Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, May 2, 2024

Official Report 1031KB pdf

---

New Energy Infrastructure in the North of Scotland

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-12842, in the name of Tess White, on new energy infrastructure in the north of Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button now or as soon as possible.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament acknowledges the reported concerns of communities across the north of Scotland, especially those in Aberdeenshire, Angus, Moray and the Highlands, regarding new energy infrastructure; notes that the Scottish Government reportedly indicates that this infrastructure is needed to meet the 2030 offshore wind connection dates and its net zero targets; recognises what it sees as the importance of decarbonising the electricity system, and notes the belief that the strategy to achieve net zero should use a variety of energy sources and consider all infrastructural options, such as undergrounding electrical transmission cables or submarine cables, in order to protect the local economy and character of rural communities; understands that the concerns of rural communities relate to the location, scale and accelerated timeframe of these projects, and that they feel their views are routinely disregarded by the Scottish Government’s current strategy, which has reportedly resulted in an unjust transition taking place in rural communities across Scotland; notes in particular the impact of these plans on the wellbeing of affected residents, who are reportedly worried about their health, businesses, property value, cultural heritage, and the potential loss of prime agricultural land; understands that affected residents have criticised the consultation process of transmission network operator, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN); highlights petition PE2095 to improve the public consultation processes for energy infrastructure projects, which was lodged in the Scottish Parliament by Margaret Tracey Smith; notes the calls for the Scottish Government to ensure that local community submissions are considered as a key factor in considering what applications and routes should be approved; acknowledges what it sees as the strength of feeling among affected communities that rural Scotland is being disproportionately impacted by new energy infrastructure, and recognises local campaigners who are working to raise awareness of these plans so that the voices of affected residents are heard.

12:54  

I am pleased to have secured parliamentary time to raise the issue of plans for massive transmission infrastructure in the north of Scotland. Thank you to all members who supported the motion.

The proposals in question, which have been put forward by Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks Transmission, include a new 400KV pylon route from Kintore to Tealing in the north-east, as well as two new substations. If plans are allowed to go ahead, that towering and sprawling infrastructure will puncture our countryside and industrialise our rural communities. It will affect our hugely productive farmland in the north-east, which is seen as the bread basket of Scotland and boasts malting barley, soft fruit, bulbs and field vegetables. It will impact the local economy, and there are concerns about not only the financial implications but the implications for community wellbeing.

The public gallery is full of representatives from the affected communities, and I thank them for coming today. They have travelled from Angus and Aberdeenshire to protest outside the Scottish Parliament because they feel utterly disillusioned with and disenfranchised by this process.

We are told that this new infrastructure is needed for the connection of ScotWind offshore wind projects in the North Sea. The Scottish Government has exclusive discretion to approve and deny applications for offshore wind in Scotland and Scottish waters. There is already too much energy being licensed into the grid, far too few connections and an insufficient transfer mechanism, yet the first ScotWind leasing round allocated more offshore wind than anyone expected. In other words, the Scottish National Party Government sold it cheaply and it sold off much more than was needed.

Little thought was given by the SNP Government to the transmission network and the infrastructure required to land the power from those projects in the north of Scotland. It is no wonder that the Climate Change Committee concluded that the Scottish Government has failed

“to bring to the Scottish people, and the Scottish Parliament, a climate change plan that is fit for purpose.”

We are all keenly aware of the challenge that Scotland and the United Kingdom face as we continue down the road to net zero. We know that we need to decarbonise our electricity system, but many of the people who will live and work in the shadow of those monster pylons or next to the whopping substations do not feel that they are being helped along that road. For them, this is an unjust transition.

To reach net zero, we need joined-up thinking between the Scottish Government and transmission operators such as SSEN, as well as close working with local stakeholders. We need careful, consistent and considered engagement with affected communities, but that simply has not been the case.

I reiterate Tess White’s praise for the campaigners who have come to our Parliament today to protest outside. It is also good to see significant numbers of them at a members’ business debate.

Tess White was discussing consultation and listening to the communities. I have been contacted by many farmers in Moray who are concerned about the proposals to put large pylons through good agricultural land. Does Tess White believe, as I do, that much more needs to be done to listen to the concerns of our farmers and communities, who are raising serious issues about the proposals?

Yes, we need to listen to the farmers. We are talking about productive land—once it is gone, it cannot come back. Food security is just as important as energy security.

I will touch on the important point that the member made about engagement with communities. I am sure that, like me, she shared the shock and real anger when the proposals for the new overhead line appeared seemingly out of nowhere at the start of last year, as it had not featured in any of the project plans that had been published up until that point, when there had been talk about line upgrades rather than a new line.

Does the member agree that meaningful consultation by the authorities that are responsible for those decisions should have been done before we got anywhere near a planning application and that proper, full and transparent consultation needs to be undertaken by National Grid Electricity System Operator Ltd when it takes important decisions that have massive ramifications for our constituents as well as for wider rural Scotland?

Tess White, I can give you the time back for that intervention.

I am glad that Mairi Gougeon raised that issue, because she is a minister in the Scottish Government and, as I said at First Minister’s question time, the Scottish Government needs to use its devolved powers. It cannot, as the Minister for Energy, Just Transition and Fair Work did, wash its hands of the consultation and of this process.

