 The next item of business is members' business debate on motion 12167, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on ensuring appropriate community benefit from offshore wind farm developments. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those who wish to speak to press the request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Richard Lochhead to open the debate for around seven minutes, please. I begin by thanking colleagues for signing the motion and for staying behind for this debate. Deputy Presiding Officer, Scotland's transformation into renewables powerhouse has been one of this Government and this Parliament's biggest success stories. It was tremendous news when ministers announced recently that, for 2017, it was a record year for renewable electricity and that 6 to 8.1 per cent of gross electricity consumption was met by renewables. As the most commercially viable technology onshore wind has led the way and now employs 8,000 people across Scotland. As a result, many communities have found themselves as neighbours to wind farms. Sometimes they are controversial, often they are widely supported. We have seen community benefit funds set up that provide community buy-in and a share of the benefits from such developments. Our natural resources belong to us all and when they are exploited we should all benefit, particularly communities adjacent to the developments. We will all be familiar with groups that have benefited from grants over the years that make a difference by supporting rural development and good causes. Such funds have allowed communities to invest in local projects that benefit everyone. That is why I was pleased to hear from Keith and Dufton railway association and my constituency just last week that they have benefited from local wind farm funds as well. Following the industry's own protocols, the Scottish Government published good practice principles for community benefits from onshore renewable energy developments in 2014, a policy that is now being reviewed. Ministers were quite right to state that no one fits all when it comes to community benefits and then, of course, they were right to promote a national rate for onshore renewables in terms of benefits. That was needed because the success of communities in negotiating community benefits was variable across the country to say the least. Some communities negotiated significant amounts and others did not. It often depends on a local community's capacity or the presence of strong personalities and community leaders as to whether a decent level of benefit is secured. That is why a national standard was established, along with a voluntary register, managed by local energy Scotland, to help to equip communities with the appropriate knowledge to strengthen their arms in negotiations. Many developers take their obligations to the communities very seriously, but communities always need to drive a hard bargain. Some developers have managed to get off scot-free or to avoid paying the recommended level of at least £5,000 per megawatts. The landowner strikes gold, the operator generates significant profits as well, but the local community can be left with the crumbs off the table or with nothing at all. Energy is a multi-billion-pound business and all our communities are asking for their fair share. That is why it is a great shame that a massive French company, EDF, has found themselves in dispute with representatives' communities in my constituency, which is affected by the Dornell wind farm, to give just one example. The community associations in Murray, covering Dufton, Glenlivet, Inverhan, Glenrhenys and the Cabrach have come together as the United Communities impacted by the Dornell wind farm limited to seek the recommended £5,000 per megawatts. EDF have told me that they do not believe that they have to deliver the national standard as a previous owner of the development agreed a lesser amount that they claim the community at that point in time accepted. The local communities, however, dispute that and there is no written agreement in place that anyone can find. EDF are paying £2,000 per megawatt to a fund and argue that once non-monitory benefits are added to that, it rises to £4,000 per megawatt. Although they originally claimed an email to me in December that the benefits amounted to nearly £5,000, they are now saying £4,000. However, the community argued that some of the non-monitory benefits that are part of that calculation were linked to planning conditions. It is worth noting that they also include the refurbishment of properties owned by the landowner, London-based Christopher Moran, who I might add has often been criticised for not investing in those properties at his own expense to help attract people to live and work in the Cabrach. It is a win-win for the landowner. He gets rent from EDF for the land that he is told happens to be in a windy area. According to Spice, the Parliament's information centre, the annual accounts for a glinothiric wind limited showed annual profits amounting to nearly £43 million between 2015 and 2017 alone. Christopher Moran's energy limited, which is a subsidiary of them, shows a handsome profit too. He probably cannot believe his luck that he gets his properties refurbished at someone else's expense, which is then classed as a community benefit. It has to be said that onshore energy is a licence to print money for many landowners in Scotland, and in today's world money makes money, but local communities deserve to have their share guaranteed as well. In estimating EDF's income from Dornell over the next 25 years, there are clearly many variables at play over such a long time frame, but I have seen estimates of anywhere between £1.5 billion. Whatever the figure, and we do not know what the figure will be, it is safe to say that EDF and the landowner will make significant profits. So can anyone wonder why local communities feel that they are getting a poor deal? Can anyone wonder why, in some parts of Scotland, the creation and strengthening of mutual trust and relationships that should be regarded as integral to the overall process to quote the minister's aspirations, is severely lacking? I am not saying that private companies that carry the risk and invest millions in making projects happen should not make a good profit. I am not saying that all benefits need to be monetary, and I am not saying that the wider benefits