Gillian Martin
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Mark Ruskell: I hear what the cabinet secretary says about her engagement with industry, but it is communities that are facing a deluge of applications for data centres. There are people here today from Fife and across Scotland who are raising their concerns. Answers are needed, cabinet secretary.”
“The Scottish Government has not undertaken a wholly national assessment of the remit that the member specifically outlines on data centres. However, we are currently engaging with industry and partner agencies to better understand the cumulative impacts of data centre developments on the environment.”
“The Scottish Government’s wildfires strategic action plan sets out a partnership approach to preventing, preparing for and responding to wildfires.”
“Although the Scottish Government is not currently undertaking a formal national assessment, we are working with partners to assess the impact of AI data centres and to look at whether current planning conditions are appropriate.”
“David Green: The response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and local land management to the severe wildfires that were experienced in the Highlands last year was exceptional, and I put on record my thanks to them.”
“Following on from the good work that was done on the wildfires strategy in the previous parliamentary session by Jim Fairlie and by Siobhian Brown, the former Minister for Victims and Community Safety, a great deal of work is being done on prevention.”
The complete record
Every one of 614 lines we hold for Gillian Martin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 13.
“The bill demonstrates the Scottish Government’s and the Parliament’s firm and shared commitment to protecting and restoring Scotland’s world-class natural environment. If it is passed today—I hope that it will be passed overwhelmingly—the next phase will be to bring forward statutory targets to give full effect to the framework that the bill establishes. Those targets, which will be developed through engagement with the Parliament and stakeholders, will provide clear direction, accountability and ambition for nature recovery. We are now entering the final phase of the four-step process to develop recommendations for statutory targets. In doing so, we are working in close collaboration with the independent experts of the programme advisory group.”
“I hope that the removal of part 2 strengthens confidence in the bill as a whole. However, I must make it clear that, as a result of the removal of part 2, we still face a legislative gap that was created by Brexit. In the short term, we can use the powers under the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, but, looking further ahead, we need to consider a long-term solution. We will now take time to carefully consider options, and I will continue to engage with stakeholders and members. However, I strongly believe that any future proposals must reflect our commitment to maintaining high environmental standards and must provide more than a temporary solution to fixing that gap.”
“That framework is rooted not only in protecting what we have left, but—crucially—in restoring what we have lost. Scotland’s ambition must not simply be to conserve our natural environment but to lead globally in repairing it, restoring habitats, rebuilding resilience and renewing the ecosystem that sustains us. I want to address directly the removal of part 2 of the bill, which contained powers to amend elements of the environmental impact assessment legislation and the habitats regulations. I understand the depth of feeling that was expressed at stages 1 and 2 on the issue. Many stakeholders and members made it clear that they wanted stronger safeguards, particularly in relation to non-regression amid concerns that future Governments might weaken standards. Those concerns were sincerely held, and they were heard.”
“I appreciate that members may disagree on some of the mechanisms or on the pace of delivery, but I do not think that anyone disputes the urgency of the challenge that is in front of us or the responsibility that we all share. That shared understanding has been evident not only in the broad support for the bill’s aims, but in the number and breadth of amendments that have been lodged. Together, they reflect a collective determination to ensure that the legislation is as ambitious as possible and is genuinely responsive to the realities that our natural environment faces. That willingness to test, strengthen and stretch the bill demonstrates that the Parliament is determined to set a stronger, more far-reaching framework for environmental stewardship.”
“Indeed, that engagement led to many of the positive amendments to protect Scotland’s nature that were agreed to yesterday and on Tuesday. That is a timely reminder that constructive dialogue leads to better and more effective law. I again thank our diverse stakeholders, including the environmental organisations, land managers, crofters, farmers, fishers, gamekeepers, community trusts and public bodies, such as NatureScot and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, for their input and expertise, which have been absolutely invaluable to all of us. Today’s debate offers all of us the opportunity to send a clear and strong message that this Parliament stands on the side of nature, and I encourage all members to take that opportunity.”
“I open the debate by thanking members across the chamber and members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for the positive spirit in which they have engaged, over many weeks, with me and my Government colleagues during stages 1 and 2. I firmly believe that their detailed scrutiny, feedback and thoughtful challenge have shaped the bill for the better, from the inclusion of measures to help specific species such as the swift to measures that will protect our internationally important wetlands. I also thank all the stakeholders who gave evidence. Mairi Gougeon, Jim Fairlie and I have spent much of the past few weeks meeting members, listening to and discussing their concerns and working through proposals.”
