Scottish Parliament, 2 May 2024

287 contributions from 67 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. The first item of business is general question time.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its involvement in the proposals for Glasgow to potentially host the Commonwealth games in 2026. (S6O-03380)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Commonwealth games are a hugely important event to Scotland and Scottish athletes—I say that as a former athlete. The Commonwealth Games Federation is working with a number of Commonwealth games associations to reset and reframe the games.

Commonwealth Games Scotland has confirmed that it is looking at a potential hosting solution in Glasgow if an alternative host cannot be found. That solution would be delivered using investment from the Commonwealth Games Federation, plus commercial income.

The Scottish Government is continuing discussions with Commonwealth Games Scotland and Glasgow City Council to further assess and develop the proposals, although no formal decision has been made as yet.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will Mr Gray go into a little more detail on timescales for making decisions? Will he confirm whether any public money would go into hosting?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Commonwealth Games Federation has said that it intends to announce a decision about the favoured proposed host in May 2024. If, at that stage, Scotland is deemed to be the only viable option, steps will be taken to gather additional information and assurances to enable the Scottish Government to confirm its support—or otherwise—to proceed.

The Commonwealth Games Scotland concept proposes a significantly reduced budget that is in the region of £135 million, with funding being drawn from £100 million of investment from the Commonwealth Games Federation and from commercial income, and not from the public purse.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The proposal to hold the 2026 Commonwealth games in Glasgow is great, and I encourage the Government to embrace it enthusiastically. However, I was disappointed that the scope of the proposal does not include an athletes village, which was one of the great legacies of the 2014 games. Perhaps there is an opportunity to focus state investment on expediting regeneration of derelict sites in Glasgow that are in the pipeline for development, such as Cowlairs or Red Road, as an athletes village. I encourage the cabinet secretary to engage with Wheatley Group and other social housing providers to look at the opportunity to bolster the proposal for hosting the Commonwealth games in Glasgow.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Paul Sweeney for his enthusiasm. There is quite a bit to consider, not least the timescales and public finance that are involved, as well as Glasgow’s legacy from 2014, which—I say as a spectator—was incredible. That was a phenomenal games, and Glasgow has an incredible reputation around the world as a host.

The infrastructure that is in place puts Glasgow in a good position, but should Glasgow be the preferred location, there are considerations around timescales, the scale of the games and what we would be able to offer, which must align with the Commonwealth Games Federation’s consideration of the long-term situation for the games.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with Renfrewshire health and social care partnership. (S6O-03381)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Scottish Government officials last met Renfrewshire health and social care partnership officers on Thursday 4 April 2024.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcomed the news on Tuesday that the integration joint board in Renfrewshire has abandoned the proposals to close or merge the Milldale and Mirin day centres for people with additional support needs. I congratulate all service users and their families on their tireless campaign to save those services. However, it should not have taken such intense efforts or legal action to change the proposal.

Other services are not being spared, such as Montrose care home in Paisley. The underlying problem remains that the Government is chronically underfunding HSCPs and slashing their budgets. When will the minister deliver for people in Renfrewshire—especially the most vulnerable—with proper funding to avoid cuts and by taking action to end residential care charges and bring people who have a learning disability home to their areas, as has been promised by the Government for years?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

First, we do not want to see the closure of good-quality care homes and other important care services. We absolutely understand the concern that that can cause for supported people and their families. However, decisions on how to deliver local services are for integration authorities to make—in this case, the Renfrewshire integration joint board. The Scottish Government expects those decisions to be made in consultation with the people who use the services and in full awareness of the potential impact on them.

On funding, the Scottish Government has invested more than £2 billion in health and social care integration under the 2024-25 budget. That delivers on our commitment to increase social care spending by 25 per cent over the parliamentary session and does so two years ahead of our original target.

I know that discussions about a national care service are on-going, but the creation of that service is our proposal for rising to meet some of the challenges. Members of Parliament and the public want to hold ministers accountable and responsible, and the national care service proposal will enable that to happen.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact of reports that HC-One plans to terminate the contract for the hospital-based complex clinical care service at Hatton Lea care home. (S6O-03382)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Although we have overall responsibility for health and social care policy in Scotland, the statutory responsibility for delivering and commissioning appropriate services for the community lies with local authorities and integration joint boards. We set clear standards for the quality of care that is provided in Scotland and regularly engage with local partners to ensure that those standards are met.

We understand that North Lanarkshire health and social care partnership is working to identify a new location for the service and is conducting robust reviews for each individual to ensure that the safety and care of every resident remains everyone’s top priority. We also understand that HC-One’s managing director has offered to meet residents’ representatives and the affected families to discuss their concerns.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The termination of HC-One’s outdated contract with university health and social care North Lanarkshire has led to the closure of three of its five Hatton Lea care home units, as the physical layout is considered no longer suitable for residents with advanced dementia. Vulnerable patients and their families are left understandably distressed at the loss of their forever home. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to monitor planned closures and prevent such failures at a national level, so that any escalation in closures during this period of rising costs can be addressed at an early stage, to ensure that continuity of care is prioritised?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

We understand that university health and social care North Lanarkshire is working hard to identify a new location for the HBCCC service in a comfortable and homely environment. Its overriding priority for each and every patient is ensuring their continued safety, minimising any distress and supporting them and their families and carers through the process. It is also providing support, as necessary, to staff to ensure that the service’s patients remain everyone’s number 1 priority throughout the process.

Regrettably, there will be situations in which care homes that are run by the independent sector or a local authority close. Our focus is on ensuring that the local partners that are responsible do what is required to ensure transition to suitable alternative placements.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to help local authorities tackle damp and mould in social housing. (S6O-03383)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The latest Scottish house condition survey results show that damp was present in 4 per cent of social sector dwellings in 2022. More than £200 million has been made available to social landlords through the social housing net zero fund, which was launched in 2020 to improve energy efficiency and install clean heat. Proposals for the new social housing net zero standard include measures to prevent damp and mould.

Local authorities have powers to tackle substandard housing and to decide how to spend available funds. Record funding of more than £14 billion has been provided to local government in the 2024-25 budget settlement.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

My constituent is a single mother with three children who is trapped in a two-bedroom dwelling in Westwood with damp and mould. Her infant and her toddler are now having respiratory problems. Efforts to fix the problems have been shockingly inadequate, and the damp and mould persist. I am sure that the minister agrees that that neglect is unacceptable.

Reflecting on the tragic loss in 2020 of two-year-old Awaab Ishak, whose life was claimed by poor housing conditions, the United Kingdom Government introduced Awaab’s law, which creates a strict guideline to force social landlords to address damp and mould issues. What consideration has the Scottish Government given to introducing similar legislation?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I am happy to engage with the member to pick up the specific issue with the local authority and to discuss how we can take forward the proposal that she mentioned.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding what steps it can take to protect horticultural workers on seasonal worker visas from unfair work practices and substandard accommodation. (S6O-03384)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The Scottish Government recognises the valuable contribution that seasonal agricultural workers make to the agriculture sector.

We are fully committed to ensuring that fair work applies to seasonal workers. We have funded the Worker Support Centre Scotland since 2022 to provide free and confidential support to seasonal migrant workers. The Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution provides practical, emotional and financial support to all people involved in the Scottish agricultural industry.

The housing to 2040 strategy aims to ensure that there will be no margins of tolerance, no exemptions and no “acceptable levels” of sub-standard homes in urban, rural or island communities, deprived communities, or tenements.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Government has committed to rolling out fair work conditionality for public sector grants and recently confirmed that the real living wage and effective channels for worker representation would apply to five grant schemes for agriculture, crofting and forestry. However, it is unclear when those conditions will apply to direct farm payments, which would do the most to safeguard vulnerable workers on our big fruit farms and protect them from unfair dismissals, unfair piecework payment rates and unsuitable accommodation. Can the cabinet secretary provide information on when fair work conditions will be extended to cover all farm payments?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The principles of fair work have been a key tenet of the Government’s policies and are also a key driver for achieving sustainable and inclusive economic growth. We believe that, when it comes to public funding, those principles should be used to lever in wider benefits, such as the promotion of fair work, to support the development of a successful wellbeing economy over the longer term. That is why we are putting fair work principles at the heart of new agricultural funding streams. Specifically, we committed to introducing a requirement on public sector grants to pay at least the real living wage to all employees and to provide appropriate channels for an effective workers’ voice, such as trade union recognition, in the limits of devolved competence.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

A recent report, from April last year, on seasonal migrant workers in Scottish agriculture found that most seasonal workers come to Scotland because working here has been “personally recommended to them” and that 87 per cent of those who were surveyed were satisfied with the accommodation. Does the minister agree that Scottish agriculture needs access to the people who want to come to Scotland and make a vital contribution, and that the main route to doing that is to undo the damage of a Brexit that was forced on Scotland by Westminster?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I absolutely agree with that. The member has raised some important points. Scotland is a welcoming country; we value those who choose to come, live and work here.

Fruit and vegetables are one of the biggest and fastest-growing parts of our farming sector. Scottish employers are increasingly dependent on migrant workers for a growing proportion of their workforce. The issues that they are experiencing have all been exacerbated by the hard Brexit that the United Kingdom Government chose to pursue.

Seasonal agricultural workers play a hugely important role when it comes to filling vacancies across the agricultural sector as well as helping the overall sustainability of our rural economy. The UK Government’s immigration policies fail to address Scotland’s distinct demographic and economic needs, which highlights the need for a tailored approach to migration.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to prevent the closure of care homes in South Lanarkshire. (S6O-03385)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

No one wants to see the closure of good-quality care homes, as I have said already. Decisions on how best to deliver services for local communities are for integration authorities to make, in consultation with people who use those services and in full awareness of the impact on them.

I met the save McClymont house group on 26 April. I have also written to the South Lanarkshire chief officer and chair of the integration joint board requesting an urgent meeting to seek reassurances on the steps that they plan to take to ensure that the residents of both care homes in question continue to receive the support that they deserve.

As the member knows, the 2024-25 national health service recovery, health and social care budget contains £2 billion investment for social care and integration. That represents an increase of more than £1 billion compared to 2021-22, exceeding our commitment to increase funding for social care by 25 per cent over this parliamentary session.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The residents of McClymont house do not want the minister to write to them to talk about assurances; they want the minister to intervene to save McClymont house. The IJB has made it clear to the minister that the closure is an entirely financial decision, in order to plug a funding shortfall of £33 million. The minister knows that the closure proposal is absolutely devastating for the older, vulnerable people who face being kicked out of their home, to save just a few hundred thousand pounds at a time when the home could be used as a step-down facility to tackle delayed discharge.

Will the minister intervene now? A national care service will be too late—people want intervention now. Will she save that care home for the residents who face being homeless as a result of its closure?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The member is aware that the chief officer of the IJB has written to request my intervention in that case. As a result of that request, I have met the families who are affected by the closure and I have requested an urgent meeting with the IJB’s chief officer and members, in order to discuss the closure.

