Graham Simpson
Reform UK · Scotland
“We have a deluge of speculative applications for AI data centres across the country. We have heard already that the area that I represent, North Lanarkshire, is designated an AI growth zone.”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Murdo Fraser: Perhaps Mr Simpson has an explanation for that. Graham Simpson: I have personally congratulated Douglas Lumsden for winning that by-election. However, the only reason for the by-election was that I managed to get double jobbing banned.”
“If anything additional is needed—such as regulatory changes—as a result of this emerging technology, we need to be alive to that as well. I have been in post for three weeks in this area, but I want to ensure that this is taken forward. There is a great deal of interest in the issue across rural portfolios.”
“I move, That the Parliament recognises the importance of affordable bus services connecting people to employment, education and essential services; welcomes the success of the free bus schemes available to 2.4 million people, including all those aged under 22, over 60 and disabled people; believes that more can be done to make it easier a…”
“I want fare capping to succeed, as it has down south and as have similar schemes when tried elsewhere in Europe and indeed in these isles. The evidence is there already. In London, bus and tram travel is capped at £5.25 a day and £24.70 a week.”
“At the end, if franchising gets that far, there is the added hoop of having to get the whole scheme approved by an independent, unelected panel that is convened by the traffic commissioner for Scotland, who is a United Kingdom Government appointee. After years of effort, the whole thing could fall at that point, which is wrong.”
The complete record
Every one of 357 lines we hold for Graham Simpson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 8.
“We might contrast that with Labour in South Lanarkshire, where the council leader is seeking election to this place. South Lanarkshire has the lowest council tax rise in Scotland, but it is still inflation busting. Wherever people are, they will be paying significantly more in council tax, with an increase way above inflation, because of the way that the Scottish Government has hollowed out local government finances. We cannot blame councils for doing what they are doing—apart from Falkirk Council. Goodness knows what councillors were thinking of there. On top of council tax, there are other, fiendish ways of raising money, from parking charges, for which Glasgow is particularly bad, to—in the case of prudent South Lanarkshire Council—introducing a new fee for collecting garden waste.”
“The Government has a bit of a nerve to present itself as squeaky clean in the debate. Actually, no party is—not mine, certainly not the SNP and definitely not Labour. Last week, my constituents in Falkirk learned that they would be subject to the highest percentage rise in council tax bills in Scotland, at 15.6 per cent, because Labour rejected the already high increase suggested by the minority SNP administration and suggested an even higher amount. You really could not make it up. Contrast that with Labour in South Lanarkshire. Stephen Kerr: I am grateful that my colleague Graham Simpson has raised the issue of the Falkirk council tax increase. That was a Labour motion. Does he know that it was supported by the only Reform councillor in Falkirk Council? Graham Simpson: I was not aware of that, but it was a daft idea.”
“I point the member to the Climate Change Committee’s forthcoming advice, which will help us to shape the way forward. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio questions on net zero, energy and transport. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow the front bench teams to change position, should they wish to do so. Reducing Drug Harm and Deaths in Scotland: People’s Panel Report”
“Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Scottish Government has absolutely no chance of achieving that target? Fiona Hyslop: As the member heard me say in my answer to Richard Leonard, we indicated to the Parliament in May 2024 that there was a serious risk that that target would not be met. I have addressed that in Parliament: I think that we will have to revise our target. To do that, we need advice from the Climate Change Committee. There will be changes that will impact on where we get to in terms of emissions. We need to ask whether that extremely high and challenging target is still required in order to deliver the emissions and changes that we need. We need a reduction in car use to help to ease congestion. That is a reason why investment in public transport is so important.”
