The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17648, in the name of Gillian Martin, on growing community-owned energy in Scotland. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. I note that a number of members who had indicated that they wished to speak in the debate are not in the chamber, which is more than disappointing.
14:20
I am grateful for the opportunity to open today’s debate and to shine an important spotlight on community-owned energy in Scotland.
The Scottish Government is committed to growing our economy in a way that also ends our contribution to climate change. Our drive to bring down emissions comes with huge potential for wealth creation, not least in our communities. To deliver a just transition, we must continue to work with communities, businesses, industry and the people of Scotland to plan for a future in which Scotland is a leader in low-emission systems and technologies, with all the jobs and reduction in the cost of living that can come from that.
It is essential that our communities reap the benefits of the transition, which is about the outcome—a fairer, greener, more resilient and prosperous future—and the way in which we get there. The transition will be in partnership with our citizens and based on an understanding and acceptance of the reasons why it is a priority for the nation’s health, wellbeing and vibrant economy, for us and our children for decades to come.
Community energy plays a particularly important role in empowering communities to take ownership of their energy future. Communities owning their own wind, solar and other renewable projects puts them at the centre of the revolution in power generation, while bringing in valuable revenue that can be directed towards community priorities, such as tackling fuel poverty, upgrading local infrastructure and supporting community events.
The Scottish Government has a long history of supporting the delivery of projects in community-led renewable energy, energy demand reduction and energy supply. The impact of community energy over time is demonstrated by the work of the Point and Sandwick Trust on the Isle of Lewis. That project began in 2005 as a public discussion on the possibility of developing a large community-owned wind farm on common grazing grounds. The project developed from there, with support from a community and renewable energy Scotland scheme—CARES—loan.
By 2015, installation had been completed and the turbines were energised, and it became one of the biggest community-owned wind farms in the whole of the United Kingdom. Today, it produces around £900,000 a year in net income for the local community. Once capital costs have been repaid, it is expected to generate up to £2 million a year. Those funds support projects in and around the local area, providing valuable benefits for the community.
The Scottish Government is determined to build on these community energy successes with our new community energy generation growth fund, which will provide up to £8 million to boost community energy in Scotland. That includes £4 million that the Scottish Government has secured from Great British Energy to support community and local energy in Scotland, alongside £4 million of Scottish Government funding.
That programme for government commitment will help to grow the pipeline of community energy in Scotland, enabling more communities to benefit from owning their own renewable energy projects. The community energy generation growth fund is a significant expansion on last year’s pilot and will help to deliver the social and financial benefits of the energy transition directly to Scotland’s communities.
Has any consideration been given to how benefits will be spread to communities that might not, for example, be located next to a large wind farm, but might still be in need of investment? Indeed, consumers are paying for some of the transmission from wind farms.
There are a number of things at play. The member will be aware that, after a great deal of encouragement from the Scottish Government, the UK Government has put out a consultation on community benefits from developments that are happening in renewables. That is one area in which communities can benefit. With community energy projects, there is the option for developers to go to communities and propose community benefit as a solution—or maybe an offer—as part of their good neighbour principle.
Even if that does not happen in an area, communities can come together to contact the community and renewable energy Scotland scheme to ask for advice on how they can build their own community energy plant of whatever description. The CARES model has been shown to be very successful, so much so that it is one of the reasons why I asked the UK Government to take money from the local power plan and put it into CARES rather than setting up a new agency.
The cabinet secretary is setting out reasons why community ownership has significant benefits and there is very little dissent from that principle. Renewable energy has been growing dramatically for many years in Scotland. If the model that has been pursued so far has been a success, why does the cabinet secretary think that there is not a more significant share of the overall renewable energy industry in community, public or shared hands? Why do we have a very private sector-dominated industry?
There are a few reasons for that. Historically, communities felt that they almost had to be engineers or to have an expert in their community, and one of the reasons why we set up CARES was to share information with communities on how to implement projects. We are 55 per cent towards our target of renewable community energy generation by 2030. In large part, there has been a real step change in the number of projects because of CARES.
Of course, there are still other barriers—I will mention them in other parts of my speech—and there is a lot that we can do to bring them down. Patrick Harvie’s position is absolutely right. I want the barriers to communities’ ability to take forward projects to be looked at and eliminated as much as possible.
The £8 million community energy generation growth fund will boost community energy and it is a significant expansion on last year’s community energy pilot. Going back to Patrick Harvie’s point, we have seen success with the funding that has been given to CARES in work with communities to overcome some of those barriers. That is why we did the pilot and put the additional £8 million into it. The fund will support community groups across Scotland to develop their own wind and solar photovoltaic projects. Applications for funding are now open and will close on 25 June. Full funding guidance, including information on how to apply, can be found on the Local Energy Scotland website, which includes a list of Local Energy Scotland officials in an area with whom communities can get in touch in the first instance.
Does the cabinet secretary believe that councils have an important role to play in supporting community organisations?
It is the essence of community wealth building and community empowerment that local authorities work with those in their communities who want to take up some of the opportunities in community-owned energy. I know that a lot of councils have dedicated officials, particularly in the community empowerment space, who will be able to assist. CARES is also a vital resource and, as I have said, the Local Energy Scotland website has named individuals for each area, and communities can contact them by phone or email. That has proven to be very helpful.
The growth fund pilot that took place last year supported a wide range of activities, including feasibility studies, securing grid connections, planning and installation and build costs. Arran Community Renewables received almost £0.5 million to develop its community solar project. CARES funding supported vital work on grid connection, planning application and project management costs. The project has now been granted planning consent for a 6MW solar farm, which will be wholly owned by the community and will contribute to a benefit fund for the island. Once complete, it will become Scotland’s biggest community-owned solar farm. It has been reported that it will produce enough renewable energy to meet up to one quarter of the island’s domestic power needs.
Another solar project in Wallacetown in South Ayrshire demonstrates the positive impacts that community energy groups can bring to the local area. The community identified three publicly owned school buildings in Wallacetown that could host solar PV panels on their roofs. CARES support has allowed them to progress through the pre-installation phase, and the installation is due to begin this summer. The project plans to generate energy that will be used within the schools that are hosting the solar panels, which will offset their energy costs, with surplus electricity going back into the grid. Income raised from that will be used by the community to help those within the community who are feeling the worst impacts of fuel poverty.
The project is also committed to community building and education. That began with Newton primary school, whose students designed the logo for the project. All three schools have had the opportunity to learn about the solar panels that will be at their schools, with photovoltaic kits provided. I imagine that quite a lot of the renewables engineers of the future will be coming from those schools as a result. Wouldn’t that be nice to see? The project has already been recognised by the University of Strathclyde as one of the community challenge projects, and students have undertaken a group project to support the development of the proposed plan for Wallacetown to be a net zero village.
That is what CARES is all about: supporting communities to participate in, drive and benefit from the energy transition to net zero emissions so as to see the real benefits of the renewable energy sector. We are determined to ensure that all communities, including the most rural, benefit in that way.
What protection do your plans give to communities that do not want any more wind power infrastructure or any more battery storage?
Always speak through the chair.
This debate is about communities that want to have their own community-owned schemes, rather than being anything to do with planning or consents. If the member has specific concerns on planning and consents for developments, that is a separate subject, which he can write to me on. I am happy to answer all his questions on that, but I am concentrating now on community energy, which is proving to be a great boost for the communities that take forward projects.
Community energy also has a role to play in supporting off-grid communities such as the Knoydart peninsula. Knoydart is not connected to the national electricity grid and generates all its own electricity through a single hydroelectric turbine. Knoydart Renewables Ltd, or KRL, supplies most of the energy in Knoydart, and it is responsible for maintaining a 28kW hydro-power system. CARES recently provided funding to refurbish Knoydart’s hydro-power scheme. That work means that it will be able to meet the peak power requirements for the community for another 40-plus years, and that has allowed new properties to be built and to be connected to the islanded electrical network.
Those projects, which are led by a wide range of communities, with their different geographies and priorities, demonstrate the impact that community energy can have. However, community energy is not the only way in which our communities can secure benefits from the energy transition. Reflecting on Maurice Golden’s question to me, shared ownership, where communities take a share in a commercial renewable energy project, can also offer communities significant opportunities, and we are committed to supporting communities to access such opportunities.
CARES offers support for communities that are looking to invest in shared ownership, providing free-to-use online guidance and resources. The scheme can help communities to access funding and contractors for project management, financial matters and legal matters, and it can ensure that all communities have all the information to decide if that sort of ownership is right for them.
I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s outlining that support. Would she agree that we should also be thinking about support for local authorities, so that they can be pioneers in Scotland? We have very few local authority schemes at the moment.
I can give you the time back for some of the interventions, cabinet secretary.
I am open to any suggestions that would mean having more local authority schemes. If there are any barriers in the way, I would like to investigate what they are with the particular local authorities concerned. I will come on to Ms Boyack’s Labour amendment in a minute, because I think that there are some opportunities for discussion there.
We are progressing work on the commitment in the onshore wind sector deal to publish a framework of practical approaches to support and encourage community shared ownership models. That will assist communities, developers and funders to engage in shared ownership opportunities.
The UK Government recently published a working paper seeking views on the current voluntary approach to community shared ownership and barriers to the uptake of shared ownership. I encourage all members to look at that paper—it is a consultation of sorts—and to publicise it to their communities. We will consider the proposals in detail to ensure that they consider Scottish communities and give them the chance to benefit from investing in commercially owned renewable energy projects.
I come to the Labour amendment, which we support. The Scottish Government is committed to exploring ways in which we can maximise the opportunities that are offered by the sustainable procurement duty. That will support the development of sustainably sourced energy in Scotland and, where possible, how we incorporate locally sourced energy into the electricity that is supplied via our national framework agreement for the supply of electricity. The current framework agreement is due to expire in March 2029, so we will ensure that the next-generation framework agreement reflects the desire of the public sector in Scotland to maximise the opportunities that are offered by power purchase agreements.
Through community energy and shared ownership, as well as community benefits and the wider economic benefits from renewables, we are absolutely committed to maximising the benefits that communities see from renewable energy. Community energy supports our net zero ambitions, but it does more than that. It puts communities at the heart of the energy transition, empowering them to support their own priorities and reflecting each community’s long-term needs and aspirations in a way that is just and fair. Our £8 million community energy generation growth fund will mean that there will be more action in this area.
I look forward to participating in the debate on such an important topic.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that Scotland must increase community-owned energy production, and supports communities being aided to achieve this; welcomes that, since its inception, the Community and Renewable Energy Scheme (CARES) has advised over 1,300 organisations and provided over £67 million in funding to support over 990 projects; notes that the new Community Energy Generation Growth Fund will provide up to £8 million to boost community energy in Scotland, and believes that the development of renewables at all scales in Scotland should benefit consumers, communities and the economy.
I advise members that we have a bit of time in hand, so those who take interventions will certainly get the time back.
14:36
I think that there will be a lot that we agree on this afternoon. Community-owned energy is becoming an increasingly important element in our energy production in Scotland. Local power production schemes are fast becoming a means by which our more rural communities become energy efficient and less reliant on more carbon-intensive means of energy production. They serve to bring autonomy to our rural communities, giving them a stake in their energy production, environmental sustainability and resilience for when the main grid fails due to weather or other calamities.
I join the cabinet secretary in recognising the work that has been done by Community Energy Scotland. I have spoken to many community groups that have spoken highly of the support, advice and guidance that the agency has given them, and I have spoken to MSPs about the support and advice that CES has given us through meetings in which it has patiently explained its ambitions for and frustrations about community energy production throughout Scotland. Rarely have I heard such warm words spoken of a Government body.
We know that 1.1GW of community and locally owned renewable energy capacity was in operation in Scotland in December 2024 and that the Government has a target of 2GW by 2030. That is a laudable target, although the Scottish National Party’s record of achieving targets on environmental issues has not been great so far. However, I will suspend my pessimism on this occasion.
