Official Report 972KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16171, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, on ensuring that communities are at the heart of the electricity consenting process. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I advise them that there is no time in hand.
16:01
Up and down Scotland, including in my region, rural communities are being threatened by developments that, as one campaigner describes, are
“bulldozing through the north east”.
Energy companies want to destroy our countryside to reward their shareholders, and the Scottish ministers are complicit in it.
I am not the only member of the Scottish Parliament representing a rural area whose inbox is full of constituents who are rightly concerned about the impact that planning legislation changes will have on their ability to protect their land and communities. The plethora of pylons that has been promised throughout the north and south of Scotland is causing locals a great deal of concern, with many community meetings, and community groups campaigning, on the issue.
The cabinet secretary, Gillian Martin, is perhaps unaware of that, given that she has never met with any of the 20 community groups in the north-east that have been established to oppose the pylon plans, even though the First Minister said that ministers would engage.
The member knows full well that ministers cannot meet community groups during a live planning application.
Let us have a look at the ministerial code. It says that
“meeting the developer or objectors to discuss the proposal, but not meeting all parties with an interest in the decision”
would be a breach of the ministerial code. The lobbying register shows that the cabinet secretary has met Statera Energy and Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, but she will not meet any of the protest groups. That is a breach of the ministerial code. If she wants to come along, I will be more than happy to introduce her to some of those communities and individuals.
Instead of looking for solutions that empower, this devolved Government has chosen to once again ride roughshod over our rural communities. The Scottish National Party Government has demonstrated again that it does not understand or care about what goes on in our rural areas, and nor does the United Kingdom Government.
We often hear about a just transition, but what is taking place is an unjust transition. What is just about the overindustrialisation of our countryside, inflicting monster pylons, substations, wind turbines and battery storage facilities on many of our communities? The devolved Government is incompetent and does not give two hoots for rural Scotland. By not producing an energy strategy, it has left a vacuum. There is no plan for how much of each energy source we need and where it should be. That is why about 350 battery storage applications are in progress across Scotland. It is an absolute free-for-all, and the devolved SNP Government, asleep at the wheel, has allowed that to happen.
Douglas Lumsden talks about standing up for communities such as my community in the Borders. Communities are beset with hundreds of applications for renewables that are walking us into a nightmare, as they will destroy farmland, businesses and landscapes. Does he agree?
Absolutely.
We are currently facing plans for hundreds of miles of new pylons right across Scotland, affecting the Highlands, the Borders and Aberdeenshire, and just about everywhere in between. Turbines are popping up everywhere and battery storage is completely out of control. Communities are up in arms. They are being ignored, concerns are being dismissed and local issues are being discounted.
Compensation is not adequate and the promise of a couple of hundred quid off their energy bill for a few years or another community hall does not make up for the thousands of pounds that people are seeing wiped from the value of their home and the noise and disruption that come along with those developments.
Public inquiries are a vital part of our planning system to prevent rushed decisions from being taken by those with vested interests. They allow local communities to make their voices heard and empower our communities to have a chance to put their side of the argument. They are not about stopping all developments or standing in the way of progress; they are about giving the people who know the area best a voice—and the Scottish Conservatives will always stand up for our local communities.
I have done something that the cabinet secretary has not done; I have gone to speak to the individuals who will be impacted by these developments. They have genuine concerns, borne out of love for their landscape, their heritage and their homes. They understand the move to net zero—but not at any price. They simply want to have their say, and the proposals from both this devolved Government and the UK Labour Government will deny them their voice.
I have been meeting groups in Turriff, New Deer and Leylodge, and the residents are at their wits’ end. One resident I have to mention is June Morrison, who is becoming a bit of a star on local television. June is already having to put up with a massive new substation in her back garden. On the back of that, there are plans for a huge hydrogen production facility and multiple battery storage facilities. That is the problem: it is the cumulative effect of all those developments together that make them so wrong.
Just this week, The Press and Journal reported on another massive wind farm—this time in Clashindarroch, near Dufftown, by Canadian firm Boralex. Campaigner Trevor Smith accused Boralex of seeking to
“strip the Cabrach of the natural assets which make it such a special place to live”,
and said that the development has become
“a symbol of corporate bullying and greed.”
We simply cannot stand by while our constituents are ignored like that. We cannot keep quiet when our communities are telling us that they do not want these monster pylons, turbines and battery storage facilities to be built together. We cannot allow big companies to greenwash and spend millions on advertising and lobbying to divide our communities. For those companies, this is not about delivering net zero; it is about delivering profits to their shareholders. We cannot ignore the voices of our communities on decisions that affect them so significantly.
I move,
That the Parliament opposes the UK and Scottish governments’ jointly proposed reforms to the consenting process under the Electricity Act 1989, which risk silencing the voices of communities by removing the right to a public inquiry on consent decisions; notes with concern that the Scottish Government has allowed pylons and other electricity infrastructure to be built without the consent of local communities; acknowledges that community groups often do not have the resources to oppose electricity infrastructure, and calls on the Scottish Government to consider how this could be addressed, and implores both governments to abandon these plans and to ensure that community voices are at the heart of the consenting process going forward.
I call Alasdair Allan to speak to and move amendment S6M-16171.3.
16:08
I welcome the opportunity to debate the UK and Scottish Governments’ jointly proposed reforms to the consenting process. It is extremely important that everyone who has a stake in the consenting process hears about and is involved in the reforms.
However, let us clear up something in the Conservatives motion before we get started. Although land use and planning in Scotland are devolved, the powers to legislate for the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are reserved to the UK Government.
Will the minister give way?
I would be interested to know whether the member can gainsay that, but yes.
The minister is right—just like nuclear power is reserved, but the Scottish Government can block it by using the planning laws that it controls. Surely, in this instance, it can use planning laws to ban whatever it wants.
I was not aware of Douglas Lumsden’s proposal that communities in Scotland should be in a position to block nuclear power stations. Scottish ministers—[Interruption].
That is not the point.
