Emma Harper
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to tackling child poverty and its investment through the whole family support third sector delivery fund. Will the cabinet secretary say more about how the delivery model will work alongside existing local partnerships?”
“Given the challenges that Christine Grahame outlined and the Scottish Government’s commitment to a just transition, how can the Government support investment in biofuels and anaerobic digestion to reduce reliance on heating oil and provide greener, more secure energy for rural industries such as those in Dumfries and Galloway and the Bord…”
“That is why there is so much emphasis placed in the action plan on whole family support. It is about giving support to families where and when they need it and delivering it in a way that is right for communities. I look forward to continuing to work with Emma Harper on how we can take that forward in the south of Scotland and elsewhere.”
“However, the barriers are not only physical, but also cultural: we heard consistent evidence of negative attitudes from boys, girls being sidelined in physical education and playgrounds being dominated by boys’ activities.”
“As a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I had the privilege of contributing to our inquiry on female participation in sport and physical activity. What we heard was clear. Although the benefits of sport are universal, access to those benefits is not.”
“Her work has never been about making short-term headlines; it has been about achieving long-term change founded on compassion and justice. During this parliamentary session, Christine introduced her member’s bill, the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, which strengthened protections for animals and built on years of advocacy on issues such…”
The complete record
Every one of 631 lines we hold for Emma Harper, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“Beat also raises valid concerns about online harms, which is important. Those include pro- eating disorder content and the risks that are associated and linked with artificial intelligence. The organisation calls for stronger protections and robust signposting to support. Those points deserve consideration as part of our wider digital safety agenda. I am conscious of the time, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I know that colleagues have been in the chamber for a long time already. To anyone who is listening today who is struggling, I say that you are not alone—Beat is here, your community is here and recovery is possible. 20:22”
“Beat calls for targeted investment so that every area, including rural regions such as Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, can access effective, person-centred services. A renewed approach to mental health investment is vital. Demand has risen sharply since the pandemic, and Beat highlights the need for long-term funding to reflect that. Early intervention is where outcomes are strongest, but that requires stable, sustained resources. We must protect people from the unintended harm that is caused by mandatory calorie labelling. Research shows that calorie counts can be distressing for many people in recovery. Future policy decisions should ensure that calorie information is available in ways that safeguard those at risk—for example, through opt-in rather than automatic display.”
“Continued implementation of the 2021 national review and the 2024 national specification remains essential. Those frameworks, which were developed with clinicians, people with lived experience and the Scottish Government, set out a strong foundation. Scotland leads the UK in this work, but momentum must be sustained to ensure that ambition becomes consistent practice and that progress continues into the next session of Parliament. Equitable access to community and day treatment options across all health boards is crucial. Those approaches can match in-patient outcomes while keeping people close to home and reducing pressure on hospital beds. However, provision varies widely.”
“I thank Beat and Alex Jones, who is the national lead for all the organisation’s work in Scotland. Beat’s compassionate advisors and clear information provide hope for so many. Its website could be—and for many, it already is—the first place that people turn to when they are frightened or unsure, as it helps folks to understand what is happening before symptoms escalate into crisis. It is free and accessible for people in crisis, and it is available 24/7. The presence of Beat in Scotland is stronger thanks to previous Scottish Government investment, including an additional £500,000 that was provided in 2021. That funding is effectively reaching more people. Beat’s briefing outlines several clear and constructive asks—important next steps on a journey to which Scotland is committed.”
“Eating disorders affect at least 100,000 people in Scotland, and many thousands more are impacted as carers, friends and families. The briefing from the eating disorder charity Beat makes it clear that, although prevalence has increased, recovery is possible, especially when people receive early and sustained support. I, too, welcome Alex Jones from Beat, and David, to the public gallery this evening. I have worked with Alex quite a lot in the past few years. This year’s theme is community, and it could not be more fitting. Eating disorders thrive on isolation—they pull people away from routines, relationships and support networks. Carers, too, can feel overwhelmed or unsure of how best to help. Connection can break through that isolation and encourage people to seek help sooner.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak in recognition of eating disorders awareness week 2026, and I thank Elena Whitham for leading this important debate. I have led the debate myself in the past, and, as an MSP, I have spoken on the issue almost every year for the past 10 years. Because I am a nurse and someone with a family member who is living with what I suspect is undiagnosed ARFID, these issues are not abstract to me; they are lived, felt and witnessed every day. I pay tribute to our former colleague Dennis Robertson whose daughter Caroline tragically died from an eating disorder. Dennis’s courage in sharing that loss transformed how the Parliament understands these conditions, and we honour that legacy today.”
