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 4 of 9.
“However, I take Patrick Harvie’s point. It is, of course, open to the member who raised the issue—and, indeed, to Mr Harvie—to pick it up with his business manager, for the matter to be discussed at the Parliamentary Bureau. That is how the bureau and this Parliament work. I say gently to Douglas Lumsden that talking of MSPs “sloping off” on a Thursday afternoon is a bit rich considering the barren nature of his party’s benches pretty much every Thursday. The Presiding Officer: The question is that, amendment S6M-20068.1, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, which seeks to amend motion S6M- 20068, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“We want an update to be given not just to the petitions committee, but to the Parliament. Those of us who want to see an energy strategy that is based on serious climate policy also expect to see that brought to the chamber, although not as a result of a short-term proposal for a debate at the last minute. I think that the entire Parliament expects such a debate to happen in the new year, because the Government will not be able to go into the next election without making clear whether it supports doubling down on the fossil fuel industry or maintaining the presumption against new oil and gas extraction. Graeme Dey: Given all the activity that I have noted and the fact that there is already a parliamentary process covering the topic, the request for a debate, certainly ahead of that concluding, is unnecessary.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. My understanding is that the time is allocated so that any member can lodge a change to the business motion. To call us performative is an insult to other members in the chamber. The Presiding Officer: Members can raise issues that they wish to have debated at this point, but the content of members’ contributions is generally a matter for them. The chair will intervene where required. Patrick Harvie: Having made that comment, I would like the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans and his Government colleagues to be aware that others—not those who want a debate based on doubling down on the fossil fuel industry or chasing the votes of climate deniers— want a serious update on the energy strategy.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what plans it has to amend tax thresholds in the next Scottish budget. (S6O- 05274)”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is engaging with communities based near the Moray Firth regarding the proposed Moray FLOW-Park project. (S6O- 05243)”
“The consenting around the development will have to be undertaken thoroughly and rigorously. I do not think that anybody standing in my position, of whatever party stripe, would, without any knowledge of a development, applications or impact assessments, make a judgment on a project, whether it is based in the marine environment or terrestrially.”
“Just like Murray Sampson did, I ask the cabinet secretary whether she ever hears the concerns of local people and just says, “No way.” Gillian Martin: I think that anyone in my position, whether it is a Labour, Scottish National Party or Conservative energy secretary, would adhere to the processes that are set out in UK and Scottish legislation on anything to do with planning. On the development that Mr Eagle referred to— Moray FLOW-Park—no marine licence applications have been submitted. The project remains at a very early stage, although I believe that exploratory surveys have been undertaken by the developer. The developer is encouraged to engage with stakeholders and the local community. Such engagement is the very least that we should expect. Until an application comes in, I will not be in receipt of all of the developer’s plans.”
“I want to bring this back to the voice of local people. A few weeks ago, I asked at First Minister’s question time how local people could engage on the proposed Moray FLOW-Park plans. Last week, 600 people crammed into Universal hall in Findhorn and Nairn community centre to put their views across. Murray Sampson of Moray Firth Wind Sports asked a question that is relevant not just to this project but to many projects. “Can we bring it back to basics?”, he asked—“Look at Nairn, Findhorn, Burghead. Look at the beauty. Is there anywhere that the Crown Estate looks at and just says, ‘No way’?” Today, I bring the voice of far more than the 600 people who were in the room with me last week—I bring the voice of fishermen and communities who do not feel listened to.”
“It is simply not good enough, and I cannot carry on coming to the chamber and making the same arguments over and over again and getting no answers from the Government. There are five SNP members in the chamber tonight. I am not attacking those who are in the room, but this is more than a members’ business debate—it is about the really serious, life-altering impacts of what is currently going on in rural Scotland. That must change, and that is my message. 18:14”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Through the chair. Tim Eagle: I was on the IJB in Moray when the hospital at home model was being discussed, and I remember making the point at the time that the model works only if we have people in communities who can run it. We do not have those people, so we end up sending people home early from secondary care, who do not then get the support that they need. That puts more and more pressure on primary care, and then we all attack the GPs. I should declare a slight interest here—this is not actually in my entry in the register of members’ interest, but I declare that my wife is a GP. There are heartbreaking real-life consequences as a result of what we are currently facing in healthcare in rural Scotland.”
