Jackie Dunbar
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“I do not believe for one second that Reform UK cares about people like me; it cares about division and power, and crypto donations from dodgy billionaires. Reform UK does not represent me—it disgusts me. I am under no illusion that folk are frustrated at so much of what is happening, and not happening, in the world today.”
“Some folk who have never struggled before are now struggling, and some folk who have struggled their whole lives now doubt that things will ever get better for them. They are seeing the consequences of austerity, of a lack of investment in jobs and of a lack of spending in their local communities.”
“Anyway, I appreciate that the low-emission zones policy might inconvenience Baron Offord of Garvel, depending on which of his five cars he is driving at the time, but it will add years to the life expectancies of thousands of Scots.”
“At this point, I will take an intervention from any Reform MSP who wants to tell us whether they think that their party is too racist or not racist enough. George Adam: Oh—nothing! Jackie Dunbar: Perhaps I will use some different quotes: “I told you time and time again, I’m protecting the country”. “Enough is enough. I have had enough”.”
“The same folk who were leading the fight against “benefit scroungers” a decade ago when they were in the Conservative Party are now in Reform UK saying that we should “look after our own”. Maybe I am just not seeing what Reform MSPs are believing.”
“I wonder whether the MSPs who have been joining “street patrols” or the ones calling people “strangers” might see some similarities, too. I am not expecting them to stand up and hold their hands up, but those who are capable of quiet reflection may wish to try it.”
The complete record
Every one of 437 lines we hold for Jackie Dunbar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 9.
“I like talking about veterans in the chamber, because it is one of the few areas in which there is fairly broad consensus. There is clear agreement among all MSPs that nobody should be worse off for having served in the armed forces. I say this as someone who has never been a minister, so I might need to be corrected, but, when it comes to supporting our veterans, there seems to be a level of co-operation and constructive working between the Scottish and UK Governments that does not always extend to other policy areas.”
“Independent research that was done back in 2022 found that 74 per cent of parents and carers said that funded ELC had enabled them to work or look for work, while 63 per cent of families with preschool children aged two to five stated that they had no childcare costs as a result. We will publish a full evaluation report on the expansion in early 2026.”
“With almost all three and four-year-olds across Scotland reaping the benefits of funded ELC, will the cabinet secretary set out exactly how that is benefiting young folk and their families? Jenny Gilruth: As I set out previously, high- quality childcare is vital to giving our children the best possible start in life, but it also helps to ensure that parents and carers can work, train or study. That is why Scotland’s offer is available to all three and four-year-olds, regardless of their parents’ working status. I am pleased to see further evidence that uptake remains almost universal for that age group.”
“We should also recognise the successes that there have been, such as the increase in the number and proportion of students from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds, the number of care-experienced students being at a record level and, through articulation, the number of care-experienced students being above the level of those in the general population. However, we can always do better, and further measures are needed to improve access for all those groups. I therefore welcome what has been said in that regard today. We should be proud of what has been achieved so far and be ready to push on to greater success. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s report on widening access to higher education. Decision Time 17:00”
“I will be honest: it was disappointing to hear the negativity from Martin Whitfield, given that this report had full committee support. We absolutely recognise that there is still work to be done. There is always work to be done, but things are progressing. I cannot comment on Stephen Kerr’s contribution, as I genuinely did not hear him speak to the report that the committee worked hard on. It was a committee report, not an SNP one. Bill Kidd got back to the actual report, and I thank him for his measured approach. I am running out of time, so I will crack on. It is important to recognise the work that is being done to support students from deprived areas in higher education, as well as students from other backgrounds, including those who are disabled, BME and care experienced.”
“Those fees are a barrier to the very people the committee wanted to hear from, and it was good to hear from him. Brian Whittle spoke about students’ passion for learning and how we need education that is appropriate to our economic needs. I totally agree with him on that point. That is why apprenticeships are important. It is important that people are able to access education and grow their skills, whether they do so in schools, colleges, universities or businesses. One size does not always fit all, which is why widening access is so important. It wouldnae have been a George Adam speech without a mention of Paisley—there is no Punch without Judy. Although he claimed that Willie Rennie stole half of his speech, he still managed to give us more information on the positive destinations of our young people and their potential.”
