Edward Mountain
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“They should spare a thought for the 1,700 people who make this place work. Do not ignore them. It is they who make it possible for members to do what they do on a daily basis. Secondly, make friends across the chamber. I have tried to do that, and it has delivered for me. Thirdly, focus on one issue. My issue found me.”
“There will be £6.6 billion in co-benefits from the changes in the transport sector, relating to improved health outcomes, increased exercise and reduced pollution, which I mentioned in my statement. I mentioned the changes from the draft plan in my statement and in my response to Sarah Boyack.”
“The other thing that has frustrated me and, I think, many people across Scotland is the constant deflections that we hear. There are cries of, “If only we had the tools and the levers of power that we need.” I gently remind politicians in this Parliament that it is about what is possible, and much is possible in this Parliament.”
“Rhoda Grant has been an incredible champion for crofting—I have seen that come to the fore through the passage of this legislation—and a force for the Highlands and Islands. She has also called for the right to food.”
“Elements of the legislation will help crofters to begin the process of adaptation, but there was room in the bill to speed things up. At stage 2, we proposed giving crofters the benefits from environmental use of the land, an environmental use advice service and public financing.”
“As this will be my last speech in the Parliament, I hope that the minister will excuse me if I touch only briefly on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. It is nothing like what we were promised in 2016.”
The complete record
Every one of 490 lines we hold for Edward Mountain, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 10.
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Deputy First Minister just referred to letters that should be sent to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I would like it noted on the record that the letter that was due at the end of January has not yet been received, nor has there been any reason given for why it was late. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That is not a point of order. Ferguson Marine (Running Cost) 4.”
“I understand that money is tight, and that is true across the UK. Barring economic growth and a bigger tax base, all budget decisions look big and tough. That is a daunting and difficult backdrop for a just and fair transition to net zero. The forthcoming climate change plan, which we will finally see in September 2025, presents an opportunity for serious thinking about how the Government can deliver the change more smartly and bridge the gap between ambition and delivery; it will need to make sure that it puts enough financial resources into the plan to ensure that that happens. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Ariane Burgess on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. 15:54”
“The Government has allocated £440 million to concessionary travel, but there is less than £50 million for the network support grant that helps to keep less-used services running—we risk losing more routes. On electric vehicles, the Scottish Government has committed to 24,000 new public charging points by 2030. The number of charging points currently stands at somewhat more than 6,000, so, as anyone can see, meeting that target will be particularly challenging. A recent SPICe blog on the budget highlighted that, across its responses to committees, the Government had described itself as “committed” no fewer than 56 times, but that details on delivery were sometimes very sparse. That echoes the Climate Change Committee’s comments last year that the Scottish Government lacks a credible delivery plan for its climate ambitions.”
“There is a job of work to be done to accelerate the switch over to electric vehicles and to get people in their hundreds of thousands to exercise a positive choice to use buses, trains, bikes and, indeed, their own two legs. Does the budget communicate that urgency? To take one strand, the Bute house agreement promised that 10 per cent of the transport budget would be allocated for active travel by 2024-25. That would translate to £320 million in the 2025-26 budget, but the amount this year is only £188.7 million. On public transport, this financial year has seen the end of reduced fares for peak travel. Buses remain Scotland’s most used public transport, but uptake has declined by 25 per cent since 2006.”
“There are indeed technical challenges in scaling up production and establishing network capacity in the area, in respect of which seed funding could make a real difference. The Scottish Government’s announcement earlier in the parliamentary session of £100 million of support for the sector sounded impressive, but the vast majority of it is still unspent. That raises questions. Are the obligations in respect of the strings attached to the funding too onerous? Is there a problem with finding projects worthy of funding? I am keen to understand better what the blockers are, given that we all want a flourishing green energy industry. I hope that the committee can consider that further before the end of the session. Transport accounts for more than a third of Scotland’s emissions.”
“In January, the acting cabinet secretary expressed what I understood to be a commitment to replenish that funding source. The committee will be watching to see what that actually means. This session of Parliament began in 2021 with big questions about the roles of industrial-scale electrolysis and carbon capture technology in the energy transition. Four years on, we are no wiser, which I have to say is frustrating. On the Acorn project, I recognise that decisive movement is needed on the UK side. However, the £80 million publicly committed by the Scottish Government remains unspent. The cabinet secretary gave us the reasons for that, so I will just leave that there. As for green hydrogen, the Scottish Government must ensure that its commitments match up to the ambitious rhetoric.”