The point is that Scottish ministers determine applications to construct or install electricity infrastructure under the Electricity Act 1989. We do not choose, for instance, the routes of strategic power lines across the country.
In England and Wales, relevant legislation has long since been updated to make the consenting process not only more efficient but, I believe, fairer. As far as I am aware, that is not a reform that the Conservatives objected to. Indeed, our purpose in Scotland is to learn from reform in England, which may well result in similar changes to those that have been in place in England and Wales for many years.
At present in Scotland, it can take up to four years to process an application to determination. That is not in the interests of communities or the economy. The Scottish Government has long called for the relevant powers to be given to Scottish ministers. However, in October 2024, the UK Government announced proposals to reform the legislation at Westminster, launching a consultation that concluded at the end of November. The core aim is to make our determination process more efficient—not to make it easier, as the Conservatives seem to suggest—for projects to get consent. Indeed, one of the central proposals is to modernise the system to allow community voices to be heard, including at an earlier stage.
Conservative members might be interested to know that those proposals did not simply materialise in the past few months. The UK Government committed to review consenting in Scotland in November 2023. Conservative members have now forgotten the next crucial bit, which is that that was when the Conservatives were in power in the UK. Indeed, they were taking forward those plans before the general election was called, so it is rather surprising to hear them describe the plans in such terms as they have used today.
Ensuring that community voices are heard in the process and in the right way is central to the reforms. Under the current system, Scotland is the only part of Great Britain where developers do not have to consult local communities before submitting their plans. We want to change that by ensuring that the procedure begins with communities having the opportunity to express their views so that they can be considered from the outset. The reforms would make pre-application consultation statutory for the first time—
[Made a request to intervene.]
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes.
Is the minister giving way to Rachael Hamilton?
Yes.
The queue for an energy grid connection is vastly oversubscribed. Communities that I and others represent are angry—and they are angry because there are so many applications. The reforms will not address that. There are hundreds of planning applications in the process. Surely we should be halting those and reviewing the situation.
Minister, you have one minute left.
There is certainly a need for reform at the UK level—which is where the powers lie—of the national grid in terms of grid connections and the capacity to make them, and to ensure that the grid queue is in the form that it should be in. I understand that work is under way on those areas.
To return to the planning system in Scotland, at present if a planning authority objects to an application, a public inquiry is automatically held. The proposals seek to modernise that aspect of the system, but specifically do not seek to remove the option of a public inquiry. Under the proposals, planning authorities would retain the statutory right to challenge, but in the event of objections from the relevant authorities, the reforms suggest that alternative forms of consideration may sometimes be more appropriate. That would mirror the process that is already in place in Scotland under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, and it is therefore not quite the novelty that the Conservatives present it as.
Minister, you need to conclude. Please move your amendment.
I move amendment S6M-16171.3, to leave out from “opposes” to end and insert:
“believes that communities must be at the heart of the renewable energy transition, and that it is vital that they share in the significant benefits that will be created, in contrast with how Scotland’s communities have been failed for decades under successive UK administrations’ energy policies; notes the ongoing representations by the Scottish Government to the UK Government around the need for energy market reform; further notes that Scotland has some of the most stringent environmental impact regulations anywhere in the world and that the planning and consenting system is designed to ensure that local communities have their say; notes that the proposed reforms have long been the established position in England, which the previous UK Conservative administration did not alter in its 14 years in office, and understands that the proposals would require developers to consult communities much earlier in the planning process, which will ensure that affected communities can more meaningfully influence the process of project development.”
16:13
It is fitting that, as members came into the chamber today, we passed a Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks stall, showing the practical work that it is doing. I have lobbied it endlessly about housing in our rural communities. We need to see the benefits, but we need a reformed and robust grid to maximise the opportunities from our renewable resources. We will not deliver jobs and community benefits across the country without it. It is a shame that the tone from the Tories today is about slowing that work down or—as Rachael Hamilton suggested—stopping proposals that are already in the system.
It is vital that communities be properly involved in and consulted on proposals to develop the grid and renewables. That is why the consultation that has been referenced is so important. Far from cutting communities out of the consenting process, the consultation that was published last October will give, as the minister said, pre-application consultations, which will help communities to be involved in shaping consultations in order to provide clarity that will help with effective consideration and scrutiny of applications. It is vital that, for example, environmental impacts and proposed mitigations are consulted on early, so that local communities, statutory consultees and—critically—our local authorities are informed, so that they can all feed back and ensure that concerns can be addressed before applications are submitted.
The points in Liam McArthur’s amendment are important for environment, landscape and cultural history, and that needs to be acknowledged. We need change and, ultimately, we need to deliver on renewables and deliver a grid that will work.
There have been circumstances recently in which communities, local authorities, the reporter and a public inquiry have objected but the Scottish Government has overturned all those objections. Do we want to find ourselves in that situation?
The whole point of consulting people earlier is so that their views are heard much earlier and can shape proposals. We have examples of housing developments to which communities and local authorities have objected, and which have then gone to the reporter and the Scottish Government has approved them. That is the planning system: it is about making sure that people are properly involved, which does not happen at the moment.
Making sure that we have a grid that works is a key issue—not just to keep the lights on in our homes and businesses, but because security of supply is more essential than ever. We need to make sure that that is not just rhetoric, because we know that demand for electricity will only grow.
We need alternatives, but we did not get any from the Conservatives today. We need practical solutions. Are no upgrades at all being proposed? I sincerely hope that that is not what is being implied, because all types of renewables developments were mentioned. We need pumped hydro storage, we need battery storage and we need a joined-up approach and solutions, and the grid is part of that.
Community ownership has not come out in the debate at all. It is crucial, because giving communities benefits could lower people’s bills. Benefits could also include local jobs, local homes and local ownership. The work that Community Energy Scotland and Energy4All are doing is vital and will have real benefits for communities.
It is great to hear that the digital offshore skills passport is being launched, which communities and trade unions have been campaigning for for years, and that there is support for investment in Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen for new jobs for workers. Labour is doing that work with Great British Energy, and we are making progress.
