Official Report 452KB pdf
We move to a members’ business debate on motion S7M-00428, in the name of Graham Simpson, on artificial intelligence data centres. This is the final item of business, and the debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern proposals for hyperscale AI data centres across the Central Scotland and Lothian West region, including at Ravenscraig, Larbert, Newhouse and West Calder, and near communities affected by the proposed AI Growth Zone at Chapelhall; understands that such developments may rely on diesel generators to support 24/7 operation; further understands that there are concerns over potential nitrogen oxide emissions; recognises that there are community concerns about the cumulative impact on air quality, emissions, green space and energy costs; regrets that National Planning Framework 4 does not define “green data centres”, and notes calls for the Scottish Government to issue urgent guidance on the term, including in relation to the use of gas and diesel power and the air quality standards that should apply.
17:21
I thank colleagues, including my good friend Meghan Gallacher, who signed the motion to enable us to debate it today.
I start by apologising to you, Presiding Officer, and to members, as I might have to leave before the end of the debate if it overruns to 6.20. I expect that it might, because there is a lot of interest in the subject. I did inform the office of the Presiding Officers yesterday.
The debate matters because communities across Central Scotland and Lothians West and beyond, who were represented outside the Parliament today, face a wave of hyperscale AI data centre proposals, while the rules to guide decisions have not kept pace.
Will Graham Simpson take an intervention on that point?
Yes, of course.
It is quite early in the debate for an intervention, but Graham Simpson has hit the nail on the head. Does he believe that the Scottish National Party’s planning regulations and guidance are not fit for purpose? This issue was not included in the fourth national planning framework, and it should have been.
I will certainly come on to that in more detail, but, in summary, yes, I agree.
Ministers have had plenty of time to design and issue guidance, and they have failed. The Deputy First Minister told us earlier today that they would be exploring options for the potential for future planning guidance. Frankly, that was waffle. The First Minister said that the Cabinet would discuss it in the autumn, but councils, our constituents and the developers need the guidance now.
The scale of what is coming forward is extraordinary. According to Action to Protect Rural Scotland, there are now 21 data centre proposals in planning portals. This is a gold rush. We saw something similar with battery storage until the National Energy System Operator ruled on what the country actually needs. That same national direction is now needed for AI data centres, and it is for Government to spell out where they should and should not go. They should not be on green-belt land or prime agricultural land or in areas of great natural beauty. Scotland has plenty of brownfield and industrial sites, and that is where development should be directed.
What we lack here, as Graham Simpson has just articulated really well, is a strategy about data centres. I hope that we all acknowledge that, realistically, our economy needs data centres, but it is about where and how they are deployed, and that requires a United Kingdom-wide strategy. I hope that he agrees that the Scottish, UK and Welsh Governments all have a part to play in bringing together a common-sense strategy by which data centres are appropriately sited.
I thank Stephen Kerr for the intervention. He is absolutely right that we could do with a United Kingdom strategy, but the Scottish Government is in charge of planning here, so we need a Scottish strategy.
The energy demand shows why guidance is urgent. Current Scottish applications would require an estimated 7,300MW of electricity. To put that into context, Scotland’s peak winter electricity demand is just over 4,000MW, so, on paper, the proposals could demand significantly more power than Scotland uses at peak winter demand. That should worry everyone.
On 18 August, the Minister for Public Finance announced that councils must notify the Scottish Government within seven days of receiving an application for a data centre of over 50MW. The Government should be told about plans, but then what? Nobody knows. The central questions remain unanswered: what is a green data centre? What limits apply to diesel or gas back-up generation? What air quality standards can residents rely on?
We also need to know how many of these things Scotland needs, and where they should go. The minister has had all summer to do that thinking, but we have yet to hear the conclusions. Today may be the day that we find out, but I suspect that it will not be.
Data centres are now part of the essential infrastructure of our modern economy. Some data centres already operate here, and in some areas people would barely know they are there. They support cloud computing, online banking, digital public services, cybersecurity, business productivity and, increasingly, artificial intelligence, so we should not simply say no to them. We should welcome investment, innovation and jobs but, equally, we should not wave vast projects through based on marketing slogans, speculative promises and undefined claims of being green.
There is a positive case for investment. Scotland has renewable energy potential, engineering expertise, former industrial land that needs regeneration and a workforce capable of supporting high-value digital jobs, but recognising those benefits does not mean writing a blank cheque. Communities in Ravenscraig, Larbert, Newhouse, West Calder and Chapelhall are entitled to straight answers and protection.
Twelve of the sites in the planning system are on green-belt sites or farmland, including at least two on grade 2 farmland, which is the best that Scotland has. The two brownfield sites are allocated for 1,400 homes. None of the sites in the planning system appears on the priority list drawn up by Government bodies in 2021 and updated in 2023.
Then we have energy and emissions. Data centres need back-up generation and the proposals that we have seen so far in Scotland would use diesel generators. Done well, operators could use renewable power, invest in storage, improve grid connections, recycle waste heat, meet high efficiency standards and deliver local benefits that could support growth and decarbonisation.
That is why I am not arguing for blanket opposition; I am arguing for proper rules, but right now those rules are not clear enough. National planning framework 4 talks about green data centres, but it does not define the term. The guidance should be practical and clear, and it should define what qualifies as a green data centre and set limits on diesel and gas back-up generation.
Transparency matters, too. APRS says that nine of the 16 proposals that reached environmental impact assessment screening were initially not required to carry out those assessments, though three decisions were later overturned by ministers.
Presiding Officer, I have taken some interventions, I am a wee bit over time, and I might have to leave early, so I will finish here. I am calling on the Scottish Government to issue urgent guidance now so that communities, councils and developers know what standards apply before decisions are made. I am really looking forward to hearing the other contributions.
17:29
I congratulate Graham Simpson on securing this debate on such a timely and important issue.
Data centres are a reality of the modern world. In a highly digitised society such as ours, data centres support everyday functions including e-commerce, banking and public service delivery, and applications such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence. Whether we realise it or not, each one of us, in our everyday lives, relies on data centres to stream services, use social media, send emails and carry out online activities. We already have data centres, but they need to be scaled up to support an increasingly digitised society, and to support the delivery of our public services in a digitised world. We cannot escape that fact.
It is artificial intelligence in particular that we see scaling up at an astonishing pace. It has not even been four years since the launch of ChatGPT—probably the most well-known AI chatbot—yet, according to the Office for National Statistics, 55 per cent of UK employees report using AI for work or education, and 35 per cent of businesses report using at least one AI technology.
