Jim Fairlie
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“The Scottish Government recognises the challenges that certain plant and animal species pose to agricultural businesses and is supporting farmers to manage those impacts.”
“Will the Government also commit to implementing a more pragmatic licence application scheme for the removal of species where the impact on business and other conservation species or habitats is clear? Jim Fairlie: As Amanda Lindsay points out, there is a management scheme.”
“The Scottish Government remains committed to that work. Indeed, in September, in the Scottish Parliament, I hosted and chaired a constructive round-table discussion on alternative farrowing systems with representatives from the Scottish pig industry, animal welfare organisations and academia.”
“Therefore, we will be working closely with the UK Government and other devolved Administrations on the delivery of the programme. This is a draft Official Report and is subject to correction between publication and archiving, which will take place no later than 35 working days after the date of the meeting.”
“I welcome Joe Fagan to the chamber. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting agriculture, food production and our food and drink sectors in a fair manner. In March, we published our first rural support plan, outlining support for the next five years and providing the clarity, certainty and opportunity to plan.”
“At column 3, paragraph 3— Original text— I point out to the member that we are doing this in concert with the UK Government. There is a joint consultation ongoing as we speak, and I have confirmed with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ministers our agreement to do that joint consultation.”
The complete record
Every one of 663 lines we hold for Jim Fairlie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 14.
“A robust business case is crucial, but, whatever form that takes, substantial additional investment will be required. Given that there is likely to be a need for a strong partnership funding model if we are to deliver on bus franchising, will the Scottish Government continue its dialogue with SPT on potential funding models? Jim Fairlie: Bob Doris is right that it is a partnership arrangement, so my officials will remain in close contact with SPT as it proceeds with the franchising process. In a climate of increasing fiscal pressure, it is important that the business case for improving bus services is made robustly and in an evidenced way. That will support future considerations and decision making on funding, including the provision of funding in future years.”
“Strathclyde Partnership for Transport has commenced work on its franchising proposals to enhance bus provision in the wider Strathclyde area. My officials remain in close contact with SPT on that work. Most recently, they met on 26 January to discuss SPT’s feedback on the draft franchising guidance, which will inform the development of SPT’s franchising framework and assessment. As part of the process, SPT is expected to undertake early engagement on its proposals with various stakeholders, such as local authorities and operators, including those in Mr Doris’s constituency. Bob Doris: I welcome SPT progressing plans for bus franchising, which I support. There will be a phased delivery of the franchising framework assessment, with a full business case anticipated for 2030, so we have time.”
“Amendment 39 disagreed to. 15:30 Amendment 40 moved—[Sue Webber]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is now closed.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) 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) 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) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) 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) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) 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) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (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) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) 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) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 40, Against 69, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 2 disagreed to. Amendment 39 moved—[Sue Webber]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) 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) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) 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) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) 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) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (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) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) 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) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 24, Against 85, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 1 disagreed to. Amendment 2 moved—[Sue Webber]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I could not get my phone to log in. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Fairlie. Your vote will be recorded. For Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) 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) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) 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) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) 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) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) 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) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 23, Against 84, Abstentions 0.”
“As for school transport, under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, local authorities are responsible for making the arrangements that they consider necessary to provide free transport to schools in the local area. In doing so, they need to consider a number of things. Regarding public transport, the Scottish Government is committed to looking, in partnership with operators and local authorities, at ways to ensure that everyone has accessible public transport, regardless of where they live. The partnership and franchising powers that are available to local transport authorities provide opportunities for people to engage with proposals to improve their local bus networks, and I encourage people to do so.”
“Clare Haughey: I have spoken before in the chamber about some of the experiences that people in my Rutherglen constituency have faced because of service reductions and about the proposed cancellation of the 65 service, which was, thankfully, followed by a U-turn. All that has been compounded by South Lanarkshire Council’s removal of the free school buses used by hundreds of young people. Does the minister agree that it is crucial for decisions about bus provision to be made with people, rather than done to them, and that moves towards partnership or franchise approaches will, ultimately, allow that to happen in an open and transparent way? Jim Fairlie: Clare Haughey raises the really crucial point—I am not sure whether people fully understand it—that buses are vital to local communities and to our connectivity matrix.”