for the Scottish supply chain are not very important. EDF tells me that they have spent £40 million in the Scottish supply chain, and of course that is extremely welcome for the Scottish economy. I am saying that we need more consistency across Scotland in terms of community benefits, that it should be in a statutory footing, and transparent, and retrospective for projects that receive Government subsidies, and that communities deserve a greater share of the benefits. My key ask is that ministers work with the sector to ensure that all developers deliver the national recommended standard. The Scottish Government has made great progress in promoting community benefit. Local Energy Scotland's website says that communities have benefited from nearly £15 million in the past year, but there is still some way to go because the same website says that the average payment is £3,454 excluding community projects. I understand that 50 projects, which is about 26 per cent, are either not paying any community benefit or the available data is incomplete. It is a better story for community-owned projects, and I am delighted that there are now 40 such projects in Scotland. I have long supported a national-owned energy company to have joint ventures with private companies and to work with communities as well. In closing, I say that until we sort this out, until we have the national standard adhered to and full transparency, Scotland's communities will continue to lose out on millions of pounds a year that could be put to good use in these very difficult times, especially rural communities that ironically pay more for their electricity and suffer higher rates of fuel poverty. I urge the minister in closing to intervene to deliver the national standard and to seek the necessary powers in the UK Government and UK ministers to regulate community benefit and ensure that transparency that is required. Finally, to ensure that our communities enjoy a fair share of revenues from the renewables revolution. Thank you, Mr Lockhead. We now move to the open debate in speeches of up to four minutes, please. I call Alexander Burnett to be followed by Graham Day. I thank Richard Lockhead for bringing this topic to a member's debate and just note my register of interests around the renewable energy sector. As a motion notes, it is great to see that renewable energy production is up and that communities across Scotland are benefiting from it, because, as the chamber will know, the Scottish Conservatives support onshore wind where appropriate and when local communities support and want it. We therefore believe that it is correct that the onshore wind subsidy existed to kickstart projects across Scotland but also feel that it is appropriate to remove that subsidy now that projects can be funded on their own. Onshore wind farm income can bring real opportunities for local communities with new playing fields, village halls and more, and those communities that benefit exist in all of our constituencies, including my own. I am not sure if the council has a registered interest, but it should certainly count as a plug for their application. My wife sits on our local primary schools PTA board, and she is currently submitting an application to get funding for a trim trail. Mill-Hill Wind Farm, which is limited in Fetaresa forest, set up a community benefit fund as part of their on-going commitments to communities in the vicinity of their wind farm. The purpose of the fund is to enable communities to carry out improvements to their local area in any sphere, including the environment, local immunity or tourism, and each year they give approximately £5,500 to the Crathys, Dremoke and Durris Community Association, who in turn administer its dispersements to the community. Another example in the constituency of a wind farm successfully supporting the community is the Huntley District Development Trust. Set up in 2009, it is a community-owned company that can make £65,000 a year from their wind turbines with the income going towards social projects. Those social projects vary from car clubs to tackling mental health issues and building new footpaths. Although I recognise that those are not large companies, I feel that lessons can be learned from the trust such as Huntley District, because it is important that if a community chooses to, they can share in the benefits of the onshore wind industry and be empowered by having the choice of investing in what matters most of them, whether that be a new sports field, community hold or trim trail. Some crumbs from the table would be better if communities had actual stake in the ownership of those projects so that, rather than get crumbs, they get a bigger bit of the cake. That was a point that I just made of the Huntley District Trust, which has a considerably larger stake in its project and is making £65,000 a year. That model is certainly possible and I am sure that it is desirable for many communities. We continue to believe that decisions of wind farms should not be overturned by the Scottish Government, especially if communities are against the development being in their area. However, we would encourage the Scottish Government to ensure that there are consistent levels of community benefit paid out across Scotland. As Richard Lochhead notes in his motion, some companies are delivering £5,000 per megawatt to the local area, but it is a very inconsistent picture, with some delivering well above or well below its average. We therefore believe that the Scottish Government should carry out a study with a view to introducing minimum funding per megawatt for community benefit to create some more consistency into the framework, although that should be caveated with consideration of local community impact. A low-carbon future is important to all of us, but we must ensure that communities benefit fairly, too. Let me begin by congratulating Richard Lochhead on securing a debate on a topic that impacts a sizable number of communities across Scotland. As the motion rightly highlights in terms of our energy needs and oing to climate change, we need to embrace renewables in Scotland, as we have heard, has a good track record in that regard. Developments must, of course, be in the right place, and local communities should benefit financially from that. I note with concern the situation that Richard Lochhead highlighted at Darnell. I understand that community benefit