Chamber and committees

When I was reading the instrument, the only thing that occurred to me was that the process seems to have been in place since 2008, but it remains unchanged. I would like to know from the Government whether it ever goes to tender.

I also noticed that the fees last year were just over £1 million. Do we have any idea of what the fees have been over the past, say, five or 10 years?

No, convener. It just would have been good to have had more information and background on what was coming today.

No.

They are concerned about prime agricultural land being taken away and covered in concrete for substations or to create bases for monster pylons. They are concerned about operating farm machinery under power lines and about the impact of noise. They have health concerns and concerns about the impact on animals and on the value of their properties, and they are worried about rural depopulation, loss of biodiversity and the fact that the chair of SSE is a member of the panel on the ministerial code. They are concerned about the number of battery storage systems in the planning system, worried about the risks and angry that no one seems to be listening to their concerns.

Are the Liberal Democrats content that our countryside is being covered with pylons, substations and batteries?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In today’s debate, the minister said once again that Scottish ministers could not meet campaign groups because that would be a breach of the ministerial code. Chapter 5 of the ministerial code lays out that ministers can have such meetings but not pass comment or give a personal view. Also, if they are meeting one side, they should meet both sides. Has there been any approach to change the Official Report to show that ministers can meet campaign groups?

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

What Kevin Stewart does not understand is that, if we build nuclear power stations close to where the demand is, we negate the need for pylons. [Interruption.] Obviously, he has not got a clue about the electricity market.

At a time of international uncertainty, we should be securing our energy supplies for the future with a credible mix of sources. This Government is intent on closing doors to viable options, based on far left-wing ideologies that hold little credible science. We should be producing our own oil and gas in the short term and investing in new technologies such as small nuclear reactors. We should be building our renewables sector, but we should also be listening to and working with communities to mitigate and properly compensate. Instead, this Government is intent on using the debate to score cheap political points rather than actually deal with—[Interruption.]

Are SNP members laughing at those communities? They are here to see them. [Interruption.] Does the minister think that that is funny?

I have been in Parliament for four years now, and I feel that, today, I am speaking on the most important topic. Up and down the country, people have real concerns about what they see happening to their communities and their homes. Many of them contacted me over the weekend, asking me to speak up for them, because they are feeling ignored. I have promised to speak for June, Andy, Vince, Shona, Caroline, Aileen, Kate, Laura, Angela and all the others who have contacted me, and all the concerned residents I have met over the past six months—from Turriff, New Deer and Leylodge to Angus and Save Our Mearns, and everywhere in between.

We are talking today about energy production and the importance of renewable energy while the reality is happening in our communities and industries throughout the north-east. If the devolved Scottish Government really cared about our energy production, the cabinet secretary would be meeting the communities I have met. She would have spoken to the people I have spoken to. She would have taken the time to go outside, on to her own doorstep, and listen to the voices outside the Parliament that are telling the Scottish National Party to think again.

They can meet with SSE but they cannot meet with the people they are meant to represent. If the minister reads the ministerial code, he will see that that is wrong.

When I saw that there was to be another debate on renewable energy, I, like many others, assumed that we would once again be talking about a just transition to renewables or the future of our oil and gas sector—or that there would maybe even be word of the much-delayed energy strategy. I was therefore quite surprised when I saw the focus on nuclear. So, that is this week’s anti-science from this out-of-ideas SNP Government. What should be the most important discussion of our time—how we make sure that we have the energy resources that we need during international destabilisation—instead turns into a nonsense debate that is designed to score political points for this out-of-touch, out-of-ideas SNP Government.

We are living in a time of global uncertainty when most of our energy requirements are still met from oil and gas. At a time when we should be looking at how we can become more energy self-sufficient in the short term and more green in the medium-to-long term, this Government would rather stoke political grievance. We should be looking at how we can fulfil our energy needs by expanding our domestic oil and gas supplies in the short term. We are overreliant on imported oil and gas now, and the SNP wants to increase that by shutting off the taps of the North Sea. Its presumption against new oil and gas is hurting the industry, the north-east and the towns and communities that rely on the sector.

We also know that energy based on solar and wind power is not reliable all year round. We must ensure that we have the required base-load when we need it, which is why so many countries are considering small, modular nuclear reactors. Scotland could be leading the way and at the forefront of that technology, but, once again, this Government insists on holding us back, on false science and on scaremongering. This devolved Government should be harnessing the well-paid and highly skilled workers at Torness and Hunterston, but instead it wants to turn its back on them with its scaremongering and pathetic motion today.

I will come back to the minister if I have time.

The Government’s motion says that nuclear power is more expensive, but the contract for difference for Hinckley Point is £92 per megawatt hour, whereas the CFD for the Green Volt floating wind project, which the SNP was so keen to fast track, was £139 per megawatt hour. It is no wonder that Stephen Flynn received £30,000 towards his campaign from one of the owners.

The SNP is against new oil and gas, against nuclear and against speaking to communities and industry. Its only plan is to put all its eggs in one basket; have as much wind energy as possible, miles away from where the demand is; cover our countryside with monster pylons, substations and batteries; and ignore the concerns of our residents.

I have met many communities throughout the north-east that are rightly concerned about the impact of central belt-led SNP policies. They are dealing with the reality of hundreds of kilometres of monster pylons throughout their communities and countryside, and I know that colleagues in the Borders have had similar meetings.

Will the member take an intervention?