Michael Matheson
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her statement. I very much agree with her comments about securing the economic value of decarbonisation and achieving net zero. The cabinet secretary will recognise that one of the key areas in which we need to see further decarbonisation is the transport sector, including in the bus sector.”
“Gillian Martin: I have the Cabinet Secretary for Transport sitting next to me, who has just told me that that will be announced very soon. As Michael Matheson knows, we are investing a further £45 million to support the adoption of zero-emission buses through the third phase of”
“In our consideration of the bill, we should be particularly mindful of the impact that it could have on some of the most vulnerable members of our society, who lack agency in their decision making.”
“I feel duty bound to point out that the Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood is not workable in its approach to detecting coercion.” Those are strong words—not from a person who opposes the law in principle, but from someone who is concerned about what we might call the constituency of very vulnerable people in our country.”
“Domestic abuse experts, such as Dr Anni Donaldson, have warned us that the bill “risks offering a new, potentially lethal weapon to abusive men whose partners have been diagnosed with life- threatening or terminal illnesses.” The Scottish Government’s evidence shows that, as we continue to have a hidden population of victims of abuse and…”
“As I rise to make my last contribution to a debate in this Parliament after some 27 years, I cannot think of a more consequential debate taking place during my time here. I offer my congratulations and thanks to Liam McArthur and to colleagues across the chamber for what has been a very dignified and considered debate to this point.”
The complete record
Every one of 165 lines we hold for Michael Matheson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“Mairi Gougeon: I am sorry, but I have to draw attention to the point that Edward Mountain has made, which is to completely misrepresent the reasoning behind our amendments and the bill provisions as introduced. As I have already set out, we already have a precedent for such provisions in the 2016 act, as I hope the member would recognise, rather than misconstruing the matter as a debate about who is bad and who is good. That completely misrepresents the points that have been made. Edward Mountain: I was listening for a question in that intervention, but I think that it was just a statement. I do not detract from what I am saying. I have always treated everyone—[Interruption.] I know that people might not care for the comments that I am making— The Deputy Presiding Officer: I ask members to listen to the person who has the floor, please.”
“Let us be entirely clear when it comes to the other amendments in the group, on who can and cannot be the land and communities commissioner. I have no fear, and I have no reason not to accept that parliamentarians or committee conveners could be the land and communities commissioner. In fact, I sincerely hope that they are not—I sincerely hope that everyone gets a chance at it—but by continuing to push the matter and allowing that large landowners cannot be in the commission, the cabinet secretary is forcing me to press my amendments relating to everyone else, just so that I can test the depth of her dislike of large landowners and why other people who are invested in land are better than large landowners.”
“Let us first go through the amendments that I can easily agree with. I agree with Tim Eagle’s amendments in the group, and I agree with Rhoda Grant’s amendment 200. I listened to Michael Matheson’s argument, and I thought about what he was driving at, but, in this debate, I agree with the cabinet secretary, as I think that most of the functions concerned are already within the responsibility of the Scottish Land Commission. I therefore think that Michael Matheson’s amendment 310 is overly prescriptive and is not needed. I turn to the other amendment that it is easy to agree with. Hooray, cabinet secretary—in my 121 amendments, I appear to have one such amendment. There may be more to come forward. I am referring to amendment 88, on emerging problems in markets.”
“The board is collectively responsible for ensuring that appropriate governance procedures and oversight are in place and that commissioners are fulfilling their responsibilities appropriately. Without amendment 310, the land and communities commissioner would still be required to collaborate with the land commissioners where the land and communities commissioner’s functions relate to the functions of the land commissioners, and vice versa. I have engaged with the Scottish Land Commission on amendment 310, and the commission has noted concerns that it would place different requirements on the land and communities commissioner from those that apply to any other commissioner. For those reasons, I ask Michael Matheson not to move amendment 310. Edward Mountain: I have listened carefully to the debate.”