“That is why, in the upcoming budget, I will invest a further £10 million in community justice services, which will take our total investment in them to £169 million.”
“On the issues that have been raised already in relation to reoffending, although prison sentences will always be required, evidence shows that community- based sentences reduce reoffending and relieve the pressures on prison populations, including at HMP Dumfries, as well as addressing the cost of prisons to the public purse. Does the cabinet secretary have any comparative figures for retaining someone in the prison population as opposed to giving them a community-based sentence? Angela Constance: It is difficult to make those comparisons. As I have said before, the annual cost per prison place in 2024-25 was £52,260, so, in my view, investing in community sentences rather than short custodial sentences to deliver justice and reduce reoffending is a more effective use of taxpayers’ money.”
“The cabinet secretary probably expects me to mention this, but we are seeing the deployment of commercial- scale and micro anaerobic digestion on our dairy farms and across the wider rural economy to help decarbonise the grid and support economic investment and new jobs, especially in the south- west of Scotland. Renewables have to be part of the future. Remember that they are not only turbines; they include solar, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric and, now, battery storage. We have seen that nuclear generation is simply a bottomless pit of public money with no end in sight and no limit to its costs for today’s citizens and for generations to come. Hinkley Point C had its nuclear site licence granted in 2012. It was first budgeted at £18 billion in construction costs; today, that figure tops £48 billion and will, no doubt, rise.”
“I welcome the opening of Finlay Carson’s motion, which recognises “the essential role of renewables”. As Mr Carson has described, Galloway has a long history of onshore, offshore and hydroelectric renewables. I know many people who are in the groups that Mr Carson mentioned, and they have had a fair amount of contact with me and my team over the past nine years. In recent years, after decades of underinvestment in innovation and underappreciation of the climate emergency, we have seen Scotland blaze a trail in the move to net zero. We are innovating and developing at pace, even in agriculture; it is nothing short of a national transformation across our society.”
“Jenni Minto: I have watched the evidence that the Patient Safety Commissioner gave yesterday to the committee. The cabinet secretary has been pleased to meet the Patient Safety Commissioner, Karen Titchener, and will continue to do so. Following the meeting, my officials contacted NHS Dumfries and Galloway, and I understand that it has now shared the information. The commissioner may also raise matters with the cabinet secretary as they arise. I was pleased to welcome Ms Titchener as a member of the maternity and neonatal task force, which I chair and which had its first meeting last week. I have stressed how important it is to have the voices of maternity service users represented on the task force.”
“I commend the on-going and tireless work of the Galloway community hospital action group in campaigning to reinstate maternity services at Galloway community hospital and ensure a sustainable future for the hospital that is embedded in the community. At the committee meeting yesterday, at which I asked the Patient Safety Commissioner questions in relation to the issue, she was clearly unhappy that the detailed information that she requires and had requested from NHS D and G was not provided in the first instance but required instead further meetings and time. What discussions will the minister have with NHS D and G to ensure that it takes seriously its responsibilities for both patient safety and openness with professionals and the public?”
“I represent a constituency in the north-east of Scotland that straddles the Highlands, and many of the businesses in my local area—as is the case in much of Scotland—are heavily impacted by Westminster policies, particularly Brexit, which has been hugely damaging to our rural industries and our exports to Europe. They have taken a big hit because of it and because of a range of other policies, such as higher energy costs and the rapid rise in employer national insurance contributions. I agree with Emma Harper’s points. That is why the Scottish budget sets out a lot of support for the Scottish business community. Financing of Capital Projects (Bonds Programme) 5.”
“Does the minister agree that, whether it is through taxes on our world-class whisky industry, Brexit red tape on our local businesses or the running down of our industries in the north-east, Scotland is being hammered by the consequences of the choices that are being made by a Westminster Government that is out of touch with the reality in Scotland? [Interruption.] Can he say any more about what the Scottish Government is doing to combat that and boost confidence and growth in Scotland? Richard Lochhead: Yes, I absolutely agree with what Emma Harper has said. It is a shame that Conservative members are humming and hawing or sighing when they hear criticism of Westminster policies.”
“The Patient Safety Commissioner, who was appointed following the Cumberlege review, advocates for patients and systemic improvement. The patient safety programme leads are working with boards on the co-design and implementation of Martha’s rule in Scotland. Parliament has also introduced the patient safety charter, which reflects concerns that have been raised by families, including the family of Milly Main, to whom I pay the utmost tribute.”
