 Wells boxes and tenors in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. That's something that should be welcomed. The next site of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on Scotland's energy future, achieving security of supply and a balanced energy mix. The minister will take the questions at the end of his statement and those should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. Before I call the minister to members who were extremely tight with us for time all afternoon. I would like to update the chamber on recent developments relating to Llanet and its implications for the future of Scotland's electricity system. On Monday, National Grid announced its decision to award a contract for additional voltage support services in 2016-17 to SSC's Peterhead power station. I welcome the support for Peterhead. I understand that SSC is now progressing investment that will allow the station to operate more efficiently and flexibly going forward. Peterhead is key to efforts to prove the viability of carbon capture and storage, a technology with potential to unlock future low-carbon thermal generation in Scotland. For Llanet, however, National Grid's decision is negative. Scottish Power has stated that in all likelihood it will be forced to close Llanet prematurely in 2016. The consequences of that would be profound, both for direct and indirect employment, for Scottish co-production, for hopes of restoring former open-cast sites and ultimately for the balance and resilience of Scotland's electricity supply. Let me be clear, while the decision is one for the company to make, we in the Scottish Government are determined to continue to explore any options that may avert the premature closure of Llanet. We believe that the decision taken by National Grid and endorsed by the outgoing UK Government is flawed, and it fails to take account of serious flaws in the UK electricity supply system. My formal thoughts are for the 270 direct employees at Llanet and those affected within the related supply chain. This is a deeply worrying time for all of them whose livelihoods depend most heavily on Llanet. I met the leader and deputy leader of five council on 4 March and spoke again with Councillor David Ross earlier this week. We have agreed to work on a joint response. We will co-chair a meeting to co-ordinate our efforts, inviting input from Scottish Power, from workforce representatives and other key stakeholders. The Scottish Government-led partnership action for continuing employment, that is PACE, has contacted Scottish Power to outline the support on offer to affected employees. In addition, I will meet representatives of the STUC and the Llanet unions on Thursday. The Government and all our partners will strain every sinew to secure the best possible outcomes for all those affected and to mitigate the local and national economic impact if closure cannot be averted. The expected closure of Llanet will be felt throughout the supply chain, particularly in the coal sector. The Scottish coal industry has put forward proposals to the UK Government for restoration coal. That would introduce a carbon price support exemption for opencast coal sites. As well as addressing the environmental liabilities associated with unrestored opencast, restoration coal has the potential to reduce Llanet's running costs. The UK and Scottish Governments are committed to further joint work to implement the proposal, and I have written to the UK Treasury Minister, ex-checker Secretary Priti Patel, urging swift action. I now turn to the consequences of national grid's decision for the balance and resilience of Scotland's energy supply. A balanced mix of clean, thermal generation progressively fitted with CCS operating alongside renewables is and always has been this Government's objective. Scotland's comparative advantage in the generation of renewable electricity is huge, with 90 per cent of the UK's hydrocapacity, 25 per cent of the EU's offshore wind and tidal power potential and 10 per cent of its wave power potential. Renewables now supply almost half of Scotland's electricity consumption. To ignore that massive resource, to squander that economic opportunity of a lifetime would be utterly reckless. Some members opposite believe that the development of renewables has harmed the prospects of thermal stations. Those arguments are false. They might have carried some credibility if we were in a situation of healthy oversupply, but spare capacity in the GB system has fallen to as low as 2 per cent by next winter. The fact that we are even debating along and its future at exactly the point when the UK authorities have allowed energy security to dwindle so severely is a national scandal. The Scottish Government has pushed national grid to explain in detail the consequences of long-annots closure for Scotland's energy security and black start planning. We are still to receive the full details, despite two letters from the First Minister to the Prime Minister. I welcome national grid's recent commitment to publish a dedicated capacity assessment for Scotland, but surely that assessment is something that we should have had many years ago. We must reflect, too, on how we got to this point. The UK authorities have created an environment in which it is increasingly difficult to operate thermal plant in Scotland. Scotland exported 28 per cent of the power that we generated in 2013, and we want to continue delivering large amounts of electricity across these islands. However, our ability to do so is undermined by a UK framework that penalises Scottish generators and discourages