“In December, the Scottish Government sent a draft version of the franchising guidance to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, and that draft was also shared with various stakeholders, including Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, for consideration and comment. We intend to formally publish the document in the spring, and work on the partnership guidance is on-going. I am pleased that the draft budget included £4 million to support local transport authorities to build business cases for local bus improvement through franchising. We will develop appropriate governance arrangements and details of the administration of the fund in consultation with stakeholders, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.”
“Remote Electronic Monitoring (Fishing Vessels) 6.”
“When the first EFAs were brought in, in 2015, there was a huge upsurge in people saying that they were a disaster and would not work. However, by 2016, once people had understood exactly what was being asked of them, there were no other issues. I recently met two young Orcadians who came down to speak to me directly to raise those issues. I had a conversation with them in which we went through all the options available to them. I said to them, “Please do this in good faith. Let’s see where we go, and if, in two or three years’ time, there’s an issue, we’ll come back to look at it.” We are asking farmers to do more, but we are taking clear action to protect farmers and livestock units, particularly in Orkney. We are going in the right direction, and we will do so in collaboration with the farming community.”
“Liam McArthur: Farmers in Orkney have consistently raised with me their concerns about the EFA proposals, the impact that an increase to 7 per cent of all land will have on the overlap with existing agri-environment schemes, and the lack of suitable options for grassland systems such as those that are used in Orkney. I know that the minister is well aware of those concerns and of the calls for an island exemption. If he does not believe that such an exemption is possible or justified, what further steps will he take to ensure that the EFA obligations are properly island proofed? Jim Fairlie: Liam McArthur will be aware that we have had many discussions about what the EFA will do. We included four new options, and specific work was done for the Orkney Islands.”
“Advisers in Orkney also secured funding to analyse academic modelling that is specific to the islands and to organise roadshows to help farmers and crofters prepare for the changes. Two letters, a targeted email, articles in The Scottish Farmer, social media posts and the Farm Advisory Service’s videos and webinars have raised awareness of the changes. The greening scheme, with a budget of £142 million, supports agriculture and the environment. That complements the other significant support packages, which the Scottish Government continues to provide—in stark contrast to the policies elsewhere in the United Kingdom.”
“The Scottish Government has undertaken extensive engagement, which has ensured that enhanced greening requirements are proportionate for farmers, crofters and small farms. We have worked with stakeholder organisations, including the National Farmers Union Scotland and the Scottish Crofting Federation. We have involved farmers and crofters directly through user research and workshops with advisers across Scotland, including in Orkney. That collaborative approach has led to the introduction of four new ecological focus areas and updates to existing EFAs, providing greater flexibility to reflect the diversity of farming systems, including local practices in Orkney.”
“An article in The Scotsman on 29 January quoted Nick Allen, who is the chief executive of the British Egg Industry Council, as saying: “In terms of supply, the national laying flock is currently in a stronger and more resilient position than it has been for a number of years so we do not anticipate this incident resulting in shortages for consumers.” The Scottish Retail Consortium, which represents major supermarkets north of the border, said: “Grocery retailers have become accustomed to a degree of supply chain disruption from Bird Flu and other events in recent years”, and they adapt accordingly. On Pauline McNeill’s point about long-term resilience, keepers should be aware that avian flu is a naturally occurring issue and should ensure that their biosecurity is in hand. By doing that, they will protect their flocks.”
“As recently as this year—2026—customers in Glasgow have struggled to purchase eggs due to bird flu. Several supermarkets, including Asda and Tesco, have had no eggs available on the shelves, and other retailers have limited sales to two boxes, which I experienced recently. Given that, what long-term preventative strategy is the Scottish Government putting in place to protect the poultry sector from recurring avian influenza outbreaks and to raise public awareness about the importance of the issue for people’s daily shop? Jim Fairlie: Pauline McNeill is absolutely correct to point out that there has been quite a large outbreak of avian influenza this year. Since November 2025, 1.5 million hens have been culled. However, there is more resilience in the national flock than there has been for a while.”