My background is in the energy sector. I know the importance of proper consultation, and SSEN’s consultation has fallen woefully short of an appropriate standard. It has totally and utterly dropped the ball. The anxiety and stress that it has caused my constituents is simply unacceptable. Yesterday, SSEN committed to consider alignments that are proposed by communities and landowners and confirmed that it has delayed the overhead line alignment consultation. It is such a shame that it has taken a very visible demonstration from community groups to push SSEN into landowner and community consultation.

Affected residents know that, once SSEN has made its choices, the final decision will not rest with local councils. The buck, as I have said, will stop with the Scottish Government’s energy consents unit, and that is what terrifies those residents. That is because many communities have already gone through the trauma of being steamrollered, with industrial-sized wind farms being put on their doorsteps.

That is bad enough, but, last year, SNP MP Alan Brown even tried to remove the right of local planning authorities to have a public inquiry into situations such as this. That has not been lost on local communities. That change was averted thanks to Andrew Bowie, the Scottish Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, who stopped it in its tracks. We will fight to retain the right to have a public local inquiry where the developer and the community are not able to agree terms.

Just last week, the Minister for Energy, Just Transition and Fair Work washed her hands of the whole issue. She said that it was up to the transmission operators to bring the affected communities with them. That will be hard for her constituents in Turriff and New Deer to hear.

The reality is that this is the wrong kit in the wrong location. It is perfectly possible to put infrastructure underground or offshore, and that needs to be an option.

I support the communities behind Save Our Mearns, Angus Pylon Action Group and Deeside Against Pylons in their petition to change the SNP Government’s approach to what will be a generational change in our landscape. [Applause.]

I advise those in the gallery—it is very good to see you here in such large numbers—that although this meeting is taking place in public, it is not a public meeting. Therefore, we do not permit participation, and that includes applause.

13:03  

Tess White is to be congratulated on bringing forward such an important topic for debate.

I will start by saying that I have a great deal of respect for the Minister for Energy, Just Transition and Fair Work, who is extremely intelligent and diligent. I gently suggest that this really should have been a Government debate. [Applause.] If my opponents could stop applauding me, that would be less embarrassing.

I am deadly serious about this, because Tess White’s motion covers a huge range of complex but absolutely essential matters for the future of Scotland. I was energy minister for five years—it was a privilege—and I was and remain a staunch supporter of renewables. I granted many consents for offshore and onshore wind farms, and I think that that was the right thing to do.

Five judicial reviews were raised against the Scottish Government and we won every single one. In fact, we managed to beat two particular litigants: one was a famous north-east businessman from the United States, who is now a presidential candidate, and the other was the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. We won both reviews, and I do not know from which victory I derive the greater satisfaction—it is a toss-up.

In all seriousness, I want to make a couple of points, because there is not time in this short debate to do justice to the topic. First, there needs to be an electricity generation balance. As so often, it was Winston Churchill who summarised the issue when he said that, when it came to electricity generation, the solution was “variety and variety alone.” In other words, we cannot rely solely on one mode of generating electricity. Each mode has pros and cons; we cannot put all the eggs in one basket.

As a supporter of renewables—particularly the green freeports in Inverness and Cromarty Firth, where great work is done by many companies that already employ thousands of people and will employ thousands more, which is great for the Highlands—I ask whether there is now too much emphasis on wind energy. Do we not need to look at forms of electricity that are not stochastic or intermittent, such as gas? I think that we should.

Gas is now part of the approved European Union taxonomy. In other words, the EU says that it is an acceptable form of electricity generation with regard to emissions. My understanding is that the SNP wants to follow EU regulation, so perhaps the minister could say whether that automatically entails, as a concomitant conclusion, that we are now for new gas power stations. There needs to be back-up when the wind does not blow or the hydro power does not provide electricity because of seasonal issues. Every type of renewable energy has advantages and disadvantages.

Secondly, we should always ask ourselves, “Cui bono—who benefits?” I am really concerned that there will not be enough benefit to, for example, people in Kiltarlity and Broadford. I know that the debate is primarily about the north-east, but the member also mentioned the Highlands. Who benefits?

Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Power need to do far more. Why do they not create new housing as a lasting legacy? I do not mean just £5,000 per megawatt—that is yesterday. There needs to be a debate. I know that lots of good things are being done, but not enough is being done.

I am not quite sure how much time I have left, Presiding Officer.

You have run out of time, Mr Ewing.

I will finish by urging the minister, in all sincerity, to have a three-hour debate about the topic, because I cannot do it justice in the time that I have and I do not think that anybody can. The issue is hugely important to Scotland. We have to reflect, get things right and not just rush on regardless, without reflection. Above all, we must listen to the people of Scotland, wherever they are from—

You need to conclude, Mr Ewing.

In life and democracy, everybody counts or nobody counts.

Thank you. There is a lot of interest in participating in the debate, as Mr Ewing anticipated, so members will have to adhere to the speaking time allocations if we are to get everybody involved. I call Tim Eagle for up to four minutes.

13:08  

I will try to nip on within my four minutes, Presiding Officer. I declare a bit of an interest in that I have previously worked in the field for crofting groups, advising them on tenancy rights and expected rents for a wind farm in the Highlands.

I offer my apologies to Tess White and the other members in the chamber. Unfortunately, after I have spoken, I have to go to another debate in the Parliament on an important rural issue that came up yesterday. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for giving me a pre-agreement that I could do so.

