Marine Renewables Industry

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Christine Jardine

Thursday 16th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

I do agree. I suspect that I do not have as much expertise as the hon. Lady in tidal barrage—or whatever we are calling it these days. Most of the interest I have developed over the years is in tidal stream, but there is never going to be a single technology or a single silver bullet here; there has to be an opportunity for all the different technologies to contribute. The USP of tidal energy, however we capture it, is of course its predictability, so it can contribute to baseload. I will discuss later how the industry is able to engage with Government, because there are parallels to be drawn with what has been done in the past for the oil and gas industry, which might now be done for renewables, particularly marine renewables.

I shall first dwell briefly on the progress we have made thus far. Orbital Marine Power, for example, now deploys the world’s most powerful tidal turbine—in Orkney, obviously. It is estimated that that device, manufactured in Dundee, has on its own created something in the region of 80 full-time equivalent jobs across the United Kingdom. Since its incorporation, Orbital has raised and deployed £84 million of capital. It won two contracts for difference in round 5, totalling £7.2 million, on top of the £7.4 million that it had been awarded in AR4. It is expected that the first power from these contracts will be collected in 2026. These are serious companies doing serious business. This is no longer a sort of aspirational, slightly hippy niche subject; these are serious businesses that require serious attention from Government and regulators.

Nova Innovation, which operates in Shetland, as it happens—I am told other island groups are available—installed the world’s first offshore tidal array in Bluemull sound between Yell and Unst in Shetland. It has six two-bladed horizontal axis tidal stream turbines and is the largest array yet deployed. In AR6 Nova secured three 15-year contracts totalling 6 MW of tidal energy capacity. As a consequence of the last allocation round, the UK is on track to have in excess of 130 MW deployed by 2029. Nova is also involved in floating solar developments, and it is estimated that floating solar has the potential to produce 9.343 TWh in the future. That is the scale of the opportunity that presents itself.

The real catalyst of this serious and determined progress was the setting up in 2003 of the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, a body that had its roots in a report of the Science and Technology Committee of this House, which was taken up and driven by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and then the Scottish Executive. I pay tribute to my predecessor in this House, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who as Deputy First Minister of Scotland saw the opportunity, got the resource and the political drive behind it, and set up EMEC, which is the facility for demonstrating and testing wave and tidal devices.

EMEC’s operations since 2003 have contributed £370 million GVA to the UK economy. EMEC’s success is due in no small measure to Neil Kermode, its director since 2005. I am not going to turn around because he is in the Gallery and I know that he will be staring daggers at me for singling him out, but Neil’s contribution to the success of that institution must not be underestimated, as it shows the difference that one person in the right place at the right time can make.

Another significant driver of progress in Orkney is Heriot-Watt University’s campus there, the International Centre for Island Technology. In recent years, its postgraduate taught courses in renewables have grown a skills base at postgraduate level which has been an important part of driving the progress we have seen. We cannot make progress without skilled people; we can get in all the investment we like, but it will only take us so far if we do not have people who are capable of using and developing it. Despite that, in 2019, the Scottish Funding Council grant scheme that had supported the tuition for these postgraduate taught courses ended. That has precipitated a fall in student numbers.

Although this issue is principally within the Scottish Government’s remit, I want to put it on the Minister’s radar, because if achieving development and deployment goals is part of UK Government policy, there must be a means of finding UK Government money for these courses. Whether it is done by sponsorship of places or some other means, the cost of 20 students a year at £9,200 each would be £920,000 over a five-year period. Think about that in the context of the numbers that I have spoken about—the potential that the sector adds to the UK economy. If we do not make this investment now, we will be penny wise but pound foolish.

I have some key asks of the Government as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy, in consultation with the Marine Energy Council, Scottish Renewables and RenewableUK. The most important thing, as we head towards allocation round 7, is an increase in the ringfenced budget for marine energy. The last three consecutive ringfences for tidal stream through contracts for difference have delivered an unprecedented deployment pipeline, but the last round saw a fall in the contracted amount at a point where we really needed to build momentum for the sector. I am told by those in the industry that there is sufficient eligible capacity to ensure that there would be competition for a ringfence set at that level. Scottish Renewables and the Marine Energy Council believe that the UK Government should set a £30 million ringfence for tidal and a £5 million ringfence for wave energy in this year’s round—a round, incidentally, that they described to me as “crucial”.