Community Energy Scotland wants the Government to distinguish between community and locally owned and solely community-owned schemes. It wants to see a separate target of 1GW of energy per year produced by community schemes, as well as the 2GW target for community and locally owned schemes that has been set by the Government. Although that might seem like a small change, it is fundamental to ensure that those schemes are run for and by communities, instead of having the possibility of larger companies taking the benefit without ensuring community support. The change would also enable us to access additional funding from the UK Government, which is focused on delivering 8GW of community energy by 2030. By bringing ourselves into line with that target, we can achieve a lot more, instead of by following the usual SNP mantra of being different for difference’s sake.
While I am speaking about the relationship with the Labour Government, I want to pick up on an announcement that has been made by both Governments, each claiming it as its own. We are talking about an £8 million scheme, and I believe that it is actually £4 million from the UK Government through GB Energy and £4 million from the SNP Government. I would like to ensure that that is clarified. If it is £4 million from the Scottish Government, is that new money or has it just been repurposed from another budget line?
I can confirm that that is shared funding from both Governments. It has not been repurposed; it is new money. It is for the expansion of the capacity of CARES off the back of the pilot work that we did.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that important clarification. We often hear that funds have gone from one place to another, so it is good to hear that that is actually new money. However, rural communities will wait to see what benefit it actually brings in the form of inward investment and economic benefit.
My pessimism well and truly returns when it comes to the jobs promised by GB Energy. It promised 1,000 jobs, but that will take years and years.
At the heart of all the announcements are small local communities that see the potential in small local energy schemes. They want to do their bit; they see an opportunity and have the drive and passion to take it forward, but they find the process incredibly daunting. There is little in the Government’s motion to suggest that that will be easier in the future, only that more money might be available.
The community groups that I have spoken to highlight some key challenges when it comes to getting schemes from idea to delivery. A report from ClimateXChange in 2024 found three main barriers: a lack of resources, a lack of skills and a lack of community input. Nothing that the cabinet secretary has said today will change any of those things.
First, there is a lack of resources. Taking a project from idea to execution can take five years or more, which, for a community group, is a huge amount of time and resources to which few can commit. Money will not necessarily make a difference to that, although it might allow groups to buy in expertise when they need to, given that they are often volunteer groups of committed individuals who have busy and changing lives. The personnel can change frequently and it is difficult for them to see a project through, given the amount of time that is required even to fill in the necessary paperwork.
Secondly, there is a lack of skills. The ClimateXChange report refers specifically to the lack of skills within local authorities to spearhead projects, stating that
“local authority stakeholders note that there is still often a lack of skill for local energy projects in general.”
That is, of course, in addition to a lack of expertise in local communities.
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 absolutely agree with Audrey Nicoll. A lot depends on skilled people, but they are not always there for the duration because the process is so long.
I never thought that I would hear myself saying this, but I agree with Douglas Lumsden. It is quite difficult for certain communities to navigate their way through the processes before us. It must be extremely difficult to benefit from these schemes in areas where people are less privileged.
There is more that we can do; if we can give our local authorities more help so that they, too, can help in that process, that would be a good thing.
Thirdly, there is a lack of community input. As I said earlier, many local energy projects are not community projects and can lack community input. Companies or housing developers are acting to develop schemes but are not including the views of the local community in their plans.
I previously mentioned the time that it takes for energy schemes to go through the planning process. The planning process for a small community wind farm is the same as for a major wind farm, and the planning process for a small hydro or tidal scheme is the same as for a big scheme. There is no proportionality in our local authority planning system.
The Scottish Conservatives want local communities to have much more say over energy projects in their area and far more proportionate planning guidance for community-owned schemes. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary agrees that the Government should consider that area in the future.
The Government’s motion focuses on generation, but why not encourage more community ownership of energy storage? We are seeing an explosion in battery storage, but most schemes are being pushed through against the wishes of local communities. There is a gold rush, with developers rushing in to make a fortune by buying cheap energy and then selling it for a fortune when the wind is not blowing, and there seems to be little regulation or control. If sites are being inflicted on communities against their will, why not give those communities a stake so that it is not only the energy finance companies that benefit and communities can benefit, too?
I have spent much of my speaking time looking at the Government’s motion, whose wording the amendments do not seek to amend but only to add to. I want to address the main point of our amendment, which is about how the energy is transferred into the grid. As part of its pathway to 2030, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks is proposing to build 500km of monster pylons throughout some of the most scenic areas of Scotland, and Scottish Power is planning an 80km route through the Borders, which is almost as scenic.
Deeside Against Pylons spokesman John Rahtz said:
“Our communities feel that the North of Scotland is bearing a disproportionate cost for this short-sighted proposal which is driven by cost.”
Tracy Smith of Save our Mearns said that SSEN is
“bulldozing through the north east”.
We recently had a debate in the chamber on bringing Scotland into line with the Aarhus convention, in which we called for legal aid for communities and an environmental court to give communities a greater say when it comes to such developments, but the cabinet secretary seems to think that we are in compliance with the Aarhus convention.
This morning, I asked the cabinet secretary about changes to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and how it will affect communities. Community groups have written in and said that they will no longer take part in Scottish Government consultations as they feel ignored. The response from Scotland Against Spin says:
“we are not going to waste our time making the same arguments that have already been ignored once and which will no doubt be ignored again.”
I said to Mr Lumsden this morning that the legislative consent memorandum actually mandates community engagement, whereas at the moment that is voluntary. It puts in law the need for companies, developers and transmission owners to engage with communities.
Once again, the cabinet secretary takes the bits that she likes but ignores the other parts. The Government is taking away the right to a public inquiry and reducing the time limit. This devolved Government should hang its head in shame. Campaign groups feel ignored as Government ministers—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The record will show that I said in committee this morning that the right to a public inquiry stays. Mr Lumsden is deliberately misleading the chamber.
Cabinet secretary, could I ask you perhaps to rephrase that last comment, please?
From what Mr Lumsden has said, I fear that he is not taking on board the facts that I laid out this morning at committee.
Thank you. That was not a point of order. Please continue, Mr Lumsden.
I am sure that everyone knows that the right to an automatic public inquiry is being removed from our local communities. That is what is set out in the new legislation that is coming through, and shamefully so.
This devolved Government should hang its head in shame. Campaign groups feel ignored—that is what it is coming to—as Government ministers refuse to meet them but are happy enough to cosy up to developers. It is a David versus Goliath situation. That is why the proposed reduction from three months to six weeks of the time limit to lodge an objection to onshore energy is a disgrace. The cabinet secretary cares more about pleasing renewable energy companies than she does about standing up for local communities.
We therefore make the call again and ask the Scottish Government when it will not only put more money into community schemes but actually resolve the systemic issues that are preventing communities from standing up to large-scale developments that are ruining our countryside.
The Scottish Conservatives want our local communities to be empowered to grow energy schemes in a proportionate way, with sensible planning and community buy-in to the process. We want them to be properly funded and assisted to not only propose schemes that are advantageous to them but oppose schemes that are detrimental to them. We do not want to see monster pylons littering our countryside with little regard for local concerns, scenery, agriculture or economic growth. It is time for this devolved Government to listen to communities and not sideline them so as to appease its renewable energy company chums.
I move amendment S6M-17648.3, to insert at end:
“recognises that community consent needs to be at the heart of energy production; notes with concern that pylons and other electricity infrastructure are increasingly being built without the support of residents, and calls on the Scottish Government to give these communities more say over local energy production.”
14:49
I welcome today’s debate because the issue of community energy is a crucial one for us to debate. As a Labour and Co-operative member, I am proud to be a member of the Edinburgh Community Solar Co-operative. I will come back to that later.
The debate is not just nice to have; it is absolutely key that we maximise our fantastic land, wind and water resources to the benefit of communities. Moreover, this is about empowering our local communities, and should also be about creating local jobs and investment, and delivering community wealth building. If we get it right—if we have effective planning—we will, potentially, also tackle our nature and climate emergencies. The issue is absolutely crucial.
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government will support our Scottish Labour amendment. I constructed it as an add-on amendment. My aim is to be constructive, although, if members read our amendment, they will understand that it is about our need to go much further. I will focus on that today.
So much more needs to be done—and can be done—to ensure that more community-owned, co-operatively owned and municipally owned projects can be delivered. I totally agree with the point that Douglas Lumsden made about the huge amount of time that it takes for individual communities to do the work. It is not just a commitment of a year or two. Getting a project through is a commitment lasting years: the community needs to work up the financial and investment side, get the project through planning, and then run it. It is a huge commitment.
We should not underestimate the challenge for local authorities, because they have had lots of cuts to their funding and they do not have the necessary dedicated staff. We need to learn from successes in areas in Scotland where community projects have been owned by authorities, so that we can spread that approach through working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities. The geography of our local authorities in Scotland means that they all have opportunities, but there are risks that need to be assessed, investment is needed and officers need skills. We need to share more. That is why I mention working with CARES, and what more Co-operative Development Scotland could do to share best practice. There is much that needs to be done.
One reason why we need to focus on why community energy has to happen relates to the discussion about having a joined-up approach. At the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee last month, we discussed constraint payments. Last year, £393 million was paid in such payments—when we had to turn wind farm turbines off—98 per cent of which was as a result of wind turbines in Scotland. We need to use that electricity now. We need to think about creating local power but we also need to think about how we use that power. For example, we could power electric vehicles, buses and trains.
On increasing demand in order to reduce the amount of constraint payments, what is the member’s position on an electric arc furnace here in Scotland?
I am not going to begin to answer that question. Let us have that conversation afterwards.
Another area that I think we have not focused on enough is heat in our communities—heat for our buildings and heat networks. The capacity is there. If we have ever more renewables, we need to think in a more joined-up way. That could involve pumped hydro storage, as well as providing a source for the use of that electricity.
Our amendment references the heat strategies that local authorities submitted last January. There is an opportunity for us—and there are huge opportunities for not-for-profit heat networks—to keep prices affordable for consumers.
Local authority or community ownership would give us more accountability. Denmark has been following best practice for decades. Throughout that time, Denmark has not just had local authority-owned heat networks; they have also decarbonised. That is a win-win that we are not making the most of.
We have examples. Aberdeen Heat and Power was established in 2002, and I have visited it several times.
Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP) rose—
I will take an intervention if it is very brief.
I will be really brief. I apologise, Presiding Officer, I pushed the wrong button.
Does Sarah Boyack think that anaerobic digestion of dairy farm by-products and co-products, which generate a lot of heat, could be part of what we need to look at to support agriculture in getting to net zero?
There are all sorts of opportunities that we are not maximising. That has been part of the discussion at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee in relation to project willow and Grangemouth. It is about more joined-up thinking in communities and nationally.
I will give another example. The Midlothian project at Shawfair is a joint-venture partnership between Midlothian Energy Company and Vattenfall, which will power 3,500 houses. The council is leading that. It is using the private sector to deliver, but there is accountability. However, we are not seeing such projects across the country. Local authorities need to push down the costs of those projects, share best practice and make sure that there is a joined-up approach.
In the Lothians, I have mentioned the Midlothian project, which is just on the other side of the Edinburgh boundary, but a huge amount of work is being done in East Lothian, too, and work is also being done by the City of Edinburgh Council.
We need a more joined-up approach. The work is very innovative, and both the Scottish Government and the UK Government should think about how we get projects going and then share that best practice with councils.
I was at an event in Galashiels last month at which people talked about Scotland beyond net zero. I have talked about urban areas, but district heating can also be a win-win in rural areas, using electricity that is produced locally but also giving councils the opportunity to use that electricity too. Again, I refer to the example of Denmark.
I also want to comment on the huge benefits for communities. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s reference to the Point and Sandwick Trust. The Scottish Trades Union Congress published stats today that show that community-owned wind farms benefit communities by a factor of 34 when compared with privately owned wind farms. We are missing out there. That is why I welcome the extra money from both GB Energy and the Scottish Government. However, it is now about how we spend that money, because communities need support now, not in a couple of years—and it is not a nice to have, but critical.
