4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to review the consultation process for energy infrastructure projects. (S6O-02961)

The power to alter the Electricity Act 1989 to change the legislative basis for consultation processes under that act is reserved to the United Kingdom Government. However, the UK Government’s transmission acceleration action plan, or TAAP, makes it clear that changes to the consenting regime in Scotland under the 1989 act are necessary to accelerate the determinations process, and the UK Government has committed to a review. The Scottish Government supports such a review, and we will work with the UK Government to progress it.

The Scottish Government is currently undertaking work to streamline the consenting regime for offshore energy infrastructure projects, including reviewing the consultation processes.

North-east residents who are affected by the Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks pylon and substation proposals have increasingly shared their concerns with me about the consultation process for the new infrastructure. They feel that it is being railroaded through. That has impacted the community’s wellbeing and has caused significant distress to many. Surely there must be a better way of engaging with affected residents. As energy infrastructure projects ramp up, will the minister commit to listening to communities about the way in which the consultations are run and work with the developers to improve them?

The simple answer to that question is that I will not only listen, but I am listening and I am working with the industry to improve those consultations. It is important to mention that.

I appreciate Tess White’s support, given that pre-application consultation with the community is led by developers. Although pre-application consultation is mandatory in town and country planning systems for bigger infrastructure capacity of over 50MW, it is not mandatory. The Electricity Act 1989 could be reformed to include that.

I would very much welcome the support of Tess White and her UK Government colleagues not only to make community engagement mandatory in cases such as the one that she mentioned, but to make community benefits mandatory. I have been liaising with my UK Government counterparts on the issue, and I am afraid that I have not had agreement on that. I would therefore very much welcome Tess White’s support in those endeavours.

Despite being at the mercy of volatile and unstable UK energy and climate change policy, how will plans to develop a green industrial strategy for Scotland bring about the investment that is needed for energy infrastructure projects?

I appreciate where Colin Beattie is coming from. He raises a very important point about policy certainty, which is absolutely crucial for investment. When a UK Government flip-flops on climate change policy, we lose out to companies that would otherwise invest in the UK, and they go elsewhere, where the policy regime is better. I give the example of the United States Inflation Reduction Act.

The global transition offers enormous economic opportunities for Scotland, which is why we are developing a green industrial strategy that sets out how the Scottish Government will help businesses and investors to realise those opportunities. It will offer a clear view of the economic sectors and industries in which we have the greatest strength and the most potential, and of what the Government will do to support them. In covering themes such as skills and investment, it will bring the full weight of Government to bear and give the private sector the confidence to make decisions to invest in Scotland, if not the wider UK.