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 4 of 9.
“That means that, realistically, a new consultation will not materialise any time before 2027, which adds another two years of further degradation to what is already a decade-long delay in implementation. Those are delays that our inshore waters cannot afford and that break repeated promises by the Government.”
“Amendment 66 is one of several that have been lodged by Opposition MSPs across the chamber that highlight the Government’s repeated delays and non-delivery of measures to improve our beleaguered inshore ecosystems and inshore economies alike. The Scottish Government’s track record on managing our inshore waters is close to non-existent, and both our marine environment and our fishing industry—especially the low-impact sector—are suffering as a result. The ink had barely dried on stage 2 when the cabinet secretary announced the cancellation of the long-delayed consultation on inshore MPAs and priority marine feature measures during this parliamentary session.”
“The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is absolutely essential for Scotland. Yesterday, I was talking to a climate scientist who told me that, when we consider the relative weighting of climate and nature, nature must be two thirds when it comes to action. He said that we know what we need to do on climate, so it is nature that we must prioritise. I have brought back just two amendments at stage 3, knowing that this will be a busy debate. One is in this grouping, and I will take a little time to talk about it now. The other is in a much later grouping, and I am grateful for the Scottish Government’s work on it.”
“As I said, the fiscal sustainability delivery plan identifies that “releasing efficiencies often requires initial investment”. The continuation of the invest to save fund can, I hope, encourage and support continued transformation in local government. However, there is room for improvement. Access to that funding must be more flexible to suit the needs of local government. It is not yet clear whether the current funding that is provided to local authorities, or that is available through the invest to save fund, will allow them to realise ambitions for transformation and the public service reform strategy. 16:25”
“Last year, I set out that it was pleasing to see evidence of a broader consensus between the spheres of government on the budget. The much-anticipated fiscal framework between COSLA and the Scottish Government was published in October and, in evidence to us, COSLA was broadly positive about progress on that. We can see from the recent budget a continuing reduction in the use of ring fencing by the Scottish Government. Around 7 per cent of the total revenue allocation to local government next year will be either ring fenced or transferred in-year from other portfolios. That is down from 18 per cent before the Verity house agreement was signed. In conclusion, I will return to whether I was right to be optimistic in my concluding remarks last year.”
“I hope that, in her concluding remarks, the cabinet secretary will take the opportunity to provide the Scottish Government’s view on those proposals. I will move on to funding for local government more generally. Although there has been real- terms growth in local government budget settlements in recent years, the overall financial situation of local government looks challenging. A primary factor is the significant increase in demand, particularly in areas of education and social care. Although there has been a real-terms increase in overall revenue funding for local authorities, it falls short—by almost £1 billion—of what COSLA suggested was required. The capital allocation to local government is also reduced in the budget. That leads me to how COSLA and the Scottish Government worked together in the development of the budget.”
“Although the fiscal sustainability delivery plan recognises that “releasing efficiencies often requires initial investment”, the invest to save fund remains at £30 million in this year’s budget. Our recommendation of the continuation and extension of the fund was in the context of some of the other suggested improvements. We thought that the fund could better incentivise collaboration between different parts of the public sector, and we asked the Scottish Government to consider how the fund could be accessed across local authorities without a bidding process. The response from the Scottish Government to our letter comments on our recommendation that the funding should continue, but not on our suggestions for improvement.”
“Two of the most prominent barriers were the lack of multiyear settlements and the high cost of initial action, which the invest to save fund sought to address. Multiyear funding certainty is a long-held ambition of local government. The Scottish spending review, which was published alongside the Scottish budget, provides resource spending plans up to 2028-29 and capital spending plans up to 2029-30. Although that is welcome, it suggests that there will not be increases in local authority funding across the next three years. However, the cabinet secretary told the committee yesterday that we could expect the initial estimates in the spending review to change. We welcomed the invest to save funding and recommended that the Scottish Government consider increasing the fund.”
