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 5 of 7.
“One thing stuck out. Regardless of our views on nuclear weapons—I appreciate that they are deeply held by many members across the chamber, including Stephen Kerr—I hope that we can all agree that, as Alasdair Allan rightly summarised, we should all be concerned and informed about safety when it comes to nuclear weapons. Scotland has a legacy of civil and defence nuclear sites that will, regrettably, be with us in one form or another for many years. Whether a site is one of the former nuclear power stations that are now in the decades-long process of decommissioning or an operational site such as Faslane, it is vitally important that that legacy is managed responsibly on behalf of the people of Scotland now and for generations to come. Faslane is home to the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent.”
“Like other members, I thank Bill Kidd for lodging the motion on nuclear incidents for members to debate this evening. I also take a moment to acknowledge and appreciate the tireless campaigning on nuclear disarmament that he has done and will no doubt continue to do. Bill Kidd raised a number of important issues and made a number of requests. I know that he has raised some of those matters with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, and I will continue to raise them with her after the debate. I think that there was a particular call for an inquiry from the UK Government, so I will raise that directly with her and respond to Bill Kidd. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I thank colleagues across the chamber for their contributions, which have been passionate, given the issues that we are discussing.”
“We have the Scottish land fund and the review of compulsory purchase orders. As a Government, we have also committed to undertaking a consultation on compulsory sales orders. Those measures in the round, as well as what we are doing more broadly in relation to land reform, will help us to better address the problems and blights that exist in our communities.”
“Annie Wells: What steps will the Scottish Government take to ensure that the land that has been left derelict since the demolition of the Red Road flats more than a decade ago is finally brought back into productive use, given that the local community has been left feeling ignored and let down during this time, and in light of its responsibilities for land reform and community empowerment? Mairi Gougeon: If the member writes to me about the particular issue that she just highlighted, I will be more than happy to come back with more specific detail. A number of different reforms are under way that I think will help to address some of that situation. I have already mentioned the vacant and derelict land fund. We are also undertaking a review of community right to buy, which I think will assist.”
“I have had discussions with ministerial colleagues relating to land reform and particularly to the links between the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and other Government policies. The Government is very aware of the harm that vacant and derelict sites can cause to communities, and we are providing resources to address those issues. Glasgow City Council is receiving £1.9 million this year from the vacant and derelict land fund. In addition, we are seeking to reform and modernise compulsory purchase. We are also reviewing the community right to buy.”
“A refreshed business case is being worked on, which will feed into the budget processes. I am more than happy to continue the discussion and undertake that visit.”
“What assurance can the cabinet secretary give the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh that it will receive the necessary funding to complete the project? Will she agree to visit the site with me and other Edinburgh MSPs to see the global importance of the project? Mairi Gougeon: I am more than happy to commit to that meeting. I absolutely agree with Miles Briggs on the overall importance of the project. I emphasise, and offer assurance, that our officials are in regular discussion about the matter with the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. We have already provided quite a lot of flexibility in relation to spend and attempts to reprofile that, in recognition of challenges that could not have been foreseen when the project was first initiated. We all want to see the project be a success.”
“The Scottish Government has already committed £58 million to the Edinburgh biomes programme over the past five years, to the end of 2025-26. We will continue to play an important role in supporting the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh as it moves forward with delivery of the programme, within overall budget constraints across the public sector. The process to determine capital funding provision for future years is under way, and regular discussions with the botanic garden continues, to ensure that it is fully engaged with that process. Miles Briggs: The cabinet secretary will be aware of the risk to that globally important living collection of plants if the heating system were to fail, which reinforces the importance of delivering the project. The uncertainty of funding each financial year makes planning the project even more challenging.”
“However, the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 already includes a range of drivers to increase the quality and consider the provenance of the food and drink that are procured. The Economy and Fair Work Committee undertook a review of the 2014 act and made a number of recommendations, which the Minister for Public Finance followed up on. I believe that the committee is due to receive an update on the recommendations that were made. We of course wish to support our local producers. Scotland Excel does a lot of work to ensure that producers are in the best position possible to bid for public contracts, so that we do not end up in the situation that has been described. I am always keen to see what more we can do in relation to that, which is why public procurement is highlighted in the good food nation plan.”
