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 10 of 11.
“I have been in contact with many of the campaigners who want fairer ways to transmit energy to hear their views on the £250 amount. One constituent, June, told me: “I think it’s disgusting, and another bribe for some people.” She also said: “It won’t make a dent in the drop in property prices.” Another constituent, Vince, told me: “Offering a householder £250 per annum is derisory, to say the least.” Does the First Minister agree with June and Vince that the amount offered is a drop in the ocean compared with the tens of thousands of pounds that people have seen wiped off their property value, and will he do something that his ministers have all refused to do and come with me to meet the campaign groups that are feeling ignored by both of their Governments?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of referrals to audiology services at NHS Grampian are seen within the 18-week target. (S6O-04418)”
“Douglas Lumsden: Will the cabinet secretary confirm the total length Mr Dixon’s appointment, from when he started on the board to when he is due to finish, according to the motion? Gillian Martin: As I said, there are no issues with the length of Dr Dixon’s appointment as chair. He served on the board for a period as an ordinary member, but that is not an issue, and it is completely in accordance with the code of practice. The Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time. Decision Time 17:06”
“A motion was agreed to in the Parliament on the reappointment of Dr Richard Dixon as an existing member of the board for three years, but this is a completely separate appointment, as chair for four years. Therefore, it is entirely in line with the “Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland”. Board members should be informed of reappointment decisions 13 weeks in advance of their term coming to an end, hence why the process overlapped with the chair appointment process. The period of a three-year reappointment term is based on a recommendation from the body, in line with succession planning arrangements as required by the— Douglas Lumsden: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Gillian Martin: I will.”
“They are there to ensure that the work of ESS remains independent and above reproach. Its reputation is essential for ensuring that public bodies recognise its authority, but the SNP’s proposal will drive a coach and horses through those relationships. Given the fact that the motion breaks the very rules that the Parliament has agreed to, it is impossible for the Scottish Conservatives to support it. I suggest to colleagues that the Government needs to look at this appointment again and put forward a new timeline for the candidate. 17:07 Gillian Martin: Douglas Lumsden has said that his questions were largely answered by my opening speech, so I am a bit concerned about the fact that he is not now going to support the motion.”
“I think that that might have been addressed by the cabinet secretary. I was thinking that, surely, this would be the individual’s secondary appointment and therefore contrary to the rules that are established by the framework document. Paragraph 4.3 continues: “members may thus serve a total of two consecutive terms” and a member’s “total period of appointment may not exceed 8 years.” If Mr Dixon was first appointed in 2020 and the secondary appointment will take us to 2029, that would be about eight and a half to nine years. Once again, that contravenes the rules that are set out in the framework document. At committee, I was willing to put aside Mr Dixon’s sympathies towards Just Stop Oil and his stance against nuclear power, but the rules were put in place for a purpose.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments, which cleared up some of the points that I was going to raise because I feel that there is some confusion on the matter. As I understand the timeline of Mr Dixon’s involvement with Environmental Standards Scotland, he was first appointed to the board in December 2020. He was then reappointed to the board in November 2024. In January 2025, he was appointed as interim chair, and today we are being asked to confirm his appointment as chair for a further four years, which will take us to 2029, unless I am mistaken. Therefore, he has been reappointed once and has changed roles twice within that time. Paragraph 4.3 of the Environmental Standards Scotland framework document states: “Ministers may reappoint members on one occasion only”.”
“Only Scottish Conservatives will put money back into people’s pockets, ensure a growing and vibrant economy, and stop those left-wing radical policies coming from a Scottish Government that is out of touch, out of ideas and out of time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Gillian Martin to wind up the debate. Cabinet secretary, I would be grateful if you could take us up to just before 5 o’clock. 16:48”
“Let me outline the policies of the only party in Scotland with commonsense proposals on the issues that have been discussed in the debate. Only Scottish Conservatives will cut income tax to 19 per cent for every taxpayer who earns up to £43,000 per year. Only we will exempt all pubs and restaurants from paying business rates. Only Scottish Conservatives will cut taxes for house buyers by raising the point at which they start paying tax on house purchases to £250,000. Only we will protect Scotland’s oil and gas sector and the vital role that it plays—and will continue to play—in providing affordable energy to our homes, communities and country for many years to come.”