“It had the opportunity to demonstrate that further when the public service reform strategy was published in June 2025. The strategy sets out commitments to changing the system of public services, based on three principles: prevention, joined-up services and efficiencies. Local government has taken an active role in driving change. There are various organisations, professional networks and initiatives to support individual councils, and we were pleased to hear of many great examples of transformation projects and collaboration. We called on the Scottish Government to address potential barriers to such projects, including workforce capacity, morale, resilience, leadership and lack of data.”
“I am pleased to take part in the debate on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. Public service reform forms the first pillar of the fiscal sustainability delivery plan, and it was the focus of the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny. In particular, we looked at the invest to save fund, a £30 million pot that is aimed at supporting public sector efficiency projects. During the conclusion to my speech in the debate last year, I noted that the committee agreed on the urgent need for transformational change in councils and expressed hope that, when I stood up today, I would be able to reflect on concrete evidence of a decisive shift towards preventing poor outcomes instead of having to deal with their consequences. I welcomed the Scottish Government’s recognition of the need for that change.”
“Given the focus on the potential impacts on farmers and crofters, and the fact that, under the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 and the draft climate change plan, the Scottish Government requires a transition towards sustainable and regenerative agriculture— including making space for nature on farms and crofts—has the Government carried out any assessments of the potential benefits of restoring lynx to Scotland. If not, why not? Jim Fairlie: As I stated in my previous answer, there would have to be a process and a thorough investigation into what would need to be done. As yet, I have not considered any of the points that Ariane Burgess has just put to me.”
“Firefighters are ready to serve. Our responsibility is to ensure that they are properly funded, properly trained, properly equipped and properly valued. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I call the next speaker, in order to allow other members to participate, I am prepared to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. Motion moved, That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Maggie Chapman] Motion agreed to. 13:29”
“That matters, because firefighters face a cancer mortality rate 1.6 times higher than that of the general population. The FBU’s decon campaign includes calls for annual health monitoring and proper recording of exposure, and it deserves our full support. I agree with the need for role expansion, which enables firefighters to act fully as emergency responders in this climate-altered world. However, role expansion without resources is not reform; it is risk transfer. If we want a properly funded Fire and Rescue Service, we must be serious about how we raise revenue. Measures such as taxing private jet use and introducing a mansion tax are a fair way to strengthen the public purse. With independence, Scotland would have the full powers that are needed to tax wealth and properly fund the SFRS and other vital public services.”
“I have also heard concerns about all-terrain equipment not being fit for purpose, which limits firefighters’ ability to operate safely and effectively in remote landscapes. At the most basic level, firefighters have raised issues about the quality of standard kit, including socks that wear out quickly and need to be replaced very frequently. Those details may sound small, but they speak to morale, comfort and a wide pattern of underinvestment. That is why the work of the Fire Brigades Union is so important. I recently visited the decontamination unit in Inverness fire station. It is important to note that the unit was largely funded by the efforts of the FBU, which demonstrates both what is needed and what can be achieved through determination and partnership.”
“Dignity and health at work must apply equally, regardless of the location. The nature of the job is changing. Firefighters are increasingly being called out to flooding, extreme weather and climate-driven emergencies. Wildfires, in particular, are becoming more frequent and more severe, yet firefighters have told me that the training is inconsistent. Although some crews have received specialist wildfire training, others have not, yet they are still being mobilised to attend wildfire incidents. One firefighter described to me how they had attended multiple wildfires where they and their colleagues were unable to fully engage because they had not been trained in techniques such as back burning. They told me that that is frustrating for someone whose vocation is service.”
“In the Highlands and Islands, the context is stark. Inverness is the only permanently staffed full-time fire station in the entire Highlands. Alongside it are 51 retained duty system stations and nine community response units covering huge geographic areas and often operating in severe weather and on difficult terrain. Retained and community firefighters are essential for keeping people safe, but they must be properly supported to do so. In my conversations with firefighters across the region, I have heard repeatedly about the reality on the ground. Some rural stations, I am told, do not have basic facilities—no toilets, no showers, no proper changing areas and patchy internet access. After incidents involving smoke contaminants or floodwater, that is simply not acceptable.”
