Douglas Ross
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by the Scottish Information Commissioner who stated, in relation to the Government’s handling of information concerning the Salmond files, “I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure complianc…”
“I literally follow sport from the sidelines in my role as a match official but, more than that, as a parent of two boys in Moray, I give credit to the sporting organisations in Moray and across the Highlands that provide so many opportunities for young people—boys and girls— throughout the country.”
“When we are thinking about the bill, which will undoubtedly pass at stage 3 today, I am sure unanimously, we might consider what she said in her email: “Calum can’t advocate for himself due to his complex disability, but he can express this truth: the children aren’t naughty, they are scared.” Children should not be scared in Scotland, an…”
“I rise to make my final speech in the chamber. I chose to speak in this debate, on this subject, for a number of reasons. First, the member in charge proved to be a very conscientious and determined member in getting the bill through.”
“The work that I have done as an individual member, as a party spokesperson, as a party leader and as a convener has been assisted by their tremendous efforts.”
“I am frustrated that we have politicians who cannot speak for four minutes without having the lectern up and reading from a script, daring not to deviate by taking an intervention.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,089 lines we hold for Douglas Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 22.
“Amendment 142 disagreed to. After section 33C Amendment 34 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to. Amendment 21 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to. Amendment 143 moved—[Sarah Boyack]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 143 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) 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) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) 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) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) 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) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 20, Against 86, Abstentions 0.”
“Marine biodiversity and support for our fishing communities are so important, and we need to get those right. If my amendments do not pass today, I hope that they are, at the very least, on the record. The cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government will have to start listening to, and acting on, comments from key stakeholders. The Presiding Officer: Ms Boyack, please confirm whether you intend to press or withdraw amendment 142. Sarah Boyack: I will press it. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 142 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“My point is that reasonable measures can be taken to assess whether it was accidental. Sarah Boyack: As the member knows, if we pass the amendment this evening, it would be for someone who was investigating the case to look at the requirements. What really struck me was the other issues that are identified as offences. There is a “prohibition against using explosive and other noxious substances for the destruction or taking of fish”. Those are serious issues, and I am glad that the member has raised them today. My final point is about amendment 146. The cabinet secretary did not give us a timetable for input from the Scottish Government to the UK marine strategy. In the absence of clarity, could the Scottish Government not just get on with that, given that we are dealing with half of the UK’s marine area?”
“She said that my amendments are not necessary because what they seek to implement is already happening. However, on amendment 146, I would like to know the timescale for the Scottish Government’s contribution to the UK marine strategy, how there will be consultation and how the frustration of stakeholders, which I have reflected, will be listened to. They are not briefing us just for the sake of it. [Interruption.] Ms Harper, do you want to intervene on an issue? Emma Harper: Yes. The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Emma Harper: The member mentioned my amendments about salmon. If a salmon is accidentally killed by someone who is fishing for salmon, any investigator would have to reasonably suspect that that had been done with the purpose of doing so illegally.”
“Sarah Boyack: It has been good to listen to the debate this evening. I know that we are all now very tired because we have been going for some time, but it is important to get members’ concerns on the record. Emma Harper made a powerful justification for amending the 2003 act to deliver action on salmon poaching and stressed the importance of creating offences in order to protect salmon and freshwater fish. Maurice Golden highlighted the importance of reporting on the effectiveness of penalties in ensuring compliance with the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013, and other members highlighted the benefits of their amendments. Given the time, I will make a speedy comment about the response from the cabinet secretary, and I would be delighted if she intervened on me.”
“The cabinet secretary deliberately left amendments that she does not wish to discuss until the end. I sought to intervene, and I know that it is up to the cabinet secretary whether she accepts interventions. When questions are put to the Government to respond to in winding up and which might determine how members vote on specific amendments, how can we get that information from the Government if it refuses to engage in a proper debate on the individual amendments? The Presiding Officer: I know that Mr Ross will be aware that the content of members’ contributions in the chamber is not generally a matter for the chair but, as always, I consider that members should treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times. I call Sarah Boyack to wind up and indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 142.”
