Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

Yes.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

As a Borders MSP, I thank Finlay Carson for this debate. We all agree that it is essential to meet our net zero targets and deter further global warming, which has affected the Borders with increased flood risk, and that we need alternative sources of energy, with turbines and pylons taking that green energy to the grid—mainly to meet the demands for energy from England. That said, I certainly agree that, as a result of significant growth in wind farms, battery storage projects and new electricity transmission infrastructure, there are real concerns in the Borders about overdevelopment.

Communities are concerned about the scale and pace of development. They want fairness and meaningful local benefit, and they feel that decisions can seem remote. I have raised their concerns about the cumulative impact of wind farms, battery storage and pylons in the Borders at First Minister’s question time. This was the exchange, which I have truncated in the interest of time.

I asked,

“whether the Scottish Government has carried out an assessment of the potential cumulative impact on the wildlife and the landscape, in light of the importance of tourism to the area.”

The First Minister replied:

“I appreciate the point that Christine Grahame makes on cumulative impact, and—

I emphasise—

“I have asked that work is taken forward to consider what further steps we can take as part of our strategic spatial energy plan. Through the plan, we will work to balance the need to deliver net zero with the need to protect our natural environment, tourism and rural communities.”

I pursued the issue further:

“I hope that there is progress …I understand that there are 30 sites in the Borders operating more than 440 turbines, with three more being built and others being applied for”

and

“the SP Energy Networks project—the cross-border connection—will require … 400 pylons”—

or thereabouts—

“to take Borders-generated energy”

south.

“That application … seems to me to be taking segmented parts of the impact in isolation, and not considering the cumulative impact. That cannot be fair when communities are certainly left getting absolutely nothing out of this but an industrialised landscape.”

The First Minister answered:

“Issues of cumulative impact are a legitimate consideration in the planning process … Indeed, there will have been examples of developments that have not been able to proceed because of the concerns about cumulative impact.”

He hoped that

“the consideration that we are giving to the implications for the strategic spatial energy plan will assist in addressing the point that she has raised with me.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2026; c 16-17.]

That is as it should be, together with improving statutory benefits to communities from developments, which currently arise mainly through agreement with the developers, and consideration of regional electricity pricing, albeit that I understand that that is a reserved matter.

Not all applications are agreed. CWP Energy wanted to build 60 turbines of up to 250m—820 feet—in height at Scoop Hill, a few miles south-east of Moffat. Dumfries and Galloway Council objected to the scheme on the grounds of its visual and landscape impact. The Scottish Government has concluded that it is

“not the right development in the right place”

and has refused permission for it to go ahead. We can look at that in the balance of the Government’s taking forward the real issues that people have—

I keep on pressing the wrong button to speak instead of making an intervention. The wrong one has come on, but it is nothing to do with me.

I think that the Welsh Government is also involved in spatial planning, so it is a UK-wide issue, and I am sure that the same issues will arise in the Welsh countryside as in the Scottish countryside.

I gave it merely as an example; I did not claim that it was the standard reply.

The key is to have meaningful consultation with groups throughout the south of Scotland and the Borders. They may not always get the answer that they wish for—as happens in many consultations—but, at the moment, we definitely need more serious consultation, particularly on the cumulative impact of turbines and pylons.

17:12

I beg your pardon. I am always doing that, convener. I mean Presiding Officer. It has been a long week.

I agree that we need a consolidation act, because anybody who is trying to enforce the legislation wants to find it in one place, not higgledy-piggledy here and there.

The recent successful prosecution case against the Hamiltons, who are part of the cruel puppy farm trade, concluded after a five-year investigation by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Thirty-three puppies were found in dreadful conditions.

The case was taken as a summary action. Although I fully respect the independence of the prosecution service and the courts, I am concerned that that approach may not be sufficient for such cases—the source of which are often serious organised crime—and that they should be brought under solemn procedure. All that happened in this case was that the Hamiltons got community service and were banned from having more than one dog for five years, which are minor penalties in my book.

I advise members that the Deputy Presiding Officer has permitted me to leave the chamber after the speech following mine, due to a conflicting and long-standing obligation that has arisen only because of the rescheduling of this debate. I very much regret that, as I certainly would have preferred to hear all contributions.

What I have to say initially is in no way to diminish the horrors of the Holocaust. Today, antisemitism is on the rise, and, in part, the conflict in Gaza gives some the fuel for an excuse for that. It is the elephant in the room, which I will address sensitively, I hope.

The atrocity of 7 October—the brutality when 1,200 Jewish people were murdered, more than 5,400 were injured and more than 200 were taken hostage—is without any defence. The international outrage that followed was absolutely right, but the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies in exacting revenge—ostensibly on Hamas, but in Gaza—are an outrage with every appearance of genocide. The death toll is more than 69,000, including 17,000 children, and at least 170,000 people have been injured. In the West Bank, the death toll is more than 1,000, including 200 children, and 6,000 people have been injured. Ninety per cent of Gaza’s population have been displaced, and the entire surviving population faces an acute lack of food, with the deliberate actions of the Netanyahu Government preventing access to food and medical aid. I add that those statistics are not from Hamas but from the Red Cross.

I make an emphatic distinction between Netanyahu and the majority of the Israeli population, who have demonstrated against his actions and who are also denied a truly free media. Netanyahu has blockaded not just their press and the aid convoys, but the international press in Gaza. No wonder those actions have been a fertile ground for stirring hatred of the Jewish community wherever it is. For that, there is no defence, but that connection has been fostered by Netanyahu. On 7 October last year, he said to the UN:

“Hamas carried out the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust.”

I was born in 1944 and I became aware of the Holocaust from my parents. Later, I read the diary of Anne Frank when I was about 15—the same age that she was when she was eventually exposed and later executed. She hid for two years, from 1942 to 1944, which is the year in which I was born. She died in Belsen in 1945, one of more than 6 million who died in the Holocaust. The connection, given her age and mine, made her more real to me and her story more heartbreaking. Her account of her life shows her optimism on the brink of adulthood, sheltered in the attic, as well as the reality of occupation and the courage of those who sheltered her. For her, that day-to-day life was normal. Her diary is one true account among those of the millions of individuals who were brutally murdered and whose lives were lost. Not many European nations could escape having blood on their hands as the death camps industrialised that murder.

We must not allow the collective memory of the Holocaust to be diminished or tarnished by the action of the Israeli Government in Gaza. The Hamas atrocity does not permit atrocities in Gaza. Gaza atrocities do not permit antisemitism. Sadly, in this month of the bard, it all reminds me of the continuation of man’s inhumanity to man.

13:07

I whole-heartedly congratulate Mark Ruskell, because I know how tough it is to bring forward a member’s bill. You have to be resilient, negotiate and stay the course—which is not meant to be a pun. I have done it myself, having had two successful members’ bills and one that failed.

I say to Rhoda Grant, who thinks that members’ bills can be random, that my Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 brought in the ideas of the deed, not the breed, and blaming the person, not the animal and was pioneering. My Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2025 included the idea of bringing in a code for what happens before people get a dog and tried to cut demand, because the supply of dogs is coming from puppy farms and we cannot make laws to deal with matters outwith our jurisdiction.

I say to Tim Eagle and to anyone else that, unless there is a change to the standing orders, every member of Parliament is entitled to bring forward two members’ bills per session. I do not see why the Government, whoever that is, should have its own way on legislation all the time. It is far better to keep Parliament democratic.

I will make another point in my short contribution.