Mairi Gougeon
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Mairi Gougeon: As other members have done, Michelle Thomson has raised a number of important points. We established a food security unit precisely to address the key challenges that members have identified.”
“I am grateful to Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate. Given the breadth of the areas that are covered in the motion, any one of my colleagues could have been here to respond. However, I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so, because this SNP Government cares deeply about our rural and island communities.”
“He did not do as badly on that run as he thought, but I am glad to hear that he suffered afterwards. [Laughter.] On Fulton MacGregor’s substantive point and the concerns that he has raised about community right to buy, he is absolutely right.”
“Last but certainly not least, I thank my amazing family, whom I cannot wait to spend more time with, and my amazing husband, Baptiste. It takes the patience of a saint to be married to anyone in this job, but he has looked after me and I would be at a loss without him.”
“Of course, some of those challenges remain, but our rural and island communities and industries are rich with opportunity and this Government has been determined to unlock it. Housing is a key issue that has been raised in the motion and throughout the debate.”
“Our croft house grant scheme has invested more than £26.5 million to support more than 1,100 croft homes. We are going further still, with an announcement this year of a new rural and island housing grant scheme, with investment of up to £20 million.”
The complete record
Every one of 333 lines we hold for Mairi Gougeon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 7.
“We also know that the sector faces challenges, such as the increasing demands on our seas and the uncertainty that businesses face. It is clear that, for decades, our fishing communities have been let down by successive United Kingdom Governments. The previous UK Conservative Government’s Brexit deal fell far short of promised quota increases and it created trade barriers, harming competitiveness and worsening labour shortages. To compound matters, in May, the UK Labour Government landed us with a trade and co-operation agreement that extended fisheries access to 2038. Although I welcome aspects of the wider deal, such as those that hope to reduce costs and delays for seafood exports, the fact is that the fisheries access agreement falls well short for the fishing industry.”
“Today’s debate is an opportunity to set out Scotland’s approach to this year’s fisheries negotiations and the setting of fishing opportunities for the year ahead. It is also a chance to recognise the economic, social and cultural importance of fishing to Scotland, acknowledging the challenges and reaffirming our commitment to supporting our fishing industry. Despite the current pressures, the fishing industry remains resilient, sustaining many coastal and island communities. In 2024, Scottish vessels landed 561,000 tonnes of sea fish and shellfish worth £756 million—the highest value in tonnage in a decade. We must also recognise the wider seafood supply chain. Our ports, hauliers and many onshore businesses, including processors, supply quality seafood to domestic and export markets, supporting thousands of jobs.”
“However, it is important that we consider issues relating to why we had the trial in the first place and the type of fishing that we were attempting to stop. We want to make sure that it is sustainable, and it is important that we gather all the evidence for that, which is why the trial was initiated in the first place and why it has been extended. We want to ensure that we have as robust an evidence base as possible for any future considerations.”
“Edward Mountain: The seven-year pseudoscientific and inconclusive experiment, which the Government said will now end in 2027, seems to be more about protecting a commercial fishery that is worth more than £5.5 million to just over 20 boats. The minister knows that electrofishing for spoots is banned in the European Union. Surely, then, in 2027, the Scottish Government, under the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, will need to keep pace with the EU and ban electrofishing of spoots, or will it continue the farce of a scientific experiment? Mairi Gougeon: As with many other areas when it comes to our fisheries, we like to lead by example. An example of that work is the roll-out of our remote electronic monitoring.”
“The razor clam scientific trial has yielded promising results that point to the potential for a sustainable commercial fishery, with appropriate management measures in place. A progress report was published in 2024 that presents those findings in detail, including completed stock assessments for two locations—the Firth of Clyde and Firth of Forth trial areas. The trial was extended for a further two years to gather data to update those stock assessments and enable completion of assessments for additional areas, giving us confidence that fishing for razor clams with that technique can be achieved sustainably across Scotland’s seas.”
“I turn to part 2 of the bill. Tenant farmers and small landholders—like our crofters—are vital to the rich fabric of our rural communities, and this legislation builds on their hard-won rights, ensuring fairness and dignity. Our nation’s tenant farmers account for around one in five of our farmers and manage close to one quarter of our agricultural land. The reforms will enable them to deliver our vision for sustainable and regenerative agriculture.”
