Tim Eagle
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“I do not approach immigration by seeking to divide communities or inflame tensions, as Reform appears to. I seek solutions even when they are difficult or unpopular in parts of this chamber. Victor Currie: Britain is a multiracial country, and people of all backgrounds call this their home.”
“Using thorium, the current stock of nuclear waste could be recycled into new reactors, which presents an opportunity to solve the waste problem once and for all. Does Tim Eagle recognise that we should be at the frontier of those developments and not simply a laggard? Tim Eagle: I absolutely recognise that.”
“We still have no timeline for the Nairn, Elgin or Keith bypasses. When concerns were raised about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, we led the opposition. When concerns were raised about the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, we fought the fight. When our fishing industry needed a voice, we were there for it.”
“When others were afraid to discuss welfare reform, we were prepared to have that conversation, not because it is easy but because responsible government requires difficult conversations. When Scotland’s ferries descended into chaos, it was us—the Scottish Conservatives—who continued to relentlessly pursue answers.”
“That is the point: there were good, skilled jobs, which allowed young people to stay in the area, so that they could have crofts and families and build houses.”
“I will try to keep to that, Presiding Officer. It has certainly been an interesting debate to listen to. My colleague Murdo Fraser talked about the word salad of the motion. I was not quite sure what I should zone in on, but I will start with the title, which is “Scotland Needs Reform”.”
The complete record
Every one of 444 lines we hold for Tim Eagle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“If it had not been there, which the SNP wants, we would be thousands of megawatts of electricity down. I do not know what to make of that, but I think that prices would surge and, potentially, we would have blackouts. That is not a world that I want to live in. In the communities that I represent in the Highlands, people are getting fed up with having wind turbines on every hill that they come across. Nuclear is important and we need to have a grown- up discussion about it. The SNP needs to change its ideological opposition to nuclear. 18:29”
“Wales and England are embracing that; we could, too. We could have highly skilled jobs and good incomes, which are deeply important in rural communities such as Caithness and north Sutherland. I have received an email from one of the nuclear associations, which said that an electricity margin notice was issued last night. I am sure that members will know what that means, but for anyone who does not know, it means that there was high demand for electricity. I do not know how many members had fans on or the air conditioning on in their hotel last night, because it was so warm. That was the first time since January 2025 that that has happened, but it is predicted that it will happen more often. Apparently, Torness was at full power when that happened.”
“Using thorium, the current stock of nuclear waste could be recycled into new reactors, which presents an opportunity to solve the waste problem once and for all. Does Tim Eagle recognise that we should be at the frontier of those developments and not simply a laggard? Tim Eagle: I absolutely recognise that. The member has just taken me back to a tour that I was given of Dounreay, which was an experimental site—did it have fast reactors, or something like that? I am not an expert, but the member is absolutely right that work was being done. We could have continued with it—we did not need to stop. As Paul Sweeney mentioned a minute ago, the way in which we talk about nuclear in the political discussion often sees us thinking about the nuclear of the past, but that is not where we are any more. Small modular reactors are changing.”
“That is the point: there were good, skilled jobs, which allowed young people to stay in the area, so that they could have crofts and families and build houses. That is why things such as nuclear power are so important, but when there is ideological opposition—the Greens are not even in the room for the debate; they are not even willing to discuss it—it is not a good place for the Government to be. I learned at that moment, as I am sure is the case down in Torness in the Lothians— [Interruption.] I am happy to give way. Paul Sweeney: The member might want to note the heritage of Dounreay, in his part of the world. The pioneering development there is to try to create a closed-loop zero-waste solution for nuclear, which is now in the site’s grasp, with molten-salt technology on the horizon.”
“I thank my colleague Liam Kerr for securing the motion for debate. He has done a sterling job of representing the nuclear industry for many years. It was also nice to hear about Ibiza; he must enjoy the infamous electronic dance scene there. I am speaking in the debate because I was introduced to nuclear many years ago for a short period. Way back in the early 2000s, I was a police officer in Caithness, which has Dounreay. I did not know much about nuclear before I went there but, when I was going around Thurso, I got to know just how important the industry is. Stephen Kerr spoke about skills—the entire economy in that area is focused on nuclear. Young people were excited to work in the sector, even though the site was being decommissioned.”