“I was going to talk about the fact that I have one constituent currently on my books who presented to their GP in May with what turned out to be breast cancer, and they are only now starting treatment. That is a young woman with a young family who has waited months and months for treatment. In my eyes, that is not acceptable. I was going to talk about the lack of beds. Grampian has the least acute bed space in the whole of Scotland, and yet nothing is being done to correct that. I was going to talk about delays to people being able to leave hospital because we have shut down community hospitals. Christine Grahame: I am obliged to the member for taking my intervention. I am not aware of this—perhaps you can advise me. Does NHS Grampian operate the hospital at home model, which has made great progress in the Borders?”
“I thank the member for bringing this really important members’ business debate to the chamber. In some ways, I am a little bit shocked. I had a speech prepared, but I am not going to go through my speech—I will speak for a shorter time. I am my party’s spokesperson on rural issues, but what shocks me is that we are all having exactly the same problems. I was going to speak about exactly the same things that Finlay Carson, Sharon Dowey and members of the Labour Party have spoken about. I was going to speak, for example, about the fact that we have ambulances queuing outside Dr Gray’s hospital and Aberdeen royal infirmary for hours on end, with patients stuck in the back, because they cannot get inside.”
“I move amendment S6M-19739.2, to insert at end: “, and opposes the proposed Moray Firth FLOW-Park, which will have a negative impact on the local fishing sector and for which plans have received significant and widespread opposition.” 15:44”
“We accept the SNP’s wording about fishing, but I ask all parties to stand with us in sending a clear and united message that developments such as the Moray Firth FLOW-Park must not proceed in the wrong place at the wrong time. The message from local people was loud, clear and heartfelt and ignoring it would be an abdication of our responsibility. Scottish fishing is more than an industry; it is a heritage and a community and is the backbone of our coastal identity. Today, its future is under threat from unfair funding decisions, the spatial squeeze, harsh quota cuts and policies that fail to grasp the realities of life at sea. We must be able to deliver the proper long-term future that fishermen deserve.”
“Their message was simple: they are not opposed to progress, but they want development done properly, at the right time, in the right place and with genuine consideration for livelihoods and local ecology. Many fishermen in Moray feel misled and overlooked. Some have invested heavily to diversify their businesses, build resilience and create jobs but are being asked to sacrifice everything for projects that appear to be rushed and poorly sited and that lack proper engagement. The proposed location for the Moray Firth FLOW-Park covers several protected areas, sits close to a Ramsar site and lies adjacent to a nature reserve. Those are not minor details; they are significant concerns.”
“When we speak about fishing, we must remember the wider picture, because the industry supports thousands of jobs, contributes millions to our economy, anchors remote and island communities and plays a critical role in domestic food security. It also contributes to the stewardship of our marine environment, because responsible fishing and healthy seas must go hand-in-hand. We must reaffirm, not only in words but in action, our commitment to protecting livelihoods, safeguarding food security and ensuring that fishermen, not distant bureaucracies or competing commercial pressures, are placed at the centre of decision making. Finally, I turn to the Moray Firth FLOW-Park. Last week, more than 600 people came to my public meetings in Findhorn and Nairn.”
“Those cuts will not only impact the catching sector but will hit processors, hauliers and the many coastal businesses that rely on the fleet’s success. I caution the Government that changes to the economic link requirements are not the right answer, which is why it is vital that the fishing industry is properly listened to, not as an observer or a stakeholder but as a primary partner. I will highlight one positive and forward-looking initiative—the Clyde vision, which is a strategy that provides a comprehensive vision for investment, sustainability and growth in the inshore sector in that region. It deserves to be taken seriously in Government planning, not only as a document but as a road map for real and meaningful development.”
“I turn to our white-fish, demersal sector, where we face another crisis—the ICES zero-catch advice for northern shelf cod, which industry leaders have called outrageous. The Shetland Fishermen’s Association described it as “fleet- ending madness” and it is right to raise the alarm, because cod, haddock, whiting and other species are caught together in mixed fisheries. We cannot simply legislate cod out of the net and it is impossible to eliminate cod bycatch while still catching other species, which means that a blanket ban is not only unworkable but potentially devastating. We need a smarter, more nuanced, evidence-based approach. Our pelagic fleet faces its own pressures. Cuts to key quotas, especially for mackerel, are projected to hit hard from 2026 onwards.”