“Throughout the parliamentary process we have worked on a cross-party basis to try to build consensus to make the bill as effective as possible, and it is right that we take a measured and proportionate approach, given that these are new policies. I have always said that we need to ensure that the bill does not have a disproportionate impact on smaller landholdings. We as a Government, and as a Parliament, also have a responsibility to ensure that all of our legislation is compatible with our human rights obligations. The review provisions that are now in the bill will allow further evidence on the success of the provisions to be considered and changes justified. Our land reform provisions will cover more than 50 per cent of Scotland’s land, and the powers that we have agreed in the bill will allow for future changes based on evidence.”
“For the first time, large landowners will be required to engage meaningfully with communities, and to publish publicly available land management plans. Landowners will be legally required to set out how they use their land and how that contributes to key public policy priorities. I know that there are concerns about the bill and how it will work in practice. I want to assure members that there will be guidance and support for landowners and communities. As I have said throughout the process, responsible landowners will have nothing to fear. I also know that there are those here who do not think that the bill goes far enough.”
“Across four days in the chamber, we have debated and considered more than 400 amendments. I want to reflect on the changes that the bill will bring. For the first time, ministers will have unprecedented lotting powers for large estates over 1,000 hectares. That lotting can happen prior to sale or transfer, where it is in the public interest. For the first time, communities will receive advance notification of impending sales or transfers of land by large landowners. That will increase transparency and will also allow them time to decide whether to submit a community right-to-buy application. Too often, people and communities feel powerless when the land that they live on is sold with no prior warning. The bill will ensure that that can no longer happen.”
“In the words of Norman MacCaig: “Who possesses this landscape?— The man who bought it or I who am possessed by it”? Those are not new problems and this is not a new debate; stark inequalities and injustices have persisted in rural Scotland over centuries. The bill builds on the hopes, aspirations and achievements of generations of fearless campaigners and advocates of land reform, past and present, from the distant voices of the early campaigners and the hard-won land rights of our crofters and small landholders, to the pioneers of community ownership and the tenant farmers who dared to believe that a fairer future was possible. The measures in the bill show that change is possible and that we can build a better future, allowing communities to breathe new life and new opportunity into rural Scotland.”
“I am pleased to open the debate on our Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. In the broad sweep of land reform history, today marks a watershed moment. It is a moment to pause and reflect on the progress that the Parliament has made on that journey and to look forward to the substantive changes that the bill will deliver. The Scotland that we seek is one that is rooted in the values of fairness, dignity and hope. Scotland’s land must be an asset that benefits the many not the few—those words reflect the Government’s desire to effect real change and to ensure that we deliver on the hopes and aspirations of our communities. At its heart, land reform is and has always been about the deeply rooted and complex relationship between Scotland’s land and her people. It goes to the heart of who we are and the values that we hold dear.”
“For example, Denmark has a smaller marine area and a smaller marine sector and it receives £25 million annually, compared with the updated but woeful allocation that we are receiving from the UK Government. That is why I will always argue that the fishing industry’s best interests and Scotland’s interests more widely will be best represented when we are an independent country.”
“Karen Adam: I note that the cabinet secretary does a lot of work, particularly in my constituency, and is praised for her collaborative work with the Scottish fishing sector. Communities across the coast rely on a fairly funded Scottish fishing industry, but, given the UK Government’s decision to allocate Scotland less than 8 per cent of the post-European Union fishing fund, despite our sector being the largest in the UK, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is only with the full powers of independence that Scotland’s fishing industry can be properly prioritised? Mairi Gougeon: I could not agree more with Karen Adam. When we compare Scotland with other European countries, there is a stark contrast.”
“The Scottish Government is committed to building a thriving, sustainable fishing industry, recognising its importance to Scotland’s economy. The marine fund Scotland provided £14 million this year to marine interests, including fishing. The United Kingdom Government’s decision to allocate Scotland only 7.78 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund is unacceptable, and we will work to have the decision revisited. We negotiate with our fishing neighbours to manage shared stocks and promote the best interests of our industry. Our ambitious programme to modernise regulation, introduce our future catching policy, and improve inshore fisheries management underpins the sustainability of the industry.”
“However, we might think about how much more it could do were we to get the full opportunities that should be coming to us through the fishing and coastal growth fund, rather than being left with the share that we have. I look forward to meeting Audrey Nicoll and Seafood Scotland to hear more about the ocean cluster project, because it is exciting. I am looking forward to those discussions, but I reiterate that the poor allocation to Scotland from the UK fishing and coastal growth fund really restricts the Scottish Government’s ability to support the seafood industry and to take more of those innovative steps. Fishing Industry 6.”
