Douglas Lumsden
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“That is absolutely shameful. Tim Eagle: Answer the question. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. The First Minister: It is all very well for Mr Eagle to take issue with me on this question, but the real guilty parties on Brexit and its implications for agriculture are the Conservative Party and its activities, and the Conserva…”
“Back in November, I criticised the draft climate change plan for being yet another Scottish National Party propaganda pamphlet that was heavy on rhetoric and light on detail, and the full plan is more of the same.”
“Will the cabinet secretary apologise for finding the time to jet all over the world while failing to produce an energy strategy? When will the cabinet secretary come forward with more detail about the cost of the policies included in the plan, so that she can finally be honest with Scots about how much it will cost them?”
“The plan will also, as I have mentioned—and as has been said in an independent report—provide more than £8 billion in co-benefits, including through improvements in population health brought about by active travel, warmer homes and cleaner air.”
“If I am lucky enough to be back in Parliament and lucky enough to be still doing this job, I will continue to deliver on the plan, which will include working globally with other sub-national and national Governments that understand that the fundamental challenge of our time is decarbonisation.”
“Continuation of that support has been built into the new members’ expenses scheme, as the need for on-going additional support was recognised by the corporate body during its recent review of the scheme, prior to the new session.”
The complete record
Every one of 543 lines we hold for Douglas Lumsden, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“I, Douglas Lumsden, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me”
“That is absolutely shameful. Tim Eagle: Answer the question. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. The First Minister: It is all very well for Mr Eagle to take issue with me on this question, but the real guilty parties on Brexit and its implications for agriculture are the Conservative Party and its activities, and the Conservatives will be found out for all of that on 7 May. Trongate 103 Cultural Centre (Notices to Quit)”
“If I am lucky enough to be back in Parliament and lucky enough to be still doing this job, I will continue to deliver on the plan, which will include working globally with other sub-national and national Governments that understand that the fundamental challenge of our time is decarbonisation.”
“The plan will also, as I have mentioned—and as has been said in an independent report—provide more than £8 billion in co-benefits, including through improvements in population health brought about by active travel, warmer homes and cleaner air. The plan creates and sustains thousands of jobs across a range of sectors and in all parts of the country, from jobs in our renewables industry— which Douglas Lumsden is not interested in supporting—to jobs restoring peatland and planting trees, which help farmers and crofters to diversify their incomes. The plan works together with the environment strategy and the circular economy strategy.”
“Will the cabinet secretary apologise for finding the time to jet all over the world while failing to produce an energy strategy? When will the cabinet secretary come forward with more detail about the cost of the policies included in the plan, so that she can finally be honest with Scots about how much it will cost them? Gillian Martin: I mentioned some of the voices against climate action and we need no further demonstration of that type of voice than what we hear from Douglas Lumsden. The climate change plan sets out a fair and ambitious pathway towards meeting our first three carbon budgets. It drives £42 billion in direct financial benefits and cost savings for households, businesses and Government, in more cost- effective transport systems, more efficient heating and wider support to decarbonise industry.”
“Back in November, I criticised the draft climate change plan for being yet another Scottish National Party propaganda pamphlet that was heavy on rhetoric and light on detail, and the full plan is more of the same. With just one day to go before the parliamentary session ends, we have been presented with more uncosted SNP proposals that will make hard-working Scots poorer, but we still have no energy strategy. At a time when household bills are rising across the country, it makes no sense to slap on additional costs by forcing Scots to rip out their gas boilers and abandon their petrol cars while sending more taxpayer money abroad. Instead, we should be drilling in the North Sea so that we are less reliant on carbon-intensive imports from foreign countries, while supporting households to make the changes that work for them.”
“Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 14:42”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During portfolio questions, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin, said that the Scottish Government does not have a position against new oil and gas. That is simply not true. The draft energy strategy, which was published by the Scottish National Party Government more than three years ago, has the Government’s presumption against new oil and gas in black and white. Can the Presiding Officer advise how the cabinet secretary can correct the record and avoid misleading the chamber? The Deputy Presiding Officer: That is not a point of order. Mr Lumsden will be aware by now that the chair is not responsible, in broad brush, for members’ contributions. He will also be aware of the corrective mechanism that is available.”
