Chamber and committees

Can I just address that?

Gillian Martin has taken a close interest in the petition and, from statements in and outside the chamber, I know that she has a keen interest in pursuing that work.

I am aware of a number of dynamic developments that are taking place at the moment. For example, the Republic of Ireland now mandates community benefit at a rate, in effect, of €8,000 per megawatt. That is compulsory. Here, the £5,000 per megawatt rate is not mandatory because there are no legal powers to mandate it, as has been noted by the Scottish Government.

However, there is movement. Just yesterday, a senior official at Highlands and Islands Enterprise informed me that SSEN Transmission is to set up a model of community benefit for upgrades to pylons and infrastructure. That is a new development, and I am keen to find out more about it. In addition, at least one offshore wind developer—BlueFloat Energy, together with Nadara—is considering and promoting community ownership for offshore wind. That is an example that many other projects may wish to follow, so it could have enormous importance.

Finally, coupled with that, I understand that the UK Government is not unsympathetic to some kind of scheme for community ownership, and one wonders whether that might be one of the most practical purposes for funding from Great British Energy, possibly alongside the Scottish National Investment Bank. HIE has a close interest in taking all of that forward, because much of the activity is in the Highlands and Islands.

Although I appreciate that we are moving towards the end of this session of Parliament, all of those developments—and probably others of which I am unaware—mean that I am keen to write again to the Acting Minister for Climate Action to ask for further information as to when the energy strategy and just transition plan will be published and whether, specifically, it will contain proposals for community ownership. We could also ask for some detail of the work that is being done with the UK Government and for a ministerial statement at some point, perhaps in the autumn.

Community ownership is an idea for which the time has come—interest in it is growing throughout the country, and concern is growing about some aspects, including visual impacts, of renewable energy in Aberdeenshire, the Highlands and many other places south of Scotland. If we do not get on with it now, Scotland and Britain will be missing a trick. I am sorry to go on about it for so long, but I think that there are compelling reasons to keep the petition open and to allow the petitioners the full opportunity to benefit from what seems to be a congenial political environment.

With respect, cabinet secretary, we know all that and you have said all that. We are not on “Just a Minute” but with repetition, deviation and hesitation allowed. We are in Parliament, and we want an answer. The question was, will the statement be issued before the end of this session of Parliament? Yes or no?

We can agree to disagree about that, but I will try to be helpful and make a suggestion. Ms Baillie might have an interest in this as well. I am thinking ahead to the work that we might do together in the next session of Parliament. We might want to take a leaf out of the book of the approach in Germany. In 2003, the German Government published a plan of all roads infrastructure projects that were to be undertaken by 2030. Laying out that plan had the benefit of giving certainty to the public and assurance to the contractors that the work would be available in a continuous stream over that period of nearly three decades. It also served to take the heat out of the political debate. Therefore, the nation came together to produce one plan.

We all support projects in our own part of Scotland. Whether it is you, cabinet secretary—or whoever happens to be the cabinet secretary; I no longer harbour such ambitions—or Ms Baillie, surely it would be sensible to do this better in Scotland, because the way that we are doing it means that every part of Scotland is disappointed to some degree. However, we all reckon that we cannot do everything at once, and a long-term plan would surely be a far better approach for the next few generations ahead.

Okay. The answer is no, then—you are not giving that assurance, cabinet secretary, I am afraid.

Surely, if we assume a capital budget of £4 billion to £6 billion for the years ahead—that is what it has been historically—there is more than enough money to fund the project from existing capital. Cabinet secretary, are you not able to say that, if the consultation concludes that public finance is not the right option, you will nonetheless be able to provide the assurance that the funding can come from the existing capital budget, which is plainly more than sufficient to do the work, provided that the Highlands are treated as a priority?

We now travel from Loch Lomond up to the inner Moray Firth as I speak to PE2132.

In her introductory remarks, the cabinet secretary said that orders have been issued, that the compulsory purchase process will be completed and that, thereafter, the procurement will be determined and a timetable will be set. The petitioner asked for a timeline and a completion date for the dualling of the Inverness to Auldearn section of the A96, including the Nairn bypass, to be published by this Easter. Although I do not want to dwell on what is now classified as ancient history, the pledge to deliver a Nairn bypass was first made—by our party, cabinet secretary—in 2009 and became a Government pledge in 2011. As far as I know, it has been repeated at seven elections, which must make it the daddy or the granddaddy of all pledges and the longest extant undelivered promise by the Scottish Government.

I have one very simple question for the cabinet secretary. Will she today provide a clear and unambiguous assurance that a ministerial statement will be made before the end of this session of Parliament to set out a detailed timetable for the delivery of the dualling of the road between Inverness and Auldearn, including the Nairn bypass, and will that statement include a firm date when the work will be completed?

