Ariane Burgess
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“I want to briefly mention an issue that is connected to what David Barratt said about a national emergency briefing. In January, the UK Government published its national security assessment on global biodiversity loss, which states: “Collapse impairs an ecosystem’s ability to provide vital services including clean water, food production,…”
“In my rural and island communities, it is sometimes really hard for people to even find a bus. We need the clean heating systems that our EU neighbours have enjoyed for decades. We also need a thriving natural environment, which will be the key in supporting us to adapt to climate change.”
“The Scottish Greens campaigned on the idea of an agricultural transition insurance fund—we want to see £500 million of the agricultural budget put into it, because farmers need certainty. We are now in unknown territory when it comes to what we are doing in respect of our land use.”
“I sat on two committees in the previous session—the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee— that scrutinised the climate change plan, and we heard evidence from countless stakeholders that they did not feel confident that there was an adequate delivery plan in place.”
“We must support farmers to move to nature-friendly, regenerative farming. Those pioneers have moved away from nitrogen use, they understand soil biology and they are choosing smaller herds and mob grazing. We have legislated for regenerative agriculture, but we do not have the underpinning training.”
“I started working on climate change and nature restoration in New York City in the 1990s. When I came back to live in Scotland, I was heartened, because I had arrived in a country where the people, through the Parliament and the Government of that time, had recognised the science-based evidence on climate change.”
The complete record
Every one of 413 lines we hold for Ariane Burgess, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“The budget offers a small real-terms increase and some extra flexibility, but the warning is clear that, without structural reform, councils will remain under strain and struggle to invest in decarbonising buildings, modernising transport and reorganising and restoring our local environments. Approving the order will keep the system running for another year but will not fix it. We will support the measures that protect the core grant, reduce unnecessary ring fencing and expand local revenue powers, but we will continue to press for deeper change, a fairer and greener replacement for council tax, genuine local control over business rates and a fiscal framework that moves Scotland closer to the European norm of empowered, largely self-financing local government.”
“If councils are to lead on a greener and more resilient economy, they must have the fiscal levers to reward low-carbon investment, deter pollution and support community enterprise. These issues are not abstract. Decisions that are made in council chambers mean shorter library hours, reduced leisure and cultural provision, fewer youth workers and more stretched social care, yet all those services tackle inequality and underpin climate and nature action. Councils are told to transform simply to remain viable, but they cannot plan and invest properly on insecure year- to-year settlements.”
“Our vision is for councils that raise more of their own income, shape the local economy and environmental outcomes and are clearly accountable to voters for their tax and spending choices. That requires confronting the outdated council tax. Based on early 1990s valuations, the tax is widely recognised as being unfair. We need revaluation and a transition to a replacement that better reflects property values and, over time, land values, so that unearned gains feed back into the public services that make communities liveable. We also need to have an honest debate about non-domestic rates. Although they are branded as a local tax, they are largely controlled nationally.”
“Two principles are central for the Scottish Greens—a genuine real-terms increase in flexible core funding, not managed decline, and far greater fiscal autonomy with a wider range of locally controlled taxes and charges to empower communities and sustain climate and nature spending. We recognise positive steps such as the visitor levy and higher council tax on second and holiday homes, which raise revenue and ease housing pressures from tourism and in rural areas but, taken together, they remain a patchwork of add-ons and not the coherent and modern local tax system that Scotland requires. The deeper problem is the heavy dependence on the central block grant. We describe councils as local government but, fiscally, they operate as delivery arms for decisions that are taken elsewhere.”
“The order may look technical, but it goes to the heart of whether councils can keep schools open, social care running, bins collected and community facilities functioning. Independent scrutiny has been clear that, even with the £15 billion of support and higher income from council tax and charges, councils face substantial and widening budget gaps. They are increasingly relying on reserves and one-off savings that cannot be repeated. Senior local government figures question whether the current model is sustainable. The order provides the legal authority to distribute the general revenue grant and non- domestic rates, and it reflects some welcome progress, a modest real-terms uplift, more baseline funding and slightly less rigid ring fencing. However, it does not resolve the long-term pressures or the structural weaknesses of the system.”