“Seafood Scotland is driving the development of a Scottish ocean cluster, with Scotland joining the vanguard of countries that are researching how to extract more value from fish byproducts. In the face of the legacy of Brexit and a woeful UK Government funding offer, does the cabinet secretary agree that initiatives such as the cluster could serve as a catalyst for innovation, developing important new market opportunities and ensuring that the economic benefits that are generated flow directly back into the seafood sector? Mairi Gougeon: I could not agree more with the points that Audrey Nicoll makes. I recognise the incredible work that Seafood Scotland does, as it is always looking to do more and is constantly innovating.”
“The allocation of just 7.78 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund to Scotland is an insult to our vital fishing industry and coastal communities. It is unacceptable and must be reconsidered. Scotland accounts for more than 60 per cent of the United Kingdom’s fishing capacity and seafood exports, and Scottish vessels land more than 75 per cent of UK quota species. We made it clear to the UK Government that Scotland’s allocation should be at least 46 per cent, reflecting our share of the UK’s European Union fisheries funding. The unfair allocation severely restricts our ability to support critical innovation as our industry faces mounting pressures, and I strongly urge the UK Government to reconsider. Audrey Nicoll: The insulting offer of just £28 million of the £360 million is a hammer blow for our fishing sector.”
“We have had the consultation on community right to buy, which closed at the start of October, and there could well be relevant impacts from that, given the community right to buy that exists for abandoned, detrimental or neglected land. A consultation is also under way on compulsory sales orders, which, again, could help with some of those issues.”
“That would bring owners, retailers, the community and local councils together to bring about positive change in order to steadily improve the environment in the urban landscape in particular, in which we all share an interest. Mairi Gougeon: I welcome the points that Willie Coffey makes, because I absolutely appreciate just how frustrating the situation is, and what a blight it can be, for communities. I am happy to hear and open to considering any new approaches that he might be willing to suggest. Those matters straddle a few different portfolios, so I will be keen to have those discussions with colleagues and raise the issues with them. It is also important, however, to point out some of the other pieces of work that are under way that I think could help with some of the issues that Willie Coffey has outlined.”
“Willie Coffey: I have tried over many years to coax and cajole land and building owners to do something about the abandoned assets that they own in our towns, and have asked them to either clean and tidy them up, repurpose them or even sell them. Mostly, they ignore those pleas, since the councils usually act only if a property becomes a danger to the public. Abandoned land and derelict buildings can be the norm in many towns in Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it may be time for a different approach to those issues, with a move away from legislation and the serving of notices towards the promotion of a more co- operative approach?”
“The Scottish Government has put in place an enabling policy framework, including national planning framework 4, which actively encourages the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings. We back that up with targeted funding to tackle the challenges of long-term vacant and derelict land. In 2025-26, the vacant and derelict land fund allocated £7.6 million to the five local authorities with the greatest amount of long-term vacant and derelict land. So far, the vacant and derelict land investment programme has invested in 33 projects, bringing just over 112 hectares of land back into use.”
“I am more than happy to follow the point up with colleagues and write to Michael Matheson with a response.”
“We spend almost £188 million a year on active travel infrastructure, but less than 1 per cent of that is allocated to our national path network. Will she engage with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to explore how a greater allocation of the active travel budget could be allocated to our national path network? Mairi Gougeon: I am more than happy to agree to engage with colleagues on that point. Some of the funding issues for paths have been related to the fact that we have a number of different funds for a number of different areas. It makes sense for us to utilise that funding in the best possible way and where it will have the best impact. Our rights of access are world leading and we should be proud of that, but maintenance of our core path networks is critical.”
“Our right of responsible non-motorised access to land is world leading in extent, scope and clarity. Access authorities, which are our local and national park authorities, have a duty under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to uphold access rights and to draw up a plan for a system of paths—a core path network—that is sufficient to give local users and visitors reasonable access throughout their areas. As that is a local authority responsibility, the Scottish Government supports the duty primarily through the provision of the annual block grant to local authorities. Michael Matheson: The cabinet secretary will recognise that the path network plays an important part in our recreational programme for walkers across Scotland. However, there is growing concern about the maintenance of the path network.”
