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 2 of 11.
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite Alexander Stewart to wind up the debate. 17:02”
“Finally, it is important to recognise that the Parliament has not been asked to endorse a particular reform, nor to approve any full-scale revaluation, nor to agree changes to council tax bands. What has been taking place is a consultation that is supported by independent analysis, followed by public engagement. The findings of that work will be published and will inform consideration of the issues by the next Parliament. That is the appropriate sequence for a question of this significance. Rhetoric—and that is all that it is—about increases of thousands of pounds or claims that decisions have already been taken do not reflect the reality. I welcome debate on the issues, and we welcome scrutiny and challenge, but the debate should be grounded in facts and evidence and in an honest account of what has and has not been proposed.”
“At the same time, council tax bills ended up more than £600 higher for band D in England than they are in Scotland. The Tories should reflect on that when they are commenting on the debate. We welcome Michael Marra’s confirmation of Labour’s support in principle for our proposal to put in place new council tax bands for properties of more than £1 million. Both he and Mark Griffin said that there were questions that had not been answered, but Michael Marra will be delighted to hear that Mark Griffin went on to answer those very questions. If those members have any further questions on the process, which I think we have laid out clearly, we would be very happy to pick those up separately with them.”
“Annual funding decisions, including support for councils, are rightly addressed through the budget and fiscal framework, not through structural reform of council tax. I will take a minute to reflect on some of the other contributions. As often happens, and as we have had again this afternoon, some members from the Tory benches call for spending increases and others call for tax cuts. Pam Gosal managed to get both of those suggestions into the same speech, which was interesting to hear. Sue Webber made some comments about council funding, without recognising the fact that five or six councils went bust under the Tories down south. As Patrick Harvie rightly pointed out, during the 10-year period when the Tories were in office across the United Kingdom, council funding in England was cut by 40 per cent.”
“Ivan McKee: What I said exactly was that the options were explicitly designed to raise the same overall amount of revenue nationally, and not more. Mr Hoy suggests that households have been singled out to pay for wider public spending pressures. In fact, the purpose of this work has been to look carefully at how the system operates, how it distributes liability and whether it does so fairly. Illustrations were revenue neutral so as not to increase the overall burden on households. It is also misleading to imply that councils have been ignored or undermined in the process. The programme of engagement has been undertaken jointly with COSLA, reflecting a shared recognition that any discussion about council tax must take account of local government’s role, responsibilities and financial sustainability.”
“Ivan McKee: I know that they are finding the current electoral challenges difficult, as they have moved down into fifth place and are having to clutch at straws, but they should debate with the facts and not with their own perceptions of reality. The analysis also looked in detail at affordability; at who might be affected; and at how protections could be built in to prevent sudden unmanageable changes. I give way to Mr Hoy. Craig Hoy: The minister has moved on, but I wonder whether, in the light of the Government’s record on tax, anybody actually believes a word that he says when he says that there will be no material increase in the overall tax take. Is that not just proof, yet again, that the Scottish Government will use smoke and mirrors to hide its intention to raise tax on ordinary hard-working Scots?”
“Tell that to the people who are getting taxed. Ivan McKee: Conservative members should listen; they might learn something. Members: Oh! Ivan McKee: No decisions have been taken by the Scottish Government to increase council tax bills across Scotland; no household has been issued with a higher bill as a result of the consultation; and no plan for reform has been agreed, let alone implemented. It is simply not accurate to suggest that this work represents an attempt to extract more money from households. The independent analysis that informed the consultation examined options that were explicitly designed to raise the same overall amount of revenue nationally, not more, and the members on the Conservative benches opposite should reflect on the reality of that. Craig Hoy: Will the member take an intervention?”