“There are more who I could name, not least the incredible duo of ex- skipper and industry stalwart Ian Gatt and SFF chief executive Elspeth Macdonald, who I believe are in the gallery today. Fishermen have highlighted concerns about the relationship between UK and EU vessels in Scottish waters, where rules are not being enforced properly and our own fishermen are losing out because of that. They see the rules being applied lightly to others but heavily to us, along with the consequences of the 12-year deal that allows EU access to UK waters. Many in Scotland’s fleet believe that that deal undermined our negotiating position and their economic future. For them, the deal was a moment of deep frustration.”
“I will acknowledge some of the individuals who have helped to shine a light on those issues. They are people who have spent decades advocating for the industry, pushing it forward and ensuring that its stories are heard: Peter Smith of Buckie, an innovator whose adventures aboard the Victory are known in communities across the country; Jim Cowie of Caithness, a merchant, processor, auctioneer, restaurateur and now podcast host whose passion for Scottish seafood has never dimmed; Jimmy Buchan, who needs no introduction and whose life-long dedication to the sector is felt from the deck of the boat to the halls of Government; and Hans Unkles, whose electric boat, the Lorna Jane, shows what innovation in the fleet can truly look like.”
“The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has been crystal clear that continued development at the current rate could displace fishing effort to such an extent that the remaining grounds simply cannot absorb the loss. A joint study by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the SFF outlined scenarios in which the expansion of offshore renewables leads to major reductions in fishing output and substantial job losses, not only on vessels but across entire coastal communities that depend on them. That is not a theoretical concern: time and again, marine planning decisions proceed without meaningful engagement with those who depend on the sea for their livelihood. Perhaps, in closing, the cabinet secretary could help me understand why there is not fuller discussion with the industry about fair compensation.”
“I hope that she will support our amendment, which I will come to later in my speech. At the moment, £28 million to support our coastal communities each year—to renew fleets, back innovation and invest in the next generation of fishermen—does not come close enough. Perhaps Labour colleagues will bring us the good news that Westminster has heard Scotland’s call and that it will bring a better and fairer offer. However, funding is only part of the challenge. Out at sea, another pressure is growing fast—that of spatial squeeze. That is a term that many people outside the industry have never heard, yet its consequences will be felt across Scotland. Spatial squeeze happens when competing maritime uses—wind farms, marine protected areas, and new cables and pipelines—tighten the space in which our fishermen can operate.”
“Their sacrifice reminds us that fishing is not a statistic or a policy area; it is a way of life, carried by people whose courage underpins the prosperity of our coastal Scotland. Despite that, our fishing industry is today under immense economic strain. Scotland has been awarded just £28 million from the UK’s new £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund. That is 7.78 per cent of the total, yet we account for almost half the fishing jobs in the UK, and Scotland-registered vessels contribute more than 60 per cent of the value of all UK landings. The arithmetic speaks for itself—that allocation is not just inadequate; it is fundamentally unfair. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has raised that matter in her motion, and we support that part of the motion.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for securing this debate on fishing. I have been asking for such a debate for quite some time; indeed, I issued a press release months ago urging the Parliament to confront head on the challenges for and the future of our fishing industry. I am therefore grateful that, today, we dedicate our time to a sector that is woven into the fabric of who we are as a nation. Fishing is not merely an industry. Generations have built their lives around the sea, and the sea has shaped the communities that they call home. As we acknowledge that cultural importance, we must also acknowledge the cost. Many members will know families who have lost loved ones at sea—brave men and women taken far too soon.”
“I move, That the Parliament condemns the UK Government’s damaging decision to allocate Scotland only £28 million of the £360 million Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, which is only 7.78% of the fund; agrees that this is an entirely unfair settlement and calls on the UK Government to reverse this decision, as called for by the Scottish Government and industry stakeholders; acknowledges that Scotland previously received 46% of the EU funding allocated to the UK; welcomes that the Scottish fishing sector accounts for over 60% of the UK’s fishing capacity and over 60% of UK seafood exports, and that more than 75% of all UK quota species are landed by Scottish vessels; recognises the need for continued investment to build a thriving, sustainable and modern fishing industry, which is of key importance to Scotland’s island and coastal communities and the wider economy; acknowledges the range of challenges facing the fishing industry, including the ongoing negotiations with international partners to agree fishing opportunities for 2026 and the challenging advice for a number of key stocks, and further acknowledges Scotland’s negotiating position, which seeks to balance sustainably managed fish stocks alongside a sustainable and prosperous fishing sector.”
“Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The cabinet secretary is concluding. Mairi Gougeon: We hope to deliver the best outcome possible for Scotland. These are uncertain times for our fishing industry and the wider seafood sector. The negotiations are challenging, but I assure members that we will work collaboratively with international partners to secure the best outcome for Scotland. This SNP Government will continue to stand, as it always has done, with our coastal communities and support a thriving, modern and sustainable fishing industry.”
“Graeme Dey: I welcome that clarity on my point, which was that we had not previously received such requests. As I said a moment ago, we will give due consideration to any requests that are made to the Scottish Government on those matters. Stephen Kerr: Oh, come on. On a point of order, Presiding Officer— [Interruption.]”
“I have just sent those emails across to you now, minister, but you will obviously have had the previous—[Interruption.] Wait—hang on! The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Eagle. Please speak through the chair, Mr Eagle. Tim Eagle: Just to back up what Mr Kerr has said, he has sent letters to the minister on several occasions about the matters that he raised, and the minister will not be unaware of them. We have sent letters, as we always do, but I absolutely concur with the member. Surely, on matters as significant as this, which have a massive economic impact and involve huge infrastructure for our people—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Eagle. Tim Eagle: —the member has the right to bring them to the Parliament in any way that he chooses. As my party’s business manager, I have sent those letters across tonight.”
“Twenty years ago, around 30 per cent of agricultural land was tenanted; today, it is closer to 18 per cent, and the trend continues downward. That means fewer opportunities for new entrants, less flexibility for farming businesses and a less resilient rural economy. The Scottish Government, as a major landowner, should lead by example in supporting new farmers. Although nine starter farms were created on public land between 2012 and 2015, progress has stalled since, with the 2023 review highlighting missed opportunities and unclear plans. For instance, the Glen Prosen estate, bought in 2022 for nearly £18 million—”
“The policies must support those outcomes in practice, and for many new entrants and young farmers, that means tenancies. The stage 1 report raises concerns that deserve our attention. It says: “Others thought the changes, overall, would make owners even more loath to offer tenancies because of an increased financial risk. The fact that the changes are not solely forward-looking but will affect aspects of existing contracts was seen as unfair.” If we want to encourage more tenancies, more access to land and more opportunity for young farmers, we must build confidence and we must make landowners feel that it is fair and secure to let land, not riskier or more bureaucratic. I do not believe that the bill does that. The truth is stark: the area of tenanted land in Scotland has fallen dramatically over the past two decades.”
“We have seen that across Scotland, with new affordable housing built in partnership with estates, local businesses supported through shared land use, and renewable energy projects developed jointly between communities and private owners. Those partnerships do not make headlines, but they are the quiet engine of rural Scotland, delivering economic growth, employment and environmental progress. This bill and previous land reform bills have set out priorities around access to land, so I will talk about tenancies. I agree with the Scottish Government’s ambition, as laid out in its agricultural reform programme, to see “a thriving rural economy with more land-based jobs, stronger communities, and greater diversity of ownership.” I support that sentiment, but sentiment alone will not deliver it.”
“Across Scotland, there are powerful examples of communities taking control of local assets—from the Galson estate on Lewis, to Knoydart and Eigg—and delivering real benefits in housing, tourism, renewable energy and social cohesion. Those successes deserve recognition; however, we must be careful not to turn a success story into an ideology. Private ownership, too, brings enormous value to rural Scotland. It brings investment, jobs and local spending. It supports the people who work our land, manage our forests and power our economy. When there is a balance of fairness and trust, landowners and communities can and do work together to create opportunity.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I begin by recognising the work that has gone into the bill. I have appreciated the constructive engagement from the cabinet secretary and her officials throughout the process. We have worked together on a number of areas, and I acknowledge that good will. However, the fact remains that, on the central principles of the bill, we will never see eye to eye. There seems to be a consensus across much of the chamber that community land ownership is inherently better than private ownership and that large landowners—or medium landowners, as the bill has been amended—are somehow bad. I simply do not share that view. That is not to say that I am blind to the benefits that community ownership can bring.”
