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 5 of 11.
“Ariane Burgess: Currently, gaining access to land and leases for renewables is a significant barrier for community energy groups and their ability to earn a steady income for their community and reinvest as much as 70 per cent of their expenditure in their local, often rural economies. Limited access to land also hinders progress towards the Scottish Government’s own target for 2GW of renewable energy to be local and community owned by 2030. More public land should be made available to meet that target, especially where it is already being used for renewables and the public landowner is issuing a new licence. Amendment 207 is similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2, but I have tightened it in response to the Scottish Government’s feedback.”
“Amendment 322 would require the consent of land tenants before the building of overhead lines, which is a further extension of land rights to the community. As I noted earlier, I am sure that the SNP Government will have no issues in supporting all my amendments, as they would all extend the input that communities have into the energy planning process—unless, of course, it does not care about the impact that pylons, battery storage, substations and wind farms will have on constituents. If it votes against the amendments today, the Government will once again be saying that it does not care about the impact of its toxic decisions. I move amendment 305.”
“Therefore, amendment 318 would compel the Government to introduce a long overdue and badly needed strategy for how Scotland’s rural countryside will be used. It is time that the Government started being honest with my rural constituents about the burden that they will bear in order that the Scottish National Party’s arbitrary eco-targets will be met. Amendment 319 would compel the Government to do what it should already be doing, which is exploring alternative options for energy infrastructure, whether underground or offshore. That should be the default approach to trunk electricity infrastructure. If the SNP Government is happy to ban new nuclear power through the planning system, the very least that we should expect for a major piece of energy infrastructure is that the Government will explore alternative options.”
“While the Scottish Environment Protection Agency delays publishing guidance, there is a real need for a community block on those dangerous battery storage facilities and to give communities a real say on what is built near them. I am sure that, in the interests of extending community decision making, the Government will back amendment 305. Amendment 318 would simply require the Government to produce an energy and land use strategy. Although I would much prefer to see a consolidated energy strategy, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy clearly has no desire to be straight with the Scottish people about how much of our countryside needs to be ripped up and infected with monster pylons.”
“I will speak to amendment 305 and the other amendments in my name. Those four amendments would extend the rights of communities to have a say on the energy infrastructure that is being built near them, which is why I am sure that the Government will have no issues in supporting the amendments. Amendment 305 is designed to target bad-faith sales of land that could be used for community purposes but is instead being sold with a view to, for example, building a battery storage facility. The sheer number of battery applications that have been submitted over the past two years showcases starkly the need for community input on that.”
“There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business. Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”
“There are established routes for constituents and community groups to make their views on developments known. The Scottish Government is working with the UK Government by way of the UK Planning and Infrastructure Bill—[Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Lumsden, please allow the cabinet secretary to respond to the question. Gillian Martin: The Scottish Government is working with the UK Government by way of its Planning and Infrastructure Bill to further strengthen pre-application consultation and engagement. Any meetings that ministers have with network companies cover a range of subjects, with very strict instructions to those companies that no discussions will be had on future or existing planning applications. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio questions on climate action, energy and transport.”
“The cabinet secretary will know that more than 10,000 objections have been submitted to the Kintore to Tealing overhead line consultation. Surely she now realises that, after cosying up to Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, her playing the role of judge, jury and executioner with that plan and determination makes a mockery of our planning and consultation system. She still refuses to meet campaign groups but continues to engage with SSEN, so will she refer herself to the First Minister’s independent advisers on the ministerial code for them to investigate? Gillian Martin: The Scottish ministerial code is clear on the need for ministers to observe caution on engaging with individuals or groups in relation to specific planning applications or decisions.”
“I ask members to agree to those amendments, because they are a small but necessary check and balance of ministers’ powers.”
“Amendment 297 would require ministers or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to have regard to any delay when determining whether compensation is payable. Land transactions will already be significantly slowed down due to the operation of this part of the bill. We have heard serious concerns raised not only by landowners but by the banking sector and professional agents about the impacts that section 4 might have on Scotland’s wider land market if the liquidity of land as an asset to secure borrowing is negatively affected. Without an incentive for ministers to act timeously, such impacts can only be exacerbated, which will have a knock-on impact on landowners and farmers’ ability to borrow funds to invest and create much- needed growth and rural employment.”
“However, she went on to negate much of the benefit of having timescales by adding that failing to adhere to them would not affect the validity of anything that is done by ministers under those sections. Although I can understand the argument that the lotting decision should remain valid in order to avoid even further delay, there should still be some consequence when ministers are slow to act, because further delay in the process is likely to cause loss and further detriment to the landowner and, potentially, to future buyers of land. My amendment 295 would ensure that, when a lotting decision is appealed, the court may have regard to ministers’ delay. I am not attempting to bind the court, but it may have regard to any delay.”