“He pointed to NHS waiting lists adding to the problem—a point that Paul O’Kane and Bob Doris made, too. Mr Rennie also pointed to the grants for home efficiency and heat pumps. All members will have heard the complaint that applying for those is difficult. I tried a couple of times to intervene on Foysol Choudhury, to ask him when GB Energy would reduce bills by £300 and why pensioners would ever trust the Labour Party again. Perhaps it was a good thing that he did not take my intervention. I have sat through the debate, wishing and hoping for some clarity from the Scottish Government on what solutions it is offering the people of Scotland. I should have known better. Instead, it has come to the debate with political grievance and point scoring.”
“Fergus Ewing: Does Mr Lumsden also agree that, in the UK, there is sufficient storage capacity of gas for only seven bad winter days, as opposed to the capacity for 89 such days that exists in Germany? Without further investment in a UK gas industry, there would not be incentive to invest in increasing that gas storage, because there would be no purpose. Therefore, the risk of the lights going out in Britain is very serious. Douglas Lumsden: I completely agree that we should invest more in gas. I would like to see a new gas-fired power station being built in Peterhead. Making that link to Acorn, which I am sure most of us would want to see happen, would be a good step forward. Willie Rennie spoke about economic inactivity. Work is good, so let us help people who do not have it.”
“We often hear talk about how well local government is funded, but, if that is the case, why are we seeing inflation-busting council tax rises? Patrick Harvie spoke about the proposed heat in buildings bill. He is right to say that we deserve to know what has happened to that bill. Has it been dropped? We need some honesty from the Government. Fergus Ewing made an important contribution. Our power is too expensive, which means that our manufacturing base cannot be competitive—a point that Graham Simpson also made. Our highest industry energy costs could be pushed to consumers and so fuel inflation. However, I agree that the solution is not as easy as simply breaking the link between gas and electricity pricing. If that were the case, I am sure that it would have been done already.”
“Paul O’Kane spoke of energy security, but the Labour UK Government is forcing through a ban without a plan, through its policy of no new licences, and the devolved Scottish Government has adopted a presumption against new oil and gas exploration. While we still have a need for hydrocarbons, why on earth would we shoot ourselves in the foot by not using our own domestic supply? That is not good for our jobs, our economy, our energy security or the environment. I will now turn to the contributions that we have heard. The cabinet secretary spoke about getting existing housing back into use. I completely agree with that. Voids have been a problem for years, but those have been caused by the lack of local government funding. Those issues are linked.”
“As Liz Smith said, we get criticised for being obsessed with economic growth but we are right to bang on about it. It is essential because it leads to more jobs, more money for our public services, better education, more opportunities and lower poverty. It should be at the heart of everything that this devolved Government does, because, without it, we are in a downward spiral. Without growth, this devolved Government has backed itself into a corner of higher taxes, lower productivity and less money for public services. We need to break that cycle. That is why it is criminal that the Scottish Government is turning its back on well-paid jobs and tax revenues through its demonising of the oil and gas sector.”
“We are still waiting for it to meet its environmental targets and for it to tell us how it will meet our long-term energy needs without being reliant on imported oil and gas. As much of a farce as GB Energy is, at least the Labour Government has actually set it up. Although I am not sure what it is, unlike the state- owned Scottish energy company, it is set up. That company was announced by the Scottish National Party in 2017, but is now not spoken about and seems to have been quietly ditched. There was also the Scottish Government’s bonds, which Humza Yousaf announced in this place—another grand announcement quietly dropped in the hope that no one was looking. This is a Government that is out of ideas and out of time. It needs to focus on the basics and on growing the economy.”
“Only last week, it was reported that the Treasury was lining up spending cuts to GB Energy, which is a point that was made by Graham Simpson. To be honest, I am not surprised, because Treasury officials, like the rest of us, are probably totally confused as to what GB Energy actually is. No wonder it seems to be struggling to hire a chief executive; it probably cannot agree on a job description. Although I am not averse to the devolved Government pointing out the failings of the Westminster Labour Government, it cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the Scottish public when it comes to its own failings. Pointing the finger at someone else does not absolve it of the guilt of failed policies and abandoned communities, such as the north-east. We are still waiting for a just transition plan and an energy strategy from the Government.”