You need to conclude.
We need to develop more of a consensus, not just in the chamber but by working with local communities, so that we deliver community benefits, renewable energy, supply chains and jobs across Scotland.
I move amendment S6M-16171.1, to leave out from “opposes” to end and insert:
“agrees that the fastest and more secure way to deliver lower energy bills, create future energy jobs in Scotland and deliver energy security is to move to clean power; welcomes the UK Government’s mission to establish a net zero electricity system by 2030; acknowledges that this will require the development of new energy infrastructure; considers it crucial that communities close to energy generation benefit from that infrastructure; welcomes, therefore, the creation of GB Energy and the commitment that it will support communities to take a stake in local renewable energy projects through the Local Power Plan, and calls on the UK and Scottish governments to work together to support the development of renewable energy supply chains in Scotland to create long-term, sustainable jobs as part of the energy transition.”
16:18
The Scottish Liberal Democrats strongly believe in the importance of empowering local communities. That belief has always been central to my approach in scrutinising policy and legislation. However, I also recognise that that must be balanced with other priorities, including the need to deliver vital infrastructure. Two weeks ago, at 5.30 pm on 8 January, the spare electricity capacity on the national grid was just 580MW. Experts warned that a further small drop in generation could have resulted in blackouts. Had it done so, this debate would not have taken place—or the tone and content of it would certainly have been very different.
The national grid represents an incredible achievement, but some 1920s infrastructure is still in use. Upgrades have not kept pace with the changing nature of energy generation and customer demand. Wind, solar and other renewables demand more decentralised transmission and use of storage. There is no world in which we can rely indefinitely on the North Sea basin. That is not a matter of politics—it is a matter of geology.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
If we are still reliant on fossil fuels in 2050, we will be importing them. Even so, as we upgrade the grid, we must bring affected communities with us. Both Scotland’s Governments must be clear, consistent and honest about why investment is needed. Steps to strengthen scrutiny and community engagement processes are still required, but that is not what Mr Lumsden proposes. I understand the strong objections that some people have to projects that they see as being intrusive: pylons, for example, have few aesthetic upsides. Projects should be developed with local communities’ needs in mind, and grid upgrades should give due respect to the environment, landscape and cultural history of the area, as well as to the wellbeing of the people who are impacted.
At the same time, we must be honest with ourselves and with those whom we represent. Proposals that could delay key projects, massively push up their costs or see them being cancelled altogether will have consequences, including higher energy bills for households and businesses, lower economic growth and a UK that is poorer, weaker and less resilient. Communities across Scotland certainly do not want that and would not thank us for leading them to it.
We need to find ways to allow decisions to take the social and environmental needs of local communities into account while avoiding endless delays and uncertainty. It took more than a decade to get the Beauly to Denny line through planning. Delays on that scale have financial costs, but also take a toll on people who are unable to get on with their lives and livelihoods.
There is also a risk that we drive away investment. Scotland and the UK have, broadly speaking, been seen to be stable regulatory and policy environments, but other countries have recognised the benefits of offering the same or better. As the push to decarbonise gathers pace, competition for investment intensifies. If we do not get this right, the price will be paid not only in higher bills but in jobs and prosperity being lost to other parts of the world—and not only in the energy industry. House builders, the whisky industry, data centres and manufacturers are all warning that they are starting to be held back by the outdated grid. We often hear Mr Lumsden and his colleagues advocating for the needs of those sectors. I wonder whether he has consulted them on the proposals that were put forward this afternoon.
In recent years, investment in energy generation has outstripped that in transmission and storage. That is not sustainable. Without transformation of our transmission and storage capacity across the country, we will be forced into an impossible choice: either to make ourselves more and more reliant on importing expensive and polluting fuels from the likes of Putin’s Russia, or to get used to grid failure and regular blackouts. Both would result in higher bills for households and businesses, dramatically lower growth, and a poorer and less resilient UK. I would be interested to know which option Mr Lumsden prefers.
I move amendment S6M-16171.2, to leave out from “opposes” to end and insert:
“understands that the UK and Scottish governments’ jointly proposed changes to the Electricity Act 1989 and the consenting process have recently been issued for consultation, and recognises the importance of listening to the views of communities and other stakeholders before any changes are made; believes that delays to the delivery of vital transmission infrastructure risk holding back essential investment to decarbonise all sectors of the economy and the opportunity to put areas, including the north east and Highlands and Islands, at the forefront of the UK’s renewables revolution, but that the grid changes required must give due respect to the environment, landscape, cultural history, wellbeing and property rights of local people; notes that the outcome of the consultation has yet to be published, and calls, therefore, on both of Scotland’s governments to ensure that any concerns raised through the consultation are appropriately addressed and that concerted action is taken to build community support, secure a consensus around the grid changes that need to be made, and provide greater clarity to the public about why upgrades to the electricity network are important for Scotland’s economy, energy security and climate obligations, whilst also ensuring that developers fulfil their obligations and duties.”
16:22
The energy transition is one of the biggest challenges and biggest opportunities in Scotland today, and it is important that Parliament supports the steps that are needed to deliver it. The missed 2030 climate target and the latest advice from the Climate Change Committee, in 2024, remind us that there is no path to net zero for Scotland or the UK without a major switch from fossil fuels to electricity. That is the case across many sectors, from the transport industry to how we heat our homes.
Of course, in recent years, all Governments of all colours in the UK have accepted that, including the recent Tory Government at Westminster. That switch requires a massive increase in the generation of renewable energy from all our abundant onshore and offshore wind, hydro, solar and wave resources. That growth in generation is already well under way in Scotland. We are doing very well in that regard, but it has exposed the huge backlog that we now face in investment in upgrading the electricity transmission network.
The Scottish Renewables briefing for the debate highlights that the UK will need to build twice as much transmission infrastructure in the next five years as it has over the past decade. Simply put, we do not have the transmission lines that we need to get the electricity to where it needs to be. We must grapple with that challenge now. The climate will not wait, nor will the households that face ever-rising gas bills.