“Those businesses have long supported sustainable food, local jobs and the good food nation vision, and have helped East Ayrshire to achieve gold status under the Soil Association’s good food for life scheme. The decision is a real setback, and it raises serious questions about the procurement rules that councils must follow. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is time to review the frameworks to ensure that they do not end up working against the very goals that we are trying to achieve collectively? Mairi Gougeon: I completely understand the concern that Elena Whitham raises. I point out that such decisions are for East Ayrshire Council to take, because public bodies are responsible for their own procurement decisions.”
“The Scottish Government remains committed to supporting small-scale producers and empowering them to help deliver our vision for agriculture. This year, the small producers pilot fund is providing up to £1 million in resource funding, which includes support for the practical training fund, to help small producers to access training and build stronger, sustainable businesses. The practical training fund supports our good food nation ambitions by providing access to training on sustainable food production for small producers, who will play a role in advancing the outcomes that are set out in the proposed national good food nation plan. Elena Whitham: The cabinet secretary will know that two fantastic local producers in my constituency, at Mossgiel farm and Corrie Mains farm, have lost their school contracts with East Ayrshire Council.”
“I hope that the Scottish Parliament will pass the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is progressing through the parliamentary processes. At that point, I will expect our public agencies to follow the plan and, if anything, lead by example when it comes to the different initiatives that we will introduce.”
“The public did not ask for it, the people in the glen did not want it and, three years on, they still await the promised management plan that would explain its strategic importance. Given that, under the Scottish National Party’s new land reform legislation, failure to produce such a plan would result in a massive fine to the taxpayer, when will the plan be laid, what will the amount of the fine be if it is not, and from which budget will it come? Mairi Gougeon: There has been significant consultation and engagement in the development of the land management plan, and I believe that the plan will be submitted to Scottish Forestry, the regulator, in the coming months. It has been finalised, but it has taken a long time to develop, purely because of the extensive engagement and consultation that has taken place.”
“The strategic objective of acquiring the additional land at Glen Prosen was to create a contiguous area of 10,000 hectares in public ownership across the Angus glens and in the Cairngorms national park. It provides an opportunity for the development of an exemplar of integrated land management that can demonstrate how habitat restoration, forestry, agriculture and other land uses can be combined in a way that furthers the Scottish Government’s aims for people’s wellbeing, nature recovery at scale, climate resilience and thriving rural communities. Liam Kerr: For three years, the only formal reason that was given for the purchase was “strategic importance”, although what that means has never been formally set out.”
“Mairi Gougeon: Audrey Nicoll has raised some really important points. It has been exciting to see what has been developed in Iceland. We can only hope to build on that ambition and make the most of the opportunities that exist in Scotland to capitalise on innovation and new funding streams. I am more than happy to commit to a meeting with Audrey Nicoll. It would be beneficial to include Seafood Scotland in the meeting, so that we can discuss the project in more detail.”
“A successful Iceland ocean cluster—a model that Scotland seeks to emulate—has generated high-value jobs in engineering, artificial intelligence, product design and biotechnology, thereby contributing to vibrant and sustainable local economies. Furthermore, that ocean cluster has driven substantial growth in Iceland’s biotechnology sector and has resulted in the establishment of its first unicorn company, which creates high-value medical products from fish sidestreams—namely, cod skin. The Scottish ocean cluster would have the added benefit— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question. Audrey Nicoll: —of access to our established biotechnology and innovation facilities. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that development has significant merit, and will she agree to meet me?”
“I was fortunate to join Seafood Scotland for the launch of its ocean cluster project at the Seafood Expo Global conference in May. The project represents a welcome new approach to maximising the value and sustainability of our seafood industry by focusing on the critical opportunity of utilising industry by-products that have traditionally been underutilised or simply discarded. I am hopeful that the project will drive further innovation and sustainability in our seafood while, at the same time, maximising the value that we get from those products. Audrey Nicoll: The Scottish ocean cluster has the potential to drive innovation and entrepreneurship in the blue economy by creating value from underutilised sidestreams.”
