Gillian Martin
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Mark Ruskell: I hear what the cabinet secretary says about her engagement with industry, but it is communities that are facing a deluge of applications for data centres. There are people here today from Fife and across Scotland who are raising their concerns. Answers are needed, cabinet secretary.”
“The Scottish Government has not undertaken a wholly national assessment of the remit that the member specifically outlines on data centres. However, we are currently engaging with industry and partner agencies to better understand the cumulative impacts of data centre developments on the environment.”
“The Scottish Government’s wildfires strategic action plan sets out a partnership approach to preventing, preparing for and responding to wildfires.”
“Although the Scottish Government is not currently undertaking a formal national assessment, we are working with partners to assess the impact of AI data centres and to look at whether current planning conditions are appropriate.”
“David Green: The response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and local land management to the severe wildfires that were experienced in the Highlands last year was exceptional, and I put on record my thanks to them.”
“Following on from the good work that was done on the wildfires strategy in the previous parliamentary session by Jim Fairlie and by Siobhian Brown, the former Minister for Victims and Community Safety, a great deal of work is being done on prevention.”
The complete record
Every one of 614 lines we hold for Gillian Martin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“How will the Scottish Government support the agencies to assess and mitigate any on-going impacts of the incident on wildlife and public health in a timely manner? Gillian Martin: SEPA, Scottish Water and Public Health Scotland have supported the multi- agency response since the incident happened. In relation to impacts on the environment, SEPA has attended incident management team and local resilience partnership meetings, which have helped to co-ordinate the complex response. SEPA is undertaking ecological surveys and wider assessments to understand the impact on wildlife, and it will continue to work with public bodies to assess and mitigate impacts of the incident on public health and the environment.”
“The Scottish Government was advised of the incident on Friday and has received regular updates throughout the weekend. Clearly, it is a serious incident, and I thank those who responded for their very quick actions. I am pleased to hear that Scottish Water and the health board have agreed that, as of this afternoon, all remaining restrictions on using tap water can be lifted and the water is safe to drink. I understand that the environmental situation is stabilising and that efforts to contain the pollution at source are, thankfully, proving effective. SEPA inspections suggest that the east end of Loch Tay remains clear, and no impacts have been identified in the River Tay. Evelyn Tweed: The diesel spill from the Certas fuel station at Lix Toll has led to a complex multi- agency response.”
“I move, That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3A of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act. The Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time. Scottish Fiscal Commission (Chair) 16:53”
“The timetabling of future stages of the bill is, rightly, a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau, not the Government. I turn to the content of the financial memorandum. I believe that any costs that will arise from the bill can be absorbed within existing budgets. There will be some costs in adapting to a new offence, but that is in the context of existing investigatory and enforcement activity to protect the environment from harm. I remain confident that there is a route to address the legitimate concerns about the provisions in the bill that the committee has raised ahead of stage 2. We have already made good progress with many of the issues.”
“The Ecocide (Scotland) Bill is a member’s bill. Parliament supported the bill’s progress at stage 1. I acknowledge the challenges that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee faces in completing its work on the bill and on other matters in its work programme before the end of the session. I have, at all times, sought to do what I can to give the committee what it has requested of the Government in all areas of scrutiny, including in relation to the bill. In response to a request from the convener, I lodged amendments to the bill early—last Tuesday, in fact—and I have written to the committee twice since the stage 1 debate with the detail that it requested. It would not be appropriate for the Government to frustrate Parliament’s will, expressed in the vote after the stage 1 debate, by failing to introduce a financial resolution.”
“Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“I have not gone through all the different procedures that must take place, but any applicant must be familiar with them. As I said, wide public consultation is for the developer to undertake, and that must be demonstrated. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate. I wish those people in the gallery a safe trip back up the road. Meeting closed at 18.45. This is the final edition of the Official Report of this meeting. It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit.”
“If a final assessment is made that an application is not fit for purpose, that is a different matter. Ministers are not afforded the ability to prevent the submission of prospective applications, and it would be entirely inappropriate for me to make a judgment on a project before an application is processed. Wide public consultation is for the developer to undertake and demonstrate. Everyone has said that they do not believe that that has been done. Statutory pre-application consultation provides an early opportunity for interested parties to comment on proposals, with further engagement when licence applications are publicised and consulted on. If that is not done, that will impact the quality of the application. I have gone over time, but I could say a lot more on the matter.”
