 i gael. They key issue now is to identify the cause to minimise the risk that it happens again. I thank you. The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on the future of onshore wind as part of Scotland's balanced energy mix. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I will give a few moments for the minister to get settled. In the meantime, members who would wish to ask a question of the minister should perhaps press the request-to-speak button now, and I call on Fergus Ewing, Mr Ewing, around 10 minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful for your assistance and that of your office in scheduling the session at short notice. My statement concerns the proposal of the Conservative Government to halt new subsidies for onshore wind developments under the renewables obligation. Although the abrupt and early curtailment of the renewables obligation will have serious implications for people right across the United Kingdom, the economic and supply chain impacts are concentrated heavily in Scotland. Around 70 per cent of all onshore wind projects in planning across the UK, the projects at risk, are located in Scotland. Last Thursday, Amber Rudd, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change lodged a written parliamentary statement in the House of Commons proposing to end new subsidies for onshore wind, specifically in relation to the renewables obligation. Ms Rudd confirmed this in her oral statement at Westminster yesterday. Primary legislation will be introduced to close the RO from 1 April next year, a year earlier than the industry and community developers had been led to expect. The future of other support schemes for onshore wind contracts for difference and feed-in tariffs, the latter applying to smaller schemes, is unclear. However, the energy secretary has asserted that the UK has enough onshore wind to meet the Government's renewable energy commitments. I appreciate the Conservatives made a manifesto pledge to end new subsidies for onshore wind farms. However, that gave no notice to investors and developers that existing subsidies would be cut short. Developers have invested very substantial sums on the understanding that the RO is an existing scheme and not new subsidy, and also on the basis of a clearly stated UK Government policy to ensure a smooth transition from RO to contracts for difference. The Scottish Government's view is that the planned transition policy should be maintained consistent with the aim of moving onshore wind to a position of grid parity, that is ending the requirement for subsidy by around the end of the current decade. Any other course gives rise to harmful uncertainty, undermines the UK's reputation with investors and risks wider consequences for investment far beyond the renewables sector. That argument, coupled with the fact that onshore wind is already the lowest-cost large-scale option, and hence on any rational analysis, should be the last to be scrapped, must surely expose the Scottish and UK taxpayer to serious risk of judicial review at the instance of companies or indeed communities impacted. There can be no doubt that the move to close the RO prematurely will harm investment and jobs. There can be no doubt that it will damage severely the prospects of community energy schemes. In addition, ultimately, it risks increasing the consumer cost of meeting renewable energy targets. A large number of projects face being guilliteened and losing the sunk investment in consequence. With Ofgem predicting derated capacity margins falling to as low as 2 per cent this winter, to scupper any planned generation capacity is surely short-sighted. The key impacts will fall into four categories. First, consumers, secondly, communities, third companies and, fourthly, our renewable energy goals. Consumers will pay the price in their energy bills. Onshore wind is the cheapest large-scale source of renewable electricity, a fact admitted by Amber Rudd in her Radio 4 interview last week. Replacing onshore wind with more expensive technologies could cost consumers £2 billion to £3 billion more. That is the clear warning from Keith Anderson of Scottish Power. In relation to the impact on individuals and households, many communities will suffer. Communities plan to develop their own local schemes, and those in line to gain from community benefit payments will lose from the early closure of the RO. In the last 12 months, communities across Scotland received nearly £9 million from community benefit payments. Further community income streams could be lost. For example, REs, renewable energy systems, estimate that up to £46 million of community benefit could be lost in addition to the revenue from local construction and business rates. Falk renewables wind has three projects that risk from early closure of the RO. Those are only two of the many commercial companies that have made clear the commercial damage that this decision is going to cause. If their projects Falk are not completed, £10.4 million will be lost to the local community, and 11 communities will lose out on the opportunity to invest in co-operative investment schemes. The third impact hits companies investing in Scotland. According to Scottish Renewables, up to £3 billion worth of onshore wind projects and over 5,000 jobs are at risk. Let me just repeat that. £3 billion of onshore wind projects in Scotland and over 5,000 jobs are at risk. I do not think that this is a matter for jocularity, despite the Conservatives' laughter. The impacts reverberate across the wider supply chain, including ports and harbours, transmission and distribution, consultancy, universities and the civil engineering sector, to name but a few. The CBI has warned, and I quote, that this sends a worrying signal about the