“For the purposes of rule 9.11 of standing orders, I advise the Parliament that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place his prerogative and interests, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move on to the debate on motion S6M-20549, in the name of Gillian Martin, on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. I call the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin, to speak to and move the motion. 17:04”
“However, on the cost of nuclear energy, I must point out that Hinkley C was expected to be completed in 2025 at a cost of £18 billion. Now, the cost is estimated at £46 billion, and it is delayed until 2031. I think that that is a lesson for us all. I do not want us to be saddled with something like that in Scotland. The Presiding Officer: There is much interest but little time. I call Douglas Lumsden to ask a brief supplementary question.”
“The Liberal Democrats have been on a bit of a journey on nuclear energy because it complements renewables. The two are not mutually exclusive. The world is less secure. We should not be importing fracked gas into the United Kingdom or Scotland. Embracing nuclear energy will create jobs, growth and investment into the country. The technology has moved on—so should we. If the Scottish Government will not end its ideological ban on nuclear energy, will it get in the way of any new nuclear development on existing sites and how would it achieve that? Gillian Martin: Our stated position is no new nuclear, but, obviously, if existing sites are able to extend their life, that is a matter for them, and we would consider that to be a completely different proposition.”
“We do not support the construction of new nuclear power stations in Scotland under current technologies. Although we recognise the role that nuclear has played in the existing energy mix, new nuclear would take decades to deliver, comes at very high cost and creates long-term radioactive waste liabilities. Scotland has abundant renewable resources, with the clear potential to meet electricity demand through continued deployment of renewable energy and storage. We are prioritising technologies that are quicker to deliver, lower cost and proven to maintain security of supply rather than new nuclear projects that would take decades to materialise. Jamie Greene: I am afraid that that shows a complete lack of understanding of the nuclear industry and the technology around it.”
“It is not just about processors in the south-west of Scotland; there are processors in the north with the same issues, and they have already made workable arrangements. My amendment 153 will serve to cut through some of the complexity that may exist in the current process of managing scallop shells as part of the circular economy, while ensuring the authorisation conditions that are necessary to make sure that there is no adverse environmental impact. I urge members to support my amendment.”
“The South Scotland region is huge and has a lot of coastline on both the east and west coasts. I whole-heartedly care about the communities that I look after. Although I appreciate the motivation behind Mr Carson’s amendment 154, I urge members not to support it, as it will do little more than add complexity and duplication to the existing legal framework, and it will do so at the risk of causing environmental harm. For those reasons, I ask Mr Carson to consider not moving his amendment. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for working with me. I learned so much from an online meeting that we held that laid out the whole issue of end-of-waste and by-products conditions and how we can clarify that for everybody involved.”
“Emma Harper’s amendment 153 will ensure that current safeguards are protected and will avoid any interference and confusion that would arise from duplicating existing legislation. It offers a viable means of addressing concerns over so- called red tape by committing to issue clear and informative guidance to SEPA in relation to by- products conditions and end-of-waste conditions for scallop shells, to simplify matters and help processors to do the right thing. For those reasons, I am afraid that I cannot support Finlay Carson’s amendment 154 and I must ask members to consider supporting Emma Harper’s amendment 153 instead. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Emma Harper to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 153. Emma Harper: I will not take long. I absolutely care about coastal communities.”
“However, I think that Emma Harper’s amendment 153 would ensure that current safeguards are protected. Finlay Carson: The cabinet secretary is misrepresenting the position. It is quite clear that my amendment refers only to clean, tissue-free shells, which means that there would not be smell issues or other environmental considerations that might arise in relation to untreated shells. 19:00 Gillian Martin: I recognise that, but I am getting advice on this from those who use the current regulations. From conversations that we have had with Finlay Carson, as well as with Emma Harper, I note that SEPA has been discussing this issue with the people who have made representations to both Finlay Carson and Emma Harper throughout the process, and SEPA is taking on board the complexities that people have said have been overly burdensome.”