over the 25-year lifespan of the project could amount to £11 million rather than £27.5 million. It may surprise members to learn that there is only one wind farm in my constituency that is at Arc Hill and is operated by green cat renewables. The Glamson area community trust exists to distribute the funds from the Arc Hill wind farm windfall revenue scheme, which was set up on a voluntary basis by green cat as the Arc Hill site was granted planning consent before the time when it became the norm for such benefit to be derived locally. Applications are invited from within the boundaries of the Glamson community council area and the trust seeks to support projects that promote citizenship and community benefit, the arts, culture, heritage or science, the provision of recreational facilities and environmental protection or improvement projects. An annual contribution is made to the trust and a number of projects within the local area have been supported by the funding. It has included a grant to go in Ogilvy residence association for two defibrillators and to Charleston village hall for an access ramp for wheelchair access. The trust has also granted the Sadlop ranch, which is a project to improve horse riding facilities at Glamson for the disabled and recovering persons. Worthy projects, worthy of support, we need to be mindful however that companies should not be too restrictive when drawing up the terms of their community benefit schemes. I do not say that in relation to Arc Hill. Rather, the western part of my constituency runs along the border between Angus and Perthync and Ross councils. As I said, there is one wind farm in my constituency. However, from Derg, wind farm is only a couple of kilometres from the Angus boundary and is seen and heard by properties in Goniwla and Kilry. Despite being so close, no community benefit is provided to my constituents there. I am told that Eilith in Perthync and Ross has had significant benefits from Derg, but people living there cannot see nor hear it. That has rightly caused some consternation among my constituents in that locality and is a matter that I would contend to require attention. With offshore wind farms largely located in rural areas, the potential funding for local projects will become even more vital because of the uncertainty surrounding the future of the leader scheme after Brexit. As I highlighted in a member's debate a few months ago, leaders have been a lifeline for many projects in Angus south, but setting aside the concerns of what Brexit will mean, leader funding that is available in Angus is fast running out. Partly, and wrongly in my view, through Angus Council and its leisure and culture arms length organisation Angus Alive, I have not been awarded funding. I accept that the rules that allow for this and the provision of mobile library services, for example to those in rural areas, is an important one, but should public bodies really be able to access this funding to the detriment of community groups and small local businesses, community groups and small businesses seeking to develop and help the local areas, I believe should be at the front of any funding queue, so as leader cash runs out and with no certainty over future replacements, money's derived from wind farms in the form of community benefit becomes all the more critical. So once again, I thank Richard Lochhead for bringing this topic to the chamber and for highlighting it, and I endorse the text of the motion and support his call for having the national standard of community benefit placed on a statutory footing. Neil Findlay, to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Again, I would thank Richard Lochhead for bringing this to the chamber and for what I think was an excellent speech, summarising exactly the issues that are at stake here. I have to also apologise to the Presiding Officer for having to leave for the policing statement after my speech. I raised this issue in one of my first member's debates when I came to this Parliament, so I'm delighted that, seven years later, other people were catching up, but I say that with a tongue-in-cheek, of course. I was interested in Graham Days saying that he has one farm in his constituency. I have around seven or eight within three miles or four miles of my house, well over 100 turbines. I think that wind energy in the onshore sector is one of the biggest missed opportunities that we have overseen for decades. That natural resource that should be providing years of clean energy and finance for communities, for a whole host of communities, has instead become a clondike for speculators. Those organisations submit planning applications and take their chance, often in the hope that the Government will call them in if they are rejected by local authorities. The interests of many of those people are not driven by environmental concerns or anything else. They are driven by hard cash. They would just as readily invest in coffee beans or widgets or whatever it was if it was providing the same returns. I don't generalise about all of them, but that is what happens with a number. In my area and across many parts of Scotland, the development of wind farms is dominated by motley national companies and venture capital firms that see Scotland's wind just as the latest commodity. They will do whatever it takes, including trampling over the concerns of local communities to take advantage of the significant profits that are open to them. Those companies often set up local front companies as a front for the project. They will call it fluffy animals, renewables or nice green forest renewables. They get their planning application and then suddenly the mask is swept away and we see who is really behind those projects. For miles all around my home, I see turbines turning and every time it turns, I see another bunch of £10 notes fluttering off to the bank accounts of Danish and Dutch and Australian, French and Spanish boardrooms. Yes, community benefit schemes exist, but the sums involved are a drop in the ocean compared to the cash that is being generated by the big companies that dominate the scene. A robust community benefit strategy could result in significant cash, as well as the energy that is being generated for communities and local services. We should have public bodies owning and developing onshore wind. We could have local authorities doing it, the Forestry Commission doing it. We