“Gillian Martin: Will the member take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Simpson is bringing his remarks to a close. Graham Simpson: I am just finishing. The Government’s bizarre motion should be rejected. We need a mix of electricity supply, and Scotland should play its part in that. 16:08”
“I am worried about Mr Lumsden’s blood pressure on many occasions, but today, he was certainly right when he posed the question whether we should put all our eggs in one basket. The answer to that must be no. Energy security and getting bills down have to be a priority. The oil and gas sector supports 83,700 jobs, so we cannot just shut it down. Everyone in the chamber wants Grangemouth—which is in my region—to survive, but they should reflect on their relentlessly negative stance towards what it produces. If we accept that we need more electricity, we have to get it from A to B. There can be no transition without transmission. Scotland will be a key part of that journey, with billions of pounds invested and the potential to unlock wider economic growth. However, that must be done with community involvement.”
“Graham Simpson: Nuclear power stations are—if the minister stops interrupting from a sedentary position, I will get the answer out— mostly by the coast. Central Scotland, minister? Think about it. The recent report from the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit and Confederation of British Industry economics showed that Scotland has had the UK’s highest growth in economic activity from net zero businesses since 2022, and the green sector has grown at breakneck speed—by a fifth. Renewables make up 4.9 per cent of the Scottish economy, generating £9.1 billion in gross value added for Scotland. Over the same period, total employment supported by the net zero economy in Scotland has grown by 19.5 per cent, which is equivalent to 16,500 full-time jobs.”
“The motion that is being debated is an example of why we need a change of Government in Scotland. Let me turn to renewables, because that is an area in which there is some positivity. Jamie Hepburn: Will the member take an intervention? Graham Simpson: Yes. Jamie Hepburn: Mr Simpson ostensibly represents the same people that I do in the Parliament, because the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency is in the Central Scotland region that he represents. He is advocating a new generation of nuclear power stations. Is he suggesting that they should be in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth or anywhere in the Central Scotland region that he represents? We are hearing that there should be new stations—where should they be?”
“I’m putting an end to it—changing the rules to back the builders of this nation, and saying no to the blockers who have strangled our chances of cheaper energy, growth and jobs for far too long.” Hostage to Putin—is that what we really want? I mentioned Germany, which is a great example of why countries should not phase out nuclear. Germany now burns more coal than anyone else in Europe in order to cover its electricity needs when the wind and sun are down. German industrial and domestic electricity prices are some of the very highest in the European Union—they are about 30 to 50 per cent higher than prices in France, which gets 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear. German industrial competitiveness is suffering from persistent high electricity prices, which have been caused by the nuclear phase- out.”
“The advice from the National Energy System Operator—NESO—to the UK Government on how Great Britain can achieve green power by 2030 included contracting more offshore wind capacity, increasing battery capacity, the delivery of carbon capture and nuclear power. The Climate Change Committee has previously suggested a target of 10GW of nuclear by 2025. I do not often agree with Keir Starmer, but he was right when he said: “This country hasn’t built a nuclear power station in decades. We’ve been let down, and left behind. Our energy security has been hostage to Putin for too long, with British prices skyrocketing at his whims.”
“However, that does not consider the cost of intermittency—the wind not always blowing—or of transmission. Scotland has the most expensive transmission network in the UK, because lots of wind power is generated in rural areas, very far from where it is needed. Stable, predictable and geographically concentrated nuclear is much more straightforward to transmit. Wind energy is available only 45 per cent of the time, and it requires back-up from gas. Nuclear is available 90 per cent of the time and is therefore more reliable. Germany, Austria and Belgium have seen their carbon emissions rise after the decommissioning of nuclear plants.”
“In debates such as this, we often get bogged down in arguments about oil and gas versus renewables, net zero versus no net zero and, as is the case with the Government motion, nuclear versus renewables, but it is not as simple as that. The truth is that there is more common ground than people—even Mr Lumsden—would like to let on that there is. This could have been a positive debate about renewables, because there is a good story to tell on that. Instead, it is a dial-the-clock- back-50-years debate against nuclear, so let me tackle that one first. The SNP Government’s view—we have known about it for years, so we do not need a debate about it—is that Scotland should not build new nuclear because the electricity that is produced is expensive.”
