Angus MacDonald MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister knows that in the highlands we have had three massive pump storage sites move to the next level of development. Cumulatively, they will store 4 GW in an area that has the highest fuel poverty in Britain, at a cost of £5 billion. At the moment, the pumps will do very little for the highland economy, as there will be almost no local jobs, no legacy housing and no community benefit. It is a sorry state; it is all downside and no upside for the people of the highlands. I would love to see that addressed.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Clean Power by 2030 · Hansard source

  More

  It would have been helpful if the Conservative Government had made it mandatory 12 years ago, but they did not. Although I applaud the Scottish Government for doing so, they should have increased the benefit every year, rather than leaving it at £5,000. The £6,000 figure that they have now come up is completely ridiculous, because, with inflationary increases, the 2015 contract figure should be £8,500, so they have effectively reduced the community benefit. Two years ago, I wrote to the Scottish Energy Minister and the First Minister to make my case. Indeed, I met the Energy Minister about it. I am afraid that, by making it £6,000, they have taken the easy option.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Clean Power by 2030 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for chairing the Committee—she was the driving force behind the report. The curtailment costs demonstrate quite how meagre the community benefits are. I do not have the curtailment cost figures to hand, but hundreds of millions of pounds are often being paid to utilities and infrastructure funds that own the wind farms but are not local—they are neither highlands-based nor Scotland-based. Basically, we are rewarding people for something they have not done to help the area. I could not agree more that the transmission lines, and the speed of getting them in, are crucial.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Clean Power by 2030 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for affording me the opportunity to make a statement on the publication of the Scottish Affairs Committee’s first report of the Session, on the Government’s clean power 2030 mission. It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Committee. This is the Committee’s second report on our inquiry into Great British Energy and the net zero transition. We launched the inquiry in November 2024, and it has been our longest-running piece of work to date. We have received more than 50 pieces of written evidence, held 11 oral evidence sessions and carried out numerous visits, both in Scotland and internationally. I thank all the stakeholders who have engaged with the inquiry. Last autumn, we published an interim report for the inquiry on the future of North sea oil and gas, and I commend that report to all hon. Members. The report before us today—our second and final report for this inquiry—explores a wide range of issues. We cover the achievability of the clean power by 2030 mission, the role of GB Energy in delivering it, the urgent need for grid upgrades, and the community ownership of clean power. However, I will focus in my brief remarks on the issue of community benefits. Community benefits are key to ensuring the fairness of the Government’s clean power mission, particularly for the communities of the highlands and islands, many of which I represent in my Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire constituency. It was declared that Scotland had the potential to become the Saudi Arabia of renewables, and there has been massive investment in onshore wind. However, those wind farm developments are seldom owned locally and offer few local jobs. In 2024, only £7 million of community benefit was generated in the highlands, and less than £30 million across Scotland, from that billion-pound industry. That was a disappointing outcome from a potentially transformative opportunity. Throughout our inquiry, we had a clear consensus that the communities in Scotland that shoulder the greatest impact of the energy transition by hosting renewable energy infrastructure must also share in its benefits. As one of our expert witnesses put it, highland communities see that “the turbines are generating lots of revenue for somebody but not for them.” That presents an acute problem of fairness. The communities across Scotland that host industrial-scale renewable infrastructure in their backyards are the very same communities that pay among the highest prices for energy. Although fuel poverty rates across the UK cannot be directly compared, it is also clear that those same communities are enduring among the highest levels of fuel poverty. Indeed, many will be among the 34% of Scottish households that are classified as fuel poor while looking on at the massive wind turbines generating renewable electricity nearby—that cannot be just. As our report highlights, that disconnect is a key driver of the sense of unfairness felt by communities across rural Scotland. It is for that reason that our report welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to introduce a mandatory community benefit scheme for new-generation infrastructure. The scheme, which is expected to be introduced by the end of 2027 at the earliest, could be key to ensuring that Scotland’s rural communities are adequately compensated for the disadvantages that come with enabling the whole of the UK to meet the Government’s clean power mission. However, that raises the thorny issue of what fair compensation looks like. As the report highlights, the Scottish Government were widely regarded as leaders in this area. In 2015, they introduced voluntary community benefits guidance for onshore renewable developers, which recommended community benefits of £5,000 per megawatt, with inflationary increases. They have recently proposed increasing that to £6,000. However, the UK Government have, in their policy paper on how their mandatory scheme will work, proposed a benchmark contribution of only £5,000 per megawatt. Our report finds that that sum is insufficient and does not reflect fair compensation for rural Scotland. A £5,000 contribution may have been an appropriate amount in 2015, when the Scottish Government adopted it, but it is now worth around 40% less in real terms. Our report makes it clear that the UK Government must be bolder. The Committee recommends that a figure in the region of £10,000 to £12,000 per megawatt would be more appropriate. The report also calls on the Government to consider carefully the Highland council’s view that £12,500, the upper end of that scale, is a fair figure. That proposal reflects the Highland council’s first-hand experience of supporting communities that bear the brunt of clean energy development. The Committee’s report also highlights that, no matter what figure the Government adopt, it is equally important that a mechanism is included to maintain that value over time—otherwise, Scotland’s communities will eventually find themselves short-changed as the real-terms value of the figure is eroded. Financial payments will be an essential part of a fair deal for Scotland, but they are not the whole story. Our report makes it clear that meaningful community benefit extends beyond financial payments, and that housing availability, access to skills training and the creation of long-term local jobs are just as important. If delivered successfully, the influx of vast amounts of renewable energy could provide an opportunity to leave a transformative legacy of housing, skills and quality employment. That would be especially valuable for communities in remote rural Scotland, which have seen little private or public sector investment. The Committee calls on the Government to seize this opportunity and ensure that their mandatory community benefit scheme is significant enough to reflect the needs and priorities of Scotland’s rural communities. Our report recommends one specific way in which the Government could achieve that: their scheme should include a requirement on energy companies building projects in rural areas to construct legacy worker accommodation to a standard suitable for permanent community housing, rather than temporary modular buildings. That would go some way towards addressing the acute housing shortage in the highlands, which requires an extra 24,000 homes to meet the demand of the next decade, according to Highland council. With that, I will conclude my statement. The Scottish Affairs Committee looks forward to the Government’s response, which I hope will reflect serious consideration of our recommendations on delivering a fair deal for rural communities across Scotland.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Promoting Scottish Interests Abroad · Hansard source

