after digging deeper that—as the minister has confirmed—transmission charges were not part of the negotiations. More is likely to come out about that in the coming weeks. We continue to hear conflicting accounts from all who are involved in the talks; such manoeuvring is not helpful at all for the workforce or their families at a time when all who are involved should be concentrating on working constructively to secure a sustainable solution. My constituents want to know that Scottish Power and National Grid are round the table negotiating to find a solution that maximises the life of Longannet and secures their jobs into the future. They also want assurances from the Scottish Government that it is doing all that it can to find a solution that will support the local community in and around Kincardine. I am pleased to see the minister nodding his head at that.
We must plan to meet our energy needs now and in the future. Workers are worried about their jobs, their mortgages and their families, and they want to see action. The Scottish Government has long anticipated that Longannet may have to close by 2020. Why is it, then, that so little action has been taken to secure new employment investment into the Kincardine area in order to ease the transition, to support the local community and to build its resilience?
On behalf of all the people who are directly affected in my constituency, I would be grateful if the minister and the Scottish Government could—rather than trying to shift the blame on to Westminster or others—set out what practical steps they will take to protect the hundreds of jobs in my constituency that depend on Longannet, to prepare the local community should the worst happen, and to keep the lights on across Scotland, now and in the future. The Scottish Government needs a plan for the future of Longannet, and it needs it now.
An important related energy matter that is of huge concern to my constituents in Kincardine and the surrounding villages on the Forth is underground coal gasification. Unfortunately, I am running out of time, but I hope that the Scottish Government will act to extend the fracking moratorium to cover that extremely risky and potentially dangerous technique. As Friends of the Earth Scotland says in its excellent briefing for today’s debate,
“two out of three is not good enough”.
UCG must be included in the moratorium too. My constituents in Kincardine and west Fife want an assurance from the Scottish Government that there will be no fracking under the Forth; I hope that the minister will listen and take action.
15:18
Transmission charging is obviously a big element of the debate, but the first duty of a Government’s energy policy is to guarantee a secure supply for businesses and consumers, and to maintain that secure supply through reserve capacity. The United Kingdom Government is failing in that regard. The UK Government’s white paper in 2011 said that low-capacity margins could trigger supply shortages, costing the UK economy £600 million. The UK Government failed in its handling of the electricity market reforms that have—because of its shilly-shallying—led to delayed investment in new capacity, and to the mothballing of some existing capacity. However, only four months ago, at two meetings with some National Grid managers, we were told that reserve energy capacity margins for this winter would be as low as 4 per cent.
When we then asked about next winter, National Grid’s pearl of wisdom was that it did not know but it might seek to reopen mothballed gas-fired stations down south or import energy from abroad in the event of possible outages. It does not know, although we are talking about an imminent threat to the Longannet power station. Nothing short of senior officers from Ofgem and National Grid coming to Parliament to explain the basis of their analysis and strategy is acceptable.
On top of the UK electricity market reform debacle and National Grid’s inability to clarify the strategy, we have the Tories calling for a new energy strategy for Scotland after applauding the single UK energy market to which we subscribe. Yes—today we are talking about a single European market.
The Tories hint again at their disappointment at the removal of nuclear power as part of the energy mix. I have to say that Murdo Fraser misled members when he said that nuclear power is cheaper. New nuclear power is expensive. The strike price is £92.50 per MWh, which is twice the current wholesale price. It is not cheaper.
Will Chic Brodie take an intervention?
No, I will not. I am just about to finish. We hear their—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Point of order, Murdo Fraser.
We hear their newly adopted bleats—
Mr Brodie, sit down.
—about the possible reliance—
Sit down, Mr Brodie.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When a member deliberately misrepresents and misquotes what another member has said in the chamber, what steps can I take to have the record corrected?
If he wishes, the member can correct the record for himself. Notwithstanding that, that was not a point of order; Mr Brodie’s remarks are a matter for him.
I was making a point and the point stands.
We hear the Tories’ newly adopted bleats about Scotland possibly having to rely on importing energy from the rest of the UK. For goodness’ sake: Scotland exports energy to the rest of the UK. That is why Longannet must stay open. There is also the implication for jobs and that is why we must continue to encourage investment in our renewable energy mix of wind, tidal and solar power. That is why we need a dedicated capacity assessment for Scotland—about which the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister, who has apparently refused to take any action.
