Mark Ruskell
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“I move amendment S7M-00434.3, to insert at end: “; recognises that, despite a media backlash, a majority of the public continues to back strong climate action, especially young people; further recognises that local communities and workers must have a meaningful participatory role in developing and implementing local climate action, with t…”
“I move, That the Parliament recognises that climate change constitutes an emergency; supports the goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius; notes the consequences of climate change that are currently impacting populations and places around the world; condemns any spread of misinformation about and denial of the impacts of clima…”
“Mark Ruskell was right to point out that we need a just transition, as we do not want to replicate the mistakes of the 1980s. However, we need action on electricity prices.”
“We cannot cut ourselves off from the impacts of global climate change, as Reform would want us to do, just as we cannot opt out of global action by pretending that Scotland does not have huge advantages over other countries when it comes to reducing emissions.”
“A study that was commissioned by the Institute for Public Policy Research a couple of months ago showed that 62 per cent of the UK public back strong climate action, and individual policies such as traffic reduction measures, frequent flyer taxes and low- carbon home heating remain popular.”
“We need to accelerate that action, because as we do so, we will build market certainty and create new markets that will provide new jobs and boost businesses. I think that I have made quite a lot of mention of the amount of GVA that it is bringing to Scotland.”
The complete record
Every one of 440 lines we hold for Mark Ruskell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 9.
“Kate Forbes: The member will appreciate that I do not want to get into hypotheticals and the what- ifs regarding things that might not go as we hope, because we are working extremely hard to ensure the best outcome for Alexander Dennis. The whole point of implementing a furlough scheme was to give us a bridge, so that we could overcome this gap. We remain very close to ADL. The member will recall that, when we first announced the furlough scheme, I was clear that Alexander Dennis was responsible for evidencing substantial orders before any grants could be claimed. The whole approach is to ensure that there is an order book. I will therefore avoid answering the question, but I hope that the member can see from our track record that we absolutely have done everything that we can to support ADL to this point.”
“I welcome the fact that the 26-week furlough scheme has been in place since September and is supporting workers at ADL. However, I am still trying to gauge how deep the Scottish Government’s commitment is to ADL. What will happen if, at the end of that 26-week process, the orders have not come? Obviously, I hope that they will, but if not, will the Government be prepared to extend the furlough scheme? Also, £45 million will be coming out of ScotZEB 3, and we hope that ADL will get some business on the back of that. Will that be announced before the end of the furlough scheme, which could help to give ADL some more certainty?”
“In my region, the scheme has been taken up by just over 100,000 young people, which has resulted in some 26.5 million journeys.”
“Those fare increases put significant financial strain on families across Scotland and disproportionately impact people on low incomes, women and people from minority ethnic communities, as they are more likely to rely on the bus. However, it does not have to be that way. The Scottish Greens have continuously fought to make public transport more affordable, accessible and reliable, which has included delivering free bus travel for all under-22s in Scotland from January 2022 and working constructively with the Government on successive budget deals. Three years on, we can see just how successful that scheme has been: since its roll-out, more than 250 million journeys have been made and there were over 800,000 cardholders as of June. I live with two of them at home.”
“Scottish Green MSPs believe that everyone in Scotland deserves to benefit from affordable, accessible and reliable transport, including from their local bus services. Having access to better buses has hugely positive impacts on people’s lives, helping everyone to access education and work opportunities, to be connected to vital local and national services and to connect with one another. It also plays a role in addressing the climate crisis, because it encourages us all to leave the car at home and cut climate pollution. However, people across Scotland still struggle with the affordability and accessibility of public transport, especially buses. Over the past decade, the cost of bus travel has risen by more than 60 per cent, which is faster than the rate of wages and the cost of living.”
“Labour supports Michael Matheson’s amendment 310, which dovetails with the functions of the new commissioner that we would all expect to see. It would give comfort to everyone regarding the parameters that the commissioner would work within. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Michael Matheson to speak to amendment 310 and other amendments in the group.”
“I have some sympathy with that view, but the question remains: where the Scottish Government own estates, who holds it to account if it does not fulfil its obligations? Amendment 200 would address that issue but in a different way from my previous amendment. It would place a duty on the land and communities commissioner to report on the Scottish Government’s compliance with its obligations under the bill when it is the landowner. Amendment 309 is an empowering amendment that details the land and communities commissioner’s functions by explicitly authorising them to commission research on three areas: “Land management... community empowerment, and... land valuation.” That would provide us with information on which to base future decisions and legislation.”