“I, too, thank my colleague Maggie Chapman for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I also recognise the dedication, professionalism and courage of firefighters and support staff in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service across Scotland and especially in the Highlands and Islands. They protect lives, communities and nature, often across vast distances and in very challenging conditions. However, appreciation alone will not sustain the service. As we have heard, the SFRS resource budget has been reduced by £58 million per year in real terms since 2013, with the loss of more than 1,000 firefighter posts. Those figures translate directly into stretched cover, pressure on crews and difficult decisions about stations and appliances. Those pressures are now being highlighted by the service delivery review.”
“Given that Scotland is currently in breach of its Aarhus obligations, especially under article 9 of the convention, which requires access to justice to be “fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive”, I put the case that we now have the ideal opportunity to consider how environmental cases could come to the Land Court in the future. Overall, I look forward to working with the Government and colleagues from across the Parliament to deliver an even better crofting and land court system in Scotland. 16:24”
“It is good to know that the newly formed Scottish Land Court will have jurisdiction over access rights disputes. I trust that that will allow for better, fairer access to justice in this area. We also have an opportunity to consider how to deliver better, fairer access to justice for those who bring environmental cases. In the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill, the Government states: “It is ... intended that consideration will be given to the expanded Land Court taking on new functions in relation to Aarhus cases in time to come”.”
“It is good to see that crofters will be able to put their land to environmental use, and I hope that that will give the community the confidence to do its bit for Scotland’s nature and climate and help to achieve the landscape-scale change that is needed if we are to meet the major challenges of this century. I understand that there has been some concern about whether the new power for crofters will lead to abandoned crofts but, with the right safeguards in place—which I am keen to explore at stage 2— that need not be a concern. Turning to part 2 of the bill, the proposed merger of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland and the Scottish Land Court seems to be a sensible idea, given the close proximity in which those two institutions work.”
“Key elements that are missing from the bill include tighter regulations around the market in tenancies, so that crofting can be more accessible; a scheme to create crofts on public land; and a Scotland- wide expansion of where crofting can take place. I would be interested to hear from the minister what work is being done on those much-needed policies. We must ensure, as far as possible, that the next Government launches a new crofting bill process to address those matters and others besides, ideally on a foundation of current work. As for what we have before us in the here and now, there is very little in the bill that the Scottish Greens disagree with.”
“While I am pleased that crofting’s contribution to Scotland has been acknowledged by the very existence of the bill and am glad that crofters and other stakeholders are largely happy with its contents, it must be said that the proposed legislation represents something of a missed opportunity. It has been in the pipeline for a decade, yet what we have before us today is more of a technical exercise—although I heard what the minister said about it being an enabling bill. What was hoped for, and what crofters have been calling for, was a more ambitious document setting out a vision for what crofting is for.”
“I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee clerks, SPICe, the bill team and everyone else involved in the development and scrutiny of the bill. Crofting is a vital part of Scotland’s cultural and social heritage, but it is not just a reflection of our nation’s past. It is a tradition and an institution that is living and breathing; it is crucial to both our present and our future. Crofting is a glue that holds rural and island communities together and supports their respective economies. It offers us a template for low-impact land management that—if it is adopted more widely across Scotland—can help us to meet the major challenges that are presented by the climate and biodiversity crises while providing fair access to land and food, as well as an antidote to rural depopulation.”
“It must be possible to build homes that are safe, affordable and viable while funding the urgent cladding remediation work that residents so desperately need. In short, we cautiously support the bill at stage 1. We recognise the necessity of action, we acknowledge the concerns that stakeholders have raised and we will work constructively to improve the bill. However, I have far less sympathy for the profit-seeking opposition of the large and highly profitable house-building companies that would prefer the costs of their past decisions to be borne instead by residents or the public purse. The Parliament must choose to stand with residents, with safety and with justice.”
“In particular, as others have said, we must ensure that the levy does not undermine the viability of house building in remote and rural areas, such as the Highlands and Islands, or place disproportionate burdens on community-led and non-profit housing initiatives that were never part of the scandal. It is good to hear the minister’s comments that the Government will lodge amendments to ensure fairness and to remove the unintended impacts. I look forward to seeing other amendments that the Government has committed to lodging and to the sensitivity analysis that was recommended by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. It matters that we get this right. Finally, I caution against binary thinking. Safety and viability should not be set up as opposing forces.”