“We should all want a Scotland where land delivers for people, nature and the economy, but that future will not come from punishing those who are already delivering or by imposing policies that make investment in rural Scotland a risk that is not worth taking. My amendments do not undo the bill; they simply ensure that, if the Government takes powers to intervene in the marketplace, it also accepts responsibility for the human consequences of its decisions. I urge colleagues to support amendments 292 and 306, to protect fairness. Amendments 295 and 297 would provide some incentive for ministers to adhere to timescales when making lotting decisions, and I believe that they will add important safeguards to the bill. At stage 2, the cabinet secretary responded to pressure by adding timescales for lotting decisions to new sections of the bill.”
“That is why I have lodged amendment 292, which is about fairness and accountability. If ministers decide to intervene and force a lotting decision, and if they decide that land may be transferred only in lots, they must also accept responsibility for the consequences of that decision. If people lose their jobs because ministers dictate how land must be sold, it is only right that the Government, not the businesses and workers who have no say in the matter, bears the cost of those redundancies. Amendment 306 is consequential and would ensure that the legislative framework properly captures the new section in amendment 292.”
“Yet at the same time, through this Bill, Ministers are preparing to fragment rural businesses that are doing exactly those things—creating employment, producing food, and providing homes for working families. There is an obvious inconsistency here. On one hand, the Scottish Government praises sustainable land management and environmental restoration. On the other, it’s putting forward measures that would force those very operations to be carved up and sold off in pieces— with no thought for the livelihoods, the projects, or the progress that would be lost.” Dee Ward made the point clearly: integrated land use at scale allows estates such as his to fund vital environmental work, from flood management to biodiversity improvements. If we break that scale apart, we do not just risk economic loss; we risk environmental backsliding.”
“In speaking to amendments 292 and 306, I echo the concerns raised by one of my constituents in north-east Scotland, with whom I know the cabinet secretary is familiar, because he is also her constituent. Dee Ward manages land in Angus Glens, employing local people in delivering public goods such as food, energy, climate mitigation, nature restoration and housing. Dee wrote powerfully in The Times about the reality of the bill. There was no rhetoric in his words, just the real-world impact on the people, jobs and environment that depend on Scotland’s rural estates. He said: “The Government says it cares about rural communities and wants to grow the rural economy.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding the potential impact on regional economies and employment, what assessment it has made of the extent to which projected transmission-related job opportunities are dependent on the consenting outcome for proposed overhead line projects within the current network upgrade programme. (S6O-05058)”
“Communities are also concerned that it is not just pylons that will come into the area but other infrastructure that will come on the back of pylons, such as substations, battery storage and hydrogen plants. It is the cumulative impact that is so devastating to our communities.”
“Amendment 240 would require “high quality agricultural land” to be identified in a land management plan—I do not think that there is anything contentious about that. Amendment 249 sets out that the high-quality agricultural land that is identified “is not used for major energy infrastructure.” We often hear about energy security, but what about food security? We should not destroy our farmland; we must protect it for generations to come. Amendment 251 is just about looking for some transparency. If land will be used for pylons, that should be in the land management plan that the local community can have a say on. If a landowner intends to enter an agreement to allow the construction of pylons, amendment 253 would obligate the landowner to take the “cumulative impact” of energy infrastructure into account.”
“There is a theme to most of the amendments that I have lodged at stage 3—I am nothing if not predictable. The Scottish National Party Government talks about community involvement and giving communities a say, but, when it comes to energy infrastructure, communities feel ignored. Communities right across Scotland are angry with the scale of the monster pylons, battery storage and substations that are appearing across much of rural Scotland. It is not just the look of these monster pylons that people are angry about; people are seeing their property prices slashed and they are concerned about the loss of countryside, the impact on health, the impact on tourism, safety and the destruction of farmland.”
“When will the SNP Government release its energy strategy, remove its presumption against new oil and gas and finally support our home-grown oil and gas sector? Kate Forbes: That was a lot of noise to cover up the fact that it was Douglas Lumsden’s party that introduced the energy profits levy in the first place. I think that Conservative members in the chamber all think that we have short memories, but we really do not.”