investment. The location-based transmission charging methodology that was introduced to Scotland in 2005 under a Labour UK Government is the single and biggest and most pressing issue. There are, of course, other factors affecting the profitability of all coal-fired generation across Britain, but no other factor uniquely disadvantages long-annot. With 12 per cent of GB electricity generation, Scottish generators pay 35 per cent of the charges. Long-annot alone pays over £40 million annually to connect to the grid, while similar stations in England and Wales pay much less or may even be paid to connect. We are told that locational grid charging is designed to discourage the sighting of energy generation away from major population centres, yet it penalises Long-annot, which, of course, is close to the city of Edinburgh and all of central Scotland. Long-annot is charged £17.15 per kilowatt, while generators in Cornwall are paid £5.80 per kilowatt, and in Somerset, where Hinkley Sea will connect, they are paid £3.94 per kilowatt. We come to the nub of the problem. Scotland has an established policy towards its electricity generation, one that recognises the need to maintain a balanced mix of generation, but our efforts are frustrated by the UK Government's unwillingness to address Scottish issues properly. For example, the UK capacity market takes no account of location or flexibility provided by pumped storage. We no longer have a say over the revenue support for renewables under the contracts for difference scheme, even for Scottish-based projects. Our ability to meet our renewables' ambitions is severely restricted by the lack of clear and consistent commitments by the UK Government under the levy control framework. The UK Government has refused to address industry concerns regarding degression rates under the hydrofeed-in tariff. We have made some progress on securing a commitment for support for renewables on the Scottish islands, but no firm resolution as yet. Transmission charging is inhibiting the construction of new high-efficiency gas stations at Cackenzie, which I consented in 2011, whilst also restricting the output at Peterhead. Clearly, on a wide range of issues, we remain at the mercy of decisions taken in Westminster over which this Parliament and this Government have no control. I am Scotland's energy minister, but energy policy remains largely a reserved matter. The lack of power over key decisions on energy policy should concern all political parties in Scotland and should prompt some deeper reflection on the future of our energy system. There will be opportunities to review the landscape for energy policy post May, but our immediate priority—ideally supported by a show of unity across this chamber—must be to avert the premature closure of Long Anit. The minister will now take questions raised in his statement. I intend to allow around about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to next business. Members wish to ask a question of the minister. I should press the request speak button now. I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The minister says that he would like cross-party support for his immediate priority to avert the premature closure of Long Anit. Unfortunately, he has not told us how he intends to achieve that end. If plan A was to lobby national grid to award its voltage control contract for 2016-17 to Long Anit rather than to Peterhead, that plan A clearly failed. However, what is the minister's plan B? Mr Ewing has talked about the impact of locational charging on the transmission system. He will, of course, know that Peterhead is further north and also faces transmission charges at a higher scale. He has also known for years—and Iberdrola, who owns Scottish Power, has known for years—about transmission charges. Iberdrola clearly decided some time ago not to make the investment that is required for Long Anit to conform to European regulatory requirements to stay open beyond 2020. That is a commercial decision that is entitled to make, but the minister has known about that, too. While he may wish to make wider points in the chamber today, what the workforce at Long Anit wants to hear is whether there is a plan B, if so, what it is and when he is going to share any such strategy with those most directly affected by that decision. The minister has had years to work with other stakeholders on preparing for the time unabated coal generation at Long Anit would no longer be possible, albeit that time has now been brought forward. Can he tell us today what those plans are so that the workforce at Long Anit is not left in the dark any longer? Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government is determined to explore every opportunity to avert the premature closure of Long Anit. We are very pleased that, in that regard, we will be working alongside the prospect union, who also have urged that all politicians support this aim and carry out this work. Gary Graham of the prospect union said, we will be asking for all Scottish politicians to work together, and politicians north and south to the border, to ensure that there is a future for Long Anit. Councillor David Ross, to whom I alluded, the leader of Fife Council, with whom I have worked on many matters, says that we still believe that there is a sustainable future in the long term for Long Anit. If the local authority believes that we should work together across the chamber to seek to achieve that objective, I hope that the Labour Party will join in that campaign. Mr MacDonald asked a reasonable point about the plan B. The plan B is to