“If we are serious about reducing emissions, tackling transport inequality and making public transport the best option, action must be taken now, but it has to have a big vision behind it. That is not just about the Scottish budget this year, but is about setting out a vision.”
“I wish the Government well in those negotiations with COSLA, but some key elements of the plan will require in Parliament discussion of subjects that are currently taboo—demand management, automatic road tolls, congestion charges and a wide range of measures that are needed to raise the revenue to invest in public transport in order to make it low cost or free. In European cities, that is normal. Demand management and investing not just in low-cost public transport but in free public transport is not a Green dream—it is a reality and it is happening in French cities right now. They are making the choice to raise revenue and to invest in making public transport free, and are not just using peak fare reductions or anything else that fiddles round at the edges through use of complex schemes.”
“We heard contributions about the climate and the critical Audit Scotland report from Ariane Burgess, Richard Leonard and Sarah Boyack. Unfortunately, Audit Scotland has clearly said that we are “unlikely” to meet the target of “reducing car kilometres driven by 20 per cent by 2030.” It has attributed that to a “lack of leadership”, where national and local spending on reducing car usage is complex, fragmented and lacking in transparency. I hope that the 20 per cent plan, which has been under discussion for many years with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and councils, can finally be agreed.”
“I point out that someone who is trying to get a flexipass and is commuting between Cumbernauld and Dalmuir or from Larkhall to Dalmuir cannot get a flexipass. There are very limited options for regular commuters. I think that that comes down to the fact that some stations do not have automated gates. There simply is not the infrastructure to deal with cheaper tickets. I have constituents in Pitlochry who are struggling to understand whether they are eligible for flexipasses. I will have to write to the cabinet secretary on the issue. Most of my constituents who have written to me are just getting in the car and heading down the A9, because they have more or less given up trying to work out how flexipasses work.”
“Richard Leonard highlighted the lack of analysis of the impact of increased traffic growth as a result of off- peak all-day fares being removed. It was slightly disingenuous of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in her amendment to draw parallels with the Transport for London pilot. London is a very different place from Scotland: it has fully integrated ticketing and an underground rail network that spans the whole city, which is provided at low cost. As I pointed out in my opening comments, that pilot study ran only on Fridays for 13 weeks, so it is just not credible to include it in the amendment as a reason why off- peak all-day fares will not work in Scotland. There has been discussion about flexipasses, including by Maurice Golden, who raised issues on behalf of his constituents.”
“A number of members expanded the debate a little to talk about other issues that are important for the travelling public. For example, Claire Baker and Richard Leonard discussed ticket office closures. Ticket office staff play a vital role in helping passengers to access the cheapest fares. Many people who require concessionary tickets or national entitlement card tickets can purchase them only at ticket offices or on the train. There is still concern about the planned reduction in ticketing hours and potential closures, and there is concern about accessibility at unstaffed stations. Claire Baker described the evaluation report on the off-peak all-day fares pilot as probably “the most inconclusive” that she has ever read.”
“Perhaps development costs for the A96 will be underspent—I hope so. Perhaps other areas of Government funding will be underspent, so that we can redirect that funding to support people who are struggling with the cost of living. Sarah Boyack pointed out that the cabinet secretary had said that if more money became available, off-peak all-day fares would be a priority for the Government. I am not so sure about that, any more. However, more things can be done to lower the cost of travel. I believe that the price of the flexipass has been frozen until September 2025. I am not clear whether there has been a decision to extend the price freeze, but limited spending by the Scottish Government in that area could benefit people in terms of their travel choices every day.”
“To be honest, if we are being egged on to go further by the cabinet secretary, Sue Webber and Beatrice Wishart—not just to deliver a bus fare cap pilot, but to make rail fares substantially cheaper as well—I would welcome support, maybe from Beatrice Wishart in a future budget deal. The Liberal Democrats were unable to get the Newburgh rail station over the line this year, but maybe we can achieve a lot more for communities by working in a more collaborative way. To take on board the cabinet secretary’s criticism and concern, I note that there is some flexibility within the budget that the Parliament has agreed. The cabinet secretary pointed out that, previously, the off-peak all-day pilot scheme was extended as a result of in-year budget revisions. It is not clear what in-year budget revisions will look like in the coming year.”