“What you say outside the chamber inflames tensions in a way that we do not need. The language that you use, that Thomas Kerr— who shouted at me a minute ago—uses online and that Nigel Farage, your leader down in London, uses is horrendous. [Interruption.] It is absolutely inappropriate language—just stop. You need to learn how to do this properly.”
“I do not approach immigration by seeking to divide communities or inflame tensions, as Reform appears to. I seek solutions even when they are difficult or unpopular in parts of this chamber. Victor Currie: Britain is a multiracial country, and people of all backgrounds call this their home. When we have uncontrolled, unmanaged migration, the additional numbers create pressures on our hospitals, in our schools and elsewhere that are felt by people of all backgrounds. Those are the people we are standing up for, and the only people talking about race are other parties, not Reform. Tim Eagle: I think you have to inwardly reflect on what you just said. I do not want to back up any other party in the chamber, but the point is—we heard this from the Liberal Democrats and Labour today—that your language is different outside the chamber.”
“We still have no timeline for the Nairn, Elgin or Keith bypasses. When concerns were raised about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, we led the opposition. When concerns were raised about the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, we fought the fight. When our fishing industry needed a voice, we were there for it. When our farmers needed certainty, we stood up for them, too, including against a new rural support plan that is less use than the proverbial chocolate teapot. Reform members have mentioned immigration. In my Highlands and Islands region, communities have raised legitimate questions about pressures on housing, services and local capacity. The situation around Cameron barracks has been an example that has led people of all political persuasions to reasonably ask for clarity and reassurance.”
“When others were afraid to discuss welfare reform, we were prepared to have that conversation, not because it is easy but because responsible government requires difficult conversations. When Scotland’s ferries descended into chaos, it was us—the Scottish Conservatives—who continued to relentlessly pursue answers. That situation is an ongoing tragedy and is to the massive detriment of my constituents who live on the west coast of Scotland. When will we see CalMac and Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd brought together and local people put on the board so that they are truly empowered in decision making? When promises on the A9, the A83, the A75 and the A96 were delayed, it was the Scottish Conservatives who stood up for the communities who were left continuously campaigning for the SNP to put the money in the pot.”
“Only this morning, I spoke, by chance, to a constituent whom I met outside the Parliament and who, having travelled more than 100 miles, was standing in the sun just to make the point that he is trapped in a cycle of despair because the empty property rates on a shop that he cannot sell and that he has had his entire life are taking his pension. Representatives of funeral parlours in Moray met me to say that hikes simply cannot be afforded, so they are being forced to increase the costs of a funeral. Yesterday’s statement on non- domestic rates was a non-event—yet another discussion, yet another delay and an act of inaction when our businesses need to hear when change will finally happen.”
“The truth is that being in opposition—[Interruption.] Thomas Kerr can shout from the sidelines all he likes, but he shouts enough online and nobody is listening any more. The truth is that being in opposition is not about posting slogans on social media or unilaterally declaring yourself to be the voice of the people; it is about consistently holding Governments to account. That is exactly what the Scottish Conservatives have done, are doing and will do to take Scotland forward over the next five years. When businesses such as those who contacted me in Lossiemouth were crying out for support, it was the Scottish Conservatives who repeatedly challenged the SNP on non-domestic rates. We led the calls for a pause on NDR, but the SNP refused to listen.”
“I will try to keep to that, Presiding Officer. It has certainly been an interesting debate to listen to. My colleague Murdo Fraser talked about the word salad of the motion. I was not quite sure what I should zone in on, but I will start with the title, which is “Scotland Needs Reform”. On that point, I think that there is broad agreement across the chamber. After 19 years of the SNP, I would certainly say that Scotland is in desperate need of change. Reform seems to have arrived in the Scottish Parliament and in politics as some sort of revolutionary force. However, the reality, at least at the beginning, is far less impressive. The foxes in the hen house had barely unpacked their suitcases when they were putting the media in a pen outside, which I thought was pretty shocking.”
“We are working on what LFASS and the voluntary coupled support scheme will look like, and we are ensuring that active farmers receive support so that rural communities are protected. I give that assurance to Tim Eagle and the farming community. Animal Welfare (Farrowing Crates) 2.”
