Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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—

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.

—also pay a price, and it must be covered by the rest of us.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to increase access to thrombectomies in the Fife region, in light of the reported 1.9 per cent increase in investment in the national thrombectomy service. (S6O-04226)

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.]

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.]

Okay—I will end on the words “no detriment”.

I understand that the Department for Transport has produced guidance, particularly on cross-pavement gullies. I realise, though, that that is beyond the budget.

Thank you very much for joining us this morning, minister.

One of the areas that we are looking at is the relationship between GB Energy and the Crown Estate, which operates outside Scotland, around the rest of the UK. I am interested to know how you see GB Energy working with Crown Estate Scotland, which is set up slightly differently and does not have borrowing powers. We are trying to understand how the two Crown Estate organisations will work with GB Energy. What will that look like?

We are aware that you have a Crown Estate Bill going through Westminster at the moment. It would be useful if you could provide a little bit of clarity on how you see that relationship developing.