“Amendment 71, which I believe has a little bit more support among members across the chamber, would reintroduce “removal” back into the long title to reflect the fact that if my amendments are agreed to—”
“Lorna Slater: Some political parties, notably Sinn Féin, say that their members will not take their seats, as a point—for them—of ethics and morality. They stand on that, and it is a principled stance for them. Is the member saying that that sort of principled stance would not be allowed in the Scottish Parliament? However much I might disagree with a member doing that, should it not be allowed? Sue Webber: Thankfully, we do not have Sinn Féin on the ballot paper in Scotland. To be frank, I think that if someone is elected and has the privilege to represent their constituents, they at least need to turn up for work. My amendment 67A would change the wording of amendment 67 so that the process set out in amendment 67 is not legally binding but, rather, advisory.”
“Amendment 67 sets out a process for standing orders as mentioned in amendment 66. The Presiding Officer must then refer the decision on whether to grant the leave of absence to a committee, which would then vote on the decision. I think that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee—and I, as a sitting member of that committee—would not be too keen on that, which is why I have presented alternatives. The MSP would be able to appear in front of the committee in order to make representations, and the committee would have the final decision on whether to grant the leave of absence, although it would not be able to disclose any personal details about the MSP’s circumstances for requesting such a leave of absence.”
“Amendment 64 would make provision for an MSP to be removed automatically if they fail to attend Parliament within a 180-day period, unless they receive a leave of absence from the Presiding Officer. There is a prescribed list of reasons for which the Presiding Officer can grant such a leave of absence. Amendment 65 would make provision for an MSP to be removed automatically if they fail to attend Parliament within a 180-day period, unless they have received a leave of absence from the Presiding Officer, who would have discretion over the leave of absence and could grant it for any reason. Amendment 66 would make provision for an MSP to be removed automatically if they fail to attend Parliament within a 180-day period, unless they request a leave of absence in line with a process set out in standing orders.”
“In our 2021 manifesto, the Scottish Conservatives pledged to “introduce Mackay’s Law, allowing the public to recall MSPs who have broken the law, grossly undermined trust or failed to contribute to Parliament for more than six months.” I remain committed to that element of the bill, but I recognise—as I have said—that there were concerns at stages 1 and 2 that there would be an impact on the privacy of members. I totally agree that attendance provision needs to be balanced with the need to respect the personal lives of members. That is the reason why I lodged amendments 64, 65 and 66, which set out alternative provisions for reintroducing removal for non-attendance.”
“Amendment 34 disagreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 6 is on removal for non-attendance. Amendment 64, in the name of Sue Webber, is grouped with amendments 65 to 67, 67A and 71. Sue Webber: At stage 2, the committee voted in favour of removing the non-attendance element from the bill. At that stage, I lodged a series of amendments that recognised that, whether we like it or not, we have accepted that hybrid attendance is as valid as physical attendance. However, I believe that it is right for the full Parliament to debate and vote on the element of non-attendance. That was originally a key provision of the bill, and much was made of its removal in the press.”
“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) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East 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) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 25, Against 82, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 61 disagreed to. Amendments 62 and 63 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to. After section 24 Amendment 34 moved—[Sue Webber]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“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) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (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) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (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) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (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) 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) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) 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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 36, Against 67, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 33 disagreed to. Amendment 61 moved—[Sue Webber]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“I apologise, Presiding Officer. That was for the previous vote. 16:30 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Burgess. 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) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East 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) 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) 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) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (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) 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) 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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 24, Against 83, Abstentions 0.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Burgess. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“Finally, a word on timing: the timetable was challenging. I acknowledge that some of the provisions in the bill will support the smooth implementation of the first scheme in Edinburgh, which is due to commence in July, and that it is therefore helpful that the changes have been proposed now. However, we cannot ignore the fact that some of the issues that are addressed in the bill arose during consideration of the original bill back in 2023. We support the general principles of the bill. Local flexibility absolutely matters: councils and accommodation providers should have the flexibility to design schemes based on local circumstances. 15:11”
“We support the clarification in the bill that, when third parties are involved, the initial transaction between the accommodation provider and the third party is the chargeable transaction. That avoids double charging and improves certainty. We support the regulation-making powers to resolve operational issues quickly but not to rewrite fundamental policy without full parliamentary scrutiny. I acknowledge that the minister’s response regarding the broad regulation-making powers was: “this provision would not apply to changes to the basis on which the levy is charged. We consider that such significant changes are best made through primary legislation”. That is welcome. However, it would be helpful if the minister could address whether the language in the bill is sufficient to rule out significant changes through subordinate legislation.”