“Scotland has advanced support for patient safety that has attracted international commendation. I experienced that when I worked in the NHS as a nurse. It is vital that patients are assured of the Scottish Government’s determination to maintain a safe clinical environment. The cabinet secretary is aware that the Patient Safety Commissioner was in Parliament today, giving evidence about her role to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. Will he say any more about the commissioner’s role in supporting the Government’s work to ensure and improve patient safety across our NHS? Neil Gray: Scotland’s patient safety programme, which was world leading when it was launched in 2008, has reduced avoidable harm across multiple areas. We support Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s inspection programme to drive continuous improvement.”
“The Committee therefore recommends that an alternative solution to the issue the amendment seeks to address be found.” My amendment, if agreed to, will fully address all the concerns that were raised by the committee about Mr Carson’s amendment at stage 2, and it will address similar concerns with amendment 154. I move amendment 153.”
“My understanding of Finlay Carson’s amendment 154 is that it would not allow for those safeguards. I have also engaged with South of Scotland Enterprise to ask it to help West Coast Sea Products in any way that it can with advice or funding as part of the approach to addressing the issues. Additionally, I note that, in its report on the delegated powers that were added to the bill at stage 2, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee found, in relation to Mr Carson’s stage 2 amendment, that “the proposed power appears unnecessary in many respects and legally unworkable in others.”
“It is trying to reduce administrative burdens to a minimum for those who are managing shells properly, which we all want to see, not least businesses such as West Coast Sea Products in my region. I put on the record my thanks to that company for its engagement on the issue. I am aware, however, that West Coast Sea Products already has markets for its shells—that is not its particular issue. However, while we can all agree that those who are managing shells do not need onerous authorisation conditions, it is nevertheless crucial that there are conditions in place to ensure that they are managed properly to avoid environmental harm. That includes avoiding issues with odour and pests, which I do not think any of our constituents would thank us for.”
“I know that some individuals and businesses in the sector, including those in the South Scotland region that I represent, have highlighted issues with regard to dealing with large stockpiles of clean scallop shells, in particular in relation to storage. In response, I have engaged with SEPA and the Scottish Government to discuss those issues, and I know that they are working with businesses and individuals to agree straightforward ways of resolving issues with large stockpiles of scallop shells within the existing legal framework. SEPA has also advised that it is working directly with seafood producers to explore new markets for scallop shells and to support access to those, and to help resolve issues around temporary storage.”
“There is an opportunity to look at how we manage the waste shells when they are properly treated and responsibly managed. My amendment would require ministers to issue and publish detailed guidance within one year of the provision coming into force. Ministers would be required to consult the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Food Standards Scotland and other appropriate bodies or persons before any guidance is issued. SEPA would be required to have due regard to the guidance. As an example that was put to me of what the guidance could contain, it might specify that no more than 1,500 tonnes of shells would be permitted for temporary storage.”
“In recognising that Finlay Carson’s original amendment and variations thereafter have sought to address some of the red tape around the routes for clean scallop shells to be repurposed and taken out of the waste stream, my amendment 153 seeks to ensure that clear formal guidance is produced to help tackle any confusion and ensure a workable route to the market and the further use of scallop shells where they are properly treated and responsibly managed. Ahead of my lodging the amendment, folk were asking me, “What are you using scallop shells for?” The shells are made of calcium carbonate, so they can be used for various things such as aggregate for roads, as a liming agent for changing the acidity of soil, or for feeding chickens.”
“I, too, extend my deepest sympathies to the families who are involved. I speak in support of the cabinet secretary’s amendment, but I have to say that the fact that Labour has brought the motion today while Lord Brodie is considering the mass of material before him, with the ink on the final submissions and the statements barely dry, says a great deal about Labour’s priorities and desperate political agenda. I do not think that it is in any way appropriate for this Parliament or members of it to seek to interfere or intervene in that independent inquiry.”
“Mark Ruskell: Section 3 of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 currently sets out that ministers may require NatureScot or any other public body with relevant expertise to consider and report on a national park proposal. I believe, however, that ministers should have the flexibility to be able to appoint either an independent person or organisation or a public body as the reporter in that process, depending on what is considered most appropriate in the circumstances. My amendment 32 modifies the national parks legislation to provide that flexibility. I will briefly address Sarah Boyack’s amendment 77. I believe that it is right that public bodies actively implement those national park plans. The amendment that she has lodged is very similar to amendments that I lodged at stage 2, and I hope that it can be reflected in the legislation.”
