Chamber and committees

If there is an email address, that is fantastic, but the letter that we were sent by Ivan McKee is quite clear: objections have to be made by filling in a web form or sending them in by post.

We have to make it easy for people to lodge an objection, but it seems that everything that the ECU has done over the past month has been an attempt to make it harder for people. I think that that is an outrage to democracy.

The Government has been trying to shut up rural communities, because it does not want to listen. We know that the recent proposals for the Tealing to Kintore and Peterhead to Beauly power lines generated more than 10,000 objections—most of them by email, I would think. The Government wants to shut up those communities and railroad all that infrastructure through.

There is a reason for that. We currently have 4.5GW of operational capacity in offshore wind, but the Government’s target is to increase that to 11GW by 2030, and then to a staggering 40GW by 2040. If you think that there are a lot of substations and battery storage, you ain’t seen nothing yet, because things will get a lot worse in order to support that intermittent energy source.

Let us burst the cheap energy bubble right now: offshore wind is not cheap. The amount of floating offshore wind that is planned is horrendously expensive, and when we add to that the storage, network and stability costs, we can see why our bills are going through the roof.

How good it would be if the Government had an energy strategy so that we could actually see what it was trying to do. I suspect, however, that we do not have an energy strategy because the Government does not want us to see what it wants to do. It does not want to show people how much more of that infrastructure they will have to put up with, and it does not want workers in the oil and gas industry to know that it does not want to see the industry continue.

Communities in North East Scotland are fed up with being ignored. They have had enough—they are fed up with being the ones who suffer in our headlong dash for net zero without any view to the real-life consequences of energy transmission projects. Most of all, those communities are fed up with being ignored by the out-of-touch, out-of-sight, out-of-ideas SNP Government. Communities such as Kintore, Tealing, the Mearns, Peterhead and New Deer are all fed up. The Government should stop shutting them down, stop building monster pylons in our back gardens, stop being cloth-eared, and start listening to the communities throughout Scotland that are saying no to monster pylons.

I thank my good friend and colleague Finlay Carson for securing this important debate. It really is a shame that the issue is never debated in Government time—it is always down to members to seek to debate it during members’ business debates or for it to be covered in Opposition debates.

This key issue fills my inbox, surgeries and doorstep conversations. Communities throughout our beautiful north-east are telling me, time and time again, that the overindustrialisation of our countryside is not welcome. The cabinet secretary might hear that if she spent any time meeting those constituents who are concerned about the issues—but, no, she is too busy meeting the companies that are intent on destroying our countryside, riding roughshod over our communities and carpet bombing our countryside with monster pylons to line the pockets of energy transmission companies that use every greenwashing tactic in the book to hide the fact that this is all about increasing their share price at the expense of our communities.

Time and time again, this Scottish National Party Government has shafted the people of rural Scotland—whether we are talking about help with storm damage, wood-burning stoves, ferry links or pylons, it seems to be tone deaf when it comes to rural communities.

The Government does not understand the anger, because it is unwilling to listen to it. We heard an example of that from Brian Whittle. The energy consents unit launched a new online portal and, at the same time, it removed the ability for residents to email in an objection. People must fill in a web form or send a letter by post instead.

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer.

During the debate, the cabinet secretary seemed to suggest that people could still raise an objection by sending an email to the ECU. The letter that members received from Ivan McKee on 15 January says:

“Previously, representations could be submitted by email or post. Under the new system, online representations must now be submitted through the ECU Portal during defined consultation windows. Postal submissions will remain available for those who cannot access the portal.”

It seems that the cabinet secretary has misled Parliament, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can you advise how the record could be updated to correct that?

If there is an email address, that is fantastic, but the letter that we were sent by Ivan McKee is quite clear: objections have to be made by filling in a web form or sending them in by post.

We have to make it easy for people to lodge an objection, but it seems that everything that the ECU has done over the past month has been an attempt to make it harder for people. I think that that is an outrage to democracy.