“However, the corporate body recognises that the level of increases that are now being introduced could be seen to disproportionately increase the overall expense level for members who are eligible for and choose to have accommodation in Edinburgh. We will therefore look at how that information is published to ensure that it is clear which element is the normal council tax and which is the additional premium that has been applied. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise members that there are four more questions and there are four minutes available. I need much more succinct supplementary questions and responses. Michael “Mick” McGahey Bust 5.”
“Jackson Carlaw: I understand the question that Mr Lumsden is asking. The members’ expenses scheme clearly states that the corporate body “shall publish information on expenses reimbursed to members under the Scheme in such form and at such intervals as the SPCB may determine.” As I have already said, we recently included the on-going support as part of the scheme rather than as a temporary position, in order to ensure that members’ expenses are not disproportionately affected by such premiums. As such, for transparency reasons, we believe that the support should continue to be published alongside other expenses that are incurred by members. Council tax costs have always been part of our published data, and those figures have included the premium since it was introduced in 2024.”
“In practice, any increase will be added directly to a member’s allocation, as per the scheme rules in paragraph 2.1.5. The SPCB’s view remains that those homes are second homes that are required for work purposes and, as such, should be exempt from payment of second-home premiums. We will therefore write to the council to reiterate that point. Douglas Lumsden: I agree with Jackson Carlaw that those second homes are not holiday homes; they are for MSPs to do their work. If the homes are not to be exempted from the premium by the City of Edinburgh Council, will the corporate body consider having a separate budget line for council tax to be paid from that is not part of the Edinburgh expenses allowance, so that remote MSPs will not suddenly appear to be costing more money to the Parliament?”
“Continuation of that support has been built into the new members’ expenses scheme, as the need for on-going additional support was recognised by the corporate body during its recent review of the scheme, prior to the new session. As there is no individual impact for members or call on their individual allocation, there is no need to review the Edinburgh accommodation allowance in the light of the City of Edinburgh Council’s decision to increase the premium that is paid on second homes from 100 per cent to 300 per cent. As I have already mentioned, on-going payment of the premium, regardless of the amount, has already been accounted for in the proposed new scheme. That scheme will be considered by the Parliament later today when I move a motion, which I hope that Douglas Lumsden will support.”
“To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether the Edinburgh accommodation allowance for MSPs will be reviewed, in light of the City of Edinburgh Council announcing that, from 1 April 2026, the premium applied to council tax on second homes will increase from 100 per cent to 300 per cent. (S6O- 05647) Jackson Carlaw (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The corporate body has met the additional costs of the second home premium on members’ leased Edinburgh accommodation since it was first introduced in 2024. Provision of funding to cover the second home premium is provided in addition to the annual allocation.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with national health service boards regarding the 2017 best start plan to downgrade the number of level 3 neonatal intensive care units from eight to three. (S6O- 05666)”
“We have an opportunity to show what a compassionate place Scotland can be. We have an opportunity to reduce suffering at the end of life. We have all heard too many stories of people having a bad death. We have the opportunity today to make that better and to make a difference. Assisted dying does not mean that more people die; it means that fewer people will suffer. Please do not let that opportunity pass us by. Let us not kick the can down the road for others to make that choice later on. Let us show that this Parliament works and truly represents the majority of people outside of here who support the bill. 20:23”
“We all have stories. My story is about a friend of mine caring for his mother at the end of her life. She was hooked up to morphine but begging her son to end her suffering. He will live with the guilt that he was not able to help his mother more when her pain was unbearable and all hope had gone. That is what we are putting people and their families through, but today we can change that. As I said at the start, this might be the last time that I speak in here, but if it is, and if the bill passes, I will feel that I have achieved something in my time here. I will have played my part in reducing suffering. We have an opportunity to reduce the suffering that some are forced to go through at the end of life. I appeal to all colleagues who have not made up their minds.”