“All of that then informs our reporting to NASCO on pressures and actions to address the issues that we face with wild salmon. Given the urgency of the situation, we have to guard against the risk of creating new burdens that will not translate into effective delivery or, worse still, that could undermine existing delivery, including, for example, the delivery of the poaching amendments in the group that we have also discussed. Ultimately, that is why I am unable to support amendment 160. All the remaining amendments in the group— amendments 144 to 147—were discussed at stage 2. I will not rehearse the arguments and will not support those amendments, for the same reasons as I outlined at stage 2. Douglas Ross: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry to have to do this, but— Members: No, you are not. Douglas Ross: Well, I am.”
“However, what he is proposing already exists in large part, and the approach set out in the amendment would risk cutting across our international reporting obligations through the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization. The wild salmon strategy delivery group, which Edward Mountain touched on, already reports annually on the progress of the implementation plan, and its remit explicitly allows for flexibility in light of new evidence and other policy developments, which ensures that the programme of work can be adjusted as necessary, which is what Mr Mountain’s amendment is rightly concerned about. We also undertake an evidence-based annual assessment of salmon stocks to inform management of national and international fisheries.”
“To add to that, the Scottish marine wildlife watching code provides recommendations, advice and information on watching and encountering marine wildlife when using Scotland’s coasts and seas. Existing wider publications or information via the Scottish Government website also set out what the member is trying to achieve in areas that are not covered by the outdoor access code or the marine wildlife watching code. For those reasons, and ultimately to avoid unnecessary duplication and what could be a waste of public money and resources, I encourage members not to support amendment 170. 21:45 I turn to amendment 160, in the name of Edward Mountain, I welcome that he has highlighted the importance of addressing the pressures that wild Atlantic salmon face.”
“I completely understand and back the principles behind amendment 170, in the name of Rachael Hamilton. However, it is another unnecessary amendment, because many of the provisions that are outlined in the proposed code of conduct are already covered extensively via existing guidance. In particular, the Scottish outdoor access code sets out guidance covering almost all the elements of the proposed code, including for our beaches and the foreshore. Guidance in the code is also supplemented by issue-based guidance, which is produced by NatureScot in collaboration with other stakeholders. It has also been approved by the national access forum and published online.”
“The review will support the delivery of commitments that have already been made in the Scottish Government’s 10-year fisheries management strategy. For those reasons, I am happy to support amendment 21. Amendment 143, in the name of Sarah Boyack, would modify powers in the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 to include climate change as a purpose for restricting fishing activity. I appreciate Sarah Boyack’s arguments about why she wanted to bring back some of her stage 2 amendments and put them on the record again, but this provision is unnecessary because we already have a variety of powers to manage fishing activity in inshore waters, as well as existing requirements to act in a way that mitigates and adapts to climate change in the exercise of our functions. That is why I do not support amendment 143.”
“We then need to work with the UK Government to consider the alignment of the legislation covering the River Tweed and the upper River Esk to ensure that there is no disparity of penalties for offences in relation to wild salmon in different rivers in Scotland. Consideration will be given to the commencement of the provisions in the light of any wider arrangements to be made for the Tweed and the upper Esk. I was pleased to work with Maurice Golden on amendment 21, because it is important for us to understand whether penalties are effective and where improvements can be made. The subject is complex, which means that we need engagement with the fishing industry as well as other stakeholders. Therefore, an appropriate timescale is needed to ensure that the review is robust and delivers meaningful outputs.”
“Future marine plans will consider the contribution from planning to biodiversity targets under the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill and nature recovery under existing requirements in the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 without the introduction of the amendment. I agree with Emma Harper on amendment 34, for the reasons that she set out, and I ask members to support it. The legislation on salmon poaching offences includes a number of pieces of legislation, covering the River Tweed, the River Esk and the rest of Scotland, respectively. Although amendment 34 applies only to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003, it is vital that we make those changes to the 2003 act now and get the provisions on the books while we have the opportunity.”