stability of the UK's energy policy framework and could damage our reputation as a good place to invest in energy infrastructure. Above all else, investors value certainty while sudden changes undermine trust and deter investment. Finally, RO closures raised serious questions about the deliverability of the UK's 2020 renewable energy target. The target is to meet 15 per cent of total energy needs from renewable sources by 2020, well below the EU's overall aim of 20 per cent. The latest outturn figures for 2013-14 show that the UK achieved just 5.4 per cent, barely a third of the target to meet. Last week, the European Commission published a progress report that identified the UK among a group of companies needing to reflect on whether their policies and tools are sufficient and effective in meeting their renewable energy objectives. As climate change secretary and the person who will represent the UK in the crucial UN climate change talks in Paris in December, Amber Rudd must not ignore the major contribution that onshore wind can make to compensate for slow progress in other areas such as heat and transport, yet her first act in the new government is to cut green energy provisions, setting a terrible example to the rest of the world. The UK Government is minded to offer grace periods to projects that possess a planning consent, a grid connection agreement, as well as evidence of land rights, as of the date of Ms Rudd's statement to Parliament, namely 18 June. I have put to Amber Rudd that affording reasonable protection to developers would suggest that grace periods should offer as much flexibility as possible and apply to projects in all stages of planning. That is not my preferred course, but it would at least limit the damage caused. The Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell MP, speaking on the BBC's Sunday politics show, indicated that the grace period will apply when, and I quote, there is any prospect of a grid connection being delivered. We welcome that change in the UK Government's position, and we will be looking for that to be extended further. In conclusion, after several years of uncertainty for the industry whilst electricity market reform was being devised, there was a fleeting period of relative stability. Once again, uncertainty shrouds the entire sector. Our concern is not limited to early closure of the RO. Industry has been clear that longer-term targets and commitments are fundamental to maintaining investment. It is crucial therefore that the UK Government provides early information on the future of contracts for difference, including the date of the next allocation round and the level of budget assigned. In conclusion, I call on the UK Government to provide the clarity required on long-term policy for renewables and limit the damage to investment in Scotland. Onshore wind is the least expensive source of renewable electricity and to ignore the massive resource available from Scotland and squander the huge economic benefits for consumers, communities and companies is utter folly. The minister will now take questions on issues raised in his statement. I need to finish at 250, so I would appreciate members' co-operation. Lewis MacDonald, then Murdo Fraser. Thank you very much. I thank the minister for advance copy of his statement. Last week's announcement by the Conservative Government at Westminster clearly is bad for jobs, bad for investment and bad for the environment, and it will end up costing consumers more. We deplore the bad decision that the UK Government has made. We also want to hear today what the Scottish Government intends to do to address the impacts of the early ending of support for onshore wind across the UK. Given the number of jobs that are risk-identified by Scottish renewables, can the minister tell us what steps the Scottish Government will take to strengthen the skills base in the sector and to ensure that as many jobs as possible and skills are protected for the future? The Conservative Government appears to be totally confused as to its own policy on a grace period for planned projects. Can the minister tell us today what discussions his officials have had to date on implementation of a grace period with the Department for Energy and Climate Change and what illumination he has received from that direction? Of course, bad policy from another Government should not undermine progress towards the renewable energy targets set in Scotland with broad cross-party support. What steps will the Scottish Government now take to bring forward deployment of solar PV and other forms of low-carbon electricity generation to meet the gap left by the UK Government's misguided approach to onshore wind? Finally, will the minister examine the impact on consumers of those proposals and of the alternatives that are available, and will he report to Parliament on that as soon as possible in the autumn? Yes, I will certainly update Parliament in the autumn. Lewis MacDonald is absolutely right that the jobs and skills are essential. My very first engagement in this portfolio, Minister, was in the Kingdom of Fife in the opening of a course for young people to acquire skills and renewable energy. Those courses have been replicated in Dumfries, in Aire, in Inverness and throughout the country because we expected that there would be a continued consistent policy support for the industry from the UK who said that they would be in 213 when they reviewed the rocks and said that the system would continue until 217 before abruptly lifting the commercial carpet from a group of investors. The grace periods I myself have had discussions with Amber Rudd, as I stated, and I argued that we should take a broad interpretation of that. I was pleased that David Mundell on television said clearly that those