“Although I recognise the points that the minister made about the constraints of the bill, I would welcome clarity from the Scottish Government on how it intends to address the gap in Scots law that was partly closed in England by the URS Corporation v BDW Trading case, such that responsibility for historical building defects rests with those who caused them instead of falling to the public purse or to residents. We also recognise that the levy, as it is currently designed, would benefit from further fine tuning and that there are legitimate concerns about targeting and fairness.”
“We must learn from those failures. We must properly fund cladding remediation, bring an end to the emotional toll of waking watches and give residents the peace of mind that their homes are finally safe. Those most responsible for the scandal must pay to fix the mess that they created. While house builders are part of the picture, they are not the only ones: contractors, architects, suppliers and others have also played a role. The stage 1 report reflects evidence from Miller Homes and Bancon Homes that made clear the fact that responsibility is shared.”
“For years, countless people have been living in unsafe homes, surrounded by highly combustible materials, trapped in buildings that they know are dangerous but that they cannot afford to fix. The situation did not arise by accident: it is the product of a house-building system that has prioritised profitability over safety, enabled by a deregulation agenda that has consistently put corporate interests ahead of people’s lives. The starkest illustration of where that can lead is the Grenfell tower fire. At least 72 people lost their lives because cost-cutting decisions were made. A less safe, more combustible façade was chosen because it was cheaper. That must never be forgotten in our deliberations today. Across the UK, house builders and those involved in the construction process have put lives at risk for decades.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the stage 1 debate on the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill. I am aware of the issues, having been involved in parliamentary scrutiny in relation to cladding remediation, including the work that led to the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which, in turn, informed the bill that is before us. Let me be clear at the outset: the Scottish Greens support the principles of a Scottish building safety levy—but it is cautious support. We recognise the moral and political imperative to address the cladding scandal and to ensure that the cost of putting right historical failures in building safety does not fall on the shoulders of residents who did nothing wrong.”
“To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the roll-out of the £2 bus fare cap pilot agreed as part of the 2025-26 budget negotiations. (S6F-04564)”
“It was good to hear from the minister about how the Government intends to respond to the committee’s findings in practice and about the work that is currently being undertaken. However, I would appreciate hearing a commitment from the minister to act on the report’s recommendations in a way that reflects rural realities. That includes the need for flexible and fair fee structures, broader eligibility, reduced bureaucracy and targeted action to retain and attract legal aid solicitors in remote areas. Will the minister ensure that innovations such as remote hearings and community legal hubs are used to strengthen, not replace, the local legal aid provision that communities across the Highlands and Islands so urgently need? 15:02”
“From my casework, I know that the growing volume of issues relating to damp and mould in homes clearly shows that there is a gap in accessible legal advice long before cases reach crisis point. Therefore, legal aid reform is not a technical exercise; it is about redressing power imbalances. Without access to legal support, people cannot challenge poor housing conditions, unlawful decisions, discrimination or environmental harm. Rights that cannot be enforced are rights only in name. That is why reform must sit in a much wider human rights agenda. Enshrining rights in law matters, but unless people can access legal help to uphold those rights, those rights remain meaningless in practice. Justice should not depend on where someone lives.”
“The workforce is ageing. About 60 per cent of criminal legal aid solicitors are over the age of 55, and more than a third are expected to retire within the next decade. More than 40 per cent of solicitors say that they might stop doing legal aid work within the next two years. When they go, there is often no one to replace them. The human consequences are stark. In Shetland, Women’s Aid reports that only one local civil legal aid solicitor is available for survivors of domestic abuse. That forces island residents to seek mainland representation, which increases costs, delays and trauma. In the Highlands, a survivor of domestic abuse contacted 116 firms before they finally resorted to crowdfunding for private legal support.”
