Alasdair Allan
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Like other members, I very much hope to see further and more comprehensive legislation soon. Meanwhile, as other members have mentioned, it is important not to lose sight of the reasons for and origin of crofting law.”
“I am pleased that my final speech in this session of Parliament is about such an important subject to my constituents as crofting. I, too, pay tribute to the contributions that have been made on the issue over the years by many members, not least by Rhoda Grant and Edward Mountain. This bill has been in the works for a long time.”
“However, the history that I have just recounted means that crofters are very aware that this traditional, culturally vital way of life requires legislation to sustain and protect it. The bill is a step forward in what must be a longer process of crofting law reform.”
“I was pleased to secure several amendments at stage 2, including to give ministers the power to regulate the transfer of owner-occupier crofts, to prevent a right-to-buy where a crofter is in breach of their duties, to explicitly include enforcement duties in the Crofting Commission’s responsibilities and to introduce a more practical and…”
“Depending on the voting intentions of my constituents, I look forward to working with the next Government on the additional legislation that will be required. In the meantime, the bill is an important step forward on the road to crofting legislation reform and I urge members to give it their support. 17:26”
“My amendment 6 would make it clear that that power includes the ability to make provisions on the transfer of associated grazing shares, should it be desirable to strengthen or modify the regime set out in sections 14A and 15. I move amendment 6.”
The complete record
Every one of 496 lines we hold for Alasdair Allan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 10.
“The expansion of offshore wind represents a significant opportunity to create thousands of high-quality jobs, offering opportunities for those who are entering the job market for the first time and for those who want or need to change careers, including as part of a just transition. We are investing up to £500 million over five years to support market certainty, to create a highly productive and competitive offshore wind economy and to support thousands of jobs. We are providing funding to colleges in 2025-26 to establish an offshore wind skills programme, helping to create region-specific training hubs for offshore wind skills, and we have convened a short-life working group with industry and public sector partners to develop and deliver an evidence-based offshore wind skills action plan at pace.”
“Our £500 million just transition fund for the north-east and Moray is currently open for new applications, with £8.5 million of new funding available this year. I once again call on the UK Government to match our investment in that area. In the next session of Parliament, we will meet the remaining commitment for the fund and work with partners to deliver strategic investment in the region. As part of the fund, we have been prioritising skills investments through the industry-led offshore energy skills passport and the energy transition skills hub. We have also supported key projects in the region through our energy transition fund and we are currently working with the UK Government to develop a new regional skills pilot scheme for Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire.”
“A positive final decision on Acorn and the Scottish cluster, including announcing a full funding package and a clear timeline to achieve a final investment decision, is required so that investors can continue their work in developing that vital project. We stand ready to work constructively with the UK Government and to increase our funding for Acorn. If the UK Government commits, we will work with it and industry to ensure the fastest possible deployment of the Acorn project and the Scottish cluster, so that a just transition for our energy workforce can be secured. Although clarity from the UK Government is needed in the key areas that I have mentioned, that will not stop us taking the actions that are possible within our devolved competence.”
“Secondly, on decisions on the licensing and consenting of North Sea oil and gas projects, which are, of course, also reserved to the UK Government, we continue to call on it to approach those decisions on a rigorously evidence-led and case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. The UK Government needs to bring forward its finalised positions from recent consultations on the future regulatory regimes as soon as possible to provide businesses and workers with much-needed certainty and stability. Thirdly, it is essential that the UK Government provides clarity and certainty for the Acorn project in the upcoming spending review.”
“Given that we are now seeing adverse effects of that policy, the UK Government should be considering when the earliest possible end date could be in order to avoid more decisions such as the one that we saw from Harbour Energy last month. The UK Government must urgently work with industry through its recent consultation, which closed on 28 May, and more widely, to set out a stable long-term fiscal regime for the North Sea. The aim must be to give the offshore energy sector much-needed certainty and to treat it fairly alongside other parts of the UK economy.”
“However, as the commission recognises, clarity on the direction of travel from the UK Government will be vital before we can undertake some of the planning that the sector needs. That is not a process that the Scottish Government can do alone. In order to support workers and create an improved environment for investors, the UK Government needs urgently to provide stability and certainty in several key reserved areas. First, the UK Government holds the powers to act in areas of taxation for the North Sea oil and gas sector. We therefore continue to call on it to listen carefully to concerns that are being expressed by businesses about the impacts of its energy profits levy. The energy profits levy was always supposed to be a temporary measure, and we must see an end date for it, as it is now affecting investment and jobs in the north-east.”