The other thing that needs to happen is land reform, so that communities get the chance to have priority access to the land when it becomes available and do their own projects. I know that my colleague Rhoda Grant has been working on that.
Community energy is also about the range of tech that could be used. I have mentioned wind, and there are also solar and hydro schemes that could be used right across urban and rural Scotland. We should have a solar plan—we have one for wind—and we should have 2030 targets. I gave the example of the Edinburgh Community Solar Co-operative. Why do we not have such projects across Scotland? It does not make sense to me. It took years for the council to agree the project, but our schools and leisure centres now have solar on the roofs. That is good for the environment and it generates income for the council.
Why is that approach not taken across Scotland? I think that it is because it is too complicated, so we need to support local authorities. It is not even about new buildings; we can retrofit existing buildings. I am glad that the cabinet secretary is now talking about supporting our amendment, and I want to highlight that retrofitting could be an additional factor that would help us to open up solar. There could also be solar in rural communities alongside agriculture. That could be more integrated—and, again, those projects could be community owned.
My next point is critical, as it is about procurement. I have spoken to people who have set up community projects that cannot get access to the Scottish Government’s electricity supply contract. We need to reform procurement, given the huge opportunity that we have.
One of my former colleagues, Allan Wilson, is involved in a community project. He highlighted the difference that it would make if projects had the opportunity to access such contracts through procurement. It is a big missed opportunity if communities cannot access that £700 million contract. Why is that? If the minister were supportive of giving them that access, I would be very keen to meet her and discuss the changes that are needed, given the feedback that I have had from local communities. It is not a nice to have, but a must have. We need change.
Lots more could be done. I am keen that a constructive approach is taken today, because community energy is not a nice to have. As one of the representatives from Point and Sandwick made clear, the project has been transformational in their community—but it has taken years and years.
I will make two final points. Why we do not use the Scottish National Investment Bank, and why we do not think about using pension investment—that is, long-term, safe investment? We need to think about new investment opportunities and make the case for using the National Wealth Fund and GB Energy. These are safe investment projects that will be successful over time. However, we need local authorities, co-operatives and communities to be empowered to make the most of them.
There is way more that we need to do. The Scottish Government has reached just over half its target for 2030, so an awful lot more will need to be done in the next four and a half years. The Scottish Labour amendment identifies the key ways in which we might make that happen.
I move amendment S6M-17648.1, to insert at end:
“; welcomes the £4 million in funding from Great British Energy to fund half of the Community Energy Generation Growth Fund; believes that, as well as community groups, councils and public sector organisations are well placed to host, or collaborate on, community renewables projects, community heat projects, municipal ownership and co-operative models; further believes that land reform should mean the chance for communities to be able to have priority access to land when it becomes available; notes that there are a range of different technologies that could be utilised for community-owned energy projects, including wind, solar and hydro schemes among others, in both urban and rural Scotland; acknowledges that the Scottish Government could help to grow the sector by opening up the government electricity supply contract to community generators, which are currently denied access to the market, whether directly through conditions of tender or indirectly through procurement; calls on public bodies to create space for community ownership where possible by making public land and buildings available to community energy groups, and calls on the Scottish Government to work productively with the UK Government to create further opportunities for communities to own a meaningful stake in energy infrastructure through partnering with Great British Energy.”
15:00
I add my voice to those of members across the chamber who have expressed how welcome the debate is. Of course, by their nature, the amendments do not all come from the same point of view, but I note that they all seek to add something to the motion rather than to delete anything from it. That demonstrates that there is at least some consensus on what the Scottish Government has to say, even if Opposition parties think that more needs to be said.
Unlike the Conservative amendment, the Scottish Labour and Green amendments bring positive ideas to the table, which is the intention behind both of them. The amendment in my name sets out the positive steps that will need to be taken if we are to maximise the public, environmental, social and economic benefits of having community, public and shared not-for-profit ownership of our energy infrastructure.
We are at a critical point in the transition to a sustainable energy system, but we are also at a point at which people are struggling with their energy bills. Political parties across the UK are beginning to be too willing to accept pushback against the idea of an energy transition, and some parties are either heeding or even peddling the misinformation that is coming from anti-climate action or anti-net zero voices, including those that are funded by the corporate fossil fuel giants.
Therefore, we are at a pretty dangerous point in relation to how our political landscape is dealing with the energy transition. Most members of the public want climate action, and they embrace the idea of a future that prioritises renewables. However, it is critical that we recognise the need to continue to earn, and to reinforce, that support for an urgent transition. To do so, we must ensure that people benefit from it, but many are rightly cynical about the profit motives of an overwhelmingly privatised energy system.
A key part of the energy transition must be not only replacing the past century’s dirty fossil-fuel power generation with renewables but rebalancing the ownership of our energy system. It is a case not only of putting the power to generate electricity into local communities, but of putting its ownership into their hands. In short, we should not swap a bunch of fossil-fuel multinationals for a set of renewable multinationals. We have an opportunity to transform ownership of our energy system, and to transform its economic benefit, too.
None of this is new, and none of it is rocket science. It is all stuff that other countries have done successfully for years, decades or even generations before now. Many other European countries have high levels of public, community and not-for-profit ownership of energy infrastructure. I am pleased that the debate gives us an opportunity to focus on the issue. However, as I said in my intervention on the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, we must recognise that, despite the long-term growth in renewables, which is extremely positive in its own right, we have not seen a substantial part of that growing renewables sector being put into community hands.
I express my thanks to Community Energy Scotland, the Scottish community coalition on energy and Social Enterprise Scotland for their briefings in support of the debate. They make it clear that, although some corporate, privately owned projects make community benefit payments available, the benefit that comes from community ownership projects is many times more substantial than those community benefit payments. All the benefit that flows from such projects can be put back to social and environmental use in the community, thereby providing a direct social benefit in addition to the direct benefit of increased renewable capacity, as well as a change in the relationship between people and the energy that we consume. That cultural change needs to go hand in hand with the practical infrastructure changes if we are to continue to earn, reinforce and retain public support.
There is a great deal that we need to do more of, both in providing access to capital for new projects and in repowering existing projects. Publicly owned assets can be used to lever in the capital that is needed.
As several members have remarked, we also need to make public land available for community energy. Public bodies that are responsible for managing large swathes of Scotland’s public land, such as Forestry and Land Scotland, already host large numbers of renewable energy projects, but few of those projects are community owned. Such bodies have an opportunity to step in and increase the transfer of energy assets into community hands at the point of lease renewals.
A recent opportunity to do that on the Cowal peninsula in Argyll and Bute was missed. Cowal Community Energy was not able to enter the tendering process, which was designed to attract bids from corporate players. When the cabinet secretary or the minister responds to the debate, I hope that they will respond on that particular issue. Are they aware of how that barrier came about? What could they do to prevent such opportunities from being missed in the future?
The member’s amendment makes a point about
“diversifying the ownership of existing energy assets”.
Would an example of that include, when repowering is taking place, a company thinking about possibly donating one or two of the turbines to the local community so that the local community could own those turbines? We have the example—if we go way back—of Fintry, where the local community negotiated an element of that wind farm. The issue is not about nationalising projects; it is about having a share in projects and working constructively to give communities that opportunity.
Both repowering and lease renewal for land can be trigger points or opportunities to achieve that. We perhaps need to go a little further than simply encouraging the private sector to maybe donate a little and instead make it a requirement, so that we see a significant increase.
There is also an opportunity to improve the situation through the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. I hope that the bill will be amended at stages 2 and 3 so that we can take advantage of that opportunity.
Before I close, I will say something about heat. There is also a huge opportunity in the urban landscape for the transformation of our energy system. It is a real necessity that we achieve that, which creates an opportunity for benefits in areas that do not have access to wind farm sites, for example.
Denmark is 50 years ahead of Scotland in that regard, and it has shown that a non-profit approach can achieve the transformational change that it has put into practice. That approach creates community benefit—it puts the community benefit first—but it can also earn and retain public support, and we need to do much more to make that a reality in Scotland.
The energy transformation that is required is not only about rural communities, although it is significant in those rural communities that have wind and solar developments, where we need to retain public support for infrastructure, rather than demonising infrastructure, as some seem tempted to do at the moment. However, our urban landscape also needs to transform, and the public and community ownership of energy infrastructure in our urban landscape is equally important.
I again express support for the Labour amendment, and I hope that the Government is supportive of the Green amendment.
I move amendment S6M-17648.2, to insert at end:
“; acknowledges that any significant increase in public, community and shared ownership of energy infrastructure will require new and increased forms of support from the Scottish Government, including making public land available for energy projects and diversifying the ownership of existing energy assets; considers that community ownership of heat networks offers further opportunities to maximise the social, economic and environmental benefit of heat decarbonisation, and calls on the Scottish Government to build on its relationship with Denmark to draw on its experience of both shared ownership of renewables and developing heat networks built and operated on a not-for-profit basis.”
15:09
I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats this afternoon.
Last week, when I was speaking in the debate on island communities, I highlighted the feelings of those in Shetland who consider that the community interest in not being best served by the Viking Energy wind farm. I said:
“The irony is not lost on Shetland, where we see the Viking wind farm reportedly generating as little as 17 per cent of its capacity and being paid enormous sums to constrain production as it is considered that the energy infrastructure is not able to cope with higher generation.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; c 45.]
Those constraint payments reportedly reached almost £10 million by December 2024, dwarfing the Shetland Community Benefit Fund, which its website states pays out a little more than £2.2 million annually.
The feeling at home is that if we live with it, we should benefit from it, just as we did from agreements reached with the oil industry 50 years ago.
Although reaching our net zero targets is a benefit to all communities globally, locally, compensation payouts for years of disruption have been overshadowed by a lack of foresight and infrastructure readiness as Viking’s generating power is reduced.
My Liberal Democrat Highland colleague Angus MacDonald MP has successfully shepherded party policy for plans that would deliver community benefits from renewables, and he held a debate in Westminster advocating fair compensation for local communities that host renewable projects. Similarly, early this year, Shetland Islands Council councillors backed a new set of principles around community benefits that are to be used in future negotiations with energy developers.
Community buy-in is critical and offshoring energy infrastructure such as with wind turbines has been heralded as a great opportunity. Often, however, such advocates should be careful not to run into the trap of disregarding the fishing sector.
Our fishing fleet, as well as consisting of generations of family businesses, provides us with nutritious, low-carbon, high-protein food. Squeezing out the fishing industry from traditional fishing grounds for renewables harms island and coastal communities. We must ensure that the Scottish and UK Governments and developers have a greater awareness and understanding of the reality of spatial squeeze, of the potential long-term consequences for that traditional industry and of the impact on marine ecosystems.
Just as there is objection to infrastructure on land, there is objection to infrastructure at sea. There is no place to banish this infrastructure to either.
I recently saw a briefing about the impact of sea-based turbines and how they can benefit fishing communities in the long run as they can create potential food sources for fish on the sea bed. Is it not a question of ensuring that all the projects properly assess the opportunities and then deliver them when they are being built, so that nature and our fishing industry benefits?
I can give you the time back, Beatrice Wishart.
We need to see scientific evidence of that, and it needs to be robust. I note that moving fishing vessels off traditional grounds is causing considerable concern to members of my constituency.
Where infrastructure must exist, it should be built with consideration and communication with all stakeholders and communities.
Shetland is home to the 4.5MW Garth wind farm, on the island of Yell, which has produced more than 90,000MW of energy to date. That £8.3 million investment is a community wind farm that is undertaken by the enterprising North Yell Development Council. The funds that are generated enable the organisation to invest in community projects, including in the industrial estate extension and in the development of the marina at Cullivoe pier. It has enabled the employment of three full-time members of staff and funding to various local community groups. The wind farm is an asset that brings benefits to the North Yell community and will continue to do so for years to come. It is an exemplar of what can be achieved in relation to practical community benefit.
