Official Report 335KB pdf
I apologise for the slight delay in starting. Welcome to the second meeting in 2010 of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. We have a fairly packed agenda, so I urge members and those who are giving evidence to keep questions and answers as brief, concise and to the point as possible. I welcome a guest member, Liam McArthur, who is entitled to participate in the question-and-answer session.
I will take the opportunity to do that. As the convener said, last Wednesday I made a statement to Parliament on my decision on the Beauly to Denny line. The decision to upgrade the line was not easy and has—rightly—generated a great deal of debate and discussion. Nevertheless, as I said in my statement, I believe that my decision is the right one for Scotland, striking the right balance between developing and delivering Scotland's energy future and protecting environmental, cultural heritage, economic and community issues. I echo that point this morning.
Thank you for those opening remarks. I will start by asking about the timescale for the development. As you are aware, the committee was anxious that the project, which is crucial for unlocking Scotland's renewable energy potential, should go ahead as quickly as possible. It was unclear from the statement last week what implications the statement and the conditions that you mentioned would have for the construction timetable. Can you give us any indication of when work on the project—either parts of the project or the whole project—will commence and when it is likely to be completed?
Sure. The most potent element of that has been the response from Colin Hood of Scottish and Southern Energy, who is saying that SSE hopes to be in a position to get construction under way this summer and will immediately implement a programme of meetings and events along the route to inform landowners and community and statutory bodies about its construction timetables. Given that 200km of the 220km is the responsibility of SSE, that is a positive sign. Equally, SSE is engaging with communities. That will trigger many of the conditions that we have applied to the route and start the whole process of SSE coming back to us with the mitigation that it plans in relation to both the specific rationalisation areas that the reporters recommended at the five points along the route and the three additional mitigation areas that we have identified at Stirling, Glenside and Auchilhanzie near Crieff.
The conditions seem to imply that work cannot commence on any part of the line until the mitigation schemes have been agreed. Is that the case? If not, what work can commence before the eight mitigation schemes have been agreed?
It is a complex critical path. SSE has lots to do, including liaison with communities here and now. In essence, the mitigation and my satisfaction that it meets reasonable criteria are the key factors in triggering the process.
You have not quite answered my question. Take for example the Stirling visual mitigation scheme. The condition clearly states that neither the overhead transmission line nor the towers carrying the line shall be installed or constructed in the area of Stirling Council until the applicant has submitted a scheme and it has been approved. There are similar conditions in the Perth and Kinross area and the Highlands and Islands area. My interpretation is that no transmission lines or towers can be constructed until all the mitigation schemes are in place in the relevant council areas. Is that the case, or can other preparatory work commence?
I will bring in Norman Macleod on the legalities of that; I have one or two things to say in addition.
There is no delay aspect to that. The reason for phrasing the condition in that way is that it is important that the mitigation measures are in place and approved and agreed to and are seen to be deliverable before the works commence, rather than after they commence. They are specific to areas—the whole line is not affected.
In effect, the whole line is affected, because the works in the Highlands and Islands cannot be done until all the mitigation schemes in the Highlands and Islands are agreed; the works in the Perth and Kinross area cannot be done until all the mitigation schemes in the Perth and Kinross area are agreed; and the works in the Stirling area cannot be done until all the mitigation schemes in the Stirling area are agreed. We are not talking just about the parts of the line that are subject to mitigation; the entire works in those areas cannot commence until the mitigation is agreed. Alternatively, can some of the preparatory works commence? That is what I am trying to get clarified. The condition refers to the towers and transmission lines. Would it allow some of the preparatory work to be done ahead of that?
Yes, it would.
Thank you; that is the clarification that I sought.
The preparatory work has to be done, but the key issue is that the companies will want to clarify the strength of the conditions, the rationalisation and the mitigation that we have requested in order to allow them to build a whole and complete line and get the return on their investment that they require.
The mitigation schemes have to be submitted to your satisfaction, but there is no indication in any of the conditions of what is likely to meet your satisfaction as regards the policy objectives of the schemes. That is very unclear. It must be difficult for the developers to know how to proceed if they have no indication from ministers of what is likely to be an acceptable scheme.
It is not only the minister's view that is important, but the minister's view as informed by the witnesses, communities and submissions that were made to the public local inquiry and subsequently. The decision will be based on seeing the companies make material moves towards removing concerns.
I understand your point, but in reality the people who have submitted objections to the line are unlikely to reach any agreement with the power companies that will satisfy them, other than perhaps on undergrounding the line. Is that one of the things that could be done as mitigation?