could have Scottish Water and others doing it and generating money to go back into services, but we are not seeing a few crumbs from the table going into communities in an attempt to buy them off. Before coming into this Parliament, I led a group of negotiators from Westworld Council negotiating a community development deal on behalf of a community development trust in my then council ward, and that was with Scottish Power, now Iberdola. We struck a decent deal, a six-figure deal at that time, and the circumstances were that we had very little guidance or information to draw on, as that was in the very early days of community benefit. One of the issues was that, in the very final round of negotiations, having taken that through about six stages, the owners withdrew the ownership option that we wanted. We wanted ownership. We did not want crumbs from the table, and that was withdrawn at the last minute. It was compensated for by additional cash. Ownership is the key, because communities should have ownership so that they have a real stake in those assets and they generate some real significant money, not crumbs. That could be invested by, for example, community development trusts in local housing projects, local youth facilities, environmental projects and the rest, not substitute funding. I fear Graham Day's example of mobile libraries. That to me is substitute funding. Libraries as a local authority function should not be for that to step in and fill the gap. I am just finishing. If communities were in control and were in a genuine partnership, I also believe that there would be less resistance to wind energy projects. Mr Finlay's belief is that, if he does not draw breath, I will not get in there to tell him to hurry up. I will call Mark Ruskell to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. I join members in thanking Richard Lochhead for bringing forward this debate on onshore wind. We have seen significant growth of onshore wind in the past 15 years and, yes, probably some missed opportunities as well. Some credit is due to the Scottish Government, particularly given that it was elected in 2007 on a manifesto that promised a moratorium on onshore wind. Despite that, we have seen sensible decisions from Government and councils on the right projects appearing in the right places in Scotland, by and large. I think that we can look forward now, hopefully, to extensions of projects as well—repowering of projects—taking down the older turbines from 10 or 15 years ago, putting in place more efficient turbines that can produce more power while reducing the footprint of wind farms on the landscape. There are opportunities, yes, through this new repowering initiative, particularly if we look at it from a landscape scale approach to start to embed more community benefits. Some of the early negotiations that many members have talked about where there was no commitment to community benefit or perhaps at a very low level of 1,000 pounds of megawatt, there is an opportunity now to renegotiate those and ensure that communities get a much more significant amount of the benefit. I think that it is important, though, that we recognise that financial benefits are not compensation. They are sharing the financial rewards with the communities that host the wind farms. They might crums off the table, but they are not compensation. The danger is that, if we class community financial benefits as compensation, the logical conclusion of that is that that becomes a material consideration in the planning system. That could create a very unhelpful precedent, particularly if you then extend that to fracking. Planning decisions should not be made on the basis of the size of the financial benefits that are being offered. They should be based on the merits of the development, whether it is the right development or in the right place. The elephant in the room in this debate is land reform, quite clearly, because the best way to share the rewards of projects with communities is for communities to own the land themselves, or at least if they cannot get ownership of the land to be able to take a share, a financial stake and a project through a joint venture. That ensures that they do not just get the crumbs off the table but that they get the cake, as Neil Findlay said, and that they probably get the bakery as well. If you look at Denmark 1990s, the fantastic growth of wind that we saw there was driven by land-owning farmer co-operatives coming together to develop wind power in their communities, making a huge contribution. We have seen impressive growth in Scotland, but it has come by and large from estates working with large corporations. Brace of Dune wind farm, for example, in my area, Moria State is the big landowner and they probably own most of Richard Lochhead's constituency working with corporations to develop a wind farm early on. Since then, ownership of that wind farm has been passed around since 2006, but the original community benefit level of £1,000 a megawatt has remained the same. It has never actually gone up, and although that has made a significant contribution to the community about £72,000 a year, it is not transformative. It buys play equipment and kit for the play group. What it does not allow the play group to do is to buy the building that they desperately need to. We need transformative opportunities. If you look across the Forth Valley to Earlsburn wind farm, there is one of the early joint ventures where the community bought into a project. By the time that they have paid off their share in that project, they will be earning about £400,000 every single year, so there is a transformative opportunity there. Ultimately, the last point that I would make is in relation to how we unlock the capacity going forward, because we do at the moment see dozens of megawatts of onshore wind capacity stuck in the system. It cannot find a route to market. I would say to Alexander Burnett that Westminster Government needs to realise that onshore wind farm is the cheapest form of renewables. We must allow onshore wind to compete on price in contracts for difference. Allow them to compete in the market for subsidy-free market support. We will see more appropriate development coming forward, and it is only through that that we can then start to unlock some future community benefit. Communities will need a greater stake in that, they will need land ownership, they