Shetland Heat Energy and Power—SHEAP—has delivered district heating to homes and public buildings, including the hospital, schools and leisure centre in Lerwick, for the past 25 years. It is based on a Danish model. Customers have been spared soaring energy costs in recent years. Its income from sales of around £1 million a year stays in Shetland. The project, which was once considered unusual, is now being taken rather more seriously in policy circles.
We know that our energy infrastructure is ageing, that we will have to transition from legacy fuels and reduce demand and that we need an energy mix for the foreseeable future. Shetland is ready to contribute on all fronts from the development of renewables and from continued oil and gas supply. I believe that those who are making national energy decisions fail to recognise the importance of gas from Rosebank, which would be exported through the west of Shetland pipeline system. It would pass through Sullom Voe and end up in the UK grid, thereby reducing reliance on imported gas. That contribution to the UK’s energy security should not be ignored.
Generating power locally makes sense in so far as it reduces the inevitable loss of power between generation and destination.
If communities are presented with manageable renewables projects, as opposed to vast arrays that dominate the horizon, they are more likely to be in favour of a project, especially if it will bring benefits for the community. The benefit of adding sustainable jobs in local places is a selling point to communities that are presented with such projects. As the energy sector transitions, we must support our workers and ensure that we do not see a repeat of communities being decimated as people are cast out of their jobs.
Much more, of course, needs to be done in terms of housing and making it easier to upgrade properties with energy-efficiency measures such as greater insulation and modern heating systems. Community benefit funds can help to enable progress on that front.
Increasing community-owned energy generation projects is a sensible path forward. The Scottish Government should work to ensure that any barriers to the development of such projects are minimised so that they can support the supply chain and resource availability.
We move to the open debate.
15:16
I admit that I find this area—communities finding varied routes to benefit from green energy projects such as turbines, solar panels, battery storage and hydro—quite confusing. Maybe that is just me. However, I have a suspicion that the communities that could benefit will not, as I have said before, be in deprived areas, where folk could do with cheaper energy or funding for their area through the community benefit system.
With the exception of community benefits from wind farm developments that have been negotiated by communities with developers, I do not know of any communities that have utilised those routes. I will continue my investigation. Projects in my constituency that have come from community benefit funding, such as the Oxton Community Shop and the redevelopment of the Crook Inn and associated buildings high in the hills at Tweedsmuir, are examples that come immediately to mind, but they have been going for some time now, and involve very skilled members of those communities.
Therefore, I am pleased to read that under CARES, the Scottish Government is committed to updating the good practice principles for negotiating community benefit. I would be interested in hearing from the Government what the updating will be, why, and whether the principles will be simplified.
I can provide Christine Grahame with some clarity. We have put out our good practice principles—they are out now. However, as has been mentioned already in the debate, a legislative consent motion went to committee this morning that was about mandating community engagement.
None of those are delivered by CARES. CARES is about supporting communities that want to have a community energy project. Given that Christine Grahame has said that she has not been able to find any examples of its work in her constituency, I would advise her to look into Local Energy Scotland, which has dedicated staff for her area. They might be able to advise her on what is already happening, and she can put her constituents in touch with those staff if they want to support any new developments.
Lesson learned, cabinet secretary—thank you very much for that.
Returning to the issue, there is the rare opportunity for a community to have the option of buying shares in a wind farm development. However, I think that that is more of a wish-list item, because the capital required to do that would be substantial, and, frankly—although I am probably going to get told off again—I do not know of any community in my constituency that has bought shares in a private development. I note, though, that the cabinet secretary made reference to Government support. Perhaps in her summing up that can be clarified.
I have what might be a daft question, but I will ask it anyway. Would it be possible for a local authority, or in this case the Scottish Government, to give planning authorities the flexibility to introduce either community benefit or share options as—and I emphasise this—a condition of planning consent? At the moment, it is voluntary and negotiated. I do not know the answer to that, but I think that the cabinet secretary is about to rise and tell it to me.
The Scottish Government has been calling for the mandating of community benefits. We did not have any luck with the previous UK Government, but the current UK Government has put out a consultation. I think that it went out last week, and I look forward to seeing its results.
I note that the issue is, of course, reserved. However, we are talking about having something whereby there is some sort of muscle, by giving communities the power to have ownership and enabling local authorities to exercise planning conditions.
I have to say that some companies seem to be in more of a negotiating mode with communities. For example, through the Longmuir renewable energy and biodiversity project in my constituency, Galileo Empower is developing proposals for a renewable energy and biodiversity project on land approximately 4.5km north of the village of Stow. That is only in the initial stages, but the proposals are for up to 10 turbines, with co-location of solar photovoltaics and a battery energy storage system. The developer also proposes a renewable electricity discount scheme, known as REDS, which will result in cheaper electricity generated by the project being distributed to locally designated areas. In addition, a 10 per cent community ownership stake will be provided. The project is in the early days, and I am unclear whether that 10 per cent has to be bought by the community or is just part of the contract.
That brings me to CARES, the community and renewable energy scheme. I note that, since its inception, it has advised more than 1,300 organisations and provided £67 million in funding to communities throughout Scotland. However, now that the scheme is reopening again and various communities can bid for support from the £8 million Government fund, which closes in September and is capped, I recommend that my constituent communities do not waste time but apply PDQ. That fund could help communities to install wind turbines and solar panels or develop other types of renewable energy generation, such as hydro, which would meet local needs.
I will end on the wider benefits of community ownership. I think that Patrick Harvie referenced the fact that the local economic return from a community-owned wind turbine is 34 times greater than that from a privately owned one. That is much better even than the current community benefit arrangement. Such schemes would, of course, get higher public support, as 62 per cent of people back community-owned energy projects in their areas.
A report referenced by Social Enterprise Scotland said:
“in terms of sheer size, the benefit payments from community owned wind farms far exceed the payments from private wind farms.”
I hope that today’s debate opens up opportunities for communities in my constituency, and I will certainly be publicising those.
15:22
I am pleased to speak in the debate, which is on a subject that is of great importance to my Highlands and Islands region. As others have done, I recognise the benefit of community owned energy and of the projects right across the region, particularly where they help to increase and support local resilience, which is important. However, I will focus on the Scottish Conservative amendment and the challenges that communities across my region face from energy infrastructure.
There is a growing frustration and anger from those living and running businesses across the Highlands and Islands who feel under siege from large-scale energy projects being forced on our communities. For years, many have been subjected to wind farms from which they see little or no benefit, as power flows past their homes but their bills keep on rising. In Shetland, fuel poverty is an ever-present issue for many households, despite the islands hosting onshore wind farms producing hundreds of megawatts. As Beatrice Wishart mentioned, the Viking wind farm was supposed to power around half a million homes, although, as she rightly said, some of the concerns over those figures have not been met. However, that does not keep bills in Shetland down.
New onshore wind farms continue to be given the green light and existing sites continue to grow, despite millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being spent every year on constraint payments. In 2024, those payments rose to £380 million. That money is not going into local communities; it often goes into the coffers of multinational companies and, in many cases, national Governments, such as those of China, the United Arab Emirates, France and Ireland.
I absolutely accept the importance of the issue that he raises about constraint payments. I am sure that he will agree that the authorities at UK level need to be involved in the debate that he has just raised, because it relates to issues that are all reserved.
A lot of those issues are around planning, so they are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, which cannot keep washing its hands of every issue. The minister’s Government has responsibility for this issue, and I will come on to a little later.
The issue is not just the turbines but the pylons, transformers and huge battery storage sites, as others have mentioned. Communities are having invasive industrialisation forced on them. A week or so ago, I met residents who are being impacted by proposals for a substation at Fanellan. Some want to sell their homes but are being told that interest in their property is being reduced because of the proposals; others want to stay and fight the proposals, which they are concerned are for a site in the wrong place.
As I raised with the SNP Government in a question only last week, those residents and others across the country simply do not have the money, resource or expertise to contest such plans. They are up against massive companies with huge financial and legal resources, so how do they compete with them? I asked the minister that exact question. I asked him what support does
“the Scottish Government provide ... for local communities to access legal and regulatory advice, or does it expect local people to foot the bill to protect their homes and their local communities?”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; c 15.]
His response was to just deflect, which I guess answers the question for those communities. You have to protect your own communities, because the SNP Government certainly will not.
The same issues are faced by communities across the Highlands and Islands. At Glenelg, there are plans for a new route for power lines, which threatens one of Scotland’s most iconic views—one enjoyed by thousands of people every year as they take the Glenelg ferry to Skye. The issue is not only the infrastructure but those undertaking its development. Two large accommodation camps are planned around Broadford on Skye, which will bring hundreds of workers into small communities, which local residents fear do not have the facilities and amenities to cope with them. The community’s very nature risks being impacted—and impacted for many years.
In my recent surgery in Dalwhinnie, those who are impacted by the Earba pumped storage hydro project highlighted their concerns. Such concerns are common among so many across the region. What will the impact be on those who live near the project? How will local roads, which are sometimes single track only, cope with increased traffic volumes? How will the work be co-ordinated with other major projects, such as the dualling of the A9—if that happens—in order to avoid the perfect storm of disruption? The most frustrating, and most commonly asked question, is: why can local communities not be kept better informed by developers and Government?
For many of the communities that I have spoken of today, the issue is about not only planning but democracy and power. Many of us in the Highlands and Islands support renewable energy in principle, but what we oppose is the current model, which puts corporate interests and national targets over community voices. To hit those targets, the SNP is pushing a top-down energy policy that is leaving residents and local communities feeling ignored, sidelined and sacrificed. There is a serious democratic deficit, with planning decisions often overriding local objections; local consultations and engagement are tokenistic at best; and too many residents learn of new projects only when the approval process is already well advanced.
Anger is so great because there is a feeling that the unprecedented concentration of proposed energy developments would never be tolerated in the central belt, that our communities are being exploited in a way that Government politicians would never allow in their own areas, and that our communities and homes are threatened by a wave of central-belt environmental imperialism.
I remind everyone of what the Scottish Conservatives are calling for today in our amendment:
“Community consent needs to be at the heart of energy production ... pylons and other electricity infrastructure are increasingly being built without the support of residents ... and the Scottish Government should give communities more say over local energy production.”
There is nothing in the Scottish Conservatives amendment that any MSP who is truly representing their constituents’ wishes should oppose. They should support our amendment or answer to their constituents if they do not.
15:29
Like a number of those who have made contributions so far, I have witnessed at first hand the benefits of the CARES scheme in my constituency, and when I was the energy secretary, I saw at first hand the installation of Archimedes’ screws, wind turbines and solar panel facilities.
One of the benefits that I have noticed over recent years has been CARES renewable energy projects in which a local community has managed a community asset in order to generate its own energy and become much more energy efficient. The scheme has a lot to commend it. I welcome the fact that the UK Government is now moving down a route in which it is looking to support community energy programmes much more extensively in England and Wales. The CARES programme is very good, and we should continue to develop it.
It is also worth reflecting on some of the challenges with the CARES programme. In my constituency, some of the challenges relate to a lack of knowledge about what is available, being able to develop a project and understanding how to go about doing that. That brings me to the issue that some of the community assets that have been transferred are in communities where, to some degree, there is a lack of capacity to take on a complex renewable energy project. We can see at first hand the benefits that communities get from such projects, but some of the communities that would benefit the most from them are the ones that struggle to have the capacity to take on what can be fairly complex projects. Although I know that Local Energy Scotland does a tremendous amount of work with communities and community groups, the issues can be complex not just from a technical perspective but, often, from a funding perspective, because such projects involve multiparty funding. There can be funding through the CARES programme or Scottish Power’s community programme, and other philanthropic organisations might be making contributions to the project. Aligning all that funding can, at times, be challenging.