“That the Parliament agrees that Mark Ruskell be appointed to replace Ariane Burgess as the Scottish Green Party substitute on the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. National Health Service Dentistry”
“That the Parliament agrees that Ariane Burgess be appointed to replace Mark Ruskell as a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. That the Parliament agrees that— Michael Marra be appointed as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Public Audit Committee; Foysol Choudhury be appointed to replace Daniel Johnson as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee; Mark Griffin be appointed to replace Carol Mochan as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Social Justice and Social Security Committee; and Rhoda Grant be appointed as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.”
“As no member has objected, the final question is, that motions S6M-18690 and S6M-18691 on committee membership and motions S6M-18692 and S6M-18693 on committee substitutes, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, be agreed to. Motions agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that— Rhoda Grant be appointed to replace Paul O’Kane as a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee; Davy Russell be appointed to replace Foysol Choudhury as a member of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee; Michael Marra be appointed to replace Paul O’Kane as a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee; and Carol Mochan be appointed to replace Mark Griffin as a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee.”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Government’s continued focus on its four key priorities of eradicating child poverty, tackling the climate emergency, growing the economy, and ensuring high-quality and sustainable public services; recognises that the delivery of these priorities is within the significant constraints of a constitutional settlement that hampers achieving those priorities due to the policy decisions of UK Conservative and Labour administrations, and recognises that it is only by choosing independence that Scotland can get the fresh start that its people need and deserve. The Presiding Officer: Unless any member objects, I propose to ask a single question on the four Parliamentary Bureau motions.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Gougeon. We will ensure that that is recorded. For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] 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) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Abstentions Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-18671, in the name of John Swinney, on priorities for Scotland, is: For 66, Against 52, Abstentions 1.”
“I know that the Deputy First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport have met the project sponsors regarding the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry proposal to highlight that support and to offer more practical advice. The recently announced sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, which the Scottish Government had long been calling for, is expected to remove some of the barriers that our exporters have faced since Brexit and that have compromised the viability of projects such as the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry. The ball is now in the UK Government’s court to get the SPS agreement over the line, but I assure the member that engagement between our officials is still very much on-going.”
“Annabelle Ewing: Although the Scottish food and drink sector undoubtedly punches above its weight—I welcome the latest figures on that— there must nonetheless be opportunities to grow the export market. In that regard, one clear structural barrier is the lack of a direct ferry for freight to continental Europe. Given the cabinet secretary’s interest as champion of Scotland’s food and drink sector, will she raise the issue with the Deputy First Minister, whom I have already met on the matter, and with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, with whom I have corresponded on it, to finally get the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry proposal over the line? Mairi Gougeon: Annabelle Ewing raises a really important point. Scottish ministers of course want Scotland’s sea connections with Europe to be enhanced.”
“Scottish food and drink exports remain a cornerstone of the economy and were valued at £7.5 billion in 2024. The latest figures from HM Revenue and Customs, which are for the first quarter of 2025, highlight a positive outlook, with a rise of 5.1 per cent compared with the same period last year. The Scottish Government is committed to helping the sector with its exporting ambitions. Since 2014, we have invested more than £7 million in the food and drink industry export plan and in supporting market growth through a network of global specialists. A new six-point export plan has recently been announced to further support businesses, including those in the food and drink sector, in expanding their international reach.”
“I share stakeholders’ frustrations that the UK Government did not engage with devolved nations or industry before announcing that new fund. If it is not devolved, it risks duplicating current funding programmes, causing confusion for stakeholders and diluting its intended benefits.”
“Mairi Gougeon: We can look at nations that are in the EU right now to see what we could be getting if we were still in the EU. For example, Denmark is receiving funding through the EU’s new European maritime fisheries and aquaculture fund. Denmark has a smaller sea area and marine sector than Scotland, yet it is receiving multiyear funding that is the equivalent of about £25 million per year. We can compare that with the £14 million-worth of funding that we currently receive from the UK Government. The UK Government recently announced a new £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund. We are calling for a rightful share of that budget to be devolved and allocated to Scotland. I have pressed the UK Government for confirmation of that, but I have not yet received a reply.”