will need project ownership as well. However, if they are just going to collapse the industry and not allow growth, they are not going to see the kind of opportunities coming forward. First, I congratulate Richard Lochhead on securing today's debate and giving colleagues the opportunity to discuss an aspect of Scotland's role in renewable energy production, which is rarely at the forefront of discussions on our low-carbon future. Scotland is already a world leader in renewable energy, helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring that we benefit from the creation of green jobs. With Scottish renewables estimating 8,000 people are directly employed in the onshore wind sector. Some benefits of wind farms are less obvious. For example, farmers and other local landowners receive rent for the turbines, erected on often fairly unproductive land, repurposing it to provide a sustainable income. Much of that money will then be spent locally, further reinforcing the wind farms' enduring legacy of investment. The benefits of wind farms in Scotland do not end there. Beyond creating sustainable employment and clean energy, wind power also generates opportunities for local regeneration and community empowerment. However, more can and should be done with community ownership of turbines actively encouraged whenever and wherever possible, so that more people and more communities can benefit from turbines in their area. In Cynonium North, many local initiatives have already benefited from the lease of wind farm community funds, such as they are. Since it became operational in June 2006, Dorae community wind farm has generated enough electricity per annum to power approximately 11,800 homes, displacing around 20,300 tonnes of carbon. In addition, it provides annual community benefit funding equivalent to £2,500 per megawatt of its installed capacity, totaling £45,000 per annum. By the time that the farm's 25-year operational period has come to an end, the local community will have benefited from over £1.13 million. However, if a £5,000 recommended amount per megawatt was spent in the local community in terms of our community benefits, that would be £2.26 million. Kilburn wind farm community fund, in my constituency, provides financial support to LARGS, Fairleigh and Cumbria, with a focus on projects that deliver social sustainability, environmental and energy efficiency. The board publishes annual reports on the value of grants made, the community groups to benefit and the nature of the projects, and that information is freely available. Other renewable sectors should also bring community benefits. At SSE, Hunterston, offshore turbine test site, £238,000 has been invested in its community funds since it began in 2013 with grants to 102 projects and Fairleigh alone. Those range from £3,000 for the primary parent council to fund a children's adventure trail, £2,340 to support their granite growers and £6,000 for the bowling club to help to refurbish their car park. Of course, not all areas of Scotland are suitable for wind farms, national and regional parks and other areas of outstanding national beauty, for example. However, Richard Lochhead's motion raises the important point that community benefit is spread unevenly across Scotland, and often communities do not see it in their locality, as Graeme Dey and others have touched on. In 2014, North Eastshire Council report revealed that communities receive only 20 per cent of the £5,000 that the Scottish Government recommends that developers invest per megawatt, with a maximum benefit paid by any wind turbine development, just £1,570 per megawatt. The ad hoc nature of contributions does not optimise resources for community projects. New onshore wind farms will not have access to UK Government subsidies and the Scottish Government cannot oblige payment of community benefits or determine how funds are spent. However, while developers are encouraged to follow the good practice principles set out in 2014, some communities and campaigners have called for more transparency and accountability about how funds are spent. A niece over transparency and auditing of actual developer contributions breeds hostility in mistrust of energy companies and may increase reluctance among residents to support future developments. If the local community has questions about the significant discrepancies between the reported community spend and the stated benefit per megawatt installed, they should be able to receive clarification and hold developers to account. I look forward to the steering group reviewing good practice principles report and the outcome of the formal consultation demand that I have taken this year. It is right that communities and industry stakeholders shape the process. It is vital that funds for community benefit are distributed fairly and prudently. A support of Scottish renewables calls for a flexible and holistic approach to community benefit packages re-emphasising the need for more transparency and accountability in the sector. I call Maurice Golden to be followed by Lewis MacDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We all understand how onshore wind has been used to deliver environmental benefits, helping to replace fossil fuels to the point where it counted for two thirds of our renewable electricity generation in the last quarter of 2017. However, coupled with environmental benefits, is the potential for huge economic gains, particularly at a local level. We can already see that in viral economic success in action. UK emissions are down by two thirds since 1990, while the British economy has increased by a third. In Scotland, emissions are down over 40 per cent since 1990, and renewables onshore wind in particular have provided significant economic benefits for our communities. For example, the motion notes how communities have already received millions of pounds from onshore wind projects this year alone. In addition, almost half of all British onshore wind jobs are in Scotland. Thousands of high-quality jobs will positively impact communities through increased spending and tax revenues. Scotland-wide, we benefited £1.5 billion in revenues from offshore wind in 2015. It is estimated that, over its lifetime, every turbine is worth more than £0.5 million to the Scottish economy and more than £100,000 to local economies. That is capitalism and environmentalism working hand in hand to protect our