Chamber and committees

I think that there will be a lot that we agree on this afternoon. Community-owned energy is becoming an increasingly important element in our energy production in Scotland. Local power production schemes are fast becoming a means by which our more rural communities become energy efficient and less reliant on more carbon-intensive means of energy production. They serve to bring autonomy to our rural communities, giving them a stake in their energy production, environmental sustainability and resilience for when the main grid fails due to weather or other calamities.

I join the cabinet secretary in recognising the work that has been done by Community Energy Scotland. I have spoken to many community groups that have spoken highly of the support, advice and guidance that the agency has given them, and I have spoken to MSPs about the support and advice that CES has given us through meetings in which it has patiently explained its ambitions for and frustrations about community energy production throughout Scotland. Rarely have I heard such warm words spoken of a Government body.

We know that 1.1GW of community and locally owned renewable energy capacity was in operation in Scotland in December 2024 and that the Government has a target of 2GW by 2030. That is a laudable target, although the Scottish National Party’s record of achieving targets on environmental issues has not been great so far. However, I will suspend my pessimism on this occasion.

Community Energy Scotland wants the Government to distinguish between community and locally owned and solely community-owned schemes. It wants to see a separate target of 1GW of energy per year produced by community schemes, as well as the 2GW target for community and locally owned schemes that has been set by the Government. Although that might seem like a small change, it is fundamental to ensure that those schemes are run for and by communities, instead of having the possibility of larger companies taking the benefit without ensuring community support. The change would also enable us to access additional funding from the UK Government, which is focused on delivering 8GW of community energy by 2030. By bringing ourselves into line with that target, we can achieve a lot more, instead of by following the usual SNP mantra of being different for difference’s sake.

While I am speaking about the relationship with the Labour Government, I want to pick up on an announcement that has been made by both Governments, each claiming it as its own. We are talking about an £8 million scheme, and I believe that it is actually £4 million from the UK Government through GB Energy and £4 million from the SNP Government. I would like to ensure that that is clarified. If it is £4 million from the Scottish Government, is that new money or has it just been repurposed from another budget line?

I thank the cabinet secretary for that important clarification. We often hear that funds have gone from one place to another, so it is good to hear that that is actually new money. However, rural communities will wait to see what benefit it actually brings in the form of inward investment and economic benefit.

My pessimism well and truly returns when it comes to the jobs promised by GB Energy. It promised 1,000 jobs, but that will take years and years.

At the heart of all the announcements are small local communities that see the potential in small local energy schemes. They want to do their bit; they see an opportunity and have the drive and passion to take it forward, but they find the process incredibly daunting. There is little in the Government’s motion to suggest that that will be easier in the future, only that more money might be available.

The community groups that I have spoken to highlight some key challenges when it comes to getting schemes from idea to delivery. A report from ClimateXChange in 2024 found three main barriers: a lack of resources, a lack of skills and a lack of community input. Nothing that the cabinet secretary has said today will change any of those things.

First, there is a lack of resources. Taking a project from idea to execution can take five years or more, which, for a community group, is a huge amount of time and resources to which few can commit. Money will not necessarily make a difference to that, although it might allow groups to buy in expertise when they need to, given that they are often volunteer groups of committed individuals who have busy and changing lives. The personnel can change frequently and it is difficult for them to see a project through, given the amount of time that is required even to fill in the necessary paperwork.

Secondly, there is a lack of skills. The ClimateXChange report refers specifically to the lack of skills within local authorities to spearhead projects, stating that

“local authority stakeholders note that there is still often a lack of skill for local energy projects in general.”

That is, of course, in addition to a lack of expertise in local communities.

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?