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 8 of 11.
“I move amendment S6M-17539.4, to leave out from “agrees” to end and insert: “recognises that foreign affairs, including the country’s relationship with the EU, trade and immigration are reserved matters, and calls on the Scottish Government to dedicate more parliamentary time towards tackling the issues that matter to most people in Scotland, such as improving NHS waiting times, raising Scotland’s falling attainment standards, addressing school violence and bringing down bills for taxpayers.” The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise the chamber that, at this stage, there is a little time in hand, so members will get the time back for any interventions that they take. 15:25”
“Scotland’s future lies not in surrendering our sovereignty to the EU or in surrendering our prosperity to nationalist ideology; it lies in standing proud as part of a strong, globally trading, forward- looking United Kingdom. This Parliament should reject the motion, it should reject the SNP’s dream of dependency, and it should reject Labour’s quiet sell-out of Brexit. Let us instead build a confident Scotland at the heart of a sovereign United Kingdom, looking not to Brussels but to the rest of the world.”
“Let us not pretend that the SNP would use that information in good faith—even if it had access to it, which it apparently does not. It does not want a good deal for Britain—it wants a bad one, because it exists on a diet of political division and grievance. That is entirely why, this Thursday afternoon, we are here, taking up the Parliament’s time. The debate simply offers another opportunity for the SNP to fester that grievance. I know that Brexit is not a finished job. However, the answer is not to go backwards but to defend and deepen our sovereignty, to use our freedoms to grow enterprise, to cut red tape and to secure the best deals for the UK on our terms. We cannot afford to drift back under the orbit of Brussels by stealth, nor can we allow an unelected European court to stand above our Parliament, our judges and our voters.”
“All of that comes wrapped up in staggering hypocrisy. The motion speaks of “closer ... climate co-operation”, while the SNP Government has no energy strategy, blocks nuclear power, sabotages oil and gas, and presides over wind farm developments that are collapsing under its own broken planning regime. It also talks of food and drink agreements, but it is the United Kingdom Government—not the EU—that is out there, fighting for Scottish exports. It is UK trade deals that are promoting around the world the Scotch whisky and Scottish salmon produced in our fantastic food and drink sector. The motion laments that devolved Governments have not seen the draft EU summit texts, but it seems that the Financial Times has. Its report reveals that the EU is back to its usual ways of doing business.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Stephen Kerr: Of course I will. Douglas Lumsden: Does Stephen Kerr agree that the motion does not illustrate the SNP’s obsession with Europe; rather, it simply highlights its obsession with independence? The SNP will use any topic to further the cause of independence, whether it be Brexit, the pandemic, the war in Ukraine or even the policies of Nigel Farage. It will use anything to try to get its way, but it never will. Stephen Kerr: Douglas Lumsden is correct. Everything that happens—anything that the SNP sees on the 6 o’clock news—becomes a reason for breaking up the United Kingdom and an excuse for holding another referendum. Let us be clear that the SNP’s approach is not so much about strengthening ties with Europe as it is about weakening the bonds of Britain.”
“Will the energy strategy be published in this parliamentary session? I ask the cabinet secretary: where is the plan? Has it been kicked into the long grass, delayed until after next year’s election? Why does the Government not start being straight with the people of the north-east and tell them when it will be delivered?”
“I agree with her, unless the policies of the Labour and SNP Governments change and they both end their thoughtless, baseless and evidence-lacking approach to energy production in Scotland, now and in future. The SNP has a presumption against new oil and gas. It is against the UK Government issuing new licences. It is against Rosebank and Cambo, and it has refused to consider nuclear energy. That is left-wing nonsense. Where are all the jobs that have been promised? Where are all the renewables and green-energy jobs? Perhaps the cabinet secretary would like to tell us now how many new jobs have been brought to the north- east in the past year, because we know how many have been lost. We still have no energy strategy, and we have no direction from this Government—it is net zero on ideas.”
“We need action to save North Sea jobs as a matter of urgency, so I call on the Scottish Government to grab the bull by the horns and convene an emergency summit with United Kingdom and Scottish Governments, local MPs and MSPs, local authorities, trade organisations, trade unions, third sector organisations, chambers of commerce, development boards and even Great British Energy. This is an emergency for the north-east. There can be no further dither and delay—something needs to be done. Confidence among people who work in the sector is being lost, and businesses are failing as a result. The situation is not getting better. Even the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy said this week that more businesses might follow.”