I want to reflect on some of the wider issues relating to community energy and the ability to expand and develop shared ownership of energy assets. We are at a crucial time in our energy transition. We have an abundant amount of renewable energy potential and a significant pipeline of renewable energy projects that are in development or being progressed. Although we can see the value of those projects, the renewable energy industry faces challenges and questions from communities and the public about what benefit they will get from those assets. That is understandable, because some of the communities that experience the greatest levels of fuel poverty are the ones where assets are being built. That might be wind turbines, or it might relate to the transmission network, which has an impact on those communities, too. There is a genuine issue with communities feeling that, too often, things are being done to them rather than with them in the transition of our energy sector. We need to do much more to address the concerns that communities have and the challenges that they face.
Greater community ownership will assist us in achieving that. It does not necessarily need to be whole ownership; there could be shared ownership of some of the significant assets that are being built. We need to consider not just small onshore wind farms but offshore assets and significant assets such as hydro pump storage. How do we ensure that communities have genuine ownership of such assets alongside the commercial developers of them? The evidence shows that, if we can achieve that much more effectively by embedding the principles of community wealth building in relation to such assets, communities will be much more willing to see the benefits that they could get from those assets. It might be that they bring money into the local area, and shared ownership of assets has, in some cases, resulted in reduced energy costs for the local community—I am happy to share information on those schemes with Christine Grahame. Therefore, shared ownership can help us to overcome some of the challenges.
As others have mentioned, progress has been made in other countries. For example, the Community Energy Scotland briefing shows starkly the way in which Denmark has been able to embed community ownership of wind assets since 2008; 52 per cent of its wind assets are now community owned. The figure is less than half a per cent here in Scotland. Although we have been making progress, we could do much more. The industry recognises that it is helpful to communities if they feel that they are partners and have some ownership.
The final point that I would make is about the way in which we can use Scottish Government-owned facilities and assets. How can we utilise the land that is owned by Forestry and Land Scotland and Scottish Water to support local communities considering community energy-based projects? Collectively, we are doing well, but we can do better. I have no doubt that the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary will be determined to make sure that we drive that forward in the process of widening out the way in which the CARES programme is operating.
15:35
Community Energy Scotland and the Scottish community coalition on energy have provided a briefing for the debate. The points that they make are well worth putting on the record. They say:
“We have an abundant renewables potential and considerable capacity in the pipeline. However, the industry is facing challenges, including secure and sufficient investment and public support. At the same time, energy bills and fuel poverty levels are still far too high, and many people feel powerless when it comes to the energy transition. We recognise that many communities feel that it is being done to them, not with them or for them.”
Community ownership of energy addresses all those challenges. It puts communities in control, enabling them to make choices about the location and design of developments that suit their needs. It provides greater financial benefit for local economies. Community-owned turbines provide 34 times more funding per megawatt to the local community than privately owned turbines. Community and shared ownership increases public support for renewables, and 62 per cent of the public would support community-owned energy in their area. That should translate into improved investor confidence and support project delivery.
Without increased community and shared ownership, Scotland’s net zero targets might be at risk. However, if we can grow community ownership, we can increase support for clean energy while powering true community wealth building. We can ensure a just energy transition for Scotland’s communities.
Community Energy Scotland and the Scottish community coalition on energy argue that the Scottish Government can support the growth of community energy in Scotland, first, by setting up a statutory target for community energy. They recommend a target of 1GW of wholly community-owned energy by 2030, which should be distinct from the 2GW target for local and community-owned energy. We should ensure that Scotland plays its part in meeting the UK target of 8GW of community energy by 2030. That will allow us to leverage in more UK Government funding. It is crucial that both Governments work together.
Secondly, it should make space for community energy on public land. Forestry and Land Scotland alone hosts more than 1GW of wind capacity on its land, all in private ownership. As others have said, there is a significant opportunity for a portion of that to transfer into community ownership when the current leases expire. The recent test case at Cruach Mhor on the Cowal peninsula was a missed opportunity for full community ownership. The Scottish Government should issue guidance to land-owning public bodies that they should give local community bodies the opportunity to acquire new or “repowering” leases before putting them out to tender on the open market. The briefing explains that repowering is when the technology needs upgrading before it can continue to operate.
Thirdly, the Scottish Government should set an industry-wide good practice benchmark for shared ownership offers—they recommend 20 per cent as the minimum stake offered to local communities, which would bring Scotland in line with Denmark. There, as other members have pointed out, a policy of 20 per cent minimum shared ownership since 2008 has led to around 52 per cent of wind in Denmark being citizen owned compared to just 0.2 per cent in Scotland, and it has allowed the country to move faster in decarbonising its energy mix. The Scottish Government could set a voluntary benchmark by updating its good practice principles for shared ownership, and renewables projects on public land could be required to meet this benchmark.
Fourthly, it should enable local authorities to buy energy directly from community energy groups. This would mean lower costs for the local authority and a guaranteed income for the community group, retaining wealth in the community. The next revision of the national framework agreement for the supply of electricity should enable local authorities that use the framework to buy a percentage of their power from local communities.
Fifthly, it should provide multiyear funding for community energy and heat projects. The recent increase in Scottish Government funding for community energy is very welcome and will allow more communities to access additional private finance. However, projects are being held back by short funding timescales. Longer timescales to utilise the funding, which enable the majority of construction work to happen outwith the winter months, would unlock more growth in the sector. There is also a need for a new support programme for community-led development and ownership of heat networks, to meet growing community interest in this area.
It would be good if the Scottish Government would look at those five proposals and give serious consideration to the points that are being made.
14:52
I am delighted to take part in today’s debate on growing community-owned energy in Scotland—and to have the chance, once more, to talk up Aberdeen. With “Energy” in the title of today’s debate, let me start, as I do every time that happens, by reminding folk that Aberdeen, part of which I represent, is the energy capital of Europe and the future net zero capital of the world. More relevant to today’s debate, Aberdeen is home to Scotland’s first urban community hydro energy project, the very well named Donside hydro. The Donside hydro is owned by Aberdeen Community Energy, which was set up by the Donside community association with the aim of helping to make Donside village a sustainable community.
At this point, as the MSP for Aberdeen Donside, I feel it is important to note that the Donside hydro, the Donside community association and Donside village are all in the constituency of Aberdeen Central. It is really not confusing at all.
The Donside hydro does not just have a fantastic name; it won the Scottish green energy award in 2016 and it is Aberdeen’s first community energy scheme. Unfortunately, it is also currently our city’s only community generation project. That needs to change.
Scotland is an energy-rich country, and Aberdeen has been at the heart of it for half a century. Far too few folk are getting the benefits from that energy, however. Over 50 years, we have seen billions of pounds of oil and gas revenues make their way to Westminster and to private shareholders. In the energy capital of Europe, far too many of my constituents are living in fuel poverty, far too many are struggling to pay their energy bills and far too many are scared to put on the heating when it gets cold outside.
The move to net zero will give us a chance to do some things differently. It is not just about how we harness the energy, but about how the benefits from our doing so are shared. They must be shared in a way that benefits all and not just the few.
I have seen enough of how community energy projects can work in the north-east to know that we need to do more. In Donside—that is the bit in the constituency of Aberdeen Central—the Archimedes screw scheme generates clean renewable energy for homes and businesses. It is a scheme that shows how renewable energy is generated and supports education around that, and it produces a fund that supports local community initiatives.
Elsewhere in the north-east, in Alexander Burnett’s constituency of Aberdeenshire West, Huntly has taken a similar approach but with a wind turbine instead of a hydro project. It has used its proceeds, along with much funding, in an impressive way.
Those are both great examples of Scotland’s natural resources benefiting local communities. I want to see more benefit from our vast renewable resource for communities, consumers, the wider economy and, I hope, at some point soon, my constituents.
Before I comment on the amendments to the motion, I feel that it is important to recognise that every single amendment is an addendum and that there is a lot of common ground among members when it comes to community energy. I will now focus on some of the ground that we do not have in common.
Douglas Lumsden has previously made no secret of his position on pylons, but here is the thing: not that long ago, if you had said that Scotland would be able to export its wind and sell it to England, you would have gotten some very strange looks. We now have that opportunity—we just need to install the infrastructure. I fully accept that that infrastructure should support lower bills. People should see a more tangible link between pylons going up and their electricity bills coming down. Unfortunately, a lot of that comes down to the UK Government and to GB Energy.
That brings me to the Labour amendment. I will never say no to money being made available to communities in Scotland, but with billions of pounds being taken out of Scotland’s energy industry by the windfall tax, I am sure that the UK Government could afford to loosen the purse strings just a wee bit more.
Unfortunately, none of the technology that we have discussed today can harness energy from hot air, so I will draw my remarks to a close. We know that the future of energy is renewables, and community ownership puts renewable energy generation into the hands of folk and communities across Scotland. I will always support and fight for the idea of Scotland’s future being in Scotland’s hands, and I look forward to seeing more locally generated power benefiting communities across Scotland in years to come.
15:47
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.
The point is that we have loads of experience, and what we need to do is package that up and share it with communities, so that they can make the choice that will work for them, regardless of community size or where they are in Scotland.
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.
15:55
Like many colleagues who are here today, I support the principle behind the motion, which is the expansion of community-owned energy in Scotland. However, principles must be matched by practice, and that is where I am going to rain on the cabinet secretary’s parade, because in Dumfries and Galloway that is simply not happening.
The Scottish Conservative amendment rightly states that
“community consent needs to be at the heart of energy production”,
yet I do not believe that that principle has ever been taken seriously in my region, and it is still being routinely ignored.
In just the past three years, the energy consents unit has approved 30 wind farm, pylon and battery storage schemes in Dumfries and Galloway. Many of the wind turbines are over 150m in height, and some exceed 200m. They are not small-scale, community-led projects but industrial-scale developments that are often driven by external developers with little local accountability.
Meanwhile, our planning system is overwhelmed. Dumfries and Galloway Council’s planning department is under immense pressure, with delays and backlogs that prevent proper scrutiny. Applications must be assessed strictly in order of receipt, regardless of scale or urgency—an approach that benefits developers and not communities.
Does Finlay Carson share my concern that communities—particularly in the south-west, but across the south of Scotland, such as those who are affected by the Scoop Hill development outside Moffat—find that developers come back time and time again with applications that are variations on the same theme? Developers have to win only once, whereas the community has to stand up to developments repeatedly.
I can give you the time back for the intervention, Mr Carson.
I absolutely agree. It is exhausting for people who live in the footprints of wind farms. They win one battle and then another challenge comes along.
In that vein, I note that section 36 applications for developments over 50MW bypass local decision making entirely, and councils can only object or not object. If they do not object, the Scottish Government can approve the project without a public inquiry. That process sidelines local voices and centralises power in Edinburgh.
Public opposition is widespread. Community councils and residents have submitted hundreds of objections, citing landscape degradation, wildlife disruption and cumulative visual impact, yet those concerns are too often dismissed without explanation. Even well-organised campaigns such as Save Our Hills Dumfries and Galloway and Galloway Without Pylons are struggling to be heard. Right now, they are fighting a totally inappropriate application for wind turbines right on top of one of the region’s jewels—the historic area of outstanding natural beauty that is Glentrool.
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.
I appreciate that, but right now these applications are being dealt with by the energy consents unit in the Scottish Government and, more often than not, local opinions are being ignored.
Fifty community councils across the region have called for a moratorium on new wind farm consents. They point to data from NatureScot that shows that southern Scotland has more proposed onshore wind developments than any other part of the country. According to the Scottish Government’s figures, south-west Scotland hosts 21 per cent of all the onshore wind turbines in Scotland. That is a disproportionate burden by any measure. Studies show that the impacts on property values and tourism are very negative.
However, in March, the energy minister insisted that the Government should focus on renewables, without offering any clarity on how much industrialisation is too much for rural Scotland. We already have overcapacity in Galloway and there is no clear plan for when or where that industrialisation will stop.