We also look to the Government to enable support for marine energy through GB Energy and the national wealth fund. High capital costs and unconventional risk profiles are hindering some of the progress in securing adequate finance for a move towards large-scale commercial construction. GB Energy and the national wealth fund could accelerate deployment of and embed UK content in marine energy projects. They could provide finance under commercial terms for viable projects that have secured a CfD. That is not asking them to make a particularly risky investment, but it would allow them to bring to final investment decision, and thus construction, some of those projects in this parliamentary term.

The third ask is to provide a voice for marine energy with a marine energy taskforce, which brings me back to my answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers). In addition to supporting investment, both the Scottish and UK Governments have an important role to play in bringing key stakeholders together. Again, it is about sending signals. Scottish Renewables and the Marine Energy Council believe that the UK Government should establish that energy taskforce to develop a strategic road map, to tackle barriers to deployment, to secure investment, to increase innovation funding and to deliver value for money.

When I was in Government, we set up a body for the oil and gas industry called PILOT. It was essentially the forum in which all the various majors, and those with any production interests in the UK continental shelf, could sit down and inform Government on the progress of their industry, and on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. That was a formal body, so that there was a degree of transparency associated with it. If PILOT could be set up for the oil and gas industry in the past, a similar body for marine renewables would be a particularly positive development. Again, it is about sending signals to the markets to give them the confidence to make the necessary investment.

We are looking for the Scottish Government—this is obviously not a point for the Minister—to prioritise marine energy in their energy strategy; for the Minister to speak to his colleagues in other Departments as we get the industrial strategy; and for both Governments to set bolder targets, which we believe would boost investor confidence. These asks do not come with particularly large price tags attached. The CfD levels would of course be a significant increase, but that is money that is already there and accounted for. Everything else is essentially about sending signals. We saw at the time of the creation of the first ringfence, at AR4, that sending these signals can be an enormously significant catalyst for investment.

There are a couple of issues that I want to put on the Minister’s radar. They do not necessarily fall under his portfolio, but I know that Ministers talk to each other. First, as the deployment of marine renewables and offshore wind continues to develop apace, there has to be some mechanism for holding the ring between renewables and other users of the sea and the seabed. The Minister knows that I have big concerns about the role that has been given to the Crown Estate Commission as owners of the seabed. I would like to think that the commission would be a body that could hold the ring, as it owns and licenses the use of the seabed, but experience tells me that it does not always work out like that. If we give the powers to the Crown Estate Commission that are anticipated in the Crown Estate Bill, which is going through the House, while retaining the obligation on it as a primary duty to maximise return to the estate, then there could be an issue. To be successful, we have to be able to bring island and coastal communities along with us, otherwise this becomes another thing that is done to those communities, rather than something in which they feel they have a role.

Finally, if we are going to deploy more resource at sea—and obviously, I think we should—we have to take the question of cable security seriously. We have to look at what happened just before Christmas, when the Russian so-called ghost fleet cut the cable going into the south of Finland. We know that Russia has had some activity, which we believe to be malign, in the UK continental shelf, so let us get ahead of the game and take that seriously.

The placing of cables on the seabed will only become more significant. I recently met Xlinks, which is bringing a significant amount of solar energy from Morocco to the United Kingdom via a subsea cable, which it is burying as it goes. It is at these points that we realise that with every opportunity there is a threat, and we must take the threats seriously. That is not within the Minister’s purview, but at the end of the day it has to be part of the way that we approach the outcomes.