“The marine fund Scotland is now open for this year’s applications, with £14 million of support available. I urge all those who have ideas for projects that will help marine industries to evolve and flourish to apply. Since 2021, the marine fund Scotland has awarded more than £55 million in grants to 330 projects, facilitating £121 million of investment. With that funding, the Scottish Government is backing our marine economy, which is crucial to the economic, social and cultural fabric of our rural, coastal and island communities. Audrey Nicoll: By how much have Scotland’s coastal communities been short-changed since Brexit, when we left the European Union? Is there any indication that the current United Kingdom Government is interested in giving Scotland its rightful share of marine funding?”
“However, the Town and Country Planning (Marine Fish Farming) (Scotland) Order 2007 limited marine planning zone boundaries out to 3 nautical miles, primarily as a result of the extent of the powers that were used at the time to designate marine planning zones. In practice, that has resulted in a legislative gap, as there is no designated planning authority to which a developer may submit an application for a farm that is located between 3 and 12 nautical miles from the coast. In recent years, there has been increasing interest from aquaculture businesses to move further from the coast into more dynamic regions of the marine environment, with developments in technology making farms in those regions feasible. Indeed, they have already allowed businesses to locate farms outside sheltered lochs in more exposed locations.”
“Marine planning zones define the boundaries of designated planning authorities’ responsibilities for planning controls of marine fish and shellfish farms in Scottish waters. The purpose of the order is to update existing marine planning zone boundaries to deliver on principles that were already established in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. In 2007, the definition of “development” in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 was amended to include fish and shellfish farming out to 12 nautical miles, meaning that any proposed marine fish or shellfish farm that is located between 0 and 12 nautical miles requires planning permission from a designated local planning authority.”
“In the meantime, the Scottish Government remains firmly committed to working in partnership with local communities and organisations across the south-west of Scotland to reduce carbon emissions, enhance and restore nature, support our rural industries, bring forward investment and deliver growth and jobs that enable the area and its people to flourish. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business. I ask members who wish to ask a question and who have not already done so to press their request-to-speak buttons.”
“There are also strong regional partnerships and structures in place, including the regional land use partnership and framework, the UNESCO biosphere, the natural capital innovation zone and the responsible tourism strategy, all of which are supported by the region’s economic partnership and South of Scotland Enterprise. In its role as reporter, NatureScot has made some recommendations on ways in which those existing structures and arrangements could be further strengthened. South of Scotland Enterprise has also suggested that there could be benefits in exploring an alternative approach, drawing on the unique assets and existing structures in the south of Scotland. We are really grateful for these suggestions, and we now need to take time to reflect on them and give them deeper consideration.”
“We fully recognise and appreciate that the consultation period has been a challenging time for local communities. It has also raised some really important issues that people in Galloway and Ayrshire care deeply about—from improved transport links, affordable housing and health services to business investment, support for rural industries, environmental protections and opportunities for young people. What is important going forward is that we take note of the issues, concerns and opportunities that have been raised during the consultation process and that we place a renewed focus on delivering for the people of south-west Scotland. There are very strong foundations to build on, given the area’s importance for sustainable and regenerative farming and forestry, renewable energy and other land-based activity.”
“That is also true in Cairngorms, where the national park authority is at the forefront of the ambitious Cairngorms 2030 partnership programme, with more than £40 million being invested in the park area over five years to restore and enhance nature, reduce flood risk, support regenerative farming, improve active and sustainable transport, empower local communities and improve people’s health and wellbeing. We will continue to support our existing national parks, and we remain open to proposals for new national parks in the future. Any proposals must be built on grass-roots community support and consensus. As we set out in our most recent programme for government, this Government is listening and wants to bring people together, because the most effective solutions emerge when we work in partnership.”
“There is plenty of evidence to show that our national parks are achieving for people and nature. In Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, the national park authority is working proactively with a wide range of public, private and third sector partners to reduce carbon emissions, restore peatland, protect and restore precious wildlife and habitats, generate investment and jobs in the local area and manage more than four million visitors to the park each year.”
