Beatrice Wishart
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“I thank very much the people of Shetland, who put me here, and I thank my colleagues Willie, Alex, Jamie and Liam for their support. I hope that there will be more women on the Scottish Liberal Democrat benches after the election.”
“A plea was put out for funding to enable a well-known local man to access brain tumour treatment that is not available in Scotland. Within three days, the fund had raised more than £100,000 to help with on-going treatment in Germany. For a population of 23,000 people, that is quite remarkable.”
“I have heard numerous accounts of people coming to Shetland to take up jobs in the NHS or the council, only to leave a few months later because they cannot find permanent accommodation.”
“I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for bringing this important debate to the chamber on this, the last day of the sixth session of the Scottish Parliament. This will be my final speech in the Parliament and, appropriately, the debate is on the sustainability of Scotland’s remote, rural and island communities.”
“What people seek is the means to live and work in their communities and to survive and thrive in them, which entails putting investment into infrastructure and public services.”
“I leave now to return to my family and friends, who have supported me throughout my time here, and I look forward to a bright Shetland summer.”
The complete record
Every one of 344 lines we hold for Beatrice Wishart, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Words matter, as does action. We look around the world today and we see prejudice and persecution, and people being targeted, such as those at Australia’s Bondi beach last month. Nowhere is immune. In bridging generations, we must stamp out prejudice in all its forms. 13:22”
“During the second world war, a fleet of small fishing boats crossed the North Sea between Norway and Shetland under cover of winter darkness. It became known as “taking the Shetland bus”, bringing to safety those who were fleeing persecution and whose lives were at risk in Nazi-occupied Norway. The fishing boats returned to Norway with supplies for the clandestine operations of the brave Norwegian resistance. Around 350 refugees came to the UK via the Shetland bus route, including some Jewish people, and each person was a life saved. When we pass the important history of the Holocaust down the generations, we should instil the timeless democratic ideals of pluralism, difference and diversity. It is crucial that we hold on to openness, human rights and co-operation in global affairs and in our domestic politics.”
“In those days, news came via the radio, newspapers or newsreels in the cinema. Near the end of the war, news seeped out about death camps and gas chambers in Europe. I remember my mother recalling her shock at seeing in the newsreels the haunting images, with which we are all now familiar, of the liberation of camps with names that have gone down in history: Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz-Birkenau. She could not comprehend that people could inflict such horror, brutality and degradation on other human beings. That was more than 80 years ago, but we would be wrong to think that genocide is consigned to the history books—sadly, we have seen it in too many other places in the intervening years. Like Christine Grahame, I read Anne Frank’s diary when I was in my teens. Shetland has its own unique place in the history books.”
“There is no place for antisemitism, but— as other members have said—it is on the rise and it must be called out. We hear the voices of those from the Jewish community in the UK today, who fear for their own, and their children’s, safety. We must root out and challenge Holocaust denial and revisionism wherever we find it. Today, we rightly focus on the victims of the Holocaust, and we also remember others who perished at the hands of the Nazi regime. Like Christine Grahame, I learned about the Holocaust when I was quite young. Both my parents signed up to serve King and country in the second world war: my father was an Army film cameraman out in Burma, and my mother was in the Women’s Royal Naval Service—the Wrens— and was stationed in London for part of the war, when bombs were being dropped on the city.”
“Beatrice Wishart: I thank Paul O’Kane for his intervention and for giving me a minute to breathe. I also thank the two young Holocaust Educational Trust ambassadors for their powerful contributions in the chamber earlier this week at time for reflection. The theme of this year’s Holocaust memorial day is bridging generations. As the number of living camp survivors dwindles, we seek to continue to pass on their testimony—the lived experience of the horrors of the Holocaust—to young people, so that future generations learn, in the hope that history does not repeat itself. It is our duty to ensure that the brutal and barbaric murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children by the Nazi regime and its collaborators during the second world war is not forgotten.”
“I thank Kenny Gibson for bringing this important debate to the chamber. There have been many great speeches, and I am not sure that my contribution will be as good as anybody else’s, but I shall try. I am sorry—I will have to sit for a minute. Paul O’Kane: Would Beatrice Wishart take an intervention? Beatrice Wishart: Yes. Paul O’Kane: I am grateful to Beatrice Wishart for taking my intervention and I am sure that her speech will be as good as the others in the debate. This is obviously a difficult subject to discuss, but does Beatrice Wishart agree that young people are really important in relation to the Holocaust commemoration debate? I am sure that she will have seen—in Shetland and her community— young people standing up to speak and contributing to ensuring that we all continue with Holocaust remembrance.”