“It is not like taking a couple of paracetamols to get rid of a headache. It does not remove all the pain and make everything all right. People should still have a choice when the pain becomes unbearable. It is certainly not an either/or when it comes to the bill. Like many people here, I have got emotional over the bill. I have had conversations with those closest and dearest to me about the topic that no one likes to talk about, which is death. It is going to happen to us all and we should be able to talk about it, but it often seems too hard to do just that. As I said at stage 1, I think I would never be able to have an assisted death. I think I would fight to have my last possible breath, but I cannot be sure. None of us here can be sure because none of us is suffering in the same way that some people are having to suffer right now.”
“I did not take part in the discussions on stage 2 or stage 3 amendments, but I listened carefully to what everyone was saying. I must admit that I was saddened when listening to some of the debate last week. We heard a lot about doctors, nurses, lawyers, managers and social workers. At times, it felt as though we had forgotten what the bill is about. It is about people. The bill is about people suffering and what we could do to make their deaths as dignified and as pain-free as possible by giving them a choice when the end has come to reduce their suffering. We need to remember when we vote tonight that it is about the person who is suffering and giving them a choice. Much has been said about palliative care. Of course we need palliative care, and of course we would all like it to be better, but palliative care is no magic wand.”
“I, too, pay tribute to my friend Liam McArthur. I can only imagine the emotional toll that this process has taken on him. Whatever the result of tonight’s vote, he has done a brilliant job in highlighting the suffering that so many people are forced to go through at the end of their lives. I was not planning to speak in today’s debate. I spoke in the stage 1 debate and thought that I had said everything that I wanted to say. However, I then thought that this would be my last chance to speak in a debate in this parliamentary session, and it might be my last chance to speak in the chamber for ever, as Paul O’Kane pointed out. I could not look myself in the mirror if I did not do all that I could to try to get the bill approved.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether it is appropriate for the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy to use terms such as “far right” in the context of objections to energy projects. (S6O-05632)”
“What will it mean for air travel? What will it mean for car travel? What will it mean for people when they are trying to heat their homes? The SNP Government is not being honest.”
“Does Douglas Lumsden think that it is quite remarkable that the cabinet secretary alighted on the idea that we need to have cheaper electricity but did not mention the magic word “nuclear”? The country in Europe that has the most nuclear power stations has the cheapest electricity. Douglas Lumsden: I completely agree. Once again, the SNP cannot wish its way to cheaper electricity. The same applies to the SNP’s claims that it would reduce people’s bills by a third if we were independent. That is absolute nonsense, and it has nothing to back it up whatsoever. The plan matters because Scotland has missed climate targets before. A plan that is light on detail and vague on milestones risks repeating that pattern. If the Government wants to get to net zero by 2045, it needs to be honest with people about how much it will all cost.”
“If the Government really wants to get to net zero, it should put forward a plan. However, just as it does not have an energy strategy, it does not have a climate change plan that we can look at. If we do not know how many heat pumps are to be installed each year, how many skilled workers must be trained or how much capital funding is required at each stage, then we do not have a delivery plan; all we have is an ambition. Stephen Kerr: If the Government were serious about a plan with detail in it, it would not be cutting college funding in the way that it has done over the past five years, during which time there has been a 20 per cent cut in real terms. That reduces the availability of skilled workers.”
“For example—the cabinet secretary asked for examples—on the decarbonisation of heat in buildings, the plan sets out long-term outcomes for emissions reduction but does not set clear annual targets for the number of homes to be converted, the workforce that will be required or the funding profile that will be needed year by year. Without those practical milestones, there is no way for Parliament to track whether delivery is on course or falling behind. Gillian Martin: On heat in buildings, what plans would the member who is the shadow for this portfolio put in a plan that he would devise? How would he decarbonise homes? Douglas Lumsden: Any plan should have real and proper targets that can be measured. This plan does not have any of that. We cannot wish our way to net zero.”
“Douglas Lumsden: I will come on to some of the targets that should be in the plan. The plan sets out aspirations, which have their place. It is right that the Government establishes where it wants to go and what the vision is, but what we have in front of us today is a vision document. I do not feel that it is an actual plan. Time and again, the committee asked simple questions. What exactly will be done? By whom? By when? With what funding? However, too often, no answer was provided. The milestones are particularly weak. They are framed in broad trajectories rather than measurable delivery points.”
