Chamber and committees

Will the member give way?

I will be brief. First, I want to clarify something. Earlier, Jackie Dunbar asked me about the size of the proposed pylons, so during the break in business I did a bit of homework on that. The new pylons that it is proposed should go down the east coast would be between 57m and 75m tall. For comparison, the existing ones are up to 45m tall.

My amendment 265 would cover smaller areas of land used for electricity infrastructure that, when added together, form a large holding. If an electricity transmission company owns a large number of sites with pylons, communities should have a say on how that land is used. Amendment 265 would mean that, in such cases, a land management plan would be needed and must be consulted on.

I will make one other point about landholding size. I fully support Tim Eagle’s amendment 1, which seeks to bring the threshold back to 3,000 hectares, which is what was consulted on and what was intended when the bill was introduced. Going down to 500 hectares would be completely wrong—it would bring family farms into scope. I am quite confused by the war on farmers that Labour seems to be having just now.

My thoughts are with the workers and their families at Petrofac at this traumatic time. However, I must say that the Deputy First Minister has a brass neck coming here and blaming everyone else for what is happening to the oil and gas sector, when her Government has shown outright hostility to the sector.

Yes, Labour has blocked new licences and ramped up the energy profits levy, but it is the Scottish National Party that has a presumption against new oil and gas developments and which has failed to back Cambo, Rosebank and Jackdaw. It was the SNP that demonised the oil and gas industry when it got into bed with the extremist Greens.

I hope that the jobs at Petrofac are safe, but the truth is that thousands of jobs in the sector have already been lost while the SNP has been asleep at the wheel. When will the SNP Government release its energy strategy, remove its presumption against new oil and gas and finally support our home-grown oil and gas sector?

The Scottish National Party Government is selling Scotland’s countryside to the highest bidder. The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy is quite happy to travel the world, but she cannot even be bothered to meet campaign groups in her constituency. She would rather spend her time in New York than in New Deer. What a shameful display.

The motion before us will silence communities. That will forever be the SNP Government’s legacy to communities that are impacted by megapylons. Energy companies want to destroy our countryside to reward their shareholders, and the Scottish ministers are complicit in that.

In August, community groups came together in the Highlands, because they were concerned about what they were seeing in their communities—battery storage facilities, substations, hydrogen plants and monster pylons. Such environmental vandalism is endorsed by the devolved SNP Government. I was there in the audience. Two SNP MSPs, including a Government minister, signed up to recognising and valuing local democracy and the pivotal role that all our community councils play in ensuring that democracy is respected, and to undertaking to do all that we can across our respective parties to secure urgent debates at Holyrood and in the House of Commons.

I thought that, at last, we might be getting somewhere, but, since then, the SNP Government has failed to bring the issue to the chamber for debate. The SNP MSPs misled the local community because they knew what a backlash they would have received at the meeting if they had told the truth. I have written to the minister who signed up to the declaration and to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin, to ask when the Government will hold a debate on the matter, but I have not been able to get an answer, which is shameful.

Community councils in areas of the north-east that are impacted by monster pylons and large-scale energy projects will meet to discuss the issue in Stonehaven this weekend. Will the cabinet secretary be there? No, of course she will not, because she is not interested in listening to the voices of concerned communities.

The legislative consent motion before us will make it easier for this rotten, tired SNP Government to push through energy projects. It is quite happy to sacrifice our rural communities to suit its agenda. It wants to desecrate our countryside, and the LCM will enable the desecration of our countryside. The monster pylons that I am talking about are absolutely huge, and communities are rightly worried.

However, the issue is about more than just the size of the pylons. Houses are being devalued as we speak, and farmers will not be able to farm in the vicinity of the pylons. The bill will fast-track the building of megapylons and other electricity infrastructure, ignoring communities.

There is a huge inequality in the present system. It is rigged in favour of energy companies. We have a David versus Goliath situation, in which energy companies with deep pockets face community groups that rely on volunteers and crowdfunding. It is a disgrace. We need to have a fair system that puts community voices at the heart of the consenting process, rather than the present system, which looks to silence them.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to recent reports of a rise in recorded bullying incidents in schools. (S6O-05055)

With more than 64,000 bullying incidents logged in just five years and growing reports of violence against teachers, it is clear that violence and intimidation are becoming routine in Scotland’s schools. Does the cabinet secretary agree with the First Minister’s claim yesterday that the Scottish National Party Government has not failed in education, when it is evident that it is failing to protect pupils and staff from harm?

I am sorry, Kevin Stewart, but members on your front bench would not take interventions, so I am not going to take any interventions from you.

I agree that this piece of legislation is vital, but, once again, such legislation is being rushed through the parliamentary process. Climate change legislation has been delayed and obfuscated, and is now, I feel, at serious threat of running out of parliamentary time before the dissolution of Parliament. It is important that the instrument is looked at closely, because we do not know what the costs or the impact on families will be as a result of what we are being asked to agree to today.

We have before us an SSI on carbon targets that has come before the climate change plan, for which we have waited and waited. A plan was promised in 2023, and now, more than two years later, we are promised that it will be published by the end of October so that the Parliament—and, more importantly, the public—will have an opportunity to consider, be consulted on, respond to and shape that most important strategy.

However, we are now being told that a plan cannot be published until the targets are set. We remain mystified as to why that has to be the order of things. Why are we agreeing targets when we have no idea how the Government plans to meet them? How can we say yes to the end point, without understanding the process of how we are going to get there? That was the mistake that was made last time.

How can we be sure that all our communities and, most importantly, those who are living in poorer or rural communities, are properly consulted on the impact that the targets will have? I hope that there will be some common sense about wood-burning stoves, for example, because, as Jim Fairlie tweeted during the storm last week, he had his

“wee stove keeping us warm”.

It is a good job that his party’s plan to ban them was derailed by the campaign that was led by the Scottish Conservatives.

When looking at the SSI and the amendments, the committee raised some significant concerns and asked for clarity from the Government.

Last week, I took part in “Debate Night” in Dundee, and the issue that most people were concerned about was illegal immigration and the impact on our communities.

Let us clear one thing up straight away: people being concerned about illegal immigration does not mean that they are far right or racist, as the whole woke left-wing ideology in this place tries to make out—we heard that nonsense again today from the cabinet secretary. It means that they care about how public services are going to be paid for; how our hospitals, schools and housing will cope with additional unplanned pressures; and how our local authorities can afford to keep local services running while spending more and more on the problems that arise from illegal migration.

Those are genuine concerns that cannot be brushed under the carpet, and that is why people out there are angry. We have to listen and understand, and acknowledge the anger, not simply dismiss and ignore it as every other party in the chamber wants to do. We have protests in our towns and cities, councils rocked by divisions, and financial detriment to our citizens, all fuelled by a lack of understanding and direction from this out-of-time Administration.

I do not think that I have time, Mr Johnson—sorry.

I recognise that control of immigration is a reserved issue, but we must all play our part. The SNP Government has created pull factors for asylum seekers coming to Scotland. Removing the local connection rule in particular has meant that it is much easier for asylum seekers to come to a particular local authority, and has created undue pressures on authorities such as Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City Council.