Thank you for the opportunity to bring these concerns to the House, Ms Jardine. I am thankful that a good number of colleagues have stayed here on a Thursday afternoon. I appreciate their commitment, and I hope it will bear fruit.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

Space Industry

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Christine Jardine

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I pay warm tribute to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for securing this debate and for the work he does in the sector. We have spoken about the strategic significance of the space industry for the United Kingdom as a whole. Everything he said in that respect was absolutely correct, but the words in his peroration—about ensuring that we maximise the opportunities that will come from the industry—were particularly pertinent. For my constituency, that goes beyond the high-level opportunities that the hon. Gentleman identified.

There are a number of specific local opportunities for Shetland, as we host on Unst—the most northerly of all the Shetland Islands—the Shetland spaceport at SaxaVord. We have seen that quite remarkable progression in recent times as a consequence of a lot of hard work by the Shetland spaceport, and I pay particular tribute to Frank Strang and his colleagues for getting it to this point. It is now licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority, and we were delighted that it got a commitment of £10 million from the Government in the Budget. Indeed, such is the nature of the achievement that the Shetland spaceport is now even getting some interest from the Scottish Government—something else that must be welcomed.

If you look at the right map, Mrs Murray—by which I mean a map that has Shetland on it, and not just parked somewhere in the Moray Firth in a box—you will see that Shetland, and Unst in particular, sits at the highest latitude point in the United Kingdom, and indeed one of the highest in Europe. That, in turn, allows for a greater payload to be launched for the same fuel efficiency, turning many of the disadvantages with which we have struggled for so long into advantages. Because of where we are, there are natural opportunities for security and safety that would not necessarily be found closer to other larger centres of population.

[Christine Jardine]

I was privileged to visit my right hon. Friend’s constituency last month to see the SaxaVord spaceport and the work being done there. Does he agree that a lot of that work reflects the ingenuity and effort that went into developing the oil and gas industry in Shetland, and which is now being used in a similar way to develop SaxaVord, and that that has already been recognised by the space industry elsewhere in the world?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend understands that it was a privilege to visit Shetland. She is absolutely right about that. What I am coming on to say fits well with that, because there are lessons for Shetland to learn from its engagement with the space industry and from how we have successfully engaged with the North sea oil and gas industry for the past 40-odd years.

The history of Saxa Vord, even in my time, has not always been a happy one. Back in the day, it was an RAF radar station waiting for the Russian bear in the cold war to come screaming over the polar ice cap. With the end of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin wall, it was felt that that sort of presence was not necessary. That may have been somewhat premature. I remember, as a Member of Parliament, when the RAF announced its drawdown from Saxa Vord in 2005. I remember going to a meeting of the local community in the Baltasound Hall and the feeling of absolute desolation at that point, because RAF Saxa Vord had become such a massive part of the local economy of Unst. That was to go virtually overnight, and it was a struggle to find something to replace it. We welcome the coming of the space industry to Shetland, but we welcome it on our own terms and—as we did with the offshore oil and gas industry—we want to maximise for ourselves the opportunities that it can bring to our communities.

Some of this is already starting to emerge. SaxaVord spaceport has a science, technology, engineering and maths initiative that already has collaborative research and development projects under way with academic institutions, including the University of Alaska, the University of Strathclyde and the University of Edinburgh—I suspect that Edinburgh probably has the least welcoming environment, in terms of temperature, of those three.

SaxaVord also has an outreach programme for local Shetland schools and colleges, generating future technical skills in the area and ensuring a sustainable spaceflight ecosystem in Shetland and the wider United Kingdom. For us as a community, keeping young people in our community or giving them opportunities to come back when they have been away and had their education is critical. We see this as an opportunity.

It has to be said, though, that the coming of a spaceport to Unst will be transformative for the community. One project that the community is keen to proceed with—and which is deserving of some support from the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government—would be to replace our inter-island ferries with fixed-links tunnels going from mainland Shetland to Yell, and Yell to Unst. It is a case that stands well in its own right. It is not an easy thing. To see the opportunities that come from the construction of tunnels, look no further than to our neighbours to the north-west, in Faroe Islands. That is the sort of thing that should be Shetland’s price for playing host to the space industry. That is the sort of opportunity that we as a community should be entitled to exploit and to expect co-operation on, and support from, Government and elsewhere.