“As members know, most of the key policy levers for the North Sea oil and gas sector, including decisions on licensing, consenting and the associated fiscal regime, are matters that are reserved to the United Kingdom Government, so it is not surprising that much of the report is addressed to that Government. The UK Government has recently concluded several periods of consultation on key aspects of the future of the North Sea. We, along with industry, workers and other stakeholders, are awaiting its next steps. Those steps will be of vital importance for all aspects of the energy transition, including the workforce. We are content to accept in principle the headline recommendations in the commission’s report.”
“It must ensure that they have good, well-paid jobs, so that they can thrive in the region and be proud to live and work there. This statement has been prompted by the publication of the Just Transition Commission’s report into Aberdeen and the north-east. I thank the commission for its work, especially in travelling around the country and speaking to those who are directly impacted by the transition to net zero. However, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that the report follows on from a concerning series of announcements that affect jobs in the region, especially in the oil and gas industry.”
“Aberdeen and the north-east have been an energy powerhouse for 50 years. As we transition from the boom years of oil and gas towards the renewables revolution that is on the horizon, I think that all of us in Parliament can acknowledge the opportunities that a just transition can now bring. At the heart of that transition is our oil and gas workforce—experienced, highly skilled workers who are passionate about their work and their industry. Those workers are the latest in a long line of people who have had opportunities to provide for their families, experience work overseas and build a modern, successful city in Aberdeen through the oil and gas industry. Beyond anything else, a just transition must exist primarily for them.”
“Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“At col 63, para 5, line 3— Original text— I listened carefully to Patrick Harvie’s comments about local control and culture change. In the past 12 months, more than £30 million-worth of benefits have been offered to Scottish communities, supported by our voluntary good practice principles. We agree that, as a Government, we must do more. Corrected text— I listened carefully to Patrick Harvie’s comments about local control and culture change. In the past 12 months, more than £29 million-worth of benefits have been offered to Scottish communities, supported by our voluntary good practice principles. We agree that, as a Government, we must do more. This is the final edition of the Official Report for this meeting. It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit.”
“The Scottish Government remains firmly committed to growing community and locally owned energy in Scotland, helping our communities to develop energy projects and supporting Scotland’s progress towards net zero. Urgent Question 16:58”
“We continue to advocate and act for Scotland’s communities to ensure that they receive a just and equitable outcome from our energy transition. Whether that is through community energy, shared ownership or community benefits, it is essential that communities see a positive and lasting legacy. A number of members asked how smaller local authorities are to cope with large-scale planning issues and the scale of work that is involved. The Scottish Government certainly seeks to support local authorities that are in that position. Sarah Boyack: Will Alasdair Allan give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The minister is just concluding. Alasdair Allan: The Scottish Government seeks to work with the UK Government on future reforms of the planning system to ensure that communities are consulted at an earlier stage.”
“The Scottish Government has very developed procedures in place to ensure that, as taxpayers, we do not find ourselves in the situation that he describes. However, he raises important issues that will be faced by many communities when it comes to replacing infrastructure in the future. This will come as a surprise to Douglas Lumsden, but I agree with his point about the importance of the efforts that are made by volunteers in communities and the fact that that can place a great strain on individuals and communities. I wish to recognise the exceptional efforts that have been made by the community in North Yell, which Beatrice Wishart referred to. I have visited it, and it is a formidable organisation.”
“I know how important community energy projects are in supporting local economic investment and empowering communities to take ownership of their energy future. Craig Hoy: Obviously, there is community ownership, but issues are now arising in relation to the costs of decommissioning energy projects, both onshore and offshore. Does the minister share my concern about community ownership that, unless a pot of money is put in place for decommissioning, in 20 or 30 years’ time, the Government could become, in effect, not the lender of last resort but the funder of last resort, funding the decommissioning of community-owned and other structure-owned renewable energy projects? Alasdair Allan: Craig Hoy refers to offshore projects, for instance.”
“We will continue to engage to ensure that Scotland’s interests are fully represented. That represents our long-standing leadership in championing community benefit from renewable energy developments. Jackie Dunbar mentioned the importance of tackling fuel poverty as being at the heart of all those efforts, and Alex Rowley referred to that issue, too. They recognised that, in many cases, areas of fuel poverty are also the areas that host projects. The Scottish Government is committed to growing the community energy sector in Scotland, and the community energy generation growth fund represents an exciting step forward in the development of the community energy pipeline in Scotland that we all wish to see. We have seen, through CARES, that communities are enthusiastic to do more.”
