Seòmar agus comataidhean

It has been just over a year since John Swinney publicly apologised to Eilidh Beaton for what he described as her “terrifying experience” at Portree hospital on Skye. He said that it was “not good enough” and that Sir Lewis Ritchie’s recommendations on restoring urgent care “must be implemented”—he claimed that that is what would happen.

However, a year later, incidents keep happening and, last week, NHS Highland admitted that the current model for urgent care is not working. Skye SOS national health service campaigners told the West Highland Free Press that it was “shambolic”. One said:

“They have been pulling the wool over our eyes all this time.”

John Swinney was in Skye on Monday, pressing the flesh for a Scottish National Party by-election campaign. To their disappointment, he did not meet local health campaigners. Why did the First Minister not find time to meet those who are fighting to get urgent care restored at Portree hospital? Does he accept that the promises that he made to the people of Skye, which were made in this chamber, have not been delivered? When will they be delivered?

Last week, the energy consents unit approved the Skye reinforcement project, overruling the decision of Highland Council and proving without doubt that it is not elected local representatives but unelected officials in Edinburgh who have the final say in large energy infrastructure projects.

Last Saturday, community councillors from across the Highlands met in Beauly for a convention chaired by local councillor Helen Crawford. In their agreed unified statement, they confirmed their opposition to what they rightly called the “unjust and unnecessary industrialisation” of the Highlands. They declared that community consultation was “inadequate”, that local democracy was “being overridden” and that local decisions were being

“disregarded by the Scottish Government.”

What is the cabinet secretary’s response to that unified statement? With further meetings planned, will she agree to meet convention members and elected local officials to hear at first hand from the people who are impacted by the intrusive energy infrastructure that her Government is forcing on their communities?

To ask the Scottish Government what new measures it has introduced in relation to supporting improved community engagement and respecting local democratic decision making, when section 37 applications for energy infrastructure are considered. (S6O-04817)

The Scottish Conservatives, too, will be voting against the SSI. Does Ariane Burgess agree that these regulatory changes are premature and that we need to see the evidence first—as, I think, she hinted—so as not to replicate the inshore industry’s issues offshore? As the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation set out in its evidence to the committee, there has been no investigation into what impact extending the boundaries will have on wild fish stocks and on migratory salmon.

Those of us who use the A9, or any of the other major or smaller roads across the Highlands and Islands, will be well aware that visitor numbers are already increasing ahead of the summer. This time last year, I asked the cabinet secretary about some of the specific issues that are caused by camper van drivers, those using e-bikes and other visitors who are unfamiliar with roads that are often challenging and, too often, are in a poor state of repair.

Is the cabinet secretary confident that the Scottish Government is doing enough to improve road safety across the Highlands and Islands in particular? Will she reassure me that she believes that my constituents are safer on our roads this year than they were last year?

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it has introduced in the last year to improve road safety across the Highlands and Islands. (S6O-04721)

I am pleased to speak in the debate, which is on a subject that is of great importance to my Highlands and Islands region. As others have done, I recognise the benefit of community owned energy and of the projects right across the region, particularly where they help to increase and support local resilience, which is important. However, I will focus on the Scottish Conservative amendment and the challenges that communities across my region face from energy infrastructure.

There is a growing frustration and anger from those living and running businesses across the Highlands and Islands who feel under siege from large-scale energy projects being forced on our communities. For years, many have been subjected to wind farms from which they see little or no benefit, as power flows past their homes but their bills keep on rising. In Shetland, fuel poverty is an ever-present issue for many households, despite the islands hosting onshore wind farms producing hundreds of megawatts. As Beatrice Wishart mentioned, the Viking wind farm was supposed to power around half a million homes, although, as she rightly said, some of the concerns over those figures have not been met. However, that does not keep bills in Shetland down.

New onshore wind farms continue to be given the green light and existing sites continue to grow, despite millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being spent every year on constraint payments. In 2024, those payments rose to £380 million. That money is not going into local communities; it often goes into the coffers of multinational companies and, in many cases, national Governments, such as those of China, the United Arab Emirates, France and Ireland.