“For those reasons, I urge members to oppose amendment 163.”
“It would also introduce unnecessary uncertainty for land managers and regulators, who want clarity on the framework within which they operate, particularly given the fixed nature of the muirburn season. The amendment seeks to set an overly rigid test by requiring non-commencement of the relevant provisions if any detrimental impact is identified, despite the reality that complex land management regimes involve trade-offs in context-specific effects. Crucially, the muirburn licensing scheme is designed to be adaptive and evidence led. It allows NatureScot to assess applications case by case and respond to emerging evidence over time. Preventing commencement would delay the introduction of clearer oversight, safeguards and controls—potentially weakening rather than strengthening wildfire resilience.”
“That would undermine the additional scrutiny that is currently applied. In my response to amendment 161, I set out in detail why reducing those safeguards would not be appropriate and would risk adverse environmental outcomes. I will not repeat those arguments. However, for those reasons, I urge members to oppose amendment 162. Amendment 163 would require ministers to carry out a statutory review of the impact of the muirburn licensing scheme on wildfire management before the relevant provisions of the act could be commenced. In practice, that would risk delaying or even preventing the implementation of legislation that the Parliament had already considered and agreed.”
“In addition, NatureScot’s scientific advisory committee has recently reviewed and strengthened its position on muirburn, in light of recent wildfire events. The conclusions of that review support the existing regulatory approach and amendment 161 does not align with that scientific advice. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendment 161. Tim Eagle’s amendment 162 goes further than amendment 161 by removing additional safeguards that currently apply to muirburn on peatland. As a result, NatureScot would be required to assess applications for muirburn on peatland using the same test as for land that is not peatland. As with amendment 161, that would substantially weaken the bespoke protections that recognise peatlands as sensitive and nationally important habitats.”
“Replacing the requirement that muirburn be “necessary” with the lower threshold of “appropriate” would weaken the licensing test for burning on peatlands. That would reduce the decision-making bar and constrain rather than enhance NatureScot’s ability to exercise robust regulatory judgement. The current necessity test enables NatureScot to authorise strategic and limited muirburn, including where required for wildfire risk reduction, while still safeguarding our valuable peatlands—and, importantly, it gives NatureScot the discretion and flexibility to assess necessity in the context of environmental conditions, emerging scientific evidence and the specific circumstances of each application.”
“20:00 I recognise that some members may have concerns about the removal of the requirement to demonstrate that no other method of vegetation control is practicable before a licence for muirburn on peatland is granted. However, NatureScot will still have to be satisfied that any licence is necessary for the specified purpose, and the current evidence on the impacts of alternatives such as cutting or grazing on peatlands is inconclusive, which means that they cannot automatically be assumed to be preferable. For those reasons, I encourage members to support amendments 42 and 43. Amendment 161, in the name of Edward Mountain, would significantly change the legal test that is applied by NatureScot when determining whether to grant licences for muirburn.”
“We have to strike the right balance between protecting our peatlands from the potential adverse impacts of muirburn and avoiding the far more devastating consequences of uncontrolled wildfire. We have heard consistently from stakeholders across the spectrum about the importance of high- quality training. Amendments 42 and 43 would allow approved training providers to deliver essential training within a robust regulatory framework, without widening the licensing regime in a way that could be open to abuse. The additional clarity that is provided on permitted purposes and the timing of the muirburn season is therefore a constructive and practical improvement.”
“Jim Fairlie: As I have already stated, it is local authorities that wish to have the byelaws and to put them into place, and they will decide how they will do so. Amendments 42 and 43, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, would formally include training as part of an approved training course under the 2024 act as a purpose for muirburn. They would also clarify the circumstances in which different purposes may be carried out in relation to the muirburn season and would remove the requirement that NatureScot must be satisfied that no other practicable vegetation management method exists when considering licence applications for muirburn on peatlands. As I have said, muirburn is not a silver bullet, but it can play a role in both wildfire prevention and response.”
“I am aware that some local authorities have expressed an interest in developing fire management byelaws and, importantly, in having the fixed-penalty notice powers to support that enforcement. These enabling powers will include a requirement for the Scottish ministers to consult local authorities and other interested parties before making regulations. Emma Roddick’s amendment provides a pathway for that. I therefore support her amendment, and encourage members to support it as well. Edward Mountain: I, too, support Emma Roddick’s amendment, but I am intrigued to know who will issue these tickets for wildfires. Will it be rangers, who are employed by local authorities? If so, the minister must be concerned, as I am, that every local authority, apart from Highland, has reduced the number of rangers that it employs over the past 15 years.”