AI is embedded in virtually every sector of the economy. In life sciences, it is accelerating drug discovery, supporting advanced manufacturing and improving health technology development. For manufacturers, AI is helping to improve production processes, reduce waste and optimise energy use. On net zero, Scottish organisations are developing AI solutions for environmental monitoring, biodiversity assessment, land-use planning and grid optimisation. In Ukraine, we increasingly see the use of AI on the battlefield for automated target detection, drone navigation and combat data sharing.
No country can afford to shy away from AI and risk being left behind. AI data centres constitute critical national infrastructure, and it is simply wrong not to consider them in that context.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I will just move on, as I am very conscious of time.
With our abundant energy resources and our strong AI research skills and base in Scotland, we can and should be seeking to position ourselves as a leader in green data centre development. The question is: how many data centres can reasonably be sustained in Scotland? It is simply not ethical or moral to come to a position while we accept that fact but suggest that they should be housed elsewhere, wherever that is. They have to go somewhere.
The centres need to be located where it is considered most suitable and appropriate to put them. Considerations around their location should be based on access to renewable energy; their impact on the national grid; the economic benefits; their environmental impact; the impact on local amenity, such as noise pollution; and the impact on the landscape.
According to reports, there are proposals across Scotland for up to 70 hyperscale data centres in the near future, and that number of data centres is simply not sustainable. It underlines the point that, given the potential cumulative impact that the development of such facilities across Scotland could have in areas such as energy consumption, it is vital that decisions about data centre proposals are taken not in isolation but with the wider context in mind.
It cannot be right that local authorities are expected to shoulder the responsibility of handling these applications, and it is inconsistent to have a situation in which a planning application for an onshore wind farm that is capable of powering thousands of homes goes to the Scottish Government while an application for a data centre that is capable of consuming millions of households’ worth of electricity is considered at local authority level. That is not sustainable, and it is simply not reasonable.
In my view, a national approach to such applications must be taken, although it must consider the views of local residents and local authorities and, of course, the environmental impact should also be considered in any application.
We need to ensure that data centres are built in the right places, powered as much as possible by renewable energy, developed with the confidence of local communities and assessed within a clear national framework. Scotland has the resources, the expertise and the ambition to lead in sustainable digital infrastructure. We should seize that opportunity responsibly.
17:34
I thank Graham Simpson for securing this evening’s debate. It is encouraging to note, from the speeches that we have heard so far, that there is broad agreement that data centres are required. We will all have made use of cloud technologies today. We will all—intentionally or unintentionally—have used AI. Even a simple Google search now throws up AI answers. We are all responsible for the use of these technologies, and we could benefit from them. Patricia Gibson already laid out some of the different ways in which AI is transforming our economy and so many things in our society, such as supporting cancer diagnosis and detecting fraud. There are many good uses of AI, and it is welcome that we have agreement that these centres are needed, but the question is where, and how it can be done.
It is important, in the broader debate around AI, that, for all the opportunities that it offers, we are vigilant. As with any emerging technology, we should harness and use AI in the right way. It has been observed how social media became so widespread, and the people developing social media tools were much better versed than legislators in how they worked and also in the harm that they were doing, particularly to our children. We are only now catching up to that. There is a parallel to be made there.
As other members have said, hyperscale data centres must be appropriately located, and their development must be consistent with our commitments to local people and the environment. As Graham Simpson has said, my region of Central Scotland and Lothians West faces the potential of a number of hyperscale data centres being built, including at Larbert, Ravenscraig and West Calder—and a few others are in the pipeline.
On the potential data centre at Larbert, it is not surprising, given the proximity of the Denny substation, that somewhere in that vicinity is being considered, but there are specific concerns with the current application for the Larbert site, particularly in relation to its proximity to homes, care homes and Forth Valley royal hospital. That is where the debate really lies: what is safe and what is green?
It strikes me that the wider debate bears some of the hallmarks of the discussions around pylons in the north-east of Scotland, which featured in the previous session of Parliament. It is a case of significant infrastructure being vital for our economy and meeting the needs and wants of local communities.
There is another consideration that Jenny Young has not mentioned. I keep coming back to the idea of a UK national strategy. What is the anticipated requirement? Surely government has a role in relation to the development of this national infrastructure. It cannot just be left to what currently appears to be a wild west scenario, where lots of speculators are coming forward with different types of proposals for different places, usually on greenfield sites. Surely government has a role here, at all levels, to come together and create a plan and a strategy that directs the planning.
I would certainly agree with Stephen Kerr on that point. Leaving it to a wild west approach, as he says, or leaving it to each council is not appropriate. The Scottish Government has a role to play in planning, but certainly there is also a role for the UK Government, which has designated AI data centres as critical national infrastructure—and rightly so, given the technological changes that we have seen. Stephen Kerr is right: there should be leadership from both Governments, for certain.
As I was saying, the debate has hallmarks of the debate on pylons in the north-east of Scotland in the previous session of Parliament, with a clash between significant infrastructure that is so needed for our economy and the needs and wants of local communities. How do we balance those two sometimes competing concerns? That is where Government has a crucial role to play in showing leadership and a clear direction of travel. At times, that will mean taking decisions that are not immediately popular with the general public, but it is the job of Government to take a strategic view, bearing in mind the wider needs of our economy and our communities together.
As others have said, we need clarity from the Scottish Government about the standards that developments need to meet, particularly in relation to air pollution. A number of constituents have raised that with me over the summer. I do not think that local authorities should be left to guess what a green data centre is. I do not know whether that notion is deliberately vague, but it is vague at the moment, and we need clarity on it.
This is certainly not an issue that the Government can continue to ignore. It is happening now, and we have known for months that guidance is needed. I welcome the recent movements from the Government on the issue and the steps that were taken over the summer, but it is still unclear whether the Government is approaching the matter with the seriousness and urgency that are required for people in the region that I represent. If we are to have a serious discussion about how to deal with hyperscale data centres and make the best use of them for our economy and our communities, we need a Government that is willing to address the issue head on.
17:39
I thank Graham Simpson for lodging this motion for debate. Many hope that AI will improve their daily lives, and some would argue that that is already happening. The Scottish Government hopes that AI will make public services more efficient. For many developers—such as ILI, which has proposed the Rufus hyperscale data centre in Hurlford in my constituency—AI provides the hope that they can make a quick buck. ILI is looking to get planning permission in principle and sell the site on. That approach makes it almost impossible to fully scrutinise proposals and apply realistic planning conditions.
For that reason, we require better definition of what constitutes a green data centre, and I agree with similar contributions on that point. My local authority, East Ayrshire Council, has written to the Scottish Government requesting guidance on the definition of a green data centre, and it has requested a moratorium in the meantime, which I think we must give serious consideration to.