The most important thing is that the individuals who live in that care home—and their families—are satisfied that the care that they currently receive, which is acknowledged to be of an exceptionally high quality, is continued beyond whatever arrangements are made for their care.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what analysis it has conducted of the impact of its reformed dental payments system, introduced on 1 November 2023, in the Mid Scotland and Fife region. (S6O-03386)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We have long-standing arrangements to publish activity on national health service dental services through Public Health Scotland, and data on the reformed dental payment system will continue to be provided through those arrangements on a quarterly basis.

Published data provides information at both a national and regional level, which officials use to inform on-going, regular analysis in discussion with all NHS boards, including NHS Fife, on the impact of national reform on local care provision.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The dental payment system reforms that the Scottish Government embarked on were supposed to make it easier for people to access dental treatments. However, in my region, latest statistics show that, although around 90 per cent of adults in Fife are registered with an NHS dentist, only around half of them have actually seen an NHS dentist in the past two years, which has widened oral health inequalities.

Will the Scottish Government agree to amend the data collection on NHS dentistry to include participation as well as registration? How does it intend to deal with the growing oral health inequalities in my region?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Roz McCall for her question and am happy to look at her initial suggestion.

We are working very closely with health boards on workforce initiatives because, as we were very clear at the start of payment reform, that was the first step on the journey. We are looking at things such as the direct access model, and I know that NHS Highland is keen to be involved in that.

I have also been working with the other United Kingdom nations and stakeholders to improve the overseas dentist pipeline, which I am pleased to see moving forward.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has followed the advice issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding appropriate governance and controls for the use of children’s Scottish candidate numbers for research in the education system. (S6O-03387)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Yes.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, when the health and wellbeing census was run in 2022, no governance was put in place around the use of children’s Scottish candidate numbers. For example, candidate numbers are used as pupil email addresses in some schools. The ICO has advised the Scottish Government that it needs to address serious risks of harm to children, due to the intimate nature of the data that is gathered about pupils and their families.

Will the Scottish Government commit to review and—if found to be infringing the general data protection regulation and ethical standards for health research—to delete the data that was gathered from 134,000 children who participated in the survey without being informed of those risks?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

As the member will be aware, in the past year or so, my officials have had a series of meetings with the Information Commissioner’s Office on that very issue. I understand that the ICO has also met local authorities to discuss the same issues with them. As a result, the Government is reviewing and enhancing our internal processes and procedures to further reduce the risks of using the Scottish candidate number for our own statistical and research purposes.

Those enhancements are also about ensuring that we have the improved technical and organisational measures that are designed to more effectively implement data protection principles. It will also ensure that improved safeguards will deliver on better meeting the requirements that are set out under United Kingdom general data protection regulation requirements.

First Minister’s Question Time

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

A week ago, I lodged the Scottish Conservative vote of no confidence motion that forced Humza Yousaf to resign in disgrace. This could very well be his final First Minister’s question time as First Minister.

Humza Yousaf’s replacement must focus on what really matters to Scotland. The SNP has to forget about independence and prioritise growing our economy, creating jobs and improving public services. John Swinney did the opposite of all those things in government, and his leadership campaign slogan, which was unveiled this morning, is “Uniting for independence”. That is all that he offers. [ Applause .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members, let us hear Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am very grateful for that party election broadcast, which we will be using in the days, weeks and months to come, because all that Mr Swinney offers is more of the same nationalist obsession that has damaged Scotland for a decade, and SNP members are laughing and applauding that. He is fixated on independence, not on the things that really matter. Does uniting for independence not just mean more division for Scotland?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

No, it does not. Douglas Ross has every right and prerogative to gloat about the position that I am in; I made my statement on Monday. The only exception that I would take to what Douglas Ross said is that I do not feel disgraced at all. I am very proud of the fact that I became the first person of colour to be First Minister, the very first Muslim leader of a western nation and the youngest First Minister to serve in 25 years of devolution.

Most of all, I am proud to have served this Government and my country on the front bench for 12 years. Did I get everything right? Absolutely not—that is very evident and clear. Can I be proud of the Government’s record? Absolutely.

Let me talk about the Government’s record. In his next few questions, Douglas Ross will do his best to talk about personalities as opposed to policies. Why would he want to do that? When it comes to our policies, the SNP is the party of free university education, the party that abolished prescription charges, the party of free personal and nursing care, the party of free bus travel for those who are under 22 or over 60 and those with a disability, the party of free school meals, the party of the baby box and the party of free childcare.

What about the Conservatives? They are the party of Windrush, the party of bankers’ bonuses, the party of austerity, the party of Brexit, the party of the two-child limit, the party of Boris Johnson, the party of Liz Truss and the party of the cost of living crisis. With such an abysmal record, no wonder the leader of the nasty party wants to talk about personalities, not policies.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

My criticism of the Government was mainly brought on by John Swinney’s comments today, as he said that everything is so bad that he has to run for the leadership. Just when John Swinney thought that he was out, the SNP pulled him back in, because there is literally nobody else. The SNP’s man for the future is its failed leader from the past. It is going from one continuity candidate to another.

John Swinney was Nicola Sturgeon’s human shield. He masterminded the deal with the extremist Greens. For 16 out of the 17 years of SNP Government, John Swinney sat round the Cabinet table. His fingerprints are all over the Government’s most toxic policies. How will going back to the future get the SNP out of the mess that it is in?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Has Douglas Ross never stopped to reflect on the fact that, for all that he has said about John Swinney, John Swinney and my colleague Kate Forbes are both more popular than Douglas Ross?

Douglas Ross seems absolutely determined to talk about personality. Let me remind him about the personalities that he associates himself with. Douglas Ross served in Boris Johnson’s Government. He called Boris Johnson an honest man. That would be the Boris Johnson who was not only the architect of a damaging hard Brexit but who allegedly said to Covid victims, “Let the bodies pile up high.”

Douglas Ross then went on to not only support Liz Truss to the hilt—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members!

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

He demanded that we copy Liz Truss’s disastrous tax plans. Of course, those were the tax plans that utterly annihilated the economy, and that is the Liz Truss who is now engaging in hard-right conspiracies about the deep state.

You can judge a man by the company that he keeps. Douglas Ross’s company is Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party of Liz Truss, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel, and, formerly, of Lee Anderson, Mark Menzies, Peter Bone, Chris Pincher, Andrew Bridgen and Frank Hester. I can see Douglas Ross looking more and more embarrassed. That is the company that he keeps. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members!

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am very proud of John Swinney, Kate Forbes and all the company that I keep. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Douglas Ross. [Interruption.] Let us hear Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Humza Yousaf is talking a big game now. Has he forgotten that, just last Friday, he wrote this humiliating letter to me, begging the Conservatives and our colleagues here to save his skin? He was literally begging us to save his job. That is how quickly things change in the world of Humza Yousaf.

Let us go back to John Swinney. SNP members think that John Swinney is a safe pair of hands, but he has dropped the ball dozens of times. He was the Deputy First Minister who stood right by Nicola Sturgeon when she obsessed about independence, when she increased taxes and when she wrecked Scotland’s public services. He was the architect of the hated named persons law. He deleted every WhatsApp message that should have gone to the United Kingdom Covid inquiry, in a disgraceful cover-up. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members!

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

John Swinney was the education secretary who let our schools spiral down international league tables, below Estonia, Latvia and Hungary. The man who oversaw the disastrous ferries deal is supposed to steady the ship. Is that really the best that the SNP can do?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Let us compare records. John Swinney was part of a Government that set up Social Security Scotland. Through our anti-poverty measures, including through the benefits that are awarded through Social Security Scotland—[ Interruption .] I can hear the Conservatives saying that those anti-poverty measures are not working, but it is estimated that they will lift 100,000 children out of poverty this year, in stark contrast to what the Conservatives are doing.

It is through John Swinney’s efforts on education and the foundations that he laid that more young people from areas of deprivation are going to university now than ever before. It was John Swinney who helped to deliver the biggest expansion of early learning and childcare in our country’s history. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Ross!

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Let us look at Douglas Ross’s record. His voting record is there on websites such as TheyWorkForYou, which aggregate and assess the voting records of all MPs. On taxation and employment, Douglas Ross generally voted against higher taxes on banks. On veterans, he generally voted against strengthening the military covenant. On environmental issues, he generally voted against—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The Conservatives are getting worked up. It is all there in black and white. Douglas Ross cannot hide from the truth.

The website also says that he voted against improving—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We have gone well beyond the point at which we can hear one another. I have called only one person to speak, as far as I am aware, and I would like to hear the person who was called to speak, and them alone.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The Conservatives do not like the truth. They do not like it one bit, because the truth shows that Douglas Ross generally voted against measures to prevent climate change—what a surprise—that he generally voted against improving air quality and that he generally voted against laws to promote equality and human rights.

Let us find something that he did vote for: he voted for the Rwanda bill. What a shameful act. What a disgrace.

John Swinney, Kate Forbes or any one of my colleagues can stand proudly on their record. Can Douglas Ross stand proudly on his?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Humza Yousaf is lashing out today because he knows that it was the Scottish Conservatives who forced him out of his job, and he knows that, in seats up and down Scotland in the coming election, it will be a straight fight between the SNP and my party. We will stand on our record of forcing him out of office—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

—and of holding this tired and failing SNP Government to account.

What will John Swinney and the SNP stand on? John Swinney has confirmed today that he will be another divisive nationalist, focused only on independence. His campaign slogan is literally “Uniting for independence”. That means more division for Scotland all over again. John Swinney has been at the heart of the failures that have defined the SNP’s time in office. How on earth will the SNP stop failing Scotland if it keeps doing the same thing over and over again?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Any colleagues who stand for the leadership of my party will stand on a record that we will take to the people of Scotland, much as Douglas Ross’s party is taking its record to people in England and Wales in the local elections today. One suspects that the people will give the Conservatives a very harsh verdict indeed. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Ross!

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

When it comes to the issue of independence—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Ross!

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Let us make it very clear that, when it comes to having a vote on the constitutional future of this country—which is a mandate that we have stood on and have won election after election on—the only reason why those in Westminster refuse to give that second referendum is that they fear the verdict.

Why do we need independence? We need independence because this country has suffered 14 years of austerity from a Government that has not won an election in Scotland since the 1950s. It is because a Brexit that we did not vote for was foisted upon us and because our people are suffering from a cost of living crisis that they did not create but are suffering the results of.

What drives John Swinney, Kate Forbes and every one of my colleagues beside and behind me—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

—is our social contract with the people to work day and night in the service of all communities in Scotland.

When we take the record that I stand proudly on and that my successor will stand proudly on, I have no doubt at all that the people will continue to put their trust in the SNP.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Scotland cannot afford this distracted, divided and incompetent Scottish National Party Government. When we look past all the shouting, we see that our country is facing the greatest challenges since the creation of this Parliament. More than 800,000 people are on national health service waiting lists.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

What about Wales?

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

We see increasing violence and falling standards in our schools.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

And in Wales.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Police numbers are being cut and crimes are not being investigated. I remind Mr Brown that we are talking about his constituents, who are suffering those consequences. Police numbers are being cut and crimes are not being investigated. Almost 10,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, millions of pounds is being wasted on failed projects and our economy is flatlining, while the huge potential of our people is being squandered.