“Obviously, if the regulation-making power were given to Scottish ministers, any regulations that were made using that power could not provide for the enforcement of any requirements or give any body, such as SEPA or local authorities, any powers of enforcement. That is a flaw in the amendment. Without such safeguards in place, Finlay Carson’s amendment could lead to increased environmental harm through a lack of enforcement and regulation. If the use of the shells was not regulated properly, we could be looking at a number of issues—smell problems, pest problems and so on. I am sure that most people are storing them correctly, but we make regulations to ensure that there is a level playing field for everyone. I was genuinely hopeful that I could work with Finlay Carson on a workable amendment.”
“I recognise that Finlay Carson’s amendment 154 attempts to remove some of the perceived complexities of the process of bringing clean, tissue-free scallop shells to market or transferring shells for another use, but in reality I believe—we have discussed this with the regulators—that his proposal would add confusion. It duplicates provisions that are already in current waste legislation but lacks the current safeguards. Finlay Carson: Rather than duplicating anything, it just restates the current legislation. That is not unusual in legislation. Gillian Martin: I think that restating something and duplicating it are the same thing. The amendment would mean that an environmental authorisation would not be required, so no conditions could be imposed in relation to the storage or transfer of shells.”
“I understand why Emma Harper and Finlay Carson have lodged their amendments, and I am grateful to them both for their engagement on the matter. I want to be clear that, as I said at stage 2, I am supportive of the idea of using products such as scallop shells as part of the circular economy. As I explained to Finlay Carson when we met on 13 January, waste and waste disposal are already subject to existing legislative provision, including in relation to by-product conditions and end-of-waste conditions, which derive predominantly from European Union law and are regulated by SEPA.”
“I point out that, if the context of my comments at stage 2 is considered in full, it is clear that my commitment to work with the member ahead of stage 3 was in relation to a different amendment. That amendment, which I discussed with her, was about placing a new requirement for any species listed in that exemption order to have a management strategy in place. I hope that that clarifies the situation. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Martin. Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 17:52”
“As a result of our discussion on the Sitka spruce issue with the chief executive of Scottish Forestry on 27 November, I was able to arrange for a suitable amendment to be drafted by forestry officials and agreed with Mairi Gougeon that would address Ms Villalba’s concerns. Ms Villalba agreed to that at the time. When the amendment was finalised, Mairi Gougeon discussed it separately, and further, with Mercedes Villalba, given that the solution lay in Ms Gougeon’s portfolio. In addition, Ms Villalba indicated that I had gone back on a commitment to her about working together on an amendment to add additional restrictions on the current powers to exempt species from relevant provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer—I appreciate the opportunity to clarify for the record an issue that came up in an exchange between myself and Mercedes Villalba in yesterday’s stage 3 proceedings. In that exchange, Ms Villalba said that I would not work with her despite having offered to do so. In fact, I met Ms Villalba, with various Government officials, to discuss stage 3 amendments twice: on 27 November and 7 January. In addition, I provided a detailed letter setting out my position in relation to issues that she had raised on invasive non-native species. Yesterday, therefore, in my response to her contribution on amendment 61, I was able to say that I did, in fact, work with her.”
“In relation to amendment 64, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee debated and rejected that exact amendment wording at stage 2, so I am not convinced that repeating the amendment today is the best use of anyone’s time. I reiterate the statement that I made at stage 2, which was that Mr Lumsden’s amendment “falls outside the scope of statutory biodiversity targets for the purposes of conservation.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 19 November 2025; c 48.] I hope that members will reject the amendment, as they did at stage 2.”
“I will say it again: “Habitat condition and extent includes the quality and/or extent of habitat types”. That is fairly encompassing. Tim Eagle’s amendment 63 on targets for food production— Mercedes Villalba: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Gillian Martin: I have moved on to amendment 63. As I stated clearly during stage 2 when we considered an almost identical amendment, which was not agreed to by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, food production and nature restoration “are inextricably linked and co-exist.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 19 November 2025; c 37.] I was crystal clear that the Scottish Government has no policy of reducing livestock numbers. In stark contrast to other parts of the United Kingdom, we provide a range of support to our livestock producers.”
“Condition and extent are covered as a target topic, but they are covered together. The bill refers to “condition or extent”, not condition and extent. That suggests that, when targets are set for a habitat, it will be either the condition or the extent that will be assessed. With my amendments, I aim to separate out those two distinct features of a habitat. I think that it is the cabinet secretary’s intention to have targets for a habitat’s condition and its extent. That would ensure that we would avoid the example that I outlined when I spoke to my amendments, whereby there could be a habitat that improves in condition and declines in extent but still technically meets the target. Gillian Martin: I apologise if my quote from the policy memorandum was not clear.”