“Based on anticipated investigation costs, that could significantly increase the costs of the Scottish Land Commission. I would be more than happy to discuss further with Rhoda Grant how it can be made clear in the regulations that public landowners are to be subject to the same requirements as other landowners. However, given the unintended consequences and financial impacts that amendment 200 would cause, I urge her not to move it. I absolutely understand the intention behind amendment 310 by Michael Matheson, but I do not think that it is needed. The land and communities commissioner will not be a stand- alone commissioner; they will be a member of the Scottish Land Commission and its wider board.”
“However, I am not able to support those amendments today. I understand the intention behind Rhoda Grant’s amendment 200. I have been clear that public bodies should seek to lead the way in complying with the obligations in the bill. When a public body is in breach, I would expect the land and communities commissioner to take the same approach to enforcement as it would with any other landowner. However, amendment 200, as drafted, would require the land and communities commissioner to take a different approach to public land. As compliance can be assessed only through investigation, amendment 200 would appear to encourage the land and communities commissioner to proactively investigate compliance by ministers in relation to public landholdings, of which there are more than 200.”
“For those reasons, I oppose amendment 202, as well as amendment 5, which seeks to remove the land and communities commissioner’s role in lotting decisions entirely. Amendment 201 by Tim Eagle and amendment 309 by Rhoda Grant seek to add new functions to the land and communities commissioner role. In both cases, the added functions are more appropriate for the land commissioners than the land and communities commissioner. Land commissioner functions are broad and would already allow the Scottish Land Commission to carry out work in relation to the issues that are noted in those amendments, so the amendments are unnecessary. If Rhoda Grant or Tim Eagle believe that further research on those themes should be taken forward by the Scottish Land Commission, I am happy to discuss that further.”
“When I spoke to group 7, I emphasised that the land and communities commissioner will seek to resolve issues through engagement with landowners before making use of enforcement powers. Had the amendment been limited to the land and communities commissioner’s role in relation to community engagement obligations, I might have been minded to accept it. However, the commissioner will also play a fundamental role in lotting decisions, ensuring that ministers’ decisions are informed by independent advice on the landholding. It is not clear how the commissioner could carry out those functions in a way that would encourage positive “engagement between landowners and communities”, as stated in amendment 202.”
“It would be deeply unfair to put communities in a position in which they feel that they are unable to raise a breach because they would have to report it to the landowner responsible for it. There is precedent in primary legislation for addressing that level of conflict of interest, which strikes at the heart of the independence of the role. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 sets out that “A person may not be appointed as the Tenant Farming Commissioner if” they own or are a tenant on land that is “subject to a relevant tenancy.” The current disqualification is clearly justified, so I urge members not to support amendment 4. I understand the intention of Tim Eagle’s amendment 202.”
“When preparing reports to inform ministerial lotting decisions, the commissioner can commission advice from land agents to inform that report. The Scottish Land Commission already takes that approach where similar advice is needed. I urge members to support amendment 88 and to reject all of Edward Mountain’s other amendments in the group. Amendment 4, from Tim Eagle, would allow a landowner who is subject to the measures in part 1 of the bill to be the land and communities commissioner. However, there is a clear justification for that exclusion. It would not be right for the land and communities commissioner to be in a position in which they were deciding whether to impose fines on themselves or to be advising ministers on how their own land should be lotted.”
“Amendments 78 to 87 and 199 all seek to block people from that role, from crofters to workers in non-departmental bodies to the Scottish ministers. Interestingly, some of the few groups that Edward Mountain is not seeking to disqualify are MSPs and parliamentary conveners, so I do not know whether he has his eye on that role in the future. Most of his amendments would serve no purpose other than to complicate the hiring of the land and communities commissioner. Amendment 307 would require the land and communities commissioner to have land valuation experience. Such experience is not necessary for the majority of the commissioner’s functions, which relate to the community engagement obligations in the bill.”