That is not to take anything away from the debate. The fact that we have so many people here for a members’ business debate shows just how important the issue is. I echo Fergus Ewing’s comment that it does not do the topic justice to debate it in 45 minutes. We really need to have a much longer debate about the issues and what is going on, because the green future that we want can be achieved only if we all come together—communities, politicians and everyone else.

Most people, including me, recognise the climate emergency that we face and the need for action and change. I want to be clear that I do not see this debate as one about climate policy or politics. The debate is about how we reach climate goals together and how we ensure that the beauty of Scotland—and it is beautiful—which hundreds of thousands of residents and tourists enjoy each year, is not destroyed.

The trouble with politics is that, sometimes, in our race for the goal, we lose sight of all else that is important. In our race to secure a future of renewables, I believe that we are losing sight of the impact that the infrastructure is having now. We simply must stop to consider the how of our green future.

I fully support a strong renewable energy industry that creates jobs, provides community support and, importantly, expands and contributes to the Scottish economy as a whole.

I agree with everything that Mr Eagle has said in that regard. Does he support my calls for making mandatory the consultation and engagement with the public by transmission operators?

Yes, I think that we would support those calls. However, it has to go beyond that—we need to see true engagement. At the moment, the likes of SSEN are putting forward pitiful proposals that are not fully developed, and they are turning up to meetings without the full knowledge base. Mandatory consultation and engagement are important, but we also have to make sure that the minister and the Scottish Government are listening to what the communities are saying. That is really important.

Yesterday, in the chamber, when she was questioned by my colleague Oliver Mundell, Gillian Martin commented on the need for meaningful engagement with communities. Oliver was trying to suggest that we should have legal support for communities during public inquiries. I would go further than that. In my previous life as a land agent, it was quite common for applicants to pay the professional fees for landlords and tenants where projects were being considered. I see no reason why that cannot be expanded to community groups. Applicants should give a fair amount of money so that community groups can seek professional support. At this point in time, they are on their own.

I also recognise that we are seeing some negative effects of the changes, and one of them involves water supplies. Some water supplies have decreased in areas where wind turbines have gone up. More thought needs to be given to the places where those projects take off, and we must ensure that there is financial support should things go wrong. At the moment, communities are being left on their own.

Specifically, Tess White made a point about the SSEN pylon work in the Highlands and Moray, on which I have received a phenomenal number of letters and emails. That is a huge development, and many local groups are rightly concerned. My thought is that there is a subsea alternative and that the only reason that SSEN is not pursuing that at the moment is cost. That alternative should not be off the agenda—it has to be discussed.

As politicians, we have spent years telling communities to get involved through community planning boards, local planning, local action groups, community councils and area forums. The Government’s Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 talked at length about quality of life and engagement. Today, there are nearly 100 people sitting in this chamber, and many more at home, and they are engaging. The Government needs to listen, provide support where it is needed, tell SSEN to think again about its pylon plan, and work with communities to select the right locations in the right places, so that we can build our sustainable future together.

13:13  

I thank Tess White for securing the debate. I am the sole non-Conservative signatory to the motion, which I do not entirely agree with, but I felt that it was important to have this debate in Parliament today. I agree entirely with Fergus Ewing that there should be a debate on the issue in Government time, so that we can explore it fully. There is much that I will not be able to say today as a result of it being a members’ business debate.

The failure to upgrade our energy infrastructure will jeopardise any chance that we have of achieving climate change targets that are set by both the UK and Scottish Governments, led by the SNP and the Conservatives. There is a shared mission in that regard, as Tim Eagle pointed out.

Having engaged with many experts on the issue, I have been persuaded by the case for overhead lines, but it is incumbent on the Government to make the case to residents who are here today and to those who have not been able to join us. I hope that the minister can do some of that today and can, more broadly, build the confidence of residents in that regard.

In February, I visited the village of Careston, near Brechin, and met local residents. Many accepted that the Kintore to Tealing project will go ahead, but they were seeking the best route for that overhead line, in order for it to have the least detrimental impact on residents, the environment and businesses. Residents expressed their concerns about some of the information that was used to determine the route for that overhead line, including the maps that were being used, SSEN’s familiarity with the topography and the failure, in their view, in not having somebody walk the line to understand the environment that they were intervening in. The impact on farming land was particularly acute.

Businesses were also impacted, including a local business that is at the cutting edge of new farming technology and a range of tourism businesses in the area from which I have had representations. As local employers, they have significant concerns about what the project will mean for the livelihoods of many in the areas and the potential for any compensation in that regard.

I am grateful to SSEN colleagues for meeting me on numerous occasions so that I could raise some of those issues with them. We have had constructive discussions about the challenges and the potential solutions, but more work must be done to improve those plans.

SSEN has rightly pointed out that the energy policies and targets that have been set by the UK and Scottish Governments require the infrastructure to be built. There is politics at play in the discussion, but it has to be done on the basis of achieving the ends that we all agree on. In some respects, the company is caught in the middle of that. I believe that both Governments have failed to communicate to the public just how necessary the infrastructure improvements are.

I gently point out to Conservative colleagues that the need for energy infrastructure upgrades is as much a result of UK Government policy as it is of Scottish Government policy.