You have not given it. I have asked you for it and you have not given it, so I will move on to the next question.

At the moment, the Scottish Government’s capital budget for 2024-25 is £6.2 billion, of which £4.7 billion comes from His Majesty’s Treasury. That is just one year’s budget. The cost of the work that I am talking about is considerably less than that.

There has not really been a substantial investment in major road improvements in the Highlands. We have seen welcome improvements in the rest of Scotland. I welcome that, as a Scot, and that is great, but we have not seen those improvements in the Highlands. Our argument—the excellent campaigning efforts of the Inverness Courier are exactly aligned with mine—is that it is the Highlands’ turn.

The Government has repeatedly promised that these roads will be delivered, including the A96, by 2030. So far, we have spent £100 million on the dualling of the A96 project but not one centimetre of tarmac has been laid. That is quite an extraordinary feat of profligacy—

I have studied the petitioner’s response to the Scottish Government’s written submission of 31 January. The petitioner’s written response, published on 13 March, raises a whole series of issues, some of which are somewhat technical and legal.

The thrust of it is that the petitioner adduces various examples of statements, notably by the First Minister in 2023, who stated that there should be

“the right to public participation in public affairs as expressed in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

The petitioner has highlighted that MSPs continue to ignore the Parliament’s motion of 2 September 2012, which acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government that is best suited to their needs.

The petitioner also challenges the view that the matter is not within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament and he refers to the Scottish Human Rights Commission as endorsing that view. Without rehearsing all that the petitioner said on 13 March, the letter raises further issues of substance that the cabinet secretary, Angus Robertson, should be asked to comment on further in order to do the petitioner justice. This is the first time that we have considered the matter, and the petitioner is perhaps right when he states that it is disappointing that the Scottish Government’s reply was not issued by Angus Robertson but by an official.

Perhaps Mr Robertson could be asked to give detailed comment on all the arguments that the petitioner set out in response to the initial Government position. I appreciate that that will take more time, but this is the first calling of the petition. The issues that have been raised are substantial and a mixture of political, legal and technical. I will not add to that, as I could quote extensively from the petitioner’s detailed and helpful submission, but I feel that the petition requires a further response from the Scottish Government.

A great deal of material has been provided since we last met, and it is only fair to allude to some of it. I was astonished to see that NatureScot is arguing that it does not have enough information about the extent to which there is predation of hares. Of course we have that information. It actually has the temerity to say that

“several more years’ worth of data are needed before this survey can provide a clearer picture of the distribution and numbers of mountain hares. ”

Unfortunately, that seems to be an argument for doing little. However, we have had two submissions from Barry Blyther very recently—on 4 and 14 March—and I gather that he might have further information for the committee that he has not yet had the opportunity to convey to us. Therefore, I suggest that we give him the opportunity to provide that additional information, which I believe might be quite positive, indicating some supportive action from the minister and, to be fair, from NatureScot.

A copious submission from Barry and Roxanne Blyther, explains the pretty sad situation that, because of the inability to allow their male eagle, Stanley, to practise its natural activities in flying, it has been unable to mate with the female. That is pretty sad and “heart wrenching”, as Barry puts it. In the interests of encouraging avian amour but also to make a serious point, I say that it is pretty sad when NatureScot prevents nature from taking its natural course. It is a bit perverse, if you come to think of it, because that should be exactly what it encourages.

Having said all that, we should debate the matter in the chamber on the basis of the principle that Barry Blyther and his colleagues were not provided with the opportunity to be heard when the mountain hare ban was introduced. The current minister has gone further than previous ministers in admitting that that was entirely wrong and indefensible. It has taken far too long to get to that stage, and we should have a debate, but we do not need to do that if the minister will take sufficient action. I do not think that sufficient action can be taken through guidance—primary legislation is almost certainly required—and I do not see why that action cannot be taken through one of the bills that is progressing through Parliament, such as the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. If there is a will, there is a way. It is a very simple thing to do, so why does the Government not just do it?

We should write to the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy to seek an update on the Scottish Government’s work on the guidance and to clarify how we can rectify the mischief that plainly occurred.

Excuse me if I am repeating a matter that is on the record, but I believe that the committee also agreed to write to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to raise the point of principle, to indicate that we are minded to have a debate and to ask for its views on the matter, because I think that it arose in connection with another amendment that was sought to be lodged at stage 3 without the opportunity for proper consideration.

We should say that we are minded to have a debate, unless, of course, action can be taken to sort out the issue without one, thereby avoiding the embarrassment that that would cause to the Government for not admitting that it got this wrong. Why can the Government not just admit that it got it wrong? There is no defence whatsoever—it is a slam dunk, politically speaking.

I hope that my candour will be noted by my friend Jim Fairlie, the minister, and that he will resort to the Churchillian “Action this day”.