“I hope that the Government considers the state of the coastal and marine environment to be serious enough to put such a provision in the bill. Mairi Gougeon: Amendment 142, in the name of Sarah Boyack, would duplicate existing requirements under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and would introduce specificity to delivery mechanisms for targets, which is not envisaged under the bill that is before us. It would also have different implications for the inshore and offshore regimes. The amendment is unnecessary, because the updated national marine plan 2 is already being designed to address the global climate and nature crises by delivering the sustainable management of our shared marine space. In addition, the intent is covered by amendment 22.”
“Amendment 170 was born from the fact that, at stage 2, my amendments to ensure that we protect tourists and visitors from seagull activities that cause health and safety issues were not agreed to; the Government did not support them. I hope that NatureScot will come up with a solution to that, following its recent meeting with the community. There still needs to be a discussion on improving and tackling common coastal issues, such as safety around water, awareness of fishing activity, wildlife on beach environments and interference with that wildlife, feeding seagulls, and discouraging rubbish and litter. That is what Berwickshire Marine Reserve does, and it has a general marine code of conduct. At the moment, the code is voluntary, but the charity is working on the educational aspect through making a statement with its code.”
“I am not happy enough to support the amendment, but, when she sums up, I would be grateful to hear what she thinks should happen in a situation where a dead fish cannot be taken away and just has to be put in the water to rot, because such an approach seems strange. Rachael Hamilton: I thank Edward Mountain for keeping me awake this evening with his graphic descriptions. Amendment 170 would establish a general marine code of conduct that focuses on a number of important issues. The amendment was developed after recent discussions with the fabulous Berwickshire Marine Reserve, which aims to protect habitats and species between Eyemouth and St Abbs and to ensure that all marine users are responsible in their activities.”
“Maurice Golden’s amendment 21 would also represent a step forward. I slightly question Emma Harper’s amendment 34. I want to make it clear that I have not killed a wild salmon for years, and have no intention of doing so, but accidents sometimes happen. I see that the cabinet secretary is laughing—she might feel that that is because I am not a good enough fisherman to catch wild salmon, which might be true, but I stress that I have not killed one. They are caught in the gills, which causes them to bleed and they then die. The issue with Ms Harper’s amendment 34 is that a person fishing could not take a dead fish away; they would have to put it back in the water and leave it there, which seems odd to me.”
“The strategy that the cabinet secretary has set out represents a step forward in that regard, and I welcome its introduction. However, my amendment would ask the cabinet secretary to produce a report within 12 months of the bill gaining royal assent and for “each subsequent period of 12 months.” That is logical because it would allow the sector to respond to the issues that have been found, and it would also allow the cabinet secretary to justify the strategy, which sometimes comes under fire from other fishing interests. I totally support Douglas Ross’s amendment 147. The issue that we sometimes miss is the unpredictability of major fishing incidents. The response is predictable if it is known where the enforcement assets are. If it is not known where the assets are, and how quickly they can get to an incident, that is a real deterrent.”
“Let us back a review, as called for in amendment 147, and then the Government can justify its decision or accept—as I think that it probably would in the cold light of day—that it made the wrong call and that we should perhaps reinstate the aircraft with the skilled crew to ensure that we can protect our marine environment, as we had all envisaged. Edward Mountain: I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in that, as I said at the beginning of the debate, I have an interest in a wild salmon fishery. In this group I have one amendment that relates to wild salmon. Amendment 160 would oblige ministers to “prepare and publish a report on the progress that has been made” regarding “the Scottish wild salmon strategy”.”