persuade national grid, who are in charge of systems operation, as those who heard their evidence recently in the EET will well know, to use their extensive powers and their enormous budget, which I believe is in the order of £1 billion, to make the relatively modest commitment to Long Anit that would be required to tackle the higher transmission costs with which they are burdened. I hope that, in that campaign, we will gain the clear support of the Labour Party. Moreover, we have an opportunity post May with an incoming administration in Westminster to take a different approach towards safeguarding energy security of supply in those islands. There are a wide range of expert commentators and experts who have informed our view and given us their evidence to the Scottish Government that believe that the assumptions that national grid makes about security of supply in the UK are extremely optimistic. Their winter statement, for example, assumes that 90 per cent of some thermal generation stations will continue to operate. Many of those who operate stations do not share that optimism. Moreover, there is another imminent factor that is that tech will be given up by many companies over the coming weeks. That means that it is correct for there to be a reappraisal by national grid. When I met Mike Calviw last Thursday in London, he confirmed that it is perfectly possible for other alternative arrangements to be made. There is absolutely not a shadow of doubt that it is perfectly possible for Longannate to continue to do the excellent job for Scotland for several years yet. What is in doubt, Presiding Officer, is whether there is a clear cross-party consensus and political will to set our common weight behind that task. I thank the minister for advanced sight of his statement. As a Fife representative, I am very much aware of the impact that Longannate's early closure would have on the local economy. Our first priority must be to support those whose jobs are at risk. I welcome the measures that are set out today in the minister's statement. However, we know from Scottish power that transmission charges were not the only issue that forced the closure of Longannate. As Lewis MacDonald said, the Peterhead station pays higher charges than Longannate, but there is no proposal to close it. Despite the minister's assertions, it is beyond doubt that the over-provision of electricity supply in Scotland today has contributed to higher charges. What the current locational transmission system does is that it protects consumers, particularly in the north of Scotland, from higher bills, while consumers in London and the south-east pay more. What exactly is the Scottish Government proposing as an alternative and how much more will Scottish consumers pay as a result? Does not this whole episode expose, once again, the utter failure of SNP energy policy? They are anti-fracking, anti-nuclear and obsessed with wind power. As a result, we face a loss of 55 per cent of our generating capacity in eight years. Energy-rich Scotland will be importing power from England in order to keep the lights on. Surely now, in the face of all this evidence, it is time for a new approach to energy from this Government. Mr Fraser said that he is based in Fife. Perhaps that is why he seems to be unaware that people who live further north in Scotland pay higher electricity bills, not lower, as he suggested. That will come as something of a surprise to those who, like ourselves, are working hard to reduce the burden of extra cost in the north of Scotland. A burden that exists in the case of Mr Fraser does not know substantially, because the cost per head of distribution system is around £112—far more than the transmission system. I guess that, if he checked his fax on that, he might just arrive at better conclusions. I am disappointed with Mr Fraser, because, on 17 February, his view at that time was, as quoted on BBC Radio Scotland News Drive, with regard to the transmission charges, the £40 million penalty for operating in Scotland. He said, this does discriminate against Longanett, and that is a matter of concern for me. Moreover, it disappoints me for a second reason, because Mr Fraser is never slow to challenge the Scottish Government when he feels that any other form of costs facing business are higher in north of the border than south. However, for some strange reason, when it comes to electricity generation and even when the fax clearly demonstrates that Longanett, despite the shaking heads of the Conservatives, faces £40 million transmission charges, whereas coal generating stations down in England get paid to contribute to the grid, they say nothing about it. Could that be because their bosses, based in London, do not allow them to stand up for Scotland? Is that it? Is that it, Presiding Officer? Perhaps Mr Fraser might want to reflect on public opinion in Scotland. 