“By contrast, in Scotland, the Government is guaranteeing three years of relief and combining rate reductions, transitional protection, sector-specific relief and the small business bonus scheme in one coherent package. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Brown, you need to conclude. Keith Brown: For those reasons, I support the amendment in the name of Ivan McKee on support for hospitality in Scotland. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Fergus Ewing to speak for up to two minutes. 15:36”
“Keith Brown: I have already said that I will not take an intervention. We have already heard about spiralling energy costs, the economic damage of Brexit and, as I have mentioned, the UK Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions by lowering the threshold and raising the rate. That tax on jobs is estimated to cost businesses about £850 per employee and to take more than £2 billion out of the Scottish economy next year. Those are the pressures that are squeezing our pubs, restaurants and hotels. Members have pointed to England and Wales, but let us make that comparison properly. Down south, there will also be a revaluation on 1 April, but the system there relies heavily on complex transitional schemes and shifting relief packages, which hospitality groups have criticised as being inconsistent and skewed.”
“The issue is not whether the hospitality sector is being supported—it clearly is—but whether we throw uncertainty into a live revaluation process by replacing targeted support with a very broad and expensive subsidy. On the valuation methodology, the Scottish Government has listened to the licensed trade. An independent review, which will involve the sector, is being led by advocate depute BJ Gill, and it will report later this year to inform the 2029 revaluation. That is how we fix the system properly, without pulling the rug out from under businesses in the middle of a revaluation cycle. We must be honest about where many of the pressures on hospitality are coming from. They are not coming from the Parliament at Holyrood; they are coming from Westminster. Douglas Lumsden: Will Keith Brown take an intervention?”
“There will also be transitional relief to smooth changes, and the small business bonus scheme is being continued for the next three years, to give certainty. Specifically for this sector, for the next three years, there will be a 15 per cent relief for eligible hospitality properties paying the basic or intermediate rate, capped at £110,000 per business. In our islands and in designated remote areas, the relief is 100 per cent, which is a fact that was not mentioned by a previous speaker from the islands. If we take everything together, we see that 89,000 properties—96 per cent of the sector—will pay zero or reduced rates across the revaluation period, with ratepayers saving an estimated £322 million.”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Keith Brown: I am not taking any Conservative interventions; they would not take one from me. I do not agree that postponing revaluation or introducing a blanket 100 per cent relief up to £100,000 is the right answer because, when it comes to the details, Scotland is already providing a level of targeted, guaranteed support that is simply not matched elsewhere on these islands. The draft Scottish budget sets out a non-domestic rates relief package worth £864 million, which could benefit 96 per cent of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Alongside revaluation on 1 April, the basic, intermediate and higher property rates are being reduced, delivering the lowest basic rate since 2018-19.”
“I intend that we move to the next item of business to preserve some time for the rest of this afternoon’s business, which other members might have an interest in. There will be a short pause before we do so. Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”
“I have consulted the Presiding Officer’s office, I have been in contact with the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture and I have tried to arrange business through my chief whip. Will the Presiding Officer advise members of any wrongdoing on my part under the standing orders? For members who do not understand the standing orders, could that advice perhaps be sent to them, so that they understand that I have not undertaken any wrongdoing in that regard? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The matter was on the business bulletin and was called, and I think that that sets forth the position. The other points that Meghan Gallacher raised do not amount to a point of order, as I am sure that she is well aware; they are debating points.”
“Meghan Gallacher: I seek your guidance, Presiding Officer, because that was a disgusting and disgraceful intervention by Patrick Harvie. I have not wasted the Parliament’s time. I have tried to seek consensus in bringing forward a piece of legislation that a veterans group asked me to bring to the Parliament in order to improve the lives of our veterans and armed forces community. I will never apologise for the work that I have undertaken in that field. I hope that Patrick Harvie reflects on his comments. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Gallacher, will you please get to the point of order? Meghan Gallacher: I will come to the point that I am trying to make.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will respond to Mr Harvie, obviously, before I take another point of order. That is the normal process. I thank Mr Harvie for advance notice of his point of order. The rule to which Mr Harvie refers relies on a motion to agree the general principles of the bill being moved by the member in charge of a bill. That has not happened today. In addition, the rules allow that a bill may be withdrawn at any time by the member in charge before the completion of stage 1. As stage 1 has not yet been completed, the rules allow the bill to be withdrawn today by the member in charge, which she has indicated that she will do. I conclude by saying that it is of course open to any member to raise concerns about parliamentary procedures with the SPPA Committee. I now have a point of order from Meghan Gallacher.”