“That would put the role in the positive context of promoting engagement rather than focusing on investigation, enforcement and fines, which would reassure farmers and landowners that a priority of the commissioner will be to establish positive relationships. I ask that the other parties in the chamber recognise that point, because it is already the case with the tenant farming commissioner, and that they back amendment 202. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 200 and other amendments in the group. Rhoda Grant: Amendment 200 is based on my stage 2 amendment 335. That amendment was agreed to but then repealed last week by the Scottish Government, which argued that the provision would interfere with its working relationship with those who live and work on Government-owned land.”
“The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 required the newly established tenant farming commissioner to exercise their “functions with a view to encouraging good relations between landlords and tenants of agricultural holdings.” My amendment 202 seeks to mirror that requirement in the functions of the land and communities commissioner, giving them the function of “promoting engagement between landowners and communities.” A theme that appears in part 1 of the bill is to require landowners to engage more with communities and vice versa. Therefore, it seems only sensible that the commissioner that this bill creates will have a similar function to the one that is already carried out by the tenant farming commissioner.”
“It would require the commissioner “to work with the Scottish Ministers to ensure that landowners and communities are properly supported to manage wildfires”, and it would also allow the new commissioner to make recommendations where he or she considers there to be gaps in support. 18:00 Although I have some concerns about the creation of the new land and communities commissioner role more generally, my amendment 202 would help to reduce some of those concerns.”
“The wildfires highlighted the enormous skills and expertise that are held by private landowners in Scotland and exposed gaps in the public response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It was later determined that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service could benefit from more specialist equipment, requires more wildfire training, and should implement a wildfire management strategy. The rocketing number of wildfires in the past year alone is extremely illuminating. In just the first few months of 2025, the number of recorded wildfires in Scotland was triple the total number in the whole of 2024. Therefore, I propose in my amendment 201 to give the newly established land and communities commissioner functions to improve Scotland’s response.”
“Amendment 4 in my name would delete references in the bill that prevent someone who has been a large landowner in the preceding year from becoming the land and communities commissioner. My amendment 5 is consequential to amendment 2, so I will not press that. On my amendment 201, in June, extensive resources, manpower and expertise helped to tackle some of the largest ever fires near Carrbridge and Dava. At least 33 businesses, including 27 estates, helped to tackle the wildfires, and it is estimated that the collective value of the specialist firefighting equipment that was deployed by private landowners was around £3.1 million, with more than 100 employees helping in the efforts.”
“It is right to include consideration of wildfires when we discuss land reform. Amendment 202 promotes engagement rather than conflict. It is another sensible amendment from Mr Eagle, given that, if it is not correctly handled, the bill will build on the preconceived idea that landowners and tenants are always at loggerheads. My experience from my time managing land for landlords with tenants is that, if both sides talk, solutions can always be found. I will listen to the arguments. I move amendment 307. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Tim Eagle to speak to amendment 4 and other amendments in the group. Tim Eagle: I share some of the concerns that my colleague Edward Mountain set out.”
“I am not sure that the majority of people who might be considered for the appointment will have much knowledge, so to include that requirement in the portfolio of the land and communities commissioner is, to my mind, fundamentally wrong. On the other amendments in the group, I see some merit in Rhoda Grant’s amendment 200, which adds reporting on the compliance of ministers to the list of functions—which I have no doubt that ministers will dislike. Amendment 309 was recommended by the Law Society of Scotland. I am pleased to see that Rhoda Grant lodged it, and it makes sense. Amendment 201, in the name of Tim Eagle, brings the issue of wildfires into the equation. For too long, we have ignored the subject, and we seem to have learned nothing from the Dava moor fire.”
“We had that argument earlier in the year over the appointment of Mike Russell to the Scottish Land Commission. That was more of a political appointment than a case of the best person for the job. Amendment 88 removes from the list of functions of the land and communities commissioner the requirement “to keep under review emerging problems in the operation of natural capital markets”. I was involved in land management for more than 12 years, and I can tell members that the operation of natural capital markets is extremely complex. Even with 12 years’ experience, and having spoken to people about it for the subsequent 10 years while I have been in this Parliament, I am not sure that I fully understand it.”