“Alasdair Allan: I must make a little progress just now—I might come back to the member. I welcome the UK Government’s recent working paper, which seeks views on the introduction of a mandatory community benefit scheme for low- carbon energy infrastructure—a question that is currently reserved to the UK Government. As Fergus Ewing recognised amid the thundering delenda ests of his peroration, there are several areas in which the Scottish and UK Governments can co-operate. Although he pointed out—in Latin—that we must “festina lente”, or hurry slowly, the Government recognises that we need to move a posse ad esse: from potentiality to actuality. The Scottish Government has long called on the UK Government to consult on mandating community benefits for onshore renewables, and I welcome that consultation as a step forward.”
“Alasdair Allan: The member has acknowledged that that particular target may not be achievable overnight, but the evidence that we gather will, I believe, ensure that our community benefit targets and arrangements are sustainable, meaningful and ambitious, and that they will help to support our just and fair transition to net zero. I will add to that point something that is perhaps relevant to the member’s question and which takes us back to my earlier comment. The First Minister has asked officials to take forward with stakeholders other opportunities—created by repowering—for communities. The Scottish Government cannot do all that work alone. We must work with our stakeholders, developers, communities and, as I alluded to, the UK Government, to make progress. Craig Hoy: Will the minister take an intervention?”
“See end of report.] We recently consulted on our good practice principles for onshore and offshore renewable energy developments to ensure that our national guidance is fit for the future. The consultation closed on 11 April. We are currently analysing the responses and information to inform a refresh of the guidance. Patrick Harvie: As the Government analyses the responses to that consultation, can the minister tell us what the scale of the Scottish Government’s objective is? He has heard support from his own back benchers for community ownership on something approaching the scale of what Denmark has achieved. I know that that cannot be done overnight, but is it the Government’s intention to achieve something of the same order over the longer term?”
“Emma Harper pointed to successful strategies for communities, some of those being lessons from other countries, and, like other members, she reminded us of the need to get to net zero. That is always a factor in what we seek to do. There are levers in our hands to achieve net zero, but some levers are not in our hands. I listened carefully to Patrick Harvie’s comments about local control and culture change. In the past 12 months, more than £30 million-worth of benefits have been offered to Scottish communities, supported by our voluntary good practice principles. We agree that, as a Government, we must do more. [Alasdair Allan has corrected this contribution.”
“There is a discussion for us all to have in the future, however, particularly on the issue of repowering. The Scottish Government is committed to growing community benefits. Throughout the debate, we talked about the benefits that community energy provides, including community benefits. As Colin Smyth pointed out, both climate change targets and supply chain benefits are important in that regard. Alongside growing community energy, we must also ensure that communities are able to access community benefits from commercial renewable energy developments. Those are an important tool to ensure that people and communities benefit from the just energy transition that we all seek to achieve.”
“The Scottish Government is committed to growing that number and to growing the community energy sector in Scotland, as demonstrated by the community energy generation growth fund. There are many opportunities to be seized, and there is huge potential for communities to own— Rhoda Grant: Would the minister look at the situation with Forestry and Land Scotland? Could there be a presumption in favour of communities that are interested in taking over developments when they come up for re-tendering? Alasdair Allan: The member makes an interesting point. A related earlier point was about repowering opportunities, which is something to which I know Forestry and Land Scotland will want to give due consideration. Of course, Forestry and Land Scotland financially contributes to the public good through its own activities.”
“I thank members for their contributions to a vitally important debate. As other members have mentioned, it has been a debate on which there is a great deal of common ground across the chamber. There was much of that in evidence today, both in the summing-up speeches that we have just heard and throughout. As we have heard, communities are crucial in our transition to net zero and they must receive the benefits of our renewables revolution. I will begin by trying to answer a question from Christine Grahame, who asked how many communities have bought shares in a wind farm. The picture as at December 2024 was that there were 140 installations in Scotland where shared ownership was either in place or under discussion.”
“pylons and other electricity infrastructure are increasingly being built without the support of residents ... and the Scottish Government should give communities more say over local energy production.” There is nothing in the Scottish Conservatives amendment that any MSP who is truly representing their constituents’ wishes should oppose. They should support our amendment or answer to their constituents if they do not. 15:29”
“There is a serious democratic deficit, with planning decisions often overriding local objections; local consultations and engagement are tokenistic at best; and too many residents learn of new projects only when the approval process is already well advanced. Anger is so great because there is a feeling that the unprecedented concentration of proposed energy developments would never be tolerated in the central belt, that our communities are being exploited in a way that Government politicians would never allow in their own areas, and that our communities and homes are threatened by a wave of central-belt environmental imperialism. I remind everyone of what the Scottish Conservatives are calling for today in our amendment: “Community consent needs to be at the heart of energy production ...”