“Patrick Harvie: —but in preparing for a debate that we expected to take place today and which is clearly not necessary. Even the member in charge now admits that the whole bill is entirely unnecessary. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members! Mr Harvie, will you please get to the point? Patrick Harvie: In relation to the two parts of standing orders that I have raised, I ask whether the Presiding Officer is willing to begin a discussion with the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to consider whether the provisions, standing orders and other rules of the Parliament are capable of ensuring that Parliament’s time and capacity is not wasted in this unnecessary and disrespectful way in future. Meghan Gallacher: On a point of order, Presiding Officer.”
“What a disgrace! The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members. Patrick Harvie: —but I have been— [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please resume your seat, Mr Harvie. Members, we will listen to the member who has the floor. That is Mr Harvie and not any member that I am currently looking at on the Conservative benches. Patrick Harvie: Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am a member of what has been the lead committee on the bill. My time, the time of my staff, the time of other members and their staff, and the time of parliamentary officials and external witnesses has been taken up not only in taking forward a stage 1 inquiry into a bill that I saw was palpably unnecessary from the moment I opened its first page—[Interruption.] Douglas Lumsden: What about the greyhounds? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members.”
“We know that the Scottish National Party hates oil and gas, and we know that it hates nuclear. The SNP is anti-science, anti-progress and anti-investment, and it wants us all to be poorer. Has the devolved Scottish Government carried out an economic impact assessment on its policy of turning its back on new nuclear investment, and if not, why not? Gillian Martin: The Scottish Government commissioned a report, which was published in December 2023, which found that the reduction in traditional firm generation in Scotland, which includes nuclear, would be offset by vast increases in wind and solar installed capacity, along with the installation of storage technologies, which would provide continued security of supply in Scotland. Hospice Care Services 5.”
“My amendment seeks to do just that. The Government will probably bring out the tired lines that, “Energy infrastructure is reserved,” or, “There’s nothing we can do.” However, protecting our countryside is devolved, planning is devolved and protecting our communities is devolved. Let us start to understand better the damage that is being caused, so that we can make informed decisions. 14:45”
“I will speak only to amendment 64, which relates to the impact of new energy infrastructure on our biodiversity. I have spoken many a time in the Parliament about the impact of monster pylons, substations and battery storage on our communities and on people’s lives, homes and health. All of that infrastructure has an impact on people; however, it also has an impact on our countryside and our tourism industry. At present, the devolved Government is content to bury its head in the sand and ignore the damage that is caused by that energy infrastructure—to turn a blind eye and look the other way. However, damage is being caused. That infrastructure can have a huge impact on surrounding areas of distinct natural significance and plant life, as well as disrupting the local bird population. That needs to be fully understood and reported on.”
“You were not in the chamber. Kenneth Gibson: I am in the chamber! The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members! [Interruption.] Please resume your seat, Mr Gibson. Members—[Interruption.] Excuse me! If members wish to make any point, they should do so on their feet, not from a sedentary position. Could you repeat what you were saying, Mr Gibson? Kenneth Gibson: I would have voted no, Presiding Officer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Gibson. Your vote will be recorded.”
“Before we move on to the next item of business, there will be a short pause to allow the front bench teams to change positions. Additional Support for Learning Review”
“Now that the cabinet secretary is no longer responsible for approving large-scale energy projects, including municipally owned energy sources, will she do something that she has failed to do so far and meet the campaign groups up and down the country who are seeing their communities trashed with monster pylons, substations and battery storage? Gillian Martin: The Scottish Government will be consulting on the good practice principles, and that will give me an opportunity, as the cabinet secretary who is responsible for the principles, to engage with all stakeholders throughout Scotland on good practice for all energy developments. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio questions on climate action and energy, and transport.”
