Angus MacDonald MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. This weekend, I watched the coastguard rescue a kayaker very close to my house. I spoke to the coastguard, who brought me up to date on the situation. There are two things to say. First, it is clear that the MCA management has made a right mess of this. It should listen to the petitioners and put its plans on hold. Secondly, will the Minister confirm whether he has discussed the volunteer fire service’s terms and remuneration with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and whether, for example, an honorarium, a stipend or another of its policies could be adapted?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Increase of Capital Borrowing Limits) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I do not have anything to add.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister knows that in the highlands we have had three massive pump storage sites move to the next level of development. Cumulatively, they will store 4 GW in an area that has the highest fuel poverty in Britain, at a cost of £5 billion. At the moment, the pumps will do very little for the highland economy, as there will be almost no local jobs, no legacy housing and no community benefit. It is a sorry state; it is all downside and no upside for the people of the highlands. I would love to see that addressed.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great shame that this debate has been broken up along party lines. It should have been had as the debate on assisted dying was, where people from across the House could stand up and make their own case. Indeed, many Members from across the House have been supportive of what I am about to say. Following the publication of the Cass review in 2024, the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in children and young people was restricted by the then Secretary of State for Health due to an unacceptable safety risk, with their use limited to clinical trial settings. Polling by Whitestone Insight in ’25 showed that the public do not support a trial, with 67% of respondents agreeing that puberty blockers should never be given to under-18s, even as part of a clinical trial. That figure was 70% among parents of children under 18. Like his predecessor, the Secretary of State has declared that he is uneasy allowing this trial to proceed, and cites clinical advice and a need for scientific evidence as a cover to allow him to support it. I have worked with many scientists, and we should be wary of thinking that all scientists are working for the betterment of the world. There were clinicians who said that the drug thalidomide was safe and clinicians who promoted lobotomies as a breakthrough mental health treatment. There were also clinicians who assured parents that puberty blockers were safe and reversible. It was in the name of science that clinicians prescribed puberty blockers to children at the Tavistock clinic for more than a decade, with an estimated 2,000 children receiving these powerful drugs. Where are these children now? How have they got on? More importantly, I believe that as Members of Parliament, we have an overriding moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society, especially children. In our induction as MPs, we were told that we had a duty to speak out when things were wrong. It is clear to me that allowing possibly irreversible medical research to be carried out on 11-year-old girls and 12-year-old boys, when we know that some of these children at least will reconcile themselves to their biological sex at birth, is completely inhumane and uncivilised. Many of us feel uncomfortable about using beagles for medical research. How on earth can it be right to use children for irreversible and life-changing medical research?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Clean Power by 2030 · Hansard source

  More

  It would have been helpful if the Conservative Government had made it mandatory 12 years ago, but they did not. Although I applaud the Scottish Government for doing so, they should have increased the benefit every year, rather than leaving it at £5,000. The £6,000 figure that they have now come up is completely ridiculous, because, with inflationary increases, the 2015 contract figure should be £8,500, so they have effectively reduced the community benefit. Two years ago, I wrote to the Scottish Energy Minister and the First Minister to make my case. Indeed, I met the Energy Minister about it. I am afraid that, by making it £6,000, they have taken the easy option.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Clean Power by 2030 · Hansard source