“I will take Douglas Ross’s intervention, but that must be the final one. Douglas Ross: The cabinet secretary’s point on the environmental impact assessment was the point that I made in my speech. The cabinet secretary has just said that an EIA is crucial. Does that not indicate to her that that company is not a reputable company to be taking forward the proposal if, earlier this month, it was seeking to go forward with its plans without an EIA? The fact that everyone else believes that an EIA is essential, but the company does not, should surely be a flashing red light for the minister, who could then give ministerial direction to Scottish Enterprise to stop allocating any more funding. She has that power— whether she uses it is her choice. Gillian Martin: I do have the power to make a final assessment.”
“Gillian Martin: With respect, I have taken many interventions and I am coming to the end of my time. The applicant must successfully go through several processes, and no minister can pre-empt or distort the process by telling any developer that they can or cannot proceed through that process. I understand that a proposal has not been submitted so far, and that a screening request for one sea-bed area has been made to Scottish ministers to identify whether an environmental impact assessment is required for the proposal. An environmental impact assessment is a fundamental part of a development of that type, and it has a part on socioeconomic impact that must be answered, too. The Scottish national marine plan makes it clear that projects are expected to put forward the socioeconomic impact of the life cycle of a project.”
“Given that every party in the chamber and pretty much the entire population of the area do not want it—and the constituency MSP says so, too— why will the Scottish Government not simply step in? I said earlier that we should pull the funding, stop that project and then come back round the table. That is what we want, and the Scottish Government could do that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Gillian Martin: Scottish Enterprise has made the funding available. That is a very important point. There has been no direction from ministers on the matter, and I will not say that I can instruct Scottish Enterprise to do anything. Notwithstanding that, I have made notes today that I will take away. Douglas Ross: Will the cabinet secretary give way?”
“Processes must be gone through— indeed, Emma Roddick made the point that there are examples of good public engagement. It is entirely reasonable for the public and elected members to expect that a developer will engage early in a project and, indeed, will bring the public with them as well. Tim Eagle: I am not quite sure where the cabinet secretary is going, but I hope that that will be explained in a minute. There was no engagement—we have heard that very clearly in the debate—so you are absolutely right to say that consultation was very poor. Fundamentally, I do not think that the company could continue if the Scottish Government withdrew the funding that Scottish Enterprise is currently giving—and I must believe that it has the power to do so.”
“Richard Lochhead was not able to make a speech as he is a Government minister—we all understand the conventions around that—but he was able to make an intervention, in which he said that no ranking had been made of the other areas that were considered. Other people have made the point that some areas of Scotland are crying out for that type of development—where there is a green port status, for example. It is apparent that representatives in the chamber have put forward to the public and to me their concerns. I must say that, notwithstanding anything to do with the proposals or any of their detail, which I do not have in front of me—I do not have anything in front of me—I am unable to say that an application cannot be made. Tim Eagle: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Gillian Martin: I will in a second—I am making a point here.”
“As he said in his speech, Tim Eagle has also asked me parliamentary questions on the issue in the chamber. Tim Eagle has asked me to stop the project, effectively. In our exchanges, I have set out the statutory and established regulatory processes that exist, how applications for consent are made and the Government’s very clear expectations of developers in engaging with affected communities. Richard Lochhead has told me—as have many members today—that he has met the company, relayed the opposition and asked the company to explain why the other sites that it considered had not been taken forward.”
“Given that that has not happened, and that the consultation began a year and a half after £2 million of public money was offered—apparently without the minister’s approval or involvement—will the minister now seek an investigation into how on earth that could have happened, contrary to the clear spirit of Government policy? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back for that intervention, cabinet secretary. Gillian Martin: I have written down a number of issues that I will look into, but I want to continue my response to the debate. Over the past few weeks, I have been made aware, by my colleague Richard Lochhead, who is the constituency MSP for Moray, of substantive concerns that local communities have raised about the Offshore Solutions Group proposal.”
“Why would someone want to go ahead with a development when they have not engaged with the people they want to support the development? Why would they not turn up to a public meeting that is full of the people they would want to bring onside by answering their questions about the development? That does not make sense to me, as a constituency MSP. If someone in my constituency were proposing a development, and I had received a great deal of correspondence about it, set up a public meeting and been told by the developers that they would come along to answer questions, I would fully expect them to turn up. Fergus Ewing: The minister has said that early consultation is essential.”