On what Finlay Carson was saying about community groups, does he share my concern that no Scottish ministers seem to meet community groups that are opposed to much of the overdevelopment, but they are happy to meet companies such as SSEN or Scottish Power Energy Networks?
Absolutely. That is a real concern. The excuse is that they cannot get involved in individual planning matters but, right now, I am happy to invite the minister down to Galloway to speak to those groups, not on a specific planning application but on the widespread proliferation of wind farms across the region and the detriment to local communities.
The issue of overcapacity is why, earlier this year, I called for a moratorium on further renewable applications in my constituency. However, I am not holding my breath.
Since May 2022, the energy consents unit has approved more than 235 major energy infrastructure projects, including wind farms, pylons and battery storage. Only eight were rejected.
The Scottish Government points to schemes such as CARES and the new £8 million community energy generation growth fund. However, those initiatives are not reaching the communities that will be most affected by large-scale developments. In Dumfries and Galloway, true community ownership remains the exception, not the norm.
If the Government is serious about community energy, it must reform the planning system, to give local voices real power; it must stop treating regions such as Dumfries and Galloway as energy sacrifice zones; and it must redistribute funding to genuinely community-led projects, not developer-driven schemes with tokenistic benefit funds.
The Scottish Government must stop paying lip service to my constituents. Ministers recently approved a massive pylon route through some of the most beautiful landscapes in Scotland, ignoring both local objections and the reporter’s recommendations following a public inquiry that cost the taxpayer nearly £200,000. That decision was a blatant disregard for local democracy. A just transition must be one that listens to and respects the communities that are most affected.
16:02
Please accept my apologies, Presiding Officer, for not being present at the beginning of the debate.
I cannot help but make at least a passing mention of the history of Norway’s community-owned energy sector—in its case, the entire oil and gas sector, as well as a hefty chunk of hydro. Decades ago, the Norwegians took a groundbreaking decision to ensure that their Government, on behalf of the people, would have strategic ownership of oil and gas developments from the 1980s onwards. The result of that is that, today, the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is worth more than £1.7 trillion. The biggest debates in Norway’s Parliament are on how much can be spent without overinflating the economy.
At the same time, the UK Government used North Sea revenues to subsidise tax cuts and the destruction of huge swathes of our industrial base. Not for nothing was unemployment benefit known in the 1980s as “oil money”.
Clearly, the days of drilling for hydrocarbons with no regard to the wider environmental implications are gone. However, Norway shows what real community ownership on a national scale looks like, as opposed to having revenues frittered away by a Parliament far, far away. We can take the successful model of Norway but decentralise it and put communities in charge of their own energy destiny, and work with them to ensure that the benefits of the green industrial revolution lie with them, rather than being expropriated elsewhere.
In the south, a number of wind farms are at various stages of the planning process, and it is fair to say that, as we have just heard, none enjoys universal popular support; however, all enjoy some public support. There are different objections to each development. The Sandy Knowe wind farm at Sanquhar in my region has developed a good record of community engagement and action and has worked together with local residents as a matter of normal business. However, I believe that the common thread through all the proposals that are currently on the table in the south is the lack of community involvement and community ownership.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will in one second.
Some feel that they are being frozen out of the benefits and management of renewables, while being expected to thole the presence of all those wind turbines. That point was reflected by Michael Matheson when he stated that communities feel that they are being done to, and not done with.
I will take the intervention now.
It is a very simple yes-or-no question. Does Emma Harper think that there are too many wind farms in Dumfries and Galloway?
I can see the argument that there are too many wind farms in Dumfries and Galloway. However, I also think that we need to reflect on where we are in relation to achieving net zero, developing a renewables sector and getting communities to benefit from all that. There is not an easy yes-or-no answer when we are looking at how we support our communities and the environment, and how we tackle biodiversity, the nature crisis, the climate crisis, and all that—that is a whole other debate.
Some members will be aware of the goat culling west of Newcastleton, which has caused outrage locally, as the new owners of the estate try to clear the majority of a goat population that has been there for more than a millennium. Oxygen Conservation purchased the Blackburn and Harsgarth estate two years ago, and has made a big play of its plans for rewilding across the 11,000 acres. However, in the middle of its rewilding pitch to the community is buried a reference to building the UK’s biggest onshore wind farm. When I raised with it its intentions for the estate, Oxygen Conservation revised its estimate and said only that there would be a wind farm, not that it would be the UK’s biggest.
I do not necessarily have an objection to marrying up rewilding and large-scale native tree planting with a renewables scheme, but it is clear from all the Langholm locals who have been campaigning against the goat culling actions of the owners that they have not been engaged with properly about the prospect of another wind farm being erected in their back yard.
I do not envy the planning authorities or the Scottish Government in making decisions about wind farms or the infrastructure that supports them. I am proud that we have a Government that takes the transition to net zero seriously, and that has put in place a framework to make that happen.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not think that I have time.
Getting the balance between having a national or international focus and hearing the very real concerns of local communities is, at times, a thankless task. That is why I think that community ownership of wind power, and across all renewables, has to be a top priority.
I do not want people to feel that they have lost control of their land and their economic and sustainable development future to corporations from other places that are just greenwashing and providing less than a potential community benefit fund while extracting the maximum profit possible.
Community ownership means the full involvement of the entire community from the beginning of the process: from conception to planning to development. It means the full financial benefit of renewables development flowing to local communities, rather than just a small portion of the income.
Dumfries and Galloway has 47 community or locally owned projects funded under the community and renewable energy scheme. Those are not only wind farms but projects that are harnessing the potential technology of anaerobic digestion and biogas from the agricultural sector, creating the potential to hook up households off the gas grid or to create district heating systems. I am interested in how we can pursue anaerobic digestion to support our dairy farmers across the South Scotland region.
I hope that the £8 million fund established by the Government will grow over the years, empowering communities across the south and the whole of Scotland, and building a future that ensures that our communities and the people of Scotland have a direct stake in, and get a direct benefit from, the net zero society that we are bringing to fruition.
16:08
At a time when people feel more disconnected than ever from those whose decisions shape their lives, and too many people believe that power sits too far from those who it affects, it is timely to debate the imbalance of power that exists in the energy sector.
Too often, communities feel that the drive to net zero and the growth in renewable energy is something that is done to them, not for them, and certainly not with them. It is a sector that is dominated by large, foreign-owned multinationals, many of which are publicly owned—just not by us. It is also a sector in which not only the wind farms, but, increasingly, the supply chain jobs and the profits, are offshored.
By 2019, my home region of Dumfries and Galloway, with 2 per cent of Scotland’s population, hosted 11 per cent of Scotland’s onshore wind turbines. However, we did not get 11 per cent of the jobs, and not a single one of those turbines was built in the region or, indeed, anywhere in Scotland.
At the same time, the region has some of the highest levels of fuel poverty in the country. Many of those cold, damp homes sit next door to the very wind farms that are exporting electricity far from the communities that host them. That disconnect is fuelling a growing resentment towards net zero policies, which is worrying, and it is being exploited by those who want to scrap climate action altogether.
We will not meet our climate targets unless we do far more to take communities with us. One of the best ways to do that is to give people a real stake in their energy future, including community ownership over decisions, infrastructure and benefits. Community-owned energy is about more than providing clean power; it is about changing the relationship between people and the decisions that shape their lives. It is also about moving communities from being bystanders to being active partners and owners. It involves building an energy system that works for people rather than one that just makes corporate profits.
That means challenging the idea that the most that a community can hope for is a benefit payment that is decided by someone else. I appreciate that community benefit payments are not insignificant. South of Scotland Enterprise has estimated that, over the next 35 years, community benefit funding from onshore wind in the south could total nearly £900 million. At a time when public sector budgets are being squeezed, such payments are making a difference to communities. However, how that funding is implemented often reinforces the imbalance of power. Developers decide the amount and the conditions, and funding often arrives too late to enable communities to plan strategically. As a result, money is spent, but it is not always spent well.
That is why I very much welcome the UK Government’s recent proposals to reform community benefit arrangements, making them mandatory, with clearer standards, earlier engagement and greater transparency over how benefits are calculated and delivered. I hope that the Scottish Government will work with the UK Government to ensure that those changes are implemented effectively in Scotland.
I am glad that the member has mentioned the actions that are being taken to mandate community benefit. Does he recognise that the Scottish Government had been calling on the previous UK Government to do that for many years, but no action had been forthcoming?
I very much recognise that. It is good to see that the change to a Labour-led UK Government has made that difference already.
If we want to go beyond damage control and genuinely reset the relationship, we need to give communities meaningful ownership. Scotland has failed to develop the kind of mixed economy in energy that we see elsewhere in Europe. For example, in Denmark, more than 50 per cent of onshore wind farms are owned by communities, co-ops or councils. In Scotland, the equivalent figure is barely 1 per cent. That is not enough to encourage community ownership—it needs to be delivered.
The Scottish Co-operative Party’s “Scotland’s green energy future” strategy sets out how to do that, by putting communities rather than corporations at the heart of energy transition. Its proposals, many of which are echoed by Community Energy Scotland, offer a practical and ambitious road map that not only supports the doubling of funding for CARES but proposes the creation of a ring-fenced fund within the Scottish National Investment Bank for large-scale community projects. It also calls for reform of the Scottish Government’s energy procurement strategy to give community generators a route to market. Crucially, it calls for investment in early-stage capacity training and support, so that communities have the ability and capacity to take advantage of ownership opportunities.
The Scottish Co-operative Party also calls for fast tracking of applications and the waiving of planning fees for community schemes, enabling pension fund investment and strengthening shared ownership in the offshore wind sector. Crucially, it proposes scaling up retrofit co-operatives to tackle fuel poverty directly. Public land and buildings also need to be made more available to community energy groups to unlock new opportunities and remove unnecessary barriers. As we have heard, land reform must guarantee communities the right to access land when it becomes available, especially for local renewables. We need to empower councils and public bodies to lead or partner on projects, whether they be projects for electricity generation or community-led heat networks. Together, those measures will not just grow community energy but will begin to rebalance the power within our energy system, so that the rewards of renewables stay in the communities that host them.
In my foreword to the Scottish Co-operative Party’s “Scotland’s green energy future” policy paper, I said:
“We shouldn’t view our net zero targets as a barrier to sustainable economic growth. They are the path to it ... But the fruits of that labour must be fairly shared.”
That is the challenge that lies in front of us.
Positive action is already under way through Great British Energy, which has committed £4 million to help launch the community energy generation growth fund. That is a clear example of what public ownership can do to support communities.
The race for the green jobs of the future is under way. Scotland can lead, but only if we stop repeating the mistakes of the past. That means building an energy future that is not just clean but more democratic, more locally owned and fairer—a future where local people have a real say in how energy is produced and where the benefits stay in the community. We will deliver a just transition only if that transition is community led.
We come to the final speaker in the open debate. You have a generous six minutes, Mr Ewing.
16:15
I, too, apologise for being slightly late. I should, of course, have emulated my late mother, Winnie, who more often than not turned up at least an hour before any engagement was due to begin—she would often turn up for public meetings when the doorkeeper was in the process of unlocking the door to the hall. As a result, there were very few doorkeepers in community halls throughout the Highlands and Islands who were not canvassed by Winnie Ewing.
I will begin by referring to a learned article in The Times by the distinguished historian and energy analyst, the Pulitzer prize-winning Daniel Yergin, who is one of the world’s experts on energy. He made the point that it took two centuries for coal to replace wood as the main source of heating, and it took one century for oil and gas to replace coal. The point that he was making was that transitions take time, and they often take longer than politicians would wish. There is a tendency to set targets that, very often, are unrealistic and unachievable; I will not go through the examples from this session of Parliament, because it would use up the rest of my speech. However, it was Chris Stark—who used to work for me when I was energy minister—who said that undeliverable targets get in the way of genuine action. I think that there is a risk of that.