“It is not an abstract problem—over the past three years, there has been a sharp decline in legal aid providers in Scotland. The number of criminal and children’s legal aid solicitors has fallen by more than 12 per cent, and the number of civil legal aid firms has dropped by nearly 20 per cent. Small, rural and high street practices, which deliver around 90 per cent of legal aid, are leaving the system because the stagnant fees and rising costs make the work unsustainable. Only around 5 per cent of legal aid funding goes to rural firms, despite rural Scotland being home to almost a third of the population. In towns such as Fort William, Portree, Wick, Kirkwall, Lerwick and Lochmaddy, court duty plans often rely on a single solicitor or none at all. That is not resilience; it is a system that is clearly on the brink.”
“Access to justice is a fundamental human right. It is not a luxury, and it must never be a privilege that is reserved for those with money, confidence or proximity to power. However, as we have heard, for far too many people across Scotland—especially in rural and island communities, including in much of the Highlands and Islands—access to civil legal assistance is becoming increasingly fragile. I welcome the committee’s work and report on the issue. In my region, people are not choosing to self- represent; they are being forced to. Single migrant parents, disabled people and survivors of domestic abuse can spend months trying to find a legal aid solicitor, only to be told again and again that no one is available. The result is delay, distress and, in many cases, injustice.”
“[Inaudible.]—broader eligibility, reduced bureaucracy and targeted action to retain and attract legal aid solicitors in remote areas. Will they ensure that— The Presiding Officer: Ms Burgess, my apologies, I called you a little early. That will give us time to address the audiovisual issues. I should of course have called Katy Clark. 14:51”
“It would respond to a real harm, signal that Scotland can take this crime seriously and help us to measure whether we are succeeding. The Scottish Greens will support the bill, and I again thank Maurice Golden for his work. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 15:35”
“That matters because, right now, we are working with partial and inconsistent information. If we are going to tackle dog theft properly, we will need reliable data on its prevalence, on patterns and on outcomes. That will let us know whether the bill is working and what further action may be needed. Alongside criminal law, we should also keep moving on practical measures that will make it harder to steal dogs and easier to reunite them with their owners. Scotland likely has somewhere between 800,000 and 1 million dogs, and that population may have grown significantly since Covid. Measures to improve the accuracy and compliance of microchipping and to have better traceability from breeder to owner can strengthen prevention and enforcement. The stage 3 amendment that we dealt with today was minor and technical, but the bill itself is not.”
“I particularly welcome section 2, which makes the theft of assistance dogs an aggravated offence. For someone who relies on an assistance dog, their theft does not simply mean losing a companion—it means losing mobility, independence and safety, so recognising that additional harm is absolutely right. As Maurice Golden has discussed, the bill introduces the term “helper dog”, and he explained that that part of the bill is intended to create flexibility through regulations. I simply urge ministers to use that power carefully and to keep the focus where it belongs—on protecting those who depend on assistance dogs, and on ensuring that the law is clear and enforceable. It was good to hear from the minister this afternoon that she has already commissioned work on that. I also welcome section 4, which would create a reporting mechanism.”
“It creates a clear offence with serious penalties—up to five years in prison—and the possibility of an unlimited fine. That matters, because dog theft is not a harmless, opportunistic crime. The evidence suggests that, during the pandemic, as the price of dogs rose sharply, dog theft increased, too, with concerns that organised crime was involved in some cases. The data is imperfect, but it is sobering. It is also striking how few successful outcomes there are for victims. Research has highlighted that, in the vast majority of cases, no one is charged and, in more than half of cases, no suspect is even identified. If we want to deter this crime and support victims, we need laws that reflect the real harm done, and a system that can deliver justice.”
“I am grateful to Maurice Golden—and the officials who have supported him—for the work that he has put into this member’s bill, and for introducing legislation that responds to a real public concern. I also thank the Scottish Parliament’s legislation team, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre, and everyone who participated in the discussions during the proceedings on the bill. For many people, dogs are not property in any meaningful sense—they are family. Therefore, when a dog is stolen, the impact is not just financial but distressing and traumatic, and it can be life-changing, not just for the humans. This bill is based on the United Kingdom Pet Abduction Act 2024 and it takes an important step for Scotland.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how the planning process monitors the delivery of any job creation figures included within planning applications, including applications for salmon farms, once they are built and operational. (S6O- 05268)”
“On the data that is produced, I outlined in a previous response the number of different reporting mechanisms that we have. We collect that information for a variety of purposes. One of the key recommendations from the committee was on how we transmit that data and how we can make it more accessible and transparent for people. A number of pieces of work have been undertaken in that regard. I can only reiterate what I have said about mortalities in previous responses: we want to ensure that they are driven down to the lowest possible levels. We undertook—we have made a commitment—to do pieces of work on that in response to the committee’s recommendations, and I am determined to continue that work.”