“Farmers are at the heart of any food production system. The fundamental problem that we are facing is that, with the poor rural support plan, current subsidies such as the less favoured area support scheme are not hitting the mark. More and more farmers in my area, the Highlands and Islands, are raising the question of the future of LFASS. Will the minister confirm what the future is for subsidies such as LFASS? Jim Fairlie: Tim Eagle knows very well that the Government has been absolutely crystal clear that support for our primary producers is essential and we will continue to provide it. The shape of the support will be developed in the next number of years. The industry has been asking for certainty, and we have certainty between now and 2030— that is already guaranteed.”
“To ask the Scottish Government when it will bring forward proposals to reform the non-domestic rates system. (S7O-00029)”
“Amendment disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that amendment S7M-00290.2, in the name of Duncan Massey, which seeks to amend motion S7M-00290, in the name of Stephen Flynn, on growing Scotland’s economy, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the voting system. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Your vote has been recorded. For Ahmed, Irshad (Edinburgh and Lothians East) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baxter, Andrew (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (LD) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Edinburgh and Lothians East) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chou Turvey, Yi-pei (North East Scotland) (LD) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh North Western) (LD) Dijkstra-Downie, Sanne (Edinburgh Northern) (LD) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fagan, Joe (South Scotland) (Lab) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scot and Lothians West) (Con) Green, David (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scot and Lothians West) (Lab) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harley, Adam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (LD) Hoy, Craig (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Long, Joe (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacKinnon, Donald (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (Fife North East) (LD) Sangster, Katherine (Edinburgh and Lothians East) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Young, Jenny (Central Scot and Lothians West) (Lab) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Anderson, Heather (Dundee City West) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire West and Levern Valley) (SNP) Bannerman, Max (Highlands and Islands) (Reform) Barratt, David (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North) (SNP) Beresford, Senga (South Scotland) (Reform) Black, Dawn (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Bland, Amanda (Central Scot and Lothians West) (Reform) Bonnar, Steven (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Bouse, Gary (Falkirk West) (SNP) Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Bruce, Holly (Glasgow Southside) (Green) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Campbell, Kate (Edinburgh Eastern, Musselburgh and Tranent) (SNP) Campbell, Michelle (Renfrewshire North and Cardonald) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Currie, Victor (Highlands and Islands) (Reform) Day, Martyn (Falkirk East and Linlithgow) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Kelvin and Maryhill) (SNP) Duane, Iris (Glasgow) (Green) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Flynn, Stephen (Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine) (SNP) Gethins, Stephen (Dundee City East) (SNP) Ghani, Zen (Glasgow Cathcart and Pollok) (SNP) Gibson, Patricia (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Goodlad, Hannah Mary (Shetland Islands) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Hagmann, Katie (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen and Cambuslang) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Kerr, Alex (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) Kerr, Calum (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Kerr, Thomas (Glasgow) (Reform) Kinross-O’Neill, Kayleigh (Edinburgh and Lothians East) (Green) Kirkwood, David (South Scotland) (Reform) Kumar, Simita (Edinburgh South Western) (SNP) Langan, Jamie (South Scotland) (Reform) Leask, Kristopher (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Lindsay, Amanda (Central Scot and Lothians West) (Reform) MacDougall, Julie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Reform) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scot and Lothians West) (Green) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh North Eastern and Leith) (SNP) Manivannan, Q (Edinburgh and Lothians East) (Green) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Massey, Duncan (North East Scotland) (Reform) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McDade, Helen (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Reform) McKee, Cara (West Scotland) (Green) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Easterhouse and Springburn) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian Coast and Lammermuirs) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Melville, Lloyd (Angus South) (SNP) Merrick, Colm (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Middleton, Jack (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mitchell, Laura (Moray) (SNP) Moodie, Laura (South Scotland) (Green) Nevens, Kate (Edinburgh and Lothians East) (Green) Offord, Malcolm (West Scotland) (Reform) Oswald, Kirsten (Eastwood) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Ross, Angela (Edinburgh and Lothians East) (Reform) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Schmulian, Kim (Glasgow) (Reform) Simpson, Graham (Central Scot and Lothians West) (Reform) Simpson, Mark (North East Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Edinburgh Central) (Green) Smith, Alyn (Stirling) (SNP) Smith, David (West Scotland) (Reform) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stafford, Pauline (Bathgate) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thewliss, Alison (Glasgow Central) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on amendment S7M-00290.3, in the name of Daniel Johnson, which seeks to amend motion S7M-00290, in the name of Stephen Flynn, on growing Scotland’s economy, is: For 35, Against 87, Abstentions 0.”