“I will repeat what I said about Douglas Lumsden’s related amendments in those groups, because they all have the same fundamental issues. Land management plans are about transparency and supporting engagement with communities. They are not the right place to try to address issues that are covered by other legislative and policy frameworks, such as the national planning framework and consents processes. A number of energy infrastructure issues that are raised by the amendments are reserved to the UK Government, so not only are the amendments disconnected from the intent of the bill but they raise matters that are outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That is why I urge Douglas Lumsden not to press amendment 305 or to move amendments 318, 319 or 322. 17:30”
“On Douglas Lumsden’s amendments, as I said in response to similar amendments in groups 4 and 6, the matter is of interest in my constituency, so I make it clear that I am speaking in the chamber today in my capacity as a Scottish Government minister. The position that I am representing reflects the Scottish Government’s collective view and concerns a matter of law and policy for which I have ministerial responsibility. Separately, and in line with the Scottish ministerial code, I have made my views and those of my constituents known to the responsible minister in the appropriate way. The issue that is under discussion today is distinct from that constituency interest, and my contributions today should therefore be understood as reflecting the Government’s position and not my personal or constituency-specific stance.”
“That includes enhancements to the community asset transfer scheme that will ensure that communities receive early notification of in-scope public land that is due for repowering, with a dedicated 12-month window in which communities can apply before any commercial tendering process begins. Ten onshore wind sites under 50MW have been identified to pilot that approach, and we are working with public bodies to ensure that communities have access to clear guidance from Local Energy Scotland and Forestry and Land Scotland. That guidance is now available online via both organisations. Therefore, I ask Ariane Burgess not to move amendment 207.”
“Ariane Burgess’s amendment 207 seeks to give priority access to land for community energy. Far be it from me to speak on her behalf, but I think that Edward Mountain has misrepresented her position, because her amendment is about ensuring that communities benefit from the opportunities arising from the repowering of such sites. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of community energy, which is why, last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy announced that we are taking action to give communities priority access to renewable energy assets on public land that is due for repowering.”
“The majority of those amendments were voted on and rejected at stage 2 and, ultimately, they would undercut the policy aims of the bill. I move amendment 175.”
“It is important that the timescales allow for more complex cases where engagement with the landowner and local communities and the provision of expert advice from a land agent will be required. Tim Eagle’s amendment 290 would not have any effect, because the test for lotting decisions that is set out in the bill will already allow ministers to consider wider public interest decisions without that text being added. Similarly, his amendment 296 appears to clarify that compensation may be payable when land is not lotted, but that is already covered under the first ground for compensation that is set out in the bill. I ask members to oppose those amendments as well as the rest of the amendments in the group from Tim Eagle, Edward Mountain and Douglas Lumsden.”
“I am happy to support Tim Eagle’s amendment 14, on appeal timescales, and his amendments 189, 190 and 192, which will impose timescales within which ministers must complete a review of a lotting decision and, if necessary, make a replacement lotting decision. At a review decision, ministers will have access to the information that supported the initial decision, meaning that a timescale of three months is reasonable. However, I oppose Edward Mountain’s amendments 63 and 64, which would apply the three-month timescale to an initial lotting decision and remove the related provision in proposed new section 67N(7) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.”
“The pre- notification measures in the bill will already allow community bodies to be informed at the outset of the process, and they will also allow community bodies to apply to purchase only part of the land. Ministers will then be able to take that into account when considering the lotting decision. Michael Matheson’s amendment 303 will ensure that information about lotting decisions will be provided to people who have provided details and wish to be informed of the proposals for sale under the pre-notification provisions. That is a more proportionate and workable approach. For those reasons, although I have sympathy with her intention, I encourage Ariane Burgess not to move amendments 293, 294, 299, 302 and 392. I now turn to the amendments on timescales.”
“Amendment 65, in the name of Rhoda Grant, will clarify that ministers will take into account land that is being occupied as a croft, agricultural tenancy or small landholding when making a lotting decision. I am happy to support the amendment, as well as amendment 187, which will require ministers to have regard to the public interest in preparing guidance on lotting decisions. Michael Matheson’s and Ariane Burgess’s amendments in the group focus on the provision of information relating to lotting decisions, particularly to community bodies. I am happy to support Michael Matheson’s amendments 298, 300, 301 and 303. I have concerns that Ariane Burgess’s amendments would require ministers and the land and communities commissioner to share reports with any community body that they considered might have an interest in purchase.”