“Thousands of oil and gas jobs are lost every month, while the SNP has a presumption against new oil and gas. In the face of that jobs emergency, the SNP’s response is to allocate a pitiful £3 million to support former oil and gas workers into renewables. When will the devolved Government open its eyes to what is happening to the oil and gas sector and back our workers, who keep the lights on for families across Scotland? Shona Robison: One of the most important things that we have done is to demand that the UK Labour Government get rid of the energy profits levy—which Douglas Lumsden and his colleagues introduced in the first place. [Interruption.] They do not like to hear about that, because it does not suit their narrative, but we will repeat it and repeat it. The EPL was born out of the Tory”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to manage and reduce damage and repair costs in schools. (S6O-05347)”
“Yesterday, journalists at STV took strike action, protesting against job cuts that would lead to the end of a separate news bulletin coming from the north of Scotland. I commend and support them for taking a stand and defending local journalism. Is there any pressure that the Government can put on STV and Ofcom to help to maintain a dedicated news service for the north- east of Scotland?”
“She is already a champion for anaerobic digestion, and I will reflect on her asks of the Government. Meeting closed at 18:41. Correction Fiona Hyslop has identified an error in her contribution and provided the following correction.”
“Biogas for 8,000 homes is not to be sniffed at, and I look forward to perhaps coming to Mr Hepburn’s constituency to see how that is rolled out. The numbers that Jamie Hepburn quoted on tackling food waste are important. As I said, that is a stubborn type of waste on which we are maybe not meeting the targets. In fact, there is no maybe about it—we are not meeting our targets for food waste. Of course, food waste is also a feedstock that we should be using. To answer a question that I think Jamie Hepburn asked, the public sector should be decarbonising more. Perhaps we will see more local authorities seizing the opportunity of anaerobic digestion plants as part of the circular economy work that they are doing. That might be unlocked by the producer levy funding that is coming to them. In conclusion, I thank Emma Harper.”
“Anyone who is considering investing in an anaerobic digestion plant should not be put off by some of the issues that Maurice Golden mentioned. I encourage such people to engage with SEPA and Zero Waste Scotland at the earliest opportunity, because their expert advice can help to shape the most resource-efficient and successful projects. The Scottish Government also provides interest-free loans through Business Energy Scotland. Farms can apply for up to £100,000 towards an AD system with combined heat and power, and Business Energy Scotland can also provide advice to deliver more energy- efficient low-carbon solutions. I am glad that the issue has been raised in the chamber. I was pleased to hear about the plants in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth that Jamie Hepburn mentioned.”
“Will anaerobic digestion form part of the energy strategy? If so, when will we see that strategy? Gillian Martin: Douglas Lumsden’s greatest hits for 2026 are the same as for 2025. I talked to ADBA about the climate change plan. At that point, the plan had not been published, and ADBA was very keen for anaerobic digestion to be mentioned in it. I hope that ADBA will have read the plan by now. I made sure that AD was mentioned in it, because, as Sarah Boyack said, we have an opportunity to reduce the emissions associated with waste from food production and animal waste, but we also have an economic development opportunity. I was pleased to meet ADBA representatives and my colleagues at BrewDog, and some of the farming colleagues who were there.”
“For my part, I believe that they all ought to be taken forward, but I will always be mindful of the impact that that can have on costs. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will call Emma Harper for a brief supplementary question, but I encourage members at the back of the chamber to cease their conversations.”
“Considering that Scotland’s house building rate is well below the required level, will the cabinet secretary commit to reviewing current and proposed regulations with a view to making it easier and more affordable for the sector to build the homes that Scotland needs? Màiri McAllan: As I have said a number of times, we have recently set out plans for us to continue our track record on the delivery of affordable homes with a major delivery programme over the coming four years. Of course we are mindful of all the things that have a bearing on the deliverability of that. However, I am not clear which aspects of, for example, fire safety regulation, accessibility regulation or, indeed, regulation that will ensure that we have warmer, energy-efficient homes Douglas Lumsden thinks are not required.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact that increased regulations have had on the construction costs of house building. (S6O-05322) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that regulatory changes are introduced following full consideration of their wider implications, including in respect of the construction costs of house building. Douglas Lumsden: Research by Homes for Scotland found that regulations introduced since 2021 have increased the cost of house building by more than £20,000 per home, and those costs are expected to rise over time.”