“The most frustrating, and most commonly asked question, is: why can local communities not be kept better informed by developers and Government? For many of the communities that I have spoken of today, the issue is about not only planning but democracy and power. Many of us in the Highlands and Islands support renewable energy in principle, but what we oppose is the current model, which puts corporate interests and national targets over community voices. To hit those targets, the SNP is pushing a top-down energy policy that is leaving residents and local communities feeling ignored, sidelined and sacrificed.”
“Two large accommodation camps are planned around Broadford on Skye, which will bring hundreds of workers into small communities, which local residents fear do not have the facilities and amenities to cope with them. The community’s very nature risks being impacted—and impacted for many years. In my recent surgery in Dalwhinnie, those who are impacted by the Earba pumped storage hydro project highlighted their concerns. Such concerns are common among so many across the region. What will the impact be on those who live near the project? How will local roads, which are sometimes single track only, cope with increased traffic volumes? How will the work be co-ordinated with other major projects, such as the dualling of the A9—if that happens—in order to avoid the perfect storm of disruption?”
“for local communities to access legal and regulatory advice, or does it expect local people to foot the bill to protect their homes and their local communities?”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; c 15.] His response was to just deflect, which I guess answers the question for those communities. You have to protect your own communities, because the SNP Government certainly will not. The same issues are faced by communities across the Highlands and Islands. At Glenelg, there are plans for a new route for power lines, which threatens one of Scotland’s most iconic views—one enjoyed by thousands of people every year as they take the Glenelg ferry to Skye. The issue is not only the infrastructure but those undertaking its development.”
“Some want to sell their homes but are being told that interest in their property is being reduced because of the proposals; others want to stay and fight the proposals, which they are concerned are for a site in the wrong place. As I raised with the SNP Government in a question only last week, those residents and others across the country simply do not have the money, resource or expertise to contest such plans. They are up against massive companies with huge financial and legal resources, so how do they compete with them? I asked the minister that exact question. I asked him what support does “the Scottish Government provide ...”
“I absolutely accept the importance of the issue that he raises about constraint payments. I am sure that he will agree that the authorities at UK level need to be involved in the debate that he has just raised, because it relates to issues that are all reserved. Jamie Halcro Johnston: A lot of those issues are around planning, so they are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, which cannot keep washing its hands of every issue. The minister’s Government has responsibility for this issue, and I will come on to a little later. The issue is not just the turbines but the pylons, transformers and huge battery storage sites, as others have mentioned. Communities are having invasive industrialisation forced on them. A week or so ago, I met residents who are being impacted by proposals for a substation at Fanellan.”
“A key principle of our report is that support needs to be targeted, as the member indicated, and based on a meaningful set of metrics, including, for example, a combination of household income, medical need and rurality. I have been clear with the UK Government that its current approach of relying on the warm home discount scheme provides too little help for those who are most in need and it does not provide it when they need it. Again, therefore, I call on the UK Government to deliver a new and additional scheme that provides a unit rate discount with the level of discount that is proportionate to need. Port of Leith (Contribution to Net Zero) 6.”
“James Dornan: Does the minister agree that the targeting of support is urgently needed to ensure that consumers are protected against high costs at source and can afford all their energy needs, and that, although the report recommends a robust scheme, the reality is that the UK Government is ultimately responsible in that policy area and must urgently deliver a unit rate discount with the level of discount proportionate to need? Alasdair Allan: I whole-heartedly agree. We have worked hard and collaboratively to present a compelling way forward, and we have achieved a rare degree of consensus on a social tariff to bring down energy bills.”
“The Scottish Government’s working group, which included energy suppliers and consumer fuel poverty and disability groups, called for a social tariff to cut fuel bills for Scots in its final report. In March, we wrote to the UK Government to share the final report and press for the urgent introduction of a targeted discount on bills to address unaffordable energy prices at source. We are in regular dialogue on energy affordability and have been fully involved in the UK Government’s recently convened data working group, which is critical to delivering automatic and targeted energy bill support that is based on a sophisticated set of metrics. The powers to deliver the scheme are reserved, but we remain committed to working with the UK Government to make urgent progress on that critical policy.”