“My thoughts are with the workers and their families at Petrofac at this traumatic time. However, I must say that the Deputy First Minister has a brass neck coming here and blaming everyone else for what is happening to the oil and gas sector, when her Government has shown outright hostility to the sector. Yes, Labour has blocked new licences and ramped up the energy profits levy, but it is the Scottish National Party that has a presumption against new oil and gas developments and which has failed to back Cambo, Rosebank and Jackdaw. It was the SNP that demonised the oil and gas industry when it got into bed with the extremist Greens. I hope that the jobs at Petrofac are safe, but the truth is that thousands of jobs in the sector have already been lost while the SNP has been asleep at the wheel.”
“We need to have a fair system that puts community voices at the heart of the consenting process, rather than the present system, which looks to silence them. 17:22”
“It wants to desecrate our countryside, and the LCM will enable the desecration of our countryside. The monster pylons that I am talking about are absolutely huge, and communities are rightly worried. However, the issue is about more than just the size of the pylons. Houses are being devalued as we speak, and farmers will not be able to farm in the vicinity of the pylons. The bill will fast-track the building of megapylons and other electricity infrastructure, ignoring communities. There is a huge inequality in the present system. It is rigged in favour of energy companies. We have a David versus Goliath situation, in which energy companies with deep pockets face community groups that rely on volunteers and crowdfunding. It is a disgrace.”
“I have written to the minister who signed up to the declaration and to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin, to ask when the Government will hold a debate on the matter, but I have not been able to get an answer, which is shameful. Community councils in areas of the north-east that are impacted by monster pylons and large- scale energy projects will meet to discuss the issue in Stonehaven this weekend. Will the cabinet secretary be there? No, of course she will not, because she is not interested in listening to the voices of concerned communities. The legislative consent motion before us will make it easier for this rotten, tired SNP Government to push through energy projects. It is quite happy to sacrifice our rural communities to suit its agenda.”
“Such environmental vandalism is endorsed by the devolved SNP Government. I was there in the audience. Two SNP MSPs, including a Government minister, signed up to recognising and valuing local democracy and the pivotal role that all our community councils play in ensuring that democracy is respected, and to undertaking to do all that we can across our respective parties to secure urgent debates at Holyrood and in the House of Commons. I thought that, at last, we might be getting somewhere, but, since then, the SNP Government has failed to bring the issue to the chamber for debate. The SNP MSPs misled the local community because they knew what a backlash they would have received at the meeting if they had told the truth.”
“The Scottish National Party Government is selling Scotland’s countryside to the highest bidder. The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy is quite happy to travel the world, but she cannot even be bothered to meet campaign groups in her constituency. She would rather spend her time in New York than in New Deer. What a shameful display. The motion before us will silence communities. That will forever be the SNP Government’s legacy to communities that are impacted by megapylons. Energy companies want to destroy our countryside to reward their shareholders, and the Scottish ministers are complicit in that. In August, community groups came together in the Highlands, because they were concerned about what they were seeing in their communities—battery storage facilities, substations, hydrogen plants and monster pylons.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to recent reports of a rise in recorded bullying incidents in schools. (S6O-05055)”
“How can we be sure that all our communities and, most importantly, those who are living in poorer or rural communities, are properly consulted on the impact that the targets will have? I hope that there will be some common sense about wood-burning stoves, for example, because, as Jim Fairlie tweeted during the storm last week, he had his “wee stove keeping us warm”. It is a good job that his party’s plan to ban them was derailed by the campaign that was led by the Scottish Conservatives. When looking at the SSI and the amendments, the committee raised some significant concerns and asked for clarity from the”
“A plan was promised in 2023, and now, more than two years later, we are promised that it will be published by the end of October so that the Parliament—and, more importantly, the public—will have an opportunity to consider, be consulted on, respond to and shape that most important strategy. However, we are now being told that a plan cannot be published until the targets are set. We remain mystified as to why that has to be the order of things. Why are we agreeing targets when we have no idea how the Government plans to meet them? How can we say yes to the end point, without understanding the process of how we are going to get there? That was the mistake that was made last time.”
“I agree that this piece of legislation is vital, but, once again, such legislation is being rushed through the parliamentary process. Climate change legislation has been delayed and obfuscated, and is now, I feel, at serious threat of running out of parliamentary time before the dissolution of Parliament. It is important that the instrument is looked at closely, because we do not know what the costs or the impact on families will be as a result of what we are being asked to agree to today. We have before us an SSI on carbon targets that has come before the climate change plan, for which we have waited and waited.”
“We wanted to rule out some policies that the Climate Change Committee advised, because we felt that the proposals for those were causing uncertainty, in particular among those in the agriculture sector. We wanted to make clear our support for the sector and our disagreement with the policies that the CCC had put to us. Parliament will have 120 days in which to scrutinise the plan—”
“The Government has already said that it will not be accepting some of the proposals from the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee— for example, around agriculture. If you are not accepting some of the CCC’s recommendations, can you tell us what you will put forward instead to make up the gap from the savings that are not being made? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always through the chair. Cabinet secretary, I can give you the time back. Gillian Martin: As I said, I gave the committee and members an indication of the types of policies that were being pursued in the climate change plan. However, that plan will contain the level of detail that is required by the legislation.”