That is also why we will seek clarity on National Grid’s numbers and on a policy that charges more for transmission at potential major points of production such as the Western Isles, Peterhead and Longannet while subsidising major consumer belts in the south-east of England. It is the economics of the madhouse.
The problem is with transmission charges, but it is also about policy and capacity. We need answers on that and we need them now.
15:23
For 200 years or more, West Lothian in my region has been at the centre of energy development in Scotland. In the 1850s, James “Paraffin” Young developed a refinery at Bathgate and shale mines operated across West Lothian. We had oil refineries, candle works and so on all operating in West Lothian, and new villages emerged because of that industry. West Lothian was the world centre of the commercial oil industry at that time. Of course, we also had the coal industry. Pits littered the area, employing thousands of men in villages including Blackburn, West Calder, Armadale, Breich and Whitburn, with Polkemmet being the last colliery.
Today we are at the centre of a new energy Klondike in onshore wind development, with overseas speculators seeking to cash in on the rush to put up as many turbines as possible in as short a space of time as possible. Austrian, French, Spanish and Italian multinational corporations, venture capital firms and wealthy speculators are looking to cash in on communities that they have never visited and probably could not point to on a map. For me, that is the problem. Shale and coal produced energy, but they also produced thousands of jobs and homes for families, some of which are standing to this day. They produced community halls and miners’ welfare social clubs. They provided services for pensioners, education facilities, gala days and the like. They created and developed communities.
Although communities can and do get involved in community benefit negotiations with onshore wind energy developers, in the big scheme of things, the money and benefit that are received amount to crumbs from the table compared to the profits that are made by the speculators. I was therefore pleased to see in the budget this year an increase in the cash that is available for the new local energy innovation fund. However, that needs to be driven by Government and there needs to be an enthusiastic and dynamic champion to make it happen by banging the First Minister’s table and demanding action. I am afraid to say that I just do not see the minister in that role.
For years, I have been calling for community development trusts, local authorities, national health service trusts, schools and colleges to be allowed to run and develop renewable energy projects. They should retain the profits in the communities that host the wind energy schemes. Those profits should not be exported to corporate boardrooms across Europe.
Will Neil Findlay give way?
No, thank you.
Such profits should be invested in initiatives to address fuel poverty, cut heating bills for people and build new energy efficient social housing. We are missing out on one of the greatest opportunities for us to provide energy at the same time as we empower our communities.
Energy planning requires a long-term Government strategy, but too often we see companies taking a short-term approach, happy to cream off profits and dividends when the sun is shining, but calling for tax cuts and subsidies when prices fall. In the oil sector, having coined in cash for decades, large multinationals now threaten workers with redundancy because of the downturn in the oil price.
In coal, we see Hargreaves Services threatening to get rid of another 250 skilled coal workers as coal prices fall due to the impact of shale gas on world prices. As we have heard, Scottish Power has permission to build a new plant at Cockenzie, but little progress has been made. Furthermore, who can forget Jim Ratcliffe threatening to hold the country to ransom over Ineos? Of course, as all of that has been going on, we have seen fuel poverty increasing and energy prices rising.
We need a mixed energy policy—one that is more balanced and which involves energy being generated from a range of sources, all of them operating to the highest environmental standards.
15:27
Balanced energy generation has to be our short-term strategy. That is common sense, and that is why we must continue to urge the UK Government to change its discriminatory charging regime, because it is damaging Longannet and the future of Scotland’s renewables industry.
However, there is no contradiction in combining that short-term pragmatism with the long-term ambition to be a greener nation, as the World Wide Fund for Nature’s report “Pathways to Power: Scotland’s route to clean, renewable, secure electricity by 2030” says is achievable—not by tomorrow but by 2030.
The research that was carried out by the respected energy consultant DNV GL rather flies in the face of the gloomy claims that renewable energy cannot provide baseload power supply. There are challenges with every type of generation. In fact, output from a thermal plant can drop off suddenly, posing serious operational challenges, as the National Grid highlighted to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.