It certainly could be done by way of mitigation. However, it is important to remember that the section 37 power allowed me only to approve overhead lines and the application was to improve an overhead line. I could not have called for undergrounding. I could have said yes to the application and applied stringent conditions, which I did, or I could have said no. The reporters did not recommend undergrounding. The conditions that we applied were informed by the communities, the witnesses, the submissions, the reporters, the panel of civil servants that was drawn from my department and others and my judgment. The conditions are stringent and cover a great deal of detail from the rationalisation mitigation through to working with tourism, culture and heritage and community groups, environmental issues, the appointment of independent environmental contractors and ensuring that we have a community liaison scheme that ensures that such liaison is real and material.
You said that undergrounding could be one of the mitigation factors. Are you saying that types of mitigation other than undergrounding could be used? There is a hint in what you say that undergrounding might be the preferred approach.
There could be resiting, rerouting or other visual mitigation measures, a change in pylon design or a range of other measures, but undergrounding is certainly an option for parts of the line. However, there are one or two fallacies about undergrounding, in as much as only small sections of the route could be underground in order to maintain the effective technical potency of the route. In addition, there are considerable concerns about the ecological, environmental and cultural heritage collateral damage of undergrounding.
Good morning, minister. You informed us in your statement that the National Grid has told you that 50 projects north of Beauly, totalling 4.2GW, are awaiting transmission to markets. How much Scottish clean electricity production does that amount to?
The figure of 4.2GW represents about two thirds of peak electricity demand in Scotland. When the line was announced, Willie Roe, the chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, talked about the potential for the Highlands and Islands to be the renewable energy engine room of Europe. That is clearly a terrific possibility because of the impact that the line can have on rebalancing economic opportunities in the Highlands and giving communities the opportunity to benefit through participation or even ownership of their own renewable energy facilities.
Perhaps some of the reality was given more force because of the Crown Estate's approval of the Moray Firth and Inchcape schemes, which involve more than 500 towers. Will some of that electricity be fed through the Beauly to Denny line, initially?
I am not sure that that will be the case, but it could be. We also have a further 6.4GW of renewable energy being generated in Scottish territorial waters, so the question is material.
So the Beauly to Denny line is the first link that will begin to free up the route for that huge amount of electricity, and it will be followed by other routes, including an undersea route. I suggest that you might have been hinting at that when we were talking about the offshore wind farms. The Beauly to Denny line is the first, and it will be followed by others at a later stage.
Exactly. The line is needed urgently because of the constraint that there would otherwise be on us harvesting the vast amount of energy that could be harvested along the length of the route, which is forecast to be 1.4GW, or 25 per cent of peak demand in Scotland.
Thank you.
Very much so, albeit that we have proposed material mitigation for the national park through the rationalisation scheme, which will reduce 63km of current feed-in lines to the main line. We have also reduced the length of the line going through the national park from 35km to 28km, and reduced the number of pylons in the national park by almost a half, from 128 to 76.
So in the case of the national park, there will be an increased ability to see it as wild land while still supporting the core credo of sustainable development.
Absolutely.
I am interested in the northern end of the power line, which I live quite close to, near Beauly. The substation there has been an issue for MSPs and the local communities. How do you see SSE mitigating the arrival there of a large number of power lines from north and west and the development of that substation? The issue is crucial to many people in the area.
We have had pretty strong assurances from SSE, which now recognises the value of its status in respect of corporate social responsibility and how communities view it, if for no other reason than that it wants to develop further. I listened to Ian Ross, the Liberal Democrat planning convener of Highland Council, talk in very much the same vein; he said that he had found SSE to be a good corporate citizen and that it was, in essence, very sensitive to local concerns and making efforts to mitigate as best it could.
There is plenty of scope for local members to be involved in the mitigation committees and so on. Can you lay out for us a timetable and a process whereby local members, councillors and so on can be involved, as one of the means of reassuring people?
In respect of the timescale, I advise people to be proactive as soon as possible. From the declaration of intent by Colin Hood, it can be seen that SSE intends not to sit on its thumbs at this point but to be engaged. From what Ian Ross said on the radio last week, it can be seen that Highland Council intends to be proactive and engaged as of now. We do not need to set out a timetable—the time is now and now is when that sort of stuff should be done.
One of the rationalisation schemes that are proposed for the wirescape relates to Balblair wood, which is close to Beauly. The minister will make a decision on the proposal that is put to him in that case, but we expect consultation to take place with the communities and councils involved.
What might that consultation involve?
During the inquiry, the rationalisation scheme in and around Beauly was considered as a way forward. The exact details of what could be proposed are set out in the report, in relation to removing some of the existing surrounding wires.
The minister has been able to make decisions on the basis of what the reporter laid out in his report with regard to the potential mitigation factors.
Exactly.