“My amendments would exclude anyone who is, or was within the two years preceding their appointment, in the following categories: tenant farmers and crofters whose land exceeds 1,000 hectares—believe you me, Presiding Officer, there are some crofters whose land exceeds 1,000 hectares—board members of Scottish Land & Estates Ltd; members of Community Land Scotland; board members of NatureScot; members of the Crofting Commission; members of the Scottish Crofting Federation; and members of non-departmental public bodies. The purpose of the amendments is straightforward: to see whether the Government believes that all those categories are appropriate. If the Government believes that it is right to exclude large landowners only, my view would be that political appointments should not be made either.”
“I believe that there is some perception that all large landowners are bad, but I do not believe that they are. In my experience, for every bad large landowner, I could probably produce you a bad tenant, too. In my mind, to decide to exclude somebody because of what they have is totally wrong. My amendments in this group are simple. I want to test whether it is just large landowners that this Government particularly dislikes and distrusts with regard to being the land and communities commissioner.”
“They were totally excluded from my decision-making process before I was elected to this Parliament, and that has remained the case. I judge people on the evidence that they bring and on the contribution that they make to my business, and I have taken exactly the same approach here. I have dealt with every constituent who has come to me without favour and regardless of their political views. I therefore find the cabinet secretary’s exclusion of those who, in her own terms, comprise a minority group from being the land and communities commissioner totally wrong. What do I mean by that? The cabinet secretary has deemed that a large landholder may not be the land and communities commissioner. I do not understand the reasons behind that.”
“My view is that, if the land and communities commissioner has experience in land valuation, there will be less chance of getting the lotting wrong. The landowner will seek to get full value from the land when they transfer it but, if the value has not been considered in the lotting decision, that will not be given. Amendment 307 was proposed by the Law Society of Scotland for the simple reason that it sees legal challenges coming. I am extremely proud to be in this Parliament and I am proud that this Parliament does not view anyone or give anyone power based on how much they have, how little they have, where they come from, what their ethnicity is or what their religion is. Those things are all totally excluded from our decision-making process.”
“Amendment 198 agreed to. Section 6—Establishment of the Land and Communities Commissioner The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 13 is on the land and communities commissioner. Amendment 307, in the name of Edward Mountain, is grouped with amendments 4, 78 to 87, 199, 200, 5, 88, 201, 309, 202 and 310. I point out that, if amendment 4 is agreed to, I will be unable to call amendments 78 to 87 and 199 due to pre-emption. Edward Mountain: I lodged amendment 307 to ensure that the land and communities commissioner will have experience in land valuation. Why do we need to make sure that they have that? The answer is that the commissioner will give ministers advice regarding lotting. I absolutely believe that lotting will involve difficult decisions and that it will be open to legal challenge at all levels.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Patrick Harvie] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Maggie Chapman] Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 92, Against 25, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 197 not moved. Amendment 198 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 198 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“I remind the member of the Salvesen v Riddell case, which caused the same problem because ill-conceived legislation was passed as land reform purporting to do the right things. I believe that neither of those cases can be laid at the door of the landowners, but that the responsibility is on the Scottish Government, because it totally failed to understand what it was passing. I am not surprised that the cabinet secretary supports Martin Whitfield’s amendment. I am sure that they worked together on it, and I will be delighted to withdraw my amendment 196. However, I cannot agree with the cabinet secretary’s suggestion that all the other amendments, except amendments 89C and 89G, will build on Mr Whitfield’s amendment, so I urge the Parliament to vote against them. I will not press amendment 196. Amendment 196, by agreement, withdrawn.”
“Edward Mountain: I have listened to the arguments today, and I listened with care to what Martin Whitfield said about his constituent, Andrew Stoddart. To be clear, my understanding of that situation was that it came about because of flawed legislation in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Martin Whitfield: Edward Mountain is right to lay the fault in that space, but there was also the challenge of the inability of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to understand their responsibilities to the tenant farmer and of putting them in that position. Edward Mountain: I totally agree with that. How is it that every time we have a land reform bill, we have another case?”