The WWF report outlines two scenarios, both of which fit within current Scottish Government policy. The first is what it calls the high climate risk scenario, which involves the commercialisation of carbon capture and storage technology. The second, which it calls the low climate risk scenario, envisages a future energy supply without the use of CCS, on a commercial basis, and with no other gas, coal or nuclear plant in the system. According to WWF and its consultants, both those scenarios are technically and economically achievable. WWF calls on Westminster to make electricity market reform work better for offshore wind in particular, stating that
“The enduring regime under Electricity Market Reform is currently constraining”
the growth of offshore renewables to
“around one project under the first allocation round ... which could severely restrict growth in Scotland.”
It continues:
“The current lack of ambition and certainty risks stymying investment in an industry with long-lead in times and a need for deployment at scale to drive learning and cost-reductions.”
I share the concerns for Longannet that have been expressed across the chamber, and I am particularly concerned about the future of the workforce. However, figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that across the course of a year, without Longannet, Scotland’s electricity generation will still exceed demand. We should not forget that Scotland is a net exporter of electricity to the rest of the UK.
Our challenge in the long term is to create sustainable jobs. Again, the solution can be found in renewables—a sector that has already led to the establishment of an industry that is responsible for 11,000 full-time jobs in Scotland and billions of pounds of inward investment.
However, one key dimension to the renewables revolution deserves more attention in the chamber: energy storage technology. Being “the Saudi Arabia of renewables” is of little use without somewhere to store all the green energy. Scottish Renewables agrees and argues that we will, by 2030, need better storage as well as increased interconnection.
Brian Richardson, who is a constituent of mine and the chief executive officer of Energy Storage Scotland, has convincingly argued that the development of storage technology in Scotland presents an exceptional opportunity for training, jobs and a place in the global market. Although we have a tried and tested technology in pump storage, on which we lead, many other exciting energy storage technologies are being developed around the world, and our universities—in particular, Heriot-Watt University—are keen to develop them further in Scotland.
On 5 March, I will host a presentation in the Parliament by Energy Storage Scotland and Heriot-Watt University’s energy academy on the development of those technologies. I hope that members from around the chamber with an interest in the matter will attend.
I apologise to the member whom I have been unable to call. We now move to closing speeches. I call Patrick Harvie. You have up to four minutes, Mr Harvie.
15:31
I am grateful to Joan McAlpine for focusing some of her remarks on the WWF report that is cited in the Green amendment because it saves me a little time in my closing speech. That report sets out a clear vision for producing by 2030 a largely fossil fuel-free and nuclear-free energy system that would be achievable, credible, cheaper than the alternative, lower climate risk and—yes—secure.
Will Patrick Harvie give way?
I am afraid that, with four minutes, I do not have time.
That security cannot be achieved on a stand-alone basis. No man is an island, it is said. No country—even one that looks like an island geographically—is an island in energy terms. It will be increasingly important that we have interconnectivity not only to the rest of the UK but across the North Sea to the rest of Europe.
I cannot remember who it was, but somebody used the phrase “importing English electricity” during the debate. Whatever view we take of the constitutional relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK, none of us should be worried about importing English electrons or, indeed, exporting electricity to other countries across the North Sea. There will be an increasing need for interconnectivity.
I cite the support of Ian Duncan, the Tory MEP, who talked the other day about the need for high-voltage direct current transmission across the North Sea so that we can trade different sources of renewables to match variable supply with variable demand efficiently without transmission losses. That must be part of the future.
There were some brief exchanges on the costs, particularly of nuclear energy. I would not accuse Mr Fraser of deliberately misrepresenting his position or the facts, but I highlight the difference between the rhetoric that we often hear, particularly from the political right, on issues such as so-called green taxes—the parts of the subsidy for renewable energy generation that show up on our bills—and the hidden subsidy for nuclear generation as the taxpayer picks up the tab for the decommissioning of nuclear plant. The amount of money that is going into that is dramatically bigger.
There is no subsidy-free solution to our energy challenges. We should not be ashamed of that. We should acknowledge that we can invest public subsidy in producing an energy system that meets people’s needs securely not only today but for the long term, which means sustainably.