“I thank Douglas Ross for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I thank everyone who has spoken today. It is very apparent that every party and every representative of the area have received a great deal of correspondence about the matter. Before I was in politics I had a significant issue with a development in the area where I live, so I understand the strength of feeling when something happens that causes people a great deal of concern. I will not say any more about it than that. There is an imperative that developers consult and engage early with constituents and the people in whose community they want to base themselves. That is not just something that is required as part of the application; it makes good business sense.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank the cabinet secretary, although that was not a point of order. Anyway, the cabinet secretary has put the matter on the record. Meeting closed at 17:32. This is the final edition of the Official Report of this meeting. It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit. Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“Accuracy is important, and if it is felt that there is a need to correct the record, members— including Government ministers in particular—are encouraged to do that as soon as is practical. I call the cabinet secretary for a point of order. Gillian Martin: On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have misspoken. This is directly from the ECU: “Members of the public remain free to use any tools or resources to help formulate their views but they must submit representations directly using their own verified email address.” I have misspoken, but the portal is available and there is a 6,000-character—sorry, 6,000-word— limit. I should have checked this, but I reiterate that people “must submit representations directly using their own verified email address.” That is what I meant to say.”
“Postal submissions will remain available for those who cannot access the portal.” It seems that the cabinet secretary has misled Parliament, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can you advise how the record could be updated to correct that? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank Mr Lumsden for his point of order. I would advise, of course, that the chair is not responsible for the substantive contributions of any member, including ministers. However, all members are expected to make their contributions in accordance with accurate information. Gillian Martin: On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer— The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am responding to Mr Lumsden—thank you.”
“The passage of the UK Planning and Infrastructure Act has been helpful with regard to the community benefits, but I believe that we need to go further. At a UK level, we need to be able to see that communities’ concerns are taken seriously, and the issues around that need to be mandated. I will end on that point. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, cabinet secretary— Douglas Lumsden: On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. During the debate, the cabinet secretary seemed to suggest that people could still raise an objection by sending an email to the ECU. The letter that members received from Ivan McKee on 15 January says: “Previously, representations could be submitted by email or post. Under the new system, online representations must now be submitted through the ECU Portal during defined consultation windows.”
“That is happening not just because there is onshore and offshore wind but because the infrastructure is very old and can be quite unreliable. Communities’ views have to be taken into account, and, given that we want to improve communication in Scotland, we have published guidance on effective community engagement in local development planning, which we would expect developers and operators to use. However, we cannot compel them to use it. The ECU has also published guidance on how to deliver consistent and meaningful pre- application consultation and engagement, which transmission operators are expected to follow for transmission projects that require an environmental impact assessment. Again, however, we cannot mandate them to follow that.”
“Some communities simply do not want the developments at any cost, with any community benefits. Some communities are fighting application after application, with big companies putting in new applications when previous ones have been turned down, and people’s whole lives are spent fighting those. No matter how much community benefit there is, a community should have the right to simply say no. Gillian Martin: I cannot talk about particular applications and particular instances in that regard, but I note that there are some areas in which critical national infrastructure might be proposed. One type of development that has been long overdue, for a good 20 or 30 years, involves the infrastructure that takes electricity around the whole UK.”
“A number of members have mentioned community benefits. I want community benefits to be made mandatory, and the current UK Government has brought forward legislation in that space that will allow the mandating of community benefits. I have been calling for that for a very long time, but I would like us to go further— Finlay Carson: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Gillian Martin: I will—in a second. As Tim Eagle set out, if community benefits are voluntary and not mandatory, and the guidance is not associated with mandatory compulsion to engage with communities, some developers may not do that in a way that brings communities with them and allows those communities to have their say. I will take the intervention from Finlay Carson. Finlay Carson: Does the cabinet secretary appreciate that it is not just about community benefits?”