In this debate, there have been many interesting contributions from all sides—from all parties, I believe—and I think that there is agreement that community projects and community ownership are very desirable. I am not going to repeat what has been said, as that would be a waste of debating time, other than to say that the point has been made by many, including Christine Grahame and others, that the financial value of community ownership has been found to be 34 times greater than the value of community benefit paid at the standard rate of £5,000 per megawatt. The source of that information is a 2021 Aquatera report for the Point and Sandwick Development Trust, which I have here—to give credit where it is due.
That point is undoubtedly true, so the fund that the minister has announced today is welcome. The case studies show small projects in Dundee, Drymen—or near Drymen—and Glasgow. Those projects are welcome, but I think that members want to go much, much further than that. I agree with them, and I agree with the suggestions that have been made about the involvement of local authorities, although I think that private companies should be partners, not enemies—that is essential for success.
When I was energy minister—I made this point before to the minister—we had a scheme that used the renewable energy entrepreneurship fund to finance a community share and then lever in private capital by way of a loan from the Triodos Bank, the Co-operative Bank or the Close Brothers Group. That allowed those ventures to be funded very substantially by the private sector on the security of the future income stream that would come from the development. I would like to see the Government building on that model in future.
However, what I want to say in this speech, in my generous time—
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, of course.
On the point that Fergus Ewing was making about funding—which is a point that Sarah Boyack made earlier—does he feel that the Scottish National Investment Bank might be a route for some communities to get funding to get their projects off the ground?
I agree with Mr Lumsden and with Ms Boyack. I think that the Scottish National Investment Bank and GB Energy should work together. The Scottish Government and the UK Government must work together. The wind that we generate in Scotland needs a market. It does not stop at the border—in fact, electricity does not know where borders are.
Will the member give way?
I know that the minister and Michael Shanks are doing some good work together.
I am happy to take Dr Allan’s intervention.
The member anticipated what I wanted to say, which is that there has indeed been very positive working between the two Governments. He raises the prospect of CARES working with the UK Government. CARES is doing exactly that, and we hope that that will long continue.
I hope that the time for taking that intervention will be added to my already elastic time quota, Deputy Presiding Officer.
I entirely agree. I am saying that, with regard to integration, there should be a rewiring of British Government on how it deals with the issue. It is just too important for us to be squabbling about it politically, particularly when there is a wider consensus among most of the main parties.
I again suggest that there should be a standing committee, chaired by the UK energy minister, that involves the Scottish ministers and other devolved Administrations, companies and the plethora of public bodies that Audrey Nicoll referred to. However, there must be one leading body to drive the whole thing along; otherwise, it will get stuck in the maw of regulatory bodies not doing their job quickly enough.
The barrier, though, as the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce survey found this week, is that investment in the renewables supply chain has been relatively flat for the past five years. There is an astonishing consensus that oil and gas should be supported. A recent survey showed that 91 per cent of business supported that and that, according to True North, 70 per cent of the Scottish population support it.
The sooner all Governments recognise that oil and gas and renewables need to work together, and that the skills of oil and gas will be required for renewables, the better. The Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce survey found that those skills are being lost to Britain. How can we deliver net zero when, as Russell Borthwick said, we are seeing the deindustrialisation of Britain? It is not possible.
That challenge must be met, and the grid development will take longer than we wish it to. The alarming signs of Ørsted pulling out and of SSE cutting planned development by £3 billion are warning signals that we cannot ignore. We must not be alarmist, but we must all work together across Britain to overcome those barriers.
I think that there is a consensus here among the main parties. Would not it be great if we could have a grand coalition, with the parties of the extremes being marginalised as a result? Maybe that is the only way to deal with the extreme parties, one of which is making grounds without having a single person who is a household name in Scotland—that is quite extraordinary.
I can speak for another six minutes if I have got that, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I suspect that—
That would be stretching the elasticity too far. I can give you another minute, Mr Ewing.
Well, I suppose that that gives me time for what is commonly called a peroration.
I profoundly believe that there is a tremendous opportunity ahead for Scotland and Britain, but only if we cast aside our political differences, recognise that we will need oil and gas for some time to come, and agree with Chris Stark that, by developing our own oil and gas as much as we can by 2050, the reduction in North Sea gas will be 95 per cent rather than 97 per cent. The difference is negligible. We are arguing about something that is of relatively small importance—except that the beneficiaries are fracking and Donald Trump.
Things are going to take longer. We need to proceed with urgency, but we need to recognise that the barriers are very serious and that they require grown-up working together.
I will finish off this extended peroration with two Latin tags. By all means, let us carpe diem, but, at the same time, let us follow the motto of the late Emperors Augustus and Titus: festina lente.
We move to closing speeches.
16:24
What a pleasure to follow that.
This has been an interesting balance of constructive debate, consensus and some disagreement. Alex Rowley, Michael Matheson and Emma Harper were among the many members who very clearly expressed the connection between the infrastructure challenges that we face and the attitudes of the public, in a sense setting out that the direct energy benefit of that renewable energy infrastructure needs to be connected to an economic and social public benefit. If we do that, we will earn, retain and lock in public support for the transition.
Members made that connection, but they also referred to the gulf between where we are now in Scotland and what those countries that have been truly successful with community ownership have managed to achieve. Denmark and Norway in particular were mentioned on a number of occasions by different members. We need to recognise what those countries have done to achieve their level of success if we are going to learn those lessons.
I want to recognise those points of consensus and common ground, but there have, of course, been differences, too. There is no doubt that I disagree with some of what was said by some of the conservative voices—mostly, but not wholly, in the Tory party. I disagree with those who have voted for climate targets over many years and who now, recognising that we are behind schedule on climate action, suggest that we slow down rather than speed up.
I do not agree with those who seek to demonise renewable energy infrastructure, when we could be seeing it as an opportunity to transform the ownership of our energy system.
I do not agree with the SNP voices that express opposition to the windfall tax on fossil fuel profiteers. That industry has done a huge amount to bring about the climate emergency and to promote climate-denial conspiracy theories but very little to invest in its own workforce, despite knowing that the transition has to come along. The windfall tax is one way of ensuring that that highly profitable industry actually pays for some of the transition, and that will not happen without tax playing a role.
Does Patrick Harvie recognise the real concerns of local communities that face an endless stream of applications for inappropriate wind farm developments on their doorsteps? Those concerns have to be recognised as part of any transition to renewable energy.
The planning process needs to make the distinction between appropriate and inappropriate developments of any kind, whether they are for renewables or anything else. It is for the planning process to do that. That is very far from saying that we should not be maximising the opportunity that comes from Scotland’s renewables potential.
I also disagree with the Liberal Democrats’ support for Rosebank. That project will neither improve energy security nor reduce energy costs; it will merely eke out the old, failed, polluting and profit-driven energy system of the past a little longer, while keeping emissions on the rise.
I was much more enthusiastic about Beatrice Wishart’s comments about Shetland Heat, Energy and Power, which I have had the chance to visit—I even got the opportunity to operate the grabber at the energy-from-waste plant. I will be even more enthusiastic about that project once it has moved away from waste and on to more sustainable energy sources. However, it is the kind of project that we should see a great deal more of around the country.
Christine Grahame talked about her concern that better-off communities might be better placed and more likely to benefit from community ownership. That is a challenge with the current model. It makes the case for moving away from that model, in which communities have to negotiate for mere community benefit, and instead shifting power into community hands. That would include the formation of publicly owned community energy companies, whether they are owned by the community or the local authority.
I would like us to think about the energy system that we to aspire to. What will it look like in the future, once we have made the transition to a genuinely sustainable energy system that also places a great deal more emphasis on community ownership? Whether the energy is wind, solar or storage, and whether the communities are rural or urban, what will those communities look like? They will be communities that have at their disposal not only power in the sense of energy sources, but political and economic power. Far more of the income that is generated from the energy system will be invested back into the community, including, for example, in energy efficiency and heat decarbonisation. Why on earth should we not see an energy system that pays for those costs rather than leaving them to the public purse while the private sector takes the profit from the energy system?
In that energy system, we will see much more reliance on local energy companies to lock in the benefit, using publicly owned land, buildings and assets. There will be much more reliance on public borrowing capacity to invest in systems that will generate profit for the future that is in public hands.
Many have made the case that remote rural communities and villages or islands are natural places where we have the opportunity to put local resources to good use, and there are many examples of where that has been attempted. However, I want to make the case that we can see our urban communities in the same way, whether at a community scale or even down to the level of an individual tenement block. We can see those as green energy islands in their own right, with people investing collectively in the energy challenges of retrofit but also in the energy opportunities of installing renewables and storage in a way that cuts people’s bills and creates good local jobs in the community. That opportunity needs to be relevant to every community of every scale in all parts of Scotland, rural and urban.
We have an opportunity to learn from the best of what other European countries have done. I know that the intention is there, but we are not yet seeing that happening on the scale that it needs to happen. I look forward to seeing a recognition of that in the closing speech from the Government.
16:31
Energy is a key resource, and community ownership of energy has empowered communities and provides resources for on-going investment in community wellbeing. I welcome the investment that has been announced by Great British Energy and the Scottish Government in the community energy generation growth fund. That is very much appreciated, but we possibly have to go further than that.
Alex Rowley talked about fuel poverty, which is often the crux of the matter. Community-owned energy provides an opportunity to tackle fuel poverty. Renewables are often developed in areas of the highest fuel poverty but, when that is done by private investors, local communities do not really see the benefit. Community ownership could be a vehicle to provide that. Community owners such as the Galson Estate Trust are looking at how to retail their community-generated energy at an affordable price to local people in their community, many of whom suffer from fuel poverty.
A number of members have rightly mentioned Point and Sandwick Trust, which has also led the charge in that regard, by helping members of its community to become more fuel efficient and therefore to cut their fuel bills. We see community generation doing that all the time.
Sarah Boyack talked about the amount of money that is paid in constraint payments. When those payments are made, the energy is being wasted at the moment. She suggested that the energy should be used for not-for-profit heat networks, which is an excellent idea. We need to pursue research and development in relation to storage and alternative methods of transmission to ensure that none of that energy goes to waste and that it goes where it is most needed.
Sarah Boyack and many other speakers talked about community benefit. The Aquatera report for Point and Sandwick Trust said:
“In cash terms, the average payment from the community owned wind farms in our study is £170,000 per installed MW per annum compared to the private industry standard of £5,000 per installed MW per annum.”
That is a huge difference. There is 34 times more benefit from community-owned generation than from privately owned generation. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will take someone from Forestry and Land Scotland aside and point out which model provides the best community benefit and return.
In answer to a question, the Scottish Government admitted that no wind farms in our national forest and land are community owned or community run. Of the 25 operational wind farms that are on Scotland’s national forest and land, which are managed by Forestry and Land Scotland, none is community owned, in whole or in part. That means that 1,300MW are being generated through private ownership.
Alex Rowley, Patrick Harvie and others cited the example of the Cruach Mhor wind farm, which is on Forest and Land Scotland land in the Cowal peninsula. The community was keen to take on the farm when it was put out to tender again, but its bid was totally rejected by Forestry and Land Scotland. I ask the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a presumption in favour of community ownership in scenarios in which a community organisation is willing to take on such a project.
Like Colin Smyth, I am a proud Scottish Co-operative Party member, and I am therefore committed to co-operative ownership. Co-operative Development Scotland, which is a wing of Scottish Enterprise, is supposed to support the growth of co-operatives and community-owned businesses. It could play an important role in assisting the development and scaling up of community energy organisations throughout Scotland, but that is being limited due to inadequate funding and resources. The Scottish Government should specifically commit to increasing CDS funding, which is ring fenced from the Scottish Enterprise budget, so that it can do that work.
We could also look at having a co-operative retailer for community energy, because one issue is that all the retailers are multinationals. How do community generators sell their energy into the grid at an affordable price in order to challenge fuel poverty? Community Energy Scotland tells us that all community-owned wind turbines that are operational will need to be replaced by 2038. Therefore, we need to get alongside communities and help them to meet the challenges. We need to look at how we can secure grid connections for developing community projects, which is a big issue, because community projects cannot develop a number of projects and then sign up to grid connections. They must have the grid connection before that point, so they are not being counted when it comes to grid infrastructure. That needs to change.