As you will recall, I said in response to your statement last week that I welcomed your decision but that it had been somewhat delayed. I checked my records after your response to my comment and discovered that you assured my colleague Des McNulty a year ago that you would make a decision before the end of the calendar year 2009. Did you achieve that objective?
I did. That did not make for the best of family Christmases, because I took myself away from the family, sat down with the papers and tried to pull things together. The report is enormous—it runs to six volumes. Even with the best will in the world and with the best distillation from skilled and committed civil servants, there was still a lot to get through.
You made your decision in the remains of your Christmas lunch and you resisted the temptation to publish it in a blog in the meantime.
I resisted putting it in a blog, but I have to say that I spoiled Christmas for quite a few officials by getting them together on 31 December to ensure that the commitment that I had given to Mr McNulty was honoured.
That was just-in-time delivery. I will press you on some aspects of what you said last week and since. This morning, you repeated the statement that you have no power to require the undergrounding of a section of the line. I welcome the fact that you rejected the proposition for large-scale undergrounding, but I do not feel that you have been clear in your rejection of it. Even in this week's press I have seen quotations from your ministerial colleague Keith Brown—similar comments have been made by Dave Thompson, a former member of this committee—suggesting that undergrounding is still an option.
We endorsed their conclusions, but—
So you have ruled out undergrounding the Beauly to Denny line.
We did the binary thing that we could do—we could approve the line with conditions or disapprove it. We applied the conditions that we could and put in place the request for mitigation and rationalisation, leaving it open to the companies to come back to us with the option of undergrounding and satisfy me that it is a reasonable mitigation and rationalisation proposal.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you have endorsed unconditionally the conclusion of the reporters that undergrounding the Beauly to Denny line offers no advantages. Is that not the case?
We have held with the mitigation and rationalisation conditions the ability to approve or disapprove any proposed mitigation schemes, therefore leaving space for the companies to propose undergrounding, repositioning, rerouting or other mitigation measures.
I read the conditions that you applied, in which you sought the undergrounding of some of the lines that feed into the Beauly to Denny line. However, you did not seek to underground any of the Beauly to Denny line. Is that not correct?
This is a binary situation. I will ask Norman Macleod, as a lawyer, to give you the clarity that he has given me.
On the technical legal powers, section 37 is about granting consent for overhead lines. You pointed out correctly that the conditions attached to rationalisation schemes require any proposals that are made to include proposals for undergrounding various existing other lines. In the case of granting consent for an overhead main line, if I may call it that, the companies have to make proposals to underground other lines. As a separate issue, consent for the main line is either consent or refusal of consent for an overhead line.
So there will be an overhead line all the way from Beauly to Denny and that is explicit and specific in the consent that you have given.
That is not the case. The consent still leaves space for the companies to come back.
What Mr Macleod said was clear—you have consented to an overhead line all the way from Beauly to Denny. Is that not the case?
With the requirement of mitigation.
It is an overhead line. You said that you did not have a middle option—you either consented to an overhead line or you did not, and you have consented to an overhead line from Beauly to Denny. That is the case, is it not?
We have consented to an overhead line from Beauly to Denny with stringent mitigation requirements.
There is no requirement to underground any part of that line.
We cannot require the companies to underground the line, but we can require them to mitigate. That leaves them the option to mitigate by undergrounding.
You have said again that you cannot require undergrounding. You will be aware that other planning authorities have obtained the undergrounding of stretches of line. One example is in Yorkshire, and I am sure that you are aware of the Scotland to Northern Ireland interconnector, which was developed under a previous Administration. What happens is that the authority withholds consent for a section of overhead line, so that it is required to be put underground. You chose not to do that.
We chose not to do that because we thought that the national interest required whole-line consent. We have left an option that could result in our obtaining some undergrounding.
Has either developer indicated that they are likely to propose undergrounding any part of the Beauly to Denny line?
I have not yet had detailed discussion with developers. I was somewhat in purdah until the decision was made.
The mechanism by which you could require undergrounding, if you wanted to do that, would be the withholding of consent for part of the line. I think that we have agreed that that is the case.
Yes, it did. We had factual back-up to support that, and the general tone was that that was the right thing to do, in the wider national interest.
I understand the wider issues, but I am concerned about the potential for what you said in Parliament to mislead people about your response to the recommendations. As I understand it from volume 6 of the report, the reporters did not make no recommendation in relation to Glenside and Auchilhanzie, as might reasonably have been inferred from your statement; they recommended that you withhold consent for those stretches.
Indeed they did, but we had to make a decision in the national interest to have whole-line consent, to guarantee that the line would come into play, release Scotland's renewable energy potential, protect our security of supply, boost our balance of payments and address all the other positive, macro-level issues that we must consider.