“I think that clearer and simpler language about the duty to implement the park plans would underline the primacy of those park plans, which are developed through engagement with the public and with ministerial sign-off. That strengthened duty would help to ensure that the work of the public sector is more strategically aligned. Taken together, the changes that I am proposing will embed sustainability, community benefit, cultural recognition and accountability at the heart of Scotland’s national parks, creating a more robust, transparent and socially grounded framework for their future management and designation, learning lessons from the two decades since we started discussing national parks and actually having them in Scotland.”
“Currently, there is no definition of “cultural development” in the national parks legislation, so it is important that we address that, given that cultural development is now referenced in the national park aims. My amendments 74 and 75 attempt to do that by giving us a clear definition of cultural development, ensuring that “the arts, tangible and intangible cultural heritage, creative industries, and activities which reflect” the fantastic diversity and distinctiveness of an area that is being designated, and its communities, are all encompassed in the definition. The definition that is proposed in my amendment also takes into account Scotland’s culture strategy and related policy statements. Lastly, I am pushing the provisions of amendment 77 again. I raised them at stage 2.”
“Amendment 73 attempts to introduce a new requirement for ministers to seek advice from those whom they consider to have expertise relevant to the national park aims before making a national park proposal. That would be good, because it would strengthen the proposals that a future Government could make. It would ensure that expert advice on the management needs of an area and how national park designation could help to address those needs was provided to ministers and would have to be considered before deciding whether to propose a new national park. It would also ensure that people had clear information about the rationale for establishing a national park, and it would help to inform people about what designation would mean in practice for local communities, businesses and the natural environment.”
“16:00 It is essential that national park authorities and other public bodies support the vibrant communities at the heart of our national parks, because the parks are not only areas of outstanding beauty but areas where people work and build their lives. At present, the national parks legislation does not specifically require ministers to seek expert advice on the rationale for national park designations before formally proposing a new national park. Many of us would have loved to see a third national park being introduced in Scotland, but lessons need to be learned. I thank the cabinet secretary and her staff for their support in drafting my proposed amendments 73, 74 and 75, which I think will strengthen the legislation.”
“I feel strongly that they should be agreed to, because they will give us our chance to improve and strengthen our national parks for the long term. It is appropriate that we are debating amendments in this group today. I am proud to have been the cabinet secretary to introduce the legislation on the establishment of our first two national parks, in the first session of the Parliament. Things have moved on since then, and it is important that we take the opportunities presented by the bill to bring legislation on the parks up to speed. My amendment 72 would amend the national park aims to ensure that sustainable development, community prosperity, health and wellbeing, and the provision of housing for people who live and work in our national parks are all recognised as being part of those aims.”
“Tim Eagle: I have just one amendment— amendment 71—in this group. An immediate concern of mine at stage 2 was that we were looking to change the aims of national parks, but we had never really done a formal review of them, which I felt we were lacking. Having said that, I thank the cabinet secretary for working with me on amendment 71, which will add “economic growth” to the aims for national parks. It was vital for me that the importance of economic growth to local populations was stated clearly in the bill. National parks are not only places of outstanding national beauty and heritage; they are also home to communities and businesses that rely on them for their livelihoods. I am keen to show that we support those communities. For that reason, I encourage members to support amendment 71. Sarah Boyack: I have five amendments in the group.”
“During the consultation on establishing a national park in Galloway, concerns were raised by some farmers, including dairy farmers, about how a national park would impact their businesses. Amendment 48 will demonstrate that we understand that sustainable and regenerative agriculture is really important to have among our aims and that farming is an integral part of our national parks. The amendment is about recognising those facts and signalling that integrated land use in national parks needs farming and farmers. We have already seen good examples of that understanding in the establishment of the Cairngorms future farming initiative and the resilient farm network initiative in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. For those reasons, I ask members to support amendment 48. I move amendment 48.”
“I will speak just to my amendment 48 in this group, because I do not want to delay proceedings by addressing other amendments. Amendment 48 will amend the national park aims by introducing “encouraging sustainable and regenerative agriculture” to those aims. I believe that it is vital that we do everything that we can to promote and support sustainable and regenerative practices in our national parks. In particular, I recognise the important role that traditional farming systems have played in shaping and maintaining our landscapes. They are essential for managing those special places sustainably while supporting food production and enabling rural communities and businesses to thrive.”