“I would welcome the cabinet secretary’s views on how we can ensure that the governance arrangements between the new land and communities commissioner and the wider role of the Scottish Land Commission can be properly managed in a way that avoids any potential conflict of purpose. Mairi Gougeon: I turn first to Edward Mountain’s amendments in the group. I am happy to support amendment 88. The effect of natural capital markets is more appropriately considered by the land commissioners. I will also support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 312, in group 15, which makes that clear. However, the rest of Edward Mountain’s amendments in the group should all be opposed. I think that they represent his personal quest to make it very difficult to ever hire the land and communities commissioner.”
“However, the commissioner that is being created for land and communities will have more enforcement and regulatory functions as part of its role. It is important that we seek to address any potential issues of governance, which is why I propose with amendment 310 to clarify how we can ensure that the new commissioner will be aligned with the wider policies and workings of the Scottish Land Commission. I recognise that, in seeking to codify some aspects of the new commissioner’s role, the amendment runs the risk of the bill being overly prescriptive and potentially restricting some aspects of their function.”
“I rise to speak to amendment 310. The introduction of the new land and communities commissioner will be an important intervention to introduce some regulatory functions into the Scottish Land Commission. Although some stakeholders stated a preference for those powers to be vested in the commission and existing land commissioners, there could be merit in the new commissioner having some operational separation from the role of the wider commissioners. The cabinet secretary will be aware that, in committee at stage 1, stakeholders expressed some tension about how the powers would be vested in the commissioner rather than in the commission. It would appear that the way in which the new commissioner’s role will be created is largely based on the existing tenant farming commissioner, which again sits within the Scottish Land Commission.”
“16:29 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Further to the investigation, we hope that the voting system is now fully functioning. I imagine that we will shortly find out. We propose to re-run the vote on amendment 175. We will proceed with the division on amendment 175, and members should cast their vote now. Apologies, members—we will suspend again. Thank you for your patience. 16:29 Meeting suspended. 17:18 On resuming—”
“I hope that members can get behind my amendments. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 175 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. As this is the first division of the stage 3 proceedings, I suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. 16:19 Meeting suspended. 16:25 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the vote on amendment 175, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Members should cast their votes now. I am aware that there might be an issue with the voting system, which we are looking into at the moment. I suspend proceedings while we investigate. 16:27 Meeting suspended.”
“In response to the point that Ariane Burgess put to me, we covered some of that in the discussion on group 2, where I understand that there were provisions in various amendments that sought to impose a test on the buyer. Again, we set out the rationale for the approach that we had taken in the policy memorandum, because there are a whole host of complexities in relation to some of those tests, whether they are in relation to compensation provisions or in relation to the bigger interference with article 1, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights. That is why we set out the test for lotting decisions and the transfer test in the way that we have in the bill. I appreciate that there are wider concerns about how the provisions will work. They are new, but this is a very important step forward in our land reform journey.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the cabinet secretary to wind up. Mairi Gougeon: I have a few brief comments. I will touch on Tim Eagle’s comments first. On amendment 296, I want to emphasise that the compensation that he is looking for is already covered by the provisions in proposed new section 67V(1) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. On some of Tim Eagle’s other comments and the amendments that seek to remove sections and provisions in the bill, I suggest that taking that approach would ignore the impact that the concentration of land ownership has on our communities across Scotland and, ultimately, it would ignore the recommendations and work of the Scottish Land Commission on which the provisions in the bill are based.”
“Amendments 298, 300, 301 and 303, in my name, seek to provide greater transparency on the lotting process by ensuring that people who intend to set up a community body, are in the process of doing so or have recently done so are given early notice of a lotting decision. The amendments will achieve that by requiring the Scottish ministers to give information about lotting decisions to any person who has recorded an interest in being notified of possible transfers of land under the bill’s pre- notification provisions. That would be in addition to a copy of the lotting decision being provided to the owner or a creditor. I believe that the amendments will provide greater transparency on lotting decisions and will allow information to be shared with communities that might be impacted by them.”