We are putting a lot of ourselves into this industry. This industry has great significance strategically for the United Kingdom, as well as economically and militarily, and in just about every other way imaginable. When the Minister replies, I hope he will acknowledge the significance of the contribution that Shetland stands to make to the rest of the United Kingdom, and that there is an understanding that, if we are to step up to the plate for the benefit of the rest of the United Kingdom, then the rest of the United Kingdom should acknowledge that responsibility.

Post Office Services: Edinburgh West

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Christine Jardine

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine]

I most certainly do agree with my hon. Friend’s constituent. Citizens Advice tells us that almost 20% of people still visit their post office weekly for one of the services that he mentioned. That increases to 23% of those in rural areas, 27% of carers, 22% of over-65s and 21% of disabled people, so there is a need in our communities. On the DVLA services that my hon. Friend mentioned, the contract with the Post Office ends in March next year. Currently, the Post Office handles more than 6 million DVLA transactions annually, which contributes £3.2 million per year to postmaster remuneration.

People rely on their post offices for all these services, yet we are seeing them fail because they do not have the support that they need from the Government. It is not worth their while; the postmasters who are closing in my constituency tell me that they do not have the support that they need. If we are to save what was once rightly claimed to be the front desk of Government in our communities from becoming an adjunct slotted into shops that are willing to put up with it, we need something to be done quickly.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

We have all heard the point about post offices being the front desk of Government, but at the same time we are told that Government services will be digital by default. Is not the root cause of the problem the lack of strategy that would stem from a coherent Government position?

[Christine Jardine]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is no coherence to the Government’s position. Digital services do not work for everybody. Not everybody wants them. As with so many of our public services—buses, trains, the NHS and water—we need a recognition that this issue needs action now. It needs investment, and better support for those who supply the services. The reality is that some people will not be able to lead their lives as they would wish without the services that our post offices have traditionally offered, which are being undermined. Most do not want to; they enjoy the comfort of having a post office. They enjoy being able to pop in, particularly in rural communities, and buy their stamps, or collect their pensions.

This week, I was at my office in Edinburgh West. A gentleman stopped me in the street and asked me, ironically, whether I knew where the nearest post office was. Fortunately, I did. He had an A4 envelope in his hand. He said, “I need to get a stamp and post this, and I can’t find one,” so I directed him along the road. A post office is a simple thing, but they are vital to communities up and down the country. If the Minister, or the Prime Minister, has any doubts I would be more than happy to take them to a post office in Edinburgh West and introduce them to the many people who use the services that are still available—but I would quite like to do it while I still can, and while they are still there.

Sub-postmasters and Sub-postmistresses: Remuneration

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Christine Jardine

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely agree. I see this process happening and it has not happened suddenly; it has been happening for years. People retire, give up or for whatever reason decide they do not want to continue and nobody comes forward, so the post office remains nominally open, but in fact there is no service in the community—there might be some from another branch or wherever, but frankly the core of what the sub-post office is about is lost.

I think of the example of the post office in the village where I live. It is in the village shop. It was bought recently by somebody who had given up a career—of 51 years, he tells me—in IT, so he was not doing this to increase his income. He has transformed the shop. He has taken what was a good Orkney country shop and brought in a whole range of different fresh foods—Orkney fish, Orkney beef, everything. The quality of what we can get in that shop now is phenomenal, but he tells me it costs him to have a sub-post office counter in the business. It should not be costing somebody like that. That should be something that adds value, but we are seeing the determination and commitment of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses around the country being taken advantage of.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Oh my goodness! I am spoilt for choice. I give way to all three Members, but very quickly.

[Christine Jardine]

I agree completely with my right hon. Friend: remote areas have been hit hard by the declining number of post offices, but we are also seeing that in cities. One of the problems it brings is that post offices were meant to replace the counter services of many bank branches that have closed, so we have many elderly pensioners who are not online and now have even fewer options for getting their pension or going to the bank.