“Some councils have already consulted on a percentage scheme and have announced plans to progress with the visitor levy. What options are available to those councils now? We heard that a requirement to consult again and adhere to an 18- month transition period before introducing a fixed- rate scheme could create delay and disruption. Therefore, we welcome the minister’s commitment to lodge amendments on those periods when appropriate. The minister told us that that was “one area where there will absolutely be changes.”— [Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 3 February 2026; c 11.] However, the Government’s response to our stage 1 report says: “We are considering these matters ahead of Stage 2”, so it would be helpful if the minister could confirm today what those changes will be.”
“The current uncertainty about whether a single chargeable transaction could be caught by more than one scheme is unhelpful. Therefore, we recommend that the Government clarifies the position through amendments. I welcome the minister’s commitment to consider that ahead of stage 2. We support allowing for a range of fixed-rate options. That will let councils tailor schemes, maintain a progressive element to the levy, protect lower-income visitors and support rural and island economies. However, we also recognise stakeholders’ views on the practical difficulties that could arise with a per-person, per-night approach, so we recommend that the Government clarifies how the model will work. I note that the minister has said that that recommendation is being considered ahead of stage 2.”
“The committee welcomes the Government’s response to stakeholders’ calls for greater flexibility. We support giving councils a clear choice of charging a percentage rate or a flat rate for each scheme, so that they can pick what best fits with local circumstances. We heard that a percentage-only model could be hard to operate in practice, especially for smaller operators. However, we recognise the risk of creating a complicated landscape across Scotland, and even within council areas, so monitoring will be essential. The 2024 act requires a report on the visitor levy three years after the first scheme comes into effect. However, that is a one-off, not an on-going, mechanism. On-going engagement with councils and other stakeholders, which the minister referred to in his written response to the committee, will be important.”
“Thirdly, it will bring clarity to the administration of bookings that are made through third parties when an online agent or tour operator is involved. The charge will be based on the first transaction between the accommodation provider and the third party. Finally, it will deliver simplicity through levy returns being based on when guests stay, not when they book. I will cover the committee’s consideration of the bill and what we recommended as a result. We launched a call for views as soon as we were designated as the lead committee for consideration of the bill at stage 1, and we received 60 responses. We took oral evidence from those in local government, from representatives of the tourism industry and accommodation providers and, finally, from the Minister for Public Finance.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee, including councils, accommodation providers, national booking platforms, small family businesses and island communities, and the many individuals who took time to share their views. We are grateful for their contribution to our scrutiny. The bill does four main things. To ensure that we are clear, I will spell them all out. First, it will provide flexibility by allowing councils to charge a visitor levy on the basis of a fixed amount or a percentage of accommodation costs. Secondly, it will allow tailored rates so that councils can set different amounts by place, by season or by type of accommodation to suit local circumstances.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting apprenticeships for care-experienced young people, particularly in rural and island areas. (S6O-05541)”
“If Scotland is to lead in offshore wind, let it lead in democracy too, grounded in marine protection, worker protection, community voice and genuine shared benefit. That must be the foundation, not an afterthought. 18:31”
“It is clear that Crown Estate Scotland benefits from the proposal through the revenue generated via its lease and proof of concept for future opportunities; it is clear that Offshore Solutions Group benefits through generous grants and increased revenue for its directors, as well as potential expansions in the future; and it is clear that the Scottish Government will benefit through revenues paid to it. How do the people of the Moray Firth benefit? We should have begun the transition away from oil and gas in earnest 20 or 30 years ago, and both the UK and Scottish Governments should have done more to include communities from the start. We are now trying to move quickly, but speed cannot replace trust.”