“I provide that assurance. As I said, I urge members to vote against his amendments.”
“With my amendments in the group, I am trying to ensure that a small farmer with, say, 1,000 hectares does not have to spend £10,000 getting in specialist people and taking advice. If you are not going to support my amendments— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Through the chair, please. Edward Mountain: —perhaps the cabinet secretary will be clear that that is indeed her aim, and that it will be covered in regulation. Mairi Gougeon: I hope that, in what I set out, I was clear about what I will aim to do, because I absolutely appreciate Edward Mountain’s intent in his amendments. That is why I said that it is important that we develop those proportionate rules following that appropriate consultation with relevant stakeholders, but that we do that in a way that ensures that we deal with landholdings in a consistent manner.”
“They would place a significant and unjustifiable resource and administrative burden on ministers, given that they would require an assessment of each and every large landholding. It will be far better for ministers to develop proportionate rules following that appropriate consultation with the relevant stakeholders, because that will ensure that obligations address all types of landholding in Scotland as consistently as possible. Edward Mountain: I understand the merits of some of the arguments that the cabinet secretary has put forward. However, we heard in committee at stage 1 that the costs of producing land management plans will probably be in the region of £10,000, at a minimum, and for a large estate they could be considerably higher than that.”
“I believe that amendment 269 will help to ensure that there is guidance to support understanding of how the community engagement obligations should be developed. In that way, the amendment benefits both the local community and the landowner in providing greater clarity. Mairi Gougeon: I welcome Michael Matheson’s amendment 269, which will create a duty on ministers to consult on, issue and make publicly available guidance in relation to the new community engagement obligations. I said at stage 2 that I was happy for that to be made clear in the bill, and I urge members to support that amendment. Edward Mountain has introduced two amendments in this group that would force ministers to tailor community engagement obligations to the individual circumstances of each and every large landholding that is subject to the provisions in the bill.”
“It is worth noting that some of our landowners do very good work in engaging with local communities directly, notwithstanding the provisions in the bill. I know that from my experience spending some time with Patrick Colquhoun at Luss Estates prior to the stage 1 process. There has been extensive engagement with the local community in Luss around how the land is managed. Amendment 269 will require ministers to consult on and “make publicly available” guidance in relation to the new community engagement regulations that are provided for in the bill. The details of the community engagement obligations will be set out further through regulations, which, clearly, the Government must consult on.”
“I do not consider amendment 269 an attempt at “getting the Government out of a pickle”. I hope that the amendment helps to provide clarity around the bill. One of the key measures in the bill is the provision for land management plans to give local communities and individuals who live next to large estates in particular the opportunity to engage with the landowner, and to give the landowner the opportunity to engage with those local communities on how they intend to manage and use the land in the years ahead. Key to that is developing the land management plans in a way that engages the local community and allows people the opportunity to influence the process and the outcome of the plan. That is why the community engagement provisions in the bill are extremely important and helpful.”
“To ask the First Minister, following Scotland’s global investment summit 2025, whether he will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s work to attract international investment into Scotland’s economy. (S6F-04377)”
“The reality is that the transition to net zero provides huge economic opportunities for us as a country. However, in order to achieve that, we have to create the type of stability around the policy environment and policy choices that will allow businesses and industry to invest in those areas. The flip-flopping that we hear from the Conservative Party, in particular, only undermines the confidence that we need to create if we are to attract the investment, jobs and opportunities that will go with meeting our climate change targets in the years ahead. 18:12”
“However, having passed the act, and given where we are now in this parliamentary session, the risk is that, if we do not pass the regulations, we are in default of the 2009 act and have to go back to the start. I would, ideally, like to have the climate change plan to scrutinise as well, but I recognise that we are not in a position to achieve that, given the very limited time that we now have. Sarah Boyack: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Matheson: I have only four minutes, I am afraid. The idea of the conflict between economic growth and the environment is a false dichotomy, at times. It is presented particularly by the Conservative Party, which has abandoned the climate change and net zero agendas just as it has abandoned the 2050 targets at the UK level.”