“There is near-universal consensus that things must, and will, change in agriculture. However, does the minister agree that, if we want an agricultural sector that can do the heavy lifting for climate and biodiversity, we need to continue to support Scotland’s agricultural producers to do exactly that—to produce? Jim Fairlie: I completely agree with that. In the interests of time, I will cut my answer down. Any changes that we make will be developed in partnership. We will work with the agriculture sector to ensure that the support that we give meets its needs and also fulfils our desire to ensure that we have biodiversity and climate change in hand.”
“Amendment 75 disagreed to. Amendment 11 moved—[Stephen Kerr]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. 15:15 Kenneth Gibson: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The app would not let me connect. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Gibson. I will make sure that that is recorded.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the system, either. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Harper. I will ensure that that vote is recorded. For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) 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) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) 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) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) 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) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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) 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) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jackie Dunbar] Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 48, Against 68, Abstentions 0.”
“It would be useful if Mr Hoy had a plan for the local businesses and residents who suffer flooding year after year. Perhaps he could spell out exactly how long he thinks that they should wait and tolerate the disruption in their lives. Should it be one more year, or another five years? I want to see the maximum amount of public consultation on any big infrastructure project; the days of far-off officials giving an aye or a nay belong in the 1950s. However, after 15 years of public consultation on the Whitesands, I do not think that it is too much to allow decision makers who were elected by the people to make a decision that, although it might not get 100 per cent approval, will transform the lives of the people in the Whitesands in Dumfries. We need to support their future. 17:39”
“However, we are looking here at transformational major investment in infrastructure in the south-west. To be clear, 80 per cent of that money is from the Government’s flood protection budget, and, if Dumfries does not spend it on flood protection, another scheme will take its place. Are we seriously suggesting that, after 15 years of consideration, consultation and democratic debate—and, late last year, a democratic decision—we should tell the Scottish Government that Dumfries does not want that investment after all? That economic boost will continue in the longer term. How much good, in reputational terms, does it do for inward investment if the major reason for Dumfries hitting the headlines every year is that the Whitesands is under water?”
“I will come to some of those points. The outcome of the consultations led to a decision that the majority of elected members supported, which was made ahead of recess. Over many years, we have seen a reluctance from the Conservatives to spend public money on protecting the public good. However, I take the view that we elect representatives to take such decisions, and the council has decided to move forward with the scheme. Craig Hoy: Will Emma Harper take an intervention? Emma Harper: I will not take another intervention. The £55 million of Scottish Government funding is a huge boost for the local economy. Almost every day, we hear lectures from Conservative members about where our finite spending—which has been made more finite by those colleagues’ economically crackpot austerity agenda over the years—should go.”
“If Mr Hoy had spent some time going through the public record on the Whitesands, he would have found more than a decade of consultations, planning submissions, council committee meetings, charrettes, open meetings, information evenings and so on. Craig Hoy: Does Emma Harper acknowledge, however, the scale of local opposition at various stages in the consultation, including in the public inquiry? Is it not right that local representatives now reflect that public opinion instead of, as she is doing, selling the community down the river with this expensive, unwanted and deeply unpopular scheme? Emma Harper: I thank Craig Hoy for that intervention, but I do not believe that I am selling people down the river. I have not been part of the votes or the decision making, but the local authority voted to move ahead with the project.”
“However, the vote by Dumfries and Galloway Council was the culmination of 15 years of planning, design, hydraulics reports, technical reports, planning applications and many consultations. I agree that many people in the area, and further afield, are against the flood protection scheme, and there are some who are sceptical but open to persuasion. It will be a big change to the landscape of the town at the Whitesands, and any change on this scale—it is a substantial project with a substantial budget—will inevitably split opinion. The Whitesands has flooded more than 200 times since the 1820s, and the worst flooding has been witnessed in recent years. The proposal will provide a permanent once-in-75-years flood protection standard.”