“Of course, confirmation of that is subject to a Parliamentary Bureau decision, but I have committed to bringing forward the debate, and it will happen.”
“I certainly do not agree that independence would help the Scottish fishing sector in the slightest, but I agree that the coastal grant fund simply was not enough. More importantly, there is far more to talk about in our wonderful Scottish fishing industry than I can ask about. Traditionally, every December, there has been a debate on fishing. I have been calling for that debate for a while. Will the cabinet secretary give me the assurance that, this December, we will finally have a big debate about the fishing industry on Government time? Mairi Gougeon: Earlier this year, I believe that I committed to Tim Eagle that we would have a debate. I hope that he got the response to his parliamentary question, which also set out that we would be holding that debate.”
“Instead of the long-term funding certainty that was available to us during our European Union membership, we now have an inadequate settlement within the United Kingdom that does not keep pace with the funding that Scotland received before we left the”
“What a surprise! Jim Fairlie: The Scottish Government is unequivocal—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: There is a lot of interest in asking supplementary questions and I would like to get everyone in. Minister, please continue. Jim Fairlie: I repeat that the Scottish Government’s support for Scotland’s farmers and crofters is unequivocal. We have provided a novel approach through the FFIS to deliver up-front investment to the sector to deliver on Scottish Government objectives. The UK spending review failed to recognise Scotland’s greater share of the UK landmass and seas and their potential to contribute significantly to the UK’s climate and nature restoration targets.”
“The code of practice on deer management is a vital document for ensuring that ministers, NatureScot and land managers work together proactively. That should ideally have been produced and debated during stage 1, but I can at least recognise that allowing NatureScot to only have regard to the code is too weak. Surely, if a code aims to bring people together, NatureScot must have to comply with it, so far as is reasonably practicable, so that its decisions are transparent and consistent.”
“I believe that significant amendment will be needed to bring clarity and proportionality to those powers. It is vital that NatureScot considers deer numbers and density in relation to their actual impact on the natural environment and avoids unnecessary interference with responsible land management. It will be vital to ensure that the grounds in the bill for any such intervention are tightened further. The bill as drafted allows action wherever deer “prevent or reduce” environmental work. That strikes me as being too broad. The same applies to the broad scope that allows intervention based on Government targets, strategies and plans, when it should be clearly stated that intervention should relate to deer management.”
“In their response to the stage 1 report, ministers say that they still wish to press ahead with part 2. I am not against that, but I fear that they may face an uphill battle in securing the trust of rural communities. Part 3 of the bill looks to change the priorities for national parks and to impose a duty on public bodies “to facilitate the implementation of National Park Plans”. That is despite the fact that existing national parks in Scotland have never been comprehensively reviewed, and local people have raised various concerns regarding governance, economic impacts, land use and community rights. I turn to part 4, on deer management. As drafted, it gives NatureScot extremely broad powers to intervene in how deer are managed, often on vague or undefined grounds.”
“Targets will be only as good as the actions to deliver them, says one environmental non- governmental organisation. Where are the assurances that we need on that? However, rural communities stand ready. For years, land managers, farmers, crofters, estate owners and local communities, in Scotland’s uplands and lowlands alike, have been willing to engage, support biodiversity objectives and integrate nature-friendly practices, while safeguarding food production, local economies and traditional rural values. Part 2 of the bill was widely panned by those who came before the committee. The risk is that the extensive powers that are proposed in relation to environmental impact assessment regimes and habitat regulations, among other things, could lead to radical changes to protected sites.”
“To be honest, I had slightly lost the will to read any more about biodiversity strategies by that point. Interestingly, the SNP website says that the SNP understands “the need to take decisive action to conserve our precious and valuable marine environment and biodiversity.” My word—if biodiversity is anything to go by, it is no wonder that independence is dead in the water. Here in 2025—21 years of left-wing ideological Governments later—we are still debating the same old ground and are only now introducing statutory targets in a bill to hold ministers to account. That is not because farmers, landowners and NGOs, or anyone else, were not ready and willing; it is because the previous non-statutory approach undertaken by the Government has been a failure.”