The Government has been trying to shut up rural communities, because it does not want to listen. We know that the recent proposals for the Tealing to Kintore and Peterhead to Beauly power lines generated more than 10,000 objections—most of them by email, I would think. The Government wants to shut up those communities and railroad all that infrastructure through.

There is a reason for that. We currently have 4.5GW of operational capacity in offshore wind, but the Government’s target is to increase that to 11GW by 2030, and then to a staggering 40GW by 2040. If you think that there are a lot of substations and battery storage, you ain’t seen nothing yet, because things will get a lot worse in order to support that intermittent energy source.

Let us burst the cheap energy bubble right now: offshore wind is not cheap. The amount of floating offshore wind that is planned is horrendously expensive, and when we add to that the storage, network and stability costs, we can see why our bills are going through the roof.

How good it would be if the Government had an energy strategy so that we could actually see what it was trying to do. I suspect, however, that we do not have an energy strategy because the Government does not want us to see what it wants to do. It does not want to show people how much more of that infrastructure they will have to put up with, and it does not want workers in the oil and gas industry to know that it does not want to see the industry continue.

Communities in North East Scotland are fed up with being ignored. They have had enough—they are fed up with being the ones who suffer in our headlong dash for net zero without any view to the real-life consequences of energy transmission projects. Most of all, those communities are fed up with being ignored by the out-of-touch, out-of-sight, out-of-ideas SNP Government. Communities such as Kintore, Tealing, the Mearns, Peterhead and New Deer are all fed up. The Government should stop shutting them down, stop building monster pylons in our back gardens, stop being cloth-eared, and start listening to the communities throughout Scotland that are saying no to monster pylons.

I thank my good friend and colleague Finlay Carson for securing this important debate. It really is a shame that the issue is never debated in Government time—it is always down to members to seek to debate it during members’ business debates or for it to be covered in Opposition debates.

This key issue fills my inbox, surgeries and doorstep conversations. Communities throughout our beautiful north-east are telling me, time and time again, that the overindustrialisation of our countryside is not welcome. The cabinet secretary might hear that if she spent any time meeting those constituents who are concerned about the issues—but, no, she is too busy meeting the companies that are intent on destroying our countryside, riding roughshod over our communities and carpet bombing our countryside with monster pylons to line the pockets of energy transmission companies that use every greenwashing tactic in the book to hide the fact that this is all about increasing their share price at the expense of our communities.

Time and time again, this Scottish National Party Government has shafted the people of rural Scotland—whether we are talking about help with storm damage, wood-burning stoves, ferry links or pylons, it seems to be tone deaf when it comes to rural communities.

The Government does not understand the anger, because it is unwilling to listen to it. We heard an example of that from Brian Whittle. The energy consents unit launched a new online portal and, at the same time, it removed the ability for residents to email in an objection. People must fill in a web form or send a letter by post instead.

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer.

During the debate, the cabinet secretary seemed to suggest that people could still raise an objection by sending an email to the ECU. The letter that members received from Ivan McKee on 15 January says:

“Previously, representations could be submitted by email or post. Under the new system, online representations must now be submitted through the ECU Portal during defined consultation windows. Postal submissions will remain available for those who cannot access the portal.”

It seems that the cabinet secretary has misled Parliament, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can you advise how the record could be updated to correct that?

I will be brief because Mark Ruskell is going to ask about something similar.

Cabinet secretary, there are various sectors where the climate change plan diverges significantly from the emissions modelled by the Climate Change Committee. What are some of the key areas where the modelling assumptions from the Climate Change Committee and the Scottish Government diverge and why did you choose to diverge in those areas?

Will you clarify that? The climate change plan makes no difference—or a very small difference—to our emissions, whether we use our oil and gas, which is produced in this country, or we import oil and gas. Is that what you are saying?

We do not take into consideration emissions from the production of imported oil and gas, but we do take into account emissions from domestic oil production.

It seems strange that only 20 per cent of that figure has been committed but we are almost halfway through the timescale.