Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Tess White for bringing to the chamber this important debate. Of course, it is not a new debate, and there are many lessons from history. After the second world war, Tom Johnston brought hydro power to the glens for the first time, which led to dramatic economic progress and improved quality of life for so many communities. It would be wrong to assume, however, that that progress came with no cost. Some communities were abandoned, and pristine rivers were damaged—some, such as the River Garry, are starting to recover only now.

There will always be a balance to be struck between national energy needs, local and global environmental impacts and the need for communities to have a stake in both decision making and the economic rewards of projects.

In more recent times, the Beauly to Denny power line upgrade—which, I believe, was consented by Mr Ewing—has left us with many lessons. The debates from 18 years ago are now being rerun all over again with the SSEN programme. I will reflect on some of those debates, in which I was involved at the time.

First, there were arguments that no grid upgrades were needed, and that wind farms would never be built. However, today, we have to accept the reality that the Beauly to Denny scheme was needed, that it led to the construction of onshore wind farms, and that those wind farms have slashed the climate impact of electricity while benefiting communities across the UK through lower electricity generation costs.

Lord Callanan, the Conservative UK Minister for Energy Efficiency and Green Finance, was absolutely right when he said:

“we need to build about four times as much transmission infrastructure by 2030 as we built in the previous 30 years.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 February 2024; Vol 836, c 193GC.]

The missed 2030 climate target reminds us that there is no path to net zero, in Scotland or the UK, without a massive switch from fossil fuels to electricity for both transport and heating. The reality is that the bulk of that can come only from renewable energy, and the new transmission lines will be required to get that energy to where it is needed.

I do not have much time to respond to that; a three-hour debate on this issue would be fantastic. There are certainly lessons to be learned from the Beauly to Denny line about early engagement with developers. In this case, of course, it goes through a different consenting process from the one that local authorities are engaged with. The critical issue here is early engagement, and I will come on to more points about that later, if I have time.

Secondly, reflecting on the Beauly to Denny line, some people acknowledged the national need for grid upgrades but believed that undergrounding was a panacea—out of sight, out of mind, shove it all underground. I wish that that were the case, because there will undoubtedly be a landscape impact from new pylon lines. They are not pretty, but digging a motorway-sized trench through sensitive landscapes and farmland and across rivers and streams causes environmental damage, leads to vulnerability of supply and requires vastly more expensive infrastructure—that is just a reality.

Thirdly, in relation to the Beauly to Denny line, some communities accepted the need for pylon upgrades and reluctantly accepted that complete undergrounding might not be feasible but successfully negotiated changes with developers. They not only won route alterations but managed to secure other improvements, including the removal of existing infrastructure such as substations.

I am pleased that there appears to be some progress in the negotiations around the current SSEN programme, just as there was with the Beauly to Denny project, but it is clear that the developers need to go further. They need to double down on their work with communities and find compromises that are not going to be welcomed by everybody but will become more acceptable.

My final point is about mitigation. The long, drawn-out and bitter public inquiry into the Beauly to Denny project led to years of wrangling before a programme could be agreed and delivered. We cannot afford another four-year public inquiry process with the SSEN programme. These projects must be delivered faster if we are to make progress. Communities cannot wait for funding for landscape mitigation to come years after the event.

Developers need to design those options with communities alongside the route selection process.

The grid upgrades must happen—they cannot be delayed. It is inevitable that there will be some landscape impact, but developers need to work harder with communities, minimise the landscape impact and invest in the future.

Does the member recognise that the lessons from the Beauly to Denny project show that it is inevitable that the pylon lines will be constructed and that now is the time for developers to be working with communities on landscape mitigation, route selection and ensuring that the projects are developed in the best way? It is not about communities being pitted against each other; it is about having a process that gets to an outcome, delivers on climate and delivers what electricity consumers across the UK need and what his Government minister at Westminster wants to see.

The latest report from the Government’s climate adviser is clear that there is no credible route to net zero without cutting unnecessary air miles. It is, then, time to shift frequent short-haul travellers away from high-carbon flights and on to low-carbon rail. Does the minister agree that the use of sustainable aviation fuels will not be enough to deliver net zero and that taxation has a key role to play in that transition?

If there is time in hand, I will give way to Mr Carson.

Okay. That will be 15 years since the initial policy commitment to roll out integrated ticketing, and there is no understanding of whether the three regional transport partnerships that I mentioned will have any role in that in the near future.

That will be useful.

Which of the three options do you think will get more people on to public transport and repair services?

Three regional transport partnerships are mentioned in the statutory instrument but there is no understanding of whether they will move towards rolling out integrated ticketing in the near future. Is that correct?