“Aberdeen is the next net zero capital of the world, but it is also the city that, at one time, had more universities than the whole of England put together. Aberdeen is, once again, punching above its weight. Willie Rennie spoke about the fantastic work that is happening in his constituency, including what the University of St Andrews is doing to break down the barriers that I spoke about earlier, which I hope will lead to its no longer being seen as an elitist establishment. That shows that nothing is impossible if we put our minds to it. Jamie Hepburn spoke about creating a fairer society and growing our economy. He also spoke about tuition fees and wondered whether he would have been able to go into higher education if it had not been free.”
“Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke about the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, which has just finished its stage 2. I look forward to seeing what stage 3 will bring and whether we can work together on any amendments. Pam Duncan-Glancy also spoke about the difficulties that part-time students face. I agree that more needs to be done in that regard, and I look forward to working with her to find a solution. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the member take an intervention on that point? Jackie Dunbar: I really do not have time— sorry. Maggie Chapman said that education is the cornerstone of our society, and she gave a valuable insight into what the north-east has to offer.”
“Other members have reflected on those issues today, as well as on measures that are used to identify those who are eligible for widening access programmes and the possibilities that are offered by free school meals data and a unique learner number. As is normal practice, I will discuss members’ contributions. Miles Briggs gave practical examples of positive destinations and the positive journeys to get to them. It was great to hear about the positive work that is being done jointly by workplaces, universities and colleges. He also spoke about the good work at RGU, and I, too, thank RGU for its briefing. Of course, the north- east also has another fantastic example of joint working: the girls in energy initiative, which is run by North East Scotland College and Shell.”
“Barriers that were highlighted by care- experienced students included the fact that information on transitions to university is variable and dependent on the individual’s support networks, as well as the inconsistency of the support that is available. There were also concerns about the retention of care-experienced students. They said that there is a need for consistent careers advice at school, with bespoke advice and information about their support entitlements. That is why we said that, although the widening access targets relate to students from deprived areas, it is important to consider young people from other backgrounds, including disabled students and black and minority ethnic students, as part of the widening access agenda.”
“From black and minority ethnic students, the committee heard that it would be helpful if there were greater awareness of the widening access programmes that are available across Scotland for pupils, teachers, parents and carers of pupils who aspire to go to university; if there were continuous professional development for staff who offer information, advice and guidance, including school careers advisers; and if there were greater financial support for students, including help and advice in relation to student accommodation, affordability and availability. The students indicated that it would also be helpful if there were an end to the myth that university is only for the select few and if there were support programmes that encouraged pupils to be their best selves and that promoted positive actions and destinations.”
“As the committee set out in its report, students from different backgrounds face financial barriers in accessing higher education, particularly in relation to the on- going costs that are associated with studying, such as housing, food, heating and travel costs. The committee also heard about the barriers that are experienced by students who are disabled, from black and minority ethnic groups, or care experienced. The committee received evidence from disabled students, the majority of them stating that they had received lower grades than they expected for a reason that was related to being disabled. They also found it harder to go to university because of something that was related to their being disabled, and they did not feel that Scottish universities welcomed or encouraged disabled applicants.”
“I am proud to close the debate on behalf of the committee. Like the convener, I pay tribute to the work of my colleagues and to all those who gave evidence to the committee during our inquiry. As we have heard, in 2016, the commission on widening access recommended that 20 per cent of full-time first-degree university entrants should come from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds by 2030, with interim targets of 16 per cent by 2021 and 18 per cent by 2026. In 2016-17, 13.8 per cent of full-time first-degree university entrants came from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds. Since 2019-20, that figure has been above 16 per cent. Much progress has been made, and that should be warmly welcomed. However, there is more to do.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the UK Government budget regarding how it affects the North East Scotland region. (S6O- 05249)”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress made towards issuing Scottish Government bonds, in light of Scotland’s recent high credit ratings. (S6O-05207)”
“Will the Deputy First Minister say more about the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with ExxonMobil? Can she confirm that the business will work constructively and collaboratively on the next steps that are needed? Kate Forbes: I have certainly made that request of ExxonMobil. It confirmed that it is willing to work with the Scottish Government on the various points that I have outlined, and I welcome the indication given to me that it will work with us to support staff. Most recently, I engaged with the company last week, on 11 November, and again yesterday afternoon.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try my best. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the latest Scottish Government engagement with Alexander Dennis employees and trade unions? How has their vital input contributed to getting us to the point that we have reached? Kate Forbes: Earlier today, I spoke separately to GMB and Unite the Union, and I heard directly from workers on the shop floor. We talked about the general sense of wellbeing among the workforce. The point was made that, six or so weeks into the furlough scheme, it becomes even more important for workers to have other opportunities, which is why we are supporting volunteering opportunities. That will be particularly important if the furlough scheme lasts for the full 26 weeks.”