Presumably, a green data centre cannot be one that relies on diesel generators and cannot be allowed to increase carbon emissions when, ultimately, the taxpayer would have to pick up the cost of reducing those emissions as part of our net zero obligations. I agree that we need a strategic review to assess how many, or how few, hyperscale data centres Scotland can support. The review would need to consider power requirements, water usage and other key assets, as well as identifying possible key sites. We cannot have this position, whereby, at the moment, it is possible for 32 local authorities to award planning permission for a hyperscale data centre, so that 32 or more right across Scotland could be given planning permission. That is just not logical or coherent, which is why we need a strategy.
As Graham Simpson pointed out, if all the data centre applications currently in the planning system were granted permission, they would exceed Scotland’s peak energy demand, so we do not have the energy generation capability to power what is in the planning system. That relates to another concern of mine, which is that the rush to apply for planning permission and grid permissions can hold up other renewable energy projects, house building and other key infrastructure projects. We cannot have the UK Government simply announcing AI growth zones, further undermining local democracy.
On the application for the Rufus data centre in Hurlford in my constituency, it is stated that it will have a 540MW demand, which is marginally larger than the generating capacity of Whitelee wind farm, which is the largest onshore windfarm in the UK. How would such a proposed centre manage to receive 540MW 24/7? It is inconceivable that there is spare capacity in the grid locally that could provide that amount of power. To further put that in context, that is the equivalent of the output of one and a half small modular nuclear reactors running 24/7. On that point, I am still not in favour of small modular reactors, but I just use that as an example.
The argument about using spare wind energy rather than paying curtailment costs to developers is clearly bogus, because there is not that amount of spare energy in the system. If we accept that there is a requirement for data centres, we also have to understand any benefits, as part of the decision-making process. Wind farm developers currently pay £5,000 per megawatt of generation capacity, with the Scottish Government recommending that that increases to £6,000 per megawatt, so what would be realistic for a data centre to contribute to the local economy or local fund? The Scottish Government has mentioned provision of district heating as a way to use up spare energy from the data centres, so we need greater guidance on that.
Developers must be honest with us about jobs. They must tell us how many jobs will be created, but the likelihood is that there will be minimal jobs and they will be in areas such as security and general maintenance. Developers must be honest with us instead of dangling fantastic numbers in front of us.
The Scottish Government should make environmental impact assessments mandatory for 50MW-plus sites and ensure that those assessments are transparent. It should not be down to objectors and local constituents to find that information.
While there is a worldwide rush to get in on hyperscale AI data centres, now is also the time for Governments around the world to clamp down on the behaviours of social media giants, rather than simply facilitating the infrastructure for them to be bad actors.
17:44
I thought for a moment that Alan Brown had finally seen the light on nuclear power, but then he very quickly qualified his analogy by saying that he was not in favour of it. The reality is that that is the direction of travel that is needed to get clean energy for our country.
It is remarkable that Graham Simpson has managed to bring us together and I congratulate him on that. Setting aside the nuances of argument, I think that we are all in the same place, although we have not heard from a Liberal Democrat, and there are no Greens in the chamber. It is quite astonishing that there are no Scottish Greens present for this debate. My goodness me—what does that say about the Scottish Greens? I think that Graham Simpson deserves congratulations, and I hope that the minister will join me in that.
We seem to be in a very similar place—we understand that we need to have these data centres, but it is about how, when and how many. All of those issues are fundamental to planning, and I am glad that there seems to be a consensus on the need for us to have a strategic approach.
By the way, there is also a national security dimension to this, which Alan Brown hinted at. The question of where our data is stored, how resilient that infrastructure is and whether we have sufficient domestic capacity, increasingly matters to the security of Scotland and the United Kingdom. None of the arguments that I have heard today are arguments against data centres per se, but they are arguments for planning them properly.
The proposed Cato development at Auchtertool demonstrates that perfectly. Auchtertool is a very small community in Fife, yet the buildings for the proposed site would be 35m high and would cover 40 football pitches. I know that that is in David Torrance’s constituency, and he is probably going to speak on that as well. The people of Auchtertool are absolutely right to question the scale of that development and whether it belongs on the edge of their village or on valuable agricultural land.
The lesson of this summer, which we will all be learning for most of the autumn and winter months to come, is how fragile our food security is in this country. We need to have a far more serious and secure strategy for domestic food production than we currently have. For far too long, collectively as politicians, we have paid lip service to farmers, and the importance of farming and food production will become more and more apparent as we go forward.
I have a genuine question. Notwithstanding the point about a potential overarching strategy, if such a strategy were to be put in place and locations were decided, but the local population said, “No, we don’t want that”, what would then happen?
The planning system should always be robust enough to take on board local objections, so people should be allowed to make the case for objecting.
Jenny Young made a very strong point in her speech, which is that, invariably, any development plan will have objectors. I am afraid that the reality of any national infrastructure project is that somebody somewhere is not going to be very happy. I just happen to think that the example of Auchtertool highlights the fact that we need a strategy for how many we need and where we need them. If you have ever been there, the idea of situating such a monstrosity on the edge of Auchtertool—my goodness! It would kill Auchtertool, just like some of the industrialisation of the countryside has killed some of the villages of Scotland already. That has been reckless.
We have a responsibility, colleagues, for our country—our countryside and the villages, towns and communities that make up Scotland. We cannot be blasé about it. I understand the point that my colleague has made, but, at the end of the day, I think that Jenny Young hit the right note. Hard decisions must be made on something that is vital national infrastructure. There are all kinds of issues around energy consumption, water consumption, grid capacity and cooling, and food security, which I already mentioned. All of those need to be assessed in the context of the dozens of development applications, many of which—I grudgingly agree with Alan Brown—are speculative. They are fundamentally about people seeking to make money on the back of something that they know is a vital infrastructure that our country needs in order to develop.
I am mindful that I am running out of time, even though I have taken an intervention. I will make one last point—
Very quickly, Mr Kerr.
There is a current example of the United Kingdom, Scottish and Welsh Governments coming together and developing a special strategic plan for vital infrastructure in the area of energy. They have commissioned the National Energy System Operator—NESO—to build such a plan for the United Kingdom, which includes future energy infrastructure, location, energy needs, system needs and economic and spatial modelling. All that is being done collaboratively on our island of Great Britain. That is the direction that we need to go in.
Thank you for your forbearance, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you, colleagues, because I think that we are pretty much all in the same place.
I am more worried about the forbearance of colleagues, because we are now very tight for time. Due to the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I invite Graham Simpson to move a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
I did anticipate that. I am happy to move the motion, although I might not be here until the end of the debate—but enjoy yourselves. [Laughter.]
I move,
That, under rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
If members do not keep to time, I will struggle to get everyone’s contributions in in that 30 minutes.