“We have seen genuinely impressive progress in offshore wind in recent years, but there is still a feeling that it is an opportunity partly missed, with not enough value added domestically, especially in manufacturing. We would like to know what Scotland’s percentage return on that investment is. If that investment is good news, the other side of the coin is the use of ScotWind revenues for general spending. I will not use this speech to enter into the debate on whether the Scottish Government had no choice but to dip into the fund. I will simply say—I hope that I am being objective—that it was not good news. It communicated a skittishness rather than consistency in the Government’s long- term financial commitment to growing the green energy sector.”
“The budget theme pursued by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee this past year has been on whether major public spending decisions are in line with the balanced pathway to net zero modelled by the Climate Change Committee. Our scrutiny has been of the big- picture variety in many big spending areas of energy and transport. Budgets are about tough choices; given that I have six minutes, that applies to this speech, too, so I can run through only the main areas that the committee discussed. Turning to the energy portfolio, one of the headline commitments is the increase in offshore wind supply chain funding from £10 million to £163 million.”
“Colin Smyth: —and members raised a number of other issues. Animal welfare must always be a high priority in legislation. Animals cannot speak for themselves. We must be their voice to protect them from harm, and there is so much more work still to be done. [Interruption.] 18:02”
“It is clear to me that the minister does not support a ban, and today he unilaterally dumped the Scottish Government’s long-standing support for a ban. SNP members and others who claim to support a ban need to wake up to that reality. The minister was given an opportunity to give a commitment on the record that the Scottish Government would bring forward an opportunity to vote for a ban, but he failed to do so. My concern is that today’s amendments were the only chance that we will have to address the matter, although I hope that I am wrong and that we will return to it in the future. Animal welfare charities proposed, ahead of today’s debate, other measures that could help to promote the welfare of dogs. There is the issue of flat-faced breeds, which I raised at stage 1— The Presiding Officer: Please conclude, Mr Smyth.”
“If we really wanted to legislate properly, the proposals could have been discussed at stage 1 or amendments on them could have been lodged at stage 2. Subverting the Parliament by slipping them in at stage 3 without discussing them properly has brought this Parliament and the committees into disrepute. Does the member not agree? Colin Smyth: I appreciate that Edward Mountain is against a ban, but there is complete confusion about what the Conservative position is on this particular issue. [Interruption.] Mr Mountain can intervene again if he wants to, or he can maybe let me finish. When the amendments were discussed today, we heard a call on the Government to make it clear that it will bring forward an opportunity for Parliament to vote on a ban. Sadly, we heard no commitment whatsoever from the Government to deliver a ban in the future.”
“On that basis, although I want with all my heart to support Christine Grahame’s bill this afternoon, I find myself in a position as a parliamentarian in which I will not be able to support it if the amendments that Mr Greer has proposed regarding shock collars and choke collars are passed by Parliament without having been properly scrutinised because they were not introduced through the correct procedure. I am sorry,”
“Edward Mountain: That is an explanation, not a question, but I understand the point that Mr Greer is making. I am a staunch parliamentarian when it comes to these things, and you would expect nothing less from a convener. I absolutely believe that part of the process is that these issues have to be raised for debate at all the bill stages. It should have been raised during stage 1 at the committee and at stage 2. Frankly, in my opinion—Mr Greer is entitled to have a different opinion—bringing forward an argument at stage 3 that has not been debated during the course of the bill is wrong. I have always called that out, and I always will call it out—it is disrespectful to the committee that has been considering the bill, and it is disrespectful to the Parliament.”
“Roughly concurrent with the stage 2 process, I was lodging written questions with the Government to try to get its response to a report published by its own expert advisers in April 2023. At that point, the Government said that it was still considering its response. It then became clear that the Government had no intention of responding to the 2023 report until after another report was out— that report is due in April 2025. It was another example of the Government kicking issues further into the long grass. That was the process behind this situation. I was trying, as I have made clear, to have this issue dealt with by regulation, and the Government has continued to shift the goalposts, despite having the evidence sat in front of it for two years.”
“I am sure that I do not need to remind members that, during the stage 1 debate, Christine Grahame said that if I did not know where my marriage certificate was— because I had raised a question about certificates—my wife would surely tell me. I am delighted to confirm that my wife did tell me where it was—she keeps it under lock and key at home. My issue is— Ross Greer: Will the member take an intervention? Edward Mountain: I will do so in just a moment. My issue is that we have not debated these amendments at stage 2 and, in fact, they have not been debated at committee. I give way to Mr Greer. Ross Greer: I am grateful to the member for taking the intervention and I congratulate him on finding his marriage certificate. I will clarify why the amendments were not lodged at stage 2 but have been lodged now.”