“Over the summer, I hosted a series of round tables with consumer groups, energy stakeholders, businesses and others. Last week, I held a round table with representatives of energy consumer organisations, at which we discussed both the need to decarbonise and the fact that it is essential that that is done in a way that people can afford and that does not exacerbate fuel poverty. All of that will continue as we take forward the programme.”
“In such a crucial policy area, it is vital that stakeholders in the sector are directly involved in key conversations and plans that are brought forward by the Scottish Government. Can the cabinet secretary provide further information on what engagement the Government has had and will continue to have with both the energy and housing sectors on the next steps? Màiri McAllan: I completely agree. It is vital that the transition must be taken forward with communities, not imposed on them. Our consultation on the heat in buildings bill received more than 1,600 responses, and that feedback has helped to develop the content of a significant and complicated bill, the draft proposal for which members have in front of them today. Since the consultation closed, we have continued to engage widely with stakeholders in the heat in buildings sector.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its latest engagement with STV regarding the broadcaster’s plans to cut jobs and regional news programming. (S6O-05125)”
“Will Stephen Kerr give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is about to conclude. Stephen Kerr: I would love to take an intervention, and there are many more things that I would like to say. I think that the minister was waving the essay by my colleague James Bundy and me, which has just been published in the University of Edinburgh’s Scottish Affairs journal. It contains 10,000 wonderful words about what we feel we could do to make our Parliament what it should be, because Scotland needs a robust, strong and vibrant Parliament as never before. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call John Mason. 16:11”
“If you are a woman in the north-east who needs help, Grampian Women’s Aid will help you, so please do not be afraid to reach out. 15:19”
“Even when she got to where she was told to go, the support that she needed was not all in one place. Instead, she was expected to get from Marischal college to a police station in Bucksburn, which, for those who are not familiar with Aberdeen, is a four-mile journey—on foot. She asked me to raise those points today and to talk about the baseline that is used when support is made available. Unfortunately, a lot has gone wrong for her, which is why such debates and reports are important in enabling us to fix what is not right for others in the future. In my final few seconds, I will highlight the fantastic Grampian Women’s Aid, which does an amazing amount of work. It goes above and beyond for many women and literally offers those fleeing domestic abuse a lifeline.”
“Any income, including child benefit, was in his name, and he kept hold of all the family’s important documents, including her driving licence and their children’s birth certificates. When she and her children got away, they left without identification, a bank account or money—they did not even have a phone that they could safely use. ID is required to access almost all the support that we make available, and a lot of it requires a bank account that money can be paid into—something that again needs ID to set up. That family could not call the available helplines, and the place that she eventually managed to get away to was not in the city. She did not have a car, a bus pass, bus fares or a support network that she could reach out to and which could get her and her children to where the support was.”
“They had nothing in common before their abusive relationships began, but they have a fair amount in common now. When I was selected to speak in today’s debate, I reached out to some of the people I know to hear their thoughts, and I asked if they wanted me to read their words in the chamber. One told me that she did not have the words, but she then went on to list a range of barriers that she had hit when escaping from her ex-partner. What worries me is that a lot of what she told me about is not listed in the report, even though it is more than 100 pages long and contains many important recommendations. Her experience was that her ex had gradually cut her off from her support network, doing that so slowly that it was not even noticeable. He tracked her phone and had sole access to their bank account.”
“I, too, thank the committee, the clerks and the expert witnesses who helped in the creation of the report. I say an especially grateful thank you to everyone who shared their experiences of domestic abuse with the committee, whether through the call for views or as members of the Scottish Women’s Aid survivor reference group who spoke to the committee. It can take a lot to open up about that sort of experience, but doing so can, and does, help other victims of domestic abuse, both now and in the future. I have never personally experienced any of the things that the report talks about, but that is down to luck, because no one sets out to find themselves in an abusive relationship. I know about such relationships from folk who are close to me, and I have heard from constituents who have been through that experience.”