None of that should deflect us from the need to address transition and to do so justly. Neil Findlay’s comments on the industrial heritage from fossil fuels are significant, but we must look to the future. We have the opportunity to do something that fossil fuels or nuclear power cannot do, which is to decentralise the ownership of our energy system and, thereby, the economic benefits from it. Renewables lend themselves to that in a way that fossil fuels and nuclear energy simply do not.
In the final analysis, we need to recognise that this brief little blip in the planet’s history—this tiny century in which a bunch of allegedly smart apes have become so hooked on every form of fossil fuel that can be extracted, which has bound us intimately and intricately with those products—is coming to an end. Unless we get to grips with the need for a just transition, we will be failing to meet not only our ecological needs but our social and economic needs.
15:35
This has been a welcome debate and has touched on many aspects of power generation policy in Scotland. I particularly enjoyed Patrick Harvie’s effort to say that no island is an island, despite the sea around it. However, I know that the energy policy that he was putting forward is a very serious proposition.
I am glad that Cara Hilton, as the constituency member, focused firmly on Longannet and the west Fife economy. This is not just a debate about electricity generation options for the future; it is also about support for people who are working in the power industry today and who are facing the prospect of losing their jobs.
Of course we support engagement between Scottish Power and National Grid and between the Scottish and UK Government on this issue, as on other issues. We do not, however, accept the assertion that the threat to Longannet comes simply from the transmission charging regime, even if that regime stands in need of reform. The threat to Longannet’s future comes principally from the requirement to phase out high-carbon-emission power stations across Europe, which is supported by both the Scottish and UK Governments.
Nor do we accept the proposition that the way to ensure security of supply is to give the Scottish Government the power to set Scottish-specific standards in this field, as the SNP amendment proposes. Rather than dividing up responsibilities for capacity and security of supply at this juncture, Labour believes that now is the time to move in the opposite direction, by pulling together the existing responsibilities in the field, which are currently divided among DECC, Ofgem as the regulator, and National Grid as the system operator. Rather than those bodies having to negotiate their different objectives to resolve issues such as those at Longannet, we want to have a single energy security board that has responsibility for taking a lead in providing a joined-up approach.
If we had that, we might also find that a more joined-up approach could be taken to issues such as transmission charges. It certainly makes little sense to separate off the issue of security of supply in Scotland from the parallel security of supply issues in England and Wales when we operate a single electricity transmission and trading market and when Scotland consumes power from England on a weekly basis and vice versa.
The Scottish Government, of course, already has responsibilities that bear upon energy choices in Scotland—namely, planning and environmental consents. Licensing powers in relation to unconventional gas extraction will follow before too long.
The question has been raised whether the Scottish Government’s policy of a temporary presumption against planning consent for onshore fracking also applies to underground coal gasification below the Firth of Forth and if not, why not. We already know how effective a planning presumption against development can be in relation to nuclear energy. That approach by the SNP has effectively deterred investment in new nuclear capacity in Scotland and constrains the choices that Scotland can make in seeking to move towards a low-carbon future. Most important, as long as there is a need for base-load generation alongside intermittent renewable power, it makes new unabated coal-burning power stations more likely, not less likely, in the future.
New unabated coal is not the answer to the crisis that is facing Longannet. We need Scottish Power, as owner of the power station, to live up to some of the promises of investment that it has made in the past. If it does that, we also need Government agencies at every level to work with the company on reducing costs.
However, we also need Government at every level to get serious about life after unabated coal—locally in Fife and nationally—if Scotland’s commitment to a low-carbon economy is to survive into the 2020s. That is what we call on the Scottish Government to do today.
15:39
I am glad that we have had the opportunity to debate energy today, especially given the imminent threat of Longannet’s premature closure.
The debate has been wide ranging, and I will answer some of the points that have been made, but I cannot respond to all of them. We have made considerable progress in renewables deployment in Scotland—more than 44 per cent of gross electricity consumption was met from renewable sources in 2013—which has been broadly welcomed. However, we have always been clear that our renewables target does not, and cannot, mean that Scotland will rely on renewable generation alone. I have always argued that back-up and base-load are necessary, and members will have heard me argue the case for the continued life of our nuclear stations at Hunterston and Torness, both of which I have visited.