“However, I do not think that our pensioners were expecting change to mean their winter fuel payments being snatched from them a couple of months after Labour came in. I do not think that our farmers were expecting change to mean a family farm tax that would see many have to sell parts of their business to survive. I do not think that businesses thought that change would be a tax on jobs as national insurance was hiked. I do not think that households were expecting the promise of lower energy bills—by £300 a year, by the end of the Parliament—to actually mean bills going up. However, that is exactly what we have. I have spoken regularly of GB Energy being a sham. We were promised lower bills, but bills are rising. Aberdeen was promised 1,000 jobs, but now we are being told that there might be 200 jobs by 2029 if we are lucky.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer—that was perhaps a warning. This has been an interesting, if somewhat predictable, debate. The motion from the Government is a shameful attempt to deflect all responsibility away from it. Let us remember that we are seeing inflation-busting council tax rises because of its financial mismanagement. Of course, we also have the Government’s usual attempt to pat itself on the back in the motion. Then we have Labour’s amendment, which makes me think that it is living on a different planet. It is as if its string of broken promises over the past six months should just be brushed aside, which is a point that Stephen Kerr made. No wonder Labour members were too ashamed to take interventions. In the run-up to the general election, Labour promised change.”
“4) Bill, including the reintroduction of universal winter fuel payments for pensioners and through energy efficiency programmes; believes that reforming energy markets and harnessing Scotland’s renewable potential will bolster energy security and, in turn, reduce consumer bills, and calls on the UK Government to make urgent progress on delivering its commitment to reduce bills by £300, against which no progress has yet been made. The Presiding Officer: Members will wish to be aware that there is time in hand this afternoon. 14:36”
“However, we also have the opportunity today to stand together to call on the UK Government, before the spring statement, not to deliver those welfare cuts; to actually deliver some support for people who are suffering because of high energy prices; and to deliver on the promises that it was elected to deliver on. I move, That the Parliament notes that Ofgem’s energy price cap has soared to £1,849 for the average household, which is the third increase in a row and 9.4% (£159) higher than this time last year; recognises that this will compound cost of living pressures for households across Scotland; welcomes the Scottish Government’s action in the recently passed Budget (Scotland) (No.”
“Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Shirley-Anne Somerville: I apologise to Mr Lumsden—I am just about to wind up. We can go only so far in mitigating the worst excesses of Westminster. The Scottish Government has already spent £154 million this year alone on mitigating the impact of welfare decisions—and that is just on welfare. As I set out at the start, the planned further cuts that are coming from the chancellor in the spring budget statement are deeply concerning for people across this nation. As a Parliament, we have to do all that we can within our powers to protect people during the cost of living crisis.”
“On the £80 million that we have put aside, the business case is already there—it has been set out again and again. The £80 million is for when the Acorn project gets track status, in order to make the early developments to get it off the ground. That is what the industry and partners in Acorn and the Scottish cluster have asked us to do. We have been supportive of them right the way through the tracks process. The business case does not need to be made any stronger than it already is. It is there and it is clear, and it is quite beyond me why the project has not been taken up by the UK Government. I have my own personal beliefs as to why it was not given track status, and it was not because of a lack of a business case.”
“I fully support the Acorn project and hope that it will get to approval shortly. More than three years ago, the Scottish Government committed £80 million for the Scottish cluster project. Would the Scottish Government consider using some of those funds now to build the commercial case for importing CO2 from the rest of Europe, as the cabinet secretary outlined, to try to get the project over the line and to secure for the north-east the jobs that everyone is so eager to get? Gillian Martin: I welcome Douglas Lumsden’s support for Acorn. I know that he has given it his long-standing support, and I am sorry that his support, and the support from others on his benches, to be fair to them, did not make a difference when the Conservatives were in office. I know that they tried, and I want to be fair to them on that.”
“How many ScotRail trains were axed in 2022 and 2024 when the temporary timetable was introduced? How does that figure compare with service reduction in the rest of the UK? Fiona Hyslop: Issues around industrial action were not reserved to the Scottish situation. There were long and on-going extensive cancellations and industrial action in the rest of the UK. As for the number of services that were cancelled, that was adjusted to by an appropriately amended timetable. The member will be aware that, when changes in timetables are planned, as was the case over the summer, those changes are not counted as cancellations, so I am quite happy to be transparent about the comparison. The figures that I just relayed still stand. They show service performance by ScotRail that is better than in the rest of the”
“If the devolved Scottish Government really cared about our energy production, the cabinet secretary would be meeting the communities I have met. She would have spoken to the people I have spoken to. She would have taken the time to go outside, on to her own doorstep, and listen to the voices outside the Parliament that are telling the Scottish National Party to think again.”