17:51
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—I will do my best to keep to time. I ask members to note my entry in the register of members’ interests as a Falkirk councillor.
The issue of hyperscale green data centres came to prominence for me on 4 June. Since then, I have sought to examine the matter in great detail. I have looked at the application for the data centre in Larbert and I will refer to that—I know that the minister cannot reply on the subject of an individual case—to give a picture of what people are living with and what they are saying.
I requested further information from the Scottish Parliament information centre. I welcome its blog, which, after a meeting with me, was refreshed to include a reference to the Larbert data centre proposal.
I remain concerned that developments of such scale are being brought forward without sufficient clarity. These are not minor matters—they are fundamental issues that should be addressed clearly and comprehensively before any decision is made. The environmental impact assessment gives cause for concern. Falkirk Council was one of the first councils to request an EIA. I have spent nine years on a planning committee, which does not make me an expert but, I hope, makes me reasonably well informed. However, in my view, the assessment does not appear to be complete, particularly in relation to diesel fuel storage and to the grid connection itself. That is a worry.
Notwithstanding those omissions, the EIA has several findings, including—I hope that you are ready for this; it is a shame that the Greens are not here—operational and construction greenhouse gas emissions assessed as “major adverse” and “significant”; the loss of groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems assessed as “major adverse” and “significant”; and moderate to major adverse visual impacts on nearby residents during the winter months. It also considers a 72-hour emergency generator scenario in which major impacts are predicted, although no significant effect is assigned, on the basis that the scenario is considered unlikely.
Falkirk Council has employed AECOM, which is an environmental adviser. At the end of its extensive report on that planning application, AECOM states:
“The evaluation of significance has been described and carried out properly, with a conservative assessment of Major adverse and Significant being made for the operational stage.”
What are the people of Larbert, which is where I live, seeing in that? My principal concern is for the people who live beside the proposed development and, in particular, for residents of Glenbervie care home, which would be affected on two sides—it actually sits in the middle of that area. The potential impacts during both construction and operation must therefore be treated with the utmost seriousness.
There is also a wider national context. Digital infrastructure guidance is expected, while strategic energy planning information requested by the Scottish and Welsh Governments is currently with the United Kingdom Minister for Energy—I understand that we do not have a say in it, although I hope that that will change.
I appreciate the actions over the past couple of weeks of the minister with responsibility for planning, which I think have been helpful. However, decisions of this scale should not be taken in isolation from national considerations around energy security, climate obligations, infrastructure capacity and community impact.
In conclusion, the proposed AI data centre in Larbert should not proceed unless and until the developer can provide robust and independently credible evidence that it will not cause unacceptable harm to local residents, public health, infrastructure, the environment or Scotland’s climate commitments.
You must conclude.
More broadly, Scotland should proceed cautiously, and I ask for a pause before we move forward with large AI data centres, so that a clear national infrastructure framework can be formed using the regulations that I mentioned previously.
17:56
It is an honour to speak as a Scottish Labour and Co-operative Party MSP for Glasgow. On behalf of my constituents in Glasgow and South Lanarkshire, which includes my home town of Blantyre, I will try my best to be an MSP who listens and works constructively with others to make their lives and futures brighter.
Although I am not new to the Parliament, I am acutely aware that nothing stays the same, so I return eager to learn from new and returning members and to work together to build a fairer, healthier, greener Scotland for current and future generations. That is why I am pleased to be speaking in Graham Simpson’s members’ business debate on AI data centres.
I will cut to the chase. I believe that we need an immediate pause on all large data centres, so that we can have the robust national strategy for hyperscale AI data centres that we are all asking for. As part of that, I want planning applications to be properly assessed locally. I do not want all decisions to be taken in centrally by ministers, but we need that national strategy and community voices to be at the heart of local decision making.
I am not against AI or digital technology, and I am not saying no to hyperscale data centres. However, I am arguing for a responsible strategic framework that enables evidence-based assessments that are rooted in the precautionary principle, which we do not have right now.
Ad hoc decision making without proper national guidance will be a disaster for our public health, nature, infrastructure and climate commitments. I say that because, for many years, I was a planning professional, so I am no stranger to contentious planning proposals or the need to balance competing interests. It is because of my experience and the expertise that I have gained through working with local authorities, the Scottish Government, developers, investors and communities that I urge ministers to pause and to give planning authorities, communities and developers the clarity and confidence that they deserve.
The concerns have not been raised only by politicians. I ask ministers to look at the detailed proposals for a moratorium that have been set out by Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, and to listen to Friends of the Earth Scotland, Action to Protect Rural Scotland and many others. Campaigners and communities are right to demand a proper assessment of the enormous energy, water and material demand of these projects and, importantly, their cumulative impact on land, climate targets, electricity grids and much more.
Communities are making their voices heard directly by us because they feel that the system is moving faster than the evidence should allow it to, and faster than their ability to have their concerns properly considered. We should listen to them. A pause will allow for good planning.
To have good planning, we also require our planning authorities to be properly resourced. We need expert planners and other specialists with the capacity to properly assess those applications. Those are precisely the kind of green jobs that we need in our communities.
I know that everyone has gone over time so I will try not to. This is not about saying no to technology; it is about saying yes to good planning, protecting our health and evidence, which I hope still really matters to colleagues. It is about saying yes to community voices, local democracy, protecting our climate and nature and unionised good work. Others have made good points tonight about fair work. We must ensure that our energy, land and infrastructure work in the interests of all the people of Scotland.
The proposals for data centres will not go away, so we will not lose anything by taking a little bit of time to get things right. We should not allow the rush towards big tech to determine our future by default.
I will continue engaging with colleagues. I really hope that ministers will listen but that they will act quickly, because our planning authorities and communities need assistance now. That is not about being against development but about having the right development in the right places.
Thank you, Ms Lennon. I congratulate you on your return to Parliament and on your new role.
18:01
I begin by welcoming Monica Lennon back to the chamber. It is nice to see her back with us. I commend Graham Simpson for securing the debate and congratulate him on his speech, not a word of which I could possibly disagree with—and not for the first time, as Mr Simpson knows.
It strikes me how much unanimity there has been across the chamber. Members who are new here might not realise how rare it is to see so many people in the chamber for a members’ business debate on a Thursday evening. The fact that there are so many people here from different parties makes the case for how important the issue is. We have had virtual unanimity from Labour, the Scottish National Party, Reform and the Conservatives, and we will hear from the Liberal Democrats. The only voice missing has been that of the Greens—the call of the Thursday night wine bar is clearly more important to them than the interests of their constituents, but I am sorry that they are not here.