  More

  That is a bit of a curveball. That is not something I know anything about. If the Minister is better informed, maybe he can answer.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Clean Power by 2030 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for chairing the Committee—she was the driving force behind the report. The curtailment costs demonstrate quite how meagre the community benefits are. I do not have the curtailment cost figures to hand, but hundreds of millions of pounds are often being paid to utilities and infrastructure funds that own the wind farms but are not local—they are neither highlands-based nor Scotland-based. Basically, we are rewarding people for something they have not done to help the area. I could not agree more that the transmission lines, and the speed of getting them in, are crucial.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Clean Power by 2030 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for affording me the opportunity to make a statement on the publication of the Scottish Affairs Committee’s first report of the Session, on the Government’s clean power 2030 mission. It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Committee. This is the Committee’s second report on our inquiry into Great British Energy and the net zero transition. We launched the inquiry in November 2024, and it has been our longest-running piece of work to date. We have received more than 50 pieces of written evidence, held 11 oral evidence sessions and carried out numerous visits, both in Scotland and internationally. I thank all the stakeholders who have engaged with the inquiry. Last autumn, we published an interim report for the inquiry on the future of North sea oil and gas, and I commend that report to all hon. Members. The report before us today—our second and final report for this inquiry—explores a wide range of issues. We cover the achievability of the clean power by 2030 mission, the role of GB Energy in delivering it, the urgent need for grid upgrades, and the community ownership of clean power. However, I will focus in my brief remarks on the issue of community benefits. Community benefits are key to ensuring the fairness of the Government’s clean power mission, particularly for the communities of the highlands and islands, many of which I represent in my Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire constituency. It was declared that Scotland had the potential to become the Saudi Arabia of renewables, and there has been massive investment in onshore wind. However, those wind farm developments are seldom owned locally and offer few local jobs. In 2024, only £7 million of community benefit was generated in the highlands, and less than £30 million across Scotland, from that billion-pound industry. That was a disappointing outcome from a potentially transformative opportunity. Throughout our inquiry, we had a clear consensus that the communities in Scotland that shoulder the greatest impact of the energy transition by hosting renewable energy infrastructure must also share in its benefits. As one of our expert witnesses put it, highland communities see that “the turbines are generating lots of revenue for somebody but not for them.” That presents an acute problem of fairness. The communities across Scotland that host industrial-scale renewable infrastructure in their backyards are the very same communities that pay among the highest prices for energy. Although fuel poverty rates across the UK cannot be directly compared, it is also clear that those same communities are enduring among the highest levels of fuel poverty. Indeed, many will be among the 34% of Scottish households that are classified as fuel poor while looking on at the massive wind turbines generating renewable electricity nearby—that cannot be just. As our report highlights, that disconnect is a key driver of the sense of unfairness felt by communities across rural Scotland. It is for that reason that our report welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to introduce a mandatory community benefit scheme for new-generation infrastructure. The scheme, which is expected to be introduced by the end of 2027 at the earliest, could be key to ensuring that Scotland’s rural communities are adequately compensated for the disadvantages that come with enabling the whole of the UK to meet the Government’s clean power mission. However, that raises the thorny issue of what fair compensation looks like. As the report highlights, the Scottish Government were widely regarded as leaders in this area. In 2015, they introduced voluntary community benefits guidance for onshore renewable developers, which recommended community benefits of £5,000 per megawatt, with inflationary increases. They have recently proposed increasing that to £6,000. However, the UK Government have, in their policy paper on how their mandatory scheme will work, proposed a benchmark contribution of only £5,000 per megawatt. Our report finds that that sum is insufficient and does not reflect fair compensation for rural Scotland. A £5,000 contribution may have been an appropriate amount in 2015, when the Scottish Government adopted it, but it is now worth around 40% less in real terms. Our report makes it clear that the UK Government must be bolder. The Committee recommends that a figure in the region of £10,000 to £12,000 per megawatt would be more appropriate. The report also calls on the Government to consider carefully the Highland council’s view that £12,500, the upper end of that scale, is a fair figure. That proposal reflects the Highland council’s first-hand experience of supporting communities that bear the brunt of clean energy development. The Committee’s report also highlights that, no matter what figure the Government adopt, it is equally important that a mechanism is included to maintain that value over time—otherwise, Scotland’s communities will eventually find themselves short-changed as the real-terms value of the figure is eroded. Financial payments will be an essential part of a fair deal for Scotland, but they are not the whole story. Our report makes it clear that meaningful community benefit extends beyond financial payments, and that housing availability, access to skills training and the creation of long-term local jobs are just as important. If delivered successfully, the influx of vast amounts of renewable energy could provide an opportunity to leave a transformative legacy of housing, skills and quality employment. That would be especially valuable for communities in remote rural Scotland, which have seen little private or public sector investment. The Committee calls on the Government to seize this opportunity and ensure that their mandatory community benefit scheme is significant enough to reflect the needs and priorities of Scotland’s rural communities. Our report recommends one specific way in which the Government could achieve that: their scheme should include a requirement on energy companies building projects in rural areas to construct legacy worker accommodation to a standard suitable for permanent community housing, rather than temporary modular buildings. That would go some way towards addressing the acute housing shortage in the highlands, which requires an extra 24,000 homes to meet the demand of the next decade, according to Highland council. With that, I will conclude my statement. The Scottish Affairs Committee looks forward to the Government’s response, which I hope will reflect serious consideration of our recommendations on delivering a fair deal for rural communities across Scotland.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Promoting Scottish Interests Abroad · Hansard source

  More

  Scotland exports 10 to 12 times more electricity than it needs. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing a review of community benefits, and we are very concerned that that review will produce a poor outcome for the people of rural Scotland. Could the Secretary of State make representations on that?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Energy Costs · Hansard source

  More

  We are waiting for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to come up with the results of the community benefit consultation. The highlands only got £9 million of community benefit last year, and Scotland as a whole got less than £30 million. There are tens of thousands of jobs in renewables in the highlands, but they are not for locals; they are imported teams. Very often, offshore firms are doing the construction. We sell 10 times more electricity than we produce. Effectively, there is nothing in it for the people of rural Scotland to produce electricity. Does the Minister agree that the community benefit conclusion from DESNZ is crucial?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, I am getting a substantial amount of mail in my inbox from people who are glad that the Bill has been turned away. What they really wanted to see was investment in hospices, and there has been remarkably little to move that forward. I suspect if this Government made a major investment in hospices and the Bill came back in a few years’ time, it would make a big difference.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  May I intervene, please?