I agree with the member’s point about communicating the need for the infrastructure upgrades, but does he not agree that there is a need for the ESO and wider society—indeed, the media—to communicate the need for that if we want to reach net zero, and for energy security reasons?

I strongly agree with that. It is incumbent on all of us to have that conversation. Again, I signed the motion to have the conversation here today and I encourage the Government to do its own part in that regard. There is a case to be made by both parties and I have already spoken about that in the debate.

Will the member take an intervention?

Not at the moment; I want to make some progress. I am sorry, but I am almost running out of time.

I was pleased to see SSEN announcing yesterday that it is actively considering community and landowner-proposed alignments in the Kintore to Tealing project around Careston, Drumoak and Echt. I know that SSEN is also engaging with some of the businesses that I met in Careston.

The planning route has to be flexible and responsive and when I have pushed the contractor, I have found them to be so. However, when I speak to some of the protesters outside, I recognise that they do not share that experience. I encourage them to get in contact with me, where possible, or other representatives, so that we can push their case with SSEN and see the changes that are absolutely necessary.

As the projects are rolled out across Scotland, I have been saying to colleagues that this is a film coming to a cinema near them, frankly. It is not just about the north-east; it will impact citizens right across Scotland, so the Parliament has to take note of it.

There is a broader issue about community benefit. We have to see economic benefit, by which I mean jobs. We have to see the supply chain investment that we need. We had a meeting in Parliament this morning, organised by Michelle Thomson MSP, to talk to investors. We have to make sure that jobs accompany the projects, because that will secure the support of the public more than anything else.

13:18  

It is always a pleasure to follow Michael Marra, but I am sorry that I cannot agree with the premise of his argument on this occasion. His starting point is that the overhead line is the only possible solution and that is clearly not the case.

I thank Tess White. She is a doughty champion for her constituents and I am delighted that she has raised the topic in the chamber.

Will the member give way?

I will give way because I mentioned Michael Marra.

I appreciate the member giving way. I did not say that in my speech. I said that I was convinced of the case by the experts with whom I have engaged. It is the right case, but it is incumbent on both Governments to make their case for why this is the solution that is being pursued.

What I understood the member to say was that the overhead line was the single solution and that the case that needed to be made was for upgrading the grid. No one is arguing about the need for us to invest in the grid. What we are talking about here is how it impacts the communities of the north-east of Scotland.

Will the member give way?

I will, yes.

I appreciate the member giving way, given the constraints on time. This is a national problem. I could fill the gallery with constituents from Dumfries and Galloway representing Hands Off Our Hills, Scotland Against Spin and Galloway Without Pylons. We are in exactly the same situation in that Scottish Power has defaulted to look at the lowest-cost consented route. It does not understand that overhead lines will not be consented because the communities do not want them, and there is a reluctance to look at undergrounding. That should be one of the first options, not one of the last.

I am grateful to Finlay Carson for his intervention.

Ministers need to be aware—and beware—of the strength of feeling that there is in the communities of the north-east of Scotland about this issue. An attempt should not be made to confuse this matter in the minds of the public, because the public well understand that it is the Scottish ministers—the SNP Government—who are the ultimate planning authority on this matter.

Will the member give way?

I will not be able to give way—I wish I could. The case for a longer debate was well made by Fergus Ewing.

We have seen how effectively the SNP can use the planning system to stop stuff that it does not like, such as nuclear power. That is another mistake. There is no point in the SNP hiding from the issue, as it is trying to do.

When SSEN says that it cannot underground or offshore the lines and gives spurious technical excuses for not giving alternative solutions active consideration, I am afraid that it does not wash. I can see Michael Marra gesticulating, but that does not wash. We know that undergrounding or offshoring is feasible.

Will the member give way on that point?

I wish I could.

Look at what is being done in Germany to protect its natural environment from megapylons and overhead lines. It is building a 200-mile-long underground cable route, which is called A-Nord, that will transport renewable energy from the north to the south of Germany. Therefore, it can be done.

I do not know any members of the community action groups—many of whom, as has been said, are here today—who are opposed to clean energy or renewables. We may not all share the enthusiasm of some for the vast wind farms that we now see crowding our landscapes, but we all recognise the need to decarbonise and renew the grid.

However, the current plan industrialises rural Scotland with mega metal structures and power lines. We have before us an infrastructure project that will stand for between 50 and 100 years. With an eye on such a timescale, why are we rushing ahead with the lowest-cost, most intrusive solution because of some artificially imposed deadline?

Will Stephen Kerr give way?

I would love to be able to give way, but I cannot.

I cannot understand why anyone would think about sacrificing our country’s natural beauty and the wellbeing of our communities. Scotland is renowned for its magnificence. People come from all over the world to visit the most beautiful country in the world. They spend hundreds of millions of pounds. Are we really prepared to blight our tourism sector?

As MSPs, we should be empowering, not undermining, Scotland’s natural beauty. I whole-heartedly support the aims of the Angus Pylon Action Group and the Stop Tealing Industrialisation Group, and I commend them for their campaign. I fear for communities in places such as Jericho and Douglastown, just next to where my grandparents, Charles and Maggie Kerr, farmed as tenants.

I am not speaking against what needs to be done to address the issues of clean energy and energy security, but I am not willing to stand back and see communities and landscapes being sacrificed when other options exist, but those options are not properly being addressed.