“Local connection rules that were abolished should be reinstated and emergency policies that were adopted during Covid to house asylum seekers in hotels should be dropped. Our communities demand more and better, and it is time that the SNP Government listened to people’s concerns and stepped up or got out of the way. 15:31”
“Only the Conservative Party has a commonsense approach to controlling immigration in our country. Only the Conservative Party has taken a whole-UK approach, understanding that the solution can be found only by working together. Refugees should not find it easier to get accommodation in Scotland than in England. Scottish local authorities should not be under greater pressure to deliver accommodation than our neighbours in England, because we simply cannot cope. We have a housing emergency and the SNP is adding to it with the open-door policy that it is pursuing. Hard-working families cannot get on the housing ladder and they see people from other parts of the country jump to the top of the list.”
“More should, and must, be done by all Governments by working together, not by stoking petty grievances. Solutions can be developed only in partnership, through a cross-UK approach. The SNP, with its constant refrain of independence, is hurting the opportunities for co-ordinated action. There should be one message from all Administrations in the UK. Billions are being spent on asylum hotels, which means that less money is available for the devolved Administrations. Money is being spent on taxis to shuttle asylum seekers to doctors’ appointments, which means that there is less money to spend on education. Decisions made by the Government have an impact on our communities. Offering things for free has a cost. Nothing is free; everything is paid for by hard- working Scots through their taxes.”
“Removing the local connection rule in particular has meant that it is much easier for asylum seekers to come to a particular local authority, and has created undue pressures on authorities such as Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City Council. Kevin Stewart: Will Mr Lumsden give way? Douglas Lumsden: I am sorry, Kevin Stewart, but members on your front bench would not take interventions, so I am not going to take any interventions from you. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Through the chair, members. Douglas Lumsden: The Labour Government in Westminster is, of course, equally culpable, as the numbers arriving have been increasing exponentially over the past year, mostly in dinghies and—I say this to Maggie Chapman, so that she knows—not from war-torn countries, but from France.”
“Those are genuine concerns that cannot be brushed under the carpet, and that is why people out there are angry. We have to listen and understand, and acknowledge the anger, not simply dismiss and ignore it as every other party in the chamber wants to do. We have protests in our towns and cities, councils rocked by divisions, and financial detriment to our citizens, all fuelled by a lack of understanding and direction from this out- of-time Administration. Daniel Johnson: Will the member give way? Douglas Lumsden: I do not think that I have time, Mr Johnson—sorry. I recognise that control of immigration is a reserved issue, but we must all play our part. The SNP Government has created pull factors for asylum seekers coming to Scotland.”
“Last week, I took part in “Debate Night” in Dundee, and the issue that most people were concerned about was illegal immigration and the impact on our communities. Let us clear one thing up straight away: people being concerned about illegal immigration does not mean that they are far right or racist, as the whole woke left-wing ideology in this place tries to make out—we heard that nonsense again today from the cabinet secretary. It means that they care about how public services are going to be paid for; how our hospitals, schools and housing will cope with additional unplanned pressures; and how our local authorities can afford to keep local services running while spending more and more on the problems that arise from illegal migration.”
“There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow front-bench teams to change positions, should they so wish. Prison Population”
“Màiri McAllan: The housing infrastructure fund is well used throughout the country, so I do not recognise Douglas Lumsden’s characterisation of it. He ought to catch up a little bit. Today, I have written to Aberdeen City Council to confirm that its request for £10 million to meet the cost of RAAC remediation does not meet the criteria of the housing infrastructure fund. I have instead invited the council to submit a proposal for additional grant support through the affordable housing supply programme for the equivalent amount. That will not only help the council to meet the cost of remediation from within its budgets but make a valuable contribution to Scotland’s supply of affordable housing. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio question time.”
“Douglas Lumsden: First, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I was a councillor at Aberdeen City Council at the start of this parliamentary session. While I was council leader at Aberdeen, we found it impossible to access that cash, which is why zero of it has been spent. Calls by my colleague Liam Kerr to use that £20 million pot to compensate reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete home owners in Torry, which I would have thought was a good solution, have fallen on deaf ears in this Scottish National Party Government. Will the cabinet secretary reach out to both Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council to find ways for that money to be spent on housing before it is lost to the north-east?”