“The change will enable more simple review decisions—for example, a minor boundary change that is requested by a landowner could take place more rapidly—to minimise delay to sales, while still ensuring that advice is sought for more complex decisions. I oppose Edward Mountain’s amendments 185, 67, 68 and 69, because they would have the opposite effect, making it more difficult to obtain expert advice and delaying decisions. My final amendment in the group, amendment 188, is a minor drafting correction to clarify that ministers should publish the latest version of guidance on lotting decisions “as soon as is practicable after issuing it.” I recommend that members support all my amendments in the group. Let me turn to other amendments in the group.”
“I will speak to the amendments in my name before turning to the other amendments in the group. Amendment 175 will require a declaration to be included in the deeds of transfer for land where the lotting provisions apply to confirm that the transfer is not in breach of any lotting prohibition. That responds to feedback from Registers of Scotland, which highlighted that the change would increase transparency and better enable the keeper to perform their land registration functions. Amendment 191 will remove the requirement for expert advice to be sought for every lotting decision following a review, replacing that with a duty on ministers to consider whether it is appropriate to seek that advice.”
“With that, I ask them not to press or move their amendments. David Torrance: I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitments and I recognise the legal issues around the amendments that I have proposed. Everything that the cabinet secretary says is most welcome, especially to Burntisland Harbour Access Trust and to my constituents. I know that she will be held to account to keep those promises, not only by me but especially by the community of Burntisland. I will not press amendment 232 in my name. Amendment 232, by agreement, withdrawn. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 2 is on the obligations to consider the public interest. Amendment 115, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 233, 129, 261, 43 to 45, 15, 76 and 76”
“I will discuss these matters with all relevant authorities in order to satisfy myself that everything possible is being done to ensure that our world-leading system of access rights is being respected and upheld and that we are, ultimately, looking for a solution. Fourthly, I am aware that guidance for local authorities on these issues has not been updated in some time, and I am happy to meet with MSPs who are involved in the matter to discuss the process for updating that important guidance. Although I am unable to support the amendments in this group, for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the commitments that I have set out to members today will satisfy both David Torrance and Mark Ruskell, as well as other members across the chamber, that I take these matters seriously and that I want to find a way forward.”
“I am happy to make the commitment for which Mark Ruskell asked, and I will be seeking a meeting urgently with both Fife Council and the port authority to seek greater clarity on the issue. I want to ensure that that happens at pace. Secondly, it is particularly worrying that there are concerns in the local community about how the council, as the local access authority, is fulfilling its duties. In my representations to the council, I will be seeking to understand how it has been carrying out its duties under the 2003 act. Thirdly, I want to meet with the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust and with the local MSPs, to better understand the issues myself.”
“That is particularly true because some matters relating to port access are reserved to the United Kingdom Government under the Harbours Act 1964. Far from bringing a solution, therefore, the uncertainties in the amendments could cause such confusion and complication that a solution would be more difficult to achieve. I do not think that any member in the chamber would welcome that. We should all be wary of the potential for good intentions to lead to even more challenging outcomes. That being said, I take these issues seriously, and, following the specific ask from David Torrance, I will set out what action I intend to take. First, I am deeply concerned by what I have heard, both directly from Burntisland Harbour Access Trust and from other MSPs.”
“For now, however, I cannot, in good faith, support amendment 321 and promise that it will deliver a solution, because it would not deliver the intended outcome. It has a number of drafting issues. For example, the phrase “places of public resort” is not defined in legislation, which means that the amendment would not clearly give ministers or other authorities the ability to overrule decisions that are taken by the port authority, the council or any other body that has a role in the decisions to which the trust objects. That is, in large part, because the amendment would not change the roles and responsibilities of the local access authority—in the case that we are discussing, the local council. There is also a high risk of unintended consequences.”
“The requirements for land management plans already require the owner to set out how they are complying or intend to comply with the Scottish outdoor access code, and the regulations can then set out further detail to require land management plans to set out information about access rights and rights of way and how those are being supported. I turn to the substantive amendment that we are discussing, which is amendment 321. Mark Ruskell had invited representatives of the Burntisland Access Trust into Parliament today, and I really appreciated the opportunity to meet them and hear directly the strength of feeling that there is on the issue, which I am also picking up from MSPs across the chamber today. I completely understand that deep frustration, and in a moment I will turn to what I think needs to happen.”
