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 4 of 11.
“I know that it is not popular to support due process or the decision-making process of the court, but, given that the decision that Rosebank could go ahead was called in by a court for environmental reasons and so there is due process to be followed, does the member not think that that is needed? Ultimately, is that not what is required for stable investment—a stable regime and due process? Douglas Lumsden: What is needed for stable investment is clear guidance, but we are not getting that from the UK Government or from the Scottish Government. There is no energy strategy at all, and, let us be honest, Scotland will still need oil and gas for years to come. The question is whether we meet part of that need from our own regulated basin and skilled workforce or whether we import more from abroad at a higher cost and with higher emissions.”
“I thank the Greens for bringing forward this debate and for lodging a simple motion: they oppose Rosebank—that is absolutely clear. In our amendment, we are absolutely clear that we support Rosebank. Let us look at the amendments from the other parties—what a load of spin and obfuscation. Why can they not just show a bit of honesty to the chamber and the people of the north-east and say whether they support or oppose the North Sea oil and gas sector and the thousands of jobs that it supports? While others dither, the Scottish Conservatives are crystal clear: we support the North Sea oil and gas sector. We are the only party in the Parliament that is clear on that. Daniel Johnson: I am interested to know whether the member can answer this question.”
“I move amendment S6M-19637.4, to leave out from “opposes” to end and insert: “affirms the importance of a just transition, which supports workers in the oil and gas industry, as the useful life of developments comes to an end, and believes that new developments must only proceed if they contribute to energy security, meet a rigorous climate compatibility assessment and are compatible with Scotland’s journey to net zero.” 15:10”
“I am proud to restate the Government’s unwavering commitment to Scotland playing its full part in responding to the global challenge of climate change. Scotland is now more than halfway to reaching net zero, and, last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy published her draft climate change plan, setting out how we will further reduce our emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Our approach to climate policy is guided by a just transition, with Scotland’s valued and highly skilled offshore oil and gas workers at its heart. The Scottish Government will continue to support the energy workforce with all the powers available to it.”
“Richard Lochhead: If I have time, I will take a brief intervention. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You do not have a lot of time. Liam Kerr: The minister will also accept that there is a very damaging effect from the “presumption against ... oil and gas” remaining in the draft energy strategy, so will he agree to remove those words? Richard Lochhead: There is a great deal of hypocrisy from Liam Kerr, given that we are discussing the energy profits levy and it was his Government that first extended it. The levy is causing a lot of damage to jobs in the north-east of Scotland at the moment. The energy profits levy was supposed to be a temporary measure; we must see, through the UK autumn budget, its earliest possible end date or its complete reform. The Press and Journal covered that issue today and made the same call.”
“I return to what I was saying about the pace of the transition. We continue to call on the UK Government to approach all its reserved decisions on North Sea oil and gas projects on a rigorous, evidence-based basis. The fiscal regime for the North Sea remains reserved, too. The regime is currently having a major negative impact on Scotland’s energy transition. The UK Government must listen carefully to the concerns that businesses are expressing about the impacts of its energy profits levy. The levy is clearly now affecting investment and jobs in the north-east, including in the low-carbon energy sector and across energy supply chains. This week’s announcement of job losses at the Port of Aberdeen provides yet more evidence of the real- world impacts. Liam Kerr: Will the minister give way?”
“That would be wrong and would threaten energy security while destroying the very skills that we need for the energy transition. Patrick Harvie: I am sure that the minister is well aware that absolutely no one calls for all oil and gas production to be stopped immediately. Is it not clear that expanding into a new, undeveloped oil field is the opposite of a transition? A just transition is needed, but it has to be a transition away from fossil fuels. The Rosebank plan would be another roll of the fossil fuel dice. Richard Lochhead: The Scottish Government thinks that it is incredibly important that the guiding principles for new developments, which are outlined in our amendment, are followed. We will continue to press for that. The UK Government is well aware of the Scottish Government’s position.”