“To ask the Scottish Government how much of the £20 million housing infrastructure fund that was launched in 2016, as part of the 10-year Aberdeen city region deal, has been spent. (S6O- 05025) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): The housing infrastructure fund forms part of our affordable housing supply programme. A commitment was made in 2016, alongside the 10-year Aberdeen city region deal, that £20 million of infrastructure funding would be made available. The HIF enables funding for housing developments that have stalled or cannot proceed due to excessive costs or the nature of the infrastructure works that are needed. It is the responsibility of councils to bring forward eligible HIF projects. Neither Aberdeen City Council nor Aberdeenshire Council has submitted any projects that would meet the fund criteria.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 353 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“It is particularly unfair of the Government to talk about drafting issues in respect of these amendments. In particular, I do not think that drafting issues are the reason why it does not support my amendment to end the King’s personal tax break. It would have been helpful if the cabinet secretary had simply laid out the Scottish Government’s position on the principle of those issues. That being said, while I am going to press the first amendment in the group and I will move some of the other amendments, I will not move them all. I am frustrated, however, that so many of these issues could have been resolved if the Government had spent the summer engaging with me on the issues on which it apparently agrees in principle, instead of only now coming up with reasons of drafting to vote against my amendments.”
“That system was supposed to be a quick and dirty temporary replacement for the poll tax, but it has now been out of date for longer than I have been alive. The Scottish Government has led substantive processes on council tax previously, which is why I struggle to trust the Government on this point in particular. It says that we need to take issues forward through the new reform process that it has recently announced and is now embarking on. However, 10 years ago, the Government launched the commission on local tax reform, which produced a substantive piece of work that the Government then barely acted on, to the extent that, when I asked the Government for a copy of the commission’s report, it discovered that the domain had expired; it needed to use the internet archive known as the Wayback Machine to recover those critical documents.”
“The Government should not blame members of other parties for taking advantage of this bill to fix issues that the Government itself has not fixed. 19:15 An example is an area in which we have come to agreement: lifting the cap on council tax surcharges for second and empty homes. The Scottish Government committed to do that about three years ago, but it then said that there was no legislative vehicle for doing so during the remainder of the current session. We have proven that that is not the case, and I am glad that we have been able to agree on that. I want to pick up in particular on Willie Rennie’s point about all the barriers that have, for 34 years, been put in the way of fixing the council tax.”
“I, in fact, agree that this is not the ideal bill through which to deliver many of the proposals, and that they should be dealt with as part of dedicated tax legislation. However, my response to the cabinet secretary on that specific point is that the Government should introduce that tax legislation or a wider finance bill—which is something that members from across the political spectrum in this place have argued for a long time. An annual finance bill, alongside the budget, would allow us to resolve many of these issues. It is not, therefore, a particularly compelling point from the Government to say that we have not lodged amendments to the right bill, when it has not introduced the right bill for members to use as a vehicle.”
“I will make a couple of observations, particularly on the cabinet secretary’s points, and on some of what Mark Griffin and Graham Simpson said, about this not being the right bill or the right stage. With respect, I have to say that the cabinet secretary’s point that this is not the right stage, and that I have lodged the amendments too late, borders on disingenuous, given that almost all of this was brought at stage 2, and that I discussed the proposals with her predecessors. I have discussed these issues with the Government, specifically in relation to the bill, for months. Moreover, as Willie Rennie pointed out, many of us have also been discussing and trying to get progress on these issues for years and, in some cases, decades.”
“I did not hear any reference to working with Revenue Scotland, or to any dialogue with COSLA or local authorities. For those reasons, this bill is not the place to tackle those issues—but they absolutely deserve consideration in a bill of their own. In saying that, I fundamentally agree with individual points that Mr Greer made in relation to some of his amendments. However, the cumulative impact of all those amendments is so wide-ranging, and would mean such a huge package of reform, that they need detailed consideration of their own. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Ross Greer to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 353. Ross Greer: I will not revise the arguments around every amendment.”
“My appeal to the Government is to get off the fence. Mark Griffin: I will speak briefly and broadly to the package of amendments that Ross Greer has lodged. There is a lot in there in relation to the additional dwelling supplement, land and buildings transaction tax, and wide-ranging reform of council tax and debt. I absolutely agree with the policy behind some individual amendments, specifically in relation to areas around debt, and victims/survivors of domestic abuse paying for their abusers’ arrears. I am absolutely on board with the direction of travel of Mr Greer’s amendments there. My issue is that, when we consider the cumulative impact of that entire package of amendments, as a collective, on council tax and LBTT reform, it seems as though they have been lodged in a vacuum, and without consideration of the Verity house agreement.”