“We need to work with the industry and not against it, ensuring that the oil and gas sector is at the centre of our discussions on how we meet our energy needs, move to net zero and ensure that jobs are retained in the north-east. Last week, we heard the devastating news that Harbour Energy is shedding another 250 jobs. Two and a half thousand jobs have now been lost—2,500 livelihoods lost—in the North Sea in the past year, and the SNP Government’s reaction has been pitiful. When it looked like 200 jobs would go at Ferguson Marine, it nationalised the yard. When Grangemouth refinery announced closure, it set up project willow to look at how jobs could be saved, but in Aberdeen, it did nothing.”
“In 2022, 78 per cent of Scotland’s energy needs were met from oil and gas. We need a balanced energy provision. We cannot rely only on oil and gas, renewables or nuclear—we need a proper energy mix. The Scottish Conservatives want to protect the oil and gas sector, and the vast majority of Scots agree with us. In a recent poll, 84 per cent of people supported the continuation of oil and gas exploration and drilling. The public understand that in order to continue to provide the energy that we need while increasing our renewables sector, there is a process that we have to go through in a reasonable, timely and well-thought-out way.”
“In June last year, we had a debate in the chamber on oil and gas. Almost a year later, the sector is in a worse state, thanks to the policies of this devolved Scottish National Party Government and an inept Labour Government in Westminster. Both have abandoned the north-east, both have betrayed the oil and gas sector and both are accountable for the loss of jobs, livelihoods and industry in our once-thriving north-east. It is a disgrace to see how the sector has been sold out, and the Scottish Conservatives remain the only party that is standing up for the industry and those who work in it. The oil and gas sector currently supports more than 83,000 jobs in Scotland, and supports the Scottish economy to the tune of £14 billion—we should be doing everything that we can to protect it.”
“If members agree with the majority of our constituents on the principle of assisted dying, they should vote for the bill at stage 1, and let us all work together to improve it as it progresses through the parliamentary stages. Among the words on the mace that sits in front of us is “compassion”. Let us show that we have that compassion. 17:03”
“It is not my place to tell another human being that their suffering is just the way it has to be, or that their excruciating pain is not that bad. In any other circumstance, forcing another individual to endure horrendous pain and suffering would be inhumane, torturous and, in all likelihood, criminal. I implore members to consider that human factor, because the status quo is cruel and dangerous, and it offers no one the choice of a dignified and peaceful death. Assisted dying has worked in many other countries. Now is the time to see the best of what the Scottish Parliament can do. An assisted dying law would not mean that more people would die; it would mean that fewer people would suffer.”
“I do not think that we should be scared. We must have faith that the Parliament can do what it is meant to do. We members have a job that we were elected to do. I add that the bill has been almost 20 years in the making. By learning the lessons of the past and considering the multitude of proposals, critiques, analysis and previous debates, we will be able to craft something that will deliver on the wishes of the majority of Scots while still protecting the most vulnerable. Personally, I do not think that I would ever be able to go through with assisted dying—I would always want to live as long as possible. However, I have never experienced the pain and suffering that some people endure. I would like to have that choice, and the bill is about giving people choices.”
“That would allow us to amend its provisions where required, as the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee has recommended, and then to vote on what would be in front of us at stage 3. That is how the Parliament should work. Our processes allow us to put robust legislation in place. Liam Kerr: Douglas Lumsden is absolutely right that we need robust legislation. However, many of my constituents have commented that lots of well- intentioned legislation has come out of the Scottish Parliament that has not been in the ideal form—it has had unintended consequences. Can Mr Lumsden reassure members that that will not happen this time? That is a real fear. Douglas Lumsden: The vote on this bill differs in that members are not being whipped. The whole point of the Parliament is to make laws, which it has done successfully before now.”
“In my friend’s case, the latter option would have meant ending her life sooner than she wanted to, as well as potentially criminalising anyone who helped her, and it would have cost thousands of pounds. Where is the equality in that? It seems that people who can afford it have access to assisted dying, but those who do not must either suffer or break the law. We must remember that we are debating the bill at stage 1, and that this debate is not like others, in which members are usually whipped by their parties. The bill cannot and will not be railroaded through. If members believe in the general principle of providing dignity and choice to people who are in the final stages of their lives, I urge them to support the bill today.”