Yet again, the SNP is putting party before country and its own problems before the people of Scotland. Is it not the case that, regardless of who the SNP imposes, it will not be able to fix this mess and deliver the change that Scotland needs?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Obviously, I do not agree with that in the slightest. What I would say about some of the issues that Anas Sarwar has raised is that there are of course challenges, particularly in the face of a recovery from a global pandemic. However, on the NHS and our public services, we are choosing to invest in those public services, as opposed to introducing tax cuts for the wealthy, which is the choice of the United Kingdom Conservative Party but, it seems, is now also the choice of the UK Labour Party. Anas Sarwar once stood on a platform of progressive taxation, but that, like all his other principles, has gone out of the window.

Anas Sarwar asks us to concentrate on the day job. I remind him that it was he and his party that, yesterday, brought to this Parliament a motion of no confidence that they knew they were going to lose. Due to that waste of time, we had less time to debate justice and compensation for the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—women. Perhaps Anas Sarwar wanted it that way because, for all the photographs that he takes with the WASPI women, all the warm words and all the hugs that he gives the WASPI women, it was a disgrace that the Labour Party led by Anas Sarwar abstained on a motion that demanded full compensation for the women who have suffered such a disgraceful injustice.

While we are getting on with the day job and getting on with serving the people of Scotland, Anas Sarwar and his Labour Party are U-turning, flip-flopping and deflecting. They should not think that the people of Scotland cannot see through that.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Presiding Officer, things are going so well that the First Minister is stepping down this week, yet he is now giving us political advice after the week that he has just had. I do not think that we could make it up. Regardless of—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Regardless of the list that the First Minister wants to read out, it does not reflect the lived reality for people in Scotland right now under this SNP Government. While our country is crying out for change, what is the SNP’s answer? It is an internal stitch-up and more of the same—either the man who broke the public finances, who was the worst education secretary in the history of the Scottish Parliament, who was the Deputy First Minister who deleted evidence to the Covid inquiry and who has been at the heart of this incompetent SNP Government for the past 17 years, or a former cabinet secretary who many on her own benches say is more akin to a member of Douglas Ross’s party than one of her own? Both represent chaos, both represent division and both represent more of the same. After 17 years of incompetence and failure, is that really the best that the SNP has to offer?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Anas Sarwar talks about a leadership stitch-up. He should know about that. Just ask Richard Leonard about what he did about a leadership stitch-up.

Our record has seen more young people from deprived areas going to university than ever before. Our record has delivered more than 128,000 affordable homes. Our record has established Social Security Scotland with 14 benefits, seven of which are available only in Scotland, including the game-changing Scottish child payment. It is estimated that our anti-poverty measures will lift 100,000 children out of poverty.

Anas Sarwar talks about what the Government has been doing over the past two weeks. In the past two weeks alone, we have announced £80 million of additional funds to ensure that we boost our affordable housing stock. On top of that, we confirmed £11 million of grant funding for public bodies such as leisure centres. What have Anas Sarwar and the Labour Party done in the past two weeks? They voted against keeping the Promise to care-experienced children. They are going to water down their plans for workers, and they announced that on May day, of all days. I say once again that, disgracefully, they refused to back justice and compensation for the WASPI women—a betrayal that they will not be forgiven for.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister cut £189 million from the housing budget and then miraculously found £80 million on the day when was begging to keep his job. People can see right through the sham. As so many in his own party have said, continuity will not cut it. We need a Government that is focused on fixing the mess that the SNP has made. For all the First Minister’s bluster today, he cannot ignore the fact that people across our country are being forced to remortgage their homes to pay for hip replacements.

There are mothers going without food in order to feed their children. There are families travelling south to get their child a private mental health diagnosis. Cash-strapped families are being made to pay more and get less from their public services. What is the SNP focused on instead? It is desperately trying to cling on to power.

The SNP is so divided, so chaotic and so dysfunctional that it cannot now provide the stable, competent government that our country needs. That is why we need an election, but it does not want to call one. Why? Is it because it fears the judgment of the Scottish people?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I remind Anas Sarwar that, less than 24 hours ago, this Parliament voted to give confidence to the SNP-led Scottish Government. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Let me also say to Anas Sarwar that, whoever succeeds me, they can say unequivocally that we stand proud of not only our record but the policies that we have enacted over 17 years. The difference between Anas Sarwar and me, my colleagues on the front benches, and colleagues such as John Swinney and Kate Forbes is that we are consistent in our principles; the only consistency in Anas Sarwar is his complete and utter inconsistency. I am surprised that he is not more embarrassed by that inconsistency. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Sarwar!

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

He has U-turned on the two-child limit and the rape clause; he has U-turned on bankers’ bonuses; he has U-turned on progressive taxation; he has U-turned on the £28 billion green prosperity fund; he has U-turned on rejoining the European Union; and he has U-turned on his support for compensation for the WASPI women. Anas Sarwar says that continuity will not cut it. It would be nice if, for five minutes, Anas Sarwar could continue with one principle without dumping it.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The First Minister’s Government announced a new package of measures to ramp up action on climate change just a few weeks ago. Since then, though, he has needlessly ended the progressive pro-independence Government majority brought about by the Bute house agreement. Responding to the climate emergency was at the core of that agreement and I am proud of what the Scottish Greens achieved during our time in government: free bus travel for under-22s, banning new incinerators and ending fossil fuel heating in new-build homes. Those actions are already driving down our climate emissions, but climate action is now under threat. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Ms Slater.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Climate action is now under threat, so will he confirm to me today whether the Scottish Government will recommit to the package of climate action announced, or will his last act as First Minister be watering down climate action and betraying future generations?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

For 17 years, whether before the Bute house agreement or as part of that agreement, this Government has had a very proud track record of standing up to tackle the climate crisis. We are proud of the achievements that were made with the co-operation of the Greens, but we also had a long-standing record on tackling the climate crisis before we were in a co-operation agreement with the Greens.

On progressive values, which I have heard Lorna Slater talk about in recent days, the manifesto that we stood on—which ensured that the SNP was, by quite some considerable distance, the largest party in this Parliament—was rooted in progressive social values.

It will be for my successor and their Cabinet to come to the chamber to make clear their priorities in tackling the climate crisis. This Government absolutely supports that accelerated policy package, but it is now time for all of us to make sure that we continue to collaborate and work closely together on an issue-by-issue basis. I have no doubt that the Greens will do that with whoever my successor is.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

One of the policies contained in the Bute house agreement was to conduct a climate compatibility assessment of the proposed dualling of the A96. That assessment is now long overdue. Achieving our climate goals means drastically driving down car use. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Ms Slater.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The Infrastructure Commission for Scotland, the Climate Change Committee and Transform Scotland have all said that new road building to increase capacity is not compatible with the drive to net zero. When will the First Minister’s Government publish the climate compatibility assessment for the A96? When it inevitably says that we cannot afford, for the sake of future generations, to dual that road in full, will he commit to investing the money earmarked for that project into safety improvements and better public transport for communities that live along the route?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Lorna Slater will know that it is important for such reviews to complete before we update the Parliament. Again, therefore, it will no doubt be for my successor to give an update on that matter.

However, when it comes to transport, we can tell a good story, for example on the investment that we have made in electric vehicle charging points and infrastructure. We look to accelerate that. We can talk about the fact that, since 2011, we have provided more than £200 million in interest-free loans, through the low-carbon transport loan scheme, for the purchase of zero-emission vehicles. We are committed to working with public bodies to decarbonise the public sector fleet, and have provided £80 million to date to support the procurement of more than 4,000 zero-emission and ultra-low-emission vehicles as well as charging and refuelling infrastructure. We have a proud record of building infrastructure—be that road or other infrastructure—but we also have a very proud record of ensuring that we continue to invest in low-emission transport and affordable public transport. We will continue to do that—again, I suspect, regardless of who my successor is.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Many questions are still to be put, and more concise questions and responses will enable that opportunity for more members.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the potential impact on Police Scotland and devolved agencies of reports that the Home Office has launched a major operation to detain asylum seekers across the United Kingdom, following the passing of the UK Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. (S6F-03076)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Let me be very clear: the dog-whistle politics that we have seen displayed this week through the disgusting Home Office footage and, frankly, the accompanying Westminster rhetoric, have no place here in Scotland. This Government has consistently opposed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, while other members of this Parliament have voted for it in their capacity as MPs. We have absolutely opposed the that act and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The “hostile environment” rhetoric is a symptom of a broken Westminster system that is focused on constantly attacking the most vulnerable and is a complete abdication of not just the moral responsibility of the UK but its international obligations.

Any unannounced Home Office immigration enforcement visits will raise concern and anxiety right across our communities. Although Police Scotland has a role in maintaining public order and public safety, it will never assist in the removal of asylum seekers or other migrants. Ministers will continue to press to UK counterparts our deep concerns on reserved asylum policy.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Given the news that the Home Office raids have begun, is the First Minister as sickened as I am, and as many of my constituents are, at the fact that this unworkable policy has been forced on Scotland by a fear-mongering and xenophobic UK Government?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I agree entirely with Karen Adam. However, I have great faith in the people of Scotland. Who will ever forget the heroic actions of those on Kenmure Street, for example?

The Government stands absolutely steadfast in our opposition to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. I deplore the inhumane Home Office enforcement action that we have seen. Detaining people in order to forcibly remove them to Rwanda is cruel and punishes some of the most vulnerable in our society.

At times like this, we all have an obligation to step back and think about what is going on. Often, those who flee persecution, war or extreme poverty come to our shores. What has happened to the UK that has so often opened its homes, its hearts and its arms to people who seek sanctuary? Instead, the UK Government wants to pit community against community, person against person and race against race. I am afraid that such inflammatory rhetoric—such stoking of the flames of division—is only detrimental to each and every one of us.

To end this answer, my plea to every political party, particularly in what is a general election year, is that we show moral leadership in relation to some of the issues that are most divisive. That is important. I hope that every member of the Parliament will play their part in ensuring that we put out rather than stoke the flames of racial and religious tension—which, I am afraid, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 undoubtedly inflames.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the First Minister, in light of new reported data that nearly one in five shop premises in Scottish cities lie empty, what action the Scottish Government is taking to support the retail sector. (S6F-03070)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank Murdo Fraser for asking an important question that in turn raises an important issue. Retail is an essential component of vibrant city-centre and town-centre economies. Our retail strategy sets out how we will work with businesses and trade unions to deliver a strong and prosperous retail sector. It contains specific actions, such as supporting businesses, where possible, to utilise existing vacant space to strengthen retail’s contribution to the economic and social success of communities, and it encourages our retailers to promote city centres as retail and cultural destinations. Many retailers in Scotland also benefit from the small business bonus scheme—the most generous of its kind in the United Kingdom—which offers up to 100 per cent relief from non-domestic rates.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Research from the Sunday Post newspaper shows alarming shop vacancy rates in Scottish cities: 19.5 per cent in Aberdeen, 18 per cent in Dundee and 18.5 per cent in Perth. The decline of our traditional retail centres is well documented. The Conservative Government down south has given retail, hospitality and leisure premises 75 per cent rates relief for two years, but that has not been passed on by the Scottish Government despite its having had the Barnett consequentials to do so. If the Scottish Government is not going to do that, what other intervention will make a real difference before we see many more closures on our high streets?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

First, let me say that, had we followed the logic of what Murdo Fraser says we should have done, it would have meant passing on every single penny of consequentials—and more—to businesses. However, that would have been at the expense of the investment that we have made in the national health service and in real-terms increases in the funding of our education and justice services. The Conservative Party in the UK Government chose to give tax cuts that will put money in the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the national health service. When it comes to the pressures that both small and large businesses face, I remind Murdo Fraser of the unmitigated disaster that Brexit has been. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The number 1 issues that businesses raise with me are high energy costs relating to the disastrous mini-budget, high inflation costs and high food prices, all of which have happened because of Murdo Fraser’s party’s mishandling of the economy. We will continue to invest in public services and to support businesses, which is why they benefit from the most generous small business rates relief anywhere in the UK.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with environmental groups and communities regarding how it plans to deliver strong action on climate change, following the removal of the 2030 climate target. (S6F-03083)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The Government regularly engages with environmental groups and communities on tackling climate change. For example, in late March, the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing, Economy, Net Zero and Energy held a round-table meeting with environmental non-government organisations to discuss our climate targets. I have regularly met a number of individual organisations. Those discussions will continue as we consider further action on climate change, based on the Climate Change Committee’s advice.