“Now that the compatibility report for Rosebank has been published, does the Scottish Government support Rosebank? Yes or no? Richard Lochhead: If Douglas Lumsden looks at the Scottish Government’s amendment, he will see our position, which I hope the Parliament will vote for today. There is an urgent need for a global transition from fossil fuels if the Paris agreement goals are to be met. Patrick Harvie referred to those goals. We will not deny the climate science that clearly shows the crisis that we are all facing. However, we also need to have a just transition. I saw the damage—as did many others who are old enough to have done so—that Mrs Thatcher did to our country and our communities when she threw thousands of workers on to the scrap heap. A just transition does not mean simply stopping all future oil and gas activity overnight.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether the culture secretary has met with STV following recent reports of its plan to close its north of Scotland news programme. (S6O-05129)”
“Scotland can lead the energy transition and the north-east can remain the beating heart of the UK’s offshore workforce, but that requires honesty about the journey, certainty for industry and respect for the communities whose livelihoods depend on the decisions that are taken. The RGU report shows the path, and it is time for Government to follow it. 16:52”
“We can see that on the front page of The Press and Journal today, with Aberdeen harbour laying off jobs because of the lack of oil and gas throughput, while the throughput for renewables is not there yet. Let us be absolutely honest: if we shut down our domestic sector too quickly, Scotland will not consume less oil and gas; we will simply import more of it, normally from countries with higher emissions and lower standards, and with none of the economic benefits staying here at home. That is environmental irresponsibility dressed up as virtue. The RGU report calls for “coordinated action”, long-term planning and a clear pathway for the offshore workforce.”
“The RGU report is crystal clear on the point that failing to support a stable level of domestic production risks major job losses, skills flight and long-term damage to our supply chain. If we do not back our home-grown sector, final investment decisions will move abroad, and the workforce will follow. That is not a theoretical risk. My constituents in the north-east already feel the impact of mixed messages and political drift. Communities there are built on decades of expertise, innovation and hard work. If we fail to give the industry clarity and confidence, we put thousands of families at risk and undermine the very capabilities that we need in order to deliver the energy transition.”
“However, Labour somehow thinks that 13 jobs at Great British Energy in Aberdeen will save the day. Anas Sarwar is flip-flopping on the issue of new developments. He was opposed to Cambo in 2021 but is now pleading with his masters—Starmer, Reeves and Miliband—to change course. The penny must have dropped that his party’s hostility towards oil and gas is a direct threat to our energy transition. The fiscal landscape and the uncertainty are not harmless political noise; they shape investment decisions and they have real consequences for the people I represent in the north-east. I heard that first-hand at a meeting with Shell last week. Conservative MPs and MSPs were there, as were Scottish National Party MPs and MSPs. Labour politicians would have heard from Shell themselves if they had even bothered to turn up.”
“We cannot deliver a credible transition without continued investment in our domestic oil and gas sector, and we certainly cannot deliver it if Government policy is vague, confused or subject to the political mood swings of Labour and the Scottish National Party. However, that is exactly what we have at the moment. The First Minister refuses to give a straight answer on whether exploration should continue. One day, he hints at new licences; the next, he dodges the question entirely, with vague assertions about drilling continuing if net zero targets are met. That is ill defined, and no one knows how it is to be measured. Labour, which has ramped up the energy profits levy and has a ban on new licences, is no friend. Clearly, Ed Miliband’s aim is to destroy the North Sea oil and gas industry.”
“I congratulate Liam Kerr on the debate and on his contribution. I welcome the publication of the RGU Energy Transition Institute’s latest report. It is a serious piece of work that is grounded in evidence, and it sets out clearly what Scotland must do if we are to protect jobs, maintain energy security and build a truly managed transition. My colleague has, rightly, focused on the impact that not investing in the sector will have on jobs in the north-east and across wider Scotland. However, the report goes further than that. It says: “The North Sea’s future success depends on a well- managed transition”. Its message is unmistakable.”
“The cost of climate action might look significant, but the economic benefits that are associated with all the policies that are laid out in the climate change plan—I stress that they are laid out there—are significant for the people of Scotland. If Douglas Lumsden had taken the time to even glance at the climate change plan, the text of which I gave to Opposition members a good hour in advance of my statement, he would be able to point to a number of policies that will have those benefits and improve economic growth.”
“On transport, we have: consumer incentives to encourage EV uptake by householders, sole traders and microbusinesses; draft targets in the first carbon budget to reduce emissions from cars by at least 16 per cent; investment in the replacement of heavy goods vehicles and the deployment of charging infrastructure; increased funding for the capacity and capability of local authorities and regional transport partnerships; additional support for the rapid roll-out of critical EV charging infrastructure; and support for skills development, with funding available for many things, including the skills required for offshore wind. This is the thing about the Tories—they are trying to make it look as though achieving net zero is too expensive.”