“There is lots of important work for the Scottish Land Commission to do, but we do not want it to be reviewing the legislation so frequently that it is prevented from undertaking work on the next steps of our land reform journey. It is also not appropriate to link the review directly to royal assent, because there is always a delay between royal assent and the regulations being implemented. We want the review to be able to pull from as much experience of the operation of the provisions as possible. Finally, I turn to Edward Mountain’s amendments. He wants the pre-notification and transfer test provisions to end within five years of coming into force, with no means for a review. That is an extreme approach that I simply cannot support. I therefore ask members to oppose amendments 196 and 197.”
“It will ensure that the provisions are carefully and thoroughly reviewed by the land commissioners and that the review will be considered in full by the Scottish Government, which will make a statement about any action that ministers intend to take as a result of the review’s findings. I also support other amendments in the group, including Ariane Burgess’s related amendment 89A, Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 89D and Mark Ruskell’s amendment 89E, as well as Rhoda Grant’s amendment 89F. On amendments 89C and 89G, although I would expect further reviews of the provisions to take place over time, every three years would find us in that cycle of reviews and place a significant resource burden on the Scottish Land Commission.”
“Amendment 89E will require the land commissioners’ review to consider the land subject to part 1 of the bill and to have particular regard to what land is to be treated as contiguous—after stage 2, it is land within 250m— and what land forms a composite holding. Earlier in the proceedings, I was disappointed that my amendments on contiguous holdings did not pass, but I believe that amendment 89E will keep the issues that were raised under consideration for the future as part of a comprehensive review. Mairi Gougeon: I am happy to support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 89, which will put statutory review provisions for all of part 1 in the bill.”
“The Scottish Greens will support the bill at stage 1, but the legislation must be fit for tackling the nature emergency. We will be looking for a wide range of changes and additions at stage 2. I look forward to working with the Government to address concerns and to make the bill fit for purpose. 15:07”
“It is clear that the Parliament should have a key role in that review. On part 4, which concerns deer management, we are supportive of the Government’s intentions to finally implement the conclusions of the deer management working group. However, there is more that can and should be done. Deer overgrazing puts a huge limit on nature recovery and climate action. If we want to see thriving Atlantic rainforests, restored peatlands and better deer welfare, we need a modern system of deer management. Enhancing NatureScot’s powers further, so that it can act quickly when deer numbers get out of control, is critical, and it needs to use its new powers. There also need to be options to consider the roles of other public bodies, such as Forestry and Land Scotland, that could step into that role, should NatureScot fail.”
“That is why the Greens are minded to try to remove part 2 of the bill when it returns to the committee—although I would welcome discussion with the cabinet secretary about how part 2 could be amended. On part 3, which is on national parks, we support the bill’s intentions, especially the clearer focus that is needed from all public agencies to deliver democratically agreed park plans. If Scottish Enterprise had respected the park plan of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park early doors, we might not have had the debacle over Flamingo Land. It is a massive missed opportunity that all the benefits of national parks will now not be felt in Galloway. We need a review of national parks, which should cover the designation process, what they have achieved in the past 20 years and their current boundaries.”
“There were huge concerns about the use of such powers to rewrite laws, especially given that there is no non-regression clause to act as a backstop against environmental destruction. It was hard to find any evidence on how a weakened environmental assessment regime would speed up climate action on renewable energy. The current regime is clear and well understood by the sector and, as the case of Berwick Bank offshore wind farm shows, the Government already has more than enough latitude through consenting regimes to make choices. The Government simply has not come to the Parliament with any convincing reasons for why the new powers are needed. It is time to hold on to our foundational nature protection laws.”
“How can the Government give it and all future Governments the power to water down European laws that have protected our nature from destruction for more than 40 years? The Government has said that it is committed to not using the part 2 powers in the short term, so why introduce such wide-ranging powers in the first place? We know that there are sectors—from fish farming to agriculture to property development— that would love to strip away nature protections and gut environmental assessments. That is exactly what the United Kingdom Labour Government has enthusiastically started to do in England through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It must not happen here. Witness after witness who came to the committee talked about how such laws are fundamental and vital to nature protection.”
“That is exactly what my colleague Lorna Slater, when she was in government, was working on through the biodiversity strategy and the delivery plans, which are still to come through. Targets are not a silver bullet. Multiyear finance is critical, as are those delivery plans, which need to flow from the targets that are being set in the bill. Although Scottish Greens want the target provisions in the bill, we think that they can and should go further. The targets need to recommit to our international obligations to restore 30 per cent of our seas and land by 2030. There could not be more of a contrast between what is in part 1 of the bill and what is in part 2. As currently drafted, part 2 is wholly inappropriate for legislation that aims to tackle the nature emergency.”