13:23  

I thank Tess White for securing the debate. Whether we always realise that energy infrastructure affects every one of us, people in rural constituencies such as mine probably realise it more than most.

To achieve the net zero emission targets of the UK and Scottish Governments by 2050 and 2045, respectively, the independent Climate Change Committee has forecast that a doubling of electricity supply will be required to meet demand. Naturally, that will require extensive improvements to and expansion of our existing electricity infrastructure.

As other members have accurately pointed out, the Scottish Government faces limitations in reforming energy policy, as that is a matter that is reserved to the UK Government. I will give an example of that. Outdated transmission charges result in higher electricity costs for residents of northern Scotland, despite the fact that renewable energy sources are based there.

The UK Government’s wider lack of adequate regulation leads to wider problems for rural and island areas. For instance, a constituent of mine was recently told by Octopus Energy that it had not encountered the island’s postcode before, and that fitting a new meter could therefore take several years.

To return to the matter that we are debating today, I believe that there needs to be a greater understanding of how critical existing and planned infrastructure updates are to ensuring the safe and reliable transmission of electricity across Scotland.

I wish to focus on one particular project, which I understand has provoked debate along its route, to offer a different, more westerly perspective. Electricity for the whole of my constituency, the Western Isles, is currently supplied by two subsea cables from the north of Skye. Significant sections of the electricity line between Fort Augustus and Skye were built more than 70 years ago. Those sections are fast approaching the end of their operational life, as is demonstrated by three major faults suffered on the line during the past year.

The recent total failure of the cable between Skye and Harris resulted in 20,000 people in Lewis and Harris having to rely on a 70-year-old diesel-fired power station in Stornoway for several months. That was obviously far from ideal from an emissions perspective, and it has caused some anxiety about future sustainability. I should point out that the existing overhead line between Fort Augustus and Skye is a single circuit, with no back-up transmission circuits in the event of a fault. I have to register the view of many island constituents that a double-circuit replacement there would greatly strengthen network resilience and reliability.

One point that has been made very well is that community input is absolutely essential for infrastructure projects such as overhead lines. Listening to and addressing local concerns should be prioritised, not treated as an afterthought or as a tick-box exercise. When people work well together, important improvements can be made to proposals. I understand that, as a direct result of stakeholder feedback, SSEN is now planning—I hope—to underground some sections of the Fort Augustus to Skye line in the area around the iconic Cuillin mountain ranges.

As we move towards our net zero aims, we must look to do what is right for Scotland’s future generations. Communities must be listened to, and we must upgrade and expand our energy infrastructure so that it is fit for the years ahead. Those two aims need not be, and indeed should not be, in opposition to one another.

I am conscious of the number of members who still want to contribute to the debate, so I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Tess White to move such a motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Tess White]

Motion agreed to.

13:27  

I start by congratulating my colleague Tess White on securing this vitally important debate. I pay tribute to Tess, who, like my colleague Stephen Kerr, has raised this issue time and again in the chamber. I also give big thanks to all the campaigners who have made their way down to Parliament today to have their voices heard on what is such a vital issue.

We often hear calls from the Government for a just transition for the north-east. However, what is going on with the electricity infrastructure plans is an unjust transition. Would it be just if we saw the mass industrialisation of the north-east of Scotland in the pursuit of net zero? I do not think so, but that is exactly what is happening right now. Local communities such as those in Turriff and New Deer are angry at the lack of understanding from this central belt-focused Government. They feel ignored, sidelined and shut out by a distant Holyrood, which is completely unaware of the needs of rural Scotland and is hell-bent on destroying vital natural environments that are key to the economic future of the north-east.

It is nothing short of vandalism that is being done to rural communities throughout the north-east. Last week, I asked the Minister for Energy, Just Transition and Fair Work, Gillian Martin, to ensure that the devolved Government used the planning powers that it has to ensure that the overdevelopment of those areas is stopped. The answer then was nothing short of a disgrace: passing the buck and saying that the Scottish Government has no powers to instruct the transmission operators to opt for underground cabling. Well, minister, you have—

I am stating a fact when I say that legislation and regulations relating to energy and gas networks are reserved to the UK Government. Therefore, we cannot mandate any kind of engineering—overgrounding or undergrounding—but that could be done by the UK Government. Will the member write to the UK Government and make that point?

You are right: you cannot dictate to the operators what they must do, but you can dictate to them—

Speak through the chair, Mr Lumsden.

She can dictate to them what they cannot do.

As we have already heard, you have planning powers to stop nuclear power stations, for example. You used the powers then—you could use those powers in exactly the same way to stop what we are seeing across the north-east of Scotland.

We are elected to the Parliament to represent and speak up for our constituents. Judging by the hundreds of emails that I have had on this subject, and the demonstration that we have had outside today, that is exactly what I am doing.

SNP MSPs are failing in their duty to represent the needs of our hard-working constituents. Gillian Martin is meant to be in Parliament to represent communities; instead, she is ignoring them: ignoring their pleas, emails—as I heard earlier—and calls, and their protests at what is being done to them.

We have seen and experienced the abject failure of the SNP Government in listening to the needs of our rural communities. It is a litany of failures and there is no end in sight, no matter whom the SNP chooses to lead it or with whom it partners. The party is so focused on independence that it has lost the ability to listen to our communities, which I am proud to serve.