“I have been in Parliament for four years now, and I feel that, today, I am speaking on the most important topic. Up and down the country, people have real concerns about what they see happening to their communities and their homes. Many of them contacted me over the weekend, asking me to speak up for them, because they are feeling ignored. I have promised to speak for June, Andy, Vince, Shona, Caroline, Aileen, Kate, Laura, Angela and all the others who have contacted me, and all the concerned residents I have met over the past six months—from Turriff, New Deer and Leylodge to Angus and Save Our Mearns, and everywhere in between. We are talking today about energy production and the importance of renewable energy while the reality is happening in our communities and industries throughout the north-east.”
“I encourage communities, businesses and everyone with an interest in our energy system to take part and ensure that our guidance supports sustainable and meaningful outcomes. We are also working hard to improve Scottish Government guidance on pre-application processes in order to ensure that communities are heard by developers ahead of planning applications being submitted. A review of that guidance will be published in the coming weeks.”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way? Gillian Martin: I have only about a minute left, so I will finish my points. In the past 12 months, benefits worth more than £30 million have been offered to Scottish communities. However, our principles of good practice must be improved, and the amount of money that comes to communities must be ramped up. As I said, the powers to mandate community benefits and shared ownership are reserved. However, we are taking practical action to maximise those opportunities in Scotland, including through our on-going consultation on improving the good practice principles for onshore and offshore renewable energy developments, in order to ensure that our national guidance is updated and fit for the future.”
“He can tell them why the devolved Government does not care about their rights. He can tell them why he is content to turn a blind eye to rogue site operators. Minister, it is not too late. Listen to the issues, work with SCOPHRA, make sure that the housing bill works for all home owners and end discrimination against park home owners. 13:31”
“I asked the Scottish Government how it monitors and enforces compliance with existing regulations for park home sites. Basically, it does not; it just devolves all responsibility to our underresourced local authorities. This Government has declared a housing emergency, and park homes can play a big part in helping to address that emergency. However, we need proper protections and regulations in place. The ideal chance to do that is the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which could put in place legal protections and set out a conflict resolution process and the rights that park home owners could expect from site owners. However, the bill does not do any of that. It is as though these homes and their owners just do not exist. I urge the minister to come with me to meet residents.”
“I asked how residents’ legal rights could be improved, and “what new regulations are being considered to enhance the protection of park home residents.”—[Written Answers, 19 February 2025; S6W-34562.] In response to my question on legal rights, I was told that the “priority at present is to work to change the basis of pitch fee uprating from the Retail Prices Index to the Consumer Prices Index”.—[Written Answers, 21 February 2025; S6W- 34568.] That is an embarrassment—the only thing that the minister thinks should change is the price rise mechanism. There is nothing about improving legal rights and giving these residents more protection. I asked the minister whether there were any plans to establish an independent body to oversee and regulate park home sites. Again, the devolved Government would rather turn a blind eye and do nothing.”
“Instead, the local authority was taking the owner’s word for it—no doubt due to limited budget, as we heard from Willie Rennie. I heard stories of site owners dismissing owners’ concerns out of hand and the owners having only a limited or expensive course of action open to them. That is not good enough. We cannot simply ignore those legitimate concerns. That is why, on the back of my meeting, I submitted a number of questions on the subject to the devolved Government. The response to those questions was pathetic, to say the least.”
“We have heard the term “mobile homes” used in the debate, but that does not do most of these homes justice. They do not move about, and it is completely wrong for them to be covered by mobile home legislation alone. They are prefabricated homes, and the home owners deserve rights that are equivalent to those of other home owners. During my visit, I heard of home owners not being given an adequate power supply to their homes, which meant, for example, that the oven could not be on at the same time as the heating. However, the site owner would not do anything about it. I heard stories of the local council asking for improvements to be made at the site but there being no evidence that the local council was actually checking that the improvement conditions of a licence were being met.”