“I am aware that the Scottish Government is committed to raising awareness of possible cancer symptoms through its primary care cancer education platform, GatewayC, which provides tools to support early diagnosis efforts and decision making at the point of referral. I am also aware that the Scottish Government has recognised that significant work was needed to develop the necessary genomic testing. I would therefore appreciate it if the minister could give an update on the work that has been undertaken with that, if at all possible. I thank Marie McNair for the debate this evening. I and others look forward to hearing the minister’s reply. 17:37”
“By the time it is diagnosed, it is often too advanced for surgery, which is currently the only potential cure. Why is it difficult to diagnose it early? The early symptoms of it are very vague. Nausea and appetite loss are two of the symptoms. Let us be honest. Whose first thought would be to go and get checked if those were their only symptoms? I know that my first thought would be that I had eaten something dodgy or had some sort of bug. In later stages, the symptoms can include jaundice—the yellowing of the skin and the whites of the eyes—itchy skin, pale stools, dark-coloured urine, unintentional weight loss and abdominal pain. I urge folk to speak to their GP if they have any of those signs or are worried about any of the symptoms. Although it is unlikely that they will have bile duct cancer, it is best to get it checked.”
“However, when it comes to a subject as important as folk’s health and raising awareness, I am not going to apologise for repeating such information, because it is no bad thing to do so. Cholangiocarcinoma is also known as bile duct cancer, and it seems to be increasing across all age groups, not just among the over-60s. Still, like me, most folk have never heard of it, yet it has the worst survival rates of any cancer. With that in mind, and with this month being liver cancer awareness month, let us change that and get the message out. Although cholangiocarcinoma, or bile duct cancer, is considered to be rare worldwide, it is the second most common primary liver cancer. It is not only difficult to diagnose accurately; it is difficult to diagnose early.”
“I thank my friend and colleague Marie McNair for securing this evening’s debate on cholangiocarcinoma awareness, the motion for which recognises that October is liver cancer awareness month. Sadly, incidence of the condition seems to be increasing. However, it was not until my colleague submitted the motion that I realised that there is more than one type of liver cancer. I simply did not know that, which is why it is so important that members’ motions are debated in the chamber. As well as educating other MSPs, it serves to raise awareness among the public. I had written down that, as the final speaker in the open debate, I was probably going to repeat facts, but the truth is that I will almost certainly repeat everything that everyone has already said.”
“Save the world—Scotland still wants to get on. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. Lorna Slater has a generous six minutes. 15:50”
“We no longer have diesel fumes lingering over Union Street, and we now have wildflowers growing in Union Terrace Gardens. Those are small changes, but they are changes that people can see, and I hope that they will encourage others to follow suit. If enough small changes are made, they can—and will—add up to something pretty big. The biodiversity crisis affects all of us, and we all, including those of us with more urban seats, have to play a part in tackling it. The best thing that we can do just now is get the bill moving forward. I look forward to seeing the bill move forward, pass and make a difference by improving our nation’s biodiversity. I look forward to seeing Scotland play its part in tackling the global challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. If everyone, everywhere, plays their part, we will have a better world.”
“A few folk are probably wondering how much biodiversity Aberdeen, as a city, has apart from what we, in Aberdeen, call scurries—that is, seagulls, which I fear some folk want to see added to the extinct species list. If we are going to make a case to the world that Aberdeen is the best place for net zero expertise and that our city is a leader in the fight against climate change, we need to show that theme running through the north-east. We should demonstrate the benefits of tackling the climate and biodiversity crises. Net zero is not just about how we generate energy; it is about warm homes, clean air and protecting our natural environment. Some folk see Aberdeen as an industrial city—a city of granite, concrete and tarmac—but our city is now changing.”
“Jackie Dunbar: Sorry, Presiding Officer—I am just following what was said to me. I am equally sure that, should any of those targets be missed, whoever is in government will have their feet held firmly to the fire by whoever is in the chamber between now and 2045. The bill contains headline targets to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and to achieve restoration and regeneration by 2045, and we need to ensure that we hit them. I will not touch on the issues of environmental assessments, national parks and deer numbers too much, because they have already been addressed somewhat. All of that is in the bill, and those issues play a part in the wider picture. Instead, I will talk about Aberdeen, the future net zero capital of the world—I will say that in every debate in which I get a chance to.”