projects with the prospect of a grid connection should qualify. That is very important, because in parts of the Highlands, for example, and many other parts of Scotland, grid connections are just not available at the current time, and therefore there needs to be a recognition of that. So far as other forms of energy are concerned, of course, we continue to support solar as mentioned, as well as biomass. Hydro, of course, and we have very substantial capacity in hydro anaerobic digestion and, of course, tidal wave energy Scotland and the work in the tidal sector. I think that it is reasonable to say that we have been fairly consistent in supporting renewable energy across the board. That will continue in response to Lewis MacDonald's question, but the last point that I make is that he asks, well, what will we do to fill the gap and the damage caused by this UK decision? I would far prefer to try to persuade the UK Government to ameliorate the announcement that it has made, so that at least there is damage mitigation. I will be meeting Amber Rudd tomorrow and I will be arguing that point very strongly, Presiding Officer, because I do believe that the UK Government simply does not understand the consequences of what it has done. Can I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement? Communities across Scotland have been delighted by a UK Conservative Government standing up for their interests in contrast to a central-belt SNP administration in Edinburgh, which has done nothing to assist them over the past eight years. The minister makes extravagant claims about the damage to the economy and job losses as a result of this move, but is this not exactly the scaremongering that we heard from the minister and his backbench colleagues when the previous Government reduced the subsidies for solar PV installations? At that time, we heard dire warnings of job losses and business closures, but the solar industry today is stronger than it has ever been. The minister has been caught crying wolf once before. Why should we believe him this time? Secondly, can the minister confirm whether the Fergus Ewing delivering the statement to us today is the same Fergus Ewing, who in 2007 railed against the then Scottish Executive and the then Energy Minister for the overdevelopment of onshore wind and is quoted in the Strasby and Badenock Herald as saying that the SNP believes that many other forms of renewable energy are the future, not unconstrained wind farms? Won't communities across Scotland be right to draw a contrast between a Conservative Party, which in opposition promises to act on the overdevelopment of onshore wind and the Government delivers on its promises and the SNP, which in opposition promises to do one thing, but in government does exactly the opposite? I have never argued in favour that there should be unconstrained development of onshore wind. Order. We didn't get many facts from Mr Fraser, so perhaps I should introduce one or two. There have been 68, 36 onshore wind applications, 65 per cent have been consented and 22 per cent rejected, 13 per cent withdrawn. We have considered each application as we are required to do as ministers of the Scottish Government strictly on their merits. We have in addition addressed the shortcomings of the previous policy, to which I have alluded in previous remarks, by increasing community benefit. When Alan Wilson was the Minister for Energy, I suggested to him that we should increase the community benefit so that communities would gain. Do you know what he said, Presiding Officer? If we did that, we would risk all the development going to Wales. Well, we have done it. We have increased the community benefit sort to £5,000 a megawatt, £10,000 for community schemes and above all, we think that communities should have a stake and ownership stake in matters. Of course, we have tightened up the designations in relation to impact questions, re-cumulative impact guidance and the designation of wild land. Of course, I was never in favour of unconstrained development. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that to the satisfaction of every reasonable person in the chamber. The rest of Mr Fraser's remarks were of somewhat of a political nature, but could I just finish by saying a bit gently to the Conservatives that the stance that they appear to take in their front bench of total opposition to wind power does not, with all respect, appear to be one that is followed in practice by some of their members, because there are three camps in the Tories, the Scottish Tories at least. There are those who support onshore wind, there are those who are against and then there are some who are one of their own. Can I just remind members that I need a brief question and a brief answer? Rob Gibson fall by Sarah Boyack. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I represent areas in the north where the human communities are the most endangered species and fully support onshore wind and where they know that Scotland's renewable electricity has displaced 11.9 megatons of CO2 equivalent in 2013. Can the minister offer any further information on the impact of the decision to end onshore wind farm subsidies that will have on Scotland's ability to meet its climate change targets that are underpinned by renewable targets? I think that it will make it challenging, as I have already said, for obvious reasons to meet the 220 target of renewables of delivering 100 per cent of green energy by 2020. This is particularly disappointing because we effectively met our interim target of 50 per cent by 2014 a year ahead of schedule. I emphasise our support for a broad range of renewable energy sources of generation, including hydro, which was at a record high level of up to 26 per cent. The last point