“At Aberdeen’s home match against Kilmarnock at the weekend, alcohol sales were allowed as part of a successful trial. Alcohol is allowed at football for those who are lucky enough to be able to afford hospitality. Alcohol sales are allowed at rugby matches and ice hockey games, but they are banned for normal punters when they go to their local football match. Does the First Minister agree that the time is now right to look at ways of allowing the controlled sale of alcohol at football grounds and to end the discrimination against football fans?”
“We all need to get behind calling on the UK Government to give the same parity to the Acorn project as is given to other projects. We stand by our commitment to the Acorn project.”
“Can the cabinet secretary tell me whether the closures of the Grangemouth refinery and the Exxon plant at Mossmorran have impacted on the viability of the Acorn project? Will she deliver the £80 million of funding that the SNP Government promised, to safeguard the future of carbon capture in Scotland? Gillian Martin: It was very disappointing to hear that Storegga is walking away from the Acorn project, but Acorn remains a very attractive going concern. The point has been made to me many times by those who want to see carbon capture happening in Scotland that it needs to be given the same amount of money as is associated with the carbon capture projects that will be located in the north of England. That will accelerate the growth not just in carbon capture but in a lot of industries that are associated with it.”
“We are taking sufficient time to analyse and reflect on those developments and their impact on Scotland—a point that I have made many times before to”
“I agree that the energy profits levy is a disaster and threatens jobs, but so does the Scottish Government’s presumption against new oil and gas. The cabinet secretary does not want to debate the energy strategy next week, so can she tell me when the Scottish Government will bring forward that energy strategy? Will it remove the disastrous presumption against new oil and gas? Gillian Martin: The judgments and issues in the energy strategy and the just transition plan are informed and influenced by a range of on-going developments in the UK Government’s energy policy and recent court decisions. Those include, but are not limited to, the announcement by the UK Government about the North Sea future plan, of which we have had no advance sight.”
“An SNP minister, no less, signed up to have more debating time on energy infrastructure in the chamber. If she does not support my amendment, in effect, she will have deliberately misled the 400 attendees of the convention in Inverness. We have time next week, so let us use it to have a full debate on the impact of energy infrastructure on our communities and finally have some answers on the energy strategy. I move amendment S6M-20068.1, to leave out from third “followed by Business Motions” to “3.10 pm Decision Time” and insert: “followed by Scottish Government Debate: Energy Strategy followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time”. The Presiding Officer: I call Graeme Dey to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. 17:27”
“Having the debate next week would give an opportunity to members of the Parliament who took part in a convention in Inverness four months ago to fulfil the promise that they made to the public on that day. During that convention, MSPs signed up to “Undertake to do all that we can across our representative parties to secure urgent debates at both Holyrood and in the House of Commons at Westminster on the attached Unified Statement of the Highland Convention of Community Councils dated 14th June 2025.” The statement was about looking at the impact of energy projects on local communities and the damage that they were causing. Douglas Ross signed it, as did Jamie Halcro Johnston, Tim Eagle and Fergus Ewing, as well as Emma Roddick and Maree Todd.”
“We have a situation where the energy minister meets SSEN regularly but fails to meet concerned community groups who are seeing their countryside being ruined by monster pylons, substations and battery storage, and the First Minister and his advisers turn a blind eye. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the member. Douglas Lumsden: It stinks, Presiding Officer. It is clear that, when it comes to approving large- scale energy infrastructure projects, Gillian Martin gets to be the judge, jury and executioner. She fails to listen to the voices of our communities but is happy to jet-set around the world in business class to sell our countryside to the highest bidder.”