Would it not have been more accurate and helpful to members if you had told Parliament last week that the reporters had recommended withholding consent for two stretches, in relation to which they did not support the proposal, and that you had turned down that recommendation and proposed something else instead?
We were very much constrained by time. I had to get across the view that I had come to. The issue that was before Parliament was a statement about the decision that I had come to. That is what I tried to convey.
That is absolutely so, but for many people the central issue of the application has been the undergrounding of part of the line, and the one power that you have is to withhold consent for part of the line, as you have said. I think that you made the right decision, but I do not understand why you did not tell anybody that you had decided to reject the recommendation that consent should not be given in those areas.
With respect, you are ignoring the residual power that I have to accept or reject the mitigation scheme that is proposed.
The reporters specifically recommended that you withhold consent for two stretches of line. You chose not just to turn down the recommendation, but to ignore it altogether in your statement to Parliament.
We had to make a decision in the best interests of all of Scotland. That was the decision that I took.
I understand that that was your responsibility, but Parliament expected a full explanation of the key points in the report. We did not see the report until after the statement and questions and answers on it were concluded. When we were asking you about your statement we did not know that the reporters had recommended that you withhold consent and that you had overruled that recommendation.
That is a matter of regret, but it is a matter of fact. That is where we are.
I asked you last week about the impact and the requirements on lines that feed into the Beauly to Denny route. In your statement, you said that you would seek the undergrounding or improvement of some of those lines. I asked you how much of the 86.5km that is involved would be underground. When I obtained the papers, I was struck that it appears that the underground requirement is specific and applies to specific parts. I would be grateful if you or your officials now answered my question: how much of the 86.5km for which you want the developers to underground or improve the wirescape will be underground?
The matter is very much for the developers. The reporters make it clear that undergrounding could cause material ecological damage and damage locations of cultural and heritage interest. We will have to wait and see what the developers propose to mitigate the wirescape impact.
Condition 18 for Scottish Power Transmission says:
One condition relates to 8.3km and another relates to 8km, so substantial lengths are involved.
That is 16.3km that will be undergrounded in the Stirling area.
There is that potential.
We are talking about a condition. The document does not say that including such proposals is an option; it requires the removal and undergrounding of the spans. Am I correct to say that that is a requirement rather than an invitation to suggest mitigation measures?
That is us being absolutely clear about what we expect.
Does Mr Macleod have something to add?
It is a requirement that the proposals include the measures that you described—you are right.
So the requirements are mandatory—they are firm and fixed requirements on the developers to underground sections of ancillary line. Is that correct?
That is what the proposals must include.
That is what the proposals must include—that is helpful.
You must also take into account what Scottish and Southern Energy says about its desire for engagement and what WWF says about how we have dealt with communities' serious concerns to date.
No condition requires formal engagement with community councils or other associations of local people, for example.
The formality in this case will be much more a function of the style that has been set by the consultation that took place under the previous Administration, through the PLI, and is continuing now in terms of the active lobbying and engagement of the companies. Earlier, I said to Mr Gibson that the commitment to corporate social responsibility on the part of Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Power is manifest, because those companies realise that they need to have the good will of communities and the wider Scottish populace in order to fulfil their own objectives and achieve the level of carbon-free energy production that they want to achieve by 2050.
I apologise to the committee and the minister for my late arrival. As I and others wade through the documents, it is not 100 per cent clear what the impact of the conditions is likely to be on the power companies and the various ecological groups. Obviously, you have had this matter on your desk for 11 months or thereabouts—
Two and a half months.
My apologies. You have, however, had more time to go through the issues in detail than those of us who have had only a week or so in which to consider the matter. Scottish and Southern Energy's official response to the conditions, as of last night, is that full evaluation takes time. Having had a longer time in which to consider the matter, what do you think the impact of the conditions will be on the power companies in terms of time and in terms of cost?
There was an estimate of £50 million for the rationalisation scheme. Given that the details of the mitigation schemes are still largely to be firmed up, it would be naive of me to put a price on them. We have developed a process of engagement with the companies that will ensure that they are subject to a full spectrum of scrutiny in Scotland—scrutiny on the part not only of the communities and the PLI, but of the Parliament and the press. The companies will be duty bound to do their very best and will have to recognise that there is a binary decision with regard to whether I sign off the mitigation and rationalisation schemes, and my decision will be based on whether they meet the criteria that I believe they should meet.
To paraphrase what you have just said, the companies will consider the matter in detail and come back with estimates of what they think the impacts will be in terms of cost and time. Obviously, you cannot make an accurate prediction of what the cost will be, but it seems that you are saying that your best estimate is that it might come to an additional £50 million.
I think that a sum of £51.6 million is associated with the rationalisation scheme.