I am fully behind our move towards net zero, but it cannot be at any cost. The decisions that we make now will be with us for the next 50 to 100 years, so let us do it right. We cannot allow the desecration of the north-east of Scotland to take place. We must work with our communities, not against them.

I think that we all agree that something needs to be done, but—[Interruption.]

Sorry—is that an intervention from Michael Marra? No.

The vandalism of our natural environment, the focus on the needs of the central belt and the deliberate rush to destroy our beautiful countryside with unwanted, unnecessary pylons must stop. I am proud to support the motion today, and—more importantly—I stand with, and support, my constituents, who have travelled here today. I fully support them.

13:32  

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.

Will the member take an intervention?

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

I will be brief. Taking into account everything that Mr Ruskell is saying, would he agree that the current planning system is completely broken? Local authorities and planning departments do not have the capacity to deal with applications, and when they do deal with them, we see the sort of thing that happened in Dumfries and Galloway, where eight of the 12 applications to which local communities and local authorities objected then saw those objections overturned by the energy consents unit in the Scottish Government.

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.

You need to conclude.

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.

13:37  

As many of my points have been covered, I will try to be brief. I start by thanking Tess White for securing the debate. I also welcome to the chamber people from the north-east who are part of Deeside Against Pylons, including constituents of mine. They are just some of the many who have travelled down to protest against the Scottish Government’s destruction of our countryside.

Over the past year, I have repeatedly highlighted the impact of the Scottish National Party Government’s unjust transition and how it will affect our rural communities. A month ago, I spoke about the hundreds of wind turbines that are currently in the planning process. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to two 12kW farm turbines that were built a decade ago, which are 45,000 times smaller than those planned in the Cabrach, an area that is impacted by the Government’s plans to install 3,400 turbines between 2022 and 2030.

The report “Beyond 2030” proposes nine new major overhead lines across rural Scotland in addition to the current pylon proposals that rural communities are fighting against. Alternative options must be seriously considered, such as undergrounding and subsea cabling, which an Ofgem briefing just this morning states is most appropriate for transmission over long distances. Decisions need to consider the environmental impact on our countryside and, more importantly, on the people who live there and will be directly affected.

I have urged the Scottish Government and the energy minister, Gillian Martin, whose own constituency will be affected, to listen to the calls from local communities—and her constituents—for them to have a statutory voice in the planning process, as happens elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As it stands, communities are not being made aware of these developments at an early enough stage to influence the proposals. Consultation events are nothing more than tick-box exercises for developers and are used to pit communities against each other.

My inbox is inundated with messages from constituents telling me that their concerns are repeatedly ignored by developers, that their requests for meetings are rejected and that events are held during the working day, when most people are unable to attend.

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.

I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree that the pylons are the only solution. The purpose of the debate is to discuss what options are available not just for transmission but also for the production of energy—a wider debate about that would be beneficial, too. As Fergus Ewing said, we need to have varied sources of electricity.

Rural life is under threat, and I have heard from hundreds of constituents whose homes and livelihoods are at risk. There are currently more than 1,400 community objections to the Hill of Fare wind farm development, and I have lost count of how many messages objecting to the pylons I have received even in the past 48 hours, but, under the current process, those voices could be ignored. Further, it is not clear what involvement local authorities have, as people are told they cannot lobby their councillors on those applications.

Homes cannot be sold, farmland will be lost, historic sites and battlefields will be torn up and tourism will fall while the decisions are taken by Scottish ministers and the energy consents unit, who do not have to suffer the consequences of their work.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am just closing, and the minister will have an opportunity to respond when she closes the debate. She can also say whether she will give communities a statutory voice in the planning process, as occurs in England. Further, will she review her onshore wind targets, which are causing this destruction of our countryside? Finally, will she meet community groups, as she is meeting developers? The SNP must listen to those who have come to Edinburgh today and must give communities a statutory voice.

13:42  

I thank Tess White for securing the debate.

We all understand the need to transition to greener and sustainable fuel options. Put simply, electricity demand is set to double by 2050, and we must act now to deliver sustainable energy for our communities. The Scotland leasing round has exceeded expectations, almost tripling from an initial 10GW projection to the present 28GW, and the UK Government has also massively increased its offshore wind ambitions, stretching its overall target to 50GW.

Fundamental to all of that is our transmission network. However, it is resoundingly clear that the grid poses one of the biggest barriers to the deployment of our renewable energy pipeline. It is important to understand that electricity network legislation and regulations are reserved to the UK Government, with the electricity system operator responsible for electricity planning across Great Britain and closely regulated by Ofgem.

The pathway to 2030 project sets out the plan for new grid investment, connecting renewable energy to homes and businesses across the UK. The commitment that has been made by SSEN Transmission to invest more than £20 billion this decade for critical grid upgrades is hugely significant for Scotland’s economy and energy security and for the aim of reducing energy bills for everyone. However, it is absolutely imperative that significant infrastructure development derives from industry and community needs, with communities having the opportunity to engage in the process, so that areas are developed in a consensual way.

Will the member take an intervention?

Yes.

I thank Audrey Nicoll for giving way and for speaking in today’s debate, because one of the things that concerned me and my constituents was that, without Michael Marra’s support, the debate would not have happened today and the subject would not have been aired. Why did Audrey Nicoll and her colleagues not support the motion to have the debate?

