Chamber and committees

A very good morning, and welcome to the 17th meeting in 2025 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies. Fulton MacGregor is running slightly late due to train issues, but he will join us shortly.

Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take in private item 4, which is our review of today’s evidence. Do we agree to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Will the minister outline some of the very good and important youth work that the Scottish Government has supported, including through the cashback for communities programme, which specifically supports young people to divert them away from crime and antisocial behaviour and teaches the consequences of violence and carrying weapons, including knives?

I understand the member’s point about skills and knowledge but, as a constituency MSP, I have had a number of retired engineers from the oil and gas sector come to discuss potential projects in all aspects of renewables. I put that out there so that the member is aware of it.

I point out—this seems to get missed in the chamber quite a bit, regardless of which side of the debate members are on—the number of stakeholders that have a say and exercise control over the whole system with regard to pylons, consenting and the expansion of the grid. It is not just the Scottish Government.

Despite energy featuring so heavily in debates in the chamber week in, week out, I have learned a lot while preparing for today’s debate. It has been really helpful to understand a bit more about the community energy landscape, the opportunities that are created by Scotland’s community energy generation growth fund and the challenges that are faced, and how we can respond in general terms with regard to developing community energy opportunities.

We have already heard that, as well as generating renewable energy through large-scale projects, it makes sense to have smaller-scale projects bringing together households or businesses—or both—to create community energy schemes. As members would expect, there are many wind and hydro projects in rural areas of Scotland, making the most of our natural resources to reach our interim target of 2GW of renewable energy capacity in local ownership by 2030.

Wind turbine projects seem to be the most common option, even if they are sometimes a bit controversial. Hydro schemes seem viable but limited, due to requiring communities to be located near a watercourse. There are many other options, too, including district heat networks. The city of Aberdeen hosts several district heat networks, including in my constituency, supplying low-cost energy to homes, public buildings and businesses. With strong political leadership, funding and policy clarity, heat networks offer opportunities to maximise the benefit of heat decarbonisation. One business in my constituency produces significant heat as a byproduct of the process that it uses to produce fishmeal. That heat could contribute to the local district heat network scheme but, to date, that has proved to be unsuccessful.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s new £8 million community energy generation growth fund, which will support local communities to install wind turbines and solar panels or to develop other types of renewable energy generation, such as hydro, to heat and power local homes and businesses. Significant progress has already been made thanks to the work of CARES, which we have heard about and which has provided more than £67 million of funding to more than 990 community projects. I enjoyed listening to Michael Matheson outlining some of the benefits that CARES has already delivered in his constituency and beyond.

I am grateful to everyone who assisted me in thinking about some points that are worth further exploration and some challenges that I do not think are insurmountable.

The first challenge is definition. The “Community Ownership in Scotland User Guide”, published in 2024, defines a community according to its geography, but the problem for developers is the risk that someone will be left out. There will always be a line on the map and a community on the wrong side of that line.

Are community groups the right target for community ownership? As we have already heard, not every community has the experience, expertise or desire to engage with those opportunities, so how can we enable communities to consider community energy projects in the first place? Which models work well, are outcome-driven and can genuinely be delivered by communities? Will they be able to raise the capital to invest or to buy up to, say, 10 per cent of a project? Is there flexibility that can make investment more attractive, for example by offering the option of making, say, a 5 per cent investment?

Other speakers have highlighted the potential role of local authorities in supporting community energy projects, whether by the provision of land or by investing in projects—if, indeed, they are permitted to do so.

I agree 100 per cent. There may be a specific piece of work to look at how we can do that, and I would be happy to be part of that work.

We have already heard about the possibility of communities investing in projects outwith their geographical area. Not all communities are created equal with regard to their ability to create energy, so is there scope to develop a system to share the funds that are generated by our renewable energy? Communities may feel that something is their project and that they are the ones impacted by it, but such restrictions might cut off communities that could benefit from additional investment and revenue. How might investors respond when presented with a project that includes an obligation to sell a percentage on to a community partner? I think that many investors would welcome that opportunity, but how would that sit with their obligations? That links to Patrick Harvie’s well made distinction between community ownership and community benefit.

What sources of investment would community projects require, over and above funding? I note that the UK Government’s recent call for evidence on community energy projects cited funding as the biggest barrier, so the announcement of funding from the Scottish Government is really welcome.

I also note the commitment by GB Energy to provide £20 million over the next financial year to support community projects, and hope that we will see tangible benefits coming to Scotland. There is no doubt that community energy projects have the potential to leave a lasting legacy and that developers, Governments and the public want to be part of that.

I commend the work of Community Energy Scotland, the Scottish Government and the many other organisations and stakeholders that work in that space. It is important that communities understand the likely parameters and economic realities of community investment or shared ownership schemes, which will help to strengthen the social contract around renewables, ensuring that it is truly just, fair and lasting.

On the point that Stephen Kerr has just made—Jackson Carlaw made a similar point—does he agree that conveners sometimes find it quite difficult to achieve the balance between being too liberal and flexible during a meeting and ensuring that there is the expected formality?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the net zero secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding how the recently announced proof of concept fund will encourage an innovative just transition in the North East Scotland region. (S6O-04699)

It is vital that we work to support innovation at all levels, particularly when we are furthering our investment and ambitions to deliver our green energy transition. In that regard, my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine and the wider north-east host a wealth of innovators and inventors. Can the cabinet secretary say more about how the Scottish Government is supporting young tech innovators and entrepreneurs across Scotland?

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and, in my role as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, to give some personal reflections on committee effectiveness. I pay tribute to the work of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in securing the debate following its important and interesting inquiry.

I also thank all members of the Criminal Justice Committee and those who have been members during my time as convener. I believe that we have demonstrated what an effective committee looks like. Without being immodest, I think that the committee has worked hard to secure its reputation for robust scrutiny, whether in committee-led inquiries or when scrutinising legislation that comes under our remit. My goodness, there has been a lot of legislation.

On a point that some members have raised, my view, certainly in the context of criminal justice, is that there is a need for some pre-prepared questions, which help to ensure that all aspects of a bill’s provisions are the subject of evidence taking during committee scrutiny. However, it is important to extend some flexibility to members who are interested in following their own line of questioning.