“I am sure that, once we all agree that there should be targets for improving biodiversity, we can go back to fiercely debating exactly what those targets should be and how they should be measured and met. Finlay Carson: There is consensus about the reason for having the bill. However, as my colleague Tim Eagle noted, every stakeholder, without exception, has suggested that part 2 would put nature at risk, yet we have not heard that from any of the Scottish National Party speakers. Can you set out why you think part 2 is needed and whether the safeguards that would be required are in place? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Through the chair. Jackie Dunbar: I am sure that many amendments will be lodged at stage 2, Mr Carson, and I leave it to your committee— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Through the chair, please.”
“Over time, agricultural activity, forestry, grazing—by farm animals and wild animals—peatland degradation, overfishing, invasive species and new building developments, whether for housing or for commercial uses, have all added to the strain that is being placed on our biodiversity. Scotland now ranks 212th out of 240 countries in the biodiversity intactness index, and 11 per cent of species in Scotland are at risk of extinction. That needs to change. Today, I am pleased that it appears that we are going to come together as a Parliament and unite behind the principles that will enable us to improve the situation, so that we can have an ecosystem that is strong and stable.”
“Tackling the climate emergency is already a priority of our Scottish Government, but, increasingly, extreme weather is not just about sad polar bears up at the north pole; it is impacting on Scotland. We are seeing it in the likes of storm Arwen and “Hurricane Bawbag”, and we are also seeing it in floods and, for the first time in a very long time, water shortages in our country, where it often feels as though it just never stops raining. Obviously, all of that is going to have an impact on our natural environment and, in turn, affect biodiversity across Scotland, even before we factor in the impact of what is happening in Scotland itself.”
“I am afraid that I am not going to need a generous six minutes, Presiding Officer. I declare that I am the species champion for the sea trout. One of my party’s favourite phrases is “Stop the world—Scotland wants to get on.” Fifty-eight years after that phrase was first spoken, although support for independence shows a healthy 10- point lead in the polls, the world is not in quite such a great place and is facing both climate and biodiversity crises. The bill is part of how Scotland will respond to those crises and how we will play our part in tackling global challenges across Scotland and in the communities that we represent. Basically, it is about how we think global and act local.”
“I will not discuss each of Douglas Lumsden’s many amendments in detail, because they all have the same fundamental issues. Land management plans are about transparency and supporting engagement with communities, and they are not the right place to address the issues that are covered by other legislative and policy frameworks, such as the national planning framework and consents processes. A number of the issues that Douglas Lumsden raises that are connected to energy infrastructure are also reserved to the UK Government. Although I appreciate the issues that Douglas Lumsden is raising, the bill is not the right vehicle to fix them, which is why I cannot support amendments 240, 249, 251, 253, 254 and 255.”
“That is a matter of interest in my constituency, so I want to make it clear that I appear before the Parliament today in my capacity as a minister of the Scottish Government and that the position that I am presenting reflects the collective view of the Scottish Government and concerns a matter of law and policy for which I have ministerial responsibility. Separately, and in line with the Scottish ministerial code, I have made my views and those of my constituents known to the responsible minister in the appropriate way. The issue that is under discussion today is distinct from that constituency interest, and my contributions today should therefore be understood as reflecting the Government’s position and not a personal or constituency-specific stance.”
“The issue could instead be picked up when we are consulting on the detailed requirements on the land management plan content. A number of other amendments that Edward Mountain has lodged—amendments 19, 122, 20, 245 and 125—would all weaken the measures in the bill and make it easier for owners of large landholdings to do less to fulfil their duties. I urge members to oppose those amendments. Douglas Lumsden has lodged a number of amendments relating to electricity infrastructure across this group, group 6 and group 11.”
“Edward Mountain’s amendment 21 would delete any reference to how landowners are increasing or sustaining biodiversity, and Tim Eagle’s amendment 247 would take the same approach by removing any requirement for landowners to set out how they are managing land in a way that is consistent with net zero targets. I recommend that those amendments be opposed, and that Edward Mountain’s amendments 246 and 248 should also be opposed, as they also look to water down the nature provisions in the bill. In that regard, I support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 123. However, I cannot support her amendment 124, because it contains references to provisions in the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which is still under consideration and subject to changes as well as a final vote by Parliament.”