More generally, it is vital that everyone understands the scale of the climate emergency. Our public engagement strategy sets out our vision for everyone to embrace their role in our transition to a net zero Scotland. That is why we are providing a vehicle for communities to engage in collective climate action through our network of climate action hubs, which I know Foysol Choudhury is aware of. In 2023-24, we provided around £4 million to expand the network of such hubs right across the country.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

Will the Scottish Government support my colleague Sarah Boyack’s amendments to place the purpose of a circular economy in Scotland in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, and my colleague Monica Lennon’s amendment to put in place a reusable nappy scheme that would represent concrete action to reduce consumption-based carbon emissions in Scotland? Will it also properly fund local authorities so that they can deliver the transformation that we need in our local communities?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Any amendments to any legislation will be considered on their own merits. As I know Foysol Choudhury will understand, it is important, particularly given that we are operating as a minority Government, that we continue to hear good ideas and co-operate across parties where we can.

I would also say this to Foysol Choudhury. When it comes to tackling the climate crisis, that imperative and obligation is made far more difficult if, whenever we bring even the mildest of action to the chamber, it is opposed by, for example, members of the United Kingdom Labour Party—I mean the Scottish Labour Party; forgive me for that Freudian slip—and the Opposition. They opposed our introduction of low-emission zones in Glasgow. In this Parliament, they opposed a workplace parking levy. They are trying to water down new heating standards. Time and again, they have refused to back any measure that we bring.

We will of course look at the amendments or the ideas that Foysol Choudhury has suggested. I would hope that his party will do the same, so that we can work together to tackle the biggest challenge—the existential challenge—that our planet faces.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Can the First Minister confirm that Scotland’s climate ambitions are very dependent on Westminster funding and that, if a future Labour Government just carries on copying the Tory policies, as Labour seems to be doing, Scotland will continue to struggle to make climate progress?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

That is absolutely right. I have asked Anas Sarwar and the Labour Party on a number of occasions, very gently, to confirm whether they would reverse the £1.3 billion capital cut to our budget that the Tories have imposed on us for the next few years. Every time I ask that question I get a lot of waffle, but I do not get an answer back.

That is the challenge here. When it comes to investing in tackling the climate crisis, capital infrastructure will be absolutely key: it will be vital for tackling the climate crisis. We expect the Conservatives to cut our capital budget to the bone; what we need Labour to do is to move away from Tory tax and spending plans, so that we have a chance to tackle the biggest challenge that our planet faces.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

A protest is under way outside the Scottish Parliament against the monster pylon pathway proposed by the transmission operator, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, for the north of Scotland. Communities are alarmed and anxious.

The First Minister says that he does not want waffle, so will he commit to sit down with campaigners and explain how his Government will use its devolved powers to respond to their concerns?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am well aware of the protest that is taking place. We strongly support action to reform the connection process, so that Scottish projects can connect to the grid when they are ready to do so. The powers to reform the grid connection process are of course reserved to the UK Government, and they require action at a UK level.

In Scotland, we have the most stringent environmental impact regulations in the world, and our planning and consent system ensures that local communities can have their say. All applications must be subject to site-specific assessments. It is not appropriate for ministers to comment on potential projects that may come forward for determinations. As our national planning framework 4 makes abundantly clear, potential impacts on communities, nature and others are important considerations in the decision-making process.

It is of course important to listen to, hear from, consult and engage with our communities. Let us remind ourselves that it is equally important for powering Scotland’s renewables potential for the future—in fact, it will be vital—that whoever forms the UK Government puts their hand in their pocket and invests in our grid infrastructure. All of us have a responsibility to talk up the importance of grid infrastructure. If we do not do that, we will simply not have the renewables boom that we are very much on the precipice or cusp of.

Let us of course engage with our communities; let us also make it abundantly clear that investment in the grid is absolutely required.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the potential impact on devolved social security benefits of the United Kingdom Government’s proposed reforms to disability benefits. (S6F-03082)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I can give a categoric assurance that whoever is in this office—I can say this even on behalf of my potential successor—will make it clear that the Scottish National Party-led Scottish Government will never accept the cruel welfare reforms that are being pursued by the United Kingdom Government. Those punitive proposals would only further stigmatise and impoverish disabled people, and they have rightly been called out by stakeholders as a “reckless assault” on disabled people.

In contrast, Scotland’s social security system was designed with the principles of dignity, fairness and respect as foundation blocks. Those are the values of the Scottish Government and of the people of Scotland. Disability payments, should they be required, are there for all of us whenever we need them.

The Scottish Government is committed to continuing to deliver adult disability payments in a compassionate and caring way. I know that, earlier this week, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice sought urgent clarification from the Department for Work and Pensions that people who receive our adult disability payment will not be penalised and will continue to automatically receive the reserved benefits that they rely on. I call on the UK Government to provide assurance that it will not seek to impose any resultant cuts to expenditure on the Scottish Government.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Social Security Scotland is built on the principles of dignity, fairness and respect. In contrast, the UK Government continues to favour an outdated blame-and-shame approach. Does the First Minister share my concern that those narratives could have a detrimental impact on disabled people in Scotland applying for the support that they are entitled to? Will he outline measures that can be taken to minimise the impact?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I fully agree with that. I am clear that social security is a human right. It is an investment in our society and in the people. That is why we have transformed financial support for disabled people in Scotland and established a radically different system that is based on the foundation blocks of fairness, dignity and respect, as I have said.

The proposed changes, much like the Rwanda legislation, which we spoke about earlier, are just the latest examples of the Conservatives punching down and punishing marginalised communities to make up for their own failings. That is transparent for everyone to see.

While the Department for Work and Pensions continues to pursue punitive measures that would serve only to stigmatise and dehumanise disabled people, we will proactively ensure that people are aware of, and encouraged to access, the financial support that they are entitled to. We will continue to work in partnership with disabled people through our on-going review of adult disability payments and with our continued commitment to supporting people to access all their social security entitlements.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to constituency and general supplementary questions.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Hundreds of women in the Grampian region are travelling hundreds of miles to the central belt for vital breast cancer treatment. I was alerted to that issue this week by a clinician, who told me that there are great concerns about the impact of the treatment delays on patients’ chances of recovery.

The First Minister knows that the situation is intolerable. Coupled with issues in NHS Tayside, which I have raised here many times, there is a significant issue regarding breast cancer care in north-east Scotland. Why has that happened? What can the First Minister do to fix the situation? What guarantees can he offer today that NHS Grampian is working urgently to restore a full service?

Delays to cancer treatment cost lives. Will the First Minister commit to a full assessment of the devastating impact of treatment delays for those women?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Michael Marra has raised an important issue. He has raised the issue in relation to Tayside before, and he is right to raise it, because we do not want any delays in treatment.

I should say that those who are asked to travel for treatment will get the best possible care, wherever they are asked to travel, but of course we want them to be treated as close to home as they possibly can be. That is why we have increased our funding and head count in relation to oncologists and consultants over the years. However, there continues to be a shortage in some health boards, including NHS Grampian. I will therefore ask the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care to write to Michael Marra with the details of the conversations that he has had with NHS Grampian and other health boards in whose areas there is a shortage, so that we can get to a position at which the best treatment for breast cancer and, indeed, any other condition takes place as close to home as possible.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

As summer approaches, my constituents in Maryhill and Springburn will increasingly be subjected to the dangers of the irresponsible use of off-road vehicles such as quad bikes. People have been injured and lives have been lost—I am talking about riders and the wider public.

At Westminster, the Glasgow North East member of Parliament, Anne McLaughlin, is seeking a legislative change to require off-road vehicle registration, and the Home Office has promised to establish a task force. However, we must do stuff in Scotland, too.

What can we do in Scotland? I am thinking, for example, about the need to support Police Scotland in its often hazardous task of clamping down on irresponsible off-road vehicle use, including enforcement, and—importantly—about promoting responsible usage. Will the Scottish Government meet me to see what work can be done in Scotland?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I share the member’s concerns about the antisocial behaviour that can be associated with those vehicles and about the risk to the safety of the public and the riders. The legislation that governs the registration of off-road vehicles, including quad bikes, is reserved to the United Kingdom Government, so it is there that we need action.

Bob Doris is right to mention the legislative change that Anne McLaughlin MP is pushing for. I hope that MPs can back that sensible change.

I fully support Police Scotland as partners in dealing with and handling the misuse of such vehicles. Local policing teams are ideally placed to engage with members of the local community to identify whether the misuse of such vehicles is causing problems in our neighbourhoods.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The number of recorded sexual crimes in Dunfermline is now higher than it was before the pandemic—1,000 sexual crimes have been reported in the city since 2017. Of those crimes, 223 were reported in 2022-23, which is a significantly higher number than the 163 such crimes that were reported in 2019-20, before the pandemic.

Local charities such as Safe Space—an organisation that supports survivors of child sex abuse in Dunfermline—work tirelessly to support victims of those horrendous crimes, but the numbers of those who are coming forward to use the service are such that they are simply overwhelming. It is obvious that current policy is not working. What will the Scottish Government do to halt the alarming increase in sexual crime?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank Roz McCall for raising what is an exceptionally important issue indeed. We in this Government have always said that we must, first and foremost, improve the criminal justice system for those who, unfortunately, end up as victims and survivors of sexual offences, and I hope that we can get the support of the Conservatives on that.

On the prevention element, I know that Police Scotland is working extensively and tirelessly with communities to prevent sexual crimes from taking place in the first place. We will seek to do all that we can to support organisations such as Safe Space and many other third sector organisations. I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs writes to Roz McCall with some of the detail on what we can do, working in collaboration with both Police Scotland and—crucially—excellent third sector organisations such as Safe Space.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Forgive me for not giving advance notice of this point, but I noticed that only three back benchers have been able to ask constituency or supplementary questions today. Unfortunately, that has become a bit of a pattern at First Minister’s questions. I know that a number of members on all sides of the chamber have very pertinent issues to raise. Are you reviewing any potential changes to the format of FMQs that would allow for a far wider range and volume of back-bench questions to be asked and for the First Minister to answer them?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I thank Mr Greene for his point of order. I think that it is fair to say that I have shared my expectations with members on that issue on many occasions, and I have put forward my recommendation for timings of questions and responses. It is fair to say that there is still significant work to be done in the area. I note that, at the beginning of session 5, the Parliament extended First Minister’s question time, for the very purpose that Mr Greene outlined. I certainly hope that we will see a real move towards that, because it is really important that as many members as possible have those opportunities.