I will not speak for long because others have made all the points that I was going to make. I absolutely agree with the point made by Patricia Gibson and many others that we should not take a luddite approach to AI. It is here to stay, is a useful tool and can be effective in the public sector reform agenda, so we should be using and encouraging it.
We should not be taking a luddite approach to AI data centres because they have an important role to play. They are vital if we are going to develop AI and are also important to our economy. The issue, as Graham Simpson said at the start and as Stephen Kerr and others have said since, is where we locate those centres and how we ensure that they are in the right place so that we get the maximum benefit and do not negatively impact communities.
Stephen Kerr mentioned Auchtertool and I am sure that David Torrance will speak about it, too. Like Stephen Kerr, I visited Auchtertool in the summer. It is a beautiful village in Fife, surrounded by green fields. There is a proposal to build, on those green fields, a data centre that will be the size of 200 football pitches. It will be massive. It will dominate the landscape and dominate what is now an attractive small village and it will be built on green fields that are currently used for agriculture. That cannot be the best use of that land and it cannot be in the interest of the local community, which will have to put up with a major industrial complex.
As Graham Simpson said at the start, we have many post-industrial sites in Scotland that could be used for AI data centres. I am thinking of the former Longannet power station site in Fife, which has excellent infrastructure connections, is connected to the grid and is close to the sea. If we are looking for a site for an AI data centre, let us use existing brownfield sites and not build on green fields.
I will say something about the call for a moratorium, which we heard from Monica Lennon. I hear those calls, but I am not convinced about a moratorium because I do not think that we should stop potential development if some sites are appropriate. However, we need proper and strategic national planning guidance from the Scottish Government. I have a great deal of respect for the cabinet secretary, who I know has been listening diligently to the debate, and I am sure that he has heard the unanimity across the chamber. People from every single party have made the same point, which is that we are not against AI or against AI data centres.
It is a question of identifying the right location and not having a free-for-all, with councils having to make determinations on a case-by-case basis. We need national strategic guidance, and the responsibility for that comes back to the Scottish Government. I hope that the cabinet secretary is listening.
18:05
I am pleased to participate in this evening’s debate about how we embrace the opportunities of new technologies while ensuring that local people, local environments and local interests are not treated as an afterthought. In my constituency, the proposed Auchtertool data centre has become one of the most significant planning issues that local people have faced in recent years.
Artificial intelligence is here to stay, and data infrastructure is essential to modern life. We all use the services that depend on it every day, so this debate should not become a simple argument about whether we are for or against data centres. The real questions that we need to ask are what kind of developments are appropriate, where they should be located and how we ensure that affected communities can have confidence that the claims that are made by developers can be properly tested and scrutinised, because that is where many concerns arise.
In Auchtertool, local residents have expressed deep concerns about the scale and location of the proposed developments. The fact that more than 1,600 objections have been submitted and public meetings have attracted substantial attendances demonstrates the strength of local feeling. Campaigners have raised concerns about the visual impact, the effect of noise and light pollution, environmental effects, and the impact on energy demand and the future character of the village. I have listened carefully to those concerns, and I have met residents, community representatives and the developers. The Auchtertool development is a major proposal, and I am committed to working constructively with all parties to secure the best future for investment in Fife, but that should never come at the expense of local people.
Many residents feel that Scotland is being targeted because we possess two resources that are becoming increasingly valuable in the digital age: energy and water. Communities want to be reassured that Scotland will not simply become a host nation for infrastructure that delivers benefits elsewhere while leaving local people to bear the environmental and social impacts.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge the turnout at today’s demonstration outside Parliament. The voices were passionate and the message was clear—people wanted to be heard. I pay particular tribute to the residents of Auchtertool who made the journey to Edinburgh to ensure that the voice of their village was represented. They have worked tirelessly over many months, engaging with the planning process, organising public meetings and making their case respectfully and constructively. Whatever the outcome of the Cato proposal, the people of Auchtertool have done an outstanding job in standing up for their village and the future that they want it to have, and for that they deserve recognition.
We must not ignore the concerns that have been raised or the anxiety that is felt by the many residents who are worried about what the proposals could mean for their homes, their environment and their quality of life. They have genuine concerns relating to the use of diesel generators and the cumulative impacts on energy demand, emissions, water consumption and land use. Detailed evidence must be gathered on those concerns, and they must be subject to independent examination before conclusions can be reached; they cannot be dismissed out of hand.
The issue of diesel back-up generators is a perfect example. Most large-scale data centres around the world maintain back-up power systems to achieve high levels of reliable demand for customers. Communities have a right to ask questions about the potential noise and air quality impacts and the implications for emissions associated with testing regimes and emergency operations. Those questions deserve robust answers that are supported by evidence rather than assumptions.
However, it is important to recognise that not all proposals are the same. The Auchtertool application differs from the proposals in the places that are mentioned in the motion. The developers have promoted it as a green development, based on the connections to renewable energy and Scotland’s significant renewable energy resources. ILI claims that locating and meeting data centres’ demand in Scotland could make use of renewable electricity the use of which might otherwise be curtailed. That claim deserves examination. Equally, the concerns that have been raised by residents deserve examination.
That brings me to a central issue in the debate—
Mr Torrance, you must conclude quickly.
As many members have said, NPF4 identifies green data centres as one of Scotland’s national development priorities, yet there remains no clear definition of what a green data centre is. At present, too much is left to interpretation, and planning authorities are left to make decisions without consistent national guidance. That is why I support the calls for the Scottish Government to provide detailed updated guidance.
18:09
I am very pleased to speak in the members’ business debate in the name of Graham Simpson on AI data centres, especially because it mentions all the proposals that are happening right across Central Scotland and Lothians West, including Ravenscraig, Larbert, Newhouse and West Calder. For many people right across that region that I represent, it is not just about one development, such as the one at Larbert or Ravenscraig; it is about the scale of them and the speed at which the applications are progressing through local authorities.
The tone of today’s debate has been incredibly helpful. I do not think that having data centres is anything to be worried about—as has rightly been stated, we already have data centres. The issue is the requirement that we upscale them across the country. The questions that remain unanswered are where they should go and what proximity they should have to one another. Those are questions that the Scottish Government must answer.
This issue is also a consequence of legislation that has passed through Parliament in relation to the national planning framework. Yes, it has a line about “green data centres”, but, as the motion rightly points out, we do not have a real definition of that or know what green data centres will do, what the overall achievements of the data centres will be, and what positive impact they will have on our communities.
If the Government were to address some of those concerns, it would certainly help to inform MSPs for when they attend the public meetings that have been scheduled across the country. I have one coming up in Larbert, because the community is very concerned about the proposed development there, particularly because of its proximity to homes, Forth Valley hospital and care facilities. It is incumbent on MSPs to listen to the concerns of constituents, but we must have clear guidance coming from the direction of the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government.