“For one of them, the only way to keep it in my garden was to put an underground electric fence around the garden and have a collar fitted to the dog. On the occasions that it did not have the collar on, it would definitely wander off. On one occasion, it was brought back to me by a friend who was a local farmer after it had had a go at his sheep. That, sadly, resulted in the death of the dog, because I felt that I could not keep it. I am not sure that I agree that electric collars have much of a place, but I think that they have some place. I would like to debate that issue as a Parliament. I understand Mr Greer’s points about the previous evidence that has been taken, but let us debate it. The problem is that we did not debate the amendments at stage 2. I specifically took part in stage 2—I debated various matters then and at stage 1.”
“I want to debate the issue purely on technical grounds, but to put my comments into context, I mention that I have been training dogs for more than 40 years. In fact, I have successfully trained 15 dogs, and some of the puppies that I have seen bred from my dogs have gone to assist people as part of their treatment for cancer; some have become service dogs; and some have become buddies for children who have a short time on this planet. They are very placid dogs, and in most cases, they have been very easy to train. Over the 40 years that I have been involved, training has significantly changed. I am glad that it has changed, because it used to be more about dominating a dog; now, it is more about rewarding a dog, which is the way that it should be. However, I have had two dogs that proved significantly difficult.”
“Experts are warning of the lasting psychological danger of introducing young children to material on trans ideology. Former Scottish Government adviser and educational psychologist Carolyn Brown said: “Children struggle with their bodies during puberty. Without harmful ideology influences, they grow into who they are meant to be. LGBT Youth Scotland believe those struggling with puberty are born in the wrong body. This causes lasting psychological harm, sending children down an irreversible road of medication and surgery.” Primary school is neither the right place nor the right time for children to be worried about that. It is time to let children be children. 15:33”
“Equally, we are starting to force sexualisation on children. Children are children. Young boys playing with dolls and wearing pink frilly dresses is absolutely normal, as is girls climbing trees and building bridges. Their imaginations are firing, and limits do not apply—and nor should they. It is therefore deeply concerning that groups such as LGBT Youth Scotland are infiltrating our primary schools. This morning, I checked LGBT Youth’s website, where it proudly states that it is “Scotland’s national charity for LGBTQ+ young people, aged 13-25.” I am all for support being provided to those in that age range when it comes to sexual issues and worries—although I might now have concerns about that particular organisation—but there are no 13 to 25-year-olds in primary schools.”
“When I became a mum, I was given the advice that it was my job to ensure that my child was never put in a situation that they could not handle. Unfortunately, we do that every day. Not a single girl who attended school with my daughters did not have a negative reaction to primary 2 food and nutrition education. Food became bad, and the fear of a note coming home from a teacher about insignificant vegetable content was almost palpable. Every seven-year-old I met at that time became worried about what they ate. Food was no longer fuel to be run off at play time but a source of anxiety. Now, we have expanded food guidance to nurseries, where birthday cakes are a thing of the past, with the unintended consequences being that even younger children will be made to worry about what they eat.”
“However, that space varies greatly depending on what part of the country the child lives in. Families across Scotland face a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing the 1,140 hours of funded childcare, regardless of the minister’s earlier comments. Funding issues for local authorities mean that some offer funded childcare immediately following a child’s third birthday, some offer it a month after a child’s third birthday and some delay it until the following school term. Some local authorities take children who come from a different council area because their parents work nearby, but some refuse to do so. There is disparity in the offer, which is adversely affecting working parents and, subsequently, their children.”
“In 2023-24, there were 3,170 incidents of violence in schools in the Highlands. That means that there has been a 548 per cent increase in four years, and the figures equate to 16 incidents every day. Does Roz McCall believe that teachers want action, not more task forces? Roz McCall: Yes. Let children be children. They should grow up in a state of innocence—it is called “childlike” innocence for a reason—but for many children in Scotland, that is not the case. They are burdened by pressures that their young minds cannot comprehend. Schools should be a glorious respite from that. If we give a child the time and space for their mind to develop in a safe and psychologically sensitive way, they will cope far better with the trials of life in later years.”