“If the Government is happy with the choice that it has made—if it is happy that there has been no loss in capability, that we have not lost evidence and that we have not seen a reduction in convictions or enforcement of deserved punishments for those who infringe our marine laws—it should have no worries at all about undertaking a review and supporting the amendment. Let us remember that the aircraft provided protection for the fifth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world. The protection work that was previously done by two aircraft is now done by three vessels. In my view, it is not being done as well as it could or should be. Let us have the facts in order to make an informed choice going forward.”
“In the Highlands, there is no doubt that we have lost as a result of the situation, and that is not only because the aircraft are not being used. I believe that they are still sitting at Inverness airport and have not yet been purchased—they have a very high price tag, which no one has paid so far. We have also lost Highlands-based individuals with great skill and knowledge, who have had to move away because there are no alternative roles in the area. Not only have we lost an asset; we have lost people, too. I do not understand the Government’s opposition to amendment 147. I am not calling for the Government to reverse the decision; I am simply calling for it to justify the decision, which a review would do.”
“I understand that the decision was probably—in fact, almost certainly—made on financial grounds, but we have to look at the impact of such decisions. As I mentioned at committee, the decision was taken with almost no consultation. The fact that, some time later, people in the Highlands who have been closely involved in this work for many years are still seeking answers from their Government about the decision shows that it could have been handled differently and—I believe—much better. However, that is in the past, and we cannot change the decision now. I hope that the Government will learn from it in the future and that, if a similar decision on the same scale were to be taken again, the Government would consult and engage fully with those affected and with those who have the specialist information that we should be trying to hold on to.”
“I believe that there has been a loss of capability, but if the review is allowed—if the Government accepts that a review can happen—we will know. The Government will be able to provide the evidence that it has that there has been no loss of capability in gathering effective evidence. What about the quality of the evidence? Is the cabinet secretary aware of incidents that could have been surveilled and captured by the aircraft that have been missed by the vessels? Prior to the decision by the marine directorate and the Scottish Government to ground the aircraft, how many convictions did we have, and how many have there been post that decision? Are we convicting the same numbers, more or fewer? That is really all that I am asking—for the Government to back up its case.”
“Those amendments were credible but, if we do not have an organisation and a group to do the surveillance, gather the evidence and— crucially—act as a deterrent, and if we cannot catch the culprits, those penalties will mean nothing. Part of the review to which I would like the cabinet secretary and the Government to agree would involve looking at how much evidence has been collected prior to the decision to ground the two aircraft and post that decision. Are we getting the same quality and quantity of evidence from the vessels as we got from the aircraft? I presume that, in the Government’s view, the answer is yes, because the cabinet secretary told me in an intervention just a minute ago that there has been no loss of capability.”
“In amendment 147, my proposed new subsection (2)(d) addresses “the gaps in capacity” that the decision to move from the aircraft to the vessels has delivered. I think that there is a clear gap in capacity. In proposed new subsection (2)(e), my amendment seeks to have a review of “the impact that this decision will have for the control and protection of Scotland’s waters.” At stage 2, there was support from the Labour Party for my similar amendment. The Green Party members abstained; they were not opposed, because, at the same time as we were considering my amendment, Ross Greer had lodged amendments looking for tougher enforcement and punishments.”
“Crucially, a major part of their role was to act as a deterrent, because people on vessels knew that those aircraft could be up in the air very quickly, on top of them, doing that surveillance. The replacement three vessels and the drones that can fly off them can sometimes be hundreds of miles away—not just hours but days away. One of the submissions that I received said that if someone is trawling in a closed box, they can find out where the enforcement vessels are, and they will know that they can get in and out of that box before there can be any surveillance done, any evidence captured and, therefore, any enforcement action taken. That is a loss of capability, so I am sorry, but I disagree with the cabinet secretary on that point.”
“He mentioned that we are, instead, relying on three vessels and drone technology. That is not the case, as I outlined at committee. We still have the same capabilities as we previously had, at a fraction of the cost, and it is important that we get that on the record. Douglas Ross: I whole-heartedly, but with respect, disagree with that. If we had the same capability, we would not have the issue that I am about to articulate. As I said, the aircraft, with highly skilled, committed and dedicated crew, were very agile and quick to respond. They could get out over the water in minutes or hours and could be capturing images in order to take enforcement action.”
