Chamber and committees

What other Government business does the cabinet secretary routinely take family and friends to? When he was taking part in the meetings at the football grounds, did the family and friends also take part in those meetings—or where did they go?

I thank the committee for the opportunity to come and speak to you today and note that the petition—like the one that you dealt with previously this morning—has been on-going for more three years and during the time of three First Ministers.

The convener mentioned the current consultation between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments on proposals for electricity infrastructure consenting in Scotland. I fear that the direction that we are going in is the opposite to what the petitioner would hope for, and I think the proposals are an attack on local devolution and an attempt to ensure that electricity infrastructure projects, wind farms, pylons and substations are railroaded through against the will of local communities. Those dangerous proposals are basically Scottish ministers telling local communities, “We don’t care what you think; we’re going to push the proposal forward anyway.”

At present, when locally elected planning authorities object to proposals, that causes a public inquiry. The new proposals would change all that, so that an objection would trigger Scottish ministers to appoint someone to examine the application and to decide whether further evidence is required. The stated purpose of the changes is to speed up the consenting process, but that would undermine the voice of local communities who want to speak against detrimental changes to our rural communities, many of which are in the North East.

This seems more and more like a David versus Goliath scenario. Communities are finding it harder and harder to fight against proposals from energy generating companies because the legal costs make it difficult to fight generating companies, which have very deep pockets. The reduced timeframes that are proposed would make it harder for communities to fight, given that the generating companies have paid staff who can work to tight timescales. The erosion of decisions made by locally elected authorities will make it harder for communities to fight planning applications. It seems more and more as if the system is rigged against local communities. I understand that our energy system is changing, but those changes must be made with communities, not done to them.

We are in danger of destroying our countryside forever. When we look at pictures of our cities and see a place where a once-magnificent building has been demolished and some concrete thing has been put up in its place, we think, “How on earth did they get planning permission to do that?” In years to come, when we look back at what has happened to our countryside, people will ask, “How on earth did they get permission to do that?” It will be because of people, probably in Edinburgh, deciding that they know better than our rural communities.

I urge the committee to press the Government to ensure that our communities are heard, that we listen to those communities and do not press forward with some of these infrastructure projects. We might think that they are the right thing to do just now, but they will have a long-lasting effect that we will probably never be able to overturn.

I thank members for supporting my motion, which has allowed the debate to take place.

Across Scotland, people in rural communities are dependent on their cars, which are not a luxury but an everyday necessity. Constituents use their cars for every aspect of life—for work, education and shopping, or simply to meet friends and family. For many, the only realistic and reliable option is to drive. They want to do their bit and they work hard to ensure that they use their cars responsibly; they embrace reducing emissions and, wherever possible, they use public transport.

Often, however, there is no alternative. Train lines serve our major cities and towns with little reach to more rural communities and villages. Buses are underfunded and often unreliable, and it is, therefore, difficult to use them regularly. That is despite local councils in north-east Scotland giving generous subsidies and supporting those local communities to remain connected. In Aberdeenshire, we have innovative dial-a-bus services that are key to local communities. Bus companies and local authorities are doing their level best to ensure that local communities remain connected to their towns and villages, but with budgets being squeezed, we all know how difficult those decisions become.

Members who represent rural communities will know all too well the challenges that our constituents face with regard to roads infrastructure, including potholes that make roads near impassable, bridges that are crumbling and roads that are often simply dangerous. Again, that is all down to the underfunding of local government by the Scottish National Party devolved Government.

We all know that the number 1 issue on the doorstep is potholes on our roads. Once again, we are entering pothole season: the weather gets colder and roads start deteriorating again as a result of years of underinvestment and neglect. However, lack of investment not only leads to potholes—it is causing serious accidents and fatalities on our roads. It is tragic that another fatality has occurred, just a matter of days ago, once again, on the A96. I take this opportunity to send my condolences to the family. Such deaths are heartbreaking and we should be doing so much more to prevent those accidents from happening.