I point out to Murdo Fraser that there is unfortunately another error in his motion. It says that nuclear stations
“are due to close by 2025”,
but that is not the case. Both stations are due to close in 2023, although we understand that EDF may seek an extension to life in the case of Torness. It is unfortunate that the motion contains a factual error. Perhaps, in the scheme of things, it is not as important as the key issue, which is the immediate threat to Longannet, but it is nonetheless an error, along with the other one that I identified.
Our policy supports clean thermal generation as part of a diverse energy mix. When I consented to the proposed gas plant of 1GW at Cockenzie, it was with the condition that the plant must be CCS ready. Our policy on coal—to respond to Lewis Macdonald’s line of argument—was that it must have CCS on 300MW.
All of that is not new. It was set out in our electricity generation policy statement. Perhaps because that document is not exactly what one would call the most riveting read, what I have described is perhaps not widely understood, but it is in there. I hope that members would accept that I am at least being consistent.
On the key issue of the immediate threat to Longannet, I do not want to be political. As Cara Hilton said, the issue is too important for that. When I visited the plant on Monday, I spoke to members of the Prospect union, and I was impressed with their obvious concern about the issues.
We are all aware of the reasons to do with climate change—such as emissions, which Patrick Harvie mentioned—behind the need to move to a low-carbon economy. Longannet does not have an infinite life—indeed, there is project 2020, and the staff hope that the plant will to continue to operate up to then. Last year was the plant’s most successful operational year, which I would have thought proved its capability. Expenditure on tackling some of the sulphur dioxide emissions has been very substantial indeed, and the company should be given due credit.
However, the signal factor in this debate, to strip it down to its essence, is this. In addition to the legal requirements to reduce emissions, Longannet must find an additional £40 million to fulfil its duty to meet the carbon levy. The same duty is faced by all coal-fired generation stations throughout the UK. As Mark McDonald said, that is a substantial sum. If Longannet were located in the south-east of England, there would be a payment of £7 million for it to contribute to the grid.
That problem is not new, as Patrick Harvie pointed out. Indeed, the Scottish Affairs Committee identified it in 2003-04, and recommended that it be dealt with. That is why project transmit took place, with the aim of trying to bring about a fair resolution. It was due to come in by 2014, as the minded-to proposals set out, but the process has been delayed, so an answer is not yet here.
My hope is that National Grid and Scottish Power will reach a resolution following negotiations, which are not about the transition charging regime but about a supplementary balancing reserve. National Grid has a budget of approximately £1 billion, and a relatively small amount of that will secure the future. Regrettably, to date, despite the First Minister raising the issue with the Prime Minister, we have been unable to persuade the UK Government to intervene.
In conclusion—
Will the minister give way?
Do I have time, Presiding Officer?
I can give you only six minutes, so it is your choice.
Well, all right.
I agree with much of what the minister says about project transmit and the delays, many of which are not of the UK Government’s making, but can he explain why transmission charging is such a problem for Longannet and other conventional generators when the same regime, which applies to renewable energy, is not preventing massive renewable energy development from going ahead today?
The answer is very simple: it is because wind farms have higher output than similar plants in England, whereas coal-fired power stations have the same output as those in England.
Let us get back to the key point. This is very serious. My information is that, unless there is a resolution, Scottish Power must intimate to National Grid, no later than the end of March, that Longannet will be closed. Therefore, unless the negotiations are concluded successfully, there is a great deal at stake. I have taken that matter extremely seriously not for months but for years. At one point, Scottish Power was optimistic that a deal would be reached. We are not satisfied that the assumptions that National Grid has made are prudent—in fact, many of our experts take the opposite view.
You must close, minister.
We will come back to the chamber on this topic. It is too important to treat as a political football.
15:46
The debate was an attempt by the Conservative Party to bring forward an issue that is of genuine concern to many people in Scotland. It was perhaps an attempt to find a way of bringing together the political parties and the Government at such an important time, yet it has served as one more opportunity for political parties to set out radically differing positions without recognising the imminence of the decision making that is in process.