“I listened carefully to Willie Rennie, and I accept that he is sceptical about those matters, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that the 2045 target was set collectively by the Parliament despite the fact that, at the time, the advice from our independent advisers on the Climate Change Committee was that there was no credible pathway for achieving net zero by 2045. We, in the Parliament, must reflect on the need to listen to advice on matters relating to the decisions that we make. It is critical that we do so. I recognise that there are some issues of process. Ideally, we would have had the climate change plan before we considered the regulations.”
“Based on the evidence that we have seen from other jurisdictions and from the Climate Change Committee, there is no doubt that carbon budgets will improve that process over a multiyear period, providing a more reliable way for the Parliament and parliamentarians to scrutinise the process. As we move into the second phase of tackling climate change, having achieved over half of the targets so far, it will be critical that we deliver stability, consistency and ambition—backed by investment—in order to make sure that we can deliver the targets that have been set. Some might want to portray that as being because we continued to miss our targets over a number of years.”
“It is worth reflecting on why we are in this position. Last year, the Parliament collectively came together and agreed that we should move to a carbon budgeting system such as that used in other jurisdictions. We recognise that it will provide greater clarity, transparency and accountability around how we go about achieving our climate targets and the policies that will be deployed in order to do so. The reason why we are making that shift is that the annual targets that we set became a very cluttered environment, with catch- up plans and so on, and it became increasingly difficult for the Parliament to scrutinise exactly what was going on and how the targets were going to be achieved.”
“That prohibition is founded in long- standing World Trade Organization law and also implements our commitments in the European Union-United Kingdom trade and co-operation agreement. Michael Matheson will understand that the Scottish Government must operate within certain limits, and that we need the UK Government to make any changes that are required. The same would go for procurement law as well. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I see that 11 members want to come in, but we have just under 12 minutes left.”
“What commitment has the UK Government given to the Scottish Government that it will address the issues of concern in relation to the 2022 act, to ensure that we do not again find ourselves in this situation with Alexander Dennis? Kate Forbes: I thank Michael Matheson immensely for his staunch representation of his local constituents and for the constructive way in which he has engaged on the issue. The member asks about the route to reform. I remain of the view that we need regulatory reform alongside a medium to long-term pipeline of bus orders. We continue to engage with the UK Government on subsidy control legislation. Section 17 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 prohibits the giving of subsidies that are contingent on using “domestic over imported goods or services”, which are often referred to as local content subsidies.”
“I offer my thanks to the Deputy First Minister for her considerable level of engagement on the issue with the trade union, the company and me directly over the summer. On Monday, the company was clear that, in order for it to create a sustainable pathway, procurement reform is necessary. When I met the trade unions—Unite the Union and the GMB—at the factory on Monday, they were very clear on the need for the Subsidy Control Act 2022 to be reformed in order to create that pathway for procurement reform. That legislation was introduced by the previous Conservative Government and is now in the hands of the Labour Government in Westminster.”
“On the fundamental challenges that the member asked about, I have referenced the fact that we have to comply with public procurement regulations, subsidy control and so on. We are looking at how far we can push that and how far we can support local manufacturers while working with procuring authorities—in other words, people who actually own and run buses—to understand the demand and bring that together with a support package for the company. Those are the issues that we are working through and consulting the unions on. I am very hopeful that we can find a solution if we collaborate.”
“On the short-term measures, one of the challenges is that, even if we are able to identify demand, there might be a short lead time before that demand can come to fruition. The member will know that we are exploring issues in and around furlough, for example. The Scottish Government has never run a furlough scheme. Obviously, the company was able to be part of a furlough scheme during the coronavirus period, and we are looking at whether that would be useful to the company to retain its workforce. There is also scope to look at whether other work could be provided to keep the local workforce employed. The primary short-term measure is how we support the workforce while developing that order book.”