“I think that the Welsh Government is also involved in spatial planning, so it is a UK-wide issue, and I am sure that the same issues will arise in the Welsh countryside as in the Scottish countryside. Gillian Martin: Yes—there are similar issues throughout the UK. A great deal of transmission infrastructure is planned for the north of England and, I believe, in the Norfolk area. Very similar issues are coming up around engagement, too. On community engagement, Christine Grahame rightly made the point that a lot of the ability to mandate or compel developers to have any degree of community engagement in any kind of development lies in reserved policy and reserved legislation. I think that there should be a compulsion in that regard, and there are good practice principles around engaging with communities.”
“The intention is to plan the transition to clean, affordable, secure energy across the whole of Great Britain by providing greater clarity on the shape of a future reformed energy system. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the National Energy System Operator have recently taken the decision to rerun that process because fresh data was published last October. The hope is that that will ensure that the modelling and subsequent pathway options are based on the most credible and current information. I will take the intervention from Christine Grahame. Christine Grahame: I keep on pressing the wrong button to speak instead of making an intervention. The wrong one has come on, but it is nothing to do with me.”
“However, the planning laws are the planning laws—I am not proposing to stand up and say that I will make any changes to planning laws on the hoof. I do not think that anyone would thank me for that. I will go through some of the points on strategic energy planning that the First Minister referred to at FMQs, as Christine Grahame mentioned in her speech. The Scottish Government and the UK Government—I am not sure about the other devolved Governments; I would need to check that—have jointly commissioned the National Energy System Operator to produce the first strategic spatial energy plan— Christine Grahame: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Gillian Martin: Yes, I will—in a second.”
“I find it disheartening to hear of any situation in which the developer involved in a planning application, whether in energy or anywhere else, does not take that aspect seriously, because they are actually causing themselves an awful lot more bother in the long term. Tim Eagle: On that point, I simply ask: where such engagement has not happened—the Moray FLOW-Park is a clear case of where engagement did not happen beforehand—should the Government step in and say to the developer, “Go back to the drawing board and don’t persist with this, because you have not consulted at that point”? Gillian Martin: The engagement that is undertaken by any developer must be evidenced in their application, and it is expected that they will have that evidence.”
“I thank Finlay Carson for lodging the motion. His motion is right to say that the renewable energy sector plays an essential part in meeting our net zero targets, but it will also be extremely important for UK energy security. Scotland has a chance to grasp the opportunities that renewables offer for economic growth and job creation, but we must ensure that everyone benefits. Mr Carson, in his opening speech, highlighted concerns that some communities have about engagement with developers, and I was interested to hear Tim Eagle say, with regard to the proposed development that he is concerned about, that developers have not engaged with those communities. For any developers, it is in their interests to ensure that communities come along with them.”
“I do not know which members were there, but I found, in circuiting the room and speaking with those who attended, that they were talking about that spatial squeeze and the pressures offshore. It is great that Finlay Carson has secured this debate. The point that I really wanted to get across today is that local voice is important. If we are truly saying, in everything that we do, that local voice is important, we cannot ignore that voice just because we have a net zero aim. We need to start listening to communities. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Carol Mochan, who joins us remotely. 17:04”
“Emma Harper: When I said, in responding to an intervention, that cumulative impact is something that we need to think about, I probably should have said that we are already considering cumulative impact. Perhaps I did not think fast enough on my feet. Tim Eagle: That is fair enough, and I thank the member for that intervention. My gut feeling is that this is going to be a big, serious issue. It is not a political one, but I think that it will come up for all of us on the doorsteps in the upcoming election campaign. It is a big concern across Scotland. I see that I have run out of time already. We have significant pressures across Speyside, in Moray and in the sea and offshore. I have not even mentioned the fishing sector and the spatial squeeze that it is feeling. We hosted the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation in the Parliament last week.”
“Interestingly, she said a few times that that is something that we need to think about. We are well beyond the stage of needing to think about it; we should have been actively working on it. We should now have in place plans to ensure that communities are thinking about the effect of cumulative impact. Cumulative impact is happening not just in the south of Scotland; the Highlands has experienced it to a massive level. We are now well beyond that stage. The Government should have application support for communities in place—and finance needs to come along with that from the companies that are applying. More importantly, there should be a regional energy strategy, so that we do not have widespread community impact.”