“When it came to buying Glen Prosen, for example, none of the information was made available to the public, because it was considered to be commercially sensitive. It appears that what is good for the Government is not good for a landowner. Will the cabinet secretary respond to that? Mairi Gougeon: I have been clear in the evidence that I have provided multiple times at the committee on these issues that we would not expect such information to be published. I disagree with Edward Mountain’s assertion on that, as that is simply not the case. On the proposed nature and climate provisions in the group, Edward Mountain and Tim Eagle appear to be working together to remove or reduce the effectiveness of some of the provisions in new section 44B of the 2016 act, which sets out some of the detail that will be required to be set out in LMPs.”
“Tim Eagle’s amendment 241 seeks to remove the requirement for regulations to require landowners to include information about the potential sale of a landholding from its LMP. Edward Mountain is also looking to water down that requirement through amendment 242, which would require that information about a potential sale need be included only if the information “is not commercially sensitive”. Both amendments completely miss the point of the engagement requirement. Communities that are close to large landholdings should be consulted on and made aware of significant changes, such as the sale of land that they live and work on. That is why I ask members to oppose those amendments. Edward Mountain: I am surprised that the cabinet secretary does not accept the words “commercially sensitive”.”
“I have been clear throughout the process that landowners are responsible for engaging communities and producing LMPs. They are the ones who own the land and they should take responsibility for the plans, and I do not think that it is reasonable to shift that responsibility to communities. I urge members to oppose the amendment. I encourage members to support amendments 256 and 257, from Bob Doris. They further clarify amendments that we supported at stage 2 about the type of provision that could be made regarding compliance with community engagement obligations, including in circumstances in which the ownership of land is transferred. I turn to the amendments that relate to the content of land management plans.”
“Landowners should give updates on their progress against the plans that they have set out, but that issue can be covered appropriately in regulations. For example, the reviews of the LMP that are required every five years would be a suitable place to set out how progress has occurred since the previous review or plan. I ask Ariane Burgess not to move amendment 119. Amendment 17, from Edward Mountain, works against the intent of the bill by undercutting community engagement obligations and would require LMPs to be produced and engaged on only every 10 years, instead of the current five years. I ask members not to support that amendment. Amendment 18 should also be opposed. It imposes obligations on communities relating to land management plans and seems to take responsibility away from landowners.”
“I do not think that it is appropriate that we distinguish large landholdings by land use in the bill. In addition, it is unclear who would make the judgment call about land use and how the decision could be challenged. For those reasons, I am unable to support those amendments. Of other amendments in the group, amendment 119, from Ariane Burgess, would require all landowners to submit an annual report on their land management plans to the land and communities commissioner. An annual report is a significant undertaking, and the impact on landowners of requiring one has not been properly considered and could be substantial. We also have to think about the burden that that could put on the land and communities commissioner. I completely understand the amendment’s intent.”
“Edward Mountain’s amendments 120 and 128 are concerned with making LMP obligations proportionate to the landholding size, the make-up of nearby communities and the resources that are available to the landowner. As I highlighted in the previous group, the regulation-making powers for land management plans are the appropriate way to consider those issues, because they can be considered in the round. When we are designing the regulations, it will be essential that we consider all the issues. However, the amendments are too prescriptive and could give any unscrupulous landowners too much scope to avoid meaningful engagement just by asserting that they consider it to be disproportionate. Amendments 121, 127 and 127A, from Tim Eagle, seek to introduce different requirements for landholdings that are mainly used for sheep farming.”
“In line with discussions at stage 2, those amendments make it clear when the development of a land management plan will require specific engagement with tenants, including crofters and small landholders. I urge all members to support the amendments. I also support Bob Doris’s amendments 239, 262 and 260, because they relate to the statement that ministers need to make if they are excluding any land from the obligations around land management plans. In some rare cases, it might be appropriate for land not to be subject to those obligations. In those situations, it is right for ministers to set out the rationale for the decision. Those amendments improve similar amendments that were passed at stage 2, and I encourage members to support them.”
“That is not necessarily the most appropriate or cost-effective way of hosting the LMPs. 17:00 Edward Mountain: I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. I think that you will find that my amendment gave the option for you to amend the chapter, should it so require. The principle is to have an online database of land management plans. You could accept my amendment, if you were being generous, and then amend it by regulation afterwards, as you are doing with so many other parts of the bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Again—through the chair, Mr Mountain. Edward Mountain: Of course. Mairi Gougeon: That is why I support Bob Doris’s amendments on the matter—because they allow more flexibility. That is why I am unable to support Edward Mountain’s amendments. I support Rhoda Grant’s amendments 236, 237, 243, 244 and 250.”