Seòmar agus comataidhean

I very much endorse that approach, especially as the petitioner has outlined her pretty horrible experience. This is a relatively modern crime that has become a thing over the past few years, and I have increasing concern that, although it might not start off as too serious, it can very rapidly ruin people’s lives and even cause them to take their own lives, as has been the case in some of the circumstances that I have read about. It is a newish and alarming development in the sad history of sexual offences, so I very much want to hear the Scottish Government’s thoughts about how it can be tackled. We might also ask the Lord Advocate to offer advice about such matters.

I see that the officials have it.

Following on from that point, I am sure that the minister will know that several applications have been submitted for pump storage projects around Loch Ness. As we have heard, there are concerns about the salmon population, angling, recreational interests, and the level of the loch and the Caledonian canal.

There is a group of people who are broadly in favour of pump storage but who feel that the current planning rules do not allow the planning authority to take a holistic view of the cumulative impact—in fact, they prevent it from doing so.

Although I welcome SEPA’s working group, every time I hear about a working group, I think that something might happen in five years’ time if we are lucky, but this problem is here and now. The applications have been submitted and they have to be determined. The problem that the petitioners have is that the applications will all be determined without the council being able to do what the minister has said should be done, in a better system—namely, to take into account the cumulative impact.

How will we avoid decisions being taken that might have significant adverse impacts on the existing interests of salmon fishing, angling and—more widely—the marine environment, recreational interests and the interests of other loch users?

All of them.

Okay—I am just conveying the feeling. I think that, for many people who were present at the meeting, what underlies that feeling is that although, as I have stated, most of them, in general, supported moving towards a renewable energy system, there is growing concern in Scotland—and in Britain, I think—that no one is asking or answering the following questions. How much wind energy is enough? How much is too much? What is the actual cost?

Constraint payments last year, 90 per cent of which were attributable to Scottish wind farms, exceeded £1 billion. The strike prices that were announced earlier today are just over £90, which is 11 per cent higher than in the previous round, and higher than current electricity costs in the UK. The UK target is 43GW, with an ambition of 50GW. The average energy usage is 44GW, so the new system will rely entirely on wind.

What happens when the wind does not blow and demand is high? It nearly happened on 8 January 2025, when there were dunkelflaute conditions with low wind and no sunshine; there was high demand and the margin of error was 1.3 per cent, or around 400MW or 500MW. In other words, there were very nearly blackouts on 8 January; we came within a whisker of blackouts.

If that is to be avoided, how, in the Scottish Government’s view, do we balance the grid? Must there not be some gas or nuclear element? Can we rely on interconnectors, given that countries in Europe are increasingly looking to secure and use their own supply and cease or reduce the amounts that are exported to the UK, and on which the UK is completely reliant in dunkelflaute circumstances?

The energy policy that was promised in 2023 has not been published—for which we have had a variety of excuses—so we do not know the answer to any of those questions. It is such a big question, and we must really get an idea of where the Scottish Government thinks that we should go on this, and certainly before the next election.

Winston Churchill put it very pithily—he said that, when it comes to electricity supply, the solution is “variety and variety alone”. Does the Scottish Government recognise that we cannot rely solely on wind, solar and other types of renewables such as hydro and battery storage? There simply will not—cannot—be enough storage within the next 10 to 15 years, at least, to avoid the possibility of constraint payments.

Constraint payments are part of the system. If there were no such payments, the strike price would not have been £90—goodness knows what it would have been. Developers bid on the basis that they will get constraint payments, so if they do not get them, the strike price will be higher. I agree with you, but it leaves a question mark over whether there is too much wind in the system.

I would like to know whether the Scottish Government agrees with me that there must be a continuing backup in the form of gas and/or nuclear—preferably both—to provide a balanced grid and to maintain stability. The stability of the grid is absolutely crucial, because if you lose it, you get the kind of fluctuation and volatility that happened in Spain over the summer, I believe—although the causes of that are under dispute.

Does the Scottish Government agree there must be backup of base load, and that it must be gas and/or nuclear?

Mr Mundell has been particularly dogged in his pursuit.

I was not going to ask about nuclear, but I think that, underlying all the objections, there is a series of wider principled concerns. That is really why I am asking the question; I think that a lot of people would like answers.

I will ask about community ownership in a minute but, before we leave the current topic, I will put one point to you, minister. Although the grid certainly requires to be upgraded, the costs of upgrading it were, this week, estimated at £4 trillion, although that figure is disputed by NESO. That is the scale of the cost. In addition, the timescale for that work will be much longer than Mr Miliband or anyone else who supports it has said will be the case. It will take decades. Is the problem, therefore, that, although there may be solutions in the future such as hydrogen and nuclear fission, and all sorts of possibilities, including more storage, it will be too slow?

Even if we support your policies and Mr Miliband’s policies, the grid upgrade process will inevitably take much longer than he says that it will. The transition from wood to coal took 200 years. The transition from coal to oil, according to Daniel Yergin, the world’s foremost energy expert, took 100 years. How can we expect to move from oil and gas to renewables in just a decade? It is just not on, is it? It is not going to happen. It is for the birds, and therefore the risks that I have described are very serious, and are growing in severity.

I appreciate your answer and your good intention. I suggested that the Scottish National Investment Bank could be a source of revenue, which is what is required. I cannot help but notice that Mr David Ritchie, who used to work for me as an official in the energy department, is now in charge of the bank and at the helm. Perhaps a phone call to him would help to unlock the funding that is needed to move things up a scale, as you obviously wish to do. That would mean that, in the next session of Parliament, there would not be five years without the significant progress that we would all like to see.

Yes. The local authority would deal with applications for projects under 50MW, and those above 50MW would go straight to the ECU. How many decisions that were taken by local authorities on applications for projects in which the output was to be under 50MW were overturned by ministers?