“I, Tim Eagle, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports that NHS Grampian is looking to save £177 million over the next five years, what impact this will have on the board's staff and services, and, in particular, on Dr Gray's hospital. (S6O-05708)”
“The rural support plan has been welcomed by NFU Scotland, because it provides certainty and shows that we are continuing to work with our farming community. It was the Tories who froze the agricultural support budget, and it is the Labour Party that has Barnettised it. Any farmer who is listening to this exchange will fully understand that we are working with the sector and are continuing to make direct payments, and that Scotland is the only part of the UK where that is happening.”
“The rural support plan that was published just yesterday is a huge let-down. It is not just me who is saying that—many stakeholders are, too. Importantly, the figures in the plan amount to a real-terms cut of about £250 million, which is a huge decrease in funding to our rural sector. Despite the wide calls for more funding that have been made by stakeholders and the fact that the sector is being asked to deliver so much, why has the Scottish National Party Government chosen to let down our rural sector with its funding announcement? Jim Fairlie: I am sorry, but if anyone has let down the rural sector, it is members of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. The Scottish Government continues to provide direct payments.”
“Therefore, we must ensure that housing, jobs, employment, transport and opportunities are the very best that they can be, if they are to feel safe enough to return to Scotland at some point in their lives. It is one thing to have a rural depopulation plan, as I have said; it is another thing to live and breathe it. I just want to recognise, as we should all recognise—and as I hope that Parliament will recognise in the new session—that rurality might well cost more, but Scotland would be a very different place without it. 14:10”
“That bridges do not get fixed; that the A9 and A96 have not been dualled; that councils do not receive the funding that they need; that rural buses and services are stopping; and that parcel delivery is more expensive—those things, and many more, are rural penalties that we have failed to deal with and which we will need to deal with. Finally—this, too, is incredibly important—I want to send a message to the young people of rural Scotland. I know that many of them will want to travel, explore the world and see the lights of the big cities as they get older, but I want them to know that there will always be a home for them in rural Scotland.”
“I thank the communities across the Highlands and Islands that are doing so much to keep rural Scotland going, making businesses work, helping each other and working to attract the professionals whom we need across rural Scotland. However, I also want to highlight the challenges and the increasing number of rural penalties that I feel that I see. I tried to put an exemption for travel on health grounds into the visitor levy, and I think that it represents a rural penalty that my amendment did not get through. The fact that patients have to travel for routine care is a rural penalty. The fact that ferries do not work is a rural penalty.”
“It is fair enough that people might have to travel for complex surgery, but we should be delivering basic services as local to home as possible. My second debate was on the rural depopulation crisis. It is one thing to have a plan to deal with rural depopulation—it is another to deliver it. As Oliver Mundell has said, rurality might cost more, but what would Scotland be if we did not deliver for rural Scotland? My final debate was on rural bridges and the importance of connecting communities. There are now four bridges in Moray that are falling down, and it is not right that we are disconnecting communities in that way. If I return, as I hope, in the next parliamentary session, I will continue the pressure to bring back the capital funding that is required for rural bridges.”
“I have been on thousands of farms across the north-east and the Highlands and Islands; I have been on many estates; and I have worked with different communities. It is, for me, a passion that I wanted to bring into this chamber when I came here just over two years ago. At that time, I went to my party’s chief whip and said, “I want to do something on rural Scotland,” and, in the past two years, I have been lucky enough to secure three members’ business debates on the issue. The first was on health and social care, because I recognised very early on in my days on the council that that was an incredibly important area. Indeed, I think to this day that it is not right that basic services are not delivered in rural communities throughout Scotland.”
“Before I start, I want to thank Oliver Mundell. He has been a great colleague, and I thought that he gave a really good speech on rural Scotland and what it means. I also thank Mairi Gougeon for the work that I have been able to do with her over the past year. It is frustratingly difficult to enrage her, which is always annoying for those on committees, but we have had a good working relationship. We might not agree on things, but I am sad to see her go. Finally, I have a quick message about John Mason. For those of us of Christian faith in the Parliament, he has led by example, and his prayer breakfast will not be forgotten. The pastries have always been welcome on a Thursday morning. Rural Scotland is, to me, incredibly important. I have spent my entire working life there.”