That is the figure for the five rationalisation schemes, which, as the minister said, have already been set out in some detail in the conditions. With regard to extra costs that might be involved as a result of further mitigation schemes that relate to screening, landscaping or small sections of undergrounding, for example, there will be discussions with the funder of the route. In this context, the funder is the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, to which we have been talking to ensure that it is in the loop. It will be important that the funder's approval is gained at the same time as the proposals are put to the minister for his approval.
Are there any estimates for the impact on the timescale for the completion of the line?
I have seen no specific estimate on that. Again, however, the rapidity with which the companies were out of the starting stalls with regard to discussions about engagement suggests that they intend to treat the project as one of some urgency.
In the chamber last week I asked about the impact of conditions from an ecological or landscape point of view. I felt that I was told that that ball was in the companies' court and that they would be the ones who would come up with suggestions and ideas. You have set out conditions—there were 73 groups, and there are more than 300 conditions in total. Is there anything in there that will make a specific difference from a landscape or an ecological point of view?
Can you clarify your question?
Sure. Groups were campaigning against the entire line or certain sections of it. Given the number of conditions that you have issued, it will take time for anyone to go through them and work out what the impact will be. You have had the list of conditions in front of you for a couple of months. Are there any particular ones that you can point to and say that they will make a big difference in terms of the landscape or the minimisation of ecological damage?
The prime one that I would point to is the construction policy handbook, which is a legal document that has been agreed with ministers on how the development is to be sensitively constructed and managed.
I will comment on ecological and landscape impacts. Members will have read the report and seen that in the Cairngorms, for example, the reporters found that undergrounding would actually cause ecological damage in certain areas, particularly in the eight special areas of conservation along the proposed line that were set up under the Natura 2000 rules. We spent eight months at official level getting the advice ready and putting the appropriate assessments in place to ensure that the proposals would not cause ecological damage. A balance is needed in a national park not only in relation to sustainable development, but between ecological issues and landscape issues, which are not necessarily the same. One of the reasons for the wirescape rationalisation scheme is to deal with the landscape impact and, in certain cases, the ecological impact. The construction procedures handbook will ensure that the ecological impact is minimised as much as possible, so that we can meet our commitment under national and European legislation not to cause any damage to the integrity of protected sites.
I will focus on the implications of the process for the planning system as a whole. Others have mentioned the length of the process. The line was conceived and work began in 2001-02. Even prior to the formal process that began in 2005, there were 18 months of pre-application public consultations; 10 months of gathering evidence—as you mentioned, minister—in the largest public inquiry ever to be held in Scotland; 13 months during which the reporters assessed the evidence; and, finally, a further 11 months in which the proposals were considered in the Scottish Government, first at official level and then at ministerial level.
I am not sure that we have—
I am happy for you to turn to your officials. This is a critical issue on which I want a simple answer from officials—given that you have had 11 months to consider the report—about the total number of recommendations at the end of the decade-long process, how many were accepted, and how many were rejected. There is no trickery—it is a straightforward question.
That would be useful; we will consider it and come back to you, and feed that information into our—
Convener, I would like to press officials on that now. How many recommendations did the reporters make, how many were accepted and how many were rejected?
There was really just one recommendation: that permission to build the line be granted, with the two gaps that have been mentioned. The reporters recommended all the conditions that you see in the consent letters, minus the condition for the tourism, cultural heritage and community liaison group and the Stirling mitigation scheme.
How many of the conditions that were recommended by the reporters were accepted by ministers and how many were rejected?
I will clarify Stephen Wilson's point. All the conditions that have been imposed follow the reporters' recommendations, with the exception of the addition of the Stirling visual impact mitigation scheme and the tourism, cultural heritage and community liaison group. The minister also decided to reject the reporters' recommendation that gaps be left in the cases of Glenside and Auchilhanzie in favour of visual mitigation schemes with conditions that are similar, although not identical, to those that were set out for the Stirling visual mitigation scheme.
Which conditions recommended by the reporters were rejected?
The conditions relating to the two gaps in the line were rejected and replaced by visual impact mitigation schemes. I am looking at Norman Macleod, to ensure that I have not missed anything.
Those comments are helpful. How many additional conditions not recommended by the reporters have been added as a result of last week's ministerial decision? I could reach a rough judgment from reading the statement, but I would prefer an itemisation of those additional conditions to appear in the Official Report.
They include the Stirling visual mitigation scheme, the Auchilhanzie visual mitigation scheme, the Glenside mitigation scheme, near Plean, and the tourism, cultural heritage and community liaison group.
What about the environmental liaison group and the construction procedures handbook?
Those were already in place. The tourism, cultural heritage and community liaison group is an addition.