“In fact, they are rolling back on the commitments that they made when they were in Government at Westminster. Douglas Lumsden said that we have no new policies. Let us look at transport alone— Douglas Lumsden: Are we getting our £200 million for north-east rail? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary, please resume your seat. Mr Lumsden, you get to ask a question, which you have done. We now need to hear the cabinet secretary respond to it without a running commentary. Gillian Martin: Thank you, Presiding Officer.”
“The carbon budgets that the Scottish Government adopted were made in line with the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. In order to achieve those budgets, the CCC claims that we will need to install 35,000 heat pumps a year by 2030, more than half of our cars will need to be electric by 2035, and cattle and sheep numbers will need to fall by 2 million. When will the cabinet secretary come clean with the public about the true cost of achieving net zero by 2045? Will she commit to making a revised final plan that focuses on an affordable transition? Gillian Martin: Right. Well, that is the tone that Douglas Lumsden normally adopts when he talks about climate change. It is plain for all to see that, when it comes to reaching net zero, the Tories do not have any plans.”
“I think the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. The Scottish National Party has been promising for months that its draft climate change plan would lay out definitively how it intends to reach net zero by 2045, but today’s plan just rehashes existing SNP policies that do nothing to bring down energy bills and it provides no clarity on how it intends to reach the 2045 target. Families across Scotland are anxious about how much the SNP’s net zero obsession will cost them. Will they be made to rip out their gas boilers in favour of heat pumps? Will they be forced to trade in their petrol vehicle for an electric car? Will the SNP lift its presumption against new oil and gas? The plan answers none of those questions; it is yet another SNP pamphlet that is heavy on rhetoric but light on solutions.”
“To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will announce a timetable for improvement works on the A96 north of Inverurie, following the publication of its corridor review consultation report. (S6F-04416)”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to increase the current threshold of 50MW for approval by its energy consents unit of onshore electricity-generating stations, to allow more decisions to be taken by local planning authorities. (S6O-05111)”
“The EPL is destroying the oil and gas industry, but so is the Scottish National Party’s presumption against oil and gas, which the former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was celebrating again last night. Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that, while the SNP has a presumption against oil and gas, and while it will not support Rosebank or Cambo, she has a brass neck to come here and pretend to support the industry? Gillian Martin: Our view is that climate compatibility assessments and checkpoints should inform any decision that the UK Government makes on new licences, and that domestic energy security must also be a consideration. I would ask Douglas Lumsden whether he agrees with his former leader, Theresa May, that the UK should be net zero by 2050, but we all know the answer to that. Ayrshire Growth Deal (Update) 2.”
“We must deliver climate action that works with communities, not against them, which means proper consultation, realistic infrastructure plans and a focus on innovation, not imposition. Leadership on climate change is not about writing cheques or hosting conferences. It is about taking your people with you when, right now, too many feel that they are being left behind. Let us play our part internationally, but let us also get our own house in order. Let us meet our targets, protect Scottish jobs and build the new energy economy from a position of strength, not self-inflicted weakness. That is how we will meet our commitments and become a leader on the global stage and it is how we will ensure that Scotland reaches its climate goals without damaging our communities and economy in the process. 19:21”
“It means investing in carbon capture, hydrogen and renewables alongside responsible oil and gas production—a view shared this week by Scottish Renewables—and it means recognising that energy security and affordability are not optional extras but are the foundations of any credible climate strategy. The motion talks about international climate finance and global justice, but we should remember that there is also a duty of justice for the people of Scotland. Families have rising energy bills, farmers face uncertainty and local residents see their landscapes being scarred by mega-pylons that they neither asked for nor benefit from. They all deserve a fair hearing too, but we know that the cabinet secretary would rather meet with big business or jet around the world than talk to her own constituents.”
“It has failed to back Rosebank, Cambo and Jackdaw, and it is overseeing the loss of thousands of jobs, many of which are in the north- east. Where is the justice in that? Let me be clear: I support our journey to a more sustainable future, but that journey must be realistic and just, and it must put jobs first. It cannot be built on shutting down our domestic energy industry before the alternatives are ready. The UK’s oil and gas sector is one of the most highly regulated and lowest carbon producing in the world. If we switch it off overnight, we will not cut emissions; we will just offshore them, along with the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Scots. We need a managed transition, not an ideologically driven cliff edge. That means supporting the north-east, not abandoning it.”