“As I have previously set out, and as is detailed in the policy memorandum, “Habitat condition and extent includes the quality and/or extent of habitat types of importance to Scotland, including protected habitats.” I reiterate that the target topics in the bill have been carefully selected through a robust science- led approach and on the basis of advice from the biodiversity programme advisory group and NatureScot. The target topics that are included in the bill are wide and overarching enough to allow a variety of targets to be set under each topic. Therefore, there is no need to add specific habitat types, because they are already covered in the legislation. Mercedes Villalba: The cabinet secretary said that the amendments are not necessary because their provisions are already covered in the bill.”
“I do not know whether Mr Mountain heard me say that just before I invited him to intervene. On that basis, I believe that it would be better to wait until the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has reported before deciding what steps to take. I know that Mr Fairlie will take its recommendations seriously. Therefore, I ask Mr Mason not to move amendments 24 to 26, as I assure him that the Scottish Government will give full consideration to any recommendations that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission makes. I come to amendments 46 and 47, which were lodged by Ms Villalba. Those amendments are unnecessary.”
“Edward Mountain: In the hope of helping the cabinet secretary, I will say that if the sheep were on a farm such as mine and they were inspected and found to be in poor health, dying of starvation or suffering illness, the first thing that would happen is that there would be an inspection by the department, which would raise action against me. In order to allow Mr Mason not to move his amendments, could the cabinet secretary indicate to him that she will ensure that the department takes an interest in the issue and ensures that there is no suffering? Gillian Martin: I believe that I have already said that. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which I mentioned, is convening a short-life working group, and the Government will carefully consider any recommendations that it makes in the next three to four months.”
“Indeed, the Government is not carrying out a review, so I cannot give any assessment of the condition of the sheep. As Tim Eagle pointed out, it is right that we wait for the outcome of that review. The NTS will be inspecting the sheep over the next few weeks. Edward Mountain: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Gillian Martin: I will take Mr Mountain’s intervention in a second. In addition, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which is an independent panel of experts that provides advice to the Scottish Government, is convening a short-life working group to consider the issue of the sheep, and we will carefully consider any recommendations that it makes in the next three to four months.”
“The National Trust for Scotland, which is the owner of St Kilda, is undertaking a full review of concerns that there is suffering among the sheep on St Kilda. The NTS is hoping to inspect the sheep in the next few weeks as part of that review. John Mason: The cabinet secretary says that the Scottish Government is taking the matter seriously. Could she not go a little further than that and say that the status quo is not acceptable? Gillian Martin: The National Trust for Scotland is the owner of St Kilda, so it is reviewing the issue. I said that the NTS is hoping to inspect the sheep in the next few weeks as part of the review. I imagine that that review will come up with an analysis of the condition of the sheep. I am not going to speak on behalf of the National Trust for Scotland.”
“That is not a position that we want to be in, and I know that stakeholders are rightly concerned about that. Given that we are in a nature emergency, none of us wants there to be any delays in taking forward this important work. John Mason’s amendments 24 to 26 deal with a very specific matter in relation to the management of feral species—specifically, St Kilda sheep. I understand Mr Mason’s concerns about that matter, and I assure him that the Scottish Government is taking the issue very seriously. I understand that Mr Fairlie, in his capacity as agriculture minister, has been engaging directly on the matter. It is not appropriate for Scotland-wide biodiversity targets to be used as a vehicle for tackling such a specific matter; that is not the way to deal with the issue.”
“The appropriate place for that level of detail is in secondary legislation that is properly informed by expert scientific advice. I also point out that, if any of the proposals for additional target topics or targets were to be included in the bill, that would mean not only deviating from the science, but that careful consideration would need to be given to how they fitted in with the existing proposed suite of targets and how they could be appropriately measured. That would take a significant period of time, which would mean that ministers would be delayed in their ability to set targets, given the requirement in proposed new section 2C(2)(a) of the 2004 act, under which ministers must set at least one target in respect of each topic.”
“Amendment 23 seeks to make it clear that a purpose of the targets must be to provide a means of supporting and measuring progress on implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity. For those reasons, I encourage members to support amendments 22 and 23. On amendments 24 to 26, 46, 47 and 63 to 66, proposed new section 2C of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 sets out three target topics under which the Scottish ministers must set statutory targets. Those topics have been recommended by our expert programme advisory group on the basis of careful scientific consideration, which I believe is of the utmost importance on such matters. I again reassure members that, when we set the biodiversity targets by regulations, they will be specific, measurable targets.”