“Before I was elected as an MSP, I had a friend and mentor who was suffering terribly from breast cancer at the end of her life. I would visit her, in her last days, and I could tell how much pain she was in. She asked me to support assisted dying. She knew that it would not help her, but she hated the position that she was in, in which the last days of her life were probably the most painful and hated. People in such situations have limited choices. They can continue to suffer, as my friend had to do; they might commit suicide, which carries the dangers of criminalising anyone who helps them and of their attempt not working; or they can go to Switzerland.”
“I thank my friend Liam McArthur for having the strength to introduce his bill and for all the work that he has done on it. Let me start by saying something that I am sure that we can all agree on: we are all going to die, but how we die is something that will be different and personal for us all. We would all like to have a peaceful and painless death, but that is not how it is going to happen for all of us. Some of us will pass away in our sleep, but others may spend their last few days or weeks in agony, praying for the end to come. The bill is about giving people more control over their death—giving them more choice when they are at the end of life, and giving them choice between different kinds of death. We all have personal stories about why we are supporting or opposing the bill, and I will talk briefly about mine.”
“I fully support the escalation to level 4. I called for that during a members’ business debate just two weeks ago. Two months ago, I asked the cabinet secretary whether he had confidence in the board. I ask him today whether he has confidence in the chair of NHS Grampian. Neil Gray: Yes, I do.”
“The programme for government shines a light on the failure of the past 18 years and on the history of failed promises and broken commitments. 16:26”
“The First Minister even popped up to St Fergus last year to announce another £2 million, which seems to be all that the SNP has left in that fund. The Scottish Conservatives offer a way forward that is based on common sense. If we are still using oil and gas, let us use the resources that we have instead of importing them from abroad. If we have a good renewables industry, let us work with it to innovate and move forward. Given that we have a thriving agricultural sector, let us build it up and not impose unfair taxes on it, as the Labour UK Government has done. The Scottish Conservatives will work with the Scottish people towards economic growth and prosperity for all and will not sacrifice economic growth on the altar of independence. This is a Government that is out of time and out of ideas.”
“For the good of our incredible countryside, I plead with the SNP Government not to carpet bomb our rural communities with monster pylons, substations and battery storage facilities. The devolved Government needs to press the pause button until we have an energy strategy, so that we can have the right development in the right place. Instead of the SNP using this programme for government to set out a commonsense approach to energy production and infrastructure in Scotland, we are getting the same old nonsense from the SNP. When it comes to Acorn, does the First Minister think that people in the north-east zip up the back, promising a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow when his Government has failed to spend a penny of the £80 million cash from 2022?”
“Despite all the science and all the experts telling them what a vital contribution small nuclear can make to the resilience of our energy production, ministers remain luddites when it comes to nuclear. The energy strategy is years late, and there is no sign of it in the programme for government. We all know why that is: it is because the SNP is a divided party on the subject. It is trying to satisfy its members who understand that jobs and wealth that are created by the oil and gas industry can provide an economic boost to Scotland and pay for our public services, while the other half of its members want to cosy up to the extremist Greens, throwing tens of thousands of jobs under the bus. Communities from the south to the north are desperately asking the Scottish Government to listen to their concerns on energy infrastructure.”
“In the north-east, we know how hard those in our oil and gas sector have worked to ensure that oil and gas production in Scotland is world leading, ethical and green, providing vital resources for our economic wellbeing. Instead, the SNP Government continues with a presumption against new oil and gas and is determined to close off that vital resource to our country’s energy needs. The Government remains opposed to small nuclear developments close to where energy is needed and central to achieving our net zero ambitions. Kate Forbes: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Lumsden: If I have time, I will come back to the Deputy First Minister.”
“Well, here we are, a year from the Scottish Parliament election and, rather than the Government coming to the Parliament to offer a bold vision for an economic, prosperous Scotland, we once again have an SNP First Minister who is standing on a history of broken promises and economic decline, on a record of failure and missed targets and on a background of decline in education and health coming to the chamber with a programme for government that demonstrates just how out of ideas and out of time the devolved SNP Government is. Industries the length and breadth of the country are crying out for innovation and bold policies when it comes to a just transition and energy security.”