environment, create jobs and boost our economy. Mark Ruskell, on that basis, does he believe that there should be more onshore wind farms in Scotland and, if so, where? I think that there should be onshore wind farms where communities support them, and there is a compelling case to ensure that where local communities are advocating onshore wind, we should allow them to receive the benefit that onshore wind provides. Overall, as good as those numbers are, they are, in some ways, divorced from the practical day-to-day needs of people who are asking where their share of renewables boom is. It is a fair question, because not every community can easily access the rewards. Some communities, such as high-density urban areas such as Paisley, cannot easily accommodate wind farms and must settle for indirect benefits or rely on others to share the proceeds of their own projects. Communities might find themselves competing against one another or facing requirements to access funds such as the East Renfrewshire renewable energy fund, an important and welcome funding source but one that individual communities do not have full control of. Furthermore, cash payments are not the only socioeconomic benefit. For example, having to say in how projects are run might be of greater importance in particular areas. I recently raised the matter with the Minister for Business Innovation and Energy and I was encouraged that he recognised the importance because ensuring that everyone can benefit is key to maintaining wide support for further carbon reduction. Current support for renewables is overwhelmingly strong—79 per cent in a recent UK Government survey—but we risk wandering that good well if only some reap the rewards whilst others bear the costs. It is for those reasons that we are calling for the introduction of a renewable energy bond an opportunity to ensure that the rewards of our renewable future are distributed more evenly by pooling and sharing ownership. Just as we want every individual to feel they have a stake in the success of the country, so too do we want communities to have the same aspiration—something to work towards, invest in and empower themselves through. The task for all of us is to make sure that that actually happens. Before I call Mr McDonnell, who is the last contributor in the open debate, if we are going to allow the minister to respond at all, we will have to extend slightly. I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend this debate by up to 30 minutes. I would invite Richard Lochhead to move a motion without notice. The question is that the debate will be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? That is agreed and I am pleased that we want to hear from the minister. I thank Richard Lochhead for raising this debate on an issue that was topical when I was the responsible minister of consenting wind farms some 15 years ago and which is still topical today. As Neil Findlay said, the most direct community benefit now as then comes from community ownership, and the community trust in Aberdeenshire provides a very good example. The community trust in Aberdeenshire owns the local wind turbine, it supplies electricity to local homes and businesses, and it uses the proceeds to support local development and good causes. I have seen for myself the buy-in of local people from the farmer who owns the site to the volunteers who get together to decide where best to spend the revenues generated to benefit their local area. I am also familiar with the plans of a community enterprise on a larger scale in the Isle of Lewis, where the Stornoway Trust was one of Scotland's first community land owners as long ago as the 1920s. The trust is the landlord of crofts and common grazings across the parish of Stornoway and is now working on the Stornoway wind farm project, one of several consented major wind projects in Lewis, in this case in partnership with EDF. We have seen the vital role that renewable energy can play in community land buyouts, as Mark Ruskell referred to, from the hydroscheme on the River Don in Aberdeen to single wind turbines in islands like Gia and Eg. If communities having a share in ownership brings the most direct benefits, then the interconnector to take power from Lewis to the mainland will be an enabler of community benefits. It must be built with enough capacity to take power from projects that already have consent, like Stornoway, and to stimulate community-led projects across the islands by allowing them to sell their surplus power to the grid as well. Not every community enterprise can have ambitions on the scale of the Stornoway Trust, and that is where local authorities can also be vital enablers. Aberdeen's renewable energy group was set up by the City Council and helped to attract European Union funding. Now, the Swedish energy company Vattenfall has built on their work by deploying the world's largest wind turbines in Aberdeen Bay. They are due to be commissioned later this month, and I was delighted to be able to visit Scotland's newest wind farm just a few days ago. That is truly a scheme of scale, and it comes with community benefits to match. Vattenfall this week announced a £3 million scheme involving investment of £150,000 a year for the next 20 years. 10 per cent of that will be ring-fenced for communities nearest the point where the power comes ashore at Black Dog, while the rest will be open to bids from communities right across Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. Projects will have to demonstrate both community benefit and environmental sustainability, but clearly there is great potential there. It seems to me that all those wind projects in different ways point in the right direction. Farm scale and community-owned wind energy generation at small scale bring benefits to the whole of rural Scotland, as in the example of Adne and, indeed, others mentioned today. Scotland's islands, Orkney and Shetland and the Hebrides offer a whole new platform for both wind and marine renewables with community enterprise as one partner, as in the Isle of Lewis. However, they need the right connections to succeed, and I hope that the minister will agree with that. I agree that the Western Isles needs a 600 megawatt connection if it is to maximise the economic benefits to communities there from wind. Aberdeen has been the oil capital of Europe for 40 years and is now developing renewable energy on