“Right now, the Scottish Government is failing—a Scottish Government that Nicola Sturgeon led in a failed experiment of coalition with the Greens. We have missed eight out of the past 12 annual climate targets. The landfill bill ban has been delayed again. Rural communities are being asked to shoulder the burden of having monster pylons cutting through our countryside, while city ministers preach about climate justice from the comfort of Holyrood. Thousands of skilled oil and gas workers in the north-east—my constituents—are being told that their jobs are the price of that virtue signalling. The Scottish National Party Government still has a presumption against new oil and gas—something that was reiterated by Nicola Sturgeon tonight.”
“I congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on securing today’s debate. I agree with her, on this occasion, that we all want to see a cleaner, greener Scotland. However, we must be honest about how we get there. In particular, we must be honest about the cost to our communities and our economy. The motion before us paints Scotland as a global climate leader. It harks back to the days when it was claimed that world leaders were on the phone asking for advice. It references COP26, the loss and damage fund, and Scotland’s contribution of £2 million. Although symbolism matters, what really counts is delivery—delivery of emissions reductions here at home, delivery of affordable energy for our people and delivery of a fair transition for the workers who have powered this nation for decades.”
“People who had lived here were but a breath—but the land endured. At that moment in the gloaming, I felt I was the land”. I hope that all of us who share the belief that change can and must happen will support the bill and will together ensure a brighter and fairer future for the people of Scotland. I commend the bill to Parliament. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. Business Motion 18:47”
“Today also marks a poignant moment for me, as this is the last major piece of legislation that I will take through the Parliament as a cabinet secretary. I grew up in and represent the communities across Angus and the Mearns, among landscapes that mean so much to me, so this bill is special. Throughout the bill’s passage, I have been inspired by another of Scotland’s great classic novels and one of my personal favourites, which is set in the Mearns: “Sunset Song”. No one describes the beauty of that landscape, the ties and struggles of community and the pull and the draw of the land better than Lewis Grassic Gibbon. In the words of Chris Guthrie: “I longed to hear the Scots words of my parents from my far off young life, through all of their days and fight with the land—nothing endured but the land.”
“There are also the MSPs and ministers who came before and who, over the quarter century of devolution, began Scotland’s land reform journey. Their tireless efforts have led us to this moment. They include the late Donald Dewar, the late Winnie Ewing, George Lyon, the late John Farquhar Munro, Rob Gibson, Peter Peacock, Aileen McLeod and, of course, Roseanna Cunningham. Land reform reminds us that lasting change is never owned by one party or generation; it has always been a joint endeavour, forged by those who seek a fairer Scotland. The bill represents an ambitious step forward on our land reform journey. I am proud of what we have achieved together and honoured to have led the bill through Parliament on behalf of the Scottish ministers.”
“They include the Scottish Land Commission, which undertook initial research and then advised on the bill’s provisions over a number of years, and the more than 500 individuals and groups who contributed their expertise, knowledge and views to the consultation. I thank the bill team for their tremendous efforts and work on the bill, and all the stakeholders who have engaged with me as well as the bill team throughout the bill’s passage. The bill is stronger for that engagement. I thank the committees that scrutinised the bill for their work. I also give a general thank you to MSPs across the chamber. I genuinely want to thank you all, as I know that you have all taken a keen interest in the bill. I really appreciate MSPs taking time to engage with me. Even when we have not always agreed, those discussions have been valuable.”
“We must embrace change and look forward to a fairer future and one of opportunity for all our people, not just those who, either through birth, wealth or inheritance, have had the privilege of ownership and control of this land—our land. We must use the Parliament’s legislative powers to benefit the many and not the few. They must benefit our tenant farmers, building on their hard- won rights to ensure that they thrive in the decades ahead; our communities, which have the right to feel that they belong and that the land on which they live and work belongs to them, should they so wish it; and people who have always wanted to live on the land. The new powers will help to turn those dreams into reality for many. I want to take a moment to thank everyone who has helped to make the bill possible.”
“That would be the perfect example, now that we will be able to create new small landholdings for the first time in a century. In closing, I want to reflect on this historic moment in our land reform journey and look forward to what can be better days ahead. In James Robertson’s literary masterpiece “And the Land Lay Still”, he makes it clear that the land and the people do not lie still. His novel sweeps across people and places, and across the latter half of the 20th century, documenting the huge changes and the upheaval that took place in Scotland at that time, in no small part contributing to the very Parliament in which we now sit. That, in essence, is the point of land reform: to ensure that how we use and steward our land— one of Scotland’s most precious resources—does not lie still.”