“Underpinning project willow is the need to have an energy strategy, which would provide some clarity. Where is it? When will it be published? Does the Government realise that getting that wrong and leaving in the presumption against new oil and gas could mean Grangemouth-equivalent redundancies every week from now until 2030? Kate Forbes: I do not know to whom the member is talking, but if he thinks that all that it takes is an energy strategy to attract investment to Grangemouth, he is speaking to the wrong people. We are ensuring that there is funding available— £25 million—and that we have a clear process for taking inquiries, triaging them and supporting companies to relocate, and ultimately for delivering the employment that we want in order to ensure that Grangemouth continues to play a key part in our industrial future.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when it will publish the outcome of the latest A96 corridor review. (S6O- 04566)”
“Putting NHS Grampian into further enhanced measures would be the first step, but not the last. We need a clear recovery plan, leadership changes where necessary, independent oversight and emergency investment in the services that are under the most pressure. The Scottish Government must make this a priority, not just for the sake of the north- east but as a signal to every patient in Scotland that they matter.”
“In orthopaedics, Scotland Versus Arthritis has analysed the waiting times in NHS Grampian and the waiting lists for trauma and orthopaedic treatment have increased by 25 per cent in the past two years, with orthopaedics currently making up 38 per cent of NHS Grampian’s total waiting list. The financial situation, bed capacity issues, limited staffing and growing demand are all contributing to NHS Grampian’s floundering position. The new Baird family hospital is already five years late, with no opening date set. The board’s reliance on Government bailouts underscores the seriousness of the situation, which simply cannot continue. The time has come for a robust and meaningful response. The Scottish Government must take steps to put patients and staff first and place NHS Grampian in special measures.”
“It has the worst performance against the 12-week treatment target and the greatest number of extremely long waits for treatment, and is near worst in relation to unscheduled care. I am concerned that it is our elderly constituents who are being disproportionately affected by those waiting times, who are suffering the most and who are having their quality of life impacted. In audiology, there is more than a two-year wait for a hearing aid. In relation to cataracts, there is a 60- week wait for the first appointment and who knows how long for the operation.”
“The board has explained that, due to what it calls its “extremely challenging” financial position, it must reduce spending. That is despite £92 million in Scottish Government bailouts and the Scottish National Party claiming to have increased funding for NHS boards. That will not give my constituents confidence in the healthcare system or that they will get the treatment that they need, when they need it, nor will it give them confidence in the leadership of NHS Grampian. How on earth will it get waiting times down when it is forced to make cuts to critical services? That will surely mean more waiting, more delays and more uncertainty. Compared to other Scottish health boards, NHS Grampian stands out for all the wrong reasons.”
“Data so far this year shows that NHS Grampian is failing to keep pace with other health boards across Scotland. The majority of patients within the board’s area of responsibility are waiting longer than the 12-week target, with thousands facing waits of more than a year and some of even two years. Accident and emergency performance is among the worst in Scotland. I have seen the consequences of that at first hand—not just through the many constituents whom I have met and who have explained how they have been let down, but within my own family. They have faced long, agonising waits in the back of ambulances outside an A and E department that is bursting at the seams, and they now face more long waits for much-needed surgery with no news or updates and no end in sight.”
“In the interest of transparency, I declare that I was a board member of NHS Grampian between 2017 and 2021. I thank members from other parties who signed my motion, which has allowed the debate to take place. By bringing this debate, in no way am I criticising staff in our national health service, who work tirelessly to care for our constituents. However, given the level of correspondence that I receive from constituents, I felt that I had to try to do something to highlight the issues that are faced at present. You will be surprised, Presiding Officer, that I do not want tonight’s debate to be a political knockabout with the Scottish Government. I have genuine concerns and would like to hear what the Government can and cannot do to improve the situation that patients in the north-east currently face.”
“The issue is complex and important. It is about access to justice for our community groups who are seeking to protect our countryside, heritage and environment. Their concerns cannot, and must not, fall on deaf ears. I welcome the fact that two parliamentary committees have now looked at the issue, and I urge the Scottish Government to listen to the concerns that members express in the debate. To ignore those concerns is to ignore the fundamental right of community groups to access justice in Scotland. It ignores the voices of our rural communities and the Government’s legal obligations under the convention. It is vital that the Government acts and stops faffing about. This has gone on for far too long. Action must be taken to ensure that justice can be served. 16:21”
“One call that came through strongly in many of the representations that we received was on the need for an environmental court to be established in Scotland, which would be in line with many other countries. That was ruled out by the Scottish Government without the due consideration that should have been given to it. An environmental court could increase access to justice, reduce the many fragmented paths to justice that currently exist, and allow Scotland’s legal industry to develop expertise in the area. It could also cut costs for those who are pursuing or defending cases. The cabinet secretary should listen to the groups that are calling for such a court to be established and not dismiss their suggestions out of hand. We should carefully consider the proposal for an environmental court and decide whether it is best for Scotland.”