“I will speak to amendment 22, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, and amendment 23, in the name of Lorna Slater. I listened to members’ views at stage 2, and I am pleased that we have been able to work together to make these changes to our public sector biodiversity duty and the purpose of the targets. I am grateful to Beatrice Wishart and Lorna Slater for their constructive engagement on those matters. For that reason, I am happy to support amendments 22 and 23 as a means of strengthening the provisions in the bill. 15:00 Amendment 22 seeks to place an obligation on our public bodies to take into account the biodiversity targets when they are fulfilling their public sector biodiversity duty. I again make it clear that it is the responsibility of the Scottish ministers to ensure that the targets are met.”
“2))), and a new clause after clause 12 (Consultation: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)), so far as these matters fall within legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament. 16:56”
“I move, That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 10 September 2025, and subsequently amended, relating to clauses 2 to 20, 22, 26, the schedule, a new clause after clause 9 (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland), a new clause after clause 9 (Procedure for regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland)), a new clause after clause 9 (Consultation: Scotland and Northern Ireland), a new clause after clause 12 (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)), a new clause after clause 12 (Procedure for regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No.”
“It will protect our shared global environment, and it will do so in a way that involves multilateral working, as partners and co- operators, with fellow nations, at a time when both those things are under increasing threat and need the support of this Parliament.”
“A final agreement, which secured the protections for devolution that are necessary for me to be in a position to recommend the bill to members today, was reached just before the new year. I informed the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee as soon as I possibly could, on Hogmanay. The measures in question are set out in our most recent legislative consent memorandum. Although the legislative consent process for the bill has been impacted by the factors that I have set out and has been hugely challenging, we have now been successful in securing measures that respect devolution. It is important to emphasise what the bill will do and why it is necessary.”
“It is hugely regrettable that the first draft of the bill, which was shared with us only shortly before it was introduced, did not account for devolution. Although we secured some changes prior to the bill’s introduction, multiple intensive negotiations were required, alongside consideration of the bill, both here and at Westminster. Addressing devolution in that way is far from ideal, but, all too often, it has become normal working practice for successive UK Governments. That causes frustration for members, especially members who are on the committees that are charged with detailed scrutiny of the legislation. However, I assure members that I have pressed those points with the UK Government at every step.”
“First, there was a rushed timeline and, secondly, devolution matters had to be addressed after, rather than before, the introduction of the bill. I will take a moment to set out those challenges, as I think that it is important for the Parliament to be aware of them. The bill has been progressing through the UK Parliament on a compressed timeline in order to meet the UK’s deadline for ratifying the BBNJ agreement, which will enable the UK to participate in the first conference of parties. I make it clear that the Scottish Government has had no control over that. That timeline has exacerbated the challenges that we have faced in ensuring that the bill respects the powers of this Parliament.”
“First, it provides for the sustainable management of marine genetic resources, including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits. Secondly, it provides for area-based management tools, such as those to protect specific areas in the high seas. Thirdly, it ensures that marine licensing takes account of activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction in a way that considers environmental impacts. Although this Government is very supportive of the aims of the international agreement and is committed to constructive partnership working with UK Government to implement it, the journey to the motion for legislative consent that we are discussing today has not been straightforward and has, at times, been deeply frustrating. There are two primary reasons for that.”
“The agreement comes into force this weekend, having passed the threshold for the number of ratifications, and the decision-making body known as the conference of parties is due to meet for the first time later this year. That has been the driving force for the timelines that we have been working to. The Scottish Government supports the aims of that important agreement. We have been working hard with the UK Government over the past few months to ensure that the UK legislation is fit for purpose. The bill contains a number of provisions that fall within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament; it is those provisions that bring us to the chamber today. Specifically, the bill provides for three key things.”
“I am pleased to open this debate on the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill, which was introduced to the United Kingdom Parliament on 10 September last year. I will refer to it as the BBNJ bill—I promise that that is the only acronym that I will use in my remarks. The BBNJ bill implements the BBNJ agreement, which is a landmark international treaty that seeks to protect marine biodiversity that was agreed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The agreement relates to marine areas that lie beyond the jurisdiction of nations, in what is otherwise known as the high seas, which account for two thirds of our world’s oceans. In order to meet the obligations under that agreement, the BBNJ bill introduces measures to ensure that UK law accounts for the conservation and sustainable management of the high seas.”