I note that, during the debate, it has been suggested that there should be a wider debate on this matter, and I would fully support that.

In my constituency, strategic infrastructure projects in the form of an energy-from-waste plant, a new harbour and, potentially, an industrialised former green space, all within line of sight of the Balnagask area of Torry, have left residents feeling disconnected and disenfranchised. Getting the balance right is essential. I am pleased that SSEN Transmission has, just this week, committed to considering proposed alignments to the Kintore to Tealing project, with consultations on proposed substations at Emmock and Hurlie taking place next month, as planned. Like other north-east MSP colleagues, I have regular, open and positive engagement with SSE on a range of energy issues.

There is a pressing need for pace in developing such projects from desktop ambitions to project delivery. Although some goals are still years away, there needs to be action now, given the scale of the upskilling that is required. Delays in consenting risk pushing back some ambitious projects by years, which would risk jobs and vital investment.

However, we must strike a balance between the voice of communities and the planning process. In that regard, I would welcome additional guidance from the chief planning officer on national planning framework 4 policies on transmission infrastructure. I also support wider reform of the current section 37 process to streamline consenting for critical infrastructure. Fixing a clear period for consenting is required and should be delivered through the UK and Scottish Governments working together to address existing legislative challenges while protecting democratic rights at a local level.

As Mark Ruskell noted, Lord Callanan, the Minister for Energy Efficiency and Green Finance, 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.]

I agree.

13:47  

I have listened very carefully to the powerful contributions from across the chamber this afternoon, and I align myself with most of them.

I will focus my remarks on the wider issues underlying the situation, because Fergus Ewing is absolutely right: the issue is bigger and should be debated in Government time. What people are facing is a function entirely of the Government’s utter negligence and incomprehensible failure to come up with a holistic energy plan. It is all well and good for the Government to proudly trumpet that it wants to get to net zero by 2045, but surely any responsible Government would do more than virtue signal and would, instead, work out how to get there in relation to energy generation.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I say to the minister, with respect, that she can respond in her closing speech.

Audrey Nicoll is wrong. This is not about every other agency bar the Scottish Government. In fact, a responsible Government would produce a holistic energy strategy that recognises that we need a balanced energy mix, and that incorporates upskilling, support for jobs and a meaningful supply chain.

Instead, we have the usual piecemeal silo thinking, which is epitomised by a draft energy strategy that is years late, remains unsettled and does little more than signal a damaging presumption against oil and gas extraction in the North Sea. We have a Government that, in the face of all the evidence suggesting that its preconceptions are wrong, states that it will refuse to give planning permission for any new nuclear developments in Scotland, so when Torness nuclear power station closes, which could happen as soon as 2030, there will be no nuclear generation in Scotland’s energy mix.

The Government crows that it has licensed the generation of about 28GW of electricity from offshore wind in the north of Scotland. It reckons that it can power the UK on wind that is generated in the north, but it gives cursory thought to how that electricity can be transported around Scotland and to markets throughout the UK. It is precisely that lack of thought—that abject failure to plan how to move the electricity around—that has ended up with our having this debate today.

It stands to reason that, if we have a proper energy mix, with energy stored in a different form—oil and gas, for example—or generated from where it has historically been generated, such as at Torness or Hunterston power stations in central Scotland, we might not need enormous pylons carving up the countryside of the north-east. They are not the fait accompli that Mark Ruskell seems to think they are, with people just needing to get used to them.

The second issue also relates to the lack of a plan, in the absence of such there is no coherent holistic consideration of how we might use the power generated. At a basic level, if we generate 28GW of offshore wind, power must go into the grid and taken to market or, presumably, large constraint payments must be made to turn the turbines off if they generate too much. Transporting electricity in that volume drastically increases the magnitude of infrastructure required—more pylons, more transmission lines and more substations. Leaving aside Stephen Kerr’s passionate and sage analysis of alternative methods, surely one of the solutions that should at least have been considered and strategised is electrolysing the power into green hydrogen as a battery or for use if the market is there. That could be transported in a different way—perhaps through the existing gas network.

I accept that I am simplifying, but I cannot understand why on earth the Government is not taking that holistic approach and getting to solutions in advance, with carefully structured, meaningful strategies around location, source and how best to transport and use what is generated.

The Government’s virtue signalling, silo thinking and inability to do proper strategising and planning have led directly to the situation that we find ourselves in. That tells us all that we need to know about how much the Government cares about performative posturing and how little it cares for the people and countryside of the north-east.

I invite Gillian Martin to respond to the debate. Minister, you have around seven minutes.

13:51  

First, here is my offer: will everybody who has called for changes to the regulation of electricity infrastructure and for market reforms that allow communities to have a stronger say in how the infrastructure is engineered in a way that is appropriate to the geography, and who mandate further community engagement and the holding to account of developers in relation to how they engage, join me in making that happen and in going to the people who can make that happen?

The people who can make that happen are in the UK Government, which sets the regulations. I have been calling on the UK Government to make reforms that would help the people in the gallery today. It is important that we manage people’s expectations and do not push them into the wrong place when they could make meaningful change by contacting the right people.

Legislation and regulations relating to electricity networks are reserved to Westminster, and any changes to those regulations are made at the UK level. That includes direction of what engineering solutions are appropriate. The UK could change that in regulation. The ESO—again, a UK body—is responsible for the strategic approach to transmission investment.