The point has been made in the debate that the guidance is coming or that we should get an update soon. However, as I raised previously, given the speed at which the applications are progressing, by the time that information becomes public knowledge and is put through the parliamentary process, it might be too late. Some of the applications that we might have considered not to be in the best locations for our communities and for the people who live in those places will already have been approved.
It is incumbent on all of us to take an ounce of responsibility for that. We are all asking the Government this evening—near enough with a collective voice—to bring forward that guidance and evidence that will allow local authorities to do their job properly.
I will end my remarks there, because I know that quite a few members still have to speak. Again, I do not think that we should be too worried about data centres, but the issue goes back to the points that members have made about where and how many.
18:13
I thank Mr Simpson for bringing this debate, because I have had a lot of constituent interaction on the issue in Uddingston and Bellshill. I have had correspondence from constituents as young as 12 years of age to raise their concerns about the long-term local impacts of these hyperscale developments on our climate ambitions and the protection of our urban wildlife and our green-belt land.
It is important to say at the outset, as many members have, that this is not about being against AI or investment or economic growth. It is quite the opposite. There is huge opportunity in Scotland, and particularly in Lanarkshire. We have a proud industrial past, but we also have ambitions about our future—to attract investment, create good jobs and give our young people, such as my constituent Nathan, the opportunity here in Scotland that they so richly deserve. With Scotland’s enormous renewable energy potential, there is a real opportunity to bring those ambitions together—to grow our local economy while ensuring that the infrastructure supporting it is sustainable.
However, people in my constituency understandably have questions about what developments of this scale will mean for our local communities. We are seeing proposals for data centres across central Scotland, including in Newhouse and Chapelhall, and there are plans for the old Ravenscraig site, as well. People are asking what the impact will be on their electricity, water, roads infrastructure and green belt. They are asking whether their views will be not only heard but respected.
Those are perfectly reasonable questions. They are not about resisting new technology but about making sure that we get it right. Therefore, I welcome the Scottish Government’s engagement with the UK Government on strategic energy planning because developments of such scale clearly have implications beyond individual local authority boundaries.
I fully welcome the recent planning direction that requires authorities to notify the Scottish ministers of data centre applications of more than 50MW within seven days. However, we can go further, particularly by providing clarity on what we mean by “green data centres”. Local communities must have confidence that such developments genuinely meet the environmental standards that we expect in Scotland. They must have confidence about where the energy comes from, what happens when renewable generation is unavailable and what standards apply to the back-up generation emissions.
There is another question that matters enormously to the people of Lanarkshire: what do our communities get back? A lot of money is being talked about in relation to the Lanarkshire AI growth zone. We need that investment and we want those jobs. I want our young people to benefit from the new industries, but we need to look beyond the construction phase and ask what the long-term legacy will be. How many sound, good jobs will be created? What apprenticeships and training will be available? How will we use those developments to attract other business, research and innovation into Lanarkshire? We should not simply build data centres in Lanarkshire; we should build an economic ecosystem around them.
Communities must also have a truly meaningful voice in the matter. If developments will have a major impact on our local areas, people’s views and concerns cannot and simply should not be swept away. Their concerns must be heard and properly addressed through the planning process.
We do not need to make a choice between economic growth and environmental responsibility: Scotland can have both. Let us attract the investment, create the jobs and give our young people the skills to benefit from those industries. However, let us also ensure that our infrastructure can cope, our environmental standards are strong, and our communities, nature and wildlife are protected.
Let us ensure, too, that local communities have a genuine voice in all of this because, if we are going to build Scotland’s future, we need to build it with our communities, not simply round about them.
18:17
I will try to keep my comments brief, because I am aware of the time. I congratulate Graham Simpson—who, I think, has just left the chamber—on securing this debate, which, given the scale of the proposals for data centres up and down the country, is timely.
I will say a little bit about some of the proposals in my West Scotland region. However, before I do so, I argue that, before we consider any proposals that are on the table up and down Scotland, we need to have a wider debate about our public policy on AI, which has risks as well as benefits. We must consider exactly which data centres may be required and what the implications are for society, the environment and other sectors of the economy, as well as the clear and significant implications for our electricity and water supplies.
Will Katy Clark give way?
Yes, although I am aware of the time.
Katy Clark missed out national security. Does she concede that there is a national security dimension to the issue as well?
I have just said that we need a national strategy. Our economic and security issues are part of that. However, I am very aware of the time, so I will not expand on that.
We also need to consider who owns and controls the developments. That is as much a part of our national security as anything else. We should think about how many sectors of the economy are controlled from outside the country.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I think that Stuart McMillan is attempting to make an intervention. I know that there is a proposal in his constituency.
I did not plan to speak in the debate, but I am the convener of the Climate Action Committee and, today, we agreed to undertake a piece of work on data centres. Further information will come out in due course, but I wanted to put that on the record.
I appreciate and welcome that. I have met campaigners from Mr McMillan’s constituency, across the west of Scotland, North Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire and Inverclyde who have significant concerns about the AI data centre developments in their areas. Those concerns range from environmental harm to light pollution, low-level vibration and health risks, but the campaigners are also concerned about the lack of transparency on the developments.
The views and wishes of local people need to be taken into account, particularly given that there seems to be little community benefit in return but considerable environmental damage. For example, at Hunterston, which is a beauty spot, a proposed AI data centre would be built 50 metres from the historic Hunterston castle. In Bishopbriggs, a potential data centre site could not only cause harm to the local environment—this week, I met many people in the local community who are concerned about the development—but would have an impact on the nearby cemetery, prison and driving test centre and also on local bus services. There is a wide range of issues and, as Monica Lennon has said, we need to think about the planning implications.
I have made representations to the First Minister to call for a parliamentary debate in Scottish Government time and for a vote in the chamber on the issues. It cannot be right that such developments are imposed on communities without proper parliamentary oversight. I hope that, in summing up, the cabinet secretary can clarify the issues that have been raised with him about guidance to councils and the position of NPF4, and also clarify whether the Scottish Government is willing to provide more time to discuss that considerable number of proposals up and down Scotland.
18:21
Even though he has left the chamber, I thank Graham Simpson for securing the debate. I, too, will do my best to go as quickly as possible.
I recognise the consensus in the chamber and agree with many of the remarks that others have made. I recognise the need for data centres and the potential benefits that they could bring to the economy, as well as the need for digital infrastructure and national resilience. It is clear that, by designating data centres as national infrastructure through NPF4, the Government believes that they will be important to Scotland’s future. If that is the case, surely it is all the more important that we get this right. Unfortunately, so far, it feels as though there has been a real lack of leadership from the Government, which is creating even more uncertainty in communities than there would already have been.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will take the intervention.