“However, it is the case that, in the process, the decision makers consider all the available evidence. I realise that the member’s point is about forthcoming proposals. In reaching a decision, ministers will determine applications in accordance with legislative requirements and relevant policy, and any cumulative impact assessment that is made is limited to considering existing and already approved developments. However, as I have indicated, all representations that are made in any community about an application are considered when a decision is made. Proof of Concept Fund (Just Transition in North East Scotland) 4.”
“However, for the public inquiry into the proposed Hill of Fare wind farm, the cumulative impact assessment will consider only other projects that were consented or the subject of a full planning application at 10 August 2023. That is more than two years before the reporter will hold her inquiry. It will fail to take into account applications that are known about but are in the earlier stages of planning and consultation, as well as any other energy infrastructure projects. We know that the planning system is outdated, but given that, this week, the minister welcomed the fact that councils are developing renewable energy mapping tools, is it not right that all available information be considered? Alasdair Allan: The member will not be too surprised to hear me say that I cannot comment on the specific case that he mentions.”
“When new energy developments come forward, applications are subject to site-specific assessments by the decision maker. The cumulative effects of developments are an important consideration in the decision-making process, alongside potential impacts on communities, nature and cultural heritage. When an application is ready to be determined, Scottish ministers consider all relevant material that is available to them before making any decision. The merits of each proposal are considered on a case-by-case basis, and a careful balance must be struck. Alexander Burnett: Most people would assume that a reporter would consider all the available information.”
“As the cabinet secretary said in opening, we have called on the UK Government to act on a much wider mandatory community benefit, for instance, and we have called for further action to address fuel poverty. The Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to a just energy transition. I ask members to support that aim today by supporting the Government amendment. 17:37”
“I do not think that members across parties will agree on the points that Patrick Harvie made about energy, but I am as strongly of the view as he is that new nuclear power would be hugely expensive and would take years to become operational, without our even looking at the environmental issues that would be involved. Between 1990 and 2022, Scotland’s economy grew by two thirds while our carbon emissions halved. We are changing how we produce electricity. We are involving communities in decisions and working in partnership with other nations on shared challenges such as climate change. Willie Rennie made an interesting and important point about the importance of a holistic approach. We recognise the need to do much more—in particular, to ensure that communities feel the benefits of the transition of which we all speak.”
“Surely, however, the evidence tells us not just that we must maintain that course but that we are years behind schedule on where we must be— which means that we have to accelerate action, not merely continue on course. Alasdair Allan: There is plenty that we must do. I could talk today about the work that needs to be done. I know that a subject close to Patrick Harvie’s heart is the decarbonisation of buildings, which is one of the many things that we are looking at. He is right that we have to make sure that we reach those targets. As I said, there is an implication in the Conservative motion that that is not too important.”
“Therefore, we continue to call on the UK Government to approach its decisions on North Sea oil and gas projects on an evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. To return to the Conservative motion, there is an implication that we in Scotland—or, perhaps, globally—should not be aiming that hard for net zero. However, the clear scientific evidence is that we must do so. The alternatives are fairly unthinkable for the generation that comes after us. I remind the Parliament of its long-standing consensus around the 2045 net zero target, which was confirmed as recently as the passing of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024. Patrick Harvie: The minister is right that we must continue the commitment to transition.”
“If a transition is so important to the Government, why is the energy transition skills hub not receiving any Government funding to support school leavers and the economically inactive to retrain in green jobs? Alasdair Allan: There have been many interventions from the Scottish Government— indeed, sometimes with the UK Government— such as the skills passport and the on-going explanation to school leavers about the many opportunities that exist in the renewables sector. Many positive things are happening on all those fronts. The Scottish Government is committed to doing all that it can within its devolved powers to support the transition to which the member refers. However, as members know, decisions on offshore oil and gas licensing, consenting and the associated fiscal regime are all currently reserved to the UK Government.”
“I am happy to confirm that the First Minister has responded in very positive terms to the suggestion from Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce that there should be a summit involving the Prime Minister and the First Minister. I hope that that can progress. The North Sea basin is now geologically mature, and production is affected by that. As many members have said, the challenge and the opportunity are to ensure a just transition for the companies and individuals that are involved in the sector, particularly in the north-east, so that they will continue to play a role in our energy future, as well as helping individuals here and now. Liam Kerr: I am listening carefully to the minister.”