There will be a short suspension to allow people to leave the chamber and the public gallery before the next item of business begins.

New Energy Infrastructure in the North of Scotland

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-12842, in the name of Tess White, on new energy infrastructure in the north of Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button now or as soon as possible.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament acknowledges the reported concerns of communities across the north of Scotland, especially those in Aberdeenshire, Angus, Moray and the Highlands, regarding new energy infrastructure; notes that the Scottish Government reportedly indicates that this infrastructure is needed to meet the 2030 offshore wind connection dates and its net zero targets; recognises what it sees as the importance of decarbonising the electricity system, and notes the belief that the strategy to achieve net zero should use a variety of energy sources and consider all infrastructural options, such as undergrounding electrical transmission cables or submarine cables, in order to protect the local economy and character of rural communities; understands that the concerns of rural communities relate to the location, scale and accelerated timeframe of these projects, and that they feel their views are routinely disregarded by the Scottish Government’s current strategy, which has reportedly resulted in an unjust transition taking place in rural communities across Scotland; notes in particular the impact of these plans on the wellbeing of affected residents, who are reportedly worried about their health, businesses, property value, cultural heritage, and the potential loss of prime agricultural land; understands that affected residents have criticised the consultation process of transmission network operator, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN); highlights petition PE2095 to improve the public consultation processes for energy infrastructure projects, which was lodged in the Scottish Parliament by Margaret Tracey Smith; notes the calls for the Scottish Government to ensure that local community submissions are considered as a key factor in considering what applications and routes should be approved; acknowledges what it sees as the strength of feeling among affected communities that rural Scotland is being disproportionately impacted by new energy infrastructure, and recognises local campaigners who are working to raise awareness of these plans so that the voices of affected residents are heard.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am pleased to have secured parliamentary time to raise the issue of plans for massive transmission infrastructure in the north of Scotland. Thank you to all members who supported the motion.

The proposals in question, which have been put forward by Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks Transmission, include a new 400KV pylon route from Kintore to Tealing in the north-east, as well as two new substations. If plans are allowed to go ahead, that towering and sprawling infrastructure will puncture our countryside and industrialise our rural communities. It will affect our hugely productive farmland in the north-east, which is seen as the bread basket of Scotland and boasts malting barley, soft fruit, bulbs and field vegetables. It will impact the local economy, and there are concerns about not only the financial implications but the implications for community wellbeing.

The public gallery is full of representatives from the affected communities, and I thank them for coming today. They have travelled from Angus and Aberdeenshire to protest outside the Scottish Parliament because they feel utterly disillusioned with and disenfranchised by this process.

We are told that this new infrastructure is needed for the connection of ScotWind offshore wind projects in the North Sea. The Scottish Government has exclusive discretion to approve and deny applications for offshore wind in Scotland and Scottish waters. There is already too much energy being licensed into the grid, far too few connections and an insufficient transfer mechanism, yet the first ScotWind leasing round allocated more offshore wind than anyone expected. In other words, the Scottish National Party Government sold it cheaply and it sold off much more than was needed.

Little thought was given by the SNP Government to the transmission network and the infrastructure required to land the power from those projects in the north of Scotland. It is no wonder that the Climate Change Committee concluded that the Scottish Government has failed

“to bring to the Scottish people, and the Scottish Parliament, a climate change plan that is fit for purpose.”

We are all keenly aware of the challenge that Scotland and the United Kingdom face as we continue down the road to net zero. We know that we need to decarbonise our electricity system, but many of the people who will live and work in the shadow of those monster pylons or next to the whopping substations do not feel that they are being helped along that road. For them, this is an unjust transition.

To reach net zero, we need joined-up thinking between the Scottish Government and transmission operators such as SSEN, as well as close working with local stakeholders. We need careful, consistent and considered engagement with affected communities, but that simply has not been the case.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I reiterate Tess White’s praise for the campaigners who have come to our Parliament today to protest outside. It is also good to see significant numbers of them at a members’ business debate.

Tess White was discussing consultation and listening to the communities. I have been contacted by many farmers in Moray who are concerned about the proposals to put large pylons through good agricultural land. Does Tess White believe, as I do, that much more needs to be done to listen to the concerns of our farmers and communities, who are raising serious issues about the proposals?

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Yes, we need to listen to the farmers. We are talking about productive land—once it is gone, it cannot come back. Food security is just as important as energy security.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I will touch on the important point that the member made about engagement with communities. I am sure that, like me, she shared the shock and real anger when the proposals for the new overhead line appeared seemingly out of nowhere at the start of last year, as it had not featured in any of the project plans that had been published up until that point, when there had been talk about line upgrades rather than a new line.

Does the member agree that meaningful consultation by the authorities that are responsible for those decisions should have been done before we got anywhere near a planning application and that proper, full and transparent consultation needs to be undertaken by National Grid Electricity System Operator Ltd when it takes important decisions that have massive ramifications for our constituents as well as for wider rural Scotland?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Tess White, I can give you the time back for that intervention.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am glad that Mairi Gougeon raised that issue, because she is a minister in the Scottish Government and, as I said at First Minister’s question time, the Scottish Government needs to use its devolved powers. It cannot, as the Minister for Energy, Just Transition and Fair Work did, wash its hands of the consultation and of this process.

My background is in the energy sector. I know the importance of proper consultation, and SSEN’s consultation has fallen woefully short of an appropriate standard. It has totally and utterly dropped the ball. The anxiety and stress that it has caused my constituents is simply unacceptable. Yesterday, SSEN committed to consider alignments that are proposed by communities and landowners and confirmed that it has delayed the overhead line alignment consultation. It is such a shame that it has taken a very visible demonstration from community groups to push SSEN into landowner and community consultation.

Affected residents know that, once SSEN has made its choices, the final decision will not rest with local councils. The buck, as I have said, will stop with the Scottish Government’s energy consents unit, and that is what terrifies those residents. That is because many communities have already gone through the trauma of being steamrollered, with industrial-sized wind farms being put on their doorsteps.

That is bad enough, but, last year, SNP MP Alan Brown even tried to remove the right of local planning authorities to have a public inquiry into situations such as this. That has not been lost on local communities. That change was averted thanks to Andrew Bowie, the Scottish Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, who stopped it in its tracks. We will fight to retain the right to have a public local inquiry where the developer and the community are not able to agree terms.

Just last week, the Minister for Energy, Just Transition and Fair Work washed her hands of the whole issue. She said that it was up to the transmission operators to bring the affected communities with them. That will be hard for her constituents in Turriff and New Deer to hear.

The reality is that this is the wrong kit in the wrong location. It is perfectly possible to put infrastructure underground or offshore, and that needs to be an option.

I support the communities behind Save Our Mearns, Angus Pylon Action Group and Deeside Against Pylons in their petition to change the SNP Government’s approach to what will be a generational change in our landscape. [ Applause .]

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I advise those in the gallery—it is very good to see you here in such large numbers—that although this meeting is taking place in public, it is not a public meeting. Therefore, we do not permit participation, and that includes applause.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Tess White is to be congratulated on bringing forward such an important topic for debate.

I will start by saying that I have a great deal of respect for the Minister for Energy, Just Transition and Fair Work, who is extremely intelligent and diligent. I gently suggest that this really should have been a Government debate. [ Applause .] If my opponents could stop applauding me, that would be less embarrassing.

I am deadly serious about this, because Tess White’s motion covers a huge range of complex but absolutely essential matters for the future of Scotland. I was energy minister for five years—it was a privilege—and I was and remain a staunch supporter of renewables. I granted many consents for offshore and onshore wind farms, and I think that that was the right thing to do.

Five judicial reviews were raised against the Scottish Government and we won every single one. In fact, we managed to beat two particular litigants: one was a famous north-east businessman from the United States, who is now a presidential candidate, and the other was the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. We won both reviews, and I do not know from which victory I derive the greater satisfaction—it is a toss-up.

In all seriousness, I want to make a couple of points, because there is not time in this short debate to do justice to the topic. First, there needs to be an electricity generation balance. As so often, it was Winston Churchill who summarised the issue when he said that, when it came to electricity generation, the solution was “variety and variety alone.” In other words, we cannot rely solely on one mode of generating electricity. Each mode has pros and cons; we cannot put all the eggs in one basket.

As a supporter of renewables—particularly the green freeports in Inverness and Cromarty Firth, where great work is done by many companies that already employ thousands of people and will employ thousands more, which is great for the Highlands—I ask whether there is now too much emphasis on wind energy. Do we not need to look at forms of electricity that are not stochastic or intermittent, such as gas? I think that we should.

Gas is now part of the approved European Union taxonomy. In other words, the EU says that it is an acceptable form of electricity generation with regard to emissions. My understanding is that the SNP wants to follow EU regulation, so perhaps the minister could say whether that automatically entails, as a concomitant conclusion, that we are now for new gas power stations. There needs to be back-up when the wind does not blow or the hydro power does not provide electricity because of seasonal issues. Every type of renewable energy has advantages and disadvantages.

Secondly, we should always ask ourselves, “Cui bono—who benefits?” I am really concerned that there will not be enough benefit to, for example, people in Kiltarlity and Broadford. I know that the debate is primarily about the north-east, but the member also mentioned the Highlands. Who benefits?

Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Power need to do far more. Why do they not create new housing as a lasting legacy? I do not mean just £5,000 per megawatt—that is yesterday. There needs to be a debate. I know that lots of good things are being done, but not enough is being done.

I am not quite sure how much time I have left, Presiding Officer.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You have run out of time, Mr Ewing.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I will finish by urging the minister, in all sincerity, to have a three-hour debate about the topic, because I cannot do it justice in the time that I have and I do not think that anybody can. The issue is hugely important to Scotland. We have to reflect, get things right and not just rush on regardless, without reflection. Above all, we must listen to the people of Scotland, wherever they are from—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to conclude, Mr Ewing.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

In life and democracy, everybody counts or nobody counts.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you. There is a lot of interest in participating in the debate, as Mr Ewing anticipated, so members will have to adhere to the speaking time allocations if we are to get everybody involved. I call Tim Eagle for up to four minutes.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will try to nip on within my four minutes, Presiding Officer. I declare a bit of an interest in that I have previously worked in the field for crofting groups, advising them on tenancy rights and expected rents for a wind farm in the Highlands.

I offer my apologies to Tess White and the other members in the chamber. Unfortunately, after I have spoken, I have to go to another debate in the Parliament on an important rural issue that came up yesterday. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for giving me a pre-agreement that I could do so.

That is not to take anything away from the debate. The fact that we have so many people here for a members’ business debate shows just how important the issue is. I echo Fergus Ewing’s comment that it does not do the topic justice to debate it in 45 minutes. We really need to have a much longer debate about the issues and what is going on, because the green future that we want can be achieved only if we all come together—communities, politicians and everyone else.