“Since the First Minister will not allow nuclear, does he plan to turn our rural communities into one huge battery storage system? [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Lumsden. Douglas Lumsden: Using the time next week for debate would give the SNP Government the chance to come clean on its fantasy claims and answer those questions. The debate could also give the Government the opportunity to defend the conflict of interest that my constituents in the north-east find so worrying, which is the fact that the chair of SSEN is one of the First Minister’s advisers for the ministerial code of conduct.”
“Will those plans mean more onshore wind infrastructure scarring our countryside, or is the First Minister now in favour of zonal pricing, which his Government did not previously support? Does he want to stop the monster pylons that are costing billions— Members: Oh! Douglas Lumsden: All of those will have to be clawed back in our bills. Will he be scrapping carbon levies that are adding to our bills and making our manufacturing industry uncompetitive, all in the name of net zero? Will he be looking to install more expensive floating offshore wind, all of which is subsidised through contracts for difference by bill payers right across the United Kingdom, adding more to our bills? How will our baseload be provided?”
“One can see why, therefore, it is not a birthday to celebrate. I have asked the SNP Government about 20 times if a new energy strategy will be published, but each time I have been met with a blank look, as if the lights are on but no one is in. However, maybe today will be different and the failing SNP Government will agree to my amendment. Just this week, the First Minister has been keen to speak about energy. He has chased the headline “It’s Scotland’s Energy”, claiming that he could save people a third off their bills. That is a bold claim, but he gave us absolutely no detail about how that would happen. The time next week would be an ideal opportunity for the SNP Government to set out its fantasy plans.”
“There is a spare slot next Thursday, so, instead of MSPs sloping off early— Members: Oh! Douglas Lumsden: —let us make the most of the little time that we have left in the current session of Parliament—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another, colleagues. Douglas Lumsden: Let us make the most of the little time we have left in the session and have a debate on the Scottish National Party Government’s energy strategy. When we come back in January, there will be a birthday, but it is not one to celebrate. It will have been three years since the SNP Government published its draft energy strategy; three years since the SNP announced its presumption against new oil and gas; and three years since the SNP turned its back on the oil and gas workers in the north-east, with the loss of thousands of jobs.”
“The sooner that they are gone, the better.”
“There have been 18 years of SNP Government; it has had the time to get that right. Rural communities are angry. That is why the Scottish Conservatives brought the debate to the chamber. We want to talk about the issues that the public are talking about and the challenges that they face. They want to know whether they will have a job next month and whether they will be able to drive to it—because there is no public transport—on decent roads that are safe. Only the Scottish Conservatives are committed to bringing in legislation so that work could start immediately on the dualling of the entire A9 and key sections of the A75. We would take swift action, cut through red tape and recognise the reality of the challenges that are faced by rural Scotland. The failing SNP Government and the feckless London Labour Government are harming Scotland.”
“I agree with something that Daniel Johnson said, namely that it is about connecting Scotland—that there is value to our economy of upgrading links. For example, upgrading the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen would bring huge economic benefits. The same goes for the A75 and the A77. It is all about trade, linking Scotland to Northern Ireland— a point that Fin Carson made. I could feel Fin Carson’s frustration, because “Wait” is what we hear all the time. There are new reports, new studies and more dither and delay from the SNP Government. Emma Harper seemed to paint a rosy picture of what has been going on with the A75 and A77, but it would be interesting to know whether the people whom she represents think the same. It is bizarre that she talked about the lack of rest stops.”
“Daniel Johnson: What would the member say to the fact that the policy was first drafted under Jeremy Hunt’s tenure in the Treasury? Douglas Lumsden: It was, and it was absolutely rejected, because we knew that we had to incentivise people to get into EVs. As Sue Webber pointed out, EV charging is a lottery. Mark Ruskell made a good point about the fact that there is inequality in the cost of charging an EV. If you are lucky enough to have a driveway, you will pay a much lower rate—Mark Ruskell quoted 8.5p per kilowatt hour—but, if you have to go to a public charger, it might be 55p per kilowatt hour or, if you use a fast charger in a service station, it might be 85p per kilowatt hour. That needs to be looked at quickly.”