“Progress has been made on the other two, but they have not yet been met. For the past two years, promises have been made on our obligations by the Scottish Government, whether through the human rights bill or legal aid reform, but neither has been followed through. This left- wing, central-belt-focused SNP Government is once again talking the talk but failing to act on behalf of our rural communities. I thank the organisations that gave evidence to the committee for their work on the issue. They are clearly exasperated by the lack of action on the matter, and many have expressed their dismay at the slow pace of progress. I hope that we will today hear from the cabinet secretary that progress will be made, along with timescales and targets, so that we can all have the transparency that is required in this area.”
“They feel that their human rights are under attack, and they feel that they are being priced out of defending their homes. There needs to be a better way of allowing those groups to defend themselves. The changes that are required to bring us into line with the convention would mean that those groups could either access legal aid to combat the plans or, as the ERCS supports, the loser pays rule would be replaced with qualified one-way cost shifting. That would allow community groups much greater access to justice, and would be a relatively easy way to bring us into line with the Aarhus principles, which we are a long way from meeting. In fact, of the six recommendations made by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the Scottish Government has failed to act on four.”
“Many communities feel that they are being priced out of trying to protect the countryside, while energy companies have deep pockets to spend on getting what they want. Crowdfunders can get campaigners only so far. Many are being priced out of defending their local countryside from overindustrialisation up and down the country, and that cannot be right. I fear that it will get harder, not easier, for community groups to defend the countryside. The changes to the planning system, which are supported by both Labour and the Scottish National Party, look to take away local councils’ right to a public inquiry and erode local democracy in order to railroad pylons, batteries and substations across our countryside. Communities feel ignored.”
“Quite frankly, it is a disgrace and a shambles, and it is letting down rural Scotland, our communities and all the groups that work so hard to ensure that our countryside is protected. Campaigners in Dumfries and Galloway spent almost £26,000 unsuccessfully opposing pylons in their areas. Those costs are terrifying to groups such as Save Our Mearns, which face similar disruption and destruction of the countryside in their areas, with hundreds of kilometres of pylons being planned across Scotland. SSEN plans to build 500km of pylons across the north of Scotland. Local groups are left wondering how on earth they can oppose the plans of those large companies. At the Citizen Participation and Petitions Committee last year, I spoke about the David versus Goliath battle that many communities face.”
“The Aarhus convention is an important document that gives power to local communities to have a say on what happens in their locality. It has been ignored for too long, and more should and must be done to ensure that its central tenets are incorporated into law in Scotland. The issue has been raised time and again in Parliament. Indeed, back in 2022, my committee colleague Monica Lennon questioned the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, Keith Brown, on the matter. In 2023, there was a consultation and a report from the Scottish Government. In 2024, there was committee work on the topic, yet we still have little or no action—a phrase that cuts right to the heart of this devolved Scottish National Party Government.”
“In February, I published a legal aid reform discussion paper, which sets out the areas of work that we will undertake to improve legal aid in the short-to- medium and the long terms. I will bring regulations by the end of 2025 to simplify the regulatory framework that governs the eligibility for legal assistance and to improve the application process.”
“The consultation features in its work programme for 2025-26, and I hope that many of the environmental non-governmental organisations that follow the topic closely will participate. There is also proposed action on legal aid reform. We recognise that reform is needed in our legal aid system to ensure that it is responsive and user-centred and that it works effectively towards the delivery of agreed outcomes in a way that would be expected of a public service, with transparency and accountability for public funding being embedded in the process. “The Vision for Justice in Scotland: Three Year Delivery Plan 2023/24 to 2025/26” contains an action to “Engage with key stakeholders to inform and shape future legislative proposals” in relation to the reform of legal aid.”