I will be brief. Does Mr Harley agree that the lack of Government leadership as it stands is allowing a free-for-all on data centres, which impacts on communities? At the moment, it is pitting communities against landowners, and it has a lasting impact that goes beyond this issue. A fine equilibrium exists in rural areas, which needs to be preserved.
I thank the member for those points. I entirely agree. At the minute, the lack of leadership from the Scottish Government has led to speculation about many of the proposals, which is creating even more uncertainty in communities. There would already be some uncertainty about developments of that scale, but that lack of leadership is increasing it.
The Government needs to answer some really basic questions. How many data centres does the Government think that Scotland needs? How many can Scotland support? What benefits should they bring to our economy and to Scottish businesses? What minimum environmental standards should apply, particularly on energy and water use? What requirements should there be for communities who host those developments to see some benefit? If we accept that the data centres will be part of Scotland’s future, we need to put them in the right places, so the crucial question is: where are the most appropriate places to put them?
In 2023, the Scottish Futures Trust carried out work to identify the most suitable sites for data centres in Scotland. That work considered issues including power supply and the impact on neighbouring residents and businesses. Westerhill, in my constituency, was not included in either the longlist or the shortlist that were produced as part of that work, yet there are proposals for a 300-watt hyperscale development that could be as large as 35 football pitches, which local people are clear that they do not want.
At the very least, the work that the Scottish Futures Trust carries out should be properly considered when those proposals are scrutinised. I would be grateful if, in his closing remarks, the cabinet secretary could confirm whether he agrees with that. In short, we need more and better leadership from the Scottish Government; a good start would be to define what a green data centre is.
I still have four members who wish to speak in the debate, but our remaining time is curtailed. I am minded to offer two minutes to each of those members in which to make their salient points.
18:24
I thank Graham Simpson for bringing the debate to the chamber.
There is a slight irony in my speaking in a debate on AI after having been caught out just last week. Following the sad passing of country music legend Dolly Parton, I shared a picture of what I believed was people gathering and laying flowers at a location in my constituency. Hands up—I should have been more vigilant. With AI improving all the time, I am sure that I will not be the last to be caught out.
In this debate on AI data centres, let me be clear: North Lanarkshire should benefit from investment, jobs and technology. I welcome the opportunities that new technology can bring and the economic growth that we can get from it, but—it is a big but, as others have said—we must be sure that any proposed investment is responsible and in the interests of the people who live here. That is the issue at the moment.
As has been discussed, there are current proposals for very large data centres at places across the country. There might not be any data centres planned in our communities in Coatbridge and Chryston, but constituents who live towards the edges of the constituency, both in south Coatbridge and in the northern corridor, will be close to proposed developments at Chapelhall and Bishopbriggs, respectively, both of which developments have been mentioned.
A great number of constituents have contacted me about this issue and about the scale of the projects and what they could mean for energy infrastructure. They have raised questions about green space, agricultural land, air quality and emissions. They also want to know whether the economic benefits that are being discussed will genuinely reach local people. We can all agree that those are legitimate concerns, and I share them.
The energy requirements are substantial—absolutely massive—and the amount of space that the data centres take up is the same as up to 30 football pitches, so it is a substantial amount of space.
I had a lot more to say on this, Presiding Officer, but you have made it clear that I have only two minutes.
Nobody wants the opportunity to not exist, but we must make sure that it is right and that the climate will not be impacted. There should be a pause or a moratorium, so that we can get the information that we need and so that communities can be in charge of this.
18:27
In this debate, I am probably unusual in having worked in data centres, but I have only two minutes, so I will fillet my speech down to a list of pros and cons.
A pro of a hyperscale data centre is that there is private investment in Scotland. All of the money that comes into these things is from private investors; none of it is public money. Data centres will produce export earnings. Every time somebody in Azerbaijan creates a cat video, a wee bit of money will flow into Scotland from that.
The data centres will create local jobs, but some of them are maybe not of the best quality—they might be security jobs. The promise of a lot of high-quality system administrator jobs is probably a bit of a chimera.
There is a possible local infrastructure benefit in the building of better roads to service the construction phase of the data centre, and there is a possible district heating benefit in trying to dissipate some of the excess heat that these things generate.
Against that, there is a stress on local water supplies unless they are closed-loop systems, but even closed-loop systems need to be refilled, because they always leak. There is a possible contamination of groundwater from condensate from evaporation or from leaks.
There is a stress on the national power grid, unless the data centres are entirely self-contained and produce their own power.
There is noise. There is a constant low-level hum from these things. Also, there is a lot of loud noise from back-up power, either from diesel generators or from gas turbines.
As well as the noise, there are potential problems with air quality, particularly from diesel and including from nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and particulates.
There are probably local ecological changes caused by the extracted heat that comes out of the data centres. Some data centres are seeing an increase in temperature locally of between 2°C and 9°C, which will have quite a considerable impact locally to the data centre.
The data centres themselves are also generally pretty ugly, although one or two of them have been disguised through planting. There is also light pollution.
I have used up my two minutes, so that is all that I can say.
18:29
I thank my esteemed colleague for bringing this debate to the chamber. It is really important that we look at this issue. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I own a company that has built a large language model and AI models and has used them in products. That might give me insight into a lot of things.
I agree with most of what has been said in the debate. We are lacking leadership on the issue and it feels as though we are freefalling, which can be very dangerous. We are at a moment of profound technological change. Every one of us uses data infrastructure every day—some of us are using it even now. Whether you are streaming a film or tapping a card to pay for something, you are relying on AI-driven tools. They are woven into the fabric of our life, and this will grow.
In many ways, we are living through a transformation that is much like the industrial revolution, when society had to adapt to new forms of power and production and new connectivity. Just like then, the public have felt uneasy, as we saw today with the protests outside the Parliament.
This is about the pace of change and the impact on communities. It is about whether those communities will benefit or whether only the companies that are involved will benefit.
We must look at the issue with the aim of creating a leadership framework. We need strategy and a way forward, because the digital economy is real—it is here. AI models are huge in terms of the amount of computational capacity that they use. In running my business, I have had to pay for that amount of energy, which is enormous. It costs a lot in terms of energy.
Communities are right to be concerned when proposals for massive industrial-scale data centres emerge. It is concerning when they are popping up in areas of natural beauty or key agricultural areas, which does not make sense. When people see proposals land in places like that, where it does not add up environmentally, visually or socially, they lose trust not only in the project but in the process. We need leadership and we need clear guidelines—everyone has touched on that.
18:31
I thank Graham Simpson for securing the debate. I represent South Scotland, where at least four data centres are proposed, and I have visited the homes and kitchens of campaigners, as well as the castles and nuclear power stations of developers.