that I make in response to Rob Gibson is that the mystery is how the UK Government can square the decision that they have taken, perverse and foolish decision, with extremely damaging consequences, with the commitment in their manifesto to achieving climate change targets? How on earth can they square that circle? We do not believe that it is possible. Sarah Boyack, followed by Liam McArthur. Given the importance of renewables to meeting our climate change targets, it stands out as a key driver of green jobs in Scotland. What assistance can the Scottish Government offer the industry, given the importance of this investment across the whole of the country, and the huge uncertainty where companies who have been investing in good faith now face a huge uncertainty in terms of their future investment? What practical steps can the minister take to secure those green jobs and to secure that green electricity? First of all, those benches are happy to work with the Labour Party on this issue both here and in Westminster to see what can be done to ameliorate an appallingly bad decision. Indeed, it is an irrational decision. The one thing that the minister should not do, Presiding Officer, is to make irrational decisions, because the Wensbury test says that if you do so, then you may well face judicial review. Why is it irrational? Because they have cut the subsidies for the least expensive method of generating renewable electricity, that is irrational. What can we do to help companies? In the short term, Presiding Officer, I will be repeating the call to improve the grace period provision, but, secondly, and most important of all perhaps, is that unless companies in this area of business know whether or not there will be any provision in the contracts for difference for onshore wind, there is simply no route to market. They have spent millions of pounds on schemes, and there is no route to market. The UK Government has not said when they will end the confusion that they have generated by their announcement by explaining what their CFD plans will be. However, in direct response to Sarah Boyack's question, the best thing that all of us can do is demand that the UK climate change and energy secretary end that confusion by announcing what provision she will make in contracts for difference for onshore wind. Otherwise, there are many companies—a great deal of whom I addressed this morning at a conference of onshore wind developers—who may simply close up shop and take their investment to other countries in Europe. I have eight members who wish to ask a question. I have less than eight minutes left of the statement period. Liam McArthur, followed by Dave Thompson. I thank the minister for the early sight of his statement in Rio heartedly with his verdict. The decision is bad for our consumers, communities and companies, including many in my constituency. Does he agree that the lack of prior consultation and clarity even now about the details of what this decision will mean in terms of grace periods and so on is damaging future confidence, not simply in onshore wind but also in the wider sector, including marine renewables and the wider supply chain? From his experience, would he care to contrast the progressive approach and commitment to renewables that my colleague and the former energy secretary, Ed Davie, and the other reckless and short-sighted attitude of this current Conservative Government? I have always said that Ed Davie and I did work together, for example, delivering the connections to the islands. In that particular regard, since he raised the issue, I say that he is absolutely right that the decision that was announced by the UK Government will make it more difficult to raise the investment required in all areas for renewables for the simple fact that bankers and commercial companies, when they see a Government, the UK Government in this case, acting irrationally, curtailing incentives a year before they promised, those bankers and those investors will think what is going to be next. Therefore, I am seriously concerned that although the previous UK Government with Ed Davie minister did commit, it was welcome to a remote island CFD and obtaining state aid clearance and announcing the CFD incidentally in July, a timetable to which Allen Sykes and others are committed at Viking, for example, and it is also important in Orkney and the Western Isles. It now looks to me as if the delivery of connections to the islands will, by virtue of the impacts of the decision, be made much more difficult. The smiles are going off their faces now, Presiding Officer. Perhaps the penny is beginning to drop about what they have done. Does the minister have an update on how the recent changes on the onshore windfarm subsidies will affect the consented Glen Olinish windfarm development in Skye? In my constituency, a development that has massive public support right around the whole community and which will have great benefits to Skye. Does he have any concerns about support for pumped storage? I do have concerns for the progress of pumped storage because the last UK Government failed to engage with us in advancing pumped storage. We have two existing facilities, but we also have one consented in the Great Glen and another at Crookin between them, around about 1.2 gigawatts, and we believe that that should play a part. Of course, it counteracts the stochastic nature of wind energy. Regarding the first question that he raised, Presiding Officer, I have been contacted by the director of Kilmack, which is taking forward the Glen Olinish scheme. My information is that a number of local crofters were due to benefit from the lease. I should also say that the Scottish Government may benefit as well just for the sake of transparency because of our interests