“It would be a step too far to put that in primary legislation, in line with the argument that we heard Christine Grahame make in relation to the previous group of amendments. All that I am seeking to do is to get from the Scottish Government a review of its decision. At stage 2, the cabinet secretary suggested that there are on-going reviews and on-going discussion and consultation on such issues. However, if that was the case, I would not have been contacted by many people who have operated these aircraft in the past—including some who did so until very recently—who are deeply unhappy about the decision that was taken and about the loss of capability that we, as a country, have suffered. 21:30 Mairi Gougeon: I appreciate Douglas Ross giving way, and I hope that he will appreciate that clarity is important.”
“Amendment 147 is one that I have brought back at stage 3, because it deserves further consideration by Parliament. I will provide some background. For well over 30 years, this country has been well served by skilled crew who have operated aircraft to patrol our marine environment. A decision was taken by the marine directorate and the Scottish Government, almost certainly on financial grounds, to no longer use aircraft and to move instead to using drones that are launched from three ageing vessels to do the same job. It is my view that they simply cannot do that job, and I would like the aircraft to be brought back into service. However, that is not what my amendment 147 seeks to do.”
“I take the cabinet secretary’s point that many other measures are in place, but the Parliament needs a serious commitment on what we are doing to protect our inshore waters, to manage them on an ecosystem basis, to safeguard the good environmental status of our seabeds and to ensure that small-scale artisanal fishers, such as creelers and scallop hand divers, are protected. It is well known that, in small spaces such as Lamlash Bay, the spillover effect is incredible. We absolutely need to get on board with the need for action. I lodged amendment 66 because we are in a state of emergency. As a Parliament, we must get into the ambulance and do something about it.”
“Ariane Burgess: I hear the cabinet secretary’s point that similar forms of my amendment 66 were lodged at stage 2. However, I lodged amendment 66 because I believe that we in this Parliament must take on board the urgent and desperate situation in our inshore waters. There is nothing about that in a piece of legislation that is called the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. We have signed up to restoring and protecting 30 per cent of Scotland’s land and seas by 2030, yet we are not doing anything in the marine space.”
“More importantly, the topic takes into account habitats outside of those protected areas. I come to amendment 66, in the name of Ariane Burgess. I am unclear why Ms Burgess lodged amendment 66, given that it is essentially a repeat of amendments that were not agreed to at stage 2. I have already noted the impracticalities of including niche and highly specific targets in the bill. I do not believe that the addition of yet further detail is appropriate. I also note the significant economic disruption that such an amendment would cause to Scotland’s fishing fleet without proper analysis and an evidence base. I cannot support the inclusion of such a sweeping requirement that singles out one sector in this way. I urge members not to move amendments 24, 25, 26, 46, 47, 63, 64, 65 and 66.”
“If the cabinet secretary feels that amendments should be rejected at stage 3 when they were rejected at stage 2, could the same argument not apply when the Government is defeated at stage 2 and then lodges amendments at stage 3 to overrule the committee’s decision? Gillian Martin: My comments are not about the process; they are to remind members that Mr Lumsden’s amendment falls outside the scope of statutory biodiversity targets and was defeated at stage 2. I recommend that it be defeated again at stage 3. Amendment 65, in the name of Sarah Boyack, seeks to add something to the bill that is already there, so it is not necessary. The first target topic is “the condition or extent of any habitat”. That topic already encompasses the condition, extent and quality of any habitat, including in protected areas.”
“In Douglas Ross’s central point, he appears to suggest—I absolutely refute this—that it is a deliberate act to delay the release of the information. I could not have been clearer that that is not what is happening here. Surely even Mr Ross would accept that we have a responsibility to the individuals who are captured by the contempt of court protections to act responsibly and carry out due diligence to ensure that, in complying with the commissioner’s instruction, we do not inadvertently create another problem, particularly for those individuals.”