“The development of the strategic action plan, coupled with the fact that amendment 67 would place an unhelpful prescriptive duty on Scottish ministers, who already carry out much of what is being proposed under business as usual, means that I will not support Mr Eagle’s amendment and ask him not to press it. As Emma Roddick has already set out, her amendment 62 would put beyond doubt the ability of local authorities to make byelaws that are aimed at preventing and suppressing wildfires. It would also enable the Scottish Government to make regulations for a fixed-penalty notice regime to help enforce local authority byelaws that are aimed at the prevention of wildfires.”
“We are working at pace to develop that action plan in preparation for this year’s wildfire season and beyond, and we are carefully considering everything in the round. It is important that we do not pre-empt the outcomes from that. The ministerial priorities for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are set out in the current fire and rescue framework, which already includes the SFRS response capability and wildfires. The Scottish Government already has in place formal governance and accountability arrangements to hold the service to account, and it would not be appropriate for ministers to tell the SFRS how to tackle wildfires operationally. In addition, HM Fire Service Inspectorate in Scotland can already inspect and provide advice and recommendations, if that is necessary.”
“I will listen to the rest of the arguments, but that is why my amendment 161 is so important, and the Government should get behind it and support it. It might get the Government out of a hole, given the pickle that it has got itself into in relation to muirburn licences. Jim Fairlie: As Tim Eagle and I have discussed previously, Siobhian Brown and I have already committed to developing a Scottish wildfire strategic action plan, which will be informed by the wildfire summit that we had last year, cross-sector engagement and the ministerial round table with MSPs to ensure cross-party input and transparency. The plan will include prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. It will also consider whether any legislative changes may be required to support the actions in it.”
“When one has somebody who knows what they are doing, one can very easily control fires by backburning, which stops the fire progressing. However, that requires training and the skills of people who have been doing it, which is why I support amendment 42. Amendment 167, in the name of Tim Eagle, is about equipment. It is absolutely necessary to have the right equipment to fight wildfires. I have talked about that in Parliament before, and I have stressed that the cost of an Argocat with a sprayer, a fogger and the rest of the equipment can sometimes be in excess of £40,000. We need to make sure that that equipment is available and that our firefighters are trained to use it in conjunction with those people who really understand wildfires—that is, the people who work on the land, including gamekeepers.”
“My amendment 161, whether it is complementary to Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 43 or vice versa, would replace the test of necessity with a test of appropriateness. That would be more reasonable, and it would still retain the oversight of SNH. The minister has been at great pains this evening to say that SNH is the right organisation to be responsible for licensing. If the test involves requiring muirburn to be appropriate, he should have no fear that SNH would extend beyond its remit, as it would be issuing licences only where it was appropriate to do so. I totally support Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 42. I have been doing muirburn for 25 years and I still learn something every time I am involved in it. It is a very complex and difficult thing to do properly.”
“If members do not believe me, I suggest that a quick visit to the Tongue peninsula would be useful. It was burnt in a large fire about 15 years ago, which covered a huge area of the A’ Mhòine site of special scientific interest. The fire was very quick. The trees that were accidentally burnt as part of it did not all need replacing. In fact, the fences that were there did not need replacing, either. Most of the posts stood, although the galvanised coating on some of the fence wire was removed, so that needed to be replaced. Such a fire can be a very quick process. In the past, those fires have been quite incorrectly described as burning down into the peat, but they move swiftly over the ground.”
“The licensing scheme is underpinned by different legal thresholds depending on whether the land is peatland or non-peatland. To grant a licence on non-peatland, SNH needs only to be satisfied that it is appropriate. However, on peatland, SNH needs to be satisfied that it is appropriate to grant a licence because muirburn is necessary for the specified purpose and no other method of vegetation control is practical. I understand that Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 43 is complementary to my amendment—or that mine is complementary to hers; it depends how you want to look at it. However, let us be clear that a great deal of nonsense is talked about muirburn and how it burns deeply into peat. It does not. A proper muirburn allows the fire to pass quite swiftly over the area, removing the dead vegetation and allowing vegetation to regrow.”