Most people, including me, recognise the climate emergency that we face and the need for action and change. I want to be clear that I do not see this debate as one about climate policy or politics. The debate is about how we reach climate goals together and how we ensure that the beauty of Scotland—and it is beautiful—which hundreds of thousands of residents and tourists enjoy each year, is not destroyed.

The trouble with politics is that, sometimes, in our race for the goal, we lose sight of all else that is important. In our race to secure a future of renewables, I believe that we are losing sight of the impact that the infrastructure is having now. We simply must stop to consider the how of our green future.

I fully support a strong renewable energy industry that creates jobs, provides community support and, importantly, expands and contributes to the Scottish economy as a whole.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I agree with everything that Mr Eagle has said in that regard. Does he support my calls for making mandatory the consultation and engagement with the public by transmission operators?

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Yes, I think that we would support those calls. However, it has to go beyond that—we need to see true engagement. At the moment, the likes of SSEN are putting forward pitiful proposals that are not fully developed, and they are turning up to meetings without the full knowledge base. Mandatory consultation and engagement are important, but we also have to make sure that the minister and the Scottish Government are listening to what the communities are saying. That is really important.

Yesterday, in the chamber, when she was questioned by my colleague Oliver Mundell, Gillian Martin commented on the need for meaningful engagement with communities. Oliver was trying to suggest that we should have legal support for communities during public inquiries. I would go further than that. In my previous life as a land agent, it was quite common for applicants to pay the professional fees for landlords and tenants where projects were being considered. I see no reason why that cannot be expanded to community groups. Applicants should give a fair amount of money so that community groups can seek professional support. At this point in time, they are on their own.

I also recognise that we are seeing some negative effects of the changes, and one of them involves water supplies. Some water supplies have decreased in areas where wind turbines have gone up. More thought needs to be given to the places where those projects take off, and we must ensure that there is financial support should things go wrong. At the moment, communities are being left on their own.

Specifically, Tess White made a point about the SSEN pylon work in the Highlands and Moray, on which I have received a phenomenal number of letters and emails. That is a huge development, and many local groups are rightly concerned. My thought is that there is a subsea alternative and that the only reason that SSEN is not pursuing that at the moment is cost. That alternative should not be off the agenda—it has to be discussed.

As politicians, we have spent years telling communities to get involved through community planning boards, local planning, local action groups, community councils and area forums. The Government’s Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 talked at length about quality of life and engagement. Today, there are nearly 100 people sitting in this chamber, and many more at home, and they are engaging. The Government needs to listen, provide support where it is needed, tell SSEN to think again about its pylon plan, and work with communities to select the right locations in the right places, so that we can build our sustainable future together.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank Tess White for securing the debate. I am the sole non-Conservative signatory to the motion, which I do not entirely agree with, but I felt that it was important to have this debate in Parliament today. I agree entirely with Fergus Ewing that there should be a debate on the issue in Government time, so that we can explore it fully. There is much that I will not be able to say today as a result of it being a members’ business debate.

The failure to upgrade our energy infrastructure will jeopardise any chance that we have of achieving climate change targets that are set by both the UK and Scottish Governments, led by the SNP and the Conservatives. There is a shared mission in that regard, as Tim Eagle pointed out.

Having engaged with many experts on the issue, I have been persuaded by the case for overhead lines, but it is incumbent on the Government to make the case to residents who are here today and to those who have not been able to join us. I hope that the minister can do some of that today and can, more broadly, build the confidence of residents in that regard.

In February, I visited the village of Careston, near Brechin, and met local residents. Many accepted that the Kintore to Tealing project will go ahead, but they were seeking the best route for that overhead line, in order for it to have the least detrimental impact on residents, the environment and businesses. Residents expressed their concerns about some of the information that was used to determine the route for that overhead line, including the maps that were being used, SSEN’s familiarity with the topography and the failure, in their view, in not having somebody walk the line to understand the environment that they were intervening in. The impact on farming land was particularly acute.

Businesses were also impacted, including a local business that is at the cutting edge of new farming technology and a range of tourism businesses in the area from which I have had representations. As local employers, they have significant concerns about what the project will mean for the livelihoods of many in the areas and the potential for any compensation in that regard.

I am grateful to SSEN colleagues for meeting me on numerous occasions so that I could raise some of those issues with them. We have had constructive discussions about the challenges and the potential solutions, but more work must be done to improve those plans.

SSEN has rightly pointed out that the energy policies and targets that have been set by the UK and Scottish Governments require the infrastructure to be built. There is politics at play in the discussion, but it has to be done on the basis of achieving the ends that we all agree on. In some respects, the company is caught in the middle of that. I believe that both Governments have failed to communicate to the public just how necessary the infrastructure improvements are.

I gently point out to Conservative colleagues that the need for energy infrastructure upgrades is as much a result of UK Government policy as it is of Scottish Government policy.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I agree with the member’s point about communicating the need for the infrastructure upgrades, but does he not agree that there is a need for the ESO and wider society—indeed, the media—to communicate the need for that if we want to reach net zero, and for energy security reasons?

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I strongly agree with that. It is incumbent on all of us to have that conversation. Again, I signed the motion to have the conversation here today and I encourage the Government to do its own part in that regard. There is a case to be made by both parties and I have already spoken about that in the debate.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Not at the moment; I want to make some progress. I am sorry, but I am almost running out of time.

I was pleased to see SSEN announcing yesterday that it is actively considering community and landowner-proposed alignments in the Kintore to Tealing project around Careston, Drumoak and Echt. I know that SSEN is also engaging with some of the businesses that I met in Careston.

The planning route has to be flexible and responsive and when I have pushed the contractor, I have found them to be so. However, when I speak to some of the protesters outside, I recognise that they do not share that experience. I encourage them to get in contact with me, where possible, or other representatives, so that we can push their case with SSEN and see the changes that are absolutely necessary.

As the projects are rolled out across Scotland, I have been saying to colleagues that this is a film coming to a cinema near them, frankly. It is not just about the north-east; it will impact citizens right across Scotland, so the Parliament has to take note of it.

There is a broader issue about community benefit. We have to see economic benefit, by which I mean jobs. We have to see the supply chain investment that we need. We had a meeting in Parliament this morning, organised by Michelle Thomson MSP, to talk to investors. We have to make sure that jobs accompany the projects, because that will secure the support of the public more than anything else.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It is always a pleasure to follow Michael Marra, but I am sorry that I cannot agree with the premise of his argument on this occasion. His starting point is that the overhead line is the only possible solution and that is clearly not the case.

I thank Tess White. She is a doughty champion for her constituents and I am delighted that she has raised the topic in the chamber.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I will give way because I mentioned Michael Marra.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I appreciate the member giving way. I did not say that in my speech. I said that I was convinced of the case by the experts with whom I have engaged. It is the right case, but it is incumbent on both Governments to make their case for why this is the solution that is being pursued.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

What I understood the member to say was that the overhead line was the single solution and that the case that needed to be made was for upgrading the grid. No one is arguing about the need for us to invest in the grid. What we are talking about here is how it impacts the communities of the north-east of Scotland.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member give way?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I will, yes.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I appreciate the member giving way, given the constraints on time. This is a national problem. I could fill the gallery with constituents from Dumfries and Galloway representing Hands Off Our Hills, Scotland Against Spin and Galloway Without Pylons. We are in exactly the same situation in that Scottish Power has defaulted to look at the lowest-cost consented route. It does not understand that overhead lines will not be consented because the communities do not want them, and there is a reluctance to look at undergrounding. That should be one of the first options, not one of the last.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to Finlay Carson for his intervention.

Ministers need to be aware—and beware—of the strength of feeling that there is in the communities of the north-east of Scotland about this issue. An attempt should not be made to confuse this matter in the minds of the public, because the public well understand that it is the Scottish ministers—the SNP Government—who are the ultimate planning authority on this matter.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member give way?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I will not be able to give way—I wish I could. The case for a longer debate was well made by Fergus Ewing.

We have seen how effectively the SNP can use the planning system to stop stuff that it does not like, such as nuclear power. That is another mistake. There is no point in the SNP hiding from the issue, as it is trying to do.

When SSEN says that it cannot underground or offshore the lines and gives spurious technical excuses for not giving alternative solutions active consideration, I am afraid that it does not wash. I can see Michael Marra gesticulating, but that does not wash. We know that undergrounding or offshoring is feasible.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member give way on that point?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I wish I could.

Look at what is being done in Germany to protect its natural environment from megapylons and overhead lines. It is building a 200-mile-long underground cable route, which is called A-Nord, that will transport renewable energy from the north to the south of Germany. Therefore, it can be done.

I do not know any members of the community action groups—many of whom, as has been said, are here today—who are opposed to clean energy or renewables. We may not all share the enthusiasm of some for the vast wind farms that we now see crowding our landscapes, but we all recognise the need to decarbonise and renew the grid.

However, the current plan industrialises rural Scotland with mega metal structures and power lines. We have before us an infrastructure project that will stand for between 50 and 100 years. With an eye on such a timescale, why are we rushing ahead with the lowest-cost, most intrusive solution because of some artificially imposed deadline?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will Stephen Kerr give way?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I would love to be able to give way, but I cannot.

I cannot understand why anyone would think about sacrificing our country’s natural beauty and the wellbeing of our communities. Scotland is renowned for its magnificence. People come from all over the world to visit the most beautiful country in the world. They spend hundreds of millions of pounds. Are we really prepared to blight our tourism sector?

As MSPs, we should be empowering, not undermining, Scotland’s natural beauty. I whole-heartedly support the aims of the Angus Pylon Action Group and the Stop Tealing Industrialisation Group, and I commend them for their campaign. I fear for communities in places such as Jericho and Douglastown, just next to where my grandparents, Charles and Maggie Kerr, farmed as tenants.

I am not speaking against what needs to be done to address the issues of clean energy and energy security, but I am not willing to stand back and see communities and landscapes being sacrificed when other options exist, but those options are not properly being addressed.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I thank Tess White for securing the debate. Whether we always realise that energy infrastructure affects every one of us, people in rural constituencies such as mine probably realise it more than most.

To achieve the net zero emission targets of the UK and Scottish Governments by 2050 and 2045, respectively, the independent Climate Change Committee has forecast that a doubling of electricity supply will be required to meet demand. Naturally, that will require extensive improvements to and expansion of our existing electricity infrastructure.

As other members have accurately pointed out, the Scottish Government faces limitations in reforming energy policy, as that is a matter that is reserved to the UK Government. I will give an example of that. Outdated transmission charges result in higher electricity costs for residents of northern Scotland, despite the fact that renewable energy sources are based there.

The UK Government’s wider lack of adequate regulation leads to wider problems for rural and island areas. For instance, a constituent of mine was recently told by Octopus Energy that it had not encountered the island’s postcode before, and that fitting a new meter could therefore take several years.

To return to the matter that we are debating today, I believe that there needs to be a greater understanding of how critical existing and planned infrastructure updates are to ensuring the safe and reliable transmission of electricity across Scotland.