“I thank Murdo Fraser for bringing the debate to the chamber. I must admit that I was not aware of this subject until I signed his motion. I was then contacted by constituents in Aberdeenshire asking me to meet them, and I spent a morning with park home owners to understand more about the issues that they face. When I went to visit, I was struck by the sense of community. Everyone seemed to know everyone else in the park—I guess that we should not be surprised by that, because that is the whole idea of these parks. A park is a community of like- minded individuals who have their own space in the countryside with reduced maintenance. No one should think of a park home as being any less a home than one that is made of bricks and mortar.”
“The First Minister: I recognise the importance of the points that Mr Lumsden has put to me. I will have to scrutinise the situation, but I imagine that regulatory oversight on those matters is reserved, and that the proximity of the Health and Safety Executive will be critical in all that. I will explore the point that Mr Lumsden has put to me and write to him setting out the definitive answer. Regardless of where the responsibility lies, we must have a safe approach to delivery of battery storage plants. The plants are critical to the transition to net zero, but members of the public are entitled to reassurance about safety. I will write to Mr Lumsden with the definitive response that he is looking for.”
“With the growth in renewable energy, we are also seeing a huge rise in the number of battery storage sites across Scotland, with more than 300 in the planning system. Last week, there was a fire at one of those sites at Rothienorman, and constituents are concerned about the fire and pollution risks at those sites. At committee this week, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency admitted that it is “concerned about the risks associated with battery energy storage systems” and admitted that there is currently no regulatory framework or even “a timescale for when a legislative change might happen.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 25 February 2025; c 34.] They can be dangerous systems, so will the Government take action to regulate the battery storage industry before a major incident occurs?”
“We will be the only party that stands up for a just transition for the north-east. I am proud, along with colleagues, to be the only party that will vote against this damaging budget today. We will stand up for businesses, communities and local authorities when the rest of the politicians in this building will not. 16:23”
“House prices are falling through the floor as people are moving away. There needs to be urgent action. That is not the only broken promise to the north- east. Although £200 million was promised to improve rail journey times by 2026, not even 10 per cent of that was delivered, and there is nothing in this year’s budget. We have only grand announcements, made years ago, but no delivery—just like the dualling of the A96 and the A90 to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. Why should the people of the north-east believe this Government anymore? The Scottish Conservatives remain the only party that will stand up to this SNP Government and its partners, the Scottish Labour Party. Only the Scottish Conservatives offer an alternative to the growth-destroying, innovation-depressing policies that are being discussed here today.”
“However, continued cuts to local authorities, increased wage bills through national insurance hikes and irresponsible pay deals have all meant that local authorities are facing the prospect of withdrawing vital services altogether. The second area that I will focus on is the lack of funding that has been allocated to the north- east. The just transition funding for the north-east and Moray was announced in 2022. It was meant to be £500 million over 10 years, and so you would expect about £50 million per year, but that figure has slowed right down over the past two years: it was £12 million this year and it will be £16 million next year. That snail’s pace, along with the hostility shown to the oil and gas industry, means that there will not be much to transition. Aberdeen is on its knees right now.”
“We need a new approach, and it is much better for the public purse to ensure that issues are dealt with early on. It is much better to ensure that the elderly can stay at home as long as possible with a great care package, rather than ending up in long-term care or bed-blocking in our hospitals. It is much better to ensure that families get support through well- funded social work and support services than to deal with family breakdown and children requiring additional care. It is much better for local authorities to offer a well-rounded education package to our young people with additional needs than to arrange out-of-area placements because they cannot find provision in the area where they live.”
“As a former leader of a local council, I know how crucial local authorities are in early intervention and prevention. This Government often speaks about early intervention and prevention, but it only talks the talk; it does not walk the walk. So much early intervention and prevention is done by local authorities, particularly in health and social care, which means that less money is needed to deal with crisis situations later on. My colleague Brian Whittle spoke last week about obesity and the impact that that will have on healthcare going forward. However, without proper funding for local councils, we are seeing swimming pools and sports centres closing, along with libraries. School sport clubs are being axed and kids are sitting in front of computer screens instead.”
“With inflation rising—which is, again, due to Labour—that is putting untold pressures on the wallets of individuals throughout Scotland. They are seeing rising costs everywhere and are still paying more in tax than their colleagues south of the border. The SNP promised that the increase in tax would lead to additional funds for services. Ivan McKee: Will Douglas Lumsden give way? Douglas Lumsden: If there is time later, I will come back to the member. As my colleague Liz Smith pointed out at the time, and as economists highlight now, the higher income tax rates in Scotland have led to less rather than more money for public services. It is that knowledge and understanding that we will miss next session, as Liz Smith has decided to stand down. I, for one, will miss her wise words. That funding matters.”
