Beauly to Denny Power Line
Item 3 is the Beauly to Denny power line. I thought that it would be useful for members to reflect on the evidence that we received last week from the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, and for the committee to decide whether it wishes to consider any further action at this stage. I propose that we ask the minister to keep us fully up to date with any developments with planning issues and mitigation measures as they proceed. Do members have any comments?
I want to highlight a couple of things. Jim Mather's evidence at last week's meeting raised questions that we need to follow up. A fundamental part of his argument, which he used on a number of occasions, was that we cannot require the companies to underground the line.
Since last week's meeting, my attention has been drawn to the consent for Torness power station, which was issued on 24 May 1978 by the Scottish Economic Planning Department. Condition (6) of the consent states:
"The transmission lines leaving the station will be carried underground for approximately 2kms to suitable sites for sealing end compounds, in order to preserve the visual amenity of the coastal plain."
That is a clear example of how a consent condition can require undergrounding of a transmission line while allowing the development to proceed. Therefore, we should press the minister further on his assertion that he did not have the power to require that.
The minister also said last week:
"We have left an option that could result in our obtaining some undergrounding."—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 13 January 2010; c 2962.]
Members will no doubt have seen yesterday's newspaper headline "Power firms reject burial of Beauly-Denny cables: Campaigners' hopes are dashed as energy minister Mather's claim that part of line could go underground proves worthless". At this stage, that news is apparently being reported as a leak from one of the power companies involved. Given the circumstances, I imagine that the power companies will soon submit to the minister their formal proposals for mitigation measures and that newspaper story might well turn out to be accurate.
Given the assertions that the minister made both to the committee last week and to the Parliament the previous week, I think that we should ask him to keep us fully informed of whatever proposals come to him and what judgments he makes on those. In the light of that reporting back, we might want to hear from him again at some future stage.
I think that we should look at what the minister said in his statement about the conditions under which he granted the consent. The application was for an overhead line. I do not want to compare the Beauly to Denny transmission line with anything that happened in 1978 or at any other time. The new line will follow the course of a well-established overhead line in the same place.
The minister also went to great pains to point out that the environmental liaison group and the tourism, cultural heritage and community liaison group will be involved. Clearly, those groups will have a bearing on the particular mitigation measures that are included in the 73 sets of conditions, which comprise some 300 items. It will take some time to set up those groups, although they should be set up soon.
In addition, in working up their plans, the energy companies will be required to create a construction policy handbook. As any member who has been a member of a tramline or rail line bill committee, will know—I am not sure whether, other than myself, any committee member has been involved in the parliamentary scrutiny that is required for such bills before any development can take place—the decision that is taken on such matters involves a relationship between the companies and the minister who has a locus in the matter. In this case, the minister has a locus not because the Government is providing the money for the project but because the minister has oversight of such matters.
There is an issue of timescale that we need to take on board. I think that it will be more practical to get information if we give the companies a number of months to work up their proposals. That will enable the minister to have a reasonable idea of what is happening and not just to surmise about the process. We should recognise that our committee is here to hold the minister to account for the way in which he delivers. In the context of what the committee has said, we need to see that what we wanted is delivered and delivered early. That was the force of our unanimous report.
I am concerned that we should not simply pursue good guesses in newspapers or hark back to things that happened in Yorkshire or Torness. In this case, the minister has been quite clear about the way in which he responded. If we are interested in taking an overall view of matters and the national importance of the development, we should keep that as our perspective. We should discuss the issue in due course when further information is available so that we can discuss the matter in terms of reality rather than surmise.
I will make two precise points that follow up on Lewis Macdonald's comments.
I am strongly committed to renewable energy going ahead, but I think that everyone is looking for clarity. We should formally seek clarity on two issues. First, is it legal or illegal to impose undergrounding as a condition? Evidence suggests that such a condition would be legal because there is precedent for it, but we were given clear indications to the contrary. In fairness, if I recall correctly—perhaps someone could check the Official Report—those indications came from the planning officials. Given the apparent contradiction between what was said and precedent, we should write to the minister to ask him to clarify the issue. Clarity on that would inform every other similar application in future and would help all parties. I have no idea what the answer will be, but we should ask that question in writing so that we receive a considered response.
The second issue is to do with certainty and whether it is appropriate to pursue the process via a series of private, bilateral meetings with the interests concerned. One of my grave concerns about how the process is playing out is the precedent that is being set. Meeting the companies, having a chat with them and then releasing things into the press does not bring the certainty in the process that we want. Therefore, my second point—it is the same as Lewis Macdonald's second point—is that we should write to the minister asking whether the companies ruled out undergrounding at the meeting. It is important to ask that question so that every single other public interest that goes into the mitigation process will know what the options are. We must ask it because, at the moment, all those groups think, based on the ministerial statement, that they will be able to discuss undergrounding. If the companies have ruled that out to the minister, every other public interest deserves to know that as it tries to scope what the parameters of mitigation are.