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  To support the hon. Gentleman’s argument about the price of electricity, renewable energy is largely generated in Scotland, north Wales and south-west England. We have the highest level of fuel poverty, we have no mains gas, and the suffering caused to those rural areas is remarkable. Until that is improved, we are not in a position to move to an electricity-based economy.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  If the Minister will allow me, I will make more of an intervention than a speech. The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the £150—thank you very much—but I suspect that that figure was worked out on the basis of the average UK energy costs of approximately £1,750. In sunny Inverclyde, where people are wandering around in their Speedos, that would be fine, but an average fuel bill in the highlands of Scotland or the outer isles is much more likely to be £3,000 than £1,750, so £150 does not cut it. The outer isles and the west highlands have the highest level of fuel poverty in Britain. In my office in Fort William, electricity costs 27p per kilowatt-hour; in my flat in London, gas costs 6p per kilowatt-hour. In the highlands, we are paying four times as much. I can only say that the current Government will have achieved their aim when they make it the same price to heat a property in rural Britain as in the middle of London.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil: Rural Homes · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps he is taking to support rural homes that use heating oil.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil: Rural Homes · Hansard source

  More

  In the remote highlands and islands, where mains gas is not available, where we have the highest level of fuel poverty in Britain, where local households and businesses rely on heating oil and electricity, and where much of Britain’s renewable energy is generated, but to minimal local benefit, does the Minister accept the unfairness of a highlander having to pay a multiple of what those in cities pay for energy?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Do you agree that £9 million in total community benefit for the highlands, and £30 million for Scotland as a whole, is a paltry amount for a multibillion-pound industry?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate. I want to speak briefly about mental health charities. Fundamentally, we have an enormous problem in the UK: the public sector no longer funds the mental health sector properly, and the charities cannot fill the gap. Almost 800,000 kids in the 16 to 24-year-old group are not in education or employment, and covid has meant that the situation is effectively becoming a national emergency for the young. We all see in our casework an enormous number of parents getting in touch about their children. We have a big issue. There is one thing that the Minister could do to help. My wife’s father committed suicide. He was a farmer in Northern Ireland. Without the charities that I know of, I think a lot more people who are contemplating suicide would take their own lives. I would like to mention the charities Ewen’s Room, Lochaber Hope, and Mikeysline in Inverness. They have one particular request. Unlike VAT-registered businesses, charities cannot reclaim the VAT they pay on essential costs, from maintaining their premises to repairing vehicles. Does the Minister agree that reviewing the VAT rules for small charities could be a practical and immediate step to relieve some of the intense financial pressures facing the sector?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member consider the impact of defining what a farmer is? Is it somebody who is part time and has another job? Is it a vermin control guy? I do not think we can take out just farmers when considering this, because we are talking about multi-rural employment.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  A year ago in my constituency, Lewis Knox, aged 16, Fergus Ward, aged 17, and Jordan Cameron, aged 17, went off the road and died—no other car was involved. It was an enormous shock for the area. Lewis Knox’s father, Alan, is the head of the ambulance service in the area. He and his wife, Elizabeth, are calling for graduated driving licence schemes, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). When I was a young lad, I drove like a complete idiot. I have four sons, and I am fairly certain that they did the same. For young men—young boys—this is a particular problem. When they drive, they show off—bravado and all that sort of thing. The statistics are horrifying. Approximately one in five new drivers are involved in an accident within their first year of driving, and drivers under the age of 24 make up 6% to 7% of licence holders but are involved in 22% of fatalities and serious injuries.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  All the evidence shows that graduated driving licence schemes work extremely well in reducing the number of serious incidents. I have one more statistic to finish with. In 2024, 1,602 kids aged between 17 and 24 were killed or seriously injured in Great Britain. According to international figures, if we introduced a graduated driving licence scheme, that number would drop by about 30%, so it is well worth the Minister considering this.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Taxation: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  I have spent a great deal of my life looking at small businesses. There are 4.1 million sole traders or self-employed people in the UK and that £90,000 VAT restriction is a block on building businesses. Were it increased to, say, £250,000 and 10% of those businesses employed people, that would mean 400,000 youngsters in work, and the modelling that I have done shows that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would get a lot more money. I would be delighted to go through it with the Minister. If we want real growth from UK micro-organisations, I would really appreciate a chance to meet him to discuss this.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Taxation: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  The Scottish Affairs Committee is doing an inquiry into the viability of high streets. We heard from a professor at Glasgow University who specialises in the subject, and he made an extraordinarily convincing case that Amazon is basically being subsidised by the high street—that Amazon is being hugely undertaxed and the high street is being overtaxed. Would the hon. Gentleman support me in asking the Minister to look into that subject and the cost of whether it is actually killing the high street?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Taxation: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  I met the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales this morning and am meeting the Federation of Small Businesses later. We have done all the modelling and I assure the Minister that our numbers are being checked out by all the experts. I think that the Government might be missing a trick on this one.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  May I intervene, seeing that we have been so generous on interventions?