“The Scottish Government pays compensation for healthy birds that are humanely culled in order to prevent the spread of avian influenza. Compensation payments are based on Great Britain table valuations, which are regularly reviewed and updated in order to ensure that they reflect current costs and different production systems. The Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is the Scottish Government’s lead operational partner, provides support directly to owners of premises that are affected by avian flu as part of the disease control response. That includes on- farm support as part of disease control activities and detailed advice on biosecurity. Pauline McNeill: Glenrath Farms, one of the biggest egg producers in the country, has been hit by multiple bird flu outbreaks.”
“I understand that SPT has already presented to its partnership board a costed programme and a timeline for delivering its franchising proposals. Energy Projects (Community Engagement) 2.”
“The management of McGill’s might be busy with politics at the moment, but my constituents have had buses cancelled at the last minute and there have been on-going price increases from a company that has little interest in our community. That has to change. Does the minister agree that SPT’s proposals are currently the best way forward for my constituents? Jim Fairlie: As the member is aware, private companies have control of those bus routes, following the deregulation by Mrs Thatcher. I am pleased to see that SPT is at an early stage in developing its proposals for improving bus provision in Paisley and the wider Strathclyde area. As part of the franchising process, SPT will be undertaking early engagement with various stakeholders, including neighbouring local authorities and operators, when they begin developing their plans.”
“I very much welcome the significant achievement by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport in the development and publication of the Strathclyde regional bus strategy. It provides a strong platform for its consideration of the new powers that were introduced by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. I last met Strathclyde Partnership for Transport in March, when it updated me on its consultation and the strategy at that time, and my officials have been in regular contact with SPT throughout its development and publication. The most recent meeting that my officials attended on that topic took place on 24 November, when SPT’s next steps following approval of the strategy were discussed. George Adam: The minister will be aware that the bus service in Paisley is primarily provided by the operator McGill’s Buses.”
“I welcome the support that we are getting from the other parties in the chamber, but I am disappointed in the Tories. I commend the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to the Parliament. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. Point of Order 18:04”
“We brought them in and asked for their input so that they could contribute to making the bill the success that it is. I can only imagine that it is politics that is getting in the way of passing good legislation. I welcome the great co-operation from the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and all the other— Jamie Halcro Johnston: Will the member take an intervention? Jim Fairlie: No. The debate is finished, Mr Halcro Johnston. Jamie Halcro Johnston: No, you have just raised a point. Jim Fairlie: We have had these discussions, and I really am disappointed—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us not shout at one another. Jim Fairlie: I am disappointed that the Conservatives will not vote for a bill that has had so much work put into it by everybody.”
“It is crucial that we focus resources on delivery rather than introduce greater complexity and duplication of effort. As we draw the debate to a close, it is worth reflecting on the shared effort that has brought us here today. The bill reflects the Parliament at its best. It has been shaped by members across the chamber. We have improved it through engagement, and we are building consensus, including through today’s debate. I hope that the unity of purpose shown by members to tackle the biodiversity crisis and to push the Government to go faster and further to deliver the nature-positive outcomes that we all want will now be reflected in members’ support for the bill. However, I have to say that I am disappointed in the Tories, because we have made significant efforts to find solutions to the many issues that were raised.”
“We will continue to work in partnership with our farmers, crofters, keepers, stalkers, land managers, environmental non-governmental organisations and community organisations to ensure that the measures that we put in place are proportionate, workable and successful and that they deliver benefits not just for nature but for the people of Scotland. Of course, one bill cannot do everything, although we have certainly packed plenty into this one. Members and stakeholders have raised important points and demanded more action in areas such as marine protection, non-native species, guidance, monitoring and delivery frameworks. We are making headway in those areas, but some issues, particularly those requiring specific technical detail, are better delivered through secondary legislation, strategies or implementation programmes.”