Such news is far too common for communities across the country, which have faced far too many fatal or serious accidents on the roads that they rely on. Those communities have been sorely let down by the Government. We cannot just keep talking about it. Next week is national road safety week—we need action, and we need a Government that will take the issue seriously.

We are rapidly approaching two decades since the SNP first made promises to deliver much-needed improvements to some of Scotland’s most dangerous roads. Almost two decades on, however, those promises remain undelivered. The SNP promised that it would dual the A96—it has not. It promised to dual the A90 north of Ellon—it has not. It promised to dual the A9—it has not. I know that my colleagues who represent the south of Scotland will mention other key arterial routes that have been neglected over those 20 years.

There is a long list of broken promises by the SNP Government, with failure after failure. After years of delay, those desperately needed projects have been kicked further into the long grass by the SNP’s decision to allow extremists from the Green Party to seize control of roads infrastructure. The Greens, with their daft ideology, have punished rural Scots for the unforgivable transgression of driving their cars, and the SNP has allowed the Greens to do so.

The A96 dualling project is a prime example of that. The SNP allowed the Greens into Government, and the price that it paid was the betrayal of the north-east and the ditching of the A96 project. The much-delayed corridor review was a way for the SNP to kick the project into the long grass to appease its extremist partners, and we still have no idea when the review report will be released. The SNP’s war on motorists is, in effect, a war on our rural communities, and the Scottish Conservatives will always stand up for our local communities.

Recently, Harriet Cross MP, Councillor Gillian Owen and the why stop at Ellon? campaign have highlighted the economic impact of those delays. By putting off the upgrades at the Toll of Birness, the Scottish Government is directly threatening the future prosperity of the region. We have an investment zone in the north-east, and the Scottish cluster Acorn carbon capture project is based in the region, but the transport infrastructure is being neglected.

Back in 2006, the then leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, vowed that, if he became First Minister in 2007, the first decision that he would make would be to dual the road between Ellon and Peterhead. That has still not happened. I would like to see the road dualled, but in the meantime I repeat my call on the Scottish Government to take action at the Toll of Birness and Cortes junctions to make them safer and to save lives.

Towns and villages across the north-east, and in every rural area of Scotland, are working hard to improve their communities, build economic growth, be more environmentally aware and attract investment. At every turn, however, they feel that barriers are being put up in their way.

We know that the Green Party was absolutely happy to hinder the Government’s ability to deliver infrastructure upgrades for communities across Scotland, with Patrick Harvie gleefully boasting of how he would cease funding for road-building projects. The Greens are happy to cut crucial funding for upgrades that would not only help to grow the economies of our rural communities and open up new opportunities, but stop rural depopulation in so many areas.

It is clear that these roads are simply not a priority for the Scottish Government. Rural Scotland is not important to the Government. Since 2016, the Government has slashed spending on major road projects, but those projects should not be seen as incompatible with our net zero goals. As Fergus Ewing said in the chamber, we should be anti-emissions, not anti-cars.

Most important—and we must never lose sight of this—is that those improvements would save lives. From north to south and east to west, thousands and thousands of Scots rely on our roads. They need a Government that shares their priorities—a Government that does not focus on ideological agendas, but delivers for the needs of the people who live and work in Scotland.

Our communities across rural Scotland need good roads to ensure their safety, wellbeing and economic growth. The central belt-focused Government needs to open its eyes to what is happening in rural Scotland, and start delivering for all our communities. While the Government is focused on priorities of independence and digging health ministers out of holes, the Scottish Conservatives are offering commonsense policies to the people of Scotland. It is only the Scottish Conservatives who understand the needs of our rural communities.

Will the member take an intervention?

The cabinet secretary mentioned reports coming in. One of the things that we are waiting for is the A96 corridor review. Will that corridor review be published this year?

Hello, everyone. Do your existing roles represent any potential conflicts of interest, and if so, how might those be mitigated so that you can maintain an objective approach to your work and cross-sectoral support? Was that discussed at the interview panel?

Would bringing back that power not allow you to have a separate assessment, to align with the Government’s political priorities?

Thanks, convener. I will leave it there.

Thank you.

No—I was actually just talking about onshore.