  More

  Scotland exports 10 to 12 times more electricity than it needs. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing a review of community benefits, and we are very concerned that that review will produce a poor outcome for the people of rural Scotland. Could the Secretary of State make representations on that?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Energy Costs · Hansard source

  More

  We are waiting for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to come up with the results of the community benefit consultation. The highlands only got £9 million of community benefit last year, and Scotland as a whole got less than £30 million. There are tens of thousands of jobs in renewables in the highlands, but they are not for locals; they are imported teams. Very often, offshore firms are doing the construction. We sell 10 times more electricity than we produce. Effectively, there is nothing in it for the people of rural Scotland to produce electricity. Does the Minister agree that the community benefit conclusion from DESNZ is crucial?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Do you agree that £9 million in total community benefit for the highlands, and £30 million for Scotland as a whole, is a paltry amount for a multibillion-pound industry?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer, and the Speaker for allowing me to ask this urgent question. I got a call yesterday at 7.10 in the morning from the BBC, who asked, “What is your comment on the Cameron barracks being taken over and used to house migrants?” I know that place well, because I was based there when was in the Army. It is residential—it is surrounded by housing that is very close by—and what is more, it is only 10 minutes from Inverness city centre. I asked for a briefing from the Home Office and got one, which was wonderful. What I learned is that there are going to be up to 309 single male asylum seekers there, who will move in at the end of November. I have a few questions arising from that. First, why was I not engaged in any discussion? Why were the Scottish Government not engaged in conversation, and why were Highland council and other authorities just informed, rather than engaged, which is the word that the Minister used? Secondly, did Home Office officials consider the fact that the site is in a city centre before they agreed to take it on? Why is it okay to close town centre migrant hotels in the south of England, yet plan to house 300 migrant men in Army quarters in Inverness city centre? It is effectively the same thing. Thirdly, will the Minister meet me to discuss the Home Office halting its plan to utilise Cameron barracks to house migrants?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Community Helipads: Rural Access · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head, as usual. I have met all the interested parties, apart from the Health and Safety Executive, which we will come back to. The CAA has made it clear that the new guidance does not prevent Bristow helicopters from landing in Portree. Its guidance is non-mandatory. In any case, helicopter operators can land anywhere if they carry out what is known as a dynamic risk assessment, a real-time safety judgment that allows them to land wherever conditions permit and it is deemed necessary to do so. One would think that clarification was a cover-all, but the Health and Safety Executive’s rules have led to an overly heavy-handed approach. It now treats every landing site as a shared workplace—those are the key words. It is piling on paperwork and bureaucracy. By contrast, a boggy hillside or the King George V play area in Portree are not shared workplaces, so Bristow can land at such sites. That is ridiculous; Bristow is not allowed to use a helipad, but it is allowed to land in a play area, which it does occasionally. I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a problem of health and safety over-regulation. The coastguard, Bristow Helicopters, the CAA and the Department of Transport all have a responsibility to make sure that whatever actions they take in the name of health and safety do not hinder helipad sites. I know that the CAA does not wish for its guidance to close helipads; that is why it did not make its guidance mandatory. That was also the sentiment of the family of the Derriford victim, who agreed that they did not want the CAA’s guidance to negatively impact helicopters’ being able to land and pick up people. I have a brief anecdote, which is true—a real incident in Portree recently. A woman was suffering from a suspected heart attack. An ambulance was called and took her to the bit of land adjacent to the helipad. The ambulance crew could not get a wheelchair or stretcher to take her to the helicopter. Instead, despite thinking that she was having a heart attack, she had to walk across the boggy ground to get to the helicopter. She could have taken the ambulance right to the helipad, but that was not available, so she had to walk across a very rough bit of ground—I have done that walk myself. One could not make it up.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Community Helipads: Rural Access · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend. That is a point I did not know, but I will certainly bring it up should I get a meeting. Rescue helicopters are vital for rural communities, as are organisations such as mountain rescue, which are voluntarily staffed. It is imperative that we do not over-legislate and create red tape that hampers the amazing work that these crews carry out right across the United Kingdom.