Seòmar agus comataidhean

The next item on our agenda is an evidence session as part of our inquiry into Scotland’s electricity infrastructure and whether it is an inhibitor or enabler of our energy ambitions. This is a new inquiry, the aim of which is to scrutinise what electricity infrastructure will be needed to realise the ambitions that are set out in the Scottish Government’s new draft energy strategy and just transition plan. The inquiry will be a short one that will lead to a report to the Scottish Government as it finalises its strategy.

Today, we will hold the first evidence sessions in the inquiry with two panels that comprise representatives of a wide range of interests in energy. I am pleased to welcome the first panel: Stuart Haszeldine is professor of carbon capture and storage at the University of Edinburgh; Clare Lavelle is director of energy and advisory leader north at Arup; Emily Rice is the Scotland policy analyst at Solar Energy UK; and Tom Quinn is head of analysis and insights at Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult. Thank you for accepting our invitations to be here today.

Before we move to questions, I remind members and people who are listening that, as a farmer and a landowner, I have electricity transmission lines across my farm in the form of 11kV lines, which are the small ones, and 33kV ring main lines, which are the bigger ones, and I am in negotiation for a 132kV power line to go through the farm. All those will generate some income at some stage for me.

I want there to be no doubt that I have some interests. I will make that declaration as and when it is appropriate to do so. I do not believe that that prevents me from doing my job as convener.

The first questions are from Liam Kerr.

Yes.

The deputy convener has one follow-up question, after which I will ask a final question.

Thank you. If there are no other comments, on that basis, I propose that we invite Màiri McAllan to come to the meeting next week and give a short bit of evidence to explain the situation. I will also ask the clerks to write on behalf of the committee to the regulatory authorities to ask whether they would like to submit any evidence. That evidence might be difficult to gather in the timescale, but I will give them the deadline of Monday morning next week, so that we have time to consider it before the meeting on Tuesday. That is a logical way to deal with this so that we can fully understand it. If everyone is agreed on that, that is what I will progress to do.

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2023 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. We have apologies from Ash Regan. I welcome Collette Stevenson, who is joining us as a substitute member.

The first item on the agenda is to decide whether to take items 5 and 6 in private. Under item 5, we will consider evidence that we will hear today as part of our inquiry into Scotland’s electricity infrastructure. Under item 6, we will consider correspondence relating to appointments to the board of Environmental Standards Scotland. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. I will now ask my question. A book that I read when I was younger and which I still look at is “The Dam Builders—Power from the Glens”, which is a great book. It talks about Scotland’s transition to using renewable energy in the form of hydro pump storage and all the rest of it, with massive dam building. As a result of that, we transferred power to the areas that needed it along what were then superhighways. Scotland’s countryside has been shaped by those superhighways that were put in in the 1950s—the 132kV lines. They were obviously built there for a reason, because that was probably the best route and the most protected route.

Aileen McLeod and Scott Mathieson have talked about planning and the difficulties of it. Because those lines are already there, one way to avoid planning problems would be to make sure that those lines are upgraded, without moving them, and that they form the basis of the superhighway in the future. Is that not a simple answer?

We have one more item, which is the consideration of a negative instrument. This instrument is laid under the negative procedure, which means that its provisions will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to annul them. No motions to annul have been lodged. Do members have any comments on the instrument?

I have one question. I assume that this is done each year. It would be useful to know whether all the money that is levied is collected and whether there is a difference between the levy amount and what is passed to—I assume—Scottish Water. If the committee is happy, we could just write to the minister to ask for that information, so that we can understand what it is. If there are no other comments, is the committee happy to agree that it does not want to make any specific recommendations in relation to this instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

I would love you to say it as well.

You have just told them they do not have a different view so—

We come to Collette Stevenson for the next lot of questions. [Interruption.] Tom Quinn, I would love to let you in, but my problem is that I am short of time. I would certainly appreciate your input but I cannot stop a committee member getting in, because I will have to live with them in future sessions.

I call Collette Stevenson.