“Tim Eagle: You see why I did not want to say that on the public record. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am rather relieved that you did not say that through the chair, Mr Eagle. Tim Eagle: My apologies, Presiding Officer. Finally, I thank my colleague Edward Mountain, who has been an incredible campaigner for rural Scotland. This Parliament will miss Edward Mountain greatly. He has worked across benches and within the Scottish Conservative Party, and he has done strong work with the Scottish stoma forum and on everything that he believes in. 17:09”
“Although my colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston will also talk about that later on, I express my personal thanks to Rhoda Grant. Rhoda, it has been a pleasure to serve with you on the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. You are a determined and principled voice for the Highlands and Islands, and we will deeply miss you. I do not want to say this on the public record, but Richard Leonard was a slight crush of mine during his early days as leader of the Scottish Labour Party—in a good way! I did not agree with what you said, Richard, but every time that you stood up to speak, the determination that you brought in your passion for workers’ rights was quite something to behold. I do not necessarily agree with you, but, to this day, I am captivated by what you say whenever you stand up, Richard Leonard. Members: Oh!”
“Schools, local services and small businesses often depend on the stability that it provides. If we are serious about tackling rural depopulation in the Highlands and Islands, crofting must remain a part of the solution. Therefore, although I absolutely support this bill and what it brings, I see it as only a first step. The next Government must commit to the fuller review of crofting law for which crofters have been waiting for many years, and I am pleased that the minister just confirmed that. We cannot again provide only an update, because crofting deserves more than that piecemeal reform. It deserves a clear, modern and coherent framework that protects its traditions while ensuring that it can thrive in the decades ahead. Before I finish, I am acutely aware that we have three people doing their final speeches today.”
“Crofting land should not simply become a passive landscape under the banner of rewilding or habitat creation. I do not feel that we have yet asked communities what that would mean for them. Active occupation and active land management are at the heart of what crofting means. That brings us to a broader question that the Parliament will eventually have to confront: what does crofting mean in 21st-century Scotland? I have said this before, but it is worth repeating: crofting is not just about land use; it is about the people, the families and those remote rural areas. It is about sustaining Gaelic culture and local traditions, and supporting fragile communities that might otherwise face depopulation. In many parts of the Highlands and Islands, crofting provides the foundation for community life.”
“The bill does not fundamentally address those challenges, and leaves wider questions about the future of crofting largely unanswered. Crofting has always been about active land management. The primary purpose of a crofting business, for me, remains agricultural activity. Through that activity, crofters contribute not only to food production but also to biodiversity, habitat enhancement, carbon sequestration and the maintenance of the landscapes that define the Highlands and Islands. There are legitimate concerns, which were raised during scrutiny of the bill, about the land being used solely for environmental purposes without active management. Environmental benefits are important, but they must not come at the cost of abandonment or absenteeism.”
“At that point, there was an expectation across crofting communities that a full and meaningful modernisation of the framework would follow; yet, here we are, almost a decade later, considering legislation that makes only partial and technical changes. That reality was recognised by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in its stage 1 report, which highlighted the continued importance of crofting and the cultural, economic and social benefits that it brings to rural Scotland. However, the committee also recognised that the deeper structural questions around crofting law remain unresolved. Many crofters tell me that the legal framework surrounding crofting remains complex, fragmented and, at times, difficult to navigate.”
“As I said at stage 1, there are elements of the bill that I welcome. It provides a number of useful technical clarifications and procedural improvements to existing crofting legislation. In particular, it attempts to streamline processes, improve transparency and modernise some administrative tasks. There was also constructive engagement between the Scottish Government and stakeholders prior to the bill’s publication, which is worth recognising. However, although the bill contains worthwhile measures, it is important that we are honest about what it is and what it is not. This is not the comprehensive reform of crofting law that many people expected it to be. Members may remember that this Parliament undertook a review of crofting in 2017.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I have a small farm, albeit that it is not a croft. Crofting is one of the defining features of life in the Highlands and Islands. I am certainly not the first to say it, but crofting is not simply a system of land tenure; it is a way of sustaining communities, supporting rural families and protecting landscapes. It is a core part of Highland culture. For generations, crofters have helped to shape the character of some of the most fragile and beautiful parts of our country, and their contribution to our rural economy and food production remains enormously important. That is why legislation that affects crofting matters deeply to the communities that rely on it—to my constituents in the Highlands and Islands.”