“It will create a practical delivery chain and ambitious targets, which will drive real action on the ground— action that will be delivered not just by Government but by the people who know the land best. The Scottish Government is determined to ensure that its key stakeholders have the tools and support that they need to protect and restore nature in a way that works for rural land managers and communities while building on their stewardship and recognising and respecting their role as the custodians—which we all are—of our iconic land and the species that coexist with us.”
“Scotland’s natural environment underpins our economy, our agriculture, our wellbeing, our quality of life, and the pride that we all feel in this land. We all know that not doing anything now is absolutely not an option—it is not an option for any responsible Government. If we want the Scotland of tomorrow to be one in which we have healthy communities, sustainable and quality food production, food security and vibrant rural industries, we need to ensure that our ecosystems thrive. The bill is not about environment over economy; it is about both. They are two sides of the same coin, and we cannot have one without the other. The bill matters, not because of what it symbolises but because of what it will enable us to deliver.”
“It strengthens the legislation underpinning our two fantastic national parks, and it provides us with additional tools to manage our deer in a way that will be positive for the environment while creating entrepreneurial opportunities as we develop our world-class venison product, delivering new jobs and healthy food for the Scottish nation. Through the amendments that members have championed, the bill will, if passed, deliver in a range of areas. It will give the Scottish ministers new powers to develop legislation relating to wildfire management and forestry management and new rights to enable crofters and tenants to control deer. That is to name but a few of the progressive amendments that have been added to the bill. The twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss represent the existential threat of our times.”
“It is a bill with both people and nature at its heart, and that is something that I care deeply about. It will deliver for nature and people with ambition and balance at its core. That is why, for the first time, we are putting in place statutory nature restoration targets, which will drive positive on-the-ground actions that will keep us on the trajectory to restore and regenerate nature by 2045. If future Governments are found to be wanting in that ambition for nature, the bill contains the mechanisms to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can hold them to account. However, it does much more than that.”
“I want to take a moment to thank, from the bottom of our hearts, on behalf of Gillian Martin and Mairi Gougeon, our bill teams, our legislation teams, our policy development teams, our officials, our private office and the parliamentary staff. They have put in a hell of a lot of work to get the bill to where it is today, and we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. I thank them very much from all of us. I also want to say, as this is Mairi Gougeon’s final bill, that she will be an enormous loss to the Parliament. She has been an amazing person to work with, and rural Scotland has been bettered by the work that she has put in. At its heart, the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is about respect for nature, for our land and for the people who steward it and care for it.”
“Get it wrong and there is a real risk of destabilising the communities that we rely on to manage our land and that are vital in protecting our food security. Having considered all of that, the Scottish Conservatives do not believe that statutory targets will achieve what voluntary, co-operative approaches have struggled to do. We do not believe the case for national parks has been properly made; it clearly required review. The proposed changes to deer management still do not sit comfortably or ensure a real, living, co- operative approach. For those reasons, the Scottish Conservative group has decided not to support the bill at stage 3. 17:16”
“I am sympathetic to members across the chamber who have sought to use the legislation to address other long-standing gaps where the Scottish Government has yet to act. That speaks to a wider frustration about delivery and follow- through. Rural Scotland has a vital role in protecting and enhancing our natural environment, and in truth, much of the rural sector has been doing exactly that for years. What is needed now are practical, locally flexible schemes that recognise the differences between our rural communities, and not abstract, paper-based targets that risk hampering that work rather than heralding a new chapter. Get this right and rural Scotland will thrive and deliver for nature and the economy together.”
“Before embarking on discussions about new national parks, no formal comprehensive review was carried out on how existing parks have performed, what has worked well and what has not, and crucially, how local communities view that experience. Such a review could have been the golden ticket. It could have strengthened public confidence, addressed long-standing concerns and created a model for parks that genuinely thrive economically, socially and environmentally. By skipping that step, we missed the chance to learn lessons and to bring communities with us. I imagine that the breadth of the bill is also striking to everyone. There is so much that could have been included, such as mechanisms to protect our natural environment against wildfires. That is a critical issue, and I am personally deeply worried about it.”