“At the committee, we heard many supportive arguments for targets from academics, NGOs and the land management and infrastructure sectors. It is clear that a rudderless, voluntary approach has not worked—it has not brought the focus that is needed in a nature emergency. Tim Eagle: Will Mark Ruskell take an intervention? Mark Ruskell: If there is time in hand, I will. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is a brief amount of time in hand. Tim Eagle: I will make a point on the biodiversity targets. Do you agree with Open Seas when it said in its response to the bill that targets are worth while only if the actions behind them are truly achievable? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Mark Ruskell: Absolutely.”
“I am also excited for people— especially a generation of young people—who deserve the opportunity to make their mark on our nation’s story, to help to restore and revive our land and seas, to plant and nurture the future and to shift Scotland’s environmental baselines up instead of down. This is the moment to ensure that action for nature is given parity with the drive to achieve net zero. They are two sides of the same coin. That need for action should be reflected in the bill’s title. Arguably, it should be a nature emergency bill that is rooted in action and restoration, not only in conservation. Green members are glad to see legally binding targets for nature recovery being introduced, which is what the Greens pushed for when we were in government.”
“At long last, the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill has been introduced in the Parliament, and not a moment too soon, because we are deeper than ever in the nature emergency. We all know that Scotland’s nature is in crisis and that one in nine of Scotland’s species is at risk of extinction. Conservation of what we have left is important, but we need to move beyond drawing lines on maps. Now is the time for the biggest restoration of our land and seas in our nation’s history. I am excited about what restoration means for species and habitats that will be able to connect, expand and thrive.”
“I understand from discussion with the cabinet secretary that there are concerns about those amendments and their potential consequences. For those reasons, I will not be moving them. However, I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary about what commitment she can give to engage with Fife Council on the issue in order to ensure that it is upholding its responsibilities as an access authority and supporting the community, because it has manifestly failed to do so. The Scottish Government must help us to hold Fife Council to account. The amendments are a warning flag that access rights that appear world class on paper are being eroded in Scotland. We need to ensure that enforcement is resourced and that it is effective. In the case of Burntisland, it has not been, and that must change.”
“However, so far, no updated guidance has been produced, despite two decades of real-life experience in working with the act. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary to commit to finalising the review and publishing such updated guidance. I welcome David Torrance’s amendment 321, which is an attempt to explicitly carve out access to Burntisland harbour in law. It makes an important point. My amendments 234 and 264, together with amendment 238 in a later group, seek to put in place general requirements for all large landowners to help to facilitate public rights of way over their land and to engage with communities proactively on those specific rights of access. That engagement has been completely absent in the case of Burntisland.”
“For example, I have constituents at the other end of my region, in Glen Lyon, who for years have been unreasonably denied access to the North Chesthill Estate. Again, a lack of consistent enforcement action by Perth and Kinross Council has been raised. In its briefing for the debate, Ramblers Scotland highlights that there is “a growing concern about a gap between Scotland’s access rights on paper and their effective application.” Councils, in their roles as access and planning authorities, are, in some cases, proving ineffective at upholding and enforcing those rights, which are long established in common law. We are now 20 years on from the production of guidance on part 1 of the 2003 act, which was designed to enable councils to operate effectively as access authorities.”
“However, so far, not only have the jobs not materialised in Burntisland, but people are now being fenced out of their own community. They have serious questions about the effectiveness of Fife Council in holding Forth Ports to account, given the deep pockets of Forth Ports and the economic power that it holds locally. I welcome the fact that members of the community have come to the Parliament today and have engaged MSPs—including, I believe, the cabinet secretary—in conversation about the struggle that they face. The bill could have been an opportunity to improve the enforcement of access rights, not only for the community of Burntisland but for many more communities across the country.”