The joint UK Government and Scottish Government consultation seeks to address that growing barrier in transmission. I do not accept the Tories’ motion, which asks us to throw out all the work that has taken place so far, ignoring the consultation responses that have already been submitted and effectively shutting down the opportunity to refine the Government’s plans further.
Public inquiries are a sign that the planning and consenting system has failed, yet perpetual public inquiries appear to be what the Tories want for our communities. Public inquiries are highly formalised and adversarial, and can last for years. They are not a process that is suited to having the views of time-poor and underresourced community groups heard equally alongside those of developers.
Both Governments have been clear that attention must be given to how communities can be part of the future energy consenting process. During the new statutory pre-application process, developers will be required to notify the public and gather views. They will need to include evidence that there has been a robust process alongside their consent application, otherwise it will be rejected.
Currently, any prior community engagement that is carried out on an application is voluntary on the part of the developer. There is no consistency in what information developers need to present, whom they must inform and whose views they must seek out, and there is no consistency about how much of that information must be supplied to the planning authorities.
I urge both Governments to seriously consider the concerns that have been raised by organisations including Planning Democracy and the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland. There must be tougher requirements on developers who do not undertake a robust public engagement process, and a requirement to reconsult the public if they cannot evidence how they have taken concerns into account. The Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland also raised concerns that the processes could become tick-box exercises and that engagement must be done in such a way that it is genuinely meaningful for communities.
My final point is about benefits. Since 1990, more than £194 million in community benefits have been committed from renewable energy projects in Scotland. That is significant, but it is a fraction of what could be delivered if communities had major equity stakes in projects. However, in comparison, no financial community benefits have been required for transmission projects. That needs to change, so I welcome the voluntary steps that SSEN has already taken. We have socialised the financial costs of building shared infrastructure across the country, but we must recognise that the communities that host that infrastructure—
Mr Ruskell, you will need to conclude.
—also pay a price, and it must be covered by the rest of us.
We move to the open debate. As previously advised, there is no time in hand. There will be back-bench speeches of up to four minutes.
16:26
I welcome the debate and the fact that the motion focuses on the need to properly engage with and involve communities when deciding on energy infrastructure projects throughout Scotland. I make it clear that I accept that there is a need to upgrade and expand our energy infrastructure, because we are going to need more electricity. There are big economic benefits in the construction of that, but there are trade-offs, too.
Last week, I asked John Swinney about the number of proposed battery storage developments in Scotland. There are far more than is needed, not just here but across the UK. That is why, last week, the National Energy System Operator paused the applications process for new entrants to the connections queue from 29 January. That seems to have passed some members by today.
I do not think that there will be many MSPs who have not been contacted by communities that are concerned about potential battery developments. Communities mostly accept the need for such projects, but they want the sites to be in the right places. However, as I said, there are far too many in the pipeline. The overall transmission queue in Scotland for everything, not just batteries, is 152GW of installed and contracted generation. That is well in excess of the maximum winter peak demand in Scotland of around 5GW.
In the central belt alone, there are applications for 28GW of battery connection, which is the requirement for the whole of the UK. It is madness. That is why I have heard the phrases “gold rush” and “wild west” used when describing what is going on. That is exactly what it is, and we need some common sense.
The concerns from communities across Scotland should be taken seriously. The concentration of battery storage projects in certain areas can lead to a range of local environmental issues, such as habitat disruption, noise pollution and increased traffic during construction and maintenance, not to mention the risk of fire. Those are some of the concerns that have been raised by campaigners in my region, including those at Drumbowie, which is near Falkirk, whom I met on Saturday. They and others feel cut out of the decision-making process.
Will the member give way?
[Made a request to intervene.]
I apologise, but I will not be taking any interventions.
Many of the projects in Scotland sit with the Scottish Government’s shadowy energy consents unit, which is taking the decisions, rather than with local councils, as is the case in England.
Once NESO has shaken things out, we will need clarity from the ECU and from the Government on the criteria for agreeing to or not agreeing to developments. For example, some of the potential developments in my region are in green-belt land. What is the ECU’s stance on that? We simply do not know. We need a transparent process for involving people and showing what community benefit will look like. I hope that the Scottish Government will publish its conclusions on that soon.
The current top-down approach must end. People have a right to be involved in the decision-making process and to have their concerns addressed. We need a Scotland-wide energy strategy that sets out how many projects are required and where they are needed. That would be a positive outcome of the reforms that are to come. Battery storage will be needed, but we must use the pause that is now in place to get it right.
16:30
I am sure that many members recognise that major infrastructure change of any nature will inevitably bring with it both opportunities and challenges. The decarbonisation of our energy network, and the strategic energy system that will be needed to support it through infrastructure at scale, will create some of those opportunities and challenges. Before I touch on some of them, I note that it would be wrong to present the issues in today’s debate, including consenting reform, as things that have happened out of the blue. The path that has led us to this point has been many years in the making.
Back in 2022, the previous UK Government increased its target for offshore wind production to 50GW by 2030. In doing so, it triggered the need not only to upgrade the existing grid infrastructure but to put in place significant new grid infrastructure. As a result, the grid operator—the energy system operator—set in course a pathway of work to achieve the target that the previous UK Government had set. That was then reinforced by the electricity networks commissioner, who highlighted the need to put in place significant new grid infrastructure to achieve the previous Government’s target.
It is important to keep in mind that the issue has not been created by the new Labour UK Government or the SNP Government in Scotland. We have been on the pathway for many years, and significant work has been undertaken to arrive at this point.
We need to recognise that the key to unlocking some of the economic opportunities from decarbonising our energy system is sufficient grid capacity. Members often speak to the need to deliver a just transition in the years ahead. However, simply delivering more offshore and onshore wind power and hydro power or hydrogen production facilities will not itself deliver a just transition. The key to delivering a just transition is the manufacturing capacity that goes alongside those developments.