“Land managers, farmers and estates feel that the traditional rural economy is increasingly under threat and that they are not supported as a partner in environmental delivery. If we genuinely want to improve biodiversity outcomes, that is not a healthy place to be. I feel as if I have been saying for my whole career that my advice to the Government is to stop focusing on telling landowners, farmers and crofters to complete ever more complex paperwork, and to start having a positive relationship with them on the ground. The bill also touches on national parks. During the amendment stage, Fergus Ewing and I picked up on a glaring missed opportunity in that area.”
“Tim Eagle: I could spend the next hour telling the minister the ways in which the Government does not support the people of Scotland, but I will not go into that. If the minister were to give me details of the rural support plan, perhaps we can have a further discussion. The point on deer is slightly more valid. I am happy for organisations such as Scottish Land & Estates and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation to contribute, but I think that I am right in saying that the deer management sector was ready to work proactively with the minister, without needing a lot of the stuff in the bill. If more deer needed to be killed, we could have done it in a different way. I cannot overstate how damaging I feel that the erosion of trust has been.”
“First, Tim Eagle talks about the fact that rural deer managers have managed deer effectively over a number of years, yet we have a crisis with the number of deer and the damage to the environment. Everyone in the debate has agreed that we need to bring down deer numbers. Secondly, Mr Eagle talks about the support that we are giving to the agricultural community. We are the only part of the United Kingdom that continues direct support, upland sheep support— with the Scottish upland sheep support scheme— and the less favoured area support scheme. Those things are warmly welcomed by the agricultural community. Where does the member get the idea that this is a Government that is not working for the people of Scotland?”
“17:03 On resuming— Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3”
“I hope that members agree that the proposed changes are necessary and I urge them to agree to the motion and approve the draft regulations. I move, That the Parliament agrees that the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetables) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved. The Deputy Presiding Officer: As no other member has indicated that they wish to speak, that concludes the debate on the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetables) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026. I will briefly suspend the meeting before we move on to the next item of business. I hope that all the members who are supposed to be here for the next item will be here very soon. 17:02 Meeting suspended.”
“I recognise, however, that the model does not suit everyone— particularly because the power to recognise our producer organisations, which is a prerequisite for the scheme, lies with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The scheme should not be the sole support mechanism for the sector and I am committed to doing more for small producers. We will work with stakeholders at pace to understand what they need, including by providing funding for an audit to understand the shape of the small fruit and vegetable producer sector and the forms of support that it needs in order to thrive. If this SSI is not approved, we risk facing increases in budget requirements that put other valuable agricultural funding at risk.”
“The draft regulations will do the following key things: they will provide stability to stakeholders that receive funding via the fruit and veg aid scheme; and they will enable the Scottish Government to better plan the budget allocation for the scheme and, importantly, to ensure that Scottish Government funding for Scottish producers remains. The fruit and veg aid scheme is a legacy European Union scheme that has been a success here in Scotland. It relies on collaborative working that encourages innovation, sustainability and investment at scale, which growers could not benefit from on an individual basis. It is valuable and it remains an important source of support for the fresh produce sector in Scotland.”
“I am pleased to open the debate. The draft instrument was considered by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on 17 December, but the committee did not approve it. However, many of the concerns that members raised relate to matters that are outside the specific scope of this Scottish statutory instrument. During that committee session, two members indicated that they would support the instrument in the chamber, provided that there were clarification and reassurance on the issues that they had raised. Since then, I have worked constructively with a range of members and stakeholders on the points previously raised. I have sought to address the concerns raised and to provide points of clarification about the importance of the fruit and veg aid scheme for our Scottish producers.”