“I do not need to remind people that, during the period from 2020 to 2024, 168 lives were lost. I appeal to the Government: speed it up. Frankly, the response from Transport Scotland to the cross-party plea to speed the work up was a bit of a joke. 15:56”
“Move right along.” I do not accept that. I do not accept it for highlanders or for any of the constituents whom I represent. I will also say that I am concerned about the role that Transport Scotland has had during the process. It seems to think itself above scrutiny and above the Government. My time is short, but I would like to say that one or two people have suggested that there should be a separate committee for transport. I have convened the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which dealt with transport, and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Neither of those committees has had time to deal with transport properly. My plea for the next Parliament is that it set up a committee whose sole job is to deal with transport and infrastructure. I have probably used all my time, but the delays continue to cost lives.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, Mr Mountain. Edward Mountain: I absolutely accept that there was continuity—there was continuity in changing ministers for transport when it became too difficult to justify the jobs that they were doing. I have read the cabinet secretary’s response to the committee, which I am, I guess, as disappointed by as many other people are. It talks about “certainty” and “transparency” but all that I can say is that, since the promise was made to dual the A9, I have never come across a more clever way of obscuring information, a more deceptive way of talking about when a project will be delivered or a bigger list of broken promises. I am afraid that I am disappointed by the cabinet secretary’s response, which almost says, “Nothing to see here. It’s all changed.”
“From today’s debate, I have gathered the impression that the Greens are also among the people who do not understand the need for dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness. Fiona Hyslop: Edward Mountain noted that Keith Brown was a transport minister. He had responsibility for transport between 2010 and 2018. Alex Neil led on the project from 2010 to 2012 and, when Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister, Keith Brown took over lead responsibility. He was not called to the committee to give evidence, but his written submission, which I have read, gives an interesting perspective on the issues. Mr Mountain might want to acknowledge that there was continuity of ministerial responsibility for transport, albeit that that minister did not always have lead responsibility for the A9.”
“I was genuinely impressed, and I came away at the end of that meeting thinking that, if he had been there to see the project through, it might have actually happened, because he understood the need for it. Lots of people who came after Alex Salmond did not understand the need. Let us go through the whole list: Stewart Stevenson, Keith Brown, Derek Mackay, Humza Yousaf, Paul Wheelhouse, Graeme Dey, Jenny Gilruth, Kevin Stewart and Fiona Hyslop—although I note that Fiona Hyslop has now moved on from being a minister and has become a cabinet secretary. There have also been a couple of First Ministers—Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon—who also did not seem to understand the need.”
“On the day that he appeared before the committee, two foolscap documents of information were provided to us on his behalf. I sat down and waded through those documents and found a particular event that I thought was relevant, which was a meeting between him and Alex Neil about progress on dualling the A9 and how it was to be carried out. I started to refer to the meeting, but before I got halfway through my question, he had already told me the date that on which the meeting took place and what it was about. He was in fine fettle when it came to the information and the facts and figures, and his detailed knowledge of the issue was truly impressive.”
“Sometimes, when we have sat late on a Thursday evening, I travel up the road after dark, but with a certain amount of trepidation. When I put in my claims for my mileage, the parliamentary staff have given up questioning why the mileage goes up and down each week. The reason why that happens is that, quite often, I end up going via Dundee, having gone halfway up the A9 only to find it closed. That is a problem that many people have to face. The promise to dual the A9 was made in 2011— a long time ago—by Alex Salmond. When he gave evidence to the committee on 8 May 2024, during the inquiry, I thought to myself that he seriously got it. I think that he understood the need to link Scotland together by linking all the cities to ensure free flow of trade between them.”
“Everyone has reminded us why we are here this afternoon. It is for the simple reason that we are discussing a target that was promised a long time ago—the dualling of the A9 by 2025— and because of the petition that was lodged by Laura Hansler to get the issue considered in Parliament. As others have done, I thank Laura for the time and effort that she has put into that. I also thank the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for allowing me to attend its meetings and for giving me a fair chance to question all the witnesses. I am extremely grateful for that— especially considering the number of questions that the convener allowed me to ask. Like many people, I am a habitual user of the A9—I am up and down it every week. Unlike Emma Roddick, I cannot always manage not to travel in darkness.”
“The severance caused by the road has worsened in recent years due to flood damage, and the sight of pedestrians and cyclists attempting to cross the A9, which I have seen happen, leaves your heart in your mouth. I look forward to further contributions to the debate. I will reflect on wider A9 project issues in my closing speech, but it is clear that, on the ground, Perthshire communities on the most sensitive and controversial section of the A9 deserve safety action now, well before the dualling project is completed. 15:39”
“I ask the cabinet secretary to please keep up the momentum on those measures and ensure that they are reported on, alongside the regular project updates to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, as the dualling project moves on. The Dunkeld roundabout solution was discussed over a number of years as part of a co- creative process with the community on A9 improvements, and I welcome that Transport Scotland was open to that approach. It was innovative and resulted in a number of asks, of which the roundabout was one. Connection to the station was also highlighted, and the opportunity that the dualling project presents to reconnect the villages to the railway needs to be on the table in some form. An overbridge that can blend into the area is desperately needed.”