I want to make the offer to everyone that we work together to make sure that communities have more meaningful and mandated engagement.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I will, but before I do, I will say that I did not start the debate in the way that I would customarily do, by thanking Tess White for opening the discussion, so I do so now. There will be plenty of opportunity for us to debate the issue when I introduce the energy strategy, but I take on board the need for a wider debate to look at the effect that transmission infrastructure is having on communities, and how we must be flexible in the approach to it.

The minister raised the issue of mandatory consultation, which is important. Does she agree that the quality of that consultation is extremely important? Will she support the Save our Mearns petition on that point?

I agree with Tess White’s point, because of the stories that I have heard from members today and also from people who have emailed me. I cannot speak on particular potential applications—people need to understand that I would be breaking the ministerial code and putting everything in jeopardy, legally, if I did that. However, I listen to what people are saying and I take on board the fact that many people are not satisfied with how they have been engaged with.

Alexander Burnett made a point that I have often made to developers: they must tailor their engagement in a way that does not exclude anyone. He mentioned them having public meetings at a time when no one is able to go to them. That is ridiculous. That is not meaningful engagement.

Applications arrive on my desk for determination at the end of, as has been said, a very rigorous process, and I take that responsibility extremely seriously. However, before that application, I cannot tell developers how or where they site infrastructure and I cannot hold any position on what engineering methods they use to transmit power. Instead, I must judge the plans and the rationale that are put forward and make a decision based on what they have submitted. I cannot make any—I mean any—comment on the merits or otherwise of a development.

However, I can certainly say what I want to see from those who intend to make those applications. I expect applicants to have made every effort to reach out to affected communities. They must put forward rigorous environmental impact assessments where necessary. They must put forward a comprehensive and evidenced case for their development and the decisions that they are making about how they conduct the development, where they put the development and why.

I also very much expect that they explain the rationale for their plans, and, with regard to every application against which there has been a community campaign—as has been the case with many of the cases that have been mentioned today, which I cannot speak to directly—I expect them to have taken that on board, worked with those communities and been flexible about those concerns.

Despite all the engagement that is promised, we need to address the intransigence of the power companies to change their minds. You can consult all day but if they are not in a position to change their minds, that is completely and utterly pointless. A lot of the conflict that we see in communities is due to that intransigence.

Again, I agree with the member. The engagement must be meaningful. One of his colleagues earlier quoted me saying that. That is why, if we have mandated engagement with guidance on what is appropriate and how that should be done, communities can hold developers to account. That is what I would like to see, and that would help us all greatly. At the moment, when I hear stories about developers that have not been engaging I think that, first of all, they are not doing themselves any favours whatsoever. That costs them money and puts them back years. They need to engage early, the engagement must be meaningful, and they must demonstrate an ability to look again at their plans and make adjustments that will bring the community with them.

Extreme weather events have seen homes and businesses left without power, not least in the north-east. Many households in my constituency and across the north-east lost power for over a week during storm Arwen. I think that we all agree that an upgrade is also needed to the existing transmission infrastructure.

Does the point about extreme weather not make the case for more undergrounding of cables? Or do you believe—

Speak through the chair, Mr Lumsden.

—like Mark Ruskell that it is a fait accompli—that these pylons will go up regardless of the result of any consultation and that communities just have to get used to it? I think that that attitude, which we heard earlier, is appalling.

I have already said that I cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of any engineering solutions. I must look at what is put in front of me. However, these developers have a responsibility to work with communities and explain or adapt their plans with regard to the engineering solutions that they will provide. We have already heard that there has been flexibility in particular areas, and long may that continue. That is the only way that developers will bring communities with them.

There will be impacts on the communities that host that infrastructure. Communities and statutory bodies must have the opportunity to engage in the process as early as possible.

I hosted a round-table meeting with fuel poverty campaigners yesterday, along with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. Inequity was a strong theme. Higher fuel costs in rural areas contribute to higher levels of fuel poverty. This is an inequity, and I agree very much with my friend and colleague Fergus Ewing that we should ask “Cui bono—who benefits?” We are hosting this infrastructure; our communities must see the benefit of that.

Will the minister have discussions with SSEN and Scottish Power to get them to increase the amount of benefit that the people of Scotland get?

There has been some movement from the UK Government on mandating community benefit for transmission operators. I would absolutely go foursquare behind community benefit being increased. However, it is not just about community benefit; it is about the reform of the energy markets as a whole, to make sure that the areas of the country that host infrastructure and produce a lot of the power see the benefit directly. That would change minds a great deal. Fergus Ewing is absolutely right about the current situation.

We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to decouple the cost of gas from the price of electricity that consumers pay. Urgent market reforms are needed to support long-term energy affordability and to insulate bill payers, particularly those who are at risk of fuel poverty. Any market reforms that the current UK Government or the next one implements must right that wrong.

I will finish by thanking Tess White for bringing the debate to Parliament. It has allowed us to air to an extent some of the concerns and some of the expectations that we have of developers. I stand behind communities. They must have a say, and they must never feel that they are not being listened to. In this process, the UK Government, the Scottish Government, regulators, developers and communities have to work together to reach net zero and provide energy security for everyone.

That concludes the debate, and I suspend this meeting of Parliament until 14:30.

14:01 Meeting suspended.  

14:30 On resuming—