“I recognise the points that Rhoda Grant raised during the debate, and I know that we have more work to do. A lot of that work is already under way, whether it is the community right to buy review or the work on compulsory purchase orders and compulsory sales orders. We also have the review provisions that were passed in Martin Whitfield’s amendments, which means that there will be more to learn and more to do in the future. Tim Eagle made some important points about recognising the importance of opportunities for the next generation and new entrants to farming. He made the point that the Scottish Government should lead by example, and I absolutely agree with that. I fully expect our public landholdings to lead the way in the creation of new small landholdings.”
“We will vote against the bill this evening, and we call on other colleagues to listen to their rural communities and constituents and to join us in voting no. 18:41 Mairi Gougeon: I am grateful to members across the chamber not only for their contributions today, but for their significant contributions during the bill’s passage through Parliament. It is clear from the contributions today what passion there is around the subject and what land reform means to people. Land reform is an emotive issue, and rightly so. It affects us all, whether we live in rural or urban Scotland. How the land beneath or around us is owned, used or managed matters, as does access to land, which is why the bill matters. No single piece of legislation could possibly tackle all the issues that we face, which have been centuries in the making.”
“Rhoda Grant made a good point about the community right to buy, which is still under review. We also heard at committee that it should have been part of the bill, and I think that that has been a missed opportunity. Liam McArthur said that land management plans should not be overburdensome and complicated. I agree, and we need to keep a close eye on that when the regulations come forward. I agreed with something that Mercedes Villalba said about the concerns around Oxygen Conservation and Gresham House. We have to remember that Gresham House was backed by the Scottish National Investment Bank. The Scottish Conservative group remains opposed to this flawed bill, and we agree with the many voices outside the Parliament that have raised significant concerns.”
“Yet, in the light of such widespread discontent among those who know what they are talking about, we have found ourselves at this point. The cabinet secretary said that “change is possible”, but I do not feel that the bill will bring the change that is required, and most of the witnesses at committee said the same. Tim Eagle was right to recognise the amount of work that has been done, especially by Parliament staff—I agree with that completely. I also commend the way in which the cabinet secretary has approached the bill and reached out to other groups. Tim Eagle said that some of the large estates are “the quiet engine of rural Scotland.” He also pointed out that the area of tenanted land in Scotland has reduced dramatically— unfortunately, however, the bill will not reverse that trend.”
“It is, as Tim Eagle said, the opposite of what we should be doing. There is also uncertainty around lotting and what happens with staff. Let us remember that estates are businesses that pay their taxes, employ people in rural areas and contribute to their local communities. If an estate is sold, the Government can decide that the business needs to be split up, in effect. In instances where that happens, the bill is silent about what happens to the employees. The bill is bad news for estate workers. We have heard from groups such as Scottish Land & Estates, which said that the proposals were worrying, and NFUS, which told us that the bill “could damage rural businesses”. The head of land and property at Turcan Connell described the bill as “junk law”.”
“We heard about the risks to financing that are being brought about by the uncertainty caused by the bill—a point that was raised by Edward Mountain, who said that the bill will not boost investors’ confidence as we need it to. We heard from farmers who fear that large family farms will now be brought into the scope of the bill, with the threshold for land management plans being reduced at a time when Labour’s cruel family farm tax is just filtering through. I have also heard from farmers who want to retire and rent out parts of their land to the next generation but who feel that it is too risky. Their concern is that they would never get the land back, because of what the bill is doing. That is an unintended consequence of the bill that will make it harder for new farmers to rent land and get into running their own farms.”
“As we come to the end of the bill process, I can only reflect on the many substantive contributions from colleagues. As an Opposition, we have tried to amend this flawed bill, bringing forward the concerns of industry groups, rural bodies and our own constituents in order to make the bill workable, but, to be honest, it has been like putting a sticking plaster on a broken leg. I have to congratulate the Scottish National Party Government on one thing: uniting so many people in their view that the bill will not bring about the change that they desire. We heard time and again at committee from witnesses, including estate managers and land reform campaigners, that the bill would not meet the aims that had been set out. Many witnesses expressed concerns to us about the impact that the bill would have on their livelihoods and communities.”