“I want to do that and to do so collectively, which is why I call on members to support the SNP amendment, which will allow us to have the prospect of doing what members want to do but in an orderly and considered manner. 17:02 Mark Ruskell: I extend apologies from Gillian Mackay, who was to close for the Greens in the debate but is not able to make it, due to an unforeseen personal reason. So, I will attempt to close the debate. That was a disappointing contribution from the cabinet secretary. It seems that she is saying that it is actually the fault of the Scottish Greens that rail fares have been increasing for years on years—not ScotRail, nor the Scottish Government and its budget choices, but the Scottish Greens.”
“Herein lies the conundrum for the Scottish Greens. Do they support Labour and the Conservatives, who continue to talk down Scottish rail travel as being too expensive? If they continue to support that narrative, they will not encourage people to choose public transport; they will encourage them to stay in their cars. I am disappointed that we have had to increase rail fares and that the pilot did not succeed sufficiently to allow off-peak all-day fares to continue, but I will not accept the position of the Tory Opposition, which does not even believe in public rail ownership. We need a collective approach that can steer our public services, including our public rail service, through these most difficult and challenging financial circumstances.”
“The Government has broadly kept ScotRail fare increases down for more than a decade by ensuring that they are in line with inflation—or even lower than that, in the case of off-peak fares. The Scottish Government froze rail fares for a number of years while costs increased. In the absence of a fares rise, our only available option would be to consider service cuts, which would prevent people from accessing jobs, education, public services, friends and family networks. We simply cannot afford to create a £51 million black hole in the transport budget for the year ahead. Sarah Boyack: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Fiona Hyslop: I need to come to a close. None of that matters to some members in the Parliament. They do not reflect on what respective Westminster Governments have done to constrain our finances.”
“The claim also ignores how much has changed in the economy—not least the significant inflationary pressures that were largely caused by the mismanagement of the economy by the Tory Westminster Government, which have had to be applied to things such as track access charges. I hope that Labour—and Mr Leonard in particular— will refuse to support the Conservative amendment, which suggests that what Scotland needs for our railways is a return to private sector franchising. I am sure that Scotland’s rail employees would welcome positive reinforcement of the good job that they do, day in and day out, and of the services that they provide, rather than constantly being criticised by some in the Parliament. Claire Baker: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Fiona Hyslop: No, thank you.”
“It is wrong for the Conservatives to claim that the operation of publicly owned ScotRail has cost more than when it was in private hands. That claim ignores the fact that rail employees did not get a pay rise when Abellio employed them. It ignores the fact that the governance arrangements are reduced compared with the contractual arrangements that were required under private sector franchising, and it ignores the fact that the overall subsidy is now lower because of rising passenger numbers. It ignores the £300 million accounting adjustment under international financial reporting standards to reflect the valuation of leased assets, as I reported in person in evidence on the budget to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.”
“Fiona Hyslop: I gently point out that it is the day after the budget has been agreed, and it is not a small amount of funding that has been requested. It is also not a small amount of funding for some point in the future; the demand is for it to be implemented in a matter of weeks in relation to the fare increase, with a grand total of £51 million. Our publicly owned railway is performing well. Performance on the ScotRail network continues to be high compared with that of other UK train operating companies. ScotRail’s current public performance measure is sitting at 90 per cent, but we want that to improve. I have set a higher performance measure of 92.5 per cent. Claire Baker: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Fiona Hyslop: I need to make progress.”
“I am pleased that passenger numbers are increasing, even after the end of the trial, by 4.5 per cent for a four-week period this year, compared with the trial period. For the second time today, I will give way to Ross Greer. Ross Greer: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary. She seems to suggest that Opposition parties cannot bring motions to the chamber to advocate for our own policies, if we have agreed to co-operate with the Government on the budget. This was not a Green budget; it was an SNP budget that the Greens and the Liberal Democrats were able to change sufficiently to gain our support. If the Government is suggesting that we cannot advocate for our own policies once we have voted for the budget, how does she think that the Government will find any votes at all for its final budget of this session of Parliament?”