Projects can achieve financial closure only if they have access to the grid, and it is only when we have a steady beat of projects in place that we can attract the economic investment in manufacturing that we need to deliver the just transition. The grid is absolutely key to supporting us in achieving the economic investment that we need to deliver a just transition.
I recognise and hear the challenges that communities have around some of the infrastructure. It is important that we have a consenting mechanism that listens to the concerns and issues that communities raise, and that we have distribution network operators that work alongside communities. When those operators provide support to communities, that must be based on the principles of community wealth building.
It will not be easy, but the reality is that we need to get the balance right between economic investment and the needs of our communities, and the proposed reforms will achieve that.
16:34
The energy transition will require the most significant upgrades to our energy infrastructure in decades. Mr Matheson set some of that out very well. If we are to realise the potential of our offshore wind capacity, which is a huge opportunity for our economy, we will need to build that capacity for the decades to come. As has been set out, this is a long-term shared project of both the UK and the Scottish Governments. That is why it was so disappointing that, when we debated the matter on 2 May 2024, members of both governing parties in the UK and Scotland refused to set out fully and explain that they were willing partners in this project that is bringing disruption to many parts of the country.
In that debate, I warned about the temptations of the populist right. That was before the arrival of Russell Findlay and Douglas Lumsden to their current positions and before the threat of Reform. We can see the effect of that in the motion that the Conservative Party has lodged for debate today. It is the responsibility of politicians and Governments to set out clearly our transition to net zero and the kind of economy that we need and to build the public’s confidence in that, because it is essential to our country’s future.
I have sat in the living rooms that Douglas Lumsden describes, I have walked the fields with members of the public in the north-east of Scotland, and I have made sure that there were changes to the proposed alignments in parts of the north-east. However, what I have not done is to pretend to people that there is an alternative that can easily be attained for them, in the way that Mr Lumsden has set out today.
I say to Graham Simpson—time is short or I would have intervened to make the point to him—that I have been approached by people who are concerned about the cumulative impact on particular geographies. There are many applications, and Mr Simpson is right in his observations about them. However, we know that the planning permission applications that are being put forward are speculative and beyond capacity. We must make it clear to residents that far from all those applications will be granted. Certainly, they will not all be advanced to the point that they are used. Clarity on that for citizens is absolutely critical.
That is why I brought SSEN representatives to the Parliament this week—so that members from across the chamber could ask them questions, put those kinds of issues to them and engage with the developers and the farmers, who are the people who are selling and speculatively opening up their land to those forms of development. In that way, members can have conversations with those people about whether such developments will actually happen.
Let us be absolutely clear that the proposed reforms to the planning system will not take away the right to consultation. Both Governments are clear that the intention is to improve and not remove that process. The current process is inefficient, and it does not meet the timescales that we require if we are to realise the great potential that we have.
Communities must have a voice in projects. If anything, the processes and the changes to them will ensure that communities have a voice at an earlier stage. In all that, it is critical that we tell communities why such projects have to happen. That is not just about the imperative of dealing with climate change, as very urgent as that is; it is important to Scotland's industrial future. Mr Matheson could have gone a bit further in explaining that that industrial development is critical to his Government’s vision for the future of Scotland’s economy. This is not something that is being done to Scotland—it is a full partnership between two Governments to develop an industrial base for our country’s future.
To secure the domestic supply chain and industrial development, we must ensure that the grid is in place. To illustrate that, the Labour Government has today announced that the skills passport trial will take place in Aberdeen, after years of delay. After years of people in other parties just talking about it, Labour is getting on and getting the job done.
16:38
I say to Michael Marra that the motion and the debate are about people’s lives being impacted by other people’s decisions and communities having the right to be heard, because, currently, they do not feel that they are respected or listened to. However, that is not what these two socialist parties that are in Government want. I am a Conservative primarily because I believe that the state should be seen as the servant and not the master.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will if it is very brief, because I will not get the time back.
Does the member recognise that his Government—the Tory Government that has just left office—was fully involved in the process of setting up the industrial developments that he is now opposing?
Let me come back to that point, because I would like to address what is meant by a just transition.
If we talk to the people of Grangemouth, they will say that they have struggled to find any justice, as they feel that they have been thrown under the net zero steamroller. The SNP and Labour have forgotten that, in making sustainable change, we must take people with us. People must not feel that they are being silenced in order that an artificial, Government-imposed deadline can be met. That is exactly what we have from Ed Miliband and the Labour Government.
In addition, both Governments are hostile to the future of oil and gas. The SNP’s presumption against oil and gas exploration and extraction is driving investors away, and Labour is taxing the North Sea basin to death. Both parties are job destroyers and community destroyers. That is the dilemma of Ed Miliband’s ideological mania.
Is Stephen Kerr aware that that ideology is also damaging communities in the south of Scotland? I had the misfortune to visit an area where there is a proposal for a 455-acre solar farm that would have 50,000 8m-long solar panels but local residents say that that would be not a solar farm but a massive power station. Is that not the price that we are paying for the SNP’s and Labour’s misuse of—
Thank you, Mr Hoy. You have two minutes left, Mr Kerr.
That is absolutely right.
Just in case anyone is under any illusion, I note that, on Monday, in the world’s most powerful country, there was the return of the phrase “Drill, baby, drill!” The global recalibration of power will be in favour of the country that uses its resources—all its resources—to create low-cost energy.
Will Stephen Kerr take an intervention?
I suggest that Mr Kerr does not have time to take any more interventions.
On the issue of pylons, I do not want to see my country turned into a wirescape. In Central Scotland, we already have that in large measure. What, in the name of goodness, are we doing to our beautiful country? I do not want my country’s landscape to be turned into a wirescape. What about the communities that are being invaded by those monster pylons? Small communities are campaigning against deep pockets and powerful interests.
I ask the minister to confirm that the community consultation on pylon construction, which was recommended in NESO’s “Clean Power 2030” report, is not simply a cynical box-ticking exercise, because many people feel that it is being conducted in that way. Will the Scottish Government enshrine the view that people enjoy from their house and their land as part of the planning process, as is the case elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Will we finally get a fully costed alternative to overhead lines? Will the Scottish Government insist on proper consideration of undergrounding, particularly in areas of natural beauty where pylons and overhead lines would have a disproportionately negative impact on people and communities?