71 per cent support wind, and nearly 10 per cent support the Conservative Party. We have very little time this afternoon, so can I ask that the remaining questions are brief? Rob Gibson followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Succesive UK Government, the policy makers of the UK electricity market and the UK national grid pose a twin threat to my constituents and those all over Scotland. To energy producers and consumers, which is a double whammy, dear grid access charges and dear electricity for consumers, the further north you live in the UK, is the minister aware of the continuing concerns in the European Union about discrimination against energy producers by national grid, which has led to the early closure and huge job losses, potentially at long anit, and which also holds back the development of renewables in our part of the United Kingdom. Briefly, minister. Well, yes, I am. Indeed, he mentions that Europe and Commissioner Otenger, when he visited Scotland, expressed the view that, with our success in renewables, we would, with increasing interconnections such as NorthConnect, such as the ALS project, have the capacity to be a European reserve for electricity. So it does appear that we have support from Brussels. What we now need is a little bit of positive support from London. Jackie Baillie followed by Chick Brody. Can I say to the minister that we are absolutely happy to work together and do everything in our power to sustain high-quality jobs, but we need to see a plan? Despite a four-minute answer, I am no clearer about his proposal. That is not about transmission charges and simply blaming that as the only issue is no substitute for having a plan. So can I ask him again, what is the minister's plan? Well, of course it is because of the higher costs, and Scottish Power has set this out extremely clearly. Scottish Power has, incidentally, and I think that it should be a matter of record, invested £348 million in its plan. There have been attacks on that company from the Labour Party. I think that those attacks are outrageous, and I think that it is a matter of record that this company has invested very substantially to deal with tackling the admissions and in support of their plan and continue so to do. As I have already stated, and perhaps Jackie Baillie was not ingesting what I said, National Grid itself has said that, when I met them last week, and this was Mike Calviw in London, it is perfectly possible that other arrangements can be made just as the contract was issued this week. Moreover, if, as many experts who advise us to believe that the margin of 2 per cent is parless, they will have to make other measures in order to protect security of supply For example, Sir John Armouth, who advises the Labour Party, said, we are very close to being in a crisis when it comes to energy. I have many more experts to quote, but it appears that the Labour Party do not agree even with their own experts who give them advice. Chuck Brodie, followed by Willie Rennie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is a bad decision. I welcome the minister's comment on his speech on recost reduction proposals with restoration coal, but if the proposal on cost reduction is rejected, I ask him what the unemployment impact may be of the proposed closure of long anit on the supply chain to long anit, particularly of the raw material of coal in Ayrshire, and how can we enhance job opportunities through an accelerated balance mix of energy supply sources? I am working with the members of the Labour and Conservative Party in order to pursue opportunities that Chuck Brodie rightly describes. The work that we have done in the open task force most recently on 16 March is to achieve this end. We want restoration coal, we want long anit to be able to continue to be a market for that coal, and we believe that that will allow restoration of the mines in Scotland—a terrific objective and one that we share. What I think we need, Presiding Officer, to answer Mr Brodie's question, is full support from the Labour and Conservative parties to our aim to avert the premature closure of long anit, along with, of course, the Liberals, perhaps from whom we are about to hear. Can I thank the energy minister for an advanced copy of his statement? When I represented West Fife in the House of Commons, I repeatedly made the case for the plant to receive extra Government support for CCS and other low-emission measures. It is a sad day for me that this has come about, but it was one that was known that it would come once the finances for CCS did not stack up. It was clear that it was not a matter of when, but if. The priorities now should be to look after the workforce and to give them certainty, but also to have constructive discussions with the UK Government and the energy network about the sustainable energy mix in Scotland. However, as this issue is not being raised—one final matter—are there consequences for the Stirling, Alloa and Concardin railway line, which was built to supply the long anit power station? Are there going to be some consequences for that as well? I am sure that Mr Brown will respond specifically to that, but, plainly, a lot of money has been invested in that line on the basis of the long anit's requirements. Of course, there are passenger services to Alloa as well. I hope that, from the statement and the answers today, we can all pledge to do what we can to avert the premature closure of long anit. That was an objective that I thought was one around which we could unite. It would be extremely sad for Scotland and for the huge number of people who believe that long anit has done, as it has done, a great job for Scotland and that it is necessary for several years yet if it could not enjoy cross-party support, at least from the major parties on this matter. I now have less than five minutes to get through a number of speakers, so please keep them very brief. Kenneth Gibson, Cara Hilton. The minister mentioned in his statement those affected within the related supply chain. What assessment has he made of the impact of the closure of long anit on the coal supply chain and, in particular, Hunterston terminal, the Clyde port facility that operates coal handling located in my constituency? The impact would be substantial. I can advise Mr Gibson, for example, that the