“It is a budget that is lacking in ideas and policies to encourage growth and drive innovation in our economy. I want to focus on two key areas that highlight the selling out of our communities and industries. The first is our local authorities. The folly of the rise in national insurance from the Westminster Government has put our local authorities under immense pressure. The ill-thought-out council tax freeze last year, which flew in the face of the Verity house agreement, has created the perfect storm for our local councils. Inflation-busting council tax rises are being seen the length and breadth of Scotland. It is no wonder that the Labour branch office is siding so closely with the SNP Government on the budget. They are both equally to blame for the 10 per cent council tax rises that are being imposed on our hard-working communities.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I was a councillor at the start of this session. I am proud to stand here today with my colleagues as a member of the only party that is willing to stand up to the devolved SNP Government. This budget is bad for businesses and individuals right across Scotland. It will leave them poorer and it will stifle growth, limit opportunities and hit our vital industries hardest. It is shameful that the other so-called Opposition parties are signing up hook, line and sinker to the budget. Ivan McKee: Will Douglas Lumsden take an intervention? Douglas Lumsden: I will come back to the member later if there is time. Only the Scottish Conservatives are calling out the budget for what it is: a raid on individuals’ wallets and business profits.”
“Ross Greer: It was the first time in a long time that we were not in government or the only party that was dealing with the Government and, therefore, in a position with significant leverage. However, I am proud of what we have achieved. I am proud that, as a result of the budget, more children will be fed and lifted out of poverty— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Greer, you will need to conclude. Ross Greer: —buses will be cheaper and our natural environment will be protected. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Alex Cole- Hamilton to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. I remind members that there is no time in hand. You have up to six minutes, please. 16:04”
“As the cabinet secretary mentioned, we will proceed with a trial of a £2 cap on bus fares in one part of the country. That will tackle the climate crisis through helping people to keep their cars at home, and it will address the cost of living crisis. We are delivering free bus travel for asylum seekers, providing funding for the roll-out of default 20mph speed limits in residential areas, providing more free ferry travel for young islanders, increasing the additional dwelling supplement to raise money for public services and help first-time buyers, moving forward with a consultation on the cruise ship levy—a new power for local government—and delivering more free school meals. The negotiations were difficult for my party. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You will need to bring your remarks to a close, please.”
“That is why we need to move much further and much more quickly on council tax reform, in particular. As well as setting our red lines, the Greens made a number of specific budget proposals— something that some other parties apparently found impossible. For example, I am delighted that we have increased the nature restoration fund to a record £26 million. That will create jobs, particularly across rural Scotland, and help us with projects such as those involving the restoration of what is left of our Atlantic rainforest. I have seen the difference that the fund makes in Arran, in my region, where a research vessel was commissioned to allow the charity COAST—the Community of Arran Seabed Trust—to share with the world the benefits of the no-take zone at Lamlash Bay.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Ross Greer: Not quite yet. As a result of the real-terms funding increase that has been secured in the budget, a number of councils across the country have taken what would have been damaging cuts off the table. For example, my colleague Mark Ruskell has been campaigning with communities in Perth and Kinross against proposed library closures, and those proposals have been withdrawn as part of the council’s budget-setting process. However, as I have said before, the annual haggle over a couple of hundred million pounds is a terrible way to resource local government in this country. The vast majority of funding for municipal government being dictated by central Government makes Scotland a significant outlier in European terms.”
“The Presiding Officer: The question is, that motion S6M-16585, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on suspension of standing orders, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. 14:10 Meeting suspended. 14:19 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We come to the vote on motion S6M-16585, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on suspension of standing orders. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“We have emphasised to the UK Government the importance of ensuring that the Scottish Parliament has enough time to consider such matters. Mr Mountain’s suggestion about the ability to pause processes at Westminster is an innovative one. I am happy to reflect on that and to see whether we can explore it. It is not for me to suggest what any committee might want to do, but of course any committee of this Parliament is well equipped to write to the UK Government to make suggestions to it, just as committees make suggestions to the Scottish Government. My expectation would be that the UK Government would respond timeously. I assure members that we understand the concerns and we continue to press them but, unfortunately, we are where we are, so I urge Parliament to support the motion in my name.”