Sewel Convention

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Christine Jardine

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and, indeed, for allowing the debate to happen at all.

There are a number of issues of some significance relating to our constitution that stand to be examined here. Regrettably, we have managed to avoid most of them thus far in the course of the debate, but I hope to be allowed a few minutes to touch on them. This is not just a debate about the constitution in the abstract. I represent two island communities whose economy overwhelmingly depends on fishing, farming and crofting. These communities will absolutely need to know what the future holds post Brexit. They will need to know what is going to come in place of the common agricultural policy—for agricultural support, in particular. When I met representatives of the National Farmers Union Scotland in Orkney on Friday, these were the questions that they were asking me, and time after time I had to say, “I’m sorry—I do not know because nobody knows.” This is not just about the constitution; it is about something that is going to have a very serious and profound effect on the livelihoods of my constituents.

I want to say a word or two about how we got here. The Government have mishandled this whole aspect of Brexit just about as badly as it is possible to imagine. They have certainly managed it as badly as they have managed the whole of the Brexit process. Amendments were promised at the Dispatch Box and we were told that this House would have the opportunity to debate them. Those amendments did not appear. We were then told that they would come in the House of Lords, and indeed they did eventually come, at a late stage, in the House of Lords. In the meantime, the Scottish Parliament, for a variety of different reasons, voted against legislative consent. There was no single reason why the different parties in the Scottish Parliament voted in the way that they did but, notwithstanding that, they all decided that they would withhold legislative consent when the question was put to them.

The timetable that we were given last week should have protected the time available to debate the amendments from the other place. It did not—and that was not an accident. The Government used the procedures of this House to avoid a debate rather than to engage it. For that they are culpable and with that we are now all having to deal. Moreover, the consideration of Lords amendments should not have been presented to us as an either/or. This is the most significant piece of constitutional legislation that we will debate in my lifetime, and we should not at this stage, when it comes to voting on Lords amendments to it, be given a choice of either voting or debating.

The context for this debate is the abject failure of the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government to reach agreement. It is apparent to all who look on from the outside that there has been a lack of good faith in the negotiations between our two Governments. Let me say quite candidly that it is apparent to me that, if it is left to the Scottish and the United Kingdom Governments, then they will never reach agreement because they have no interest in doing so. They are both approaching the Brexit issue through the prism of their own party interest rather than the national interest.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my frustration at the impasse that the two parties have reached—the two parties that initially, and for a considerable period, did not back devolution but now claim to defend it? Both the SNP and the Tories failed to engage in the first stage of the debate.

[Mr Carmichael]

Of course, we all know that the Conservatives opposed devolution, as did the Scottish National party. I remember the days of the campaign for a Scottish Assembly and of the constitutional convention. I remember a whole series of SNP walkouts. What we saw on Wednesday was just the latest in a long line of these things. When it mattered, the SNP were never to be found, because they are not interested in devolution; devolution is not what they want.

I come back to the frameworks that will be so necessary to my constituents post Brexit. [Interruption.] I do not know if anyone from the SNP Benches wants to intervene.

Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Christine Jardine

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine]

I would agree with the hon. Gentleman were it not for the fact that what he was doing was party political game playing rather than listening to the Opposition. Surely the point of an Opposition day debate is that the Government listen to a view other than their own. That is the view of the electorate—they think that we are here to serve them, rather than to play games. If they had tuned in on the 13th, they would have seen a Government simply paying lip service to the question with no intention of taking anything on board or of allowing any credence to be given to the debate, lest it should challenge their established view.

[Mr Carmichael]

On that point, when the Government agree at least partially with an Opposition motion, it is open to them to table an amendment. They chose not to do so last month.

[Christine Jardine]

Indeed. Why should such behaviour encourage any kind of faith in the political process—“Yes, we’ll let you have your say, yes you can have a vote, but we won’t take any notice of what you say”? Where is the democracy, where is the scrutiny and where is the respect for those who elected us? They surely deserve better.