“The Galloway and Ayrshire proposal has generated a lot of debate about the role and value of national parks in Scotland more generally. Again, I am grateful to all those who put forward their views and perspectives on that during the consultation process, and the Government has listened carefully to all the views that were expressed. Although we have decided not to proceed with the designation of a new national park in Galloway and Ayrshire in light of the consultation findings and the reporter’s conclusions, I stress that the Government remains committed to national parks in Scotland and their vital leadership role in tackling the climate and biodiversity crises, promoting sustainable land management and supporting the economic and social development of local communities.”
“We have weighed up the arguments for and against the creation of a new national park in the area, taking full account of the potential economic, social and environmental factors, and we have come to the conclusion not to proceed with the designation of a national park in Galloway and Ayrshire. I realise that the decision will be very disappointing for those who have been campaigning for a new national park in Galloway for many years. I also recognise the huge amount of work and time that has been invested by a great many people throughout the process. I thank everyone who was involved in that process, including members of the Galloway National Park Association and the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization—UNESCO—Biosphere.”
“Based on the evidence that was gathered during the investigation and consultation, the reporter has advised that, although it considers that the proposed area meets the conditions for a national park, as set out in the legislation, the proposal does not have sufficient clarity, nor has it garnered sufficient local support to proceed to the next stage of designation. I want to put on record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the process. We have listened to the people of Galloway and Ayrshire. We have noted the views expressed by communities, organisations and businesses and we respect those views. We have carefully considered the advice and recommendations of the reporter.”
“The report sets out that, of those who engaged with the consultation, 54 per cent of responses opposed the national park proposal and 42 per cent of responses supported it. The majority of consultation responses were completed by people living and working in Galloway and Ayrshire, with 94 per cent of responses coming from those in the area or within 30km of the proposed boundary. Taking account of local responses alone, 57 per cent opposed the proposal while 40 per cent were supportive of it. The report notes that support was greatest among environment, recreation and tourism sectors, while landowners, land managers and those working in the farming, forestry and renewable energy sectors had the strongest reservations.”
“I am sure that members will appreciate the complexity and scale of that task. That has also been reflected in the independent review of the consultation process by the Scottish Community Development Centre. Its report states: “NatureScot’s engagement on the national park proposal achieved very impressive levels of public involvement”. It also states: “this consultation compares very favourably with others and has demonstrated elements of very good practice in the use of the National Standards in Scotland”. In its role as the reporter, NatureScot has analysed the findings of the consultation and provided advice and recommendations to the Scottish Government. Those have been set out in a report that has been laid before Parliament today and published on the Scottish Government’s website.”
“There has proven to be huge public interest in the proposal, which has generated both strong support and strong opposition. At times, the debate has become quite heated. That is understandable given how passionately people feel about their local area and the positive changes that they want to see. It was extremely important that everyone with an interest had an opportunity to have their say on the proposal, and I thank all those who took part in the discussions, got involved in the process and responded to the consultation. All the views that were expressed have been taken into account in the reporter’s report, and I have given them careful consideration. I also thank NatureScot for its work in carrying out such an important and extensive public consultation process in a very robust and professional way.”
“Following an initial period of engagement with local communities, public bodies and stakeholders, NatureScot ran a 14-week consultation process from 7 November 2024 until 14 February 2025. More than 5,000 surveys were completed and more than 1,000 people attended events held across Galloway and south and east Ayrshire. The public events were independently facilitated by Outside the Box, which is an organisation with expertise in running community consultation events in an impartial, open and welcoming way. Sector-led consultation meetings took place with representatives from the farming, forestry, tourism, renewables and conservation sectors. NatureScot also held meetings with the three local authorities concerned and with community councils.”
“On 22 July 2024, the Scottish Government proposed the designation of Scotland’s third national park in Galloway and south and east Ayrshire, subject to legal conditions being met. However, at that time, we were clear that the proposal required further investigation and consultation with local people and businesses. Those steps have been crucial in order to gauge the level of support and to understand people’s views on more detailed aspects, including whether a national park could best meet the needs of the area and its communities. NatureScot was appointed as the statutory reporter, to carry out the investigation, undertake a public consultation and report to the Scottish Government, as specified in the national parks legislation.”
