Chamber and committees

I thank colleagues from across the chamber who have so clearly set out the challenges that our road networks face.

I want to start by acknowledging the very real and life-changing consequences of not getting our road infrastructure right. Tragically, last weekend, two of my constituents, both just 24, died as a result of a crash between the Toll of Birness and Mintlaw. They were a young couple with so much life ahead of them, and their deaths are all the more tragic because of the dangerous nature of the roads north of Aberdeen. Those of us who live and work there know that it is dangerous, and we will continue to call on the Government to make safety improvements. That is why I brought this debate to the chamber: to make our roads safer and to save lives.

The variety of MSPs who have spoken today make it very clear that the problem with our roads is an issue from the very north to the very south of Scotland. Whether you are in the north-east or the south-west, our trunk road system is not fit for purpose for today’s needs. If we are to encourage growth, build economic prosperity and make the most of our industries, we need a road network that meets our ambitions and requirements. It is not just an economic issue. As I mentioned earlier, it is a matter of life and death. Today, we have heard of the tragic consequences of our poor roads and the undualled A9, A96, A75 and A77. We have heard about families left devastated and communities rocked when people are killed and injured on our roads.

Back in 2011, the SNP first promised, in its manifesto, to dual the A96 by 2030. The SNP has now promised a refined package for the route. The refined package, which is more of a regressed package, is not much use when you are a business trying to move your goods between Inverness and Aberdeen, and it does not help rural communities, who are left wanting—unconnected and struggling to access the rest of Scotland safely. The SNP says—it has repeated it today—that it supports the dualling of the A96. If that is the case, come back with a timescale and a plan, so that we can all see it. Over the past four years, all that it has done is kick the can down the road. It is all too wishy-washy, just like the SNP’s amendment to the motion. There are bits of the amendment that I agree with, but it makes no commitments on the projects that we highlight in the motion, which is why we cannot support it.

We are used to broken promises from the SNP, whether it is on dualling the A9, the A96 or even, as once promised by Alex Salmond, the A90 between Aberdeen and Peterhead. Whatever happened to that promise? There has been no mention of that promise by the cabinet secretary today. The sad reality is that these delays and broken SNP promises are leading to deaths on our roads and in our rural communities. Sadly, the Parliament is becoming numb to the repeated deaths that happen week in, week out. This is not good enough, and this SNP Government needs to realise that it is to blame. Jamie Greene highlighted the lives that have been lost on the A9. The number of deaths would be less if the Government had stuck to the timescale that it had promised.

There were questions about whether this should have been a wider debate. If it had been, I am sure that Sue Webber would have spent four minutes talking about Winchburgh station. She also highlighted the value of the logistics industry and spoke about the lack of rest stops, which will become more important as we move towards electric or hybrid HGVs or hydrogen vehicles. On the lack of toilet facilities, Emma Harper made the point very well: we would not put up with a lack of facilities in this building, but that is what we are asking our logistics drivers to do day in, day out.

The Labour proposal to charge EVs 3p per mile seems a bit of a back-of-a-fag-packet policy, to be honest. It would hammer rural drivers, and I have no idea what would happen if you were driving a hybrid vehicle—whether you would have to pay double.

There is a spare slot next Thursday, so, instead of MSPs sloping off early—

Members: Oh!

Using the time next week for debate would give the SNP Government the chance to come clean on its fantasy claims and answer those questions. The debate could also give the Government the opportunity to defend the conflict of interest that my constituents in the north-east find so worrying, which is the fact that the chair of SSEN is one of the First Minister’s advisers for the ministerial code of conduct. We have a situation where the energy minister meets SSEN regularly but fails to meet concerned community groups who are seeing their countryside being ruined by monster pylons, substations and battery storage, and the First Minister and his advisers turn a blind eye. [Interruption.]

—let us make the most of the little time that we have left in the current session of Parliament—[Interruption.]

Let us make the most of the little time we have left in the session and have a debate on the Scottish National Party Government’s energy strategy.

When we come back in January, there will be a birthday, but it is not one to celebrate. It will have been three years since the SNP Government published its draft energy strategy; three years since the SNP announced its presumption against new oil and gas; and three years since the SNP turned its back on the oil and gas workers in the north-east, with the loss of thousands of jobs. One can see why, therefore, it is not a birthday to celebrate.

I have asked the SNP Government about 20 times if a new energy strategy will be published, but each time I have been met with a blank look, as if the lights are on but no one is in. However, maybe today will be different and the failing SNP Government will agree to my amendment. Just this week, the First Minister has been keen to speak about energy. He has chased the headline “It’s Scotland’s Energy”, claiming that he could save people a third off their bills. That is a bold claim, but he gave us absolutely no detail about how that would happen.

The time next week would be an ideal opportunity for the SNP Government to set out its fantasy plans. Will those plans mean more onshore wind infrastructure scarring our countryside, or is the First Minister now in favour of zonal pricing, which his Government did not previously support? Does he want to stop the monster pylons that are costing billions—

Members: Oh!

It stinks, Presiding Officer. It is clear that, when it comes to approving large-scale energy infrastructure projects, Gillian Martin gets to be the judge, jury and executioner. She fails to listen to the voices of our communities but is happy to jet-set around the world in business class to sell our countryside to the highest bidder.

Having the debate next week would give an opportunity to members of the Parliament who took part in a convention in Inverness four months ago to fulfil the promise that they made to the public on that day. During that convention, MSPs signed up to

“Undertake to do all that we can across our representative parties to secure urgent debates at both Holyrood and in the House of Commons at Westminster on the attached Unified Statement of the Highland Convention of Community Councils dated 14th June 2025.”

The statement was about looking at the impact of energy projects on local communities and the damage that they were causing. Douglas Ross signed it, as did Jamie Halcro Johnston, Tim Eagle and Fergus Ewing, as well as Emma Roddick and Maree Todd. An SNP minister, no less, signed up to have more debating time on energy infrastructure in the chamber. If she does not support my amendment, in effect, she will have deliberately misled the 400 attendees of the convention in Inverness.

We have time next week, so let us use it to have a full debate on the impact of energy infrastructure on our communities and finally have some answers on the energy strategy.

I move amendment S6M-20068.1, to leave out from third “followed by Business Motions” to “3.10 pm Decision Time” and insert:

“followed by Scottish Government Debate: Energy Strategy

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time”.

In that case, may I ask about consultation and engagement with the fishing industry? Has the industry had an input to this? Has it raised concerns about the legislation?

I am looking at the Companies Act 2006, which refers to companies that are “entirely or substantially” funded by a public body. You have said that the figure is £800 million.

I am trying to make sure that what we are being asked to approve today is actually legal.

Why did you rule out eight or 10 years? Was it just a case of you wanting to make it as high as possible in order to make that deterrent effect as big as possible?