estimated yield of restoration coal, were that to go ahead, would be 5 million tonnes in aggregate. That plainly would serve to sustain the supply chain in his constituency and other parts of Scotland. There is more work to be done to consider what the impacts of the closure of long anit were that to occur would be. We will work closely with the existing task forces and the council to that end, but we would far prefer to avert that closure if we possibly can, and it is to that objective that our efforts are directed. Cara Hilton, followed by Patrick Harvie. As the constituency member for long anit this week's announcement has obviously been a bitter blow for the constituents that I represent. I, too, want to see every single option explored to keep long anit open, given that 270 jobs are directly at threat and up to 1,000 more jobs are at risk throughout the supply chain and independent businesses in the local economy. Will the minister back my call and the call made by Councillor David Ross, the leader of Fife Council, for a task force to be set up immediately to develop an action plan to protect the local community, to build up its resilience, to promote regeneration and to ensure that Concardin and West Fife are protected against the worst effects of a potential early closure of the site? The best way, if I may say so, with respect to the member, to protect her constituents and others throughout the country is to prevent the premature closure of long anit. That is an objective that does not appear to be getting explicit support, sadly, from the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats. I do not think that we are in any doubt what Mr Harvie is going to say in a minute. Yes, of course, if it is necessary, we will appoint any force that is necessary to tackle the consequences of closure. Indeed, I have already agreed with Councillor Ross to co-chair a meeting bringing all stakeholders together. PACE is already in. It is already consulting Scottish power, but there are 12 months yet where it is to close. Most task forces are appointed after closure or after redundancies. The task before us is to do everything that we possibly can to prevent that eventuality from occurring. However, of course, we work extremely closely with the council leadership and executive officers in Fife, and we will continue to explore with them everything possible that we can do in the interim. Patrick Harvie, followed by Nigel Dawn. I would be happy to see the Government pursue any work to explore alternative economic future for the local area, something that should have been the priority for years, rather than kidding people on that coal has a long-term future to it in this country. Does the minister acknowledge that, even once Longanna is gone, Scotland will be a net exporter of electricity due to the growth of renewables? Shouldn't that be the focus in terms of our energy policy and make sure that the economic priorities are for alternatives for the community? We are a net exporter. Last year, we exported 28 per cent of energy of our electricity generated from Scotland. We are and have been pursuing working with Fife Council, I may say, other opportunities for economic regeneration in Fife. The premise that Mr Harvie puts forward that we haven't been doing that is complete nonsense. Just a couple of weeks ago, for example, after about a decade of work, I was honoured to conduct the opening ceremony at the Markinsh plant, the new biomass plant, £300 million investment to which we contributed and which also sustains the future of Tullis Russell. A couple of weeks ago, I visited St Andrews and have been visiting tourism businesses in Fife. Of course, we continue to explore all avenues for economic regeneration, including in the energy field, the oil and gas field, which Mr Harvie disapproves of, and all other fields. It's a disappointment, Presiding Officer, that we haven't had explicit support for keeping Longanna open for the next several years, which is something that people out with this chamber strongly believe should happen. Nigel Dawn, followed by Alex Rowley. I understand the First Minister right to the Prime Minister last month asking for a review of electricity supply and security of supply. I'm wondering whether we've had a reply yet, please. Mr Dawn is correct that the First Minister following a meeting of the Energy Advisory Board where the national grid was present and was involved in discussions, the First Minister expressed severe concerns to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister replied, rejecting those concerns, stating that he backed national grid and he has refused, therefore, to intervene. However, post May, the outgoing Government may be replaced by another one, another one with a stronger Scottish voice in Westminster and one there where there will be an entirely different way in which Scotland's needs can be taken forward. Presiding Officer, can the minister confirm that current moratorium on fracking, which excludes underground coal gasification, was not in any way connected to a future plan for our consideration to diversify Longanna to a UCG plan when the original closure timescale of 2020 was reached? Can he confirm that neither he nor Scottish Government officials have had any discussions with INEOS or other parties regarding the use of Longanna as a potential UCG facility? I can confirm that I have been involved in no discussions regarding those matters. That ends the statement from the minister. The next item of business is a debate on motion 12776, in the name of Jackie Baillie on support in Scotland's economy.