“It is quite simply a disgrace that the cabinet secretary has come here today to defend what is, in essence, a plan without detail and without targets, and one that will fail to deliver its main point, which is a reduction in emissions that will contribute to our net zero climate goals. Any climate change plan should have one aim: to reduce emissions and help us to reach our 2045 climate goals. This plan should be about delivery. It should include timelines and targets for how we will get there. However, the plan that the committee was asked to scrutinise does none of that. It has let down our committee, the Parliament and the people of Scotland. Gillian Martin: What action that is not in the climate change plan would Douglas Lumsden, who holds the shadow portfolio for his party, include in it?”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I speak with a lot of disappointment, to be honest. What should have been a landmark report for this Parliament is instead a catalogue of errors from this out-of-time, out-of-touch Scottish National Party devolved Government. I have been an MSP for nearly five years, and this is one of the most damning reports that I have seen from a committee or have been involved in. The report describes the draft climate action plan in these terms: “clear gaps”, “falls short”, “insufficient detail” and “areas of risk”. The plan was “rushed”, leading to a lack of confidence from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that our concerns will be taken seriously. “Rushed” is quite a statement, given that we were promised the plan more than a year ago; now, so close to the dissolution of Parliament, it finally appears.”
“It cares about an arbitrary net zero target and about selling off as much of Scotland’s countryside and fishing grounds as possible to the highest bidder. It is selling Scotland down the river—literally. The Presiding Officer: Thank you. Members, let us hear one another. I call the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin, to respond. 17:14”
“Douglas Lumsden: —for our fishers, who are seeing their fishing grounds removed by offshore wind and, now, compensation measures for wind energy in completely different parts of the country that have also had their fishing grounds taken away. We all know that, and we all know the Government’s dirty little secret when it comes to energy infrastructure: the SNP does not care if you object to wind turbines in your fishing zones and it certainly does not care if you have pylons in your back garden—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Lumsden. Douglas Lumsden: —because you know what? It is going to try to build them anyway. Coastal communities are realising what communities across the Mearns, Turriff, Oldmeldrum and so many other communities across Scotland have known for years: that this rotten SNP Government does not care.”
“It is insane that the Scottish National Party Government wants to damage fishing grounds in order to hit its net zero targets by building ever bigger wind farms out at sea. Even more scandalously, it wants to solve that damage by restricting fishing, all but destroying the livelihoods of the fishermen who fish those same waters. Let me repeat that: the Government wants to ruin the livelihoods of our fishing communities by building turbines, then penalise those same communities for that decision. Clearly, this rotten Government will not be happy until every fish and meat producer in the north-east is driven out of business. The fishing community is clear: it does not want this. It is overwhelmingly opposed to the measures. There needs to be proper compensation in place—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Thank you, members.”
“Scotland’s coastal communities are being asked yet again to carry costs that other parts of the country will never see and to absorb disruption that other industries would never accept. The Government knows that, “By supporting the expansion of offshore wind development in Scottish waters and increasing the demand on marine space for the implementation of compensatory measures, the policy is anticipated to have a negative impact on fisheries.” Fishermen are being asked to pay for net zero twice: first, through disruption to their jobs and displacement of their place of work; then, potentially, again through new restrictions and closures dressed up as environmental compensation.”
“The Government is taking a range of steps to progress its just transition strategy, which is supporting individuals on the ground with investments in a range of projects, whether on the facilities of the Energy Transition Zone or the training support that is in place for oil and gas workers. The Government will continue to deliver that support in the period to come. The Presiding Officer: We move to constituency and general supplementaries. Concise responses and questions will enable more members to be taken. Donald Russell (Closure)”
“My constituents are at the cliff edge of the so-called transition. According to a recent Jobs Foundation report, the truth is that the Scottish Government has no just transition plan and no energy strategy, and we have a jobs emergency in the north-east. Will the First Minister support oil and gas workers, and finally back projects such as Rosebank, Jackdaw and Cambo, so that we can have a managed transition? The First Minister: I have already said a lot in response to some of those points, but, on the issue of new developments, I have set out very clearly the Government’s position, which is that any new developments must pass a climate compatibility test.”