“I reiterate what has been said already: wildfires are going to become more and more prevalent in Scotland. We have seen evidence of that over the years. The wildfire on the Dava last year was a massive event for those of us who live in the vicinity. I live some 20 miles from it, and I suffered from the smoke for a considerable time. I visited the site soon afterwards to see the extent of the damage, and it was not just the moorland that was burned, but also young trees and plantations. The damage to the environment and the species that live there was immense. My amendment 161 would allow more muirburn licences to be granted while retaining the oversight that SNH has. As we know, the muirburn licensing scheme is not yet in force, but it is due to be implemented ahead of the 2026-27 season.”
“Removing the requirement to demonstrate that no other vegetation management method is practicable would not weaken safeguards. Applicants would still need to show that muirburn is necessary for a specified purpose, and NatureScot would retain full discretion in determining whether a licence should be granted. Importantly, alternatives such as cutting or grazing are not automatically benign, and the evidence about their impacts on peatlands remains uncertain. Taken together, the amendments would support high-quality training, improve regulatory clarity and retain strong environmental oversight. I therefore invite members to support amendments 42 and 43. Edward Mountain: I have one amendment in the group, and I will speak to it before turning to the others.”
“It would also allow muirburn that is undertaken for training or research to take place outside the standard muirburn season where that is genuinely required. The aim is straightforward. Approved training courses must currently rely on other licensable purposes in order to operate, which is neither transparent nor sustainable. The proposed changes would allow training and research to stand on their own footing while remaining subject to licensing and proper oversight. Amendment 42 would also clarify which muirburn purposes may take place inside and outside the muirburn season, providing greater certainty for practitioners and regulators alike. Amendment 43 addresses the additional test that currently applies to muirburn on peatlands.”
“Amendments 42 and 43 are intended to make the muirburn licensing framework more workable and clearer in practice. Under the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, there is now a requirement for all muirburn practitioners to complete an approved training course. However, Bright Spark Burning Techniques, which is a provider of muirburn training, and Scottish Land & Estates identified that completing an approved training course is not a licensable purpose for making muirburn. Given the requirement to complete an approved training course with practical components, it seems that that is an oversight that should be corrected. Amendment 42 would explicitly recognise training that is delivered as part of an approved course under the 2024 act as a legitimate purpose for muirburn on both peatland and non-peatland.”
“Amendment 22 would place an obligation on our public bodies and office-holders to take the biodiversity targets into account when they are fulfilling their public sector biodiversity duty. By linking that biodiversity duty with the new statutory targets, amendment 22 would ensure that the whole public sector is aligned behind our biodiversity ambitions, something that we would all agree is essential. That would reduce the risk of having a top-down framework and would ensure that the delivery of those ambitions is considered across the public sector. For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 22. I will leave other members to speak to the other amendments in the group. I move amendment 22. The Presiding Officer: I call Lorna Slater to speak to amendment 23 and other amendments in the group.”
“Amendment 93 disagreed to. Section 10—Guidance to fundable bodies Amendment 5 not moved. After section 10 Amendment 50 moved—[Stephen Kerr]—and agreed to. Section 11—Support of learners’ needs and knowledge exchange in exercise of functions The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 12 is on the exercise of the council’s functions. Amendment 51, in the name of Jackie Dunbar, is grouped with amendments 52 to 60.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jackie Dunbar] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 49, Against 68, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 92 disagreed to. After section 9 Amendment 93 moved—[Willie Rennie]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not know whether my vote counted, but I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you. I will make sure that that is recorded. For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jackie Dunbar] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 48, Against 68, Abstentions 0.”
“The Parliament now faces a choice: we can continue down the road of managed decline—consultation by consultation, closure by closure—or we can choose investment over cuts, prevention over reaction, and justice over neglect. Keeping Balmossie open, backing the DECON campaign in full, funding role expansion properly, rebuilding stations, recruiting firefighters and reducing response times—that is what a fire and rescue service that is fit for the future looks like. Scotland’s firefighters step up every day—it is time for us to do the same. 13:02”
“We cannot talk about a fire service that is fit for the future while firefighters work in stations that lack basic dignified facilities, while more than 100 stations do not meet minimum toilet standards, while hundreds lack proper changing areas, and while capital investment lags hundreds of millions of pounds behind what is needed. We cannot talk about climate resilience while not investing properly in the very service that responds to floods, wildfires and extreme weather events. Our firefighters do not ask for praise; they ask for the tools to do their job, the numbers to do it safely and the protection that they deserve in return for the risks that they take.”