“When Crown Estate Scotland was established under the Scotland Act 1998, an inherent conflict was created. The public purse benefits significantly from it, but the Scottish Government, via the marine directorate, has the final say on whether marine developments such as this one go ahead. Where is the community voice in that? The strength of community feeling on this proposal is clear. The fact that Crown Estate Scotland appears to have misjudged the feelings of local communities so significantly reflects a wider concern that it has lost touch with the communities that rely on it to protect and safeguard their coasts and waters from encroaching business interests, whether it be floating storage parks or polluting salmon farms.”
“In my recent discussions with trade unions, strong concerns were raised about pay conditions and enforcement in freeport areas. If the nearby freeport had not been designated, would this spillover proposal exist in this form? Were the full implications made clear during the bidding process? As we have heard, communities are worried that a lot of public money has already been spent on early exploratory work before they have had any real chance to help shape plans. Even if the Government is not running the project itself, the use of public funding means that it still has a responsibility to set the ground rules, and that should include strong and meaningful involvement from communities right from the start instead of their views being sought once most of the decisions have already been made.”
“However, supporting renewables does not mean suspending scrutiny. How we transition matters. If floating offshore wind infrastructure risks marine ecosystems, fishing livelihoods, navigation routes or tourism, those impacts must be fully understood and addressed. A healthy climate, thriving wildlife, clean oceans and strong communities all depend on each other. Science shows that our economy is part of the natural world, not separate from it, and it can thrive only when the planet is healthy, too. There is also a wider context here. The proposed location is close to the Cromarty Firth freeport. The Scottish Greens opposed freeports, because international evidence shows that they often weaken employment protections, displace other sustainable local jobs and fail to deliver genuine community wealth.”
“People along the Moray Firth are closely watching this debate not only in the gallery, but in Nairn, Findhorn, Burghead and Buckie, and along the coastline that is often described as the riviera of the north. Those who have got in touch with me have said that they are not anti-climate action or anti-renewable energy; they are just asking reasonable questions about impact, fairness and voice, and their concerns deserve respect. We are living in a climate and nature emergency, and we know that we must move away from fossil fuels, but it is striking that some of those who are being the most vocal in the chamber tonight continue to support new oil and gas extraction as a silver bullet. We cannot claim urgency on reducing emissions while expanding the very industry that is driving climate breakdown.”
“The communities of the Highlands and Islands deserve assurance that their public assets are not being used in a way that is contrary to Scotland’s values and legal responsibilities. The Parliament must ensure that such decisions are subject to scrutiny. Scotland’s publicly owned infrastructure must not be used for foreign military purposes without our knowledge or consent. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will have to require members to stick to their speaking time allocations. 15:26”
“At 99 decibels, the sound of a V-22 Osprey is similar to the sound of a chainsaw at close range and eight times louder than a typical helicopter. All that was happening while Donald Trump openly threatened our NATO ally Greenland, while US-controlled nuclear weapons sit at Faslane and while the current US Administration grows ever more unpredictable. Scotland must not become an unmonitored military staging ground. The evidence from Wick, Benbecula and Stornoway makes one thing absolutely clear: publicly owned airports in the Highlands and Islands are being used for military activity without sufficient accountability or alignment with Scotland’s legal and ethical standards.”
“We own the airports, and the communities of the Highlands and Islands fund and rely on them. They deserve assurance that their public assets are not being used in ways that are contrary to Scotland’s values and legal responsibilities. This is a pattern, not an anomaly. Our publicly funded infrastructure is being drawn into foreign military actions, and this Parliament is being kept in the dark. In the case of Wick, it was particularly galling for the community to see a lifeline resource being used in that way, given that local residents had been cut off from regular services since October and, even now, can travel only from Wick to Aberdeen. Our communities deserve to live in peace. Residents in Lewis were so concerned by the noise of the military aircraft that they contacted the airport.”