“I want to get this point across. I do not think that it is right that we, in the Parliament, say that we have to wait for an application, because, by the time we get to the application stage, a huge amount of money, energy and time has already been spent. There should be a process before that, when the Government can listen to communities and come to the conclusion that a project is not actually in the right location and can go to the developers and say “Stop”—or “We urge you to stop”, as we cannot prevent them from putting in an application. We can urge the developer to stop and we can then carry on. That is the point that I am really trying to make. One day I might get an answer to the question—perhaps next week, during the Moray FLOW-Park debate. Emma Harper has talked about cumulative impact.”
“First, I try never to show any annoyance, and I do not remember being annoyed with Tim Eagle at all. If it came across that way, that was certainly not my intention. On the developer, Mr Eagle is saying that there has not been consultation at all. That is interesting, because developers are encouraged to have engagement before applications go in. Tim Eagle: I accept that point. I am delighted that the cabinet secretary was not annoyed with me because of the point that I kept making—that is fine. However, the developer did not engage. I will talk about this story next week, but the first thing that we knew came in a message that went to fishermen—it was literally two rectangles on a map of the sea. Nobody knew anything before that. That was why, over two venues, 600 people turned up—a level of scrutiny that is unheard of post- Covid.”
“The report discusses the overlaps between the proposed new ecocide offence and the offence of committing significant environmental harm under section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. That issue has been considered throughout stage 1, including in the Scottish Government’s memorandum, which was part of the evidence that I gave to the committee. It is important that the bill and the new offence of ecocide offer something additional to that body of existing environmental law. Further clarity is required on whether the interaction between the offences should be reflected in the bill. A review of the section 40 offence might be appropriate in the future, although the scope of such a review would depend on the Parliament’s consideration of the bill. That would be something for the next session of the”
“We have been working on potential amendments, should the bill proceed, and are in regular conversation with Ms Lennon on that. However, Ms Lennon must adequately consider ahead of stage 3 the remaining issues that the committee raised. No doubt she will address some of the convener’s comments in her closing speech. On that basis, the Scottish Government will continue to support the general principles of the bill in the debate. I and my officials will continue to work with Ms Lennon and the non-Government bills unit to ensure that we support the committee’s consideration of the bill at stage 2. I turn to a couple of specific issues that the committee report raised.”
“The committee makes a range of recommendations, many of which involve seeking reassurance from the member in charge of the bill, the Scottish Government or both. Although the committee remains positive about a new higher-level environmental offence, a majority of the committee concluded that there is no realistic prospect of the concerns being addressed before this session of the Parliament ends, notwithstanding what the convener just said. On that basis, the committee recommended that the bill should not proceed any further. I have considered the committee’s report very carefully. As I already set out to the committee, there are areas where the bill merits amendment— I have said that from the get-go. We are already well prepared on those issues.”
“The public consultation that was carried out by Monica Lennon when she was developing the proposal received wide public support, and many environmental organisations have supported the development of the bill. I have been clear throughout the process that, as drafted, the bill has some significant flaws. In particular, I have raised concerns about the point of incompatibility with the European convention on human rights and the interaction with permitting systems and the reporting duty. The NZET Committee’s stage 1 report is admirably thorough in setting out not only the concerns that I raised at stage 1 but the committee’s own concerns and the issues that were raised in evidence.”
“Rather, it is an offence that is designed to cover the most serious actions—those that, at the very least, we would not expect to occur more than once in a generation and those that we hope will never occur. The actions would have to be so serious that there would need to be a commensurate legal provision to match them. It is hoped that the existence of an ecocide offence on the statute book would further discourage the incidence of what are extreme, serious and— thankfully—rare incidents. Through the development of the bill, I have had useful, positive discussions with Monica Lennon, who came to me relatively early after her decision to lodge her proposal. She has developed her thinking on an ecocide offence.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Monica Lennon’s Ecocide (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. The protection of our natural environment is essential and, as such, it is an important priority for the Scottish Government. Last week, the Parliament passed the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which strengthens the law for the first time in important areas, providing a framework for statutory targets. The Scottish Government has supported the general proposal to introduce an offence of ecocide for the most extreme, wilful and reckless cases of harm. The offence should be understood as something new, standing above the existing offences that relate to environmental damage. It is a particular type of new offence, which is not designed to address behaviours that occur regularly.”
“As I have made clear to the chamber in the past, reactions to what is being said are natural. When the sedentary interventions continue thereafter, that is where there is a problem. Budget 2026-27 (Transport) 6.”