“With the right training, staffing and funding, they could do even more, thereby alleviating pressure on the Scottish Ambulance Service, supporting the national health service and strengthening community safety and resilience. However, let me be absolutely clear: role expansion cannot be a back-door cost-cutting exercise. It cannot be done on the cheap and it cannot be imposed on a service that is already stretched to breaking point. An agreement in principle was reached in 2022, but what has been missing ever since is Government backing. Political leadership means turning warm words about public sector reform into real investment that allows reform to happen safely, fairly and effectively.”
“The DECON campaign is not radical; it is responsible. We need annual health monitoring, recording of exposures, proper decontamination facilities, clean kit, clean stations and safe systems of work. Some progress has been made—as Beatrice Wishart highlighted—and that should be acknowledged; however, without sustained, ring-fenced investment, these measures will remain patchy, unequal and inadequate. If we know the risk, and we fail to act, that failure is on us. This debate is also about the future and about potential. There is a shared commitment between the FBU and the SFRS to role expansion. Firefighters already prevent, protect and respond.”
“I will speak particularly about the FBU’s DECON campaign, which the Parliament has debated before and which I have been proud to support. In comparison with the general public, firefighters are 1.6 times more likely to die from cancer, five times more likely to die from a heart attack and nearly three times more likely to die from a stroke. That is not a coincidence—it is an occupational scandal. The science is clear. Fire contaminants—toxic carcinogenic substances that are released during fires and are in some of the firefighting equipment—are killing firefighters slowly, long after the flames are put out. The World Health Organization recognises firefighting as a carcinogenic occupation. Professor Anna Stec’s research has reinforced what firefighters have known for years: their work is poisoning them.”
“Last year, the Health and Safety Executive issued an enforcement notice to the SFRS about welfare facilities at three fire stations in Shetland. There were no fixed toilets, rest facilities, showers or changing areas. Although I understand that progress has now been made at the stations concerned, does Ms Chapman recognise the impact on personnel, especially when they are trying to decontaminate after attending an incident, and the potential impact on firefighters’ health? That is an example of what can happen when there is inadequate funding for emergency services. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Again, I can give you the time back, Ms Chapman. Maggie Chapman: Absolutely, we need to make sure that we are investing in the decontamination facilities that all firefighters need.”
“The committee noted that there were divided views in the consultation responses to the proposal and heard that some stakeholders are concerned that the move might be motivated by cost cutting. For the merger to be successful, the new Scottish Land Court must be properly resourced and access to justice must be maintained. Not only does crofting require full reform; there needs to be an understanding of what modern crofting life will look like in the years ahead. Working with crofting communities is crucial, and it is important to value and protect that way of life. Although there is more to be done to deliver the changes that are needed to modernise crofting law, I am pleased to support the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill at stage 1. 16:29”
“The bill contains provisions to prevent the unintended separation of grazing shares. Stakeholders, including the Scottish Crofting Federation and the NFUS, called for more action to reduce the separation of grazing shares from their original parent crofts. It was noted during evidence sessions that, in Shetland, unlike in most other areas, grazing shares are attached at the point of purchase, forming a “part and pertinent” of the croft. It is useful to note those differences across the Highlands and Islands and consider where they might offer opportunities for learning. I turn to part 2 of the bill, which will merge the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. The Scottish Government intends that approach to deliver a more coherent and efficient administration of the services that are currently offered.”
“Part 1 of the bill will make changes across various aspects of crofting law, including the enforcement of crofters’ duties, the powers of the Crofting Commission, and changes to common grazings and the crofting register. The bill will extend the definition of “purposeful use” of croft land to include environmental use. The committee heard concerns that that could be used as cover by an absentee or negligent crofter to neglect their croft, and NFU Scotland stressed that environmental use must be linked to active land management to mitigate that outcome. I note the minister’s commitment to strengthening the definition of environmental use, and I look forward to seeing what is brought forward. That issue should be included in any future review of crofting law.”
“A broader review of crofting policy and law to modernise the framework and reduce the intricate and confusing nature of crofting law remains outstanding. On that point, the committee recommends that, at the start of the next session, the new Scottish Government should confirm “its intention to undertake this review and then bring forward legislation.” Although it does not deliver the more fundamental overhaul that is still being called for, the streamlining effect of the bill is welcome. There was general support for the bill’s provisions among stakeholders during the stage 1 process, as well as positive feedback about engagement and the co-design process between stakeholders and the Scottish Government. It is important that those continue as the bill progresses.”