“Wick is routinely used by US military aircraft that need to refuel on transatlantic and Arctic routes, but there is currently no mechanism in place to distinguish the flights that are connected to sensitive operations. The incident was not isolated to Wick; the same operation involved at least two other HIAL airports. Benbecula airport hosted two US V-22 Osprey aircraft that were used for cargo and troop transport during the US military’s seizure of the Marinera, and Stornoway airport hosted a Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft that was used for surveillance and reconnaissance in US military operations. Wick, Benbecula and Stornoway are three publicly owned airports. All three were used for one foreign military operation that was triggered by a President gone rogue. There was zero prior awareness from the Scottish Government.”
“Three U-28A aircraft then took off from Wick to directly support the seizure of the Marinera tanker. This morning, we heard the news that the captain of the tanker has been indicted in the United States. The case shows how easily Scotland’s sovereignty can be bypassed. Twenty-eight soldiers were detained in the Moray Firth for weeks without charge, a Court of Session interdict was ignored and two men were removed from Scotland without proper legal process. If that can happen here with so little oversight, we must seriously question the unmonitored use of Highlands and Islands airports by the US military and ensure that Scotland’s infrastructure is never used for actions beyond democratic control.”
“Given the rise of fascism on the other side of the Atlantic, I want to highlight why this Parliament must exercise oversight over the use of publicly owned airports in the Highlands and Islands by the United States military. Those sites are operated by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd on the Scottish Government’s behalf, and what happens at those airports is a matter of direct public accountability. We own those airports, and when they are used for foreign military operations without our knowledge, that is democratic failure. The evidence is clear and documented: three US Air Force special operations aircraft landed at Wick John O’Groats airport ahead of a US-led military operation to seize a sanctioned Russian oil tanker. The planes arrived from Royal Air Force Mildenhall and departed roughly one hour later.”
“With one in nine species at risk of national extinction, the nature champions initiative truly matters, so I extend my thanks to Scottish Environment LINK for conceiving of the idea and creating this wonderful forum for us to come together. Perhaps the next step is a debate in the chamber in which we are not talking about our species, but speaking from the perspective of our species and interacting with each other. There may be a humorous moment with one eating another, and things like that. Let us get that conversation going, because when we champion nature, we champion Scotland’s future. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Beatrice Wishart—around three minutes, please. 17:55”
“On another occasion, I witnessed the team at the Argyll Beaver Centre, and their tremendous enthusiasm in engaging so many visitors in the wonder of beavers, helping people to understand why beavers matter and—going back to Douglas Ross’s point—to contribute to the local economy. Since then, beaver translocations in Scotland have opened up and beavers are flourishing, but we must ensure that those that are facing lethal control measures are moved to safety. I give the Beaver Trust my great thanks for its vital work in that regard, alongside support from the Scottish Wild Beaver Group and the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland. I have loved hearing colleagues across the chamber delight in their species, from the freshwater pearl mussel to the red squirrel.”
“The beaver needs the aspen and other trees, and bodies of water. In turn, beavers restore wetlands, slow the flow and help to alleviate flooding. Together, they form part of a living web—an ecosystem— that ultimately supports us. Being the champion for the beaver and the aspen has enabled me to forge numerous connections. With the Scottish Wildlife Trust, I visited Knapdale, where the first beaver reintroduction trials began in 2009. I had actually been there in 2010, and it was a privilege to return and see how beavers had transformed the landscape. There was more water, more life and more diversity, which reminded me that the initiative is about seeing not just the species, but its impact.”
“I am delighted to speak in the debate and to add my whole-hearted support for the nature champions initiative. The current session of Parliament began in a strange and distant time when we were all still socially distancing and still working out how to be together. The first nature champions meeting of the session was online, but many of us were there, and, even through a screen, it brought us together with a shared sense of purpose. With the way that we were introduced to the initiative, it felt like, “Well—an MSP? Of course you would be a champion!” It reminded me then, as it does now, that nature connects us all. I was given the Eurasian beaver and the aspen, which is one of the beaver’s favourite trees to dine on. I love the evolution of the initiative in recognising that species do not exist in isolation.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether voluntary reporting of mortality data in the salmon farming industry provides sufficient transparency and animal welfare protection. (S6O-05470)”
“The Scottish Government has already recognised the importance of those sites by publishing guidance last year that sets out how we expect our policy on the protection of Ramsar sites to be implemented. The guidance makes it clear that we consider that Ramsar sites in Scotland should be treated as if they were European sites for the purposes of land use change decision making. However, I recognise that there are still concerns about ensuring that these vitally important sites are adequately protected. I am happy that, through the bill, we have the opportunity to provide an enabling power, which will require ministers to make secondary legislation to put Ramsar sites on a statutory footing, ensuring that we are aligned across all sites of international importance. I am happy to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment.”
