Chamber and committees

Scotland’s national planning framework ensures that the potential impacts of developments on communities and nature are important considerations in decision making. All applications are subject to site-specific assessments—[Interruption.] Are there problems with the microphone?

I thank Paul Sweeney for his question. I know that he is very interested in built heritage.

With regard to the member’s point about windows, the permitted development right for the alteration or replacement of windows in domestic or non-domestic buildings primarily means that, in most conservation areas, the front elevation of properties will continue to be under restrictions. There are different rules for listed buildings, too. However, as I say, local authorities have a degree of authority on this matter when approached by people in such situations.

On the member’s point about maintenance, I do not know whether he is alluding to the question of safety, but the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is informed of such applications and does have input into the process.

As for the member’s wider questions about the benefit to Scotland and the community, despite the fact that powers to mandate community benefits are reserved to the UK Government, Scotland has made progress through our voluntary good practice principles framework, which encourages developers to offer community benefits as standard on all renewable energy projects. We are currently undertaking a joint review of and consultation on the Scottish Government’s good practice principles for onshore and offshore energy developments, as part of which our approach to community benefits from battery storage will be considered.

Promoting carbon literacy is essential to achieving net zero. That is why, through the work of our enterprise agencies and Business Energy Scotland, we have ensured that support and guidance are available to help businesses to understand and reduce their carbon emissions while aiding climate resilience. That is also why we are committed to working in partnership with public bodies, including through the Sustainable Scotland Network, to help them to fulfil their climate change duties and demonstrate climate leadership. As part of that work, we are drafting new statutory guidance that will improve climate literacy across the public sector.

I recognise the criticality of the Grangemouth cluster and its contribution to Scotland’s economy. We are committed to playing our part to secure a sustainable and long-term future for the complex.

We have jointly funded the project willow study, which seeks to develop a set of commercial propositions for the site, and we have committed £50 million to the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal. I am also working closely with Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International to identify and work with partners with an interest in investing in the cluster.

In the draft budget, £8.75 million is directly attributed to Grangemouth. I am committed to working with industry and the community through the Grangemouth future industry board to identify interventions and projects that maximise outcomes. I also call on the United Kingdom Government to go further in ensuring that it leaves no stone unturned in achieving our shared ambitions for Grangemouth.

Yes.

We have rightly heard from members about the need to defend community voices. Our Government is taking action to strengthen the voices of communities in the electricity consenting process. As several members, including Sarah Boyack, have mentioned, the proposals that we are talking about will make it a statutory requirement for communities to be consulted before any application is made. That represents an improvement in the voice of communities, and they will be able to make their voices heard loud and clear, helping to influence proposals at the earliest possible stage.

Ministers will retain the right to reject applications if developers have not engaged sufficiently. The examination process will be more effective than before, and—crucially—just as independent. That is what putting community voices at the heart of the consenting process means in practice.

As several members pointed out in their speeches, the proposals on public inquiries seek to make the process more efficient. At present, that route takes an average of 18 months and involves written submissions, hearings and inquiry sessions. Not only is it sometimes a lengthy option; it can also be intimidating, complex and time consuming for all participants. Liam McArthur, Michael Marra and Daniel Johnson gave examples of processes that took even longer than 18 months and pointed out—rightly, with regard to all those cases—that politicians have to be honest with the public about the problem that such a delay represents.

The consultation suggests that an independent reporter be given powers to make an examination in the most appropriate way. For example, they may specify a site inspection, further written submissions, hearing sessions or inquiry sessions or a combination of those. In addition—crucially for this debate—the reporter may still specify a public inquiry. As Mark Ruskell pointed out, however, the reform is about ensuring that a wider range of options than just a public inquiry are available to allow communities to make their views clear.

A number of members referred to community benefit. In the past 12 months, more than £30 million of benefits have been offered to Scottish communities by energy companies. However, we know that we must do more, and we are therefore consulting on our voluntary good practice principles to ensure that our national community benefits guidance is fit for the future.

A number of members are anxious about the proposal. I highlight that it is being put forward with the UK Government, and it is ultimately for the UK Parliament to legislate on it. Nonetheless, I am happy for us to debate Westminster legislation in the chamber, although I realise that the Conservatives have protested against our doing so in the past. It is important to acknowledge, however, that there is no single quick fix to the multifaceted issue that is electricity consenting.

The proposals require action, co-operation, honesty—as other members have pointed out—and, at times, compromise from all stakeholders. Our aim is to strike the right balance and, as Michael Matheson pointed out, the efforts to achieve that very end are not new. The proposed reforms are about modernising our consenting process for infrastructure, and that includes how we seek to listen to the views of affected communities. The strength of those views will be greater thanks to the proposals, and—in the Scottish Government’s opinion—that will always be a core part of the consenting process.

It is right that we have this debate, and that we have heard some impassioned contributions during it. I also believe, however—to come back to the point that Liam McArthur made—that it is right that we do so in a way that recognises, and is honest about, the realities that we face, and honest, too, about finding genuine solutions for communities and the genuine issues that community voices wish to raise.

The point is that Scottish ministers determine applications to construct or install electricity infrastructure under the Electricity Act 1989. We do not choose, for instance, the routes of strategic power lines across the country.

In England and Wales, relevant legislation has long since been updated to make the consenting process not only more efficient but, I believe, fairer. As far as I am aware, that is not a reform that the Conservatives objected to. Indeed, our purpose in Scotland is to learn from reform in England, which may well result in similar changes to those that have been in place in England and Wales for many years.

At present in Scotland, it can take up to four years to process an application to determination. That is not in the interests of communities or the economy. The Scottish Government has long called for the relevant powers to be given to Scottish ministers. However, in October 2024, the UK Government announced proposals to reform the legislation at Westminster, launching a consultation that concluded at the end of November. The core aim is to make our determination process more efficient—not to make it easier, as the Conservatives seem to suggest—for projects to get consent. Indeed, one of the central proposals is to modernise the system to allow community voices to be heard, including at an earlier stage.

Conservative members might be interested to know that those proposals did not simply materialise in the past few months. The UK Government committed to review consenting in Scotland in November 2023. Conservative members have now forgotten the next crucial bit, which is that that was when the Conservatives were in power in the UK. Indeed, they were taking forward those plans before the general election was called, so it is rather surprising to hear them describe the plans in such terms as they have used today.

Ensuring that community voices are heard in the process and in the right way is central to the reforms. Under the current system, Scotland is the only part of Great Britain where developers do not have to consult local communities before submitting their plans. We want to change that by ensuring that the procedure begins with communities having the opportunity to express their views so that they can be considered from the outset. The reforms would make pre-application consultation statutory for the first time—

Yes.

The member knows full well that ministers cannot meet community groups during a live planning application.