Chamber and committees

There is more that we can do; if we can give our local authorities more help so that they, too, can help in that process, that would be a good thing.

Thirdly, there is a lack of community input. As I said earlier, many local energy projects are not community projects and can lack community input. Companies or housing developers are acting to develop schemes but are not including the views of the local community in their plans.

I previously mentioned the time that it takes for energy schemes to go through the planning process. The planning process for a small community wind farm is the same as for a major wind farm, and the planning process for a small hydro or tidal scheme is the same as for a big scheme. There is no proportionality in our local authority planning system.

The Scottish Conservatives want local communities to have much more say over energy projects in their area and far more proportionate planning guidance for community-owned schemes. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary agrees that the Government should consider that area in the future.

The Government’s motion focuses on generation, but why not encourage more community ownership of energy storage? We are seeing an explosion in battery storage, but most schemes are being pushed through against the wishes of local communities. There is a gold rush, with developers rushing in to make a fortune by buying cheap energy and then selling it for a fortune when the wind is not blowing, and there seems to be little regulation or control. If sites are being inflicted on communities against their will, why not give those communities a stake so that it is not only the energy finance companies that benefit and communities can benefit, too?

I have spent much of my speaking time looking at the Government’s motion, whose wording the amendments do not seek to amend but only to add to. I want to address the main point of our amendment, which is about how the energy is transferred into the grid. As part of its pathway to 2030, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks is proposing to build 500km of monster pylons throughout some of the most scenic areas of Scotland, and Scottish Power is planning an 80km route through the Borders, which is almost as scenic.

Deeside Against Pylons spokesman John Rahtz said:

“Our communities feel that the North of Scotland is bearing a disproportionate cost for this short-sighted proposal which is driven by cost.”

Tracy Smith of Save our Mearns said that SSEN is

“bulldozing through the north east”.

We recently had a debate in the chamber on bringing Scotland into line with the Aarhus convention, in which we called for legal aid for communities and an environmental court to give communities a greater say when it comes to such developments, but the cabinet secretary seems to think that we are in compliance with the Aarhus convention.

This morning, I asked the cabinet secretary about changes to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and how it will affect communities. Community groups have written in and said that they will no longer take part in Scottish Government consultations as they feel ignored. The response from Scotland Against Spin says:

“we are not going to waste our time making the same arguments that have already been ignored once and which will no doubt be ignored again.”

Once again, the cabinet secretary takes the bits that she likes but ignores the other parts. The Government is taking away the right to a public inquiry and reducing the time limit. This devolved Government should hang its head in shame. Campaign groups feel ignored as Government ministers—

I am sure that everyone knows that the right to an automatic public inquiry is being removed from our local communities. That is what is set out in the new legislation that is coming through, and shamefully so.

This devolved Government should hang its head in shame. Campaign groups feel ignored—that is what it is coming to—as Government ministers refuse to meet them but are happy enough to cosy up to developers. It is a David versus Goliath situation. That is why the proposed reduction from three months to six weeks of the time limit to lodge an objection to onshore energy is a disgrace. The cabinet secretary cares more about pleasing renewable energy companies than she does about standing up for local communities.

We therefore make the call again and ask the Scottish Government when it will not only put more money into community schemes but actually resolve the systemic issues that are preventing communities from standing up to large-scale developments that are ruining our countryside.

The Scottish Conservatives want our local communities to be empowered to grow energy schemes in a proportionate way, with sensible planning and community buy-in to the process. We want them to be properly funded and assisted to not only propose schemes that are advantageous to them but oppose schemes that are detrimental to them. We do not want to see monster pylons littering our countryside with little regard for local concerns, scenery, agriculture or economic growth. It is time for this devolved Government to listen to communities and not sideline them so as to appease its renewable energy company chums.

I move amendment S6M-17648.3, to insert at end:

“recognises that community consent needs to be at the heart of energy production; notes with concern that pylons and other electricity infrastructure are increasingly being built without the support of residents, and calls on the Scottish Government to give these communities more say over local energy production.”

Will the member take an intervention?

I absolutely agree with Audrey Nicoll. A lot depends on skilled people, but they are not always there for the duration because the process is so long.

On what Finlay Carson was saying about community groups, does he share my concern that no Scottish ministers seem to meet community groups that are opposed to much of the overdevelopment, but they are happy to meet companies such as SSEN or Scottish Power Energy Networks?

On the point that Fergus Ewing was making about funding—which is a point that Sarah Boyack made earlier—does he feel that the Scottish National Investment Bank might be a route for some communities to get funding to get their projects off the ground?

Today, the Just Transition Commission published its latest damning report, which highlights how this devolved Government is failing workers in the north-east. The report’s message is clear: this Government is not delivering a just transition for Aberdeen and the north-east. The SNP simply does not care about the hard-working oil and gas workers in the north-east. My constituents do not need another report to tell them what they already know. They need action, and they need it now. Has the cabinet secretary read the report? What is her response, and what is she going to do about it?

Will the member take an intervention?

When projects are off the grid, does that mean that there are no contracts for difference or anything?