“Nominations were received for five areas: Galloway and Ayrshire; Lochaber; Loch Awe; the Scottish Borders; and Tay forest. The nomination process demonstrated the outstanding natural and cultural heritage that we have in Scotland, as well as people’s ambitions for the rural communities in which they live. In spring 2024, the five nominations were appraised by an expert panel, and the Galloway and Ayrshire bid was selected to be subject to further investigation. Its proposal highlighted the area’s diverse landscapes and stunning coastline, its outstanding biodiversity and its rich natural and cultural assets. It also made a strong case for the benefits that national park status could bring to local communities, the local economy and the environment, by demonstrating what it could achieve for nature and people.”
“In 2021, the Scottish Government proposed the designation of at least one new national park in Scotland by 2026, subject to legal conditions being met. That proposal was debated in Parliament in June 2022 and was strongly supported by all parties, with several members calling for the Government to designate new parks as quickly as possible and some describing Galloway as “a national park in waiting”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2022; c 33; 65.] In October 2023, the Scottish Government issued a public call to local communities and organisations across Scotland to submit nominations for their area to become Scotland’s next national park. Detailed guidance on the nomination and appraisal process was published following a public consultation on the appraisal criteria.”
“Mairi Gougeon: Pam Duncan-Glancy raises some important matters, and we really want to see everything that she has outlined. I have talked about the good food nation plan, which we should be introducing to the Scottish Parliament shortly. That is exactly the type of thing that we would like to see and encourage. I am happy to follow up on her question and ensure that my officials are engaged in that work. We will see what else we can do to further support that work and help it to spread across Scotland. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 6 has been withdrawn. European Union-United Kingdom Agreement (Impact on Rural Economy) 7.”
“We engaged with partners who are involved in the Glasgow city food plan during the development of our first national good food nation plan, which covers all aspects of the food system, including community food production and short supply chains. We look forward to working with Glasgow City Council as it develops its future good food nation plan, as will be required by the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022. Pam Duncan-Glancy: In order to tackle food insecurity in Glasgow, the council is looking at new models—such as buying consortia and local supplier co-operatives—that can help to grow food closer to where it is needed. The council is already doing work in that space. Will the Government commit to working with Glasgow City Council and other urban councils to embed those models in future rural and agricultural policy?”
“Global comparisons suggest that even that final figure was substantially undervalued. Can the minister explain on whose advice Crown Estate Scotland, a wholly publicly owned body, came within days of losing out on that substantial increase in revenue, and to whose potential benefit was the initial undervalue? Mairi Gougeon: The member raises questions that I would have to look into and follow up in more detail. Ms Regan—and other members across the chamber—will be aware of the vital role that Crown Estate Scotland plays in maximising the value of its assets, many of which we continue to benefit from. That includes the moneys that we received from the ScotWind process and the investment that resulted from it. I am happy to follow up with Ash Regan on the specific point that she raises. Glasgow City Food Plan 5.”
“Further detail on the arrangements under the Crown Estate Act 2025 will not be known until later this year. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on those matters to stress the importance of parity of treatment for relevant Scottish bodies, including in relation to any borrowing and investment powers that may be afforded to the Crown Estate. Ash Regan: That sounds as if the Scottish ministers are seeking for those powers to be granted. If that is the case, some questions need to be answered. Before the ScotWind auction was delayed, the maximum cap was set at just £75.6 million, only for it to increase tenfold weeks later, after consultants were hired. That secured Scotland an extra £680.4 million.”
“We have set out our position clearly in a paper that we published as part of the “Building a New Scotland” series, and Mr Kerr might like to take a few moments to read it. In that paper, we discuss our marine industries and the benefits of Scotland being an independent country—independent in its own right, with a seat at the negotiating table in the EU. One thing is for sure: we can negotiate for our interests there when we are independent. Whether it is Labour or Tory, the UK Government cannot be trusted to do it.”