We need to look at funding. Colin Smyth talked about the Scottish National Investment Bank. The Co-operative Party’s “Scotland’s green energy future” asks whether SNIB should have a dedicated fund. We need community investment.
Audrey Nicoll talked about communities that have money to invest but not the land to develop. Could they invest in other community-owned wind farms or renewable generators? Douglas Lumsden talked about planning and how the same regulations were in place regardless of the planning application’s scale or ownership. That is something that we need to look at.
A number of people talked about doubling the funding for CARES and ensuring that communities have confidence in the scheme. Michael Matheson made the point that communities need to be nurtured and have confidence in investment, because huge risks are involved in it.
I encourage you to come to a conclusion, Ms Grant.
Many other excellent points have been made in the debate, and I could speak for another seven minutes in order to highlight them.
Community energy provides 34 times the community benefit of privately owned energy. Therefore, we need to ensure that that benefit is returned to our communities. I urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all arms of government have a presumption to contract and support community energy producers.
16:39
Last week, the Climate Change Committee published its advice on Scotland’s carbon budget. It is clear that net zero is achievable by 2045, but only with
“immediate action, at pace and scale.”
That action includes electrification such as heat pumps in our homes and electric vehicles on our roads. In fact, in the Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway to net zero, electrification accounts for about half of the reduction in emissions.
As we near 2045, managing energy demand will become ever more important. As part of the just transition that we all want, we need to not only increase energy generation but ensure that the benefits of new projects and technology are shared widely and fairly. Therefore, I welcome today’s motion, which is correct in saying that
“the development of renewables at all scales in Scotland should benefit consumers, communities and the economy.”
The cabinet secretary highlighted the community and renewable energy scheme and local development officers, who will be critical in increasing the amount of community and locally owned renewable energy. We can all support that goal, and greater community participation and ownership of energy can help to achieve it.
With that in mind, I will highlight a few of the contributions to the debate, which has been largely consensual—we have even had a sheep and some goats.
Douglas Lumsden challenged the Scottish Government to ensure that the £8 million that has been allocated by both Governments delivers. He suspended his pessimism about delivery not quite for his entire speech but at least for part of it. He also argued for proportionality in the planning process.
Sarah Boyack described community benefits as being critical to addressing the climate and nature emergencies, and she highlighted the role of local authorities in facilitating that.
Patrick Harvie stated that we are at a dangerous point in our energy transition and made the case for a reduction in corporate ownership.
Beatrice Wishart spoke about issues with the Viking wind farm and advocated for fair compensation for those who host energy projects. She also stated that fishers should have access to their traditional grounds.
Jamie Halcro Johnston, along with many other members, raised the issue of constraint payments, as well as what he described as “invasive industrialisation”.
Fin Carson continued on that theme by stating that he feels that the communities that he represents have been ignored and that decision making is, ultimately, too centralised.
Therefore, despite the general degree of consensus, a variety of views have been expressed.
Scotland is blessed with abundant natural energy resources, which, if they are properly harnessed, can provide clean power, help us to reach net zero and create jobs and wealth in our communities. Before I get to community benefits specifically, I want to look at the high-level picture. If we are serious about promoting community involvement, we have to recognise that policy has fallen short. For example, we missed the target to produce 1GW of energy from community and locally owned energy companies by 2020; back in 2010, Scottish Renewables estimated that offshore wind could create 28,000 direct jobs over the coming decade, but, by 2022, the number was less than 4,000; and, last year, Scotland’s 2030 net zero target was abandoned. Those failures matter. They damage the Government’s credibility and risk undermining public confidence in climate action, which plays straight into the hands of populists who peddle climate scepticism and easy answers.
If we want more community ownership and participation in energy projects, we need to make a strong case for it. Let us consider wind power. In Denmark, community ownership stands at 52 per cent compared with just 0.2 per cent in Scotland, according to the Green Economy Coalition. There are financial benefits, of course—we have seen that across Scotland. Whether they be micro hydro or community wind, the projects generate funds for business support, biodiversity schemes, active travel initiatives and youth and hardship support schemes, all of which have tangible benefits, rooted in a place, that people can see and feel.
There are other benefits beyond the financial. A recent study on ScienceDirect looked at wind farms in the Netherlands and found that higher levels of shared ownership saw projects spend less time in planning, with fewer appeals. That speaks to a simple truth. When people have a say and a stake in something, they want to see it prosper. Communities should not be left to feel that energy transition is something that is being done to them. They should be able to embrace it as an opportunity that they can shape and share in.
Of course, we have to recognise that not every community can host energy projects, especially those in dense urban areas, but that does not mean that they have to lose out.
There are opportunities in our urban areas. We could have projects like the Edinburgh Community Solar Co-operative right across our urban areas, and we could have community heat networks in urban and rural areas. It is about taking a joined-up approach and seizing the opportunities, and it is not just about rural areas—the whole of Scotland needs to benefit.
I recognise that there are opportunities, but the community benefits of Whitelee, the largest onshore wind farm in Europe, have generally been around East Renfrewshire, when just down the road is Castlemilk, which is an area that really requires those benefits. However, I take the member’s general point.
We have all heard from constituents who are struggling with their energy bills. Some of the causes, such as global geopolitics and supply chain shocks, are outwith our control, although circular economy policies can mitigate those somewhat. Concerns that net zero might push bills higher are real, and we need to listen to and act on them. We need to be honest and say that bills will come down with net zero, but only in the long term. If we do not do that, we will allow the climate sceptics to hijack those concerns and turn them into a broader backlash against net zero.
No one who is serious about climate action wants to impoverish people or place unsustainable demands on households. On the contrary, we want climate action to deliver thriving, wealthy and sustainable communities. Community ownership of energy is an opportunity to help to deliver that, but only if we move beyond promises and deliver the funding and frameworks to make it happen.
16:47
I thank members for their contributions to a vitally important debate. As other members have mentioned, it has been a debate on which there is a great deal of common ground across the chamber. There was much of that in evidence today, both in the summing-up speeches that we have just heard and throughout.
As we have heard, communities are crucial in our transition to net zero and they must receive the benefits of our renewables revolution. I will begin by trying to answer a question from Christine Grahame, who asked how many communities have bought shares in a wind farm. The picture as at December 2024 was that there were 140 installations in Scotland where shared ownership was either in place or under discussion. The Scottish Government is committed to growing that number and to growing the community energy sector in Scotland, as demonstrated by the community energy generation growth fund. There are many opportunities to be seized, and there is huge potential for communities to own—
Would the minister look at the situation with Forestry and Land Scotland? Could there be a presumption in favour of communities that are interested in taking over developments when they come up for re-tendering?
The member makes an interesting point. A related earlier point was about repowering opportunities, which is something to which I know Forestry and Land Scotland will want to give due consideration. Of course, Forestry and Land Scotland financially contributes to the public good through its own activities. There is a discussion for us all to have in the future, however, particularly on the issue of repowering.
The Scottish Government is committed to growing community benefits. Throughout the debate, we talked about the benefits that community energy provides, including community benefits. As Colin Smyth pointed out, both climate change targets and supply chain benefits are important in that regard.
Alongside growing community energy, we must also ensure that communities are able to access community benefits from commercial renewable energy developments. Those are an important tool to ensure that people and communities benefit from the just energy transition that we all seek to achieve.
Emma Harper pointed to successful strategies for communities, some of those being lessons from other countries, and, like other members, she reminded us of the need to get to net zero. That is always a factor in what we seek to do. There are levers in our hands to achieve net zero, but some levers are not in our hands.
I listened carefully to Patrick Harvie’s comments about local control and culture change. In the past 12 months, more than £30 million-worth of benefits have been offered to Scottish communities, supported by our voluntary good practice principles. We agree that, as a Government, we must do more.
We recently consulted on our good practice principles for onshore and offshore renewable energy developments to ensure that our national guidance is fit for the future. The consultation closed on 11 April. We are currently analysing the responses and information to inform a refresh of the guidance.
As the Government analyses the responses to that consultation, can the minister tell us what the scale of the Scottish Government’s objective is? He has heard support from his own back benchers for community ownership on something approaching the scale of what Denmark has achieved. I know that that cannot be done overnight, but is it the Government’s intention to achieve something of the same order over the longer term?
The member has acknowledged that that particular target may not be achievable overnight, but the evidence that we gather will, I believe, ensure that our community benefit targets and arrangements are sustainable, meaningful and ambitious, and that they will help to support our just and fair transition to net zero.
I will add to that point something that is perhaps relevant to the member’s question and which takes us back to my earlier comment. The First Minister has asked officials to take forward with stakeholders other opportunities—created by repowering—for communities.
The Scottish Government cannot do all that work alone. We must work with our stakeholders, developers, communities and, as I alluded to, the UK Government, to make progress.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I must make a little progress just now—I might come back to the member.
I welcome the UK Government’s recent working paper, which seeks views on the introduction of a mandatory community benefit scheme for low-carbon energy infrastructure—a question that is currently reserved to the UK Government.
As Fergus Ewing recognised amid the thundering delenda ests of his peroration, there are several areas in which the Scottish and UK Governments can co-operate. Although he pointed out—in Latin—that we must “festina lente”, or hurry slowly, the Government recognises that we need to move a posse ad esse: from potentiality to actuality.
The Scottish Government has long called on the UK Government to consult on mandating community benefits for onshore renewables, and I welcome that consultation as a step forward. We will continue to engage to ensure that Scotland’s interests are fully represented. That represents our long-standing leadership in championing community benefit from renewable energy developments. Jackie Dunbar mentioned the importance of tackling fuel poverty as being at the heart of all those efforts, and Alex Rowley referred to that issue, too. They recognised that, in many cases, areas of fuel poverty are also the areas that host projects.
The Scottish Government is committed to growing the community energy sector in Scotland, and the community energy generation growth fund represents an exciting step forward in the development of the community energy pipeline in Scotland that we all wish to see.
We have seen, through CARES, that communities are enthusiastic to do more. I know how important community energy projects are in supporting local economic investment and empowering communities to take ownership of their energy future.
Obviously, there is community ownership, but issues are now arising in relation to the costs of decommissioning energy projects, both onshore and offshore. Does the minister share my concern about community ownership that, unless a pot of money is put in place for decommissioning, in 20 or 30 years’ time, the Government could become, in effect, not the lender of last resort but the funder of last resort, funding the decommissioning of community-owned and other structure-owned renewable energy projects?
Craig Hoy refers to offshore projects, for instance. The Scottish Government has very developed procedures in place to ensure that, as taxpayers, we do not find ourselves in the situation that he describes. However, he raises important issues that will be faced by many communities when it comes to replacing infrastructure in the future.
This will come as a surprise to Douglas Lumsden, but I agree with his point about the importance of the efforts that are made by volunteers in communities and the fact that that can place a great strain on individuals and communities. I wish to recognise the exceptional efforts that have been made by the community in North Yell, which Beatrice Wishart referred to. I have visited it, and it is a formidable organisation.
We continue to advocate and act for Scotland’s communities to ensure that they receive a just and equitable outcome from our energy transition. Whether that is through community energy, shared ownership or community benefits, it is essential that communities see a positive and lasting legacy.
A number of members asked how smaller local authorities are to cope with large-scale planning issues and the scale of work that is involved. The Scottish Government certainly seeks to support local authorities that are in that position.
Will Alasdair Allan give way?
The minister is just concluding.
The Scottish Government seeks to work with the UK Government on future reforms of the planning system to ensure that communities are consulted at an earlier stage.
The Scottish Government remains firmly committed to growing community and locally owned energy in Scotland, helping our communities to develop energy projects and supporting Scotland’s progress towards net zero.
Air ais
Topical Question TimeAir adhart
Urgent Question