“Local people instantly felt safer, because they could see and be seen, but when the contractors left, the road fell once again into darkness. The lights need to be brought back. There is vehicle-activated signage at other junctions on the A9, warning drivers of turning traffic, including at Gloagburn, so why not at Dunkeld? Many immediate low-cost improvements could be made to the A9. When Jenny Gilruth was Minister for Transport after Covid, there was a dreadful spate of crashes. Low-cost measures involving signage and lighting were put in place, and they were effective, but that infrastructure needs to be maintained and improved. Some bollards are weakly lit, and some line markings are poor and have eroded, so they need to be fixed.”
“I seek confirmation from Mark Ruskell and his party that they are signed up to the dualling of the A9, not just to safety improvements and roundabouts, which seems to be what his speech is about. Are you up for dualling the A9? Are you signed up to it? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Speak through the chair. Mr Ruskell, I will give you the time back. Mark Ruskell: I thought that the debate was primarily about safety improvements, in which dualling has a role to play. However, as Mr Mountain will know, it is about much more than dualling, and I will come on to that later. When recent works were taking place to upgrade gas infrastructure on the A9, the contractors brought lights to the Dunkeld junction for the first time.”
“To ask the First Minister, in light of the rise in the number of people under 50 being diagnosed with bowel cancer, what proposals the Scottish Government has to extend the national bowel screening programme to those under 50 years old. (S6F-03699)”
“For the national performance framework to succeed, the Government must make sure that it synchronises its goals with policies and funding. Although the committee welcomes the two reworded national outcomes that we have scrutinised, it is time—now more than ever—that the Government’s actions must speak louder than words. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Kate Forbes to speak on behalf of the Government. Deputy First Minister, you have a generous seven minutes. 15:49”
“It demands concrete actions that accelerate emissions reductions while supporting vulnerable populations in a fair transition. For instance, where are the Scottish Government’s highly ambitious plans to reduce car use per kilometre by 20 per cent between 2020 and 2030? Where are the Scottish Government’s policies to make that ambition a reality? What progress has been made so far? The Scottish Government’s allocation of £4.9 billion in the 2025-26 budget for climate change initiatives is significant, but is that really enough to face the challenges? Previous budgets had gaps in critical areas including peatland restoration and woodland restoration, which are both essential for achieving our climate ambitions. Simply put, we need to back our words with sufficient funding that is targeted in the right way at the right areas.”
“The Scottish Government referred to the recently published Scottish biodiversity strategy and the upcoming natural environment bill, some aspects of which I fear may fall within the committee’s remit. Although that shows a commitment to our natural environment, fine words butter no parsnips. I turn to the climate action outcome, which aims to achieve a just transition to net zero while building resilience to climate change. That addition has been widely welcomed by stakeholders, and has been added to the framework to better align climate policy with the United Nations sustainable development goals. Scotland has ambitious emissions reduction targets, and we have highlighted the significant shortcomings in meeting those goals. Progress needs to be more than changes in how targets are measured.”
“The outcome focuses on protecting, restoring, enhancing and enjoying our natural environment. It now explicitly highlights the critical need for environmental restoration. The committee supports the updated definition, given the pressing reality of, and the need to resolve, our degrading ecosystems. I note concerns from some stakeholders about what they see as gaps in the outcome. They have called for more express reference to matters such as water quality, biodiversity conservation, pollution control and sustainable land use. We asked the Scottish Government to consider those points before finalising the framework, and it has committed to doing so.”
“I am pleased to contribute, on behalf of the NZET Committee, to the review of the national performance framework. We were tasked with scrutiny of two areas—the environment outcome and the new climate action outcome. Although we welcome the revisions, changing the words in a document takes us only so far, to be frank. There is a need to transform ambition into action. The additional challenge is to take the public with us, otherwise change will not stick. Policies on the environment and net zero must be realistic, achievable and within a price range. None of this is easy. However, it can be made easier if the public buy in on the basis that they will be the ones who make the positive changes. That was the key message of the people’s panel on climate change that the committee convened last year. Let us begin with the environment outcome.”