“Civil servants are impartial of the Scottish Government. As has been said today, it is an unprecedented move for the Information Commissioner to make a referral to the Court of Session. Do apparently impartial civil servants support the Government delaying the release of the information? If not, why are Government ministers going against them? If they do support that, does the minister accept that that puts into question their impartiality? If the minister will not provide a specific date, will he at least assure the Parliament that the information will be released ahead of the Scottish Parliament election purdah period, so that the Parliament can receive it before the election? Graeme Dey: The intention is to release the information as soon as it is practical to do so.”
“We were told, categorically, that no artificial intelligence was used to look at the applications, but the Scottish Conservatives know from the response to a freedom of information request that only six core staff looked at the applications, aided by perhaps another six support staff. They looked at them over the course of a month, which works out at about 10 minutes per application. I am not sure that we can guarantee that only humans looked at the applications if only 10 minutes were spent on each one. A lot of questions remain. I hope that we get some answers from the minister in summing up. As I said, I will come back to the issue again on Tuesday. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Mercedes Villalba, who joins us remotely. 17:19”
“That review is certainly not answering the questions that I and my constituents have, so I will proceed with my amendment on Tuesday 27 January to compel the Government to provide that information, because people are looking for it. People are concerned about the amounts of money that were spent on the scheme. Many of them had hoped to secure funding, and although they accept that not everyone can be successful, they are struggling to accept the reasons behind their application not being successful when they can see that so many people missed out on the opportunities presented by a scheme that was supposed to help them. I hope that the minister will consider urging SNP members to support my amendment next week. Finally, we have to look at the number of people involved in judging the applications.”
“I lodged an amendment to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 to get the very information that Christine Grahame is looking for. We need a breakdown so that people can see where they went wrong—whether it was their fault that they did not meet the criteria, whether they were ineligible and so on. They also need to get feedback. My amendment was voted down by Scottish National Party and Green members on the committee. I will bring the issue back at stage 3 so that the whole chamber can consider it, but I believe that it was voted down partly because, at the time and as Liam McArthur’s motion says, we were promised a review by the cabinet secretary.”
“We should not have that amount of failure. We might predict other reasons for the situation, but the guidance should certainly be looked at. Douglas Ross: I agree with that. However, the minister gave us the reasons why applications were ineligible, and when I sent those reasons to constituents, they were very confused by them. For example, the wrong numbers—numbers that were automatically input into the system—should not have caused applications to be deemed ineligible. Although I do not have a lot of time, I want to stress to the minister and to anyone who is watching the debate remotely or who is looking back at the Official Report that Liam McArthur is right to say that we are looking at this after the horse has bolted the stable. However, we still have an opportunity, on Tuesday 27 January.”
“That is why, during general question time a couple of months ago, I asked the minister whether he raised concerns when his officials told him, “We have had this number of applications, with this many having been successful and this many having been unsuccessful—and, by the way, we could not even consider half of them because they were ineligible.” That should raise serious concerns that should be at the very top of the minister’s list when he looks into the issue, because there is something that must be corrected for future schemes if so many people were ineligible. Christine Grahame: I think that the member heard me say that perhaps we have to look at the guidance—although it is not the only thing— because part of the issue might be that it was not robust and did not have the clarity that was required.”
“However, it is still true to say that normally one hears from those who have lost out, rather than those who have gained. Douglas Ross: That is entirely fair. I have certainly heard from a lot of people who have lost out, but others have been surprised by their success. We are supportive of the scheme. I want to see money going to our farmers, crofters, tenant farmers, young farmers and new entrants, but something has gone wrong here, given that 42 per cent applications were ineligible. When a scheme attracts 7,582 applications and almost half of them are thrown out before they are even considered because they are deemed ineligible, something has gone wrong.”