Anyone reading the statement would reach the view that the environmental liaison group, the tourism, cultural heritage and community liaison group, the construction procedures handbook, and the conditions on pollution, landscaping, support for local business, community engagement and minimising noise and traffic during construction were all additional. I am trying to establish the total number of additional conditions that the reporters did not recommend but that the minister added. There is no trick—what conditions were additional to those that the reporters recommended? We have dealt with the three mitigation schemes.
The three mitigation schemes plus the tourism, cultural heritage and community group are additional. The conditions that the reporters proposed were endorsed.
Is there any precedent in the consideration of other major reporters' inquiries in recent years for the additional conditions that have been added during this process?
The best way of answering the question is to say that these conditions are substantively the same as those that the reporters recommended, although they are not exactly the same numerically and are reworded.
I am trying to understand the implications for the planning process. It is not unreasonable to ask what the recent precedents are for the addition of substantial conditions by the minister following a reporter's consideration. Again, this is not a trick question—this is about trying to understand the evolution of the planning system. Is the number of additional conditions that are being imposed in this case frequent or rare?
Colin Imrie has an example.
It is not an example that I am looking for; I am asking how frequent is the imposition of the range and complexity of additional conditions that apply in this case.
It is difficult to say in general terms, as we cannot do a like-for-like comparison. The Beauly to Denny line is an extraordinary consent application and determination in itself.
I can add something from my experience with energy consents. The Clyde wind farm was decided on during the summer of 2008. The reporter recommended that it go ahead, but there was a gap in the recommendations in that there were no specific conditions on the wind farm's impact on aviation and radar. Even though the minister agreed with the reporter's findings of fact and specific recommendations, we needed to add extra conditions to deal with the fact that that issue had not been tackled.
We have established that some conditions in this case have been rejected—not simply rewritten—while others have been added. I am probing the unusual nature of the conditions that have been added, which require ministerial sign-off and decision. A question has already been asked about who will arbitrate on whether the mitigation has been met. We have heard that it will be the minister. When we have asked about the timescale involved, we have been told, "Don't know. No guidelines." When we have asked what the process is for a developer to prove that the conditions have been met, the answer has been, "Sorry. No process." I cannot think of any precedent where that sort of condition has been applied. I am not sure that it adds to the simplicity of the planning system, which we are allegedly trying to promote, if we have no guidelines or timescale of any kind with regard to how the minister, personally, will establish whether the newly imposed conditions have or have not been met. Do you have any concerns in that regard?
No, I do not.
Can we expect guidelines?
This form of conditions that require subsequent approvals is commonplace. It is a normal part of both planning systems and all Electricity Act 1989 consents. The fact that the applicant requires to return for further approvals is absolutely normal.
That is indeed so, but can the applicant expect any guidance on what is required to meet the conditions? That is entirely absent from official statements so far.
That is more a question for Colin Imrie's team.
I understand your question. There is clear guidance in the report in relation to the conditions that are set out in it. The guidance on the additional conditions is in the minister's statement. We will meet the companies—we meet SSE on Monday—to clarify to them the legal implications of the normal practice, which Norman Macleod mentioned, of requiring them to come back with specific proposals for a decision by the minister. The conditions also contain a requirement to consult affected parties, be that the council in the case of the Stirling mitigation scheme, or the landowners and occupiers in the case of the Glenside and Auchilhanzie scheme.
Do you regard yourselves as obliged to share with the Parliament what the conditions will be for the mitigation requirements having been met? The minister said that that is open-ended. We have no timescale and no guidelines. Of course there will be discussions with the developer. The question is whether the conditions will be shared with the Parliament and other interested parties and, if so, when.
We have run the matter on the same process of openness that we have used to deal with other things under my watch, and we intend to continue with that. I was restricted in that I could only make conditions that were based on fact. We had to go back to first principles and produce further conditions that were based on facts that were before the reporter. We made our interpretation of them, which we believe strengthened and aligned things more with the needs of everyone involved.
I will let others pursue that.
I want to clarify a point about the timescale. The process has gone on for some time, as Wendy Alexander said a few moments ago, but you said earlier that you had the report on your desk for only two and a half months. Will you clarify why the period was two and a half months rather than the 11 months that has been alluded to and mentioned in the public domain?
Two and a half months represents 4 per cent of the overall time that the process has taken, from the time when the planning application was put in to the time when the decision was taken. In essence, the two and half months were taken up with trying to get into the detail of the report, understanding its nuances, talking to officials and the panel that we had to review the output of the final report, drawing conclusions based on that, and trying to understand those issues in the context of the flurry of late submissions that came in towards the middle of December. There was a huge amount of material to read, assimilate and try to make sense of, but I believe that I did that.