“The measures are designed to be balanced, proportionate and, ultimately, fair. Finally, this is the only Government to bring forward significant modernisation for small landholders in nearly a century. The amendments will ensure that small landholders will benefit from a modern legal framework that is fit for the 21st century. Our reforms will enable the creation of new small landholdings, delivering a new route into agriculture for the next generation. At its heart, land reform is about giving voice to the voiceless and empowering communities and individuals, and it is that quest for dignity and fairness that is at the heart of our bill. I move, That the Parliament agrees that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill be passed. 17:55”
“However, there is a pattern to reforms in this area. Every Government since devolution that has sought to deliver improved rights and protections for our tenant farmers has come under blistering attack from powerful landed interests. In this case, that has included the false accusation that the bill introduces retrospective measures. It does not. The reforms will change the law, but they do not change the past. The changes affect the future exercise of existing rights, as many bills do. The reality is that the approach of the reforms’ critics has nothing to do with a desire to have a vibrant tenanted sector, and everything to do with a broader desire to roll back reforms and wind the clock back to a feudal past that has long been consigned to the dustbin of history. I will do what is right.”
“Our tenants must be able to effectively manage their land and businesses and make the changes that are right for them. All that we seek to do is to make getting to that outcome an easier process for all parties. Previous reforms that have improved tenants’ rights, which were controversial at the time, have proved to be absolutely essential. The reforms that we are now making will ensure that tenants and small landholders can make a decent living and have the confidence to invest and improve their holdings, enabling them to access new support mechanisms and contribute to nature and climate outcomes. The bill also respects the rights of landowners. Should they wish to exercise any right to resume land, they can do so. In turn, all that we seek to do through resumption reforms is ensure that tenants are compensated fairly.”
“Over the past six months, I have also been speaking to farmers and landowners, and one of the things that I have often heard is that landowners are now concerned about renting out land to tenant farmers because they fear that they might not get that land back. Has the cabinet secretary heard that? Mairi Gougeon: That speaks to some of the claims that we have heard throughout the debate that the bill poses a threat to the letting of land in Scotland. However, the general trends that we see do not bear that out. Ultimately, the reforms that we are introducing are about fairness for our tenant farmers and about doing what is right. That is why I am proud of the measures that we are introducing. We are modernising rights around farming practices, improvements and diversification.”
“The amendment would go against what Highland communities want. I find Ariane Burgess’s excuse for amendment 207—that Forestry and Land Scotland has swapped trees for turbines—somewhat disturbing. If Forestry and Land Scotland concentrated on growing forestry rather than cutting it down in order to put up turbines, it would be more interesting. Ariane Burgess: [Made a request to intervene.] Edward Mountain: I will listen to what the cabinet secretary says about amendment 207 before I make a decision on it.”
“To be entirely clear, given that I have mentioned food production, I remind members, as I did when we previously discussed the issue, of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I have an interest in a family farming partnership in Moray that extends to about 202 hectares. As a Highlands and Islands MSP, Ms Burgess knows that, across the Highlands, there is dislike of the current swamping of the Highland landscape with energy products that industrialise the landscape in which we live. Therefore, amendment 207 makes no sense to me, and it brings Ms Burgess into direct conflict with the communities that she and I represent. Most of those communities now believe that, when it comes to onshore wind energy and the battery stations and pylon lines that go with it, enough is enough.”
“I also acknowledge that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy recently announced changes to the community asset transfer scheme, so that communities will receive early notification of sites that are in scope for renewables projects on public land or that are due for repowering. However, I am concerned that the projects will be capped at 50MW. Stakeholders in the sector want to see a more ambitious approach to community energy, but I will listen closely to the cabinet secretary’s comments. Edward Mountain: I listened intently to what Ariane Burgess said. Her amendment 207 is interesting, but for reasons that I find odd. She seems to be prioritising energy over food production, which is strange.”
“The new wording specifies that the first right of refusal for community organisations would apply only to renewable leases for land that the public body wanted to lease for renewables. For example, the right would not apply to land that a local authority wanted to lease for housing or a new hospital, which was a concern that was raised at stage 2. The changes to subsection (3) clarify the new duty on public bodies and the eligibility requirements for community organisations that can benefit from priority access to public land. I have discussed with the cabinet secretary and with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy further stipulations that could be set out in guidance to support the legislation.”
“I particularly thank Community Energy Scotland and Community Land Scotland for their input to the amendment, which is about supporting community bodies to get access to land for community-owned energy. Forestry and Land Scotland alone hosts 25 wind farms and 85 hydro schemes on its land. None of them is community owned, but, over the next 10 years, many of those schemes will reach the end of their leases, and new leases to operate renewables on the land will be issued. That offers a key opportunity to transfer a portion of private renewable capacity into community hands. My amendment would modify the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 in two ways. I have changed the wording in subsection (2) to make it more specific and to avoid any unintended consequences.”