“In mass mortality events at Gob Na Hoe and Portree, which are both in Skye, the Government did not know the real numbers of fish deaths as they happened because Scotland’s mortality figures exclude early deaths and losses from culls and transport; they also exclude cleaner fish. That has allowed Bakkafrost, for example, to report zero early deaths at Portree to regulators, while telling investors that 19 per cent of its fish died in the first weeks at sea. With nearly four in every 10 farmed salmon placed in cages dying, will the cabinet secretary accept that regulation is not credible, and will she commit to closing those reporting loopholes so that every farmed fish death is counted in real time? Mairi Gougeon: First, I emphasise that we have a really robust regulatory regime when it comes to finfish aquaculture.”
“More data is published in relation to aquaculture than in many of our other sectors. I appreciate the point—we discussed it when the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee was undertaking its inquiry into salmon farming. There are issues about the amount of data that we have and how that data is used and communicated more widely. In relation to that point and in relation to the other matters that Ariane Burgess raises, the committee made a number of recommendations and I made a number of commitments in response. I offer the assurance that several pieces of work are under way. Brexit (Impact on Food and Drink Producers) 5.”
“The salmon farming industry makes many claims about itself that have proved to be misleading. It claims to be transparent with mortality data, but it does not include cleaner fish, salmon in transport or certain smolts. It tells us that it wants to protect wild salmon, but it puts in legal appeals against the very framework that is designed to do that. It does many other things. Will the cabinet secretary commit to commissioning an independent, Scotland-wide cost benefit analysis, as per best practice, so that future policy in the salmon farming sector— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you. Briefly, cabinet secretary. Mairi Gougeon: Ariane Burgess raised a point on transparency. The information that is published in relation to the aquaculture sector is very transparent.”
“Although I hope that the debate will reassure those communities that the Scottish Parliament and the Government have their backs and will secure a rapid U-turn from the UK Government, we are being shown, once again, that the only way in which Scotland can get fair treatment and in which its businesses can operate with confidence—the only way in which it can properly plan for its future—is by becoming the independent nation that it is so capable of being. Tim Eagle: Will the member give way?”
“First, it says that the UK Government would rather support industrial, long-distance fleets operating out of Grimsby, which have superwealthy owners and little regard for the health of fish stocks, instead of smaller operators in towns and villages across Scotland, who brave rough seas in all weathers to make a living and provide the exports that the Brexit-supporting UK Government is so reliant on in its quest for economic growth. Secondly, it tells us that, again, Scotland is an afterthought for politicians and officials in Westminster. By denying them their fair share of the funding pot, Keir Starmer’s Government is actively betraying Scotland’s coastal and island communities.”
“It is therefore insulting to my constituents that, despite accounting for almost two thirds of catches and exports, and despite holding roughly 60 per cent of UK waters, Scotland is getting less than 8 per cent of the £360 million funding. Finlay Carson: Is it correct that, given some of the amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill that the Green Party has planned to lodge, Scotland will not need 46 per cent of funding, because fishing in Scotland—both inshore and offshore—will be decimated? Ariane Burgess: I do not think that that is the topic of the debate. To me, the UK settlement says two things.”
“As a representative of hundreds of coastal communities across the Highlands and Islands, I whole-heartedly share the Scottish Government’s condemnation of the allocation that Scotland has received through the UK fishing and coastal growth fund. The fund is meant to improve technology and equipment, both of which will be essential if we are to make fishing more sustainable and better regulated and provide certainty to fishers so that they can operate with confidence. The fund is also meant to train the next generation of fishers and support coastal communities—two crucial goals that will stop depopulation and keep communities thriving.”