a European scale, with millions of pounds in benefits for local communities. We want more projects such as those. They need to have community benefit and support, adequate infrastructure and political backing. We want a diversity of co-operative and community enterprise and an active role for local councils, too. I hope, Presiding Officer, that that is the positive message that we will send from this debate today. I now call Paul Wheelhouse to respond to the debate for around seven minutes, please minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was worried that you were going to say that I'm going to have to use the half hour that you extended the debate by, but I would like to thank Richard Lochhead, as others have done, for securing this debate and what is a very important issue. I'm aware that, over the years, he has taken a keen interest in this issue and is active on this locally in his Murray constituency. Indeed, Mr Lochhead has corresponded with me on the matter a number of times. As colleagues across the chamber will not be surprised to hear, it's also an issue that I take particularly strong interest in, and we'll say more about that shortly. I'm pleased that the motion gained cross-party support. I think that that is important and it demonstrates that, broadly, we share a common view that communities across Scotland who live near onshore wind developments or, indeed, any renewable energy project should have the opportunity to share in the rewards from their local energy resource. Before I respond to members' contributions, I'd just like to set out what this Government has done and our plans for the future. It's important to emphasise that, due to the reservation of powers that are contained in the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Government has no direct powers to obliged developers to pay community benefits or determine how funds are spent. In the absence of clear powers, we have focused on developing a coherent and ambitious energy strategy for Scotland and driving new standards of good practice in community engagement and community benefit. The latter, in particular, has been effective in helping to transform industry practice in recent years, bringing transparency and openness into a system that I know some have viewed as being characterised, as being secretive and divisive. We may not be entirely there yet, but I hope that members will acknowledge progress that has been made. It is important to stress that community benefit payments remain a valuable source of income for local communities. Graham Day made that point in the context of declining leader funding in his area, and they are supporting a wide variety of projects, including health and wellbeing activities, training and student support and employment opportunities, which we have heard other examples given today by members across the chamber. In the past 12 months, we have focused on only those projects that are not wholly community-owned. Almost £15 million, or around £3,400 per megawatt per install capacity, has been given to local communities that have a direct link to renewable energy projects through hosting a commercial development. Those projects can make a real difference to communities and, in many cases, can be transformational. Of course, those payments will typically continue for each year of the project's lifetime. For example, last year, social housing providers such as Berkshire Housing Association in my home area of the Scottish Borders and more recently, Fine Homes in Argyll have developed projects that will invest in new social housing, while paying the community benefits to host communities in line with our good practice principles. I understand that, in the case of Berkshire Housing Association, its three-turbine fisherman three wind farm at Coburn's Path will generate £20 million of new revenue for Berkshire Housing Association to help to fund an additional 500 affordable homes over the 25-year lifetime of the site, while also meeting good practice principles on community benefit. The publication in 2014 of our good practice principles for community benefits from onshore renewable energy development has been critical to our success. The publication of the document has provided a benchmark for the sector and fairly quickly became an invaluable tool, particularly for those communities with little or no experience—a point that has been reflected by Neil Findlay and other members in the discussion. The Welsh and UK Government has also adopted the document for their own use. Scotland is very much leading the way across the UK in how we deliver renewable energy projects, ensuring that communities are front and centre. I welcome that developers and communities on the whole have adopted the good practice principles that have helped to increase trust and credibility. Richard Lochhead In light of the fact that no wind farms in my constituency pay anywhere near the national standard but not just that, there are solar farms now being built in my constituency, ironically by a company called Elgin Energy, which I think is based outside of Scotland, can he confirm that the principles and guidance apply to onshore renewables and not just onshore wind? Therefore, solar farms and other forms of energy should also be paying towards community benefits. Paul Wheelhouse That is certainly the intention. It started, as Mr Lochhead knows, in looking at projects that took place on government land, principally the Forestry Commission land, and seeking to ensure that good practice was maintained in terms of payments per megawatt and stalled capacity. I recognise the point that Mr Lochhead makes. Unfortunately, community benefit is not part of the material consideration of planning applications but in regard to the recent consent for the wind farm that he refers to. However, I believe that the relationship between developers and the local community is clearly critical to ensuring a positive experience and outcome for all parties. I acknowledge that there are examples of developers not adopting the good practice principles or that relationships between developers and communities are broken down. It often happens at the point of sale of a farm. I am aware of a number of examples where that has occurred, not least in the example that Mr Lochhead has given today. We clearly want to look at those issues in the context of the review that has been mentioned already. I