“The amendments are therefore not necessary, for two reasons. First, there is no requirement to record rights of way in Scotland. Secondly, the new requirements that it is proposed should be imposed on owners through the amendments would duplicate provisions in the 2003 act that already help to ensure the proper exercise of non-vehicular rights of way. 15:30 Although the amendments are clearly intended to deal with specific cases in which individuals have identified issues with the way in which access is managed, they would, in practice, impose a significant new burden on a very wide range of people, which is not justified.”
“The right of responsible non-motorised access to land, which was conveyed by part 1 of the 2003 act, is world leading in terms of its progressive nature, its extent, its scope and its clarity. The act’s statutory guidance, the Scottish outdoor access code, defines both how individuals should exercise their access rights responsibly and the responsibilities of landowners with respect to access rights. There are already provisions in the 2003 act that empower local authorities to remove “Prohibition signs, obstructions” or “dangerous impediments” where landowners have failed to comply with written notices requiring remedial action and that give authorities the ability to take measures for safety and protection with respect to both access rights under the 2003 act and to public rights of way.”
“I will deal with amendments 232, 234 and 264 together, because they aim to achieve essentially the same thing, which is to place an obligation on landowners to identify rights of way and ensure that people can exercise their rights to use the identified routes. Public rights of way are traditional routes that are established under common law, with no single statute governing them. To be a right of way, a route must meet a set of four conditions, which relate, in summary, to its long-term use between two defined points. However, Scots law does not require a right of way to be recorded. Any route that meets the conditions to be a right of way is a right of way. If it is not agreed that a disputed route meets the necessary conditions to be a right of way, it is up to the courts to decide whether the criteria are met.”
“To allow front-bench teams to change positions, there will be a short pause before we move to the second and final members’ business debate of the evening. Supreme Court Judgment (Definition of “Woman” in the Equality Act 2010)”
“The safe management of radioactive material—whatever purpose it is being used for— must stay at the heart of any work that is undertaken in Scotland, and the reporting of the incidents highlights that. Therefore, I look to the MOD, SEPA and other regulatory bodies to maintain a robust and open relationship that ensures that such an approach continues until we can finally get rid of nuclear weapons from our shores, when Scotland gains her independence. Until then, we are clear that the UK Government and the MOD must take all steps necessary to reassure the public. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the members’ business debate on motion S6M- 18614, in the name of Bill Kidd, on nuclear incidents.”
“As such, it is deeply regrettable that the MOD has not released details of the incidents that have been reported at Faslane, including a reported category A nuclear site event—the MOD defines category A as the most serious—or at Coulport in relation to Loch Long being contaminated due to failing infrastructure. Levels of radioactivity in food and in the environment around all Scotland’s nuclear sites, including Faslane, are regularly monitored by SEPA, and the results of that are published with an assessment of the impact on the public. That has been done annually since 1995 to provide further reassurance to communities and the public, but there is no room for complacency when it comes to protecting our people and our environment.”
“Although defence sites are exempt from environmental legislation, the MOD has a long- standing agreement with SEPA, via a memorandum of understanding, to operate as though such sites were subject to normal environmental regulation. That is important not only to ensure that operations are conducted properly but to provide some reassurance to the public that activity is subject to oversight from an independent Scottish regulator. Openness and transparency in the management of nuclear sites is critical to ensuring public confidence and, in particular, the confidence of the communities that live closest to nuclear sites.”
“Although matters of defence and nuclear safety are currently reserved to the UK Government, the Scottish Government places great importance on the safe, secure and responsible management of radioactive substances while protecting people and the environment. As such, repeated reports of serious incidents at Faslane are extremely worrying. The Scottish Government expects that the main focus of nuclear site operators, including the MOD, must be on safety and security at all times. As such, any incident involving radioactive substances is clearly a cause for concern. That is why the oversight and governance arrangements that are in place around Scotland’s nuclear sites are of critical importance, including the oversight by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.”
“Therefore, I will reiterate the Scottish Government’s clear and long-standing position on nuclear weapons. The SNP Government is firmly opposed to the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons. They are strategically and economically wrong, their impacts are indiscriminate and devastating, and their use would bring unspeakable humanitarian suffering and widespread environmental damage. We believe that nuclear weapons should not be based in Scotland and should be removed in the safest and most expeditious manner possible, following a vote for independence. In relation to the motion that we are debating, I completely agree that ensuring the highest standards of safety at nuclear sites in Scotland, including defence nuclear sites, is of the utmost importance.”