I wish to focus on one particular project, which I understand has provoked debate along its route, to offer a different, more westerly perspective. Electricity for the whole of my constituency, the Western Isles, is currently supplied by two subsea cables from the north of Skye. Significant sections of the electricity line between Fort Augustus and Skye were built more than 70 years ago. Those sections are fast approaching the end of their operational life, as is demonstrated by three major faults suffered on the line during the past year.

The recent total failure of the cable between Skye and Harris resulted in 20,000 people in Lewis and Harris having to rely on a 70-year-old diesel-fired power station in Stornoway for several months. That was obviously far from ideal from an emissions perspective, and it has caused some anxiety about future sustainability. I should point out that the existing overhead line between Fort Augustus and Skye is a single circuit, with no back-up transmission circuits in the event of a fault. I have to register the view of many island constituents that a double-circuit replacement there would greatly strengthen network resilience and reliability.

One point that has been made very well is that community input is absolutely essential for infrastructure projects such as overhead lines. Listening to and addressing local concerns should be prioritised, not treated as an afterthought or as a tick-box exercise. When people work well together, important improvements can be made to proposals. I understand that, as a direct result of stakeholder feedback, SSEN is now planning—I hope—to underground some sections of the Fort Augustus to Skye line in the area around the iconic Cuillin mountain ranges.

As we move towards our net zero aims, we must look to do what is right for Scotland’s future generations. Communities must be listened to, and we must upgrade and expand our energy infrastructure so that it is fit for the years ahead. Those two aims need not be, and indeed should not be, in opposition to one another.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am conscious of the number of members who still want to contribute to the debate, so I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Tess White to move such a motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Tess White]

Motion agreed to.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I start by congratulating my colleague Tess White on securing this vitally important debate. I pay tribute to Tess, who, like my colleague Stephen Kerr, has raised this issue time and again in the chamber. I also give big thanks to all the campaigners who have made their way down to Parliament today to have their voices heard on what is such a vital issue.

We often hear calls from the Government for a just transition for the north-east. However, what is going on with the electricity infrastructure plans is an unjust transition. Would it be just if we saw the mass industrialisation of the north-east of Scotland in the pursuit of net zero? I do not think so, but that is exactly what is happening right now. Local communities such as those in Turriff and New Deer are angry at the lack of understanding from this central belt-focused Government. They feel ignored, sidelined and shut out by a distant Holyrood, which is completely unaware of the needs of rural Scotland and is hell-bent on destroying vital natural environments that are key to the economic future of the north-east.

It is nothing short of vandalism that is being done to rural communities throughout the north-east. Last week, I asked the Minister for Energy, Just Transition and Fair Work, Gillian Martin, to ensure that the devolved Government used the planning powers that it has to ensure that the overdevelopment of those areas is stopped. The answer then was nothing short of a disgrace: passing the buck and saying that the Scottish Government has no powers to instruct the transmission operators to opt for underground cabling. Well, minister, you have—

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am stating a fact when I say that legislation and regulations relating to energy and gas networks are reserved to the UK Government. Therefore, we cannot mandate any kind of engineering—overgrounding or undergrounding—but that could be done by the UK Government. Will the member write to the UK Government and make that point?

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

You are right: you cannot dictate to the operators what they must do, but you can dictate to them—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Speak through the chair, Mr Lumsden.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

She can dictate to them what they cannot do.

As we have already heard, you have planning powers to stop nuclear power stations, for example. You used the powers then—you could use those powers in exactly the same way to stop what we are seeing across the north-east of Scotland.

We are elected to the Parliament to represent and speak up for our constituents. Judging by the hundreds of emails that I have had on this subject, and the demonstration that we have had outside today, that is exactly what I am doing.

SNP MSPs are failing in their duty to represent the needs of our hard-working constituents. Gillian Martin is meant to be in Parliament to represent communities; instead, she is ignoring them: ignoring their pleas, emails—as I heard earlier—and calls, and their protests at what is being done to them.

We have seen and experienced the abject failure of the SNP Government in listening to the needs of our rural communities. It is a litany of failures and there is no end in sight, no matter whom the SNP chooses to lead it or with whom it partners. The party is so focused on independence that it has lost the ability to listen to our communities, which I am proud to serve.

I am fully behind our move towards net zero, but it cannot be at any cost. The decisions that we make now will be with us for the next 50 to 100 years, so let us do it right. We cannot allow the desecration of the north-east of Scotland to take place. We must work with our communities, not against them.

I think that we all agree that something needs to be done, but—[ Interruption .]

Sorry—is that an intervention from Michael Marra? No.

The vandalism of our natural environment, the focus on the needs of the central belt and the deliberate rush to destroy our beautiful countryside with unwanted, unnecessary pylons must stop. I am proud to support the motion today, and—more importantly—I stand with, and support, my constituents, who have travelled here today. I fully support them.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Tess White for bringing to the chamber this important debate. Of course, it is not a new debate, and there are many lessons from history. After the second world war, Tom Johnston brought hydro power to the glens for the first time, which led to dramatic economic progress and improved quality of life for so many communities. It would be wrong to assume, however, that that progress came with no cost. Some communities were abandoned, and pristine rivers were damaged—some, such as the River Garry, are starting to recover only now.

There will always be a balance to be struck between national energy needs, local and global environmental impacts and the need for communities to have a stake in both decision making and the economic rewards of projects.

In more recent times, the Beauly to Denny power line upgrade—which, I believe, was consented by Mr Ewing—has left us with many lessons. The debates from 18 years ago are now being rerun all over again with the SSEN programme. I will reflect on some of those debates, in which I was involved at the time.

First, there were arguments that no grid upgrades were needed, and that wind farms would never be built. However, today, we have to accept the reality that the Beauly to Denny scheme was needed, that it led to the construction of onshore wind farms, and that those wind farms have slashed the climate impact of electricity while benefiting communities across the UK through lower electricity generation costs.

Lord Callanan, the Conservative UK Minister for Energy Efficiency and Green Finance, was absolutely right when he said:

“we need to build about four times as much transmission infrastructure by 2030 as we built in the previous 30 years.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 February 2024; Vol 836, c 193GC.]

The missed 2030 climate target reminds us that there is no path to net zero, in Scotland or the UK, without a massive switch from fossil fuels to electricity for both transport and heating. The reality is that the bulk of that can come only from renewable energy, and the new transmission lines will be required to get that energy to where it is needed.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If there is time in hand, I will give way to Mr Carson.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I will be brief. Taking into account everything that Mr Ruskell is saying, would he agree that the current planning system is completely broken? Local authorities and planning departments do not have the capacity to deal with applications, and when they do deal with them, we see the sort of thing that happened in Dumfries and Galloway, where eight of the 12 applications to which local communities and local authorities objected then saw those objections overturned by the energy consents unit in the Scottish Government.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not have much time to respond to that; a three-hour debate on this issue would be fantastic. There are certainly lessons to be learned from the Beauly to Denny line about early engagement with developers. In this case, of course, it goes through a different consenting process from the one that local authorities are engaged with. The critical issue here is early engagement, and I will come on to more points about that later, if I have time.

Secondly, reflecting on the Beauly to Denny line, some people acknowledged the national need for grid upgrades but believed that undergrounding was a panacea—out of sight, out of mind, shove it all underground. I wish that that were the case, because there will undoubtedly be a landscape impact from new pylon lines. They are not pretty, but digging a motorway-sized trench through sensitive landscapes and farmland and across rivers and streams causes environmental damage, leads to vulnerability of supply and requires vastly more expensive infrastructure—that is just a reality.

Thirdly, in relation to the Beauly to Denny line, some communities accepted the need for pylon upgrades and reluctantly accepted that complete undergrounding might not be feasible but successfully negotiated changes with developers. They not only won route alterations but managed to secure other improvements, including the removal of existing infrastructure such as substations.

I am pleased that there appears to be some progress in the negotiations around the current SSEN programme, just as there was with the Beauly to Denny project, but it is clear that the developers need to go further. They need to double down on their work with communities and find compromises that are not going to be welcomed by everybody but will become more acceptable.

My final point is about mitigation. The long, drawn-out and bitter public inquiry into the Beauly to Denny project led to years of wrangling before a programme could be agreed and delivered. We cannot afford another four-year public inquiry process with the SSEN programme. These projects must be delivered faster if we are to make progress. Communities cannot wait for funding for landscape mitigation to come years after the event.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to conclude.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Developers need to design those options with communities alongside the route selection process.

The grid upgrades must happen—they cannot be delayed. It is inevitable that there will be some landscape impact, but developers need to work harder with communities, minimise the landscape impact and invest in the future.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

As many of my points have been covered, I will try to be brief. I start by thanking Tess White for securing the debate. I also welcome to the chamber people from the north-east who are part of Deeside Against Pylons, including constituents of mine. They are just some of the many who have travelled down to protest against the Scottish Government’s destruction of our countryside.

Over the past year, I have repeatedly highlighted the impact of the Scottish National Party Government’s unjust transition and how it will affect our rural communities. A month ago, I spoke about the hundreds of wind turbines that are currently in the planning process. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to two 12kW farm turbines that were built a decade ago, which are 45,000 times smaller than those planned in the Cabrach, an area that is impacted by the Government’s plans to install 3,400 turbines between 2022 and 2030.

The report “Beyond 2030” proposes nine new major overhead lines across rural Scotland in addition to the current pylon proposals that rural communities are fighting against. Alternative options must be seriously considered, such as undergrounding and subsea cabling, which an Ofgem briefing just this morning states is most appropriate for transmission over long distances. Decisions need to consider the environmental impact on our countryside and, more importantly, on the people who live there and will be directly affected.

I have urged the Scottish Government and the energy minister, Gillian Martin, whose own constituency will be affected, to listen to the calls from local communities—and her constituents—for them to have a statutory voice in the planning process, as happens elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As it stands, communities are not being made aware of these developments at an early enough stage to influence the proposals. Consultation events are nothing more than tick-box exercises for developers and are used to pit communities against each other.

My inbox is inundated with messages from constituents telling me that their concerns are repeatedly ignored by developers, that their requests for meetings are rejected and that events are held during the working day, when most people are unable to attend.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member recognise that the lessons from the Beauly to Denny project show that it is inevitable that the pylon lines will be constructed and that now is the time for developers to be working with communities on landscape mitigation, route selection and ensuring that the projects are developed in the best way? It is not about communities being pitted against each other; it is about having a process that gets to an outcome, delivers on climate and delivers what electricity consumers across the UK need and what his Government minister at Westminster wants to see.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree that the pylons are the only solution. The purpose of the debate is to discuss what options are available not just for transmission but also for the production of energy—a wider debate about that would be beneficial, too. As Fergus Ewing said, we need to have varied sources of electricity.

Rural life is under threat, and I have heard from hundreds of constituents whose homes and livelihoods are at risk. There are currently more than 1,400 community objections to the Hill of Fare wind farm development, and I have lost count of how many messages objecting to the pylons I have received even in the past 48 hours, but, under the current process, those voices could be ignored. Further, it is not clear what involvement local authorities have, as people are told they cannot lobby their councillors on those applications.