We should write about those matters. There is precedent, and we would like to know the position. No doubt 20 officials will pore over that matter, and that is the right way to provide certainty. We also need to ask whether, as a result of the meeting that the minister indicated to the committee there would be, the companies have ruled out mitigation and undergrounding. Knowing that would be helpful for the various interests that will be involved in the mitigation process one way or another. We should ask those two follow-up questions to try to bring clarity to the process.
The suggestion that we should be kept up to date and fully informed as and when is sound.
Lewis Macdonald's point about what the minister said about his powers to compel or otherwise is important. Of course, his example came from the late 1970s and there may now be a different regulation or piece of primary legislation that explains why it is no longer relevant, but we can be told that in an answer if it is the case. It is perfectly legitimate to ask that question. I would think that there will be a definitive legal answer, which it would be good to have for the sake of clarity.
It is incumbent on us to hold the minister and the Government to account, so I would be content for the minister to come back to the committee at some point to explain a bit more when he has more information to give us.
In fairness, it is probably legitimate for the committee to write to the minister about the Torness point that Lewis Macdonald mentioned. However, on undergrounding, there are 73 mitigation aspects, and I do not think for one minute that the energy companies will have decided within the past week and a half to two weeks what all the 73 mitigation schemes will be. Therefore, we need to have a time break before we try to establish exactly what has been ruled in or what has not been ruled out. I do not see it as viable in any way, shape or form for decisions on those schemes to have been made within two weeks. We should therefore allow a bit of a gap before we bring the minister back in front of the committee.
I do not think that anyone is talking about bringing the minister back to the committee in the near future, but it may be appropriate to request him to come back when there is more clarity. I suspect that that will be some months away.
There are many conditions, but most of the conditions that refer to the possibility of changes to the wires relate to existing wires and not to the main Beauly to Denny line. Those areas where mitigation measures have been asked for are limited and specific. I think that the minister referred to three that he had inserted. In my view, the companies will make decisions on those specific areas very quickly, so I think that by the February recess it would be appropriate to ask whether they have made a decision. In that timescale, I am sure that the minister will be aware whether mitigation measures relating to the main Beauly to Denny line are likely to involve undergrounding. There is a distinction to be drawn between the main line and associated existing lines. Because the issue relates to the minister's powers in granting the consent, we should press for an early response in February or March on the undergrounding of that link.
Given that the Official Report of last week's meeting shows that, in answer to Lewis Macdonald, the minister said that, at that stage, he had not had detailed discussions with the developers, as he had been waiting until after the decision was made, the point that Stuart McMillan makes is valuable—it would be helpful to give the companies some time to come up with specific proposals. Perhaps we should keep in touch with the minister to find out when those discussions will be held, but I do not think that we should interfere in that process.
The minister made it clear in his statement that consent had been applied for under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 and that deemed planning permission had been applied for under section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Could we ask what relationship the planning laws that were in place when Torness was approved have with the regime that came in under the Electricity Act 1989? Any changes in that period might rule out a comparison with Torness.
Are there any other comments?
It would be useful to take a positive look at what the future of long power lines in general will be, given the nature of the big power projects that will go ahead in the North Sea and the Mediterranean, because if we get our sums and our engineering expertise right, Beauly to Denny can be a prototype for the profitable application of our engineering expertise elsewhere in Europe, thus avoiding our being more or less at the whim of the power—as opposed to the power engineering—companies.
Is there general agreement that I should write to the minister to ask him to keep us fully up to speed with developments as they proceed and to clarify why he considers that he does not have the legal power to require undergrounding? I will also ask what changes the two acts to which Rob Gibson referred made to the situation that applied in previous cases such as Torness. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I suggest that we also ask the minister to keep us informed of any detailed discussions that he has with the developers and any decisions that are made on undergrounding prior to any public consultation. Wendy Alexander's point was that if undergrounding has been ruled out, the public should know that before consultation takes place. I am sure that the clerks will be more eloquent in wording the draft letter than I have just been. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of the meeting.
Next week, we will continue with the banking and financial services inquiry. We are due to hear from the trade unions and from representatives of the campaign to establish a post bank. We also hope to hear from a representative of the asset management industry, but we will discuss that when we go into private session, which we now do.
Meeting continued in private until 13:19.