in the land, but this is one of many, many schemes that Mr Thomson will be aware of in the West Highlands in Argyll, in Dumfries, in Aberdeenshire. Many, many schemes where communities have an interest, but the guillotine has been brought down by what appears to me to be a perverse and irrational decision by the UK Government, taking for the interests of placating their gentlemen from the shires and taking it on the basis of, if that is not an over-polite way of framing it, taking in other words, Presiding Officer, for political reasons rather than reasons of good governance. Can I just say to members that I want a brief question, one question called your being wish, followed by Mike Mackenzie. Thank you Presiding Officer. Does the minister agree with me that many of the communities that will now be struggling are actually in rural isolation and some of them have already been subjected to opencast restoration challenges and are trying to do their best to develop sustainably? Can he outline what action the Scottish Government can take to help to support those communities who find themselves left high and dry by an ill-fought out Tory decision? We will continue to support communities who wish to gain from the resources in their parts of Scotland by helping them by investment from the Renewable Energy Investment Fund, the local energy investment fund, which is designed to stimulate investments and provide for the difficulty of finalising projects in time by investing the money and then offering communities a stake. We will also continue with the care scheme, which provides advice. We will continue with local energy Scotland, who have excellent people who spend their time visiting communities and listening to them and helping them navigate issues such as grid connections and planning permission with which members of communities may have had zero experience. We will help them in all of these ways, but at the end of the day, if the policy support is not there from the UK Government, then I anticipate that a great many of those communities around Scotland will face the Tory guillotine that was announced this week. The minister has suggested that the early withdrawal of the Renewable Obligations for Onshore Wind has knock-on effects for other sectors. Does he agree with me that the uncertainty caused has serious and negative consequences for other renewable technologies, such as wave and tidal power? Yes, and not least for the very obvious fact, at least obvious to those of us who have spent hundreds of hours meeting the companies, that many of the companies that have the onshore schemes that are now guillotined are offshore wind developers. They have been planning to do the onshore projects prior to taking part and delivering the execution of offshore projects. Now they find themselves perhaps with little or nothing to do in the UK. Perhaps, like one of them that I spoke to on Friday in Inverness at a meeting chaired by the local chamber of commerce, they may already be contemplating switching their investment to countries such as Sweden. What is essential, Presiding Officer, is that the UK ends this uncertainty by bringing forward clarity on contracts for difference for wind projects. If they fail to do that by the end of this Westminster parliamentary session, then I fear the worst. The virus of lack of confidence in investors is contagious and goes to other sectors, including offshore and other areas of renewables. How can they rely on the UK Government's promises that there will be incentives that will last for a certain period when they come along without notice, without consultation and abruptly bring that to a halt? They can't. That is the way that both investors and banks behave, as I thought the Conservatives understood. Isn't it clear that if this decision, which the minister rightly describes as irrational, is successful in its goal of undermining the onshore wind industry, other sectors of the Scottish economy are going to have to work much harder if we are ever going to reach our climate change targets? Will he initiate a discussion with colleagues to discuss how much more can be done from the heat and transport sectors, for example, if we are going to restore our trajectory on the climate change targets? We have ambitious targets on heat to take 40,000 houses into district heating, for example. We have a heat map and a plan in that regard, as Mr Harvey knows. My colleague, Derek Mackay, is taking forward the work in transport, but he is right that, if we can't achieve our targets as we'd expected in this area, it will be more difficult to do so, and there would then need to be more focus in other areas. Will the minister concede that Michael Fallon, more than a year before the election, made it clear that subsidies would be withdrawn in the event of a Conservative win? Would he concede further that this party has come to be repeatedly for a diverse energy mix? One question, minister. Do you really need to put all your eggs in one basket? I'm glad that Alex Johnson has raised Michael Fallon, because Michael Fallon was responsible as the architect for the daddy of them all so far as subsidy. It was he who drew forward the Hinkley Point project, which gets a subsidy not for 15 years, but 35 years. The total cost of that subsidy is £35 billion, plus £10 billion loan guarantees, making it, according to Peter Atherton of Liberum Capital, the most expensive power station in the world. The total cumulative subsidy for one nuclear power station is equivalent to four times the amount of the aggregate subsidy for all renewables in the first decade of the RO's operation. The next item of business is a stage 3 proceedings on the prisoner control of release Scotland bill. I'll allow a few moments for members to change their