“Giving Ramsar sites protection in law would give legal certainty and ensure consistency across Scotland. It would strengthen our compliance with international environmental obligations and would keep pace with European Union environmental standards now that we are outwith the EU. For those reasons, I will move amendment 186 and I urge members to support it. I thank RSPB Scotland and the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management for their support with the amendment, as well as the constituents who brought the issue to my attention in the first place. I move amendment 186. Gillian Martin: I thank Ariane Burgess for her thoughtful engagement on the issue and for her willingness to work with the Government following stage 2. As she said, Ramsar sites are internationally important wetlands that support many species.”
“Amendment 186 would give Ramsar sites in Scotland statutory protection. I genuinely thank the cabinet secretary and her team for our super-constructive discussion to find a way forward for stage 3. Internationally important wetlands are recognised in many countries as Ramsar sites, under the Ramsar convention, for the rich biodiversity that they support and the crucial role that they play in improving water quality, preventing flooding, capturing carbon and supporting a plethora of wildlife. Despite their international importance, there are currently no provisions in legislation for the preservation and protection of Ramsar sites in Scotland. The amendment seeks to address the current situation by requiring ministers to make regulations to preserve and protect these precious habitats.”
“My impression is that, because 37 per cent of Scotland’s seas are designated for protection, the Government sees the job as done. No matter what proportion it is, that 37 per cent is protected only on paper. It is not good enough just to set targets; it is action that we desperately need for the inshore. So far, this Government is failing our seas, and the Parliament’s job now is to turn that around.”
“Those are all covers for the policy position, which is never said explicitly by ministers, that measures to protect our most precious marine environments or to support low- impact fishing will almost always be rejected if it means closing a square kilometre of sea to dredging and trawling. The following illustrate this Government’s record: the inshore MPA and PMF consultation— delayed. The national marine plan 2—delayed. The inshore fisheries management improvement programme—delayed. The fisheries management plans—delayed. The biodiversity strategy—not delivered. The planned marine and coastal restoration plan—delayed. The Government cannot claim that the bill is a success story, given this backdrop of policy inaction and failures. The bill makes no mention whatsoever of the marine environment.”
“We might hear, for example, “Spatial management can’t be considered here; that’s for the inshore fisheries management improvement programme to look at,” even though the marine directorate has already told my committee that it would not consider it. We might hear, “That’s a matter for the national marine plan 2,” or, “That’s for the implementation of the future catching policy,” and so on. A series of powerless and underfunded consultative bodies are being used as a smokescreen, from regional inshore fisheries groups to the inshore fisheries management and conservation groups.”
“However, the complexity of the inshore area and the number of sites have meant that progress has been slower than was hoped—therefore, consultation on inshore measures will take place in 2024.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2023; c 32.] Now, even that promise has been broken. The problem is broader than that cancelled consultation. Scotland currently has an array of environmental legislation, typically including duties on the Scottish ministers to produce strategies and plans that they could produce without the need for legislation. In the marine space, it feels as though those strategies and plans are either at cross-purposes or siloed from one another, leading to each one being used as an excuse for inaction in the others.”
“On 11 November 2020, cabinet secretary Mairi Gougeon stated: “Over the next 18 months, we will take forward fisheries management measures for a number of inshore MPAs and for 11 priority marine features outside MPAs.”—[Official Report, 11 November 2020; c 14.] On 22 December 2022, minister Màiri McAllan stated: “By 2024, we will complete the management measures for those MPAs, and we will work on the priority marine features that are most at risk from bottom trawling.”— [Official Report, 22 December 2022; c 88.] On 29 June 2023, cabinet secretary Màiri McAllan backtracked and stated: “Inshore MPAs and priority marine features also require fisheries management measures.”