“That budget allows for investment in services and infrastructure for rail and bus, walking, wheeling and cycling, and in road safety measures, such as the rolling out of the 20mph speed limit, which I know Mark Ruskell supports. As Beatrice Wishart pointed out, the proposals in the motion risk that investment. Secondly, I am prepared to revisit having cheaper fares in the future, but proposals need to be properly thought through, discussed and agreed as part of budget negotiations, not outside them. Ross Greer: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Fiona Hyslop: The Government wants more people to choose to travel by public transport for work, study and leisure. That is why we will invest more than £2.6 billion to make our transport system available, affordable and accessible for all.”
“If it does, the Government will have to take notice and act on that instruction, because kicking the can down the road with yet another consultation will not do. 16:56 Fiona Hyslop: I want to make two things absolutely clear. First, I wanted the off-peak all- day trial to be successful. The SNP Government chose to extend it twice, using scarce resource funding, to make it a year-long trial. It was not just a Green policy—indeed, the decision on the second extension was made after the Greens had left government. However, the trial had limited success, and Parliament simply cannot and should not overturn a carefully crafted and agreed budget for transport this coming year, the day after agreeing to it.”
“We are way behind where we need to be. Transport Scotland has said that, to achieve the car reduction target, we would need an increase in public transport capacity of—wait for it—222 per cent. There is no sign of that happening, and it will not happen. Sue Webber was right to mention Winchburgh in her amendment. A new station should have been planned and agreed before any of the new houses were built there. Why can we not get the simple things right? Mark Ruskell opened the debate by saying that rail fares are “eye-watering”. He is absolutely right; others have made a similar point. I hope that Parliament backs the amendment in Sue Webber’s name, as well as the original motion, as amended.”
“We will not get people back on the trains by making them more expensive. There has been precious little sign of things improving on ScotRail since it was nationalised but, when the Government has all the levers at its disposal, it should at least use them. The bus system is too fragmented and confusing. I have long backed a £2 bus fare cap, similar to that introduced by the previous Conservative Government in England, rather than a pilot. We do not need a pilot, because we know that it works. Across the country, we need integrated ticketing and a smart card system, which can be on a phone. Other countries are using the technology that I have suggested to the cabinet secretary. In fact, we need only look at innovative regions in England, such as the West Midlands and Greater Manchester, to see how things can be done better.”
“I assume from that answer that the target is scrapped—as it should be, because the Government has absolutely no chance of hitting it. The consultation paper that was published on Monday is just a way of stalling things until after next year’s election. To achieve the target, car traffic levels would have to decrease by 4.5 billion miles from the 2019 baseline, to 18 billion miles. Car traffic levels were previously at that level in 1994. That is not going to happen, and the Government should be honest about that. However, the Government can do what we have been calling for—I am pleased to say that the Greens are now on board with it—which is to radically improve public transport. Ignoring the will of the Parliament when we voted last year to end peak fares on the railways was a bad move.”
“The report refers to the Government’s target of cutting car miles by 20 per cent from 2019 levels by 2030, and points out that, even now, with only five years to go, there is no plan to achieve that target. I would like the cabinet secretary to tell us whether the Government is still committed to that target, because it does not look as if it is. If she wants to intervene now, I will take her intervention. Fiona Hyslop: A number of issues play a role in reducing car use, not least of which is that we must work with the other Governments in the UK on incentivisation in relation to electric vehicles. The Climate Change Committee’s advice will be instrumental in our assessment of what we do to reach the target. Graham Simpson: Well, I am none the wiser. Is anyone else?”