Homes cannot be sold, farmland will be lost, historic sites and battlefields will be torn up and tourism will fall while the decisions are taken by Scottish ministers and the energy consents unit, who do not have to suffer the consequences of their work.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

I am just closing, and the minister will have an opportunity to respond when she closes the debate. She can also say whether she will give communities a statutory voice in the planning process, as occurs in England. Further, will she review her onshore wind targets, which are causing this destruction of our countryside? Finally, will she meet community groups, as she is meeting developers? The SNP must listen to those who have come to Edinburgh today and must give communities a statutory voice.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I thank Tess White for securing the debate.

We all understand the need to transition to greener and sustainable fuel options. Put simply, electricity demand is set to double by 2050, and we must act now to deliver sustainable energy for our communities. The Scotland leasing round has exceeded expectations, almost tripling from an initial 10GW projection to the present 28GW, and the UK Government has also massively increased its offshore wind ambitions, stretching its overall target to 50GW.

Fundamental to all of that is our transmission network. However, it is resoundingly clear that the grid poses one of the biggest barriers to the deployment of our renewable energy pipeline. It is important to understand that electricity network legislation and regulations are reserved to the UK Government, with the electricity system operator responsible for electricity planning across Great Britain and closely regulated by Ofgem.

The pathway to 2030 project sets out the plan for new grid investment, connecting renewable energy to homes and businesses across the UK. The commitment that has been made by SSEN Transmission to invest more than £20 billion this decade for critical grid upgrades is hugely significant for Scotland’s economy and energy security and for the aim of reducing energy bills for everyone. However, it is absolutely imperative that significant infrastructure development derives from industry and community needs, with communities having the opportunity to engage in the process, so that areas are developed in a consensual way.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Yes.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank Audrey Nicoll for giving way and for speaking in today’s debate, because one of the things that concerned me and my constituents was that, without Michael Marra’s support, the debate would not have happened today and the subject would not have been aired. Why did Audrey Nicoll and her colleagues not support the motion to have the debate?

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I note that, during the debate, it has been suggested that there should be a wider debate on this matter, and I would fully support that.

In my constituency, strategic infrastructure projects in the form of an energy-from-waste plant, a new harbour and, potentially, an industrialised former green space, all within line of sight of the Balnagask area of Torry, have left residents feeling disconnected and disenfranchised. Getting the balance right is essential. I am pleased that SSEN Transmission has, just this week, committed to considering proposed alignments to the Kintore to Tealing project, with consultations on proposed substations at Emmock and Hurlie taking place next month, as planned. Like other north-east MSP colleagues, I have regular, open and positive engagement with SSE on a range of energy issues.

There is a pressing need for pace in developing such projects from desktop ambitions to project delivery. Although some goals are still years away, there needs to be action now, given the scale of the upskilling that is required. Delays in consenting risk pushing back some ambitious projects by years, which would risk jobs and vital investment.

However, we must strike a balance between the voice of communities and the planning process. In that regard, I would welcome additional guidance from the chief planning officer on national planning framework 4 policies on transmission infrastructure. I also support wider reform of the current section 37 process to streamline consenting for critical infrastructure. Fixing a clear period for consenting is required and should be delivered through the UK and Scottish Governments working together to address existing legislative challenges while protecting democratic rights at a local level.

As Mark Ruskell noted, Lord Callanan, the Minister for Energy Efficiency and Green Finance, said:

“we need to build about four times as much transmission infrastructure by 2030 as we built in the previous 30 years.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 February 2024; Vol 836, c 193GC.]

I agree.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have listened very carefully to the powerful contributions from across the chamber this afternoon, and I align myself with most of them.

I will focus my remarks on the wider issues underlying the situation, because Fergus Ewing is absolutely right: the issue is bigger and should be debated in Government time. What people are facing is a function entirely of the Government’s utter negligence and incomprehensible failure to come up with a holistic energy plan. It is all well and good for the Government to proudly trumpet that it wants to get to net zero by 2045, but surely any responsible Government would do more than virtue signal and would, instead, work out how to get there in relation to energy generation.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No. I say to the minister, with respect, that she can respond in her closing speech.

Audrey Nicoll is wrong. This is not about every other agency bar the Scottish Government. In fact, a responsible Government would produce a holistic energy strategy that recognises that we need a balanced energy mix, and that incorporates upskilling, support for jobs and a meaningful supply chain.

Instead, we have the usual piecemeal silo thinking, which is epitomised by a draft energy strategy that is years late, remains unsettled and does little more than signal a damaging presumption against oil and gas extraction in the North Sea. We have a Government that, in the face of all the evidence suggesting that its preconceptions are wrong, states that it will refuse to give planning permission for any new nuclear developments in Scotland, so when Torness nuclear power station closes, which could happen as soon as 2030, there will be no nuclear generation in Scotland’s energy mix.

The Government crows that it has licensed the generation of about 28GW of electricity from offshore wind in the north of Scotland. It reckons that it can power the UK on wind that is generated in the north, but it gives cursory thought to how that electricity can be transported around Scotland and to markets throughout the UK. It is precisely that lack of thought—that abject failure to plan how to move the electricity around—that has ended up with our having this debate today.

It stands to reason that, if we have a proper energy mix, with energy stored in a different form—oil and gas, for example—or generated from where it has historically been generated, such as at Torness or Hunterston power stations in central Scotland, we might not need enormous pylons carving up the countryside of the north-east. They are not the fait accompli that Mark Ruskell seems to think they are, with people just needing to get used to them.

The second issue also relates to the lack of a plan, in the absence of such there is no coherent holistic consideration of how we might use the power generated. At a basic level, if we generate 28GW of offshore wind, power must go into the grid and taken to market or, presumably, large constraint payments must be made to turn the turbines off if they generate too much. Transporting electricity in that volume drastically increases the magnitude of infrastructure required—more pylons, more transmission lines and more substations. Leaving aside Stephen Kerr’s passionate and sage analysis of alternative methods, surely one of the solutions that should at least have been considered and strategised is electrolysing the power into green hydrogen as a battery or for use if the market is there. That could be transported in a different way—perhaps through the existing gas network.

I accept that I am simplifying, but I cannot understand why on earth the Government is not taking that holistic approach and getting to solutions in advance, with carefully structured, meaningful strategies around location, source and how best to transport and use what is generated.

The Government’s virtue signalling, silo thinking and inability to do proper strategising and planning have led directly to the situation that we find ourselves in. That tells us all that we need to know about how much the Government cares about performative posturing and how little it cares for the people and countryside of the north-east.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I invite Gillian Martin to respond to the debate. Minister, you have around seven minutes.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

First, here is my offer: will everybody who has called for changes to the regulation of electricity infrastructure and for market reforms that allow communities to have a stronger say in how the infrastructure is engineered in a way that is appropriate to the geography, and who mandate further community engagement and the holding to account of developers in relation to how they engage, join me in making that happen and in going to the people who can make that happen?

The people who can make that happen are in the UK Government, which sets the regulations. I have been calling on the UK Government to make reforms that would help the people in the gallery today. It is important that we manage people’s expectations and do not push them into the wrong place when they could make meaningful change by contacting the right people.

Legislation and regulations relating to electricity networks are reserved to Westminster, and any changes to those regulations are made at the UK level. That includes direction of what engineering solutions are appropriate. The UK could change that in regulation. The ESO—again, a UK body—is responsible for the strategic approach to transmission investment.

I want to make the offer to everyone that we work together to make sure that communities have more meaningful and mandated engagement.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will, but before I do, I will say that I did not start the debate in the way that I would customarily do, by thanking Tess White for opening the discussion, so I do so now. There will be plenty of opportunity for us to debate the issue when I introduce the energy strategy, but I take on board the need for a wider debate to look at the effect that transmission infrastructure is having on communities, and how we must be flexible in the approach to it.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister raised the issue of mandatory consultation, which is important. Does she agree that the quality of that consultation is extremely important? Will she support the Save our Mearns petition on that point?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I agree with Tess White’s point, because of the stories that I have heard from members today and also from people who have emailed me. I cannot speak on particular potential applications—people need to understand that I would be breaking the ministerial code and putting everything in jeopardy, legally, if I did that. However, I listen to what people are saying and I take on board the fact that many people are not satisfied with how they have been engaged with.

Alexander Burnett made a point that I have often made to developers: they must tailor their engagement in a way that does not exclude anyone. He mentioned them having public meetings at a time when no one is able to go to them. That is ridiculous. That is not meaningful engagement.

Applications arrive on my desk for determination at the end of, as has been said, a very rigorous process, and I take that responsibility extremely seriously. However, before that application, I cannot tell developers how or where they site infrastructure and I cannot hold any position on what engineering methods they use to transmit power. Instead, I must judge the plans and the rationale that are put forward and make a decision based on what they have submitted. I cannot make any—I mean any—comment on the merits or otherwise of a development.

However, I can certainly say what I want to see from those who intend to make those applications. I expect applicants to have made every effort to reach out to affected communities. They must put forward rigorous environmental impact assessments where necessary. They must put forward a comprehensive and evidenced case for their development and the decisions that they are making about how they conduct the development, where they put the development and why.

I also very much expect that they explain the rationale for their plans, and, with regard to every application against which there has been a community campaign—as has been the case with many of the cases that have been mentioned today, which I cannot speak to directly—I expect them to have taken that on board, worked with those communities and been flexible about those concerns.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Despite all the engagement that is promised, we need to address the intransigence of the power companies to change their minds. You can consult all day but if they are not in a position to change their minds, that is completely and utterly pointless. A lot of the conflict that we see in communities is due to that intransigence.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Again, I agree with the member. The engagement must be meaningful. One of his colleagues earlier quoted me saying that. That is why, if we have mandated engagement with guidance on what is appropriate and how that should be done, communities can hold developers to account. That is what I would like to see, and that would help us all greatly. At the moment, when I hear stories about developers that have not been engaging I think that, first of all, they are not doing themselves any favours whatsoever. That costs them money and puts them back years. They need to engage early, the engagement must be meaningful, and they must demonstrate an ability to look again at their plans and make adjustments that will bring the community with them.

Extreme weather events have seen homes and businesses left without power, not least in the north-east. Many households in my constituency and across the north-east lost power for over a week during storm Arwen. I think that we all agree that an upgrade is also needed to the existing transmission infrastructure.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the point about extreme weather not make the case for more undergrounding of cables? Or do you believe—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Speak through the chair, Mr Lumsden.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

—like Mark Ruskell that it is a fait accompli—that these pylons will go up regardless of the result of any consultation and that communities just have to get used to it? I think that that attitude, which we heard earlier, is appalling.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have already said that I cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of any engineering solutions. I must look at what is put in front of me. However, these developers have a responsibility to work with communities and explain or adapt their plans with regard to the engineering solutions that they will provide. We have already heard that there has been flexibility in particular areas, and long may that continue. That is the only way that developers will bring communities with them.

There will be impacts on the communities that host that infrastructure. Communities and statutory bodies must have the opportunity to engage in the process as early as possible.

I hosted a round-table meeting with fuel poverty campaigners yesterday, along with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. Inequity was a strong theme. Higher fuel costs in rural areas contribute to higher levels of fuel poverty. This is an inequity, and I agree very much with my friend and colleague Fergus Ewing that we should ask “Cui bono—who benefits?” We are hosting this infrastructure; our communities must see the benefit of that.