You touched on a couple of areas on which I have questions, one of which is the impact of the scheme on our cultural heritage. I am thinking of two examples in particular: the Wallace monument and the Sheriffmuir battleground. What measures have you taken to ensure that the development does not impact adversely on Scotland's cultural history and heritage?
As you can imagine, we took advice and engaged heavily with Historic Scotland in both those examples. There has been a fair bit of misrepresentation around the impact of the scheme on the Wallace monument. The nearest pylon is about 1.2km away from the monument and is sited low down on the carse, in a largely industrial landscape. The monument is 177m high; the tower in question is about 51m or 52m high—[Interruption.] I am told reliably that it is 58.5m high.
I turn to climate change targets, which we have heard a lot about over the past week following your statement. What will the Beauly to Denny development bring to the table? What will it help to achieve in relation to Scottish and UK climate change targets?
It will be monumental. It opens up the renewable energy engine room that Willy Roe talked about and triggers Professor Jim McDonald's vision for the grid getting us to a position where we generate much more carbon-free energy in Scotland. It also chimes very much with the views of the commentator Chris Goodall, who was part of a panel session on "Newsnight Scotland" about six weeks ago, following the programme "The Power of Scotland" in which the potential was identified. The development puts out a really powerful signal that Scotland is absolutely serious about harvesting the huge bounty of renewable energy that we have the potential to exploit and that we are indeed deadly serious about backing up the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
I would like to clarify a point about achieving targets. Am I correct in thinking that you regard the Beauly to Denny line as a first step along with other developments such as the subsea cable, or could the subsea cable have been introduced instead of the Beauly to Denny line?
It was never a question of having the subsea cable instead of the Beauly to Denny line; rather, the subsea cable complements the line, the path of which was required to support Scotland's renewable energy potential and the harvesting of power down the line. There are plans for a comprehensive upgrade of the grid in national planning framework 2, which is critically important to Scotland, to the rest of the UK's climate change and renewables targets and to Europe. We spent a good deal of time engaging with Georg Adamowitsch, the European Union grid co-ordinator, and got the message across to him that Scotland can play an important part in Europe in relation to climate change, renewables and security of supply. However, that will require grid development, not just from Scotland but from the rest of the UK and Europe. We have put ourselves back on the map and have made a declaration of intent that will be seen by Europe. I look forward to being rewarded by Europe in terms of its investment in the North Sea grid in the years to come.
How many homes and properties will be within 1km of the Beauly to Denny line?
I do not have an easy answer to that question, although I have an answer on those that are within 100m and 200m of the line. There are only three houses within 100m, and 92 houses within 200m, of the consented line. However, there are 94 houses within 100m of the existing line, so there will be a reduction of 91 with regard to the consented line, and there are 209 houses within 100m to 200m of the existing line. The consented line ameliorates the situation, which I am happy about.
I will follow up a previous question about employment in the area. It is estimated that 500 jobs will be created during the construction of the line. Will the contracts that will determine the various issues stipulate any training requirements?
I am pretty sure that training requirements will come through. We are talking about a development that occurs once in a generation, and key skills and young, fit people will be required to handle the job.
I was thinking more of modern apprenticeships. I know that some Government contracts include the requirement to train. You are talking about the Beauly to Denny line being the first of many projects, so you will obviously want to train the next generation. I am asking whether the scheme includes a stipulation to train young people and adult returners through modern apprenticeships.
I am not sure about that, but I will make a point of finding out. I can tell you that Scottish and Southern Energy and other energy companies have already made significant announcements and movements on the issue, including the inauguration of a new education facility on the University of Strathclyde campus, in collaboration with the university. I expect to see that facility grow. The key issue here is corporate social responsibility, and we are seeing companies in the new, more accountable Scotland being more aware of that, either by doing the right thing by communities or by investing and spending their money in Scotland, creating and sustaining Scottish jobs.
Thank you. I would appreciate a follow-up from you on the training issue.
I take note of that.
As part of the package, obsolete power lines will be removed from the Cairngorms national park. From what I have read, I know that communities are quite keen for those lines to be removed. Can you tell me when and where that removal will take place and whether it will be done in conjunction with the building of the new power line, in order to minimise disruption to communities?
We have put in place conditions, and we expect the companies to handle the matter in the speediest way possible. There is a conjunction of interests with regard to this matter. It is as much in the interests of the companies to co-ordinate their efforts and ensure that their tasks are completed as crisply and efficiently as possible as it is in the interests of the communities for them to do so. We intend to stay engaged with the process to ensure that that is an element of the criteria. The involvement of the liaison groups that we have identified and the active involvement of councils and of councillors such as Ian Ross in Highland Council will ensure that we get the desired result. A considerable amount of good will can be harvested in relation to this issue, and we intend to ensure that that happens.