A lot of those issues are around planning, so they are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, which cannot keep washing its hands of every issue. The minister’s Government has responsibility for this issue, and I will come on to a little later.

The issue is not just the turbines but the pylons, transformers and huge battery storage sites, as others have mentioned. Communities are having invasive industrialisation forced on them. A week or so ago, I met residents who are being impacted by proposals for a substation at Fanellan. Some want to sell their homes but are being told that interest in their property is being reduced because of the proposals; others want to stay and fight the proposals, which they are concerned are for a site in the wrong place.

As I raised with the SNP Government in a question only last week, those residents and others across the country simply do not have the money, resource or expertise to contest such plans. They are up against massive companies with huge financial and legal resources, so how do they compete with them? I asked the minister that exact question. I asked him what support does

“the Scottish Government provide ... for local communities to access legal and regulatory advice, or does it expect local people to foot the bill to protect their homes and their local communities?”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; c 15.]

His response was to just deflect, which I guess answers the question for those communities. You have to protect your own communities, because the SNP Government certainly will not.

The same issues are faced by communities across the Highlands and Islands. At Glenelg, there are plans for a new route for power lines, which threatens one of Scotland’s most iconic views—one enjoyed by thousands of people every year as they take the Glenelg ferry to Skye. The issue is not only the infrastructure but those undertaking its development. Two large accommodation camps are planned around Broadford on Skye, which will bring hundreds of workers into small communities, which local residents fear do not have the facilities and amenities to cope with them. The community’s very nature risks being impacted—and impacted for many years.

In my recent surgery in Dalwhinnie, those who are impacted by the Earba pumped storage hydro project highlighted their concerns. Such concerns are common among so many across the region. What will the impact be on those who live near the project? How will local roads, which are sometimes single track only, cope with increased traffic volumes? How will the work be co-ordinated with other major projects, such as the dualling of the A9—if that happens—in order to avoid the perfect storm of disruption? The most frustrating, and most commonly asked question, is: why can local communities not be kept better informed by developers and Government?

For many of the communities that I have spoken of today, the issue is about not only planning but democracy and power. Many of us in the Highlands and Islands support renewable energy in principle, but what we oppose is the current model, which puts corporate interests and national targets over community voices. To hit those targets, the SNP is pushing a top-down energy policy that is leaving residents and local communities feeling ignored, sidelined and sacrificed. There is a serious democratic deficit, with planning decisions often overriding local objections; local consultations and engagement are tokenistic at best; and too many residents learn of new projects only when the approval process is already well advanced.

Anger is so great because there is a feeling that the unprecedented concentration of proposed energy developments would never be tolerated in the central belt, that our communities are being exploited in a way that Government politicians would never allow in their own areas, and that our communities and homes are threatened by a wave of central-belt environmental imperialism.

I remind everyone of what the Scottish Conservatives are calling for today in our amendment:

“Community consent needs to be at the heart of energy production ... pylons and other electricity infrastructure are increasingly being built without the support of residents ... and the Scottish Government should give communities more say over local energy production.”

There is nothing in the Scottish Conservatives amendment that any MSP who is truly representing their constituents’ wishes should oppose. They should support our amendment or answer to their constituents if they do not.

An update on the dualling of the A9, which was meant to be completed this year, was noticeably absent from the cabinet secretary’s answer.

I have repeatedly highlighted the growing crisis in our ferries fleet, including vessels that are operated by our councils. In Highland, Orkney and Shetland, there is an increasingly urgent need for a serious replacement plan, the cost of which could run into billions of pounds. Without passing the buck to local councils, which the cabinet secretary knows fine well are reliant on funding from the Scottish Government, what does she estimate to be the cost of any replacement scheme over the next 10 years? Is she comfortable with progress on delivering any replacement scheme, given that there is still no timetable, cost projection or funding commitment in place?

Will the member take an intervention?