The truth is that Scotland is a cold country and a country where energy is important. The availability and affordability of energy are critical not only in domestic terms but for our industrial development and economic growth. It is important that no one is left to freeze in the top of a tower block somewhere because electricity is too expensive to buy, but it is equally important that, when Scottish workers go to their jobs, the lights come on and the motors begin to run.
That is why electricity generation has always been at the heart of Conservative Party concerns about energy policy in Scotland. We have been raising the subject for years. We have been raising it for so long that the landscape has changed radically over that time. Once, we could say clearly that Scotland had five main power stations, which together produced more electricity than Scotland could use. We talked a lot about Scotland exporting electricity, although that was perhaps slightly misleading given the commitments that we have to supply across the Northern Ireland interconnector. Nevertheless, we were electricity exporters.
In the intervening time, largely at the instigation of the current Government, we have seen a massive shift to onshore wind and we have become increasingly reliant on it. At the same time, Cockenzie has closed, Hunterston has been downgraded and even Boddam has reduced its output. Longannet and Torness remain the only two power stations in Scotland that are capable of achieving anything near the required output. Actually, everybody agrees on our need for nuclear energy, although we do not agree about replacing that capacity. Nevertheless, this Government and others, along with various political parties in Scotland, have been keen for the life of Hunterston to be extended. We heard today from the minister that the same approach will be taken to Torness. Everybody understands that we are reliant on nuclear energy in Scotland. The question is simply how long we can afford to go before we consider how it might be replaced.
The whole issue has been thrown into focus by the immediate threat to Longannet, which is a high-capacity coal-fired power station. It is under threat for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that it does not meet the likely requirements of the European environmental legislation under which it will have to survive in future.
We have said a lot today about the grid charging regime and, again, we have perhaps had a misleading representation. The national grid is not free. It cost money to build and it costs money to maintain. The current regime, whether we like it or not, is designed to incentivise the pursuit of low transmission costs and to minimise losses in the grid. I support the Scottish Government’s argument that a more favourable charging regime would be welcome, and I hope that that will come forward. Nevertheless, it is ironic that that regime, if it is successfully achieved, will be one in which English consumers pay more and Scottish generators pay less.
The truth is that we need to look ahead in this difficult situation. We need a clear picture of where our energy will come from in five, 10 and 20 years’ time, because we know that the capacity that we have today will close down. Longannet will not survive in its current form beyond 2020 and we know that, thanks to the minister, our nuclear capacity will disappear, most likely by 2023, which could call into question the reliability and affordability of our electricity. However, if we allowed Chic Brodie to do the mathematics, we could perhaps avoid that difficult conclusion, given that the strike price for nuclear energy, which he clearly stated to be £92.50 per MWh, is apparently significantly more expensive than the equivalent strike price for onshore wind of £95 per MWh—the secret behind which he declined to tell us when challenged.
The reality is that we are in a difficult position. We need to address a key challenge and remember that the transmission regime does not discriminate between generating methods. Investment is being made in onshore wind at the same latitude as the power stations that we are discussing, so it is ironic that transmission charges are a threat to coal-fired reserves but not to wind generation. The minister was slightly disingenuous when he suggested that that was somehow because onshore wind capacity in Scotland is higher than that in the south of England. That is a fact that is undeniable, but it has nothing to do with the impact of transmission charges.
We have had one or two key contributions today and I would like to draw attention to the first three quarters of Cara Hilton’s speech. She is the local member for Longannet and she made it clear that the future of the workers there should always be at the front of our minds. We must remember that Longannet is not only an important power station for the supply of electricity but a very major employer in the area. Sadly, Cara went on to spoil her speech by reciting some myth and superstition about the shale gas extraction techniques that we might adopt in the future.
The key proposal that my colleague Murdo Fraser made in his opening speech was that we should consider the opportunity to look forward and build a gas-fired power station at the Longannet site. We have the opportunity to use the infrastructure, skills and, ironically, perhaps even the fuel supplies that exist there. Perhaps if the Government sanctioned the drilling of a few wells, it might discover that Longannet is very close to a source of energy that could supply it.
I support the motion in the name of Murdo Fraser and commend it to the chamber.
Previous
Portfolio Question Time