I am conscious of the time, and of the fact that almost everything that must be said has been said, although not everyone has said it. I reiterate my support for the decision to consent to this application. However, as no one needs to be reminded, the development has deeply divided opinion and there is a risk that mixed messages might be sent out.
The reporters and I have been sensitive to the views of communities, and that will continue to be the case. The reporters' final conclusions and recommendations were considerable evidence of that. At the end of the day, the decision will be mine to make, but I am open to all and any inputs and submissions, as I think that I have proven today. The structure that we have put in place, with the tourism, cultural heritage and community liaison group, the environmental liaison group, the independent environmental contractor and the community liaison schemes, ensures that the voice of communities will be heard—their views can also be expressed through their councillors and councils.
So, at the meeting that you will have on Monday with SSE, you will not be able to reassure the company that no further legal consents will be required in relation to mitigation measures.
It will not be possible to state that in blank terms. I ask Norman Macleod to give you some clarity on that matter.
I am not really speaking about the meeting on Monday but, in general, it is for the applicant to bring forward proposals, and the applicant will have sought legal and expert advice about the impact that the proposals are likely to have on other statutory regimes.
You will appreciate that, in the run-up to the decision, the company's concern was that further legal consents would be required and that that would delay the initiation of the work, which is the company's real concern.
I do not think that we can say that at this stage. It is for the company to bring forward proposals; that is what the conditions envisage. If those proposals require extra consents, the company will no doubt present its case for why they should be approved.
For clarification, the purpose of the meeting on Monday is to do no more than explain what the conditions say, particularly with regard to the point about consultation. The condition that relates to Stirling says that the minister will consult Stirling Council before reaching his final decision. The minister, in his statement last week, encouraged the company to carry out prior consultation with councils, so Stirling Council is aware that it will be consulted beforehand, which is key. We will draw attention to the procedures and to what was said in the statement; we will not say any more than that.
But you appreciate that there is a risk with regard to the consultation of a number of the affected communities. I appreciate that it is almost inevitable that views will not be reconciled on the issue, but if there is a backstop beyond which the company will not be expected to go, or would not want to go of its own volition, that will affect a number of those communities. In his statement last week, the minister appeared to suggest that he supported the company in the view that further legal consents would not be required.
Again, it is a matter for the company—we will handle that issue as it comes forward.
I call Christopher Harvie—I am sorry that I missed him out earlier.
I appeared for the people in the Stirling area who are concerned about the passage of the power system through Stirling and would prefer that the line is undergrounded. There still seems to be some ambiguity around that. What is your view on that, minister, in the context of the two schemes that are coming up not as alternatives to the line, but as developments to which Scotland will have to contribute? One is the North Sea grid, and the other is the immensely ambitious Desertec project to supply Europe with power from northern Africa.
I hear what you say. Perhaps you can put to Scottish Power—the company that is involved in the Stirling area—a rationalisation that is based on experimenting and building expertise that it might be able to utilise and sell elsewhere. In this instance, the balance of opinion and evidence has taken us to where we are.
I conclude with a couple of questions to clarify matters for the record. From what Mr Macleod and Mr Imrie said, you cannot rule out that there might be requirements for further statutory consents for the areas of mitigation. For example, environmental impact assessments might be required if there is rerouting, re-siting or undergrounding, and new planning permission or further public local inquiries might be required. The other thing would be Ofgem consent in relation to the costs of the project. Could all those things happen?
Those possibilities exist, yes.
The reporters' conclusions and recommendation are fairly clear in relation to the Stirlingshire area. Paragraph 1.6.5 of volume 6 states:
Did you say "not"?
Paragraph 1.6.5 of volume 6 of the reporters' report states:
We were looking at the overall impact. We recognise the sensitivities in the Stirling context and the importance of the area, which was mentioned in a previous question. That is why we supported the rationalisation scheme and put in place the additional mitigation requirement in Stirling.
Presumably the local inquiry considered those issues and the reporters came up with the conclusion that mitigation was not required for the area other than in relation to Glenside.
Let me bring in others to give you some clarification of that.
On the Stirling area, the reporters' recommendation and finding that, overall, the impact would not be adverse was accepted. The reason why the minister added the extra conditions and changed the condition that was proposed in relation to Glenside into a mitigation scheme is because of the adverse impact in a number of specific areas in the Glenside area and, for example, when the line crosses the scarp in the Ochils. There is adverse impact in particular areas.
Those points were considered by the reporters and rejected.
Absolutely not. I was in glorious isolation through the period.
That concludes item 1. Thank you, minister. I realise that the session was longer than we envisaged, but we had a lot of questions.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Next
Energy Bill