Chamber and committees

So, Hamas could be—

To ask the Scottish Government what restrictions it places on the use of its overseas aid. (S6O-04839)

As my colleague Stephen Kerr highlighted in his question, it was reported in The Times earlier this month that the Scottish Government prevented the aid that was sent to Ukraine from being used to treat injured Ukrainian soldiers. Were the same conditions placed on the funding that the Scottish Government provided to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for use in Gaza? Given the concerns over that organisation that led to the Government suspending aid to UNRWA, can the cabinet secretary assure Parliament that no funding from the Scottish Government was used, or is being used, to treat those fighting for Hamas? Will he seek assurances from UNRWA when he meets it tomorrow on that issue?

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.