“Secondly, what action is being taken to address the fundamental challenge that the company faces with the uneven playing field whereby the Chinese bus sector will go from having a 10 per cent share of the UK market at the end of last year to a 35 per cent share this year? How will we deal with that challenge under the Subsidy Control Act 2022, and what measures is the UK Government saying that it will consider to address the uneven playing field that the company faces? Kate Forbes: Michael Matheson is right to say that there is cause for hope in terms of finding a way through the present challenges. I hope that the gist of my statement was that I think that there are solutions there, but those can be delivered only through collaboration, which is why I emphasised the point about needing to work with people and not to resort to politics.”
“Over the course of last week, I had an opportunity to engage with the unions, and I visited the factory to speak to workers on Monday. It is clear from all the discussions in which I have participated that they see a way through the short and medium- term challenges that the company faces, but the only way in which that will be achieved is if the Scottish and UK Governments work together to find it. I therefore ask the Deputy First Minister two specific questions. First, will she set out what measures the Scottish Government is looking at taking forward to address the short-term challenge that the company has with a lack of orders?”
“I have listened to the exchanges so far and I ask the First Minister to commit to taking forward two points with the UK Government. First, will he commit to look at maximising the potential for new orders from across the UK for Alexander Dennis in the weeks and months ahead? Secondly, will he address the fundamental point that the company has highlighted, which is the uneven playing field that it faces in competing with overseas manufacturers as a result of the Subsidy Control Act 2022? That needs to be addressed— The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Matheson. Michael Matheson: —if we are to secure those jobs, and I ask the First Minister to do so.”
“The First Minister will be aware of the deep concern in my constituency at the announcement that Alexander Dennis made yesterday. Given the risk that is posed to more than 400 jobs in my constituency, and having listened to the earlier exchange in the chamber, I would say that the last thing that the workforce and my constituents need is for their future employment to be turned into a political football. Indeed, they deserve much better. Now more than ever, the workforce needs the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments to work together to prevent the closure of the Camelon and Larbert sites. Those jobs are not lost yet, and everything should be done to secure them for the future. Bus manufacturing has taken place in Camelon for more than a hundred years; it is part of the local community’s DNA.”
“Alasdair Allan: All those concerned—including, as far as I can see, the Climate Change Committee—acknowledge that carbon capture, utilisation and storage is essential to meeting the net zero aim that we all have for Scotland. I do not want to point too much to the negative scenario that the member outlines, although he is right to outline the risks. However, if we are to find alternative industries in Grangemouth and the member’s part of Scotland in the future, and if we are to develop the infrastructure that is needed for carbon capture, utilisation and storage, decisions at UK Government level are needed. I do not say that to make a political point, but they are simply needed. The decisions have been made elsewhere in the UK, and it is time for them to be made regarding Scotland now.”
“The minister has already referred to the repeated delays that we have experienced with the progression of the Acorn project: delays that were caused by the previous Conservative Government and indecision, causing further delay, by the present Labour Government. Does the minister recognise that one of the real risks of those repeated delays is that investors in the project might start to back out, such that the partnership could break up? If the Acorn project does not move forward at an urgent pace, what does the minister believe will be the economic implications for the north-east of Scotland and for the rest of the country? What will happen to the economic importance of carbon capture and storage in the North Sea to meeting our net zero targets?”
“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”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 will, in effect, change life and death for everyone, and we should be particularly mindful of the impact that that could have on some of the most vulnerable members of our society who lack agency in decision making. I believe that we can do better. Rather than progress the bill, we should debate how we can deliver the best possible palliative care, recognising that we all have intrinsic value, that real choice and autonomy mean having access to the best possible care, and that true dignity consists of being cared for until the end. For those reasons, I will not support the general principles of the bill. 17:57”