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Community Helipads: Rural Access · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered access to community helipads in rural areas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am delighted to be speaking on an issue that impacts not just my constituents, but pretty well the whole of rural Britain. I spoke in this Chamber earlier this year during the debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on coastguard helicopter services. At that time, I pointed out that search and rescue helicopters are an extremely valued facility; I think everybody who has had any dealings with them would respect the quality of people involved. I have personal gratitude to them, because my wife was going along a ridge and fell off and was scraped up by Arrochar mountain rescue team and flown to Glasgow hospital, where they fixed her up—which was good news, she tells me. In addition, my father was involved in the Glencoe mountain rescue team for the whole of my youth. He said the search and rescue helicopters were probably the biggest positive change for saving people’s lives in the mountains, so this is a very important debate.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Community Helipads: Rural Access · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend very much. I do not think that many people in urban Britain know how important the ambulance services are to remote and rural areas, so her point is bang-on. Had that lady in Portree had a heart attack while walking to that helicopter, would we not all be shouting at the Health and Safety Executive, asking, “Why wouldn’t you allow the use of the purpose-built helipad?” We would all be saying that. We would have had another Derriford-type inquiry, because a helicopter landed on a boggy hillside rather than on the perfect helipad on the other side of the fence. I hope that I have articulated the reason behind my application for this debate, which was to shine a light on what I consider to be a bewildering anomaly of over-regulation. I have great respect for the CAA, the coastguard, Bristow and the Department for Transport, all of which have been incredibly responsible and helpful. However, I ask the Minister to meet me in person to discuss in more detail the issue that I have raised today, so that, hopefully, we can move to a position where it is resolved once and for all.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Community Helipads: Rural Access · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. Safety is at the bottom of it all, but I will be talking about over-safety in one particular instance. I am always pleased to recognise the dedication of the helicopter crews, but there is one specific case I want to talk about, in Portree on the Isle of Skye. The Portree and Braes Community Trust manage the helipad, not NHS Highland or anybody else. The helipad is a community venture; the trust raised the money and built it. It was set up 30 years ago and has been refurbished in conjunction with the coastguard, NHS Highland and other bodies, so it is very much an approved helipad. The ambulance can drive right up beside it; there are lights that can be turned on from the helicopter; it has windsocks; it is fenced off; it has special paint demarking the H—it has every facility one could want from a helipad. Despite that, members of the community trust tell me that the helicopter is not allowed to land on that H. It has to land on the boggy, wet hillside beside it. It is not allowed to use that helipad. That sounds quite extraordinary; I am sure everybody here is wondering why, so let me inform them. The aviation regulations have been updated, meaning that the helipad is no longer functioning for search and rescue. It is being used by air ambulance and other helicopters, but not by the Bristow search and rescue helicopters. Understandably, that is causing a lot of confusion and irritation for mountain rescue, the community trust and the wider Portree community. What is behind this? In March 2022, a lady attending an appointment at Derriford hospital in Devon was knocked over by a downwash from a helicopter and died tragically from a head injury shortly thereafter. Following that tragic incident, safety guidance was tightened—but in practice the new approach has gone too far, and has created a fear of litigation rather than a focus on safety. In April 2024, the Civil Aviation Authority published the third edition of its guidelines, “CAP1264: Standards for helicopter landing areas at hospitals”, which some Members may have read. In August 2024, following the CAA’s publication, Bristow helicopters undertook a thorough review of all helicopter landing sites and helipads that may be used for hospital purposes, to assess their compliance. The review highlighted that the majority of those sites were not compliant with the new guidance, and so Bristow withdrew from operating on the non-compliant helipads. Out of fear of litigation after the Derriford tragedy, Bristow insists that it needs legal authority to operate from sites that are not CAP1264 compliant. The problem is not the quality of Portree helipad; it is the red tape around liability and the ownership of risk.