“It was incredible to see the hundreds of people in that building, from parents on the poolside to coaches and judges, as well as the swimmers, all of whom were doing an amazing job. My message is that sport is incredibly powerful. As well as delivering future health outcomes, sport can bring communities together and reduce the amount of money that we need to spend on services. Finally, I say a huge thank you to all the volunteers across the country, without whom our sports clubs simply would not work. I am talking about the parents—the mums and dads—the aunties, the uncles and all those who enable our sports clubs to work every day. As Brian Whittle said, the Parliament needs to give much more consideration to sport, and I hope that that will be the case in the next parliamentary session. 10:16”
“I have toured around the north and north-east of Scotland with a group of young people, and I have never been prouder of what they have achieved since primary 1. We have 15 or 16 boys who have worked hard to gel as a team. Nothing gave me more pleasure than making them do press-ups when they said naughty words on the pitch. All that shows the power of sport. My son has done incredibly well as a result of his group succeeding in coming together as a team, and my daughter has flourished as a result of the benefits that swimming brings. I commend everyone who is involved in running those activities. I recently attended the Scottish Amateur Swimming Association north district event in Aberdeen.”
“When my wife and I were parents with a young family, she had the pleasure of getting involved in the swimming club in Buckie, which meant that she got to spend her weekends with our daughter, indoors, at a nice warm poolside, while I had the pleasure of taking on the football side of things. I know nothing about football—I played rugby as a child and had nothing to do with football. However, I did my level 1.1 introduction to coaching course with the Scottish Football Association. I followed that with the level 1.2 course, and, in May this year, I will do the level 1.3 course. That will involve me spending nine hours learning about football, which I am still not sure that I know anything about.”
“Sport is not protected in council budgets and is an easy thing to cut when we are trying to ensure that we have enough social care or are dealing with additional support needs in schools. Sport can often get lost. In 2019-20, I tried to make the argument that Moray Council should be part of a project to bring a running track to the community, because an athletics club was training on what was basically a dirt pitch and I did not think that that was good enough. I think that we should have facilities across Scotland to enable people wherever they are, whether it is in rural or urban areas, to do the best that they can.”
“I was sitting in a room with a bunch of independent councillors and some of my colleagues, and the subjects that came up were big things such as education, social care and gritting the roads. Sport came up, and I remember everyone trying to put that right at the far end of the scale, but, as a young parent at the time, I tried to argue that that was not where we should put it. I said that if we saw sport for what it is, we would put at the top, because it saves money for the future. If we can get people embedded in sport at a young age, we can save money that might be spent on later health problems. I lost the argument at the time, but still think, to this day, that we should make much more of sport.”
“I thank Brian Whittle for securing the debate. I have been here for two years, and he and I have had more conversations in the stairwells about sport, and the power of sport in people’s lives, than I care to remember. He is a true champion of sport in Scotland, and I hope that he will return to continue to put pressure on the Parliament to deliver for our young people and for everyone across Scotland. I find sport incredibly important. I remember becoming a councillor in 2017. Not long after that, councillors were at a meeting at the Glasgow School of Art premises at Forres, up in Moray, where we had to do a prioritisation exercise about what we thought was important.”
“Therefore, amendment 47 does not use the term “carbon credits” but it seeks to ensure that crofters get value from their endeavours. There is nothing in amendment 47 that would prevent crofters from entering into joint agreements with a landowner. The problem is that the landowner is not part of that joint agreement and does not want to take part, but is sitting back and hoping to make financial benefit from it. I therefore believe that amendment 47 is necessary. I do not think that the matter should be determined in the court. Crofting is different from other patterns of ownership in that the crofter is already entitled to the peat and forestry on their croft, and nobody else should be able to take that from them. I will therefore move amendment 47. 16:45”
“However, there is a concern that, if the crofter invests time, labour and finance in forestry or peatland restoration, the landlord will try to sell the carbon credits over their head. Amendment 47 therefore seeks to ensure that the financial benefit of any crofter’s activity remains with the crofter. That is custom and practice and it is wise to set it out in law. The landowner has no control over the peat or trees on a croft or common grazing, and therefore they cannot take any benefit from that work, because they have no idea what will happen to those trees or peat in the future. At stage 2, the Scottish Government stated that there was a legal difficulty with including carbon credits in the bill, because they were not legally defined.”