“I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing the debate and on the work that he has done on the issue since concerns arose about the FFIS. I agreed with almost everything that he said, bar one point. He said that we normally hear from those who have been unsuccessful. That is, indeed, normally the case but, ironically, I have heard from a number of people who could not believe that they had been successful. They were quite shocked by that because they had read about the problems and because others had commented that they had not been successful. Liam McArthur: The point that Douglas Ross makes is entirely valid. For the purpose of correcting the Official Report, I have also heard from people who fall into a similar category.”
“However, I am looking for more clarity, more data breakdown and another look at the guidance, which seems to have taken a lot of people out of applying. Another thing that is required is an assessment of the benefits to the farm or croft—I know that there will be an audit—to confirm whether the criteria need tweaked. It is public money, and we need to see whether it is being well spent on the very worthwhile objective of supporting the small farms and crofts, and particularly new entrants, that are so essential to Scotland’s domestic and export needs. 17:14”
“Christine Grahame makes a sensible suggestion. If the minister does not commit tonight to providing that information, will she support my amendment to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to ensure that the information is provided? Christine Grahame: I have to be honest: I have not even looked at the amendments to that bill, so I cannot give an answer to that now. However, I will be interested in them. We all know that, with any grant scheme, demand is likely to be underestimated, but the demand underlines that this is an excellent initiative. I accept that budgets are constrained, that this is only one funding mechanism for our farming community and that the initiative was bound to have teething problems—in my experience, most initiatives generally do.”
“I then submitted the urgent question for a third time today, which you rejected for a third time, but, based on your advice and the advice given by the Deputy Presiding Officer yesterday in the chair, I pressed my button again during First Minister’s questions, and I was not called. My question is—[Interruption.] I know that Scottish National Party members do not want to hear this—[Interruption.] Sorry, I cannot hear, Presiding Officer.”
“I think that my determination to ensure that all members have an opportunity to scrutinise the Government fully and regularly, whether that be through urgent questions or the selection of other questions, is very clear to the Parliament.” You finished by saying: “I remind Mr Ross of the other opportunities that exist, and which are available to him this week.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2026; c 16-17.] The next day, I submitted the same question as an urgent question, which you rejected, saying that it was not of sufficient urgency. However, you wished for me to know that, should I press my request-to-speak button at First Minister’s question time, that would be an option for this to be raised.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. On Tuesday, I asked whether you would suspend standing orders to allow an urgent question to be taken in the chamber on the Scottish Government’s legal arguments that it had published earlier that day on its case to continue to allow biological men to be housed in the female prison estate. In responding to that point of order, you said: “Thank you, Mr Ross, and I appreciate advance notice of your intention to raise the matter. I am not minded today to accept a motion without notice.”
“If it was, Cloddach, Aboyne, Spey and Kirkcudbright bridges would been fixed much sooner, and perhaps there would already be a clear future for the Spey viaduct. I would rather not hear about what the Scottish National Party thinks that it has done; instead, I want to hear about how it will ensure that there is proactive, strategic support targeted at rural connections beyond headline infrastructure projects. That means that we need more support for rural bridge maintenance and renewal, and practical support to enable councils to plan long-term programmes rather than firefighting crisis. It means ensuring that historic listed bridges get the specialist attention that they deserve, and consistent monitoring with specialist inspections, before problems become catastrophic collapses.”
“Further south, in Dumfries and Galloway, in Finlay Carson’s constituency, Kirkcudbright bridge has faced closure and structural restrictions as a result of deterioration, requiring traffic management measures and long-term replacement plans. I am pretty confident that I could name a bridge in every constituency in Scotland that has an uncertain future. Even on the same rivers we have problems, with Highland Council putting in several bridges into “managed decline”, including the Spey bridge at Cromdale, which is a critical link between the village and Grantown-on-Spey. Whatever the Scottish Government wants to tell me tonight about funding and support is not the reality on the ground.”