“The Government should stop shutting them down, stop building monster pylons in our back gardens, stop being cloth-eared, and start listening to the communities throughout Scotland that are saying no to monster pylons. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the cabinet secretary, Gillian Martin, to respond to the debate. 17:23”
“I suspect, however, that we do not have an energy strategy because the Government does not want us to see what it wants to do. It does not want to show people how much more of that infrastructure they will have to put up with, and it does not want workers in the oil and gas industry to know that it does not want to see the industry continue. Communities in North East Scotland are fed up with being ignored. They have had enough—they are fed up with being the ones who suffer in our headlong dash for net zero without any view to the real-life consequences of energy transmission projects. Most of all, those communities are fed up with being ignored by the out-of-touch, out-of- sight, out-of-ideas SNP Government. Communities such as Kintore, Tealing, the Mearns, Peterhead and New Deer are all fed up.”
“We currently have 4.5GW of operational capacity in offshore wind, but the Government’s target is to increase that to 11GW by 2030, and then to a staggering 40GW by 2040. If you think that there are a lot of substations and battery storage, you ain’t seen nothing yet, because things will get a lot worse in order to support that intermittent energy source. Let us burst the cheap energy bubble right now: offshore wind is not cheap. The amount of floating offshore wind that is planned is horrendously expensive, and when we add to that the storage, network and stability costs, we can see why our bills are going through the roof. How good it would be if the Government had an energy strategy so that we could actually see what it was trying to do.”
“Douglas Lumsden: If there is an email address, that is fantastic, but the letter that we were sent by Ivan McKee is quite clear: objections have to be made by filling in a web form or sending them in by post. We have to make it easy for people to lodge an objection, but it seems that everything that the ECU has done over the past month has been an attempt to make it harder for people. I think that that is an outrage to democracy. The Government has been trying to shut up rural communities, because it does not want to listen. We know that the recent proposals for the Tealing to Kintore and Peterhead to Beauly power lines generated more than 10,000 objections—most of them by email, I would think. The Government wants to shut up those communities and railroad all that infrastructure through. There is a reason for that.”
“The Government does not understand the anger, because it is unwilling to listen to it. We heard an example of that from Brian Whittle. The energy consents unit launched a new online portal and, at the same time, it removed the ability for residents to email in an objection. People must fill in a web form or send a letter by post instead. Gillian Martin: The new system allows for the submission of 6,000 words, which equates to 20 pages per representation. With regard to the ability to put forward views or objections, what capacity is the member asking for that exceeds that amount? Indeed, an email address is still available to people—it is the official email address. What does he think has been taken away?”
“The cabinet secretary might hear that if she spent any time meeting those constituents who are concerned about the issues—but, no, she is too busy meeting the companies that are intent on destroying our countryside, riding roughshod over our communities and carpet bombing our countryside with monster pylons to line the pockets of energy transmission companies that use every greenwashing tactic in the book to hide the fact that this is all about increasing their share price at the expense of our communities. Time and time again, this Scottish National Party Government has shafted the people of rural Scotland—whether we are talking about help with storm damage, wood-burning stoves, ferry links or pylons, it seems to be tone deaf when it comes to rural communities.”
“I thank my good friend and colleague Finlay Carson for securing this important debate. It really is a shame that the issue is never debated in Government time—it is always down to members to seek to debate it during members’ business debates or for it to be covered in Opposition debates. This key issue fills my inbox, surgeries and doorstep conversations. Communities throughout our beautiful north-east are telling me, time and time again, that the overindustrialisation of our countryside is not welcome.”
“It has to be good law, and it is for that reason that, regrettably, I cannot support the bill at stage 1. I feel that it is severely flawed, through no fault of the member in charge of it, and the evidence that we took during the committee’s evidence sessions highlighted those flaws. The best route would be a review of the existing penalties, to be carried out in the next session of Parliament. I hope that I and Monica Lennon will both be back here in that session, so that we can get on with that. 14:48”
“Does the member trust that I, as one of his fellow committee members, will not waste valuable parliamentary time but will work to ensure that he can vote on a bill that his constituents in North East Scotland also support? Douglas Lumsden: I absolutely trust that Monica Lennon would not waste any parliamentary time, but we have to respect the deadlines and timescales that are set out in our standing orders. The more quickly stage 2 amendments are lodged, the more quickly we will be able to start taking evidence on their impact. However, with only 21 sitting days of the session left, I feel that the committee is already trying to do too much, and I do not think that we will be able to do the bill justice. The bill seeks to introduce unlimited fines and a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, so Parliament has to get it right.”