“The Law Society of Scotland has described Scotland’s unique crofting law as having “developed over time in a piecemeal fashion”, and it is generally considered to be a complex and difficult area of the law that might be considered outdated in many respects. Reform of the legal landscape has been slow to emerge. A consultation in 2017 led to the Scottish Government stating its intention to introduce a bill to correct known anomalies in crofting legislation, followed by further consideration of more fundamental changes. However, this first phase has taken years to come before the Scottish Parliament. Even allowing for the disruptions of Brexit and the pandemic, many people in the crofting communities have indicated frustration at the slow pace.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. I, too, thank the bill team, the committee’s clerks and the many organisations and individuals who gave evidence and sent briefings to support the stage 1 process. Crofting is of vital importance in my Shetland Islands constituency and across the crofting counties of the Highlands and Islands. Cultural heritage, tradition, community and connection to the land are all important aspects of crofting, which delivers economic and environmental benefits in rural and island areas. Specific legislation has governed crofting since 1886, when the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act of that year was passed under a Liberal Government.”
“Increased running costs, as other members have said, are affecting the sustainability of swimming pools across the country, and the biggest impact on those running costs is the cost of energy. It is suggested that an estimated £68 million a year is needed to power Scotland’s pools, though with energy efficiencies and retrofitting with sustainable technologies, around £5 million a year could be saved. To conclude, supporting our public swimming pools is a lifelong investment in people’s wellbeing and life-saving skills. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 17:02”
“It could have been a different story—I could have been a drowning statistic. To this day, I am not a confident swimmer. Scottish Swimming indicates that the number of public swimming pools in Scotland is reducing. Of the 295 pools, 122 are more than 38 years old and are therefore nearing the end of their lifespan. According to Swim England, the average lifespan of a pool is 38 years. Based on that age model, Scotland could have a net loss of more than 150 pools by 2040. The estimated investment that is needed for four new pools a year is around £40 million. In my constituency, swimming pools are run by the Shetland Recreational Trust, which has a network of eight pools across the islands. The two most northerly in the network and, indeed, in the United Kingdom, were both opened in 1988, which takes them to the 38-year lifespan this year.”
“Like others of my generation in Shetland, I learned to swim in the cold North Sea, and it was and still is simply called swimming. I have close friends who are lifelong sea swimmers all year round, though I have not been tempted to join them. This debate, however, is about the value of swimming pools. In an era of cuts to public services, it might seem to some that funding swimming pools is a luxury that we can live without. I do not share that view, for some of the reasons that I have already mentioned. I also have a personal reason for ensuring that people have access to public swimming pools. I know at first hand what can happen if you cannot swim. As a child, I accidentally fell into the harbour at Lerwick. Thankfully, I was spotted by a quick- thinking fisherman, who hauled me out.”
“Swimming provision and equal access to learning to swim is also important for reasons of safety in and around waters. It will come as no surprise that an islander like me is keen to ensure that every child is given the opportunity to learn to swim. It is a lifelong skill that is best learned as a child and one that is not just for people who live in and around island and coastal communities. With rivers and lochs across Scotland that are attractive and accessible from cities and towns, the dangers of water to the inexperienced are not always obvious. Swimming and other water-related activities mean that more people are making their way to waters for fun, health and wellbeing reasons. As an aside, quite why swimming is referred to as “wild swimming” is a mystery to me.”
“I wish you, Presiding Officer, and colleagues across the chamber a happy new year from a snowy Shetland. I thank the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for its work on this petition. I am pleased to speak in this debate to recognise the value of swimming pools and the call that financial relief is necessary to help to keep pools open. I also thank Scottish Swimming for providing its briefing and for the work that it does all year round to promote swimming for everyone, which has physical and mental health benefits as well as being a good all-round sporting activity. Those were some of the positive benefits that were highlighted in the 2023 Scottish Liberal Democrat conference debate on swimming and the primary school curriculum.”
“To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on local authorities, which host renewable energy infrastructure, receiving Scottish Crown Estate revenue allocations, such as a share of the income from ScotWind projects. (S6F-04543)”
“The Scottish Government did not introduce that directly, but, in supporting the operator’s responsibilities, I understand why it did that, and I think that Beatrice Wishart does as well. On how we can benefit the community, the new contract, in which I am sure Beatrice Wishart will have an active interest, is being developed. My colleague Jim Fairlie is leading on that for the Government. These are the sorts of issues that can and should be raised as part of the preparation for the new contract as it is developed. Net Zero Policies (Cost) 3.”