“I thank Craig Hoy for securing the debate. I agree with much of what he outlined about the need to implement coastal and inland flood defences—as he said, water has shaped Scotland’s history. In my short time, I will focus my comments on the recent decision that was made by Dumfries and Galloway Council regarding the proposed Whitesands scheme. People outside the Parliament who watched and listened to Craig Hoy’s speech would be forgiven for thinking that the council suddenly decided last month that it would be a good idea to build a flood protection barrier and came up with some plans on the back of a fag packet, probably inspired by Mr Hoy’s party and its approach to public policy.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to improve family support services within the prison estate. (S6O-05336)”
“I am, therefore, keen to hear from the Government what more can be done to incentivise the expansion of these facilities in order to help Scotland lead the way on anaerobic digestion and biogas. Anaerobic digestion and biogas are ready now, and they deliver meaningful carbon savings, renewable energy and circular economy benefits immediately. Investing in AD is one of the lowest- cost greenhouse gas removal pathways available to us, so let us seize the opportunity to meet our climate targets, boost our rural economy and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 18:18”
“As the First Minister has said in the past, net zero should not be seen as being purely about energy policy—it crosses portfolios and responsibilities across the spectrum of our society. Embedding AD technology and installation into agribusiness is a win not just for our energy policy ambitions but for small businesses, employment in rural areas and economic development; for tackling rural depopulation and demographic challenges; and for the future of public services in those communities—in short, across the board in public policy. If I sound like an evangelist on the issue, it is because I see the huge potential at our fingertips to build a fairer and greener Scotland, embedded in our rural communities and securing a better future for the people there.”
“To unlock that potential, we need targeted policy support, planning reform, grid access, low-cost finance and pragmatic regulation. I support the calls for the Scottish Government to consider creating a biogas champion to ensure cross- portfolio collaboration. I am not wedded to the title of biogas champion, but the Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association has referred to the AD industry as naebody’s child, so I think that it would be worth exploring what we can do to improve knowledge of and access to AD across the whole of Scotland. I thank the cabinet secretary for being present to respond to the debate and for her recent response to my correspondence on the issue. I am extremely keen to hear her summing up on behalf of the Government.”
“Rolling out anaerobic digestion technology is a perfect example of a just transition. If we took full advantage of the opportunities that are open to us, more than 60,000 jobs could be created across these isles in the decades to come. If Scotland continues to lead the way, we can claim more than our share of those jobs of the future. That headline figure belies the fact that those jobs will be concentrated in more rural areas, where the technology is deployed and where the fuel sources are. Five or 10 jobs created to maintain and install the tech might be a drop in the ocean in the central belt, but for fragile rural economies, those skilled jobs could help to turbocharge demand and provide a long-term sustainable basis for future jobs in other sectors.”
“The farm is working hard with the industry-leading Carbon Removers to install a facility that is capable of processing up to 100,000 tonnes of waste a year, producing 8MW of electricity and returning fertiliser as the primary by-product. Maybe we should rename those by-products “co-products”, because they are not just by-products. By locating such facilities in the heart of farming communities, we can improve local resilience and help our agricultural businesses, as well as reducing demand on the main gas grid. A widespread roll-out of AD could mean rural Scotland getting access to local gas networks, which would mean that, for the first time, communities could move from bottled gas or heating oil to long-term grid connections. That would be a win-win for rural Scotland.”
“Every council is already obligated to collect and treat food waste from households, which provides a ready and sustainable supply of material for AD in urban areas, but it is the potential for AD in rural areas that is really a game changer. Harnessing the potential of Scotland’s dairy herd by building small-scale AD facilities on or near farms could reduce methane emissions by the equivalent of 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which would be another step in making Scotland a carbon-neutral nation. In my region, Crofthead farm near Crocketford provides a prime example of what can be done. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has visited Crofthead—in the past couple of years, I think—and that the First Minister visited at this time last year.”
“The technology has been there for decades, but it is only now that it has advanced to the point at which the large-scale deployment of small-scale AD plants is economically and technically feasible. Scotland is already one of the world’s leaders in rolling out AD, but we have the potential to go much further. More than 90 AD plants are already in operation across the country, delivering 60MW of fully renewable electricity and processing more than 5 million tonnes of organic waste. That is 5 million tonnes that is saved from landfill and used for good rather than generating harmful methane emissions. The potential to increase that figure substantially through AD investment is huge and could help to transform our communities in many different ways.”
“It is interesting that not a single Conservative member—including Conservative members who represent people in rural areas—has supported my completely apolitical motion. Anaerobic digestion is a proven technology. It takes organic material such as food waste, agricultural residues such as slurry and distillery by-products and breaks that down in the absence of oxygen—that is the only time that I will talk slurry in the debate this evening. The process of anaerobic digestion produces biogas and biomethane—a direct substitute for fossil gas— and a nutrient-rich digestate that can be used as sustainable fertiliser. Heat is also a co-product. In short, anaerobic digestion supports a circular economy by turning waste into energy and valuable resources.”