“I also thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the bill’s proposals and the preparation of its stage 1 report, which made some helpful recommendations. We recognise that the bill addresses legitimate welfare concerns that, given the current minimal activity at Thornton, will affect only a small number of individuals and animals while preventing oval tracks from being set up for racing elsewhere in Scotland. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and to working closely with Mark Ruskell and the committee as the bill progresses. 16:13”
“I put it on record that I absolutely understand their disappointment. I do not doubt for a moment their dedication and their love for their dogs but, of course, I recognise that the bill will not prevent greyhound owners from meeting and socialising with others to exercise their dogs. They will commit an offence only if the dog is run on an oval track. Nonetheless, we must be cognisant of the social and community aspects and the bill’s impact on those people. I commend Mark Ruskell for his commitment to bringing the welfare of greyhounds to the Parliament’s attention. He has been a staunch advocate for them and has identified and highlighted an inherent risk in racing on oval tracks.”
“As I already highlighted to the committee and to Mr Ruskell, we will seek some amendments to the bill and I very much look forward to working with Mr Ruskell on those amendments in the coming weeks. However, although we support the principles of the bill, we are mindful of the implications for the individuals and communities that are connected with greyhound racing in Scotland, particularly those that are involved in the Thornton track in Fife. In recent years, the activity at Thornton has been on a small scale and largely informal. For many people who have continued to run their dogs there, it has been less about serious competition and more about companionship. It is a chance to meet friends and others with a shared interest, socialise and give their dogs a run on the track.”
“The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s 2022 report on the welfare of greyhounds in racing concluded that oval track design is a key factor in injuries and deaths due to the combination of bends and the speeds at which racing dogs enter those bends, and that those risks cannot be fully mitigated. Similar concerns are echoed by animal welfare organisations and veterinary reviews, which point to thousands of recorded injuries and numerous fatalities internationally each year that are linked to the racing conditions. Taken together, that evidence provides a solid animal welfare basis for demonstrating that greyhound racing as practised on oval tracks exposes dogs to a significant risk that cannot be eliminated by other measures.”
“We were looking at the broad principle of the bill as it was previously presented, not the one that we have before us. Let us be clear: there are studies and veterinary reports that have found that, when dogs run into bends at high speed, they experience strong sideways forces that make them more likely to lose balance, collide with each other or hit the track barriers. An Australian report calculated that “Approximately 80% of all Catastrophic and Major injuries were caused by congestion and incidents such as checking, collision, galloping”. I provided a link to that report in my response to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s stage 1 report.”
“Those are risks that, even with good practice, cannot be eliminated entirely, and risks that licensing would not be able to eliminate. Having carefully considered that evidence, the Scottish Government has agreed to support the general principles of the bill, recognising that it represents a proportionate response to those risks. Finlay Carson: I am confused that the minister’s position changed when it was quite clear that there was no type of racing of greyhounds in Scotland other than on an oval track. When the petition was being heard, the minister was quite content to allow that to continue. Jim Fairlie: We have rehearsed this on numerous occasions and went round the same question numerous times when I give evidence to the committee.”
“As the Parliament will be aware, the Scottish Government is also considering the feasibility of introducing statutory licensing for greyhound racing and whether that would drive the animal welfare improvements that we all want to see. The bill that is now before the Scottish Parliament is far more focused in scope, and it seeks specifically to prohibit the racing of greyhounds on oval tracks. Currently, the Welsh Government is proposing a complete ban on greyhound racing in Wales. At this point, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to prohibit greyhound racing on oval tracks, but not on all tracks. The Scottish Government is committed to setting the highest standards of animal welfare, and we believe that the stated aim of the bill is to address the inherent risks that are associated with running dogs at speed on oval tracks.”
“I begin by recognising the vitally important role that all dogs play in our communities, and their contribution to society. One of the biggest losses that I have had since becoming an MSP is the fact that I no longer have a dog that I can spend hours having endless fun with. It is important to recognise that we want to have the best relationship with our dogs that we can, and that welfare is a vital part of that. I remind the Parliament that, when the bill was first proposed, the Government took a neutral stance. At that stage, the proposal sought to prohibit all greyhound racing in Scotland. Given the breadth of the proposal and the fact that the details of precisely what would be prohibited were still being developed, it was entirely pragmatic for the Government to reserve its position until the final content of the bill was known.”