“Of course, there are many others throughout the country. It is really important that councils share good practice in this area in the same way that they do when they work together at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other forums that they meet in. We have leaders in this space who can encourage and facilitate the learning of other councils, and the Government stands ready to support that work.”
“Katy Clark: The new solar farm in Kilwinning, which was switched on in October, is the first of its kind in Scotland, being both owned and operated by a local authority. I commend the work of the previous Labour administration in North Ayrshire that pioneered the project, which will create enough energy to power 2,000 homes. The income that is generated by the solar farm will be used to fund local services and encourage the development of further local renewable energy projects. North Ayrshire Council is also set to deliver a second solar farm at Irvine. Will the Scottish Government learn from the North Ayrshire experience? What more can be done to support councils in developing municipally owned energy sources? Gillian Martin: I am delighted to hear of the success of the project that Katy Clark mentions.”
“The Scottish Government is committed to growing community and local energy to ensure that communities across Scotland play an active role in renewable energy development as part of a just transition towards net zero. That includes providing support to local authorities such as the recent funding that has been given to Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, which is exploring opportunities for shared ownership of energy projects alongside community groups. We also continue to work with Great British Energy on its local power plan to ensure that any support and funding that are provided through that initiative will work for local authorities in Scotland to develop their own energy projects.”
“The circular economy and waste route map sets out that a review of local authority charges for waste collection services, including the collection of bulky items and garden waste, will form part of the co-design of the household recycling code of practice. We have surveyed local authorities and are now considering the findings. A financial analysis and assessment of the behavioural impacts on recycling of such charges has also been undertaken prior to consideration of the issue at the co-design workshop in summer 2026. The review will ensure that the right incentives are in place to reduce waste and to maximise the use of recycling and reuse services, which we expect to reduce the scourge of fly-tipping.”
“A Scotland- wide approach to providing minimum standards and affordable prices for bulk uplift services at low cost or, indeed, no cost would support our communities and reduce the blight of fly-tipping. I introduced amendments to the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 that provided the Scottish Government with powers to include the operation of household bulk uplift and garden waste in any new statutory codes. Will the Scottish Government, in partnership with other stakeholders, consider such measures? Gillian Martin: I am very appreciative of Bob Doris’s effort in working with the Government during the passage of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024, and I know that the issue that he raises is one that he feels strongly about, as do many people.”
“A new statutory household recycling code of practice is being co- designed with local authorities, businesses and other waste sector stakeholders to promote greater consistency in services, increase recycling rates and cut emissions. The first co-design workshop was in June last year. A second workshop is taking place on 27 January and a third workshop is scheduled for summer 2026. The findings of recent consultations on textile collections and rural food waste will support those workshops. The draft code of practice will be published for consultation by the end of 2026. Bob Doris: I am deeply concerned about the association between bulk uplift charges for domestic waste and the proliferation and environmental impact of fly-tipping.”
“Climate change means that we are facing record weather extremes, and that includes increased risks of heavy rainfall, more intense storm events and flooding. Sarah Boyack mentioned SEPA’s “National Flood Risk Assessment 2025” report.”
“Alternatively, will the Government do the right thing, step back and remove funding for the project and direct those scarce resources towards other flood defence mechanisms? Gillian Martin: I do not know whether Craig Hoy heard what I said, but I prefaced my remarks by saying that I am not going to insert myself into local decision making. We are having a members’ business debate about flooding. We are not talking about one particular flooding project that relates to Mr Hoy’s region; we are discussing issues in a lot of areas. We have heard many important comments about the impact of flooding, and we have discussed in the round the mitigations and protections against it. The science is clear.”
“Although final decisions are made by councils, when we talk in the round about flooding strategy and anything strategic that we are doing, it is important that Scottish Government ministers of any flavour have the ability to hear feedback from around the country about where things have not worked, are not working or need a fresh look. Craig Hoy: Given that, in this instance, the majority of local residents think that the council has made the wrong decision with regard to the Whitesands scheme and that, ultimately, it is the Scottish Government that will be committing taxpayers’ money to the project, what interventions can the Government make to ensure that the money is spent properly if the project proceeds?”