“Scottish Enterprise does not need planning permission to be in place before it can engage with developers or with any companies. It makes its own decisions about when to give funding and for what reasons. It does that without ministerial direction. The Deputy Presiding Officer : Can we make sure that we listen to the questions and responses with a degree of courtesy, however much we may disagree with them? Tim Eagle: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I respect the chair—I always do—but it has become normal practice here that we ask a question on behalf of our constituents and never get an answer. I think that you are seeing some frustration with that, because we get the same answer time after time. The Deputy Presiding Officer : Thank you for your point, Mr Eagle.”
“Everyone knows that the proposal is not in the right place, if it is even needed, yet a distant company asked for money and Scottish Enterprise stepped up without even thinking about whether it should talk to local people, fishermen or the council, all because of one report. We do not need to wait for an application after another £1.87 million of public money has been spent. We can stop this now and start new talks. Given all that the cabinet secretary must now know, will she pull the funding and say to the company not to push forward with an application? Gillian Martin: Tim Eagle will get a similar answer, because there has not been an application. When Scottish Enterprise— [Interruption.] When Scottish Enterprise gives advice to any developer, of any project, that has no implication for the planning process.”
“As stated in previous responses, the project remains at an early stage. I recognise the strong public concerns and the importance of meaningful engagement with local communities and the fishing industry by the developer. As part of the standard process, the developer is encouraged to engage with stakeholders and the wider community. Although no marine licence applications have been submitted by the developer, any future application would be subject to the relevant rigorous regulatory processes, including any formal public consultation. Tim Eagle: I get the same answer every time I ask the question, despite widespread public opposition to the plan. The Moray FLOW-Park is a great example of how to get something the wrong way round.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I have a number of supplementary questions. I will try to get through as many as I can, but they will need to be brief.”
“Taking that ability away is not making the process easier, so will the cabinet secretary commit to allowing constituents to email their comments to the ECU, so that their voices can be heard? Gillian Martin: I will take that suggestion away. However, I want to make it clear that regulations relating to electricity transmission and distribution networks are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. That is why I was pleased that we reached an agreement with the UK Government on the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which recently afforded new powers to the Scottish Government to make regulations to mandate developers to engage with local communities and stakeholders. That has been voluntary up until now, and I think that that requirement will make a material change. As I have said, I will take the member’s suggestions away.”
“I have asked my officials to organise an opportunity for me to engage directly with community representatives on the policy refresh, and I will keep Parliament updated on those plans. Douglas Lumsden: My constituents are at their wits’ end. For months, the Government has refused to meet community groups that are seeing their communities trashed by pylons, battery storage and substations, but it is happy enough to meet companies such as Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Now, we learn that the ability to submit comments to the energy consents unit by email has been stripped away. That is a cynical manipulation of the planning process and an attempt to shut down my constituents.”
“It is essential that communities feel able to engage with our planning and consenting systems. The Scottish Government has recently taken steps to make it easier for communities to participate, but I recognise that more needs to be done. That is why I have tasked officials with taking forward plans to establish a forum to hear directly from communities as the strategic plans that will shape the need for future energy infrastructure are developed. Separately, members will also be aware of on- going work to refresh the good practice principles for community benefits from onshore renewable energy, including our consultation last year, the results of which we published in October.”
“This Parliament has an opportunity today to lay the foundations for that future, to send a clear signal across Scotland and beyond that we intend to leave our natural environment in better condition than we found it, and to ensure that future generations do not inherit the consequences of inaction but the legacy of commitment and hope. I look forward to listening to members’ contributions to the debate. I move, That the Parliament agrees that the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill be passed. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Tim Eagle to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. 17:10”
“We look forward to bringing forward those recommendations and to continuing our constructive engagement with stakeholders as we consider the careful development and refinement of the targets. However, today, our focus is on the amended bill before us, which creates the strongest statutory framework that Scotland has ever had for nature recovery. The bill is strengthened by cross-party work and reflects a shared commitment to protect and restore our precious natural environment. The crisis that we face is urgent, but it is not hopeless. We know that biodiversity is in crisis, both globally and at home. However, with clarity, collaboration and long-term determination, Scotland can chart a different course—one where restored habitats, healthier ecosystems and thriving species are not exceptional but expected.”