“This has been a brief but spirited debate. I acknowledge the many considered speeches, but I must begin by addressing some of the claims that were made in the Conservative motion. There are basic facts that should frame any evidence-based debate on North Sea oil and gas—I believe that we are still living in days in which evidence-based debate is possible. Before I move on to the wider issues that have been raised by the Conservative motion, I will pick up on an important point that Ben Macpherson made. He talked about the real economic and human impact of the Harbour Energy decision and, in particular, about whether the Scottish and UK Governments could do anything together.”
“Only the Scottish Conservatives are offering commonsense proposals for an affordable transition with oil and gas playing a pivotal role in it. I move, That the Parliament recognises the importance of reducing emissions in a way that is credible, costed and publicly supported; regrets the absence of a clear, deliverable plan for achieving net zero, particularly in relation to the future of Scotland’s energy sector and industrial base; condemns the Scottish and UK governments’ ideological opposition to oil and gas, nuclear power and a balanced energy policy; calls on the UK Government to end its policy of issuing no new oil and gas licences; notes with deep concern the economic and employment impacts of the closure of the Grangemouth refinery and recent job losses at Harbour Energy in Aberdeen; further notes that the increase and extension of the UK Government’s Energy Profits Levy has had a damaging effect on investment in the North Sea; argues that current Scottish Government policy on nuclear, oil and gas is having a detrimental effect on energy prices and energy security; points out that Great British Energy is a gimmick that will do nothing to bring down bills, and condemns the explosion of electricity infrastructure across the Scottish countryside, and calls on the Scottish Government to adopt a pragmatic, pro-growth energy strategy that supports the workforce, secures investment, delivers affordability and ensures energy reliability and national competitiveness for the future.”
“Are you challenging the chair? Members: Oh! The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, that is unhelpful by way of a contribution. Mr Lumsden, continue. Douglas Lumsden: I will move on, Deputy Presiding Officer. What is the Government doing for oil and gas workers in the north-east? The answer is nothing. What a tragic stage this tired Government is in. It claims to want to protect jobs in the north-east, but it opposes Rosebank and Cambo. Do its hypocrisy and hubris know no bounds? Enough is enough. Only the Scottish Conservatives are standing up for our oil and gas sector and our residents in the north-east: the jobs that the sector maintains, the families whom they support and the communities in which they live.”
“In its stage 1 report, the committee identified that a plethora of amendments would be required, and there are many errors that Liam McArthur himself accepts will need to be amended. All of those, and my specific concerns, tell me that the bill should stop here and should never progress until we are sure that everyone is able to get palliative care, so that they are not coerced into opting to end their life. I cannot support the bill. In my mind, the Parliament has a duty to make it easier to choose life, rather than to make it easier to die—which is what the bill will do. 15:03”
“That detail will have to come in due course, but I assure Mr Mountain—and Dr Allan—that there is no indication that the medications that are used in places such as Australia and New Zealand have caused any problems whatsoever. Edward Mountain: I understand why the drugs will not be put in the bill. Evidence from Canada has proven that no drugs are 100 per cent guaranteed to work, be pain free or be as quick as is necessary. I know that my time is running short and there are many matters that I have still not addressed, such as the competence of the bill and who should be eligible. I understand that Mr McArthur has said that 16-year-olds should no longer be eligible.”
“I suspect that the member is coming to this point. Does he agree that, despite the many impassioned and sincere cases that have been and will be made today, one of the issues with the bill is that it does not specify the substances concerned, but leaves that to ministers? Edward Mountain: The bill does not do that because it is not known which substances are available. Some of the more effective substances are no longer produced. I think that that causes a problem. Liam McArthur: Will the member accept an intervention? Edward Mountain: I will, if I have time. Liam McArthur: For clarity: one would not expect the medication to be put in the bill. Due to the need for legislative competence, it would be inappropriate to set that detail out in the bill.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Tim Eagle: I probably need to make a wee bit of progress—I am sorry. The SNP promised to deliver a crofting bill this year, yet, despite that being spoken about in 2016, it has failed to publish a bill. The SNP pledged £25 million to provide new homes for key workers in rural and island communities. Instead, it has delivered just 17 homes. There has been failure after failure on policies for rural communities across Scotland.”
“That ambitious plan, which was developed in consultation with industry and international partners, sets out the steps required for Scotland to realise our hydrogen export potential. Scotland has enormous potential in this area. Hydrogen is not the only answer to Scotland’s energy needs, and I say in response to one or two comments that were made today that it is certainly not a magical solution. However, it is part of the answer and it has the potential to benefit our environment and our economy in the years to come. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate on Scotland’s hydrogen future. Decision Time 17:00”