“The key question at the heart of the bill is, does it address the battles over land rights, concentration of power, access and ownership across Scotland that so many communities find themselves struggling with? The amendments in this group are an early test for the Government at stage 3. The concern that I, David Torrance and many other MSPs have raised is a real one that is faced by a real community in Burntisland. Rights of access that have been asserted since Victorian times are being trampled over by Forth Ports, while Fife Council has been completely ineffective at upholding those rights. That is happening in a green freeport area that we were told would deliver incredible economic opportunities for communities.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the proposed ferry route between Rosyth and Dunkirk. (S6O-05048)”
“We will work constructively, but we need the plans now, on both energy and the climate change strategy. 18:28”
“We need to bring our constituents with us, and all businesses and communities need to see action. We need to have targets that we can all buy into, even if we do not agree with all the details. People need to have trust that their politicians will deliver the action that we all need in relation to jobs, supply chains, improving people’s homes and getting the transport that we need everywhere. It is about having buses where people need them and trains that run on time and do not get delayed because of the climate emissions that are impacting on the railway network. All of that requires us to act together. We will not stop these targets today. However, by abstaining, we are bringing them to centre stage. We are not getting enough from the Scottish Government. We need faster action.”
“However, we make the point that what is in front of us tonight is not good enough in relation to accountability, bringing businesses with us, giving certainty, and getting the investment going that is needed now. Some 280,000 houses are currently vulnerable to flooding. With rising sea levels and increasing extreme weather, that number will only go up. We urgently need to act. Over the next few weeks, we will work constructively in discussion with the cabinet secretary and her team, but we need everyone, right across the Cabinet, all public bodies, and all our councils, to work together. Scottish Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats have all called for more clarity, a plan, and clear action. Setting targets with no idea how to meet them is not good enough. We need to build consensus. It is about making progress.”
“As Friends of the Earth Scotland observes, we have only six months left in this session of Parliament, and the Scottish Government has failed to produce its climate change plan and its energy strategy and just transition plan. I was going to intervene on Michael Matheson, because he announced the draft energy strategy and just transition plan in January 2023. In three months’ time, that will be three years ago. We need action now. It is not about the cabinet secretary getting everybody to agree on everything. That is not the point—it is about the plan. The reason why we will not vote it down tonight is that we do not want to delay it beyond the next election.”
“We need a plan, across the Scottish Government, that goes on every year. As I said earlier, that is not just the job of the cabinet secretary but of the whole Government. WWF Scotland also quotes the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which estimates that timely action will require about £0.7 billion a year, or £700 million, from 2026 to 2050, and that if we do not get on with the investment that we need, unchecked climate impact could cost Scotland £11 to £45 billion annually by 2050. That is not somewhere that anybody in the chamber wants to go, which is why we have been arguing so strongly for action and for the plan now, so that we save money and avoid negative impacts on our communities and businesses.”
“It should have been here, ahead of the regulations being laid in Parliament, but it has not been delivered. We will wait to see whether the Government’s actions add up. 18:23 Sarah Boyack: It is really striking that there is huge support across the Parliament for strong action to tackle the climate and nature emergency. I thank the stakeholders who got in touch with us before today’s debate. WWF Scotland commented that the “Scottish Government’s Indicative Statement falls short of what is needed to inspire confidence in delivery ... Without a credible plan ... Scotland risks overshooting its carbon budgets.” It argues that the upcoming climate change plan should include “sector-specific ... plans, costed policy pathways” and “alignment with the annual budget process”. I could not agree more.”
“There will not even be a commitment to incorporating the findings of the A96 climate compatibility assessment into the climate change plan. How do we know where we are going? How do we know that the Government’s actions will add up and that we will be able to deliver the reductions in the budget? It is not good enough. A lack of ambitious action already means that we will not reach the goal of cutting emissions by three quarters until 2036. We have lost six years in the middle of a climate crisis. Without credible action, Scotland risks overshooting the even weaker carbon budgets. We cannot afford to do that. The planet cannot afford to wait. People cannot afford to wait for a greener, fairer Scotland. We need climate action now to deliver that. That is why it is important that the detail comes forth.”
“It is for those reasons that the Greens will abstain on the regulations tonight. The Government has taken a pick’n’mix approach to adopting the Climate Change Committee’s advice—and it is entitled to do so. However, action must still add up to the carbon budget. To be clear, the Government has ignored the Climate Change Committee’s advice on reducing livestock numbers. On that policy alone, 1 megatonne of emissions will now have to be cut from somewhere else in society. Who will deliver that missing megatonne? The cabinet secretary for net zero said in committee that transport will pick up the slack, but when the Cabinet Secretary for Transport came to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee yesterday, there was no clarity—there was just hope and enthusiasm for the sale of electric vehicles.”