am also aware that we clearly have to work hard to ensure that we can explain that sites that were developed prior to 2016 did not benefit from the policy being placed. It has really kicked in from 2016 with developers now taking the good practice on board. I am glad to say that most projects that we encounter reflect the good practice guidance from then on, but it is disappointing that we continue to recognise that the vast majority do follow the good practice principles, but there are others that do not. Looking to the future, I want to ensure that the next generation of onshore renewables, including onshore wind, continue this positive and valuable relationship with local communities. However, we must also accept that there has been a profound change in the support mechanism that Mark Ruskell referred to a couple of times. Investment conditions, particularly for onshore wind projects, are more challenging. Changes to UK Government policy over the past few years have resulted in greater uncertainty around funding a route to market. That has been highly frustrating to put it mildly. We continue to argue constructively that the UK Government should rethink that position and provide a price stabilisation mechanism to provide a route to market for the sector, as Mark Ruskell says, perhaps through contract for difference auction pot, which does not require subsidy and letting onshore wind compete to provide electricity at low prices. However, I want to stress that my expectation remains that developers should continue to offer meaningful community benefits. Richard Lochhead has summed that up, others such as Lewis MacDonald referred to community-owned projects as well. There are effectively three key players in those negotiations. The landowner, sometimes it is the community, also the developer of course, and the community that surrounds the site. We need to see a fair result for all three. Sometimes the community or the landowner and the immediately affected area, and that sometimes means that we maximise the benefits through community ownership. However, where there is a developer-led project, we need to see balance, and we need to see a fair allocation of the benefits to all three. Community benefits should continue to be an integral part of all new projects, but we recognise that it might be packaged differently. For example, there may be more shared ownership, which has been referred to by members. Last December, I published Scotland's energy strategy, an accompanying detailed onshore wind policies statement, which included a commitment to review our good practice principles during 2018. As I have mentioned in correspondence to Mr Locker, the time is right to undertake such a review. I am pleased to say that it is not my intention to make wholesale changes, but instead to enhance and amend some aspects to better reflect lessons learned and current and future investment conditions, and the process has started. Oh, why not? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. Will he agree in that context with me that, in order to enable the full filling of the potential of the islands of Scotland for both energy production and community benefit, we need adequate interconnection between the islands and the Scottish mainland? I wholly endorse that view. We believe a strong argument in the consultation on remote island wind, which thankfully was successful in seeing that technology included in the forthcoming contract for different pots, but we maintain that it is absolutely essential that all three island authority areas have the required island connections that they need, and I would endorse Mr McDonald's view on that. We have established a steering group, though. The process has started, as members have referred to. The membership comprises representatives from developers and, importantly, communities who will oversee the process, and I thank them all for their participation. To date, the group has met twice and has been reviewing feedback from a number of stakeholder workshops that have been held, with further workshops planned for later this month, and a former consultation on any proposed changes to good practice guidance is planned for later this year or early next year. To finish off, in reference to points raised by members, I would like to point out that, in terms of our planning aspirations, we have a target that, by 2020, at least half of newly consented renewable energy projects will have an element of shared ownership. We believe that shared ownership will play a key part in helping to meet our target of 1 gigawatts of community and locally-sourced energy by 2020 and 2 gigawatts by 2030. I am pleased to say that, as at June 2017, we are due to have updated figures in the near future, of course, progress to that target was 666 megawatts worth, so we are making good progress. There were points made around renewable energy bonds. I am happy to look at that. We raised that issue in the context of our own energy strategy, but I recognise Mr Golden's interest in that area. I think that he raised the point about the high degree of public support. Even in UK Government commission surveys of 79 per cent, that reflects even higher levels in Scotland, as he knows. I think that community benefit has played a large part in creating a more positive feel for onshore wind development in our country. I would like to close up by saying that, over the years, we have transformed our approach to community benefits. We are making the whole process more transparent by publishing national guidance. We have taken the effort to argue that that has been to benefit the industry as well as local communities. While it is not a material planning consideration, it has helped to build those levels of support. However, time is now right to take stock to ensure that our good practice principles remain fit for purpose as we embark on a new chapter for onshore renewable energy. There have been a number of issues raised today in the chamber that I am happy to ask the student group to look at in the course of their deliberations. However, let me conclude by reiterating that I am committed to ensuring that Scotland's communities continue to benefit from local renewable energy projects and to see a fair share of those benefits derived by communities. We will work with all interested parties to make that happen. Three concluding paragraphs later. That concludes the debate.