Will Mr Kerr take an intervention?
Mr Kerr is concluding in 15 seconds.
I will close with a quote from Edmund Burke. He said:
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle”
and that
“If we command our wealth, we shall be rich and free; if our wealth commands us, we are poor indeed.”
16:43
It is a pity that I have only four minutes for my speech, so I cannot take interventions.
There is a proposal by Scottish Power Energy Networks for a string of pylons partly across my constituency. Although I support a move to more green and renewable energy, with much of it being generated in my local area—which, of course, means increased grid capacity—I cannot support the current proposed route, which would involve an invasive network of pylons cutting through the beautiful Borders landscape. There would not even be community benefit.
The proposal is not about keeping the lights on in Scotland. When SPEN made a presentation to Scottish Borders Council in December, it was clear that the line was being driven by UK Government energy targets and that minimal energy would be transmitted the other way, so the proposal is primarily about meeting energy demands in the south.
Legislation and regulations related to electricity networks are reserved, and the National Energy System Operator is responsible for a strategic approach to transmission investment. It is for the transmission owner—in this case, SPEN—to analyse the impact of a proposal and ensure that the views of local communities, for example, are considered. I emphasise that the Scottish Government has no role in that process apart from in relation to its statutory planning and consenting processes, which come into operation at the very end of the UK energy processes.
The fourth national planning framework—NPF4—influences all planning and consenting decisions to ensure that the sustainable expansion of our electricity networks protects our most valued natural assets and cultural heritage. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, I have already raised my concerns about the potential disruption to the invaluable and successful South of Scotland Golden Eagle Project in the Tweed valley.
The irony is that the south of Scotland produces more than four times the electricity that it requires but does not benefit from any local electricity pricing. The proposed pylons will stream that electricity south, where, ironically, standing charges are cheaper—41.57p per day in London from January to April this year, but 64.16p per day in the south of Scotland.
Will the member give way?
We need energy to be devolved, which would bring energy and planning together. That would open the door to community benefits for communities that might be affected and to local energy pricing. The Conservatives will never agree to that—so be it. I say to Mr Lumsden that this debate has produced more heat than light.
Have you concluded your speech, Ms Grahame?
Yes—I have sat down.
I was just checking. Thank you.
I call Liam McArthur to close on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
16:46
As Christine Grahame alluded to, the debate has perhaps produced more heat than light. Hearing Douglas Lumsden rail against corporate profits—which might come back to haunt him—while Stephen Kerr complained about oil and gas companies being taxed to death was a bit like being in “Alice through the Looking Glass”.
A speech that stood out for me was Michael Marra’s, about the responsibility that rests on us as politicians. None of these issues are easy. As I said in my earlier speech, one of the benefits that Scotland and the UK have—I will come back to that point about Scotland and the UK—is that our policy and regulatory environment is seen as being broadly stable, irrespective of what Government is in office either at a UK level or a Scottish level. That has been to our benefit and has attracted investors. However, that perception is now under challenge.
The other contribution that I found very helpful came from Michael Matheson, who linked the chronology of all of this. We are focusing on the consenting regime consultation that is on the go—and that is right—but let us understand how we got here. Michael Matheson talked about the decisions of the previous UK Conservative Government, which did not have an unblemished record when it came to the development of renewables but recognised that, if we were to have any chance of meeting our net zero targets, we would need to step up the pace of generation development, which would be utterly pointless and fruitless were it not to be backed by simultaneous investment in the transmission and storage infrastructure. Michael Matheson was right to say that we are constantly talking about the need for a just transition but the transition will work only if our energy market is joined up and does what it needs to do. His was a very helpful contribution to the debate.
I do not think that any of us would argue that the consenting regime process is right. Finlay Carson’s intervention highlighted a case that I do not know the details of but that did not sound like a particularly effective way of building public confidence, whatever else it is seeking to achieve. Reforms are needed. The minister—somewhat uncharacteristically, perhaps—appeared to suggest that lessons could be learned from what is in place south of the border. Let us see whether that new leaf has, indeed, been turned.
The point that was made about community benefit is important. Sarah Boyack pointed to some of the housing developments that we need to see as part of that. There is a degree of self-interest in those for generation and transmission companies, but a wider community benefit is to be had, too. Mark Ruskell was right to point to the difficulties around community benefit when it comes to transmission—we need to get more innovative with how that works in the future. The criticism of the Scottish Government over the delayed energy strategy is entirely valid and sets a context for the debate that we are having. Those concerns are right.
Christine Grahame’s effort to turn the matter into some sort of constitutional spat whereby something is being done to Scotland by perfidious—
Will the member give way?
I will not give way, I am afraid.
To suggest that something is somehow being done to Scotland is disingenuous.
I know of nobody in the sector who is pleading for the breaking up of the UK energy market in order to address the issues that we face, although there certainly needs to be better consultation north and south of the border. The First Minister never tires of telling us how that has improved over the past six months, but it may need to improve still further.
We cannot lose sight of the reason why we are where we are. Investment in transmission and storage has run chronically behind where it has been on generation. If we are to achieve our net zero ambitions and the just transition, that investment needs to happen.
16:50
I agree with Liam McArthur that there cannot be a just transition without transmission infrastructure.
Michael Marra is right that there has been a responsibility on successive Governments in both Scotland and Westminster to provide “clarity” on the kinds of plans and programmes that had to be put in place. That argument needed to be won with the public, but I do not think that such clarity has been provided.
Unfortunately, that has allowed a populist space to develop. The kind of anti-renewables rhetoric that I heard from a wide range of Conservative colleagues this afternoon echoes the language that Donald Trump used when he came to the Parliament to give evidence against renewable energy all those years ago.
Will the member give way?
No, I do not have time.