“In an attempt to deal with the sections of the bill in order, I will start with biodiversity targets. By way of history, Scotland’s first biodiversity strategy—“Scotland’s Biodiversity: It’s In Your Hands”—was published by a Labour Government in 2004 and has been supplemented and revisited several times. Its original 2010 targets failed to be met. In 2013, the Scottish National Party Government produced the “2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity”. The SNP managed to meet nine of the 20 targets in that but failed to meet the rest. The SNP then produced the “Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Post-2020: A Statement of Intent”. It paved the way for the 2045 strategy, which was released in draft in 2022 and finally published in November 2024.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests—I have a small farm up in Moray. After an eventful week with the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, it is a welcome change to discuss the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill today. Before I set out my reservations about it, I emphasise that my concerns are not about the broad principle of enhancing and protecting our natural environment. I truly accept the importance of that, and I recognise and congratulate the many farmers, crofters and landowners who, through agri-environmental schemes, have been taking forward that approach for years. I am concerned about whether the bill is needed now, the way in which it is being introduced in respect of the rural sector, traditional values and food production, and its impact on local communities.”
“The closure of bank branches is one more reason for rural depopulation. The loss of such services in our small rural towns and villages is one more reason for people to leave and for people not to move into those areas in their place. We must do more to reverse this trend. 13:14”
“They told me that their local branch is a “lifeline to many older people” and that the Bank of Scotland “make you feel like it is an offence nowadays to do your transactions using a cashier at a desk.” Although I welcome the measures that are being taken by some banks, such as Nationwide’s pledge not to close any branches until at least 2028 and Barclays halting closures for 2025 and 2026, the sad truth is that more closures will come unless banks figure out ways to diversify their branch offering and be more involved in their communities in order to increase footfall. That might seem like wishful thinking, but it should not be impossible for major banks to do things differently and to do more to protect the local bank branch rather than just concede and shut up shop. This is about more than just bank branches closing.”
“In fairness to Link, many of the impacted communities have local post offices, and I welcome the role that they play in stepping to fill the void that is left by bank branch closures. However, although post offices offer a range of services, they do not fully make up for the loss in expertise and enhanced services that disappear when a bank branch closes. One constituent contacted me about their Bank of Scotland branch closing in Dingwall.”
“Communities are facing fewer and fewer banking options. Although I welcome the work that groups such as Link and Cash Access UK do to step in when the big banks leave local communities, many of my constituents feel that the solutions are not adequate. Since 2022, Link has recommended that some 33 banking hubs be established across Scotland, but just three of those are in the Highlands and Islands region. When a hub has not been recommended, other, lesser alternatives have been suggested, such as a new ATM, a new assisted cash service and assisted counter services such as the cash hub in Lossiemouth town hall. Again, only on three occasions have communities in my region benefited from some of those alternatives.”
“I congratulate Craig Hoy on securing the debate. Local banks are often a hub for many people, especially in small, close-knit communities. They are part of the social fabric of rural communities that is sadly ebbing away. According to the Link group, some 2,209 bank branches have closed across the UK since February 2022, with around 233 of those in Scotland. There have been 40 closures in the Highlands and Islands region in that time. The number of branches closing has increased year on year up to 2025, although the number of closures has dropped this year—I suspect that that is because there are barely any branches left to close. Even just a few months ago, it was announced that Lloyds Banking Group was closing four of its Bank of Scotland branches, in Nairn, Dingwall, Gairloch and Tain.”
“The First Minister may or may not be aware of the Moray Firth floating offshore wind park project— FLOW-Park—that it is proposed should be developed off Findhorn and Nairn, and which would create wet storage facilities for offshore wind platforms. I have already met fishermen who are deeply concerned about the proposal, and on 11 November I will attend a public meeting in which hundreds of people have expressed an interest. I do not want the First Minister to tell me that he cannot comment on planning or licensing applications. However, perhaps he can help me to answer the age-old question that his Government is failing on: how can I ensure that the communities in Scotland that I represent are better heard and represented in the decision-making process?”