Chamber and committees

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement, but it seems rather tone deaf of her to come here and talk about the jobs of tomorrow when jobs of today are being lost at Mossmorran and right across the North Sea oil and gas sector, with the Government’s presumption against new oil and gas. However, north-east fishermen will be dismayed to hear that the Government wants to sell our fishing communities down the river yet again, given the announcement. With it, the Government is sticking two fish fingers up to our fishermen. The scale of these projects is massive, and each and every time a new project is consented, it severely restricts where our fishermen can fish. What fishermen are asking for is simple—protection from reckless spatial squeeze, recognition that fishing must remain an integral part of Scotland’s future, and a moratorium on new offshore wind until the full impact on our fishing grounds is fully understood. Will the cabinet secretary urgently get around the table with our fishermen to ensure that they are not sacrificed on this Government’s ideological pursuit of net zero, and will she also instruct developers to engage constructively with our fishermen to ensure that they are properly compensated for their loss of fishing grounds?

Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether she flew business class to Brazil and the total cost of the trip for her and her officials? Can she explain why that money would not have been better spent on constituents who are seeing their communities ruined by monster pylons and battery storage?

I am sorry—could you repeat your question?

I have also put in objections. However, I think that this is the right place for the provisions. The biodiversity loss from a lot of these energy infrastructure projects is massive. Our countryside is changing—surely, that is what the bill is about and we should be able to put these safeguards in place to try to stop that biodiversity loss.

The cabinet secretary does not seem to think that I should have lodged such amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill or the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Where does she suggest that I should seek safeguards to protect against some of the incidents that we see and to address people’s concerns?

I have concluded my opening remarks, but I can easily address that question in my summing up.

I do not believe that they cause a problem to the act. What I have laid out is about giving communities a greater say; it has taken their views into account and we should not try to shirk that in any way.

I am disappointed but not surprised by the cabinet secretary’s response. When it comes to engaging with community groups that are impacted by the energy infrastructure, it is clear that the Scottish National Party Government has pulled up the drawbridge a long time ago.

The aim of amendment 172 is to bring more openness and transparency into the whole system, because community groups are angry. We are seeing the overindustrialisation of our countryside, with all the biodiversity loss that it brings. Communities feel that that is not right and not fair. We are concreting over and harming the natural beauty of our countryside and destroying our farmlands. We must do all that we can to protect our countryside, and these amendments were trying to do that.

I get the point that energy is reserved, but that should not prevent the devolved Government from having a view and putting safeguards in place. Although energy is reserved, the Scottish Government, through planning, is able to block nuclear power, for example. A lot of the amendments mention the impact of the energy infrastructure; there is nothing stopping the Scottish Government from detailing that impact. It might be a reserved matter, but the Government seems to want to stick its head in the sand and say that it is not its responsibility. If the Government were on the side of communities, it would put these safeguards in place.

I will speak to amendment 172 and others in the group in my name. Our natural environment is under attack by something that we are choosing to do under the banner of clean energy. It is the biggest greenwashing campaign that there has been, and we must listen to campaign groups. I listen to their views and concerns every week, but it is shameful that they are met with a wall of silence from the devolved Government. This week, Angus Council objected to the Kintore to Tealing monster pylon routes and sent Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks homeward to think again about its plans. I hope that the Scottish Government will not ignore that view.

My amendments focus on the very real concerns of rural communities over the impact that monster pylons, battery storage and substations are having on them. The overindustrialisation is alarming, and the cumulative impact is often overlooked.

In the interests of time, I will speak broadly to all the amendments but will pick out specific points that overlap throughout my amendments. The committee will note the broad theme that runs through them, which is community consultation, transparency in decision making, alternative solutions to energy transmission and the protection of biodiversity.

Amendments 172 and 185 ask for clarity in ensuring that monster pylons are only one method of transmission that is explored and would require an exploration of the impact of electricity infrastructure on biodiversity. Pylons can have a huge impact on surrounding areas of distinct natural significance and plant life as well as disrupting local bird populations, and that needs to be fully understood before such projects can progress.

Amendment 193 calls for a statement to be published on an assessment of underground and subsea alternatives, looking at not only cost but biodiversity, net impact, resilience and landscape, and explaining any decision to proceed with overhead lines, should that be the decision that is taken. The amendment is vital to ensuring transparency and understanding for local communities and to giving them the confidence that all options have been considered and that the justification for decisions is open and understood by all. That does not happen at present.

Amendment 210 gives further protections to national parks in this area, designating them as no-go corridors for overhead lines.

Amendment 306, which is the most substantial of my amendments, focuses on requirements on the planning authority to properly consult and take regard of the views of local communities. Clear approval must be sought and given for any transmission project that leads to significant community disruption or natural environmental impact. Those would include energy generation projects of more than 50MW, energy transmission projects, and large-scale battery storage systems. Applicants would have to provide a comparative assessment that covered life-cycle costs, biodiversity net impact, impact on local landscape, resilience, and impact on agriculture, soil and plant biosecurity.

Amendment 306 would also ensure that emergency planning was considered prior to permissions being given, with a requirement for an emergency plan and input from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure and would therefore come under the watchful scrutiny of MSPs, who, in turn, are accountable to their constituents and communities.

I will give the example of Rothienorman in the north-east of Scotland. Most members will not have heard of that place, but I believe that Rothienorman has six battery storage applications hanging over it, the largest of which is for 500MW. I have visited the site. It is huge, and it will change the landscape considerably. Local residents have genuine safety concerns. There has already been a fire at a smaller battery site in the area, and locals fear that something could happen at the larger site, leaving them vulnerable. We cannot leave emergency planning until after an event happens. Amendment 306 puts that emergency planning at the start.

Through my amendments, I hope to introduce scrutiny of and accountability for energy transmission projects, allowing communities, emergency planning services, local councils and the Parliament involvement with the on-going development of large infrastructure projects. My amendments would provide guarantees that communities are consulted and listened to, that national parks are protected, that biodiversity and the impact on plant life are measured and protected, and that all options are considered—not just monster pylons, by default, as the cheapest option.

We must ensure that energy infrastructure is fit for purpose, protects our natural environment and listens to our local community. My amendments would ensure that those protections are on the face of the bill, and I hope that the committee will support them.

I move amendment 172.

I agreed with the cabinet secretary when she mentioned that there should be a mandatory consultation process at the beginning. However, the Scottish Government is trying to strip away the automatic right to a public inquiry from local authorities, which would be a route for local voices to be heard, and which is true devolution—for example, this week, Angus Council objected to the plans of the developer, who, I hope, will go away and drop them or do something different, because there are clear, overwhelming objections in that area. That is why communities need to be listened to, and I feel that this set of amendments does that.

A huge issue exists just now as more and more of these developments take place. What we have so far is not the end—looking at the National Energy System Operator’s plans beyond 2030, there will be more and more. Moreover, more and more are coming because we do not have an energy strategy yet—we do not know where all the offshore and onshore wind should be, whether there is still a presumption against oil and gas or whether all this stuff is needed. It would be good to have an energy strategy so that we could see exactly what is coming but, in its absence, let us have these amendments.

I press amendment 172.