“Amendment 46 would add a paragraph to the section that states that, should the owner add conditions to consent for environmental purposes, they must specify why they are imposing them and why they believe that they are reasonable. I have listened to what the minister said about amendment 16A and I accept his assurances, so I will not seek to move that amendment. On amendment 47, when we were taking evidence on the climate change plan, the committee heard that there were issues with progress and questions about who was responsible for the environmental use of a croft that was holding back peatland restoration, for example. At the moment, a crofter is entitled to cut peat and plant trees on their crofts—indeed, we have forest crofts.”
“A lot of the detailed work on the natural capital markets is on-going, but it would be premature to set out in legislation at this stage how any financial benefit from a scheme should be shared between landlords and tenants. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 47. I move amendment 5. Rhoda Grant: I will speak to amendments 43 to 46, 16A and 47. As the minister said, the bill was amended at stage 2 to remove the words “substantially”, “undue” and “significantly”. I wanted to see those words put back into the bill, because I believe that landowners cannot spuriously stop developments on a croft. That was before I saw the new section 50ZA and, given the minister’s assurances, I do not intend to move those amendments.”
“With regard to other environmental uses, the provision would sit uncomfortably with new section 50AA of the 1993 act, which provides for grazings committees to be able to enter into binding joint venture agreements with the owner of the grazings with the consent of the commission. I believe that the measures that we have set out in the bill deliver the right balance that will ensure that crofting communities can benefit from environmental uses of common grazings. As part of the wider review of crofting law, we are committed to carefully considering how natural capital markets can support vibrant crofting communities. I turn to the wider issues of natural capital and financial benefits that must be looked at in a wider cross-Government space to ensure that natural capital markets support vibrant crofting communities.”
“However, as a public body, the commission is already under a statutory obligation to act reasonably and to communicate fully the reasons for its decisions. Duplicating those obligations in the bill would be bad law and, for that reason, I ask members to oppose amendment 16A. Finally, Rhoda Grant’s amendment 47 would provide that grazings committees should be entitled to all the financial benefit from an approved crofter-led forestry or environmental initiatives on the common grazings. In respect of forestry, that would cut across the measures that are already in the bill that ensure that a grazings committee will continue to have exclusive economic and recreational use of woodlands on its grazings.”
“In future, the final decision will lie with the commission, which will decide how much weight should be given to a decision to refuse consent on account of, for example, detriment to the management of the estate. The commission will set out its reasons for its decisions on such applications. We want that process to be—as far as is possible—the standard process that will apply to all decisions, so that the commission considers the wider public interest when it takes a view on the balance of the benefits and the drawbacks of the scheme. Rhoda Grant’s amendment 16A would require that, in imposing any conditions of its own, the commission must act reasonably and must set out its reasons for decisions, including why they are justified. I think that we all agree that the commission should do that anyway.”
“Rhoda Grant’s amendments 43 to 46 propose changes to the landowner’s role in that process. I am happy to support amendment 46, because it is right that the owner should be required to specify any conditions that they wish to impose and the rationale for them, but I cannot support amendments 43 to 45, which would reinstate three words that were removed from the bill at stage 2 through amendments that I supported. Amendments 43 to 45 would forbid the owner from refusing consent on the grounds of detriment, hardship or loss, unless those impacts were substantial, undue or significant. At stage 2, I argued that those words were unnecessary because, with the bill, we are strengthening the role of the commission.”
“The bill will give tenant crofters the right to put their croft to an environmental use, and consequential changes are needed to provisions of the 1993 act that refer to the uses to which a croft can be put—they are section 30, on compensation for improvements; section 58, on the commission’s decision making; and schedule 2, on the statutory conditions of tenure. The necessary changes will be made by amendments 29 to 31 respectively. I am happy to support Alasdair Allan’s amendments 16 to 21, which seek to clarify important changes that the bill will make. They seek to make it clear that the commission, not the landowner, will have the final say on a grazings committee application for the common grazings to be used for an environmental purpose or for forestry.”