What concerns me most is the impact of not having leadership and guidance from the Scottish Government. As we saw in Galloway, in particular, in the fallout from the national park debate, that could have a residual impact. If you give people clarity about what to expect, you will not put out of kilter the equilibrium that communities rely on, so that, for example, wildfires are combated by everyone putting all hands to the pump. We also need landlords to invest in their communities.
We need to give local people reassurance, and, just as important, we need to give developers reassurance that Scotland is open for business. We need our economy to grow, and, for that to happen, we must ensure that the Scottish Government recognises that we are allowing a wild west situation around data centres.
The Government must have some gumption and lead. To reiterate what many members have said, it must call in the data centre applications; see them as national infrastructure projects; give clarity on the number of data centres that Scotland needs and in which part of the country they should be; be clear on the expected nature of sites, such as brownfield industrial sites; and involve affected communities and ensure that they get real benefits from data centres in terms of community wealth building. Many millions of pounds should be coming from data centres, because, apparently, billions of pounds will be invested. Finally, the Government must be clear on the environmental impact, as many members have said.
If members go through that process, they will see what I have seen. The Lammermuirs are an inappropriate rural location, whereas a decommissioned nuclear power station is probably the right place. The Scottish Government can find that out pretty quickly. It should please get on and ensure there is some leadership.
I invite Ivan McKee to respond to the debate.
18:33
I am grateful for the opportunity to close this debate on AI data centres. Like many members, I thank Graham Simpson for bringing the motion before the Parliament, and I genuinely thank members from across the chamber for their contributions and for highlighting the range of views that exist on this important issue—although, as Murdo Fraser and other members have said, there has been a lot of unanimity around the chamber on the issue.
The debate touches on a challenge that many countries are now facing: how to harness the opportunities that are presented by artificial intelligence and the digital economy in a way that is sustainable and responsible and, very importantly, that commands public confidence.
Data centres have been designated by the UK Government as critical national infrastructure, given the role that they play in supporting the digital services that businesses, public bodies and citizens rely on every day. They underpin cloud computing, innovation and research, and, increasingly, the development and deployment of potentially transformative artificial intelligence technologies.
We of course want Scotland to be a place where investment can flourish, high-quality jobs can be created and the benefits of innovation can be realised. Equally, we want development to take place in a way that respects communities, protects the environment and supports our climate ambitions. Those objectives are not mutually exclusive.
I appreciate what the minister is saying about national infrastructure, but does he agree—it is a very simple question—that if national infrastructure is designated as critical, there should be a national strategy to deliver it?
I will come on to cover that point in my remarks.
With those objectives in mind, we have in our programme for government committed to publish a strategic approach to attracting and securing responsible green data centre investment, with clear expectations around environmental sustainability, resource use, community benefit and the economic and strategic value that these developments should deliver.
The Scottish Government is committed to developing AI Scotland as a flagship programme that builds public trust and confidence in AI and provides a distinct national voice on the economic and societal questions that AI raises. That will help to support sustainable growth and strengthen public services, while ensuring that Scotland remains competitive in an ever-evolving global landscape. All interventions delivered under the AI Scotland banner will reflect the Scottish Government’s commitment to responsible and ethical AI, and we are committed to establishing our future jobs panel to report on the impacts that AI may have on Scotland’s skills and future workforce as the technology develops.
I am clear that Scotland’s planning system will have a vital role to play in considering applications, harnessing economic opportunities and finding solutions that align with our climate goals. I recognise that communities have questions about the potential impact of large-scale development proposals.
On planning—this reinforces Stephen Kerr’s point on security—there is an increase in the integration of AI into military capabilities, and thus we are on a trajectory where our future defence against adversaries will depend on superior information-processing capacity, meaning that data centre sites could become targets. Does that risk not indicate that any framework must be decided at a strategic UK level?
I indicated that we are taking forward a strategy to consider all those issues, and the point about date centres being critical national infrastructure is clear.
Graham Simpson’s motion refers to proposals in a number of specific locations. As members will appreciate, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss or comment on the planning merits of any of the individual development proposals. It is imperative to avoid prejudice to future planning decisions and to maintain the integrity of our planning system.
The Scottish Government and planning authorities must ensure that decisions are taken fairly and transparently, and I have listened to members’ general points and concerns about hyperscale data centres, including on potential water use, energy demand, the use of back-up diesel or gas generation, air quality, land use, and cumulative impacts. People rightly expect those matters to be considered carefully and transparently through our planning and regulatory systems, and there are statutory processes that must be followed for all development proposals.
We have heard a lot of requests for greater definition of what constitutes a green data centre. As I said earlier, East Ayrshire Council’s planners are saying that they need such a definition. Will the Government bring that forward?
I will come on to cover that in my remarks.
By law, all planning applications must be determined in accordance with the statutory development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In Scotland, the statutory development plan comprises national planning framework 4 and the relevant local development plan. NPF4 makes it clear that
“significant weight”
is to
“be given to the global climate and nature crises”
when considering all development proposals, and that
“lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions”
should be minimised
“as far as possible.”
Planning authorities have a duty to consider the environmental impacts of all planning applications, and those are informed by site-specific assessments, environmental impact assessments and advice from key agencies, including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water, where relevant.
To support strategic monitoring of the pipeline of applications and the implications for wider infrastructure, the Minister for Public Finance has issued a planning direction requiring planning authorities to notify Scottish ministers of new data centre applications exceeding 50MW power capacity within seven days of validation.
Ministers have been clear that we must secure public benefits from this type of major investment in development, and that the voices of communities that host data centres will be central to any considerations on those centres.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am just concluding.
We recognise concerns that members have raised around the absence of an explicit definition of green data centres in NPF4. We have previously set out key factors for planning authorities to take into account when considering this matter, and the First Minister has made it clear that the Scottish Government is giving active consideration to further planning guidance in order to balance the rapid expansion of hyperscale data centre proposals with national energy and climate goals, which are vital to our future prosperity.
In the chamber today, the First Minister made it clear that Cabinet has considered the issue over the summer, resulting in the changes already made by the Minister for Public Finance, and that Cabinet is continuing to consider these issues to ensure that we have in place the proper and effective regime to ensure that communities can be protected and that a proper assessment of applications can be made.
The Scottish Government believes that economic growth and environmental responsibility must go hand in hand. Scotland has ambitious climate commitments, and we expect all sectors to play their part in supporting the transition to a net zero economy.
I thank members again for their contributions and look forward to continued engagement on these matters in the months ahead.
That concludes our debate, and I close this meeting of Parliament.
Meeting closed at 18:41.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.
Previous
Decision Time