“It has taken me a long time to get the Greens to see sense, and it has finally happened. The motion from my good friend Mark Ruskell could well be his application to join the Scottish Conservatives— although that might not be a good career move. Everything in the motion has been our policy for years. My attempts to get various transport ministers to deliver cheaper, simpler fares and integrated ticketing may not have succeeded yet, but I live in hope. Fiona Hyslop knows that I am always here to help. Earlier today, the Public Audit Committee looked at the Auditor General’s report “Sustainable transport: Reducing car use”. The report says— rightly—that “Transport is the largest source of greenhouse gas”. That makes me wonder why we would build new ferries, which pump out greenhouse gases.”
“Like Edward Mountain, I take the Parliament’s work very seriously. I like things to be done properly, whatever the outcome. The consideration of the LCM that is before us today is an example of how not to do things properly.”
“We have to make sure that we are engaged in the process and that we take it seriously, because the climate emergency will impact on our economy more regularly. The last Friday in January, when Scotland pretty much shut down, is a good example of the negative impact of the climate emergency. Although the UK Labour Government is serious about delivering for Scotland and our planet, and the SNP Government now reluctantly admits it, the Tories are determined to drag us away from progress. That is desperate politics: our constituents and our communities need more grown-up politics. Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Sarah Boyack: I certainly will not. I am winding up. Our UK Labour Government has taken more climate action in six months than the Tories did in 14 years in government. That says it all. 16:56”
“Does Sarah Boyack think that this Parliament has had sufficient time to consider the LCM? Sarah Boyack: The irony is that we are debating a very straightforward amendment, because we have debated sustainable development on numerous occasions in the Parliament. The point is about the end of a stage of a bill. We have the same issue in the Scottish Parliament when we go from stage 2 to stage 3, when, suddenly, key actors see events coming up in stage 3. The point that was made by the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee was well made, as it was the last time. We have to debate the issue now. We need to take decisive and rapid climate action. That is more urgent than ever. We cannot just have another negative debate promoted by the Tories.”
“That was also evident when I asked at the Public Audit Committee last year about the future of the police college at Jackton in East Kilbride in my region. The contract for that is due to end next year, but when Neil Rennick, the director general for education and justice, wrote to the committee on 26 July, he was not clear about what the costs would be for exiting; instead, he used a lot of Governmentspeak and talked about options, negotiations and a business case. It is important that we have greater clarity about that. Looking ahead, and this is where Mr Gibson should be cautious, we have the mooted mutual investment model, which will apparently be used to fund parts of the A9. I call that a rent-a-road scheme. If we do not get it right, the same gripes about value for money and paying over the odds will just resurface. 13:05”
“The Scottish Government has accepted these additional costs as part of its priority of investing in infrastructure”. A number of private finance contracts are due to end, with some requiring a final payment to the private consortium. The private finance contracts in the health service that are due to expire are for Tippethill hospital in Bathgate and New Craigs hospital in NHS Highland, which expire in 2026; for Carseview centre in NHS Tayside and Larkfield in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which expire in 2027; for the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, which expires in 2028; and for Ellens Glen house in NHS Lothian and Wishaw general in NHS Lanarkshire, which expire in 2029. What happens after those dates is not clear.”
“They will include the costs of maintaining the building (or other asset) and may also include other services, such as cleaning and catering, although this is less common with more recent projects.” Kenneth Gibson: Is it not a major concern, though, that, in many cases, after shelling out huge amounts of money for those projects—I quoted the Levenmouth waste water project that cost 16 times the original estimate—the public sector does not always own them? Graham Simpson: Indeed, and I am coming on to that issue. The Auditor General for Scotland and Accounts Commission said in their report of January 2020: “Using private finance contracts has enabled the Scottish Government to fund additional infrastructure investment. ... “Private finance costs more than traditional forms of financing, such as public borrowing or capital grants.”
“There is not really an easy answer to that, because, as the Scottish Parliament information centre said in its blog on the subject in January 2018, “For the 129 projects that have been privately financed in Scotland, repayment costs will total £39.7bn, more than four times the capital value of the projects. However, bear in mind that these repayments often cover more than just the construction costs and interest costs.”