“Significant amendments will be required, and we have only 21 sitting days of the current session left. Monica Lennon: I declare an interest as a fellow member of the committee, although I was recused from scrutiny of the bill. I recognise that, like other committees, the committee has a high workload. However, does the member feel reassured by me and the cabinet secretary that work on the amendments has already started? The memorandum that the cabinet secretary sent to the committee in September set out the Government’s thinking. I have been working on the bill for a long time, and I will work rapidly to ensure that we have a small but streamlined set of amendments.”
“As a member of the committee and having heard all the evidence, I agree that the bill is not in a place whereby we can take it beyond stage 1. Laws that we already have in place could be amended to create an ecocide offence. For example, amending section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 would work better. The fact that we are a Parliament that can make new laws does not mean that we should necessarily pass new legislation. As parliamentarians, we have the important tasks of keeping our legislation and laws up to date and relevant while keeping things relatively simple. I am genuinely surprised that the Government, having read the committee’s report, has chosen to ignore it and support the bill. If the bill is agreed to at stage 1 today, we will, as a committee, have to take more evidence on it.”
“Who would be responsible? Would it be companies such as SSEN or, if they had planning permission, would it be the planning authority? Would it be the councillors who granted the planning permission? Would it be the Scottish Government, which set the planning framework? I do not feel that those questions were answered. At committee, we wrestled with the question of permitted actions, and I do not think that we had time to get to the bottom of it. The committee’s report on the bill raises the issue of the clarity of definitions of key terms in the bill. Terms such as “widespread” and “long-term” are insufficiently robust. The committee also felt that the approach to those who would be liable for ecocide was too narrow, and there were concerns about incompatibility with the ECHR.”
“We have reached the crunch time of our parliamentary session, when bills such as the one that we are debating simply do not have the time and space to be debated properly and implemented correctly. I pay tribute to the member in charge for her tireless work in the area. I have enjoyed the conversations that we have had in and outwith committee, so I thank Monica Lennon for that. Many people in the north-east will pin their hopes on the bill when they see the environmental damage planned by companies such as Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. I thought that the bill would stop that damage and that I would vote for the bill. Such projects cause damage on a huge scale. However, the more evidence I heard, the more I came to the conclusion that the bill would not prevent them. On the example of substations, who would be liable?”
“Those matters were discussed during stage 1 evidence gathering and, although the committee raises concerns that they are not fully resolved, I am confident that we can reach satisfactory positions to guide consideration at stage 2. The Government is willing, as is Ms Lennon—she has stated that already—and I hope that other members will be involved in that, should they wish, and that they will engage with both of us. I take seriously the concerns that the committee raised. I am very grateful to the committee members for their consideration of the bill. I have to say that I agree with Edward Mountain. I took a member’s bill through the Parliament in the previous session and I started it early. My advice, as well as Mr Mountain’s, is that, if members start early, such issues will not arise. 14:43”
“I have given further thought to that and discussed it with the Minister for Public Finance, Ivan McKee, following the evidence that the committee received from local authorities, and I am well placed to lodge amendments at stage 2. However, I would be happy to work with any member who is similarly considering amendments on that, including Ms Lennon, members of the committee or members in the wider Parliament. Other issues that the stage 1 report raised include definitions in the framing of the offence, the bill’s treatment of cumulative harm, omissions and courses of conduct. The report also makes some recommendations about the provision of guidance.”
“Does the cabinet secretary agree that the changes would have to be so substantial that it would only be right for the committee to take more evidence on what the amendments could do to the bill? Gillian Martin: I respect what the convener said in that regard. As he pointed out and as I know as the former convener of two committees, a judgment is made on behalf of committee members about what additional evidence a committee might want to take. It is up to the committee to make that decision, so I will demur from giving my point of view on it. The report discusses the bill’s potential impact on the planning system and permitted activities.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy will engage with community groups affected by new energy projects now that she is no longer responsible for energy consent decisions. (S6O-05476)”