“We believe that there is much to be welcomed in both the concrete actions that have been taken and the commitments for the future. One action that the Scottish Government has provided is that court fees will no longer be payable for Aarhus cases in the Court of Session. A second change is that the Scottish Civil Justice Council has made a number of technical changes to the system of protective expenses orders that support those who raise Aarhus cases in the courts. Those changes support confidentiality, protection from interveners costs and the treatment of appeals. The Scottish Civil Justice Council has also made a commitment to consult on the more fundamental proposals to expand the protective expenses order regime into the sheriff court and private nuisance claims.”
“Will compliance with the convention mean that groups across Scotland that are campaigning against pylons will have greater support through legal aid, for example, to oppose some of the power generation companies that are forcing things through? Siobhian Brown: I will come to legal aid and access to justice later in my speech. The ACCC issued a decision in October 2021 that found that Scotland and the UK were not compliant with the requirements of the convention in relation to access to justice. That was the latest in a series of findings of non-compliance. As a result, the UK was required to submit an action plan in 2022 followed by a progress report in October 2023 and a final progress report in October 2024. The UK Government submitted that report, which incorporated a contribution from Scotland, and we await the response from the ACCC.”
“I sought to respond to those concerns and to ensure that communities’ voices were heard, given that, in many areas, those forms of heating remain not only the most suitable but, in some cases, the cleanest form of heating that is available.”
“I have a similar question. The minister mentioned that rural households will often use alternative heating systems to urban ones, and I am glad to see that the Government is now recognising that. Will the minister confirm that the new heat in buildings bill will not try to phase out heating systems such as wood-burning stoves and heating oil, which are a lifeline for so many rural communities? Alasdair Allan: The member will appreciate that wood-burning stoves and heating oil open up two very different sets of questions. I made it clear from the outset that we are seeking to move people on to clean systems of heating their houses by 2045. The member will be aware that I responded to the issues that were raised about wood-burning stoves and the regulations that surround the building of new houses around rural Scotland.”
“On the last question, about engagement with the site owner and the appetite to invest, there has been extensive engagement with the owner about that, and with others who have indicated an interest in investing. The point of project willow is to set out the viable projects that could be progressed with. As I said in my statement, significant interest has come to Petroineos and Scottish Enterprise. Some near-term projects, such recycling of plastics, acetone-butanol-ethanol biorefining, anaerobic digestion and fuel switching could be delivered more quickly. The overall figure that Douglas Lumsden gave, which is over a longer timeframe, does not indicate that some of these are short, medium and long-term projects.”
“What work is the Scottish Government doing with other heavy industrial sites across Scotland to ensure that they do not find themselves in the same situation but have transition plans ready before closures happen? Since the publication of the report, what discussions have taken place with the site owner, Petroineos, to ascertain whether it has an appetite to invest in the projects listed in willow or whether it is willing to sell the site to someone else who will? Kate Forbes: I appreciate that it is great rhetoric for Douglas Lumsden to spin the line that a very recent policy on oil and gas is somehow to blame, but that belies his ignorance of what has actually led to this position. The gravity of the situation at Grangemouth befits greater understanding of the factors that have led to it.”
“I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of the statement. Petroineos has confirmed that 405 workers have already been made redundant, with a further 105 to go in the next 18 months. My thoughts go out to those workers and their families. Project willow will not save those jobs. It may create 800 jobs over a 15-year period, but only if £4.25 billion is invested. Those 405 workers cannot wait 15 years. What we are seeing at Grangemouth is what happens when an industry is demonised and a hostile environment is created. The SNP’s presumption against new oil and gas is driving investment away, and the lack of an energy strategy is, frankly, an embarrassment. The workers of Grangemouth have been failed by this SNP Government, which failed to plan ahead for this eventuality and sprang into action only when it was too late.”
“We will have to rely on elements of oil and gas for some time to come. That will be part of the approach that the Scottish Government takes, but we also have to fulfil our climate objectives. I know that there has been another change of position in the Conservative Party. A few weeks ago, Russell Findlay said that it was refreshingly honest of Kemi Badenoch to say that we should abandon our climate change targets. What does that say about the Conservatives? It says that they are prepared to vote in this Parliament for climate change targets but, when it becomes opportune to cuddle up to Nigel Farage and Reform, they abandon the climate change targets. We all now know, because people are now deserting the Tory party, that the Tory party is in a dance with Farage. I will leave them to all of that.”