“I was feeling a bit lonely over on the Conservatives seats—as lonely as Mr Marra is. I wanted to give my good friend Mr Mason some company, but apparently he did not want it. I thank Kenny Gibson for bringing the debate to Parliament. It is a very political motion, but I think that that is fine; MSPs should be able to debate such things. He managed in the motion and in his speech to savage both Labour and the Conservatives, but not, apparently, the virtuous Scottish National Party. Of course, he is entitled to that view—perhaps he is seeking re-election. For me, the serious questions raised are entirely valid. The main question is whether PFI and PPP represent value for money and what happens when they end. I will take the first part of that question first: are they value for money?”
“To ask the Scottish Government for what reason Scottish Water continues to pay bonuses to its executives, when public sector pay policy reportedly prohibits this. (S6T-02350)”
“The minister knows that I think that the £2 bus fare should be a national thing and that there is no need for a pilot. However, if we are to have one, clearly the best place for it is where most people live—the Strathclyde region. That is where it should be. What does the minister need to have happen? Does he need to have a formal bid from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport in order for Strathclyde to win that pilot? Jim Fairlie: I say well done to Graham Simpson for making his pitch for the pilot scheme. I am delighted that the scheme is getting so much coverage from members. However, I repeat that we are going through the process of working out what the pilot needs to do and what the criteria will be, and that we will announce that in due course.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is undertaking to reopen historic sites that are managed by Historic Environment Scotland over the coming months. (S6O-04250)”
“The concerns from communities across Scotland should be taken seriously. The concentration of battery storage projects in certain areas can lead to a range of local environmental issues, such as habitat disruption, noise pollution and increased traffic during construction and maintenance, not to mention the risk of fire. Those are some of the concerns that have been raised by campaigners in my region, including those at Drumbowie, which is near Falkirk, whom I met on Saturday. They and others feel cut out of the decision-making process.”
“I do not think that there will be many MSPs who have not been contacted by communities that are concerned about potential battery developments. Communities mostly accept the need for such projects, but they want the sites to be in the right places. However, as I said, there are far too many in the pipeline. The overall transmission queue in Scotland for everything, not just batteries, is 152GW of installed and contracted generation. That is well in excess of the maximum winter peak demand in Scotland of around 5GW. In the central belt alone, there are applications for 28GW of battery connection, which is the requirement for the whole of the UK. It is madness. That is why I have heard the phrases “gold rush” and “wild west” used when describing what is going on. That is exactly what it is, and we need some common sense.”
“I welcome the debate and the fact that the motion focuses on the need to properly engage with and involve communities when deciding on energy infrastructure projects throughout Scotland. I make it clear that I accept that there is a need to upgrade and expand our energy infrastructure, because we are going to need more electricity. There are big economic benefits in the construction of that, but there are trade-offs, too. Last week, I asked John Swinney about the number of proposed battery storage developments in Scotland. There are far more than is needed, not just here but across the UK. That is why, last week, the National Energy System Operator paused the applications process for new entrants to the connections queue from 29 January. That seems to have passed some members by today.”
“Energy production will be a significant economic asset for Scotland in the years to come, in just the same way that energy production has been a significant economic asset for Scotland until now. The difference, looking forward, is that I want to make sure that Scotland benefits from that energy strategy and policy. We did not benefit from the previous energy opportunity that we had in Scotland; I want to make sure that we benefit from the next one. Bowel Screening Programme (Extension) 5.”
“I welcome the investment at Coalburn in South Lanarkshire, but in the light of the announcement yesterday by the National Energy System Operator of a pause in the applications process for new entrants to the connections queue—because there are far more of them than there is demand— does the First Minister agree that there should be a national strategy for energy storage in Scotland that matches approval by the Scottish Government’s energy consents unit for battery storage sites with actual demand and with where there is community buy-in? The First Minister: Mr Simpson raises some interesting points, but we have to be mindful of the economic opportunities that arise out of energy production.”