Some of the myth-driven rants that we are starting to hear—for example, that undergrounding is a cheap solution that can easily be put in place—could not be further from the truth. I believe that Stephen Kerr raised that in his speech. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Ruskell.
I advise Mr Kerr, Rachael Hamilton and others to go back and read the comments made by former Conservative energy ministers at Westminster, who underlined the fact that undergrounding will cost between five and 10 times the cost of overhead lines and that it has substantial environmental impacts, as we saw in the debate on the Beauly-Denny line all those years ago.
We are now seeing a shift to populist rhetoric, which is very disappointing. Douglas Lumsden tried to pull that back a bit. He said that we are in the chamber today to talk about solutions that “empower” communities. However, I did not hear any solutions from the Tories. What I heard was a call for an endless public inquiry, where they can rant, shout and drive communities into an expensive, costly and debilitating process for years on end. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Ruskell.
I was there at the time when the Beauly-Denny line was going through pre-application consultation, and it went to public local inquiry. I was there throughout all those years working with communities, and it was very painful.
The only positive thing to come out of that was that the communities that recognised that they could influence the project—that they could get substations moved and get investment in the landscape—were the communities that engaged with the utility company and cross-party MSPs, including myself; they got benefits as a result of that. There must be an understanding and an acceptance that we need transmission infrastructure, but there absolutely are wins that communities can get if they are supported by MSPs, councillors and others to engage with the companies and to win those benefits.
A number of members—including Liam McArthur, Sarah Boyack and Christine Grahame—spoke about community benefits. The recommendation of the review that was conducted in 2023 by Nick Winser, the electricity networks commissioner, was that communities should get financial benefits from transmission, both lump sums for householders and community benefit funds. The commissioner said:
“There is every opportunity to be generous with these payments. Undergrounding power line costs between five and 10 times more than overhead lines and causes more environmental damage.”
Utility companies such as SSEN, whose representatives are with us today, that are making commitments to community benefit need to be held to their word. They will save money through overgrounding, so communities need to benefit from those choices.
I welcome the fact that SSEN has committed £100 million already. We need to work with the grain of that and ensure that communities get a good deal from what is going on, but we are not going to get that from Mr Lumsden and his colleagues. Their only interest is in division and right-wing rhetoric, and that is a disgrace.
16:54
It is a great pleasure to follow the previous two speakers, who have summed up the debate very well. I am not surprised that there is controversy and that people are concerned about what is being planned, as what we are trying to do is exceptionally difficult: we are trying to completely change the nature and the basis of our energy economy. We are trying to go from a position, 25 years ago, where two thirds of our energy was being generated from fossil fuels, to one where that is completely replaced by renewables. That is not easy—it is hard.
Michael Matheson was absolutely right to detail the chronology. It was indeed the previous Conservative Government that upped the target for offshore renewables from 30GW to 50GW. Stephen Kerr described the position that we are in as being the result of “socialist” decision making. Who was the great socialist who increased that target? It was none other than that well-renowned socialist, Boris Johnson.
In listening to many of the Conservatives who have spoken this afternoon, we would be forgiven for thinking that they had been out of power for years, but the election was only in July last year. The reality is that the vast bulk of the decisions that have been made—or at least a very considerable number of them—result from their time in office. Whether we are talking about the target or its implications for what we need in terms of transmission, the grid process or applications, or the consultation processes, all those things stem from decisions that the Conservatives made or did not make in their time in government a mere matter of months ago. To come to the chamber and point the finger in every direction other than their own is frankly reprehensible, and for this reason: it is not just a difficult thing that we are trying to do; it is necessary. We need to do this.
Mr Kerr said, “Drill, baby, drill.”
No—I was quoting.
The simple fact is this, Mr Kerr. We have 6 per cent of the extractable resources left under the sea bed. That is what is left. If we do nothing, we are left wholly at the behest and the mercy—
Will Daniel Johnson give way on that point?
No, thank you. Nobody took any of my interventions, so I am not going to take any in this short debate.
He misquoted me.
Let us hear Mr Johnson.
As I was saying, we would be left wholly at the mercy of countries such as Russia. We need to act for energy security.
We have among the highest electricity costs of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and they are made higher and more unstable because of the previous Tory Government’s decision to get rid of our gas storage. If we want cheaper electricity, we need to invest in renewables. Ultimately, successful, competitive economies are those that secure affordable access to reliable energy. That has always been the truth. It was the truth for the UK in the 19th century with coal, and it was the truth for the United States in the 20th century with oil. This century, the successful economies will be those that secure reliable access to affordable, renewable electricity.
If the Conservatives want to reject that, they are the ones who will need to explain why this country is uncompetitive, they will need to explain to people why our electricity bills are higher than in other parts of the world, and they will need to explain to business and industry—[Interruption.]
I am very sorry to have to interrupt you, Mr Johnson. We will stop shouting from our seats.
This transition is necessary. It is vital. It is vital if we are going to lower bills, and it is vital if we are going to secure investment. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have revealed today not only that they are anti-business, but that they are driven only by populism.
What rubbish!
Frankly, that needs to be rejected.
He should listen to the people.
Before I call the next speaker, I ask you directly, Mr Lumsden, to desist from commenting from your seat.
16:58
We have rightly heard from members about the need to defend community voices. Our Government is taking action to strengthen the voices of communities in the electricity consenting process. As several members, including Sarah Boyack, have mentioned, the proposals that we are talking about will make it a statutory requirement for communities to be consulted before any application is made. That represents an improvement in the voice of communities, and they will be able to make their voices heard loud and clear, helping to influence proposals at the earliest possible stage.
Ministers will retain the right to reject applications if developers have not engaged sufficiently. The examination process will be more effective than before, and—crucially—just as independent. That is what putting community voices at the heart of the consenting process means in practice.
As several members pointed out in their speeches, the proposals on public inquiries seek to make the process more efficient. At present, that route takes an average of 18 months and involves written submissions, hearings and inquiry sessions. Not only is it sometimes a lengthy option; it can also be intimidating, complex and time consuming for all participants. Liam McArthur, Michael Marra and Daniel Johnson gave examples of processes that took even longer than 18 months and pointed out—rightly, with regard to all those cases—that politicians have to be honest with the public about the problem that such a delay represents.
The consultation suggests that an independent reporter be given powers to make an examination in the most appropriate way. For example, they may specify a site inspection, further written submissions, hearing sessions or inquiry sessions or a combination of those. In addition—crucially for this debate—the reporter may still specify a public inquiry. As Mark Ruskell pointed out, however, the reform is about ensuring that a wider range of options than just a public inquiry are available to allow communities to make their views clear.
A number of members referred to community benefit. In the past 12 months, more than £30 million of benefits have been offered to Scottish communities by energy companies. However, we know that we must do more, and we are therefore consulting on our voluntary good practice principles to ensure that our national community benefits guidance is fit for the future.
A number of members are anxious about the proposal. I highlight that it is being put forward with the UK Government, and it is ultimately for the UK Parliament to legislate on it. Nonetheless, I am happy for us to debate Westminster legislation in the chamber, although I realise that the Conservatives have protested against our doing so in the past. It is important to acknowledge, however, that there is no single quick fix to the multifaceted issue that is electricity consenting.
The proposals require action, co-operation, honesty—as other members have pointed out—and, at times, compromise from all stakeholders. Our aim is to strike the right balance and, as Michael Matheson pointed out, the efforts to achieve that very end are not new. The proposed reforms are about modernising our consenting process for infrastructure, and that includes how we seek to listen to the views of affected communities. The strength of those views will be greater thanks to the proposals, and—in the Scottish Government’s opinion—that will always be a core part of the consenting process.
It is right that we have this debate, and that we have heard some impassioned contributions during it. I also believe, however—to come back to the point that Liam McArthur made—that it is right that we do so in a way that recognises, and is honest about, the realities that we face, and honest, too, about finding genuine solutions for communities and the genuine issues that community voices wish to raise.
17:03
Communities across Angus and Aberdeenshire have been blindsided by SSEN’s plans to industrialise our countryside. As Douglas Lumsden said, for the past two years, constituent correspondence on new energy infrastructure in the north-east has flooded our inboxes. No other issue—not a single issue—has come close. The First Minister said that he was sure that ministers would be happy to meet with campaigners, but where is Gillian Martin? She is missing in action for constituents. She has met SSEN, but she has not met her constituents and campaign groups.
We need more than lip service from Mairi Gougeon, who is the constituency MSP for many of the affected areas. Where is she today? She is missing in action.
Members: She is ill!
Let us hear Ms White.
I have attended town-hall meetings on the plans; met with constituents and campaign groups, including the save our Mearns group, Angus Pylon Action Group, the Turriff against pylons group and Deeside Against Pylons; supported a petition to Parliament on the deeply flawed consultation process; engaged with SSEN, Ofgem and the Scottish Government; and led a parliamentary debate in May last year.
The projects’ location, scale and accelerated timeframe are a massive source of concern for communities. The wrong kit is being put in the wrong place, but the public have not been given the opportunity to provide feedback on alternative options, such as offshoring or undergrounding. As Douglas Lumsden said, the devolved Scottish Government, instead of looking for solutions that empower, has chosen, once again, to ride roughshod over rural communities.
Affected residents are understandably worried about the value of their homes, disruption to their businesses and the local economy, and the loss of prime agricultural land. What will happen to people—of whom there are many—such as the family who live next to Fetteresso, who will have three pylons within spitting distance of their home, when they have to remortgage and they face negative equity? Like many people, they also have concerns about the health implications of the infrastructure, which have not been explored or allayed.
The mental health and overall wellbeing of affected residents have suffered. [Interruption.] I know that SNP members are not really interested in this, because they are talking over me, but my constituents are. I was recently shocked to learn that one local farmer’s firearms had been removed for his own safety, and I understand that some farmers have been threatened with compulsory purchase orders. I have been told that SSEN has not even considered how the height of the overhead lines relates to the use of farming machinery. Farmers will have to mitigate their operations along the pylon pathway. What will that mean for food security, forestry and countryside management?
All of that is an extremely high price to pay for the energy transition, especially when it is the north-east that will bear the brunt of it.
As my colleague Graham Simpson said, we know what we need to do to decarbonise our electricity system—we can all agree on that. I say to Michael Marra and Labour that we and our communities do not believe what he and Ed Miliband say. They might be speaking for the cities, but they are not speaking for rural communities.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry; I do not have time.
Stephen Kerr said that he did not want our land to be turned into a wirescape. He said that Governments should be
“the servant and not the master.”
There is nothing just or fair about the proposed transition.
The Scottish Government’s pre-application guidance for transmission operators is inadequate and outdated. It fails to capture the complexities of transmission developments and the volume of projects. Sadly, SSEN’s engagement with affected residents has been dreadful. The public must be given meaningful opportunities to influence the proposals. They cannot be bulldozed through by transmission operators, which is what people feel is happening now.
This issue is not just about a route on a map or targets to achieve; it is about people and the place that they call home. Scrutiny, transparency and public participation should not be seen as tick-box exercises or obstacles to overcome. They are fundamental to the democratic decision-making process, and so, too, is the right to a public inquiry. In 2023, the SNP MP Alan Brown tried to remove the right of local planning authorities to have a public inquiry in such situations. Now, the UK Labour Government is trying to muzzle the voices of communities by stifling public inquiries.
Communities must be at the heart of the electricity consenting process, but, just last night, SSEN failed to show at Stonehaven community council’s opening meeting on the plans. That is disgraceful.
Once our landscape is punctured by pylons, it cannot be restored. It has been left to the Scottish Conservatives to bring this debate to the chamber. The Scottish Conservatives would ensure that the right to a public inquiry was